Emotional and Physiological Dimensions of Actual Human - Essay Example

Ethics of Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning Introduction Stem cell research and human cloning are highly controversial because they present certain moral problems. For instance, should a fertilized ovum created in the lab be regarded as human? What should one do with the embryo once it cannot be used, and is it permissible to clone simply for research purposes? Genetic experiments that potentially lead to creation of human life are indispensable in modern life and ought to be permitted if certain conditions are met. Ethics of cloning and stem cell research Stem cells may be referred to as undifferentiated cells that have the capacity to generate other cells; sometimes, differentiation may involve creation of similar cell types, but most times it leads to development of different tissues. These cells come in various types and varieties. An adult stem cell is one that is derived from the organs of an adult individual. The bone marrow is known as a reliable source of blood stem cells. However, this category is difficult to differentiate, so its use is rather limited. Alternatively, fetal stem cells are another category that is obtained from fetuses after a pregnancy has been terminated and the concerned mother gives consent. Embryonic stem cells come from embryos usually after fertility treatment has been completed. This type is highly valuable because it has high potential for differentiation, and can create any tissue type. Its only limitation is that it cannot create a person (Hug 110). Finally, stem cells may emanate from a fertilized ovum. In this case, the fertilized ovum has the highest potential for differentiation and can lead to the development of a whole human being, under the right conditions. A fertilized ovum or embryo is created in the laboratory through transfer of genetic material from the target cell to another cell without nuclear material with the intention of replicating is its DNA; this is the process known as cloning. When the genetically engineered embryonic stem cell is used to develop other stem cells for medicinal purposes, then this is therapeutic cloning. Conversely, reproductive cloning involves implanting the lab-generated embryo stem cell into a human being. The offspring from such a process will be identical to the donor individual. Genetic experimentation that eventually leads to the creation of human life is highly controversial because it involves two contradictory objectives: to preserve life through medical intervention and to destroy potential sources of life for the sake of existing ones. It should be noted that stem cell research that relies on adult stem cells like the bone marrow is a highly useful practice, and does not spark off a lot of opposition. First, several patients exist in the world today that are in need of organ transplants. Conventional methods of therapy require individuals to get donors for these purposes. However, in the United States alone, only 5% of the demand for organ donors can be met through this approach (Hug 112). Furthermore, the need for new donors is said to increase by as much as 15% annually (Hug 112). Clearly, another method of meeting this need and saving lives is necessary. Alternative methods of tissue generation can be considered. Even donors that eventually receive transplanted tissues tend to experience problems with compatibility of their tissue with these external transplants. The body normally reacts to foreign bodies by releasing toxins against it. This process eventually undermines the very purpose of introducing new tissue. Developments in immunosuppressive techniques have been ineffective against reducing risks of harm to the patient as dangerous side effects always occur. Possibilities for research cannot also be ignored in this kind of technology. Stem cell research can allow scientists to study diseases by, say taking a skin cell and using it to understand why the cancer has occurred. This reduces the need to rely on other animals or even new patients who may have to endure severe side effects. Therefore, new therapies may develop in a safe and non-invasive way on non-human subjects. In this regard, stem cell technology would aid in the advancement of science and medicine. It could save many future lives of adult individuals who suffer from the same illness (Thiroux and Krasemann 45). Likewise, cloning may also be used in the above ways, and when perceived in terms of fully developed, adult subjects, the therapy actually preserves life. Therapeutic cloning and embryonic cloning from IVF treatments are quite useful in treating diseases. They thus prolong life and safeguard it through manipulation of cells within the lab. Without the negative ethical implications of the technology, genetic experimentation is a monumental scientific accomplishment that could even be compared to the discovery of something like penicillin. In the utilitarian argument for stem cell research and therapeutic cloning, one must consider the foreseeable and omitted consequences of one’s actions. Say a man wanted to kill another person and even went ahead to visit them only to find that they are about to swallow 100 painkillers to destroy their lives. The person who intended on carrying out the killing is just as guilty as one who actually killed the victim because he or she failed to prevent the person from committing suicide. Likewise, to fail to do something when one is in a position to do it is just as unethical as committing a wrongful act. If scientists already have knowledge concerning how to cure a certain disease and fail to use it then this could be equivalent to killing those individuals. It is a fact that the potential lives saved is not well known as the capacity to cure them lies in the future. Common ailments like cancer and coronary diseases could find breakthroughs through the genetic technologies and save millions of lives. Failure to comprehend this potential could hold back cloning and stem cell work thus leading to the continual death of people in the future. The technologies have enormous potential to benefit humanity and ought to create considerable incentives for supporting the research. Perhaps one of the most talked about methods of medicinal intervention is therapeutic cloning. Stem cell research without the replication of DNA replicas in medicine is not as controversial as therapeutic cloning. However, owing to the reliance on human embryos in either method, it is necessary to understand why this may create tensions. If one analyses most objections against therapeutic cloning and stem cell research, one can find that most arguments mostly emanate from fear rather than fact. Several people oppose stem cell research and therapeutic cloning because they claim that an embryo can become a full human, so their potential should be taken into consideration. However, an embryo that has not been implanted into the uterus of a human being lacks the physiological components that make it human. It still has no brain and parts that control its biological aspects. Additionally, it lacks the emotional and intellectual properties of a human. An embryo that has not been implanted does not have a nervous system which makes it capable of sensations. Furthermore, without the implantation of an embryo into the uterus, the embryo in the laboratory is itself incapable of differentiating into a human outside the body. Therefore, the destruction of fertilized eggs after conduction of stem cell research or cloning may be justified if perceived from these dimensions. Moral worthiness of the embryo should be considered in light of the autonomous and independent nature of their developmental stage. If people opposed the technology solely on the fact that a human embryo is a potential human being, then they should also have condemned the use of the morning after pill or intrauterine devices (Savulescu 19). These methods of birth control work by preventing potential development of the embryo. Destruction of embryos in these methods is not tantamount to murder since contemporary societies have a total view of the same. The line should be drawn when considering reproductive cloning. The latter method is unethical because of the risks associated with it. It leads to abnormal organs and diseases. It may also perpetuate commercialization and genetic pre-selection of individuals. This may lead to the development of a super race for those who can afford it. It reduces the value of families and makes children become a means to another person’s end. For these reasons, reproductive cloning ought not to be allowed; other forms of cloning even when done for research alone are justifiable. Conclusion Stem cell research and therapeutic cloning ought to be allowed. They have enormous potential to treat diseases and prevent the deaths of millions. Opposition to these methods on the basis of destruction of embryos is not convincing because embryos that have not been implanted lack the intellectual, emotional and physiological dimensions of an actual human. However, the line should be drawn when performing reproductive cloning since this involves implantation and presents new ethical dimensions that are physical dangerous and socially problematic. Works Cited Hug, Kein. “Therapeutic perspectives of human embryonic stem cell research versus the moral status of a human embryo – does one have to be compromised for the other?” Medicina (Kaunas) 42.2 (2006): 107-14. Print. Savulescu, Julian. Ethics of stem cell and cloning research. Oxford: OUP, 2011. Print. Thiroux, Jacques and Keith Krasemann. Ethics: Theory and practice. Pearson: NY, 2012. Print. Read More