Should Stem Cell be Unbound - Research Proposal Example

Is Stem Cell Research a practice which should be unbound by the legal and judicial system of the American Government? Stem cells mark the beginning of our life on earth. They consist of the undifferentiated cells which proceed to develop into the 220 different types of cells, such as blood, brain, heart tissue, nerve cells, and bones etc, contained in the human body. In 1998, researchers at the University of Wisconsin and the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore MD initiated a way of harvesting stem cells from embryos and maintaining their growth in the laboratory. Some researchers regard them as offering the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the development of antibiotics; scientists have therefore established ways of coaxing these cells in order to develop most of the human cells. Researchers claim that these cells may be used to replace or repair damaged cells, and they possess the potential to drastically change the treatment to many diseases, like bone loss, broken bones, brain damage due to oxygen starvation, severe burns, cancer (some forms), diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, heart disease, hepatitis, incomplete bladder control, Huntington's, leukemia, lupus, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, osteoarthritis, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's disease, stroke, and even paralysis. Spinal cord injuries and Parkinson's disease are two examples that have been championed by high-profile media personalities (for instance, Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox). The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research estimates that stem cell research shows promise to develop cures and/or new treatments for 100 million Americans who currently suffer from a wide variety of diseases and disorders. The anticipated medical benefits of stem cell research have added urgency to the debates surrounding the embryonic stem cell research. There are several types of issues to consider as we reflect upon stem cell research. These include ethical issues, those that ask us to consider the potential moral outcomes of stem cell technologies, legal issues, which require researchers and the public to help policymakers decide whether and how stem cell technologies should be regulated by the government, and social issues, those involving the impact of stem cell technologies on society as a whole. Many frame the debate about stem cell research around the question of "when life begins," although the issue is not when life begins, but when personhood begins and ends. Human life began millions of years ago when our ancestors reached a stage of evolutionary development that permitted the separate species, Homo sapiens to arise. Human life will end when our species becomes extinct. Stem cell research is a controversial issue in America as, with the present state of technology, the creation of a human embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo.Stem cell debates have motivated and reinvigorated the pro-life movement. There has been a deep and bitter dispute over the conduct of this research; many pro-lifers, for instance Roman Catholics and conservative Protestants, have opposed this research. According to them, the embryos from which these stem cells are extracted are actually individual entities, and have a soul to them. Since the embryos are killed when the stem cells are removed, or stored for long periods of time, long past their viable storage life, pro-lifers view the extraction procedure as murder. In the United States alone, there have been estimates of at least 400,000 such embryos. However, not everyone is opposed to stem cell research. Many groups that even protest it are comfortable with certain forms of cell research.  Plenty of experiments and tests have been carried out to determine improved and more efficient ways of saving lives and replacing organs, without having to kill “pre-embryos.” “The Church does not oppose stem cell research as such – in fact, we are actively engaged in promoting stem cell research that is advancing toward new treatments for debilitating disease.  But we do oppose stem cell research, or any research, that requires deliberately harming and destroying human life at any stage.  Therefore we oppose embryonic stem cell research as currently proposed and practiced, and we strongly oppose any public policy that would force Catholic and other taxpayers to subsidize such destruction.” Mr. Richard M. Doerflinger, Deputy Director, Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, said at a U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Medical and clinical promises of stem cell research have forced many people to change their views regarding the conduct of the research. Different discoveries and progresses have been made due to the research; extraordinary advances in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human diseases and devastating illnesses. Most individuals with a naturalistic worldview are most likely to value embryonic stem cell research. They would affirm that the good that can be achieved by pursuing such research (e.g., medical advances) would overshadow the negative aspects. Scientists believe that the uses of stem cells could be applied to the treatment of serious illnesses through re-growing tissues to replace the damaged ones. An example of this would be heart tissue to repair a damaged heart Protestantism ranges from one extreme to the other on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. Several denominations, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, hold that the embryo is the tiniest form of human life and should not be destroyed, while others, such as including the American Presbyterian Church, maintain that the research is acceptable if the goals cannot be reached in any other manner. The majority of Protestants in favor of stem cell research also hold that research must be limited to embryos that cannot be used for reproductive purposes, within a 15-day window from fertilization. There are two main ethical problems linked with embryonic stem cells and these have remained very searing political matters: Firstly, stem cells are harvested from a surplus of embryos prepared for in-vitro fertilization procedures in fertility clinics. The debate arises from there, as to whether they can be morally killed in order to harvest their stem cells. Secondly, the debate continues with whether stem cell lines which had already been created in the past from embryos should be used in research today. The only real matter to decide is whether federal funding should continue so that the resultant stem cells, which are already growing in laboratories, can be used. Some of the political implications of this debate include the following: The first human in vitro fertilization was accomplished in 1969 and in 1973, Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide. These developments prompted the federal government to prohibit the use of tax dollars to destroy human embryos. In 1995, the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel advised the Clinton administration to permit federal funding for research on embryos left over from in vitro fertility treatments and also recommended federal funding of research on embryos specifically created for experimentation. ”The Clinton administration, in response, adopted rules saying federally funded scientists could conduct experiments on stem cell lines as long as they did not themselves participate in embryo destruction. Cells were to be derived from embryos destroyed with private money in private labs, then shipped to federally funded scientists for study.” At this point, the Congress intervened and passed the Dickey Amendment in 1995 (the final bill, which included the Dickey Amendment, was signed into law by Clinton). This Act prohibited all federal funding for research, resulting in the destruction of an embryo regardless of the source of that embryo. The Dickey Amendment remains the law to this day. The breakthrough discovery of hESC (Human Embryonic Stem Cells) came about due to privately funded research in 1998. This prompted the Clinton Administration to re-examine guidelines for federal funding of embryonic research. The president's National Bioethics Advisory Commission, in 1999, suggested that hESC harvested from embryos discarded after in vitro fertility treatments, but not from embryos created specifically for experimentation, be eligible for federal funding. The Clinton Administration decided that it would be permissible under the Dickey Amendment to fund hESC research as long as it did not directly cause the destruction of an embryo itself. The HHS, therefore, issued its recommended regulation, in 2001, concerning hESC funding. Enactment of the new guidelines was delayed due to the appointment of the Bush administration, which decided to reconsider the issue. Upon the election of President George W. Bush, stem cell research funding was banned. In 2000-MAY, he wrote to Culture of Life Foundation -- a pro-life group saying "I oppose federal funding for stem cell research that involves destroying living human embryos." He vowed that he would continue to deny federal tax dollars for experiments that destroyed human embryonic persons by removing their vital stem cells in a letter dated 2000-SEP-22. ‘For a while this year it seemed that George W. Bush buttonholed everybody he met to get his or her view on stem-cell research. Emissaries from Capitol Hill, delegations of scientists, pro-lifers, bioethicists, patients' advocates, the Pope--if they had a take, they had his ear. "Almost everyone in the White House, well, he asked your opinion at one point," says presidential counselor Karen Hughes. "He also questioned what led you to that decision. He wanted to know the rationale." (Richard Lacaya) However, none of the advice Bush received were more important than the consultation he held on Aug. 2 with doctors and scientists from the National Institutes of Health. He had also instituted a search, a few weeks earlier, by sending the NIH to clinics and laboratories around the world to look for available lines of stem cells. These are cells extracted from embryos created for fertility treatments but not used to produce children. The extracted stem cells can potentially be made to grow into any cell in the human body, making them an extraordinary resource in the fight against Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and other diseases. As President Bush approached a decision on whether the Federal government should fund research on embryonic human stem cells, religious groups sought to be on both sides of the debate. They argued that using those stem cells meant deriving benefit from the destruction of human embryos, and in their eyes this was no less a crime than abortion. Here are some samplings of the religious lineup in the stem cell debate: The U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops opposed the research as "immoral, illegal, and unnecessary." They said life was sacred from the moment of conception. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention were also opposed, for the same reason. "Human embryos," said the SBC, "are the tiniest of human beings." On the other side, the Presbyterian Church USA approved the research since the goals were "compelling and unreachable by other means." The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations agreed, saying, "An isolated fertilized egg does not enjoy the full status of personhood." The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism also approved, saying what would be "immoral and unethical" would be cutting off funds for promising medical research. When Bush was running for the White House, during spring, stem-cell research was for most people a vague specialty on the frontiers of medicine. His campaign was dominated by education and tax cuts, his promise, made in a letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, that "taxpayer funds should not underwrite research that involves the destruction of live human embryos" seemed like an added bonus to his existing campaign. Keeping all these statements in mind, on 2001-AUG-9, he decided to allow limited future stem cell funding for hESC research on currently existing stem cell lines. "It made this decision possible," said a senior White House official. "It allowed you to balance the hopes of research against the moral imperative that the government should not be funding the destruction of human life." President Bush said the issue was "one of the most profound of our time." His decision to approve funding was because the research offered immense promise for the cure of diseases and disorders. He also said that it was "important that we pay attention to the moral concerns of the new frontier." In his address he said that research would be limited to 72 existing lines of stem cells that are already being cultured in labs. Government labs could not use stem cells that were obtained from embryos after AUG-9. The president said: "As I thought through this issue I kept returning to two fundamental questions. First, are these frozen embryos human life and therefore something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?" Upon this decision just about everybody was unhappy. Researchers and patient advocates were unhappy, because it would limit the available research if the already existing cell lines failed to work out. The supply might not have met the research demand. Pro-life groups were unhappy because the decision implicitly approved of the destruction of the embryos used to create the ES cell lines. They would cost researchers at least $5,000 per cell line. Therefore, to purchase them for research would have indirectly supported their creation. Since both sides are unhappy, it was considered a good political decision, if not effectively the right decision. The Bush Administration’s guidelines are not quite similar to the Clinton Administration guidelines. Both the guidelines agree that the federal government should not fund hESC research which tends to directly destroy embryos. This certainly did not mark the end of this debate. Neither the Congress nor has any administration ever prohibited private funding of embryonic research. Public and private funding of research on adult and cord blood stem cells is also unrestricted. As Congress considered legislation to allow broader use of embryonic stem cells, members were swamped with calls from people suffering from diseases for which stem cells research might be the only hope, and from equally vehement opponents. The policy of the United States has clearly stated that innocent human life could be sacrificed without its consent, if the common good was deemed significant enough to necessitate its destruction. In April 2004, 206 members of the Congress issued a letter, signed by all of them, urging President Bush to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Later, in May 2005, even the House of Representatives voted 238-194 to ease the restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research. They suggested that this could be obtained by allowing government funded research on surplus frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics to be used for stem cell research with the permission of donors. On July 29, 2005, Senate Majority Leader William H. Frist (R-TN), announced that he too was in favour of slackening restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. On July 18, 2006, the Senate passed three different bills concerning stem cell research. The first bill, known as the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which would have made it legal for the Federal government to spend Federal money on embryonic stem cell research was vetoed by President Bush On July 19, 2006. It was the first veto of his presidency. The second bill made it illegal to create, grow, and abort fetuses for research purposes. The third bill encouraged research that would isolate pluripotent, i.e., embryonic-like, stem cells without the damage of human embryos. In 2007, Congress, now in Democratic hands, passed a similar bill, the Stem Cell Research Act of 2007, by a large margin, 63-34, and then passed the House on June 7 by a vote of 247-176. The Act would have amended the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. The votes were however not enough to override the veto that Mr. Bush announced on June 20. On August 23, 2004 an issue of the (usually left wing) Time Magazine carried an interesting article entitled “Why Lines Must Be Drawn.  Stem cells present a complex moral issue. Shame on Democrats for polarizing it” By Charles Krauthammer. In his opening lines he says, “In an election year, it is too much to expect serious and complicated moral issues to be treated with seriousness and complexity. Nonetheless, the way Democrats have managed to caricature and debase the debate over embryonic stem-cell research stands in a class by itself”. This brings us to our foremost question, whether or not stem cell research should be liberated by the legal and judicial system of America. If government research using embryonic stem cells can been authorized in Britain, the U.S. should be no exception to the rule. Embryonic stem cell research has always been allowed in private labs in the U.S. However, there is little private money available because investors typically require a quick return on their investment. They are disinclined to wait for decades to see a profit. Therefore, the government has always had to intervene to provide federal funds for the embryonic stem cell research, each administration using the issue to its advantage to gain popular support. Without the support of pro-life Roman Catholics and conservative Protestants, President Bush would have lost the 2000 election. The Roman Catholic Church adamantly opposed stem cell research and in order to please them and win their votes in the upcoming elections President Bush supported the idea of banning federal funds to further stem cell research. Politics should not be brought into play at such crucial moments of magical scientific discoveries. Along with many other people, I support the idea that everyone deserves a second chance in life, and stem cell research offers them the opportunity to live their dreams and fulfill the desires closest to their hearts. The legal system of America should allow the aspirations of these unfortunate people to materialize. "Research involving human pluripotent stem cells promises new treatments and possible cures for many debilitating diseases and injuries, including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns and spinal cord injuries. The NIH believes the potential medical benefits of human pluripotent stem cell technology are compelling and worthy of pursuit in accordance with appropriate ethical standards."  (National Institutes of Health news release) "Stem cell research holds the promise of hope for 100 million people living with incurable diseases from diabetes to heart conditions to Alzheimer’s to Parkinson’s, ALS, MS, and spinal cord injury.  It will affect the entire American family. I believe this is why we find in this new survey such strong support from people with such diverse religious and ethical beliefs."  (Christopher Reeve) Everyone recognizes and appreciates Christopher Reeve’s desire to help the millions of Americans suffering from severe illnesses. The American citizens have urged President Bush to lift the current federal funding restriction so that scientists can explore the full potential of their promising research. If the scientific side of embryonic stem cell use and research is taken into account we will see a whole different side to the issue. Stem cells could be very valuable to people with certain ailments. The cells are able to effectively transform themselves into virtually any cell that is produced by the human body. Bone marrow is one which could be created with the help of stem cells. ‘Tissues can be grown to replace damaged or diseased tissue; juvenile onset diabetes and Parkinson’s disease are just two diseases that possible could be cured through the use of stem cells.’ Many of the other diseases include: Alzheimer’s, heart disease, stroke, spinal cord injuries, and burns are just a few of the other possible diseases/illnesses that could be helped by stem cells. At this point, many people would ask, why not just use adult stem cells then? The reasonable explanation for this question is that adult stem cells are already established. They do not have the potential to become other tissues or cells. For instance, skin cells only have the prospect to become new skin cells. These cells are also very hard to harvest in a laboratory and as they get older their ability to reproduce diminishes even further. Advocates for embryonic stem cell research further argue that if the embryos left over from infertility clinics are going to be wasted anyway, why not put them to some appropriate use and allow their lives to be spent in a more meaningful manner? This would be by helping someone. They claim that the first mistake was to generate extra embryos without a clear intent to use all of them or give them up for adoption. Second states that these tiny embryos are already of infinite value to God. They are not going to redeem them by killing them for research and that each embryo is a unique human being with the full potential to develop into an adult. There has been an attempt to obfuscate the issue morally at this point, an effort to draw a division between a blastula (the earliest stages of human development) and the later stages, as if in the first case you do not have human beings and in the second you do. Most individuals will state that is not a human being, and that it is just an embryo or a blastula. Gregory Koukl says, “You know, when you think about it, friends, there are many, many kinds of embryos. Embryo is not a thing — it is a stage. It is like saying a ten-day-old, or an adolescent, or a youngster. It does not tell you anything about the thing except for its level of development. It could be a young dog, or it could be a young parakeet, or it could be a young human being. It could be a fish embryo, it could be a dog embryo, it could be a human embryo.” Embryos, or blastula, or blastocyst are just terms used to describe the earliest stages of development where stem cells are merely present; words that recognize a stage of the development of a thing. It does not provide us with any sort of information as to what that thing is that is developing. This allows us to further dwell on the matter, and understand the true concept behind the stem cell research. Our misconceptions of taking away human life seem to have cleared up at this point, allowing us to focus on the appropriate nature of this research. If human lives are not being taken then there should be no hue and cry about this issue. Those of us who contest against embryonic stem cell research do not realize the good that can come from such sort of experimentation. We have to have a ‘quadriplegic paraded before us’ to mitigate our stony hearts so that we would realize what really is at stake here. An article commenced with the statement: "His 13-year-old daughter at his side, Hollywood director Jerry Zucker lamented the fact that Congress might pass a law ‘stopping us from trying to save my daughter’s life.’" His daughter had an affliction that could have possibly been healed via embryonic stem cell research. The father saw these actions as merely hard-hearted proceedings that were just meant to hurt people. A great deal of good could have come about with the allowance of stem cell research, and instead of obstructing this medical research; the American government should work towards greater funding for the cause. “Researchers in China, Sweden, and Colombia have recently derived new cell lines, adding to the ethnic diversity of lines available internationally. Because of the Bush administration's restrictions, American scientists are unable to get government money to use any of them for research." (Bloomberg, 2006-JUL) As a final resort, a dangerous ethical maxim comes into play which effectively states that "the end justifies the means." It is a statement which faces all of us at the end of the entire debate, as to whether the practice is justifiable or not. It is not yet clear as to whether stem cell research can produce good results, and that no other, less morally questionable method can derive the same results. Taking all this into consideration, we can safely say that at this moment of time, stem cell research is the only way in which we can combat diseases. A noble end, in this case healing or preventing debilitating diseases, is the only moral means of justifying this research. If the American law forbids this form of research then stagnancy will be observed in medical advancements, probably that which can deny an entire nation a cure for some of the world’s most widely spread diseases. Therefore we can safely conclude that the judicial and legal system of America should unbind this form of scientific development. Although most people view the advances in the field of medical technology as beneficial and worthwhile; there are some groups who disagree to this, they do not view specific technological advances as beneficial or ethical. One of these advances in technology is stem cell research, which has been discussed in great detail throughout this paper. According to them, Bush’s decision to limit this research of embryonic stem cell research by intervening via the judicial system of America was necessary. They are under the conception that an embryo has a moral status from the time of conception of the human being, and should be treated with deference and dignity, and given similar rights a living human being. They feel that by using the stem cells obtained from an embryo, a human life is being wasted, which is ethically and morally wrong. In my opinion stem cell research has the potential to cure individuals suffering from life ending illnesses. By pursuing this research scientists and doctors are serving humanity to the greatest extent possible and deserve the maximum amount of co-operation on part of the American government. Works Cited 1. ‘Stem cell research; all viewpoints,’ Ontario consultants on religious tolerance www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm 2. ‘How Bush got there,’ By Lacayo Richard http://www.time.com/time/2001/stemcells/ 3. ‘The Controversy Over Stem Cell Research,’ by Dr. Bohlin Ray http://www.probe.org/content/view/884/67/ 4. ‘The issues: Stem cell Research,‘ by Bush and Kerry Driffer Sharply. Cambridge, Mass., July 8, 2004 www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/08/eveningnews/main6281... 5. ‘Embryonic Stem Cell Research,’ by Koukl Gregory http://www.inplainsite.org/html/embryonic_stem_cell_research.html 6. ‘Ethics in Stem Cell Research’ howard-winn.k12.ia.us/projects/ind_stdy06/h2/stemcells/negative.html 7. ‘Religious Views on stem Cell Research,’ Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, July 27, 2001    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week448/perspectives.html 8. ‘Background Information on Stem Cell Research,’ official National Institute of Health resource, 5/15/2005 http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/WhatsNew/Stem_cell_research.htm 9. ‘Stem Cell Controversy’ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy 10. ‘Two Opposing Views of Stem Cell Research’ http://ed.augie.edu/~egcruse/brief.html Read More