Moral Dilemmas of Stem Cell - Research Paper Example

Moral Dilemmas of Stem Cell Research Ever since the beginning, mankind has been besieged by disease. Many of these diseases have been healed by scientists with cures developed in their respective laboratories. However, there are still more diseases that crop up and have escaped healing: Diabetes, Heart disease, Parkinsons disease, Lou Gehrigs’ disease, Alzheimers’ disease, among others. A promising avenue for research that might lead to possible cures is the controversial Stem Cell Research. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that have the potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during its early life and growth. The human body is designed in such a way that many tissues serve as an internal repair system that produces cell division to replenish other cells that are lost or damaged as long as the person is alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become a more specialized cell such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell or a brain cell (NIH, 2009). Under certain conditions, these stem cells can be induced to become tissue or organ-specific cells with special functions. Some organs of the body such as the gut and bone marrow have stem cells that divide to repair and replace worn out or damaged tissues. In other organs, though, such as the pancreas and the heart, their stem cells only divide under special conditions. These unique regenerative abilities have earned stem cells the reputation of offering great potential for treating lingering human diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. This has piqued great scientific interest that has led to enormous research work. In 1981, scientists have discovered ways to harvest embryonic stem cells from early mouse embryos, which led to the discovery of deriving stem cells from human embryos and grow the cells in laboratories in 1998 (NIH, 2009). The cells known as human embryonic stem cells have been taken from embryos used for reproductive purposes through in vitro fertilization processes, which are no longer needed and therefore donated for research. Critics point this out, but also acknowledge that such research destroys embryos and that pursuing such means would show insufficient regard for human life. Since human embryos are morally important, it follows that substantial limits must be imposed on continued research. Hyun (2010) note controversies surrounding the issue of using embryonic stem cells. Human embryonic stem cells (hES) has tapped into fears “about human cloning, the commodification of human biological material, the mixing of human and animal species, and the hubristic quest for regenerative immortality” (p. 71). Embryonic destruction for research purposes is one major issue struggled with in the past decade. This issue has stirred strong religious and personal convictions such as the moral standing of embryos. There is in existence the so-called “Nuremberg Code of Research Ethics” which enunciates the principle that experimentation should be “such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study.” Unfortunately, because of the bulk of scientific uncertainties and the possible avenues of research, the problem at present evades solution (Kamm, 2002) Opponents of Embryonic Stem Cell Research believe that embryos have a moral standing equal to all living persons, whether they are located in a fertility clinic dish or in a woman’s womb. Thus, destroying embryos which are pre-implanted during the course of research is adjudged as equivalent to murder, hence unacceptable regardless of the nobility of the aims of the research. They likewise maintain that all preimplantation embryos have the potential to become full-fledged human beings and that it is always morally wrong to destroy this potential. Basically, the embryo is a fertilized egg – a human organism in its germinal stage. It is not just a clump of cells; it is an integrated, self-developing whole, capable of the condiment organic development characteristic of human beings (Kass, 2003). Treating human embryos “with respect” entails not using them simply as a means for achieving some further goal. Kamm (2002) calls this the Mere Means Thesis. It has two important corollaries, one concerning the creation of embryos, the other one concerning their destruction. The thesis claims that embryos should not be created for the purpose of conducting research that will destroy them. Thus, embryos should not be created for stem cell research because removing stem cells destroys the embryo. Even embryos not created for the purpose of conducting research that will destroy them should not be destroyed in research unless they would have been destroyed in any case (Kamm, 2002). Supporters of Embryonic Stem Cell research point out that not all religious traditions consider the early stage of the human embryo as equally significant as a formed fetus or born infant (Hyun, 2010). Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist as well as many Western Christian views contend that the moral standing of human beings arrive much later in the gestation process. Some even believe that its significance begins when it has pushed itself outside the womb. Regarding the argument on human potentiality, advocates of stem cell research questioned if all potential human life is realized every time. They contend that it is not correct to claim that all early-stage embryos are meant to develop into human life since there are many fertility clinic embryos that are of poor quality and will not survive to develop a pregnancy when implanted, but they may yield stem cells. Might as well make use of them instead of letting them go to waste, as potentiality to develop into a human being is not guaranteed. All are in agreement that the embryo does not yet have, except potentially, the full range of characteristics that differentiates the human species from others; but one does not necessarily have those characteristics in evidence in order to belong to the species. Human beings at any stage of life, do not forfeit their humanity simply because of the lack of evidence of these distinguishing characteristics. There are different points in the life story of any human being – a beginning, a zenith and a decline, but none of these points is in itself the human being. That being is, rather, an organism with a continuous history (Kass, 2003). If from one perspective, the fact that the embryo seems to amount to little, may invite a weakening of our respect; from another perspective, its seeming insignificance should awaken in us a sense of shared humanity since this was our own condition. Because the embryo seems to amount to so little, our responsibility to respect and protect its life correspondingly increases. Hans Jones maintains that a true humanism would recognize “the inflexible principle that utter helplessness demands utter protection.” (as mentioned in Kass, 2003) We would be missing something if we stopped with what is owed to the embryo. An embryo may seem insignificant, but that very insignificance tests not only the embryo’s humanity but our own. Even those who are uncertain about the precise moral status of the human embryo, have sound ethical reasons to refrain from using embryos for utilitarian purposes. There are principled reasons why people who accept research on left-over in vitro fertilized (IVF) embryos created initially for reproductive purposes should oppose the creation and the use of cloned embryos explicitly for research. There are also powerful reasons to worry about where this research will lead us. All these objections have their ground not only in the embryo’s character but also in our own. Also in concern is not only for the fate of nascent human life, but for the moral well-being of society as a whole. The fact that politicians have stepped in the controversy has further complicated the issue on stem cell research. The Bush administration took an embryo protectionist position when it legislated the restriction of federal funding for hES cell research to just those hES cell lines available by August 9, 2001. Scientists argued that such cell lines were insufficient to support the full range of stem cell research due to lack of genetic diversity, and the cells were beginning to accrue genetic mutations. Therefore, they conclude that hES cell lines other than those on the federal registry would have to be studied as well (Hyun, 2010). Those who oppose such research take into consideration its potential and the possibility of its one day yielding substantial medical benefits. They do not lose sight of the fact that there are other chances for progress in basic research and for developing models to study different diseases. Recent results in research involving non-embryonic and adult stem cells point out that scientists may be able to make progress in regenerative medicine without resorting to using human embryos for biomedical research. In 2006, science has had another breakthrough with the discovery of conditions allowing some specialized adult cells to be “reprogrammed” genetically to assume a stem cell-like state (NIH, 2009). Known as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), it offers another source of hope for the suffering patients of yet incurable diseases. Sambrook (2010) explain that iPSCs have caused great excitement due to its limitless source of replacement tissue as cells could be grown from the patient’s own tissue and therefore automatically genetically matched, minimizing the risk of rejection by the immune system. However, current technologies also realize that it can bring a high risk of tumor formation, which now becomes a barrier that scientists are working to overcome (Sambrook, 2010). The advent of adult stem cells or iPSCs has brought stem cell research to fever pitch levels, encouraged by more expanded federal funding under the Obama administration. Currently, the most significant application of stem cell research lie in the areas of disease research and targeted drug development. “By deriving and studying stem cells that are genetically matched to diseases such as Parkinson disease and juvenile diabetes, researchers hope to map out the developmental course of complex medical conditions to understand how, when, and why diseased specialized cells fail to function properly in patients” (Hyun, 2010, p. 73). Laboratory research limiting the experiments to petri dishes provide researchers with a more empowering method to study genetic diseases which is not possible through animal research alone or by observing patients. Furthermore, researchers can aggressively test the safety and efficacy of new, targeted drug interventions on tissue cultures of living human cells derived from disease-specific hES cells and iPS cells, thus reducing the risks associated with research on human subjects. The highly novel and innovative Stem Cell therapy getting much public hype has led many desperate patients to travel to stem cell clinics. However, administration of unproven stem cell interventions outside carefully regulated research protocols may put such patients at risk (Hyun, 2010). It is a matter of wily entrepreneurs taking advantage of the desperation of others. Given the current state of research knowledge on stem cells and their effects, patients should be advised to be more discerning about stem-cell therapies. In the future, distinction between problematic stem cell tourism and legitimate attempts at medically innovative stem cell-based patient care will be better established. Since no one can possibly know or predict for certain which avenues of research will prove most successful – not the scholars, not the moralists, not the patients whose suffering we all hope to alleviate – it would be wise to leave this possible avenue to medical progress open. Stem Cell Research is indeed a highly controversial issue. We are not deaf to the voices of those who desperately want biomedical research to continue. We can feel that desire within ourselves for all of us, for those we love most and who could one day be patients desperate for cure. We know that the relief of suffering, although a great good, is not the greatest good. We all value health and a longer life; however, we also know that life loses its value if we care only for how long we live and not also for how we live. The scientific enterprise is a moral one, not only because of the goals scientists seek, but also because of the limits they honor. It is precisely the acceptance of limits that stimulates the creative advancement that forces scientists to conceive of new and acceptable ways of conducting research (Kass, 2003). Therefore before society takes a step that cannot be undone, it should think seriously of the moral implications it will deliver. References Hyun, I.(2010) The bioethics of stem cell research and therapy. The Journal of Clinical Investigation Volume 120 Number 1 January 2010 Kamm, F.M. (2002) Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Boston Review, October/ November 2002 issue. Available online: http://bostonreview.net/BR27.5/kamm.html Kass, L. (2003) The moral case against cloning for biomedical research. Issues in Law & Medicine, Spring, 2003 NIH (2009) Stem Cell Information, Retrieved on June 5, 2010 from http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/ Sambrook, J. (2010) Stem cells: hope, hype and progress. Australasian BioTechnology Volume 20 • Number 1 • April 2010 Read More