Ethics/Free Will/Political - Essay Example

Ethical Issues and Politics in Stem Cell Research Introduction In 2002, an article by Jeffrey Spike in the American Journal of Bioethics clearly expressed shock after President George W. Bush refused funding for stem cell research. The controversy could clearly be read in the argument that outlined that although stem cell research had the capacity to save lives, President Bush could have addressed ethical issues rather than basing his arguments on politics (Spike 45). The question that anyone might be prompted to ask is what if not saving life, should justify the development of stem cell research as ethical. Ethical issues have well been analyzed and understood in this age more than any other period in history. The works of prominent philosophers like Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill have promoted the understanding of ethical principles and fostered their universal applicability. Utilitarianism is a philosophy that was coined by John Stuart Mill that emphasizes on the general good of the majority as a rule for testing ethical soundness. In essence, utilitarianism outlines that an action is considered ethical when it promotes the general good of the society. If stem cell research has the capacity of saving lives, then it can be generally accepted that it passes the utilitarian ethical test. However, Jeffrey argues that if an action is unethical it should not be carried out even when it has significant advantages. Jeffrey’s argument echoes the argument of many people who oppose stem cell research including religious organizations. The opposition against stem cell research is essentially founded upon unsatisfactory ethical grounds. Utilitarianism in Stem Cell Research Before arguing out the utilitarianism in stem cell research it is important to define and understand what is actually meant by stem cell research. Stem cell research principally involves the use of the cells of a not yet animate fetus or embryo for the purposes of “transplant and research” (Almeder 15). Most people prefer to look at stem cell research from the perspetive of the not yet animate embryo rather than from the patient most of whom have been productive and can still be productive to humanity when given the chance. Hug documents a study conducted by European Union on the opinion of patients in need of transplants with regard to stem cell research. Before being exposed to the detailed procedures involved duirng stem cell research 87% were in supported while 13% oppossed. However, after watching a video on the detailed procedures of stem cell research 97% were in support while 3% oppossed (370). The general realization is that the debate in stem cell research revolves around the welfare of the patient and the welfare of the fetus. Millions of patients have been compelled to endure low quality lives or even lose their lives as a result of diseases that can benefit significantly from transplants obtained from stem cell research. Such diseases include diabete, multiple sclerosis, heart failure, brain damage and a range of other diseases that can benefit from transplants. From the perspective of utilitarianism it is important to look at whether stem cell research will promote the general good of the society. With regard to funding, the health care sectors of many developed countries are already spending significant amounts of their health care budgets in the treatment and management of diseases that could have otherwise benefited from stem cell research. A study documented by Ekoé outlines that by 2025 countries where the prevalence of diabetes is high will be spending more than 40% of their health budgets in treating the condition. On the other hand, the successful transplant of potent cells producing enough insulin can be a lifetime cure for the disease. In the case of heart transplants, patients will no linger have to wait for long to receive transplants and perhaps the cost of transplants could reduce significantly. Looking at the cost of stem cell research from such a perspective makes it more cost effective in the long term. Stem cell research has the possibility of curing most illnesses that are currently considered incurable. Considering the individual whose memory whose memory is fading away slowly as a result of Alzheimer’s disease, or the individual who has completely been bed ridden for as a result of Parkinson’s disease, or an individual forced to lifelong paralysis after an accident that damaged the spinal cord one can begin to understand the plight of these patients and realize the possibility of the impact of stem cell research on their lives. These are individuals who have names and personalities and they have relatives and loved ones who have grown to love and appreciate them. From the utilitarian point of view, the general realization is that stem cell research will be for the general good of the society. With regard to cost, stem cell research has the prospects of reducing the cost of health care in the long term despite the fact that it might seem very expensive currently. Stem cell research also has the capacity of saving the lives of many people that we loved therefore bringing happiness not only to the direct beneficiaries but also to their loved ones. Is Stem Cell Research Unethical? The primary source of the ethical debates on stem cell research is the fact that the process is considered to be destructive of human embryos. According to Panno, the destruction of emryos has been the major source of social and religious concern raised even with the possibility of treating many human diseases (72). Most people consider an embryo to be a living organism and destruction of such an organism in the minds onf most people is similar to murder. Most debates usually involve sentiments that the the killing of embryos is encouraged because just the fetuses aborted they do not have the capacity to defend themselves (Forman 10). According to Forman, Bush defended his move to refuse funding for stem cell research on the basis that it destroyed embroys that had the capacity of developing into human beings. In a case of political showcasing Bush paraded children who were developed from embroys and outlined that had their embroys been used for research they would not have been alive. However, in retaliation the then Congresswoman for Colorado there are less than 2,000 of such children who have developed from embryos that had not used for research and that more than 400,000 non-viable embroys are destined to be thrown away (15). The transplant of organs such as the heart from accident victims do not usually raise ethical concerns, and one does not fail to percieve some aspect of double standards due to ethical concerns raised when it comes to the use of non-viable embryos The argument in this case is that the matter is often too politicized by politicians that in most instances the public is denied the real truth surrounding stem cell research research. The general realization is that it is not unethical to use embryos that are already destined to be thrown away for research that could turn out to be life saving and cost-effective. According to Solo, the society has always held a rather suspicious perception towards science evident with the popularization of moves such as “Dr. Frankenstein” instead of showing the works of heroes such as Edward Gener. The society is usually of the perception that science should always be watched lest it destroys humanity with its discoveries (1). However, since the advent of science especially in the medical field, the discoveries have been beneficial to human beings by promoting health and life. Perhaps the same fear of the possibility of destruction is the major cause for such opposition towards stem cell research. According to Loring, human stem cell research is not only restricted to the use of embryos but also uses adult cells from different parts of the body (426). The adult cells are usually collected through the consent of the individual. However, when most politicians mobilise the masses to advocate against stem cell research they rarely take time to characterize the different types of stem cell research but approach the issues from a generlized point of view. Although most scientists agree that adult stem cells do not have the same kind of stability observed in embryonic stem cells, they also outline that significant research should be done on both types of stem cells. Lo outlines that politically fuelled ethical issues have been the major drawbacks towards conducting stem cell research because of lack of government funding (278). Holland also agrees with Lo by stating that President Clinton had realized the potential in stem cell research but was quickly forced to withdraw his previous position of funding stem cell research because he risked his political popularity (37). The general realization is that ethical debates concerning stem cell research have always been punctuated by political undertones that render the arguments baseless and prejudicial. There is so much information about stem cells that is not available to policy makers and the masses that perhaps can change their perception concerning stem cells. Most importantly, people should be made to realize that stem cell research can proceed without the destruction of viable human embryo. Conclusion Stem cell research is one of the scientific practices that have raised ethical issues even greater than other potentially destructive practices such as the use of nuclear energy. Although stem cell research has the potential of curing diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease, the politics surrounding stem cell research has made the funding of such initiatives almost impossible in the public sector. Arguing the debate from a utilitarian point of view, it has been evident that stem cell research has promises of promoting the general good of the society. Apart from having prospects of providing cure to some lifelong illnesses, stem cell research can also save health care sectors significant amount of revenue that can be channeled towards other areas such as pediatric health care. The general realization is that most of the arguments against stem cell research are not based on facts. Most people argue on ignorance and as a result deny millions of patients who could have benefited from the findings of such an undertaking. The paper has outlined that stem cell research does not necessarily mean the use of viable embryos as is often misconceived, but can also use adults stem cells or no-viable embryos that would have otherwise be thrown away. In essence, the arguments against stem cell research are just denying a noble cause that might save promote the live of millions of people on the basis of non-factual ethical arguments. Works Cited Almeder, Robert F. Stem Cell Research. New Jersey: Humana Press, 2004. Print. Ekoé, Jean Marie et al. (eds). The Epidemiology of Diabetes Mellitus. London: John Wiley, 2008. Print. Forman, Lillian. Stem Cell Rsearch. Minnesota: Abdo Consulting Group, 2008. Print. Holland, Suzanne & Lebacqz, Karen. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy. Massachusetts : Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001. Print. Hug, Kristina. Translational Stem Cell Research: Issues Beyond the Debate on the Moral Status of the Human Embryo. New York: Springer, 2011. Print. Lo, Bernard. Ethical Issues in Clinical Research. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2010. Print. Loring, Jeanne Frances. Human Stem Cell Manual: A Laboratory Guide. New York: Academic Press, 2007. Print. Panno, Joseph. Stem Cell Research: Medical Applications and Ethical Controversy. New York: Facts on File, 2005. Print. Solo, Pam. The Promise and Politics of Stem Cell Research. New York: Preager Publishers, 2007. Print. Spike, Jeffrey. "Bush and Stem Cell Research: An Ethically Confused Policy." The American Journal of Bioethics, 2.1 (2002): 45-46. Read More