Debate over Stem Cell - Research Paper Example

? Number] Stem Cell Research Introduction: Stem cells are known as the mother cells that are capable of becoming a cell of any type in the body. Stem cells have many characteristics but the major one is their ability to multiply and renew while developing into different kinds of cells. The types of cells that can be developed through the stem cells are cells of the heart, blood, muscles, bones, brain, skin, etc. The stem cells have different sources but all kinds of stem cells consists the same potential to produce several types of stem cells. The issues of the stem cell research have been a topic for issue since many years. The issue has created a division between the scientific, political and religious groups throughout the world. The issue revolves around one question: When exactly does the life begin? In order to get reliable stem cells and harvest the embryo’s cells, the scientists have to destroy it. The embryo might only contain a few cells as less as four or five, but yet has ignited a debate where religious groups say destroying of these cells is equal to killing a human. Eventually, the debate entered the political area as well (Moore 7). Suddenly, these stem cells tended to be everywhere and still are. The complexity of these tiny stem cells has increased by every tick of the clock. The stem cell research has been funded by the state since years. The debate regarding the stem cells has threatened the religious beliefs, traditional alliances and challenged the comprehension of life. The political war over embryonic stem cell research: There is a political war over the embryonic stem cell research and the battle is over abortion with some twists. These cells are from embryos and many of the religious groups consider the embryo as life. But it is undeniable that these stem cells are promising and can help many ailing patients thus the debate initiated that whether the stem cell research should be funded and allowed legally or not (Moore 7). The state has long been involved in the political debate of using the federal monies to fund the stem cell research. Until 1996, the federal monies were used to fund the stem cell research as the primary source for funding but later in the same year, the Congress had passed the Dickey-Wicker amendment which banned the funding of any research which involved the creation or destruction of the human embryo through federal monies. The Congress argued that the stem cell research was unethical, religiously controversial and illegal. President George W. Bush supported this argument as well even though many of the members of the administration had opposing views that an embryo is not a human life and it should be allowed for further research to take advantage of the potential benefits it brings (Pressberg 65). The political controversy reshaped when President Barack Obama came into power and argued that the stem cell research should be expanded due to its benefits to the future of the community. The President initiated a new policy that was disliked by many of the religious scholars but cooled many at the same time. As the President allowed funding the stem cell research in three conditions: firstly that the stem cell line was from the 22 that existed at Bush’s time or had been created from the embryos which was discarded; secondly that the donors were not paid for it; and thirdly that the donors were clearly aware of what their embryos was being used for before they gave consent. Many religious scholars, who argued against the stem cell research and the fact that killing a human life (embryo) to save many others it unethical and unjustified, favoured this policy as it did not give consent to create or destroy human embryos but rather use those which were already discarded. However, this policy moved the scientists and they protested against it by filing a lawsuit in 2009. The scientists argued in the case that the new policy would increase the competition for funding affecting their chances of obtaining funds. Thus, the judge ruled that the new policy should be stopped as it violated the rules of the Dickey-Wicker amendment as the embryos must have been destroyed during the process of their creation (Pressberg 65). Up till now the political roller coaster is swinging the religious, traditional, scientific and ethical communities. However, in my opinion, the federal monies should be used to fund the stem cell research as they have many potential benefits scientifically and socially. Currently the court gives certain rules under which the stem cell research is allowed and under that, the scientists carry out their researches. I believe policies should be created which support the research under certain condition; which would still not resolve the controversy but convince many. The Scientific debate over embryonic stem cell research: The scientific debate over the embryonic stem cells research is focused on the several benefits that stem cells give to humans. The biggest feature of a stem cell is that it is undifferentiated which means that it can turn into any type of cell. Hence the scientists debate that stem cells can be turned into any kind of cell which is needed. Scientists say that these stem cells can also be used to replace the damaged and sick cells from a patient who has a disease or injury (McBride 34). The question of debate greatly lies in where the scientists are getting these stem cells, not why they are getting them. The scientists argue that they merely use the discarded embryos for the research which they got from the storage of fertilization clinics. Some people do not want to have more children, thus their stem cells are donated and used for research. Others found many stem cells for research from aborted fetuses. Even this required a consent form signed by the patient to abort the baby. This has been a controversial condition as abortion is opposed by many pro-life activists. These pro-life activists argue against the scientists’ methods of collecting stem cells for research. They argue that abortion is not allowed and is equal to killing a human child in the womb. Using the embryos from that is unethical and considered to be a murder. In attention to this controversy and issue, the scientists argued that they have many other methods for collecting stem cells too; however these do not yield the stem cells in the same way as embryos. They argue that in order to use stem cells to cure diseases and infections, the embryos must be collected and used (Panno 8). The opponents of this suggest that using the human embryo would simply destroy the human life just to fulfil the scientific curiosity of scientists. They argue that a human embryo is a human child as it starts developing very early and has legal rights as well. Killing it would be equal to taking a human life which is illegal, unjustified, punishable, and at the same time unethical. Religious scholars argue that no one except God knows when a life will be given and when taken. There may be many ways to save humans but none of them requires killing someone. Socialists argue that once the scientists initiate this research openly, it will destroy the society traditionally, culturally and religiously (Harris 10). Answering these arguments, the scientists counter argue that there is a lot of scientific scepticism involved as these stem cells can help us to understand the development of cells and their differentiation. The stem cells could also be used for transplants and to eliminate the requirement of human subjects in tests for drugs. For those who oppose the stem cells research, the moral and ethical cost of the research is much important than any of the benefits associated with this research. But for the scientists, the benefits are undeniable. Even though they agree that there is a great deal of ethical and moral issues involved in the debate, they also believe that turning backs to the research today will cost a bright future of many. In my opinion, the scientists should not leave behind their efforts at this point knowing the benefits that stem cell research can bring to several humans in the future. How antiabortionist come into play: Those people or groups who oppose the stem cell research suggest that the destruction of an embryo is equivalent to abortion. These groups believe that an embryo is life as it is the simplest form of a human being and eventually grows to become a living being. Thus, these people suggest that it is culturally, legally and ethically incorrect to end one life just to save others. The antiabortionists legally and socially oppose the devaluation of human life at any stage whether it is in the shape of the embryo in the womb. They suggest that abortion should be illegal and should not be common illegally as well (McBride 34). When the stem cells are used for the research and the embryo is discarded, it is considered as a devaluation and criticism of the human life. Furthermore, when scientific procedures are conducted using these embryo stem cells, it is similarly known to be the devaluation of life which the antiabortionists oppose. Many religious groups are also pro-life and they condemn the embryonic stem cell research with all its possible applications. These groups suggest that the adult stem cells are being used and thus there is no need to get into the embryonic stem cell research. Antiabortionists greatly oppose the stem cell research of an embryo, and the debate is going on for years. There are many antiabortionist movements in USA and other major parts of the world. On the other hand there is a group of supporters who continue to suggest that the benefits of stem cell research outweigh the ethical and moral dilemmas (George 304). Other people and groups who support the embryonic stem cell research often argue that an embryo is not life as it’s in the womb. They believe that there are many diseases that can be healed from this research and thus in regards of monetary and suffering aspects, the embryonic stem cell research should be considered as a promising therapy for many diseases and problems (Harris 10). When exactly does the life begin? As mentioned earlier, the debate over abortion has been the hot issue for many years in regard to the stem cell research. The antiabortionists say that the human life starts as soon as the first cell is produced in the female womb. This has also been a traditional truth which marks the start of the human life the moment it was a tiny cell. The only difference between the different stages of human life is the development. However, there is still a debate over the question that when life actually begins (Evans 87). It is simple and straight forward that any biologist can conclude that human life begins as soon as the father’s sperm united with the mother’s egg. The process is called fertilization. The DNA of the father combines with that of the mother in the egg which is known as the fertile egg. When this egg splits into two cells it’s known as two-celled embryo. Biologically the definition of embryo is “youngest form of a human being”. Many of the groups fail to recognize the embryo as a human being, a person who has legal protections and rights. Just because of this misrepresentation, the abortion still exists in the society. Many people don’t realize that the embryo is a human being, a person who has the right to live just as other humans (Forman 78). There is an argument which opposes the view that fertilization is the process where life actually starts. Many of the people suggest that scientists cannot know exactly when life starts. Even though there are many theories but the exact time of a human’s birth or death may not be known. Even though we know the process of fertilization exists, no one can tell that a human life exists inside the womb without actually seeing it. These views are rather religious and talks about faith in believing that the cell inside the body is a human being without seeing it. These groups of people suggest that life can be predicted just few months before the baby is actually born (Panno 8). The very basic definition of living things is that they are organized, they have the ability to acquire energy and materials, they respond to the environment they live in, they can reproduce and they have the ability to adapt. In accordance to this definition, it is clear that life begins at the stage of fertilization. It is this moment when the being starts to be organized, acquires energy and materials around, responds to the environment, adapts and reproduces (when cells divide) (Weldemichael 37). Is human embryo equivalent to human child? There is much debate about whether a human embryo is equivalent to a human child or not. The pro-life activists argue that it is a human being which has legal rights just as other people. However, the opposing group claims that it is merely just a tissue which is not a human being. These groups argue that the human embryo is just potential human life, it is a mass of blood or tissue, it is not developed fully, it is not conscious, it is inside the woman’s womb as a part of the woman’s body, is it just a group of cells and it doesn’t look like a human (Weldemichael 37). The pro-life activists answer these questions by saying that a human embryo belongs to the human species and no other. These tissues start developing in two to four weeks. The heart starts to beat and a tiny brain is also developed in this time. Most abortions taka place in the second month and by this time the embryo starts developing the legs, arms, toes, fingers, ears, mouth, nose, muscles, bones and organs. They say that the embryo is not fully developed, but arguments disclose that a born baby is also not developed. The human being develops fully at the age of twenty. Even if it’s inside the womb it has all the characteristics of a living human being, thus an embryo is equivalent to a human child (George 304). Is killing one and saving many justified? Killing a human embryo would help the scientists to save many lives through transplants and curing diseases or infections. According to scientists, using a human embryo for stem cell research would greatly benefit the community and society by saving the lives of many others. This is the major debate over the stem cell research. The pro-life groups who oppose this research argue that a human embryo is a human being, a living thing and killing it would mean taking a human life. Hence, taking one human life in order to save others would never be justified religiously, legally or ethically (Anderson 183). Debaters argue that a human embryo is not a human with legal rights as it has no identity or soul, thus it is justified to kill it and use it for stem cell research (Forman 78). Others argue that the moral and ethical dilemmas related to the killing of human embryo overweigh the potential benefits. It is true; however, that killing one life to save others can never be justified culturally or religiously. Conclusion: Conclusively, many groups of people support the stem cell research while others oppose the research. The issue has received much debate over the years and yet remains unsolved. There has been much political debate over the legislative controls that should be imposed and currently the situation says that the research funding should be allowed under certain rules set by the court. There is still room for the Congress or the government to pass legislation on the issue. Scientifically, the debate revolves around the fact that a human embryo used in stem cell research can give many benefits to the other patients with diseases and infections. Scientists are content with the fact that killing a human embryo to save the lives of others is justified. The debate revolves around a central question: is a human embryo equivalent to a human life? The day the people find a common, agreeable answer to this question, the stem cell research controversy can find a conclusion. Work Cited Anderson Scott. Human Embryonic Stem Cells. USA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2003. Print. Evans Donald. Conceiving the Embryo: Ethics, Law, and Practice in Human Embryology. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996. Print. Forman Lillian. Stem Cell Research. USA: ABDO, 2010. Print. George Robert. Embryonic Human Persons: Talking point on morality and human embryo research. USA: EMBO Reports, 2009. Print. Harris John. The Value of Life: An Introduction to Medical Ethics. NY: Routledge, 2002. Print. McBride Dorothy. Abortion in the United States: A Reference Handbook. USA: ABC-CLIO, 2008. Print. Moore Pete. Stem Cell Research. NY: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2012. Print. Panno Joseph. Stem Cell Research: Medical Applications and Ethical Controversy. NY: Infobase Publishing, 2005. Print. Pressberg Gail. The Promise and Politics of Stem Cell Research. USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007. Print. Weldemichael Noah. Value Life. USA: iUniverse, 2012. Print. Read More