Stem Cell: The Ethical Dilemma - Coursework Example

You’re Name Professor Course 27 October 2006 Stem Cell Research: The Ethical Dilemma Summarization of Research Stem cell research has been in heavy debate for a number of years between those who are for and those who are against it. The fact is this research has the potential of changing thousands of lives for the better as it basically holds the key to life. The literature in the following pages gives the theory in behind the research and discusses both sides of the argument in a logical and respectful fashion. The conclusion shows that although stem cell research has the capability of saving lives it must first come to be accepting by the majority of people in society for it to be totally welcomed and effective among the population. Introduction Stem cells are pertinent to the medical world as they hold the key to curing diseases that at one time were viewed as being incurable (Benson 2004). These cells have the ability to divide at a high rate and provide an innumerable amount of specialized cells which doctors need to help patients recover from specific illnesses. They can divide like this for indefinite periods in cultures which proves why they are so valuable to the science of medicine because there has been nothing else found that has such a substantial ability to make a difference in life. Furthermore, stem cells are extraordinarily important to many other areas of life as well, specifically in early human development. Multi-potent stem cells are cells that can be found in not only children’s stem cells but adult stem cells as well so there is an equal terrain here that could reduce much of the controversy surrounding their utilization (Benson 2004). To date, one of the most potent and most life altering stem cells that can be put to use today is the blood stem cell (Schwartz 2006). In fact, a person’s blood stem cells can actually be manufactured to help them fight diseases of the heart and other problems with the cardiovascular system so in actuality there should be no real controversy in research such as this. Furthermore, these cells can be found in the bone marrow of every human being and in fact they can even be found in small numbers within the blood stream. These cells also help sustain life as they participate in replenishing the supply of blood cells within the human body. The President himself has explained to the general public that, “stem cells can be drawn from children, adults, and the blood in umbilical cords with no harm to the donor and then these stem cells can be used in medical research” (Schwartz 2006). It would seem that a statement from a country’s president such as this would quell some of the disharmony but yet it still continues and it is extremely hard to understand why. This is especially true when these cells can save lives because they can reproduce blood cells and this is something that people can not live without because life can not continue without blood cells in the blood stream. Also, stem cells can be found in many types of adult tissue, and not only do stem cells help replace blood cells they replenish all cells that the human body normally wears out. It is also being found that blood stem cells can change the course of life by having the ability to produce skin cells, liver cells, or any cell other then a blood stem cell (PLOS Medicine 2006). Scientists have uncovered this amazing technology through their advanced research in animals. Untold amounts of gathered data and research have shown that animals have helped to prove that stem cells previously thought to be committed to the development of one line of specialized cells are able to develop into others. Recent experiments in these animals have shown that different cells have developed out of bone marrow, especially liver cells (Schwartz 2006). From all the research which is being done and all the research which has been done there seems to be enormous promise in stem cells with regard to the development of new therapies for the most devastating of diseases. Science and scientists are searching for the very best sources for these stem cells, and when these are identified, regardless of their source, scientists and researchers will use them to pursue the development of new cell therapies. The development of stem cell lines, both pluripotent and multipotent, which produce many tissues of the human body are an unquestionably important scientific breakthrough. It seems that with the way research and science is going, if it continues on this pace then there is potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine and improve the quality and length of life. One area that it could definitely place a positive influence in is with the disease of “Diabetes”. About 1.4 million people in the UK have been diagnosed with diabetes and another million have the condition but don't know it yet. The disease means the pancreas doesn't produce enough insulin - the chemical which helps control blood sugar. Scientists are working on a possible cure, which involves creating insulin-producing cells, known as islets, from stem cells and then transplanting them into the pancreas (Snow 2005). Studies at the University of Florida found that stem cells from a patient's bone marrow could be a viable source of islets, while researchers at New York University have had some success creating islet tissue in mice (Snow 2005). This is just an example to show that the continuation of research in stem cells could lead to curable summations of diseases in the next ten to fifteen years, at least for the disease of diabetes. Stem Cell Research: The Dilemma With everyday that passes people who have terminal illnesses or who need organ transplants die. The estimated amount of these deaths which could be saved by stem cell research is approximately 3,000 a day in the United States. Many of these people are dying while waiting on organ transplants (D’Agnese). Not only is this a detrimental problem to sustaining life that could be rectified through the utilization of stem cell research but over 66,000 people remain on organ donor lists in the United States, making the possible deaths escalate due to the need for organ donors and also the limited supply of the necessary organs for these people. The sad point to this dilemma is that few of these people in need of organ transplants will ever live to see their names rise to the top of the organ transplant recipient list and scientists who work in stem cell research say that there is just no plausible nor logical explanation for people such as this suffering in this way or having to die when science has the ability of meeting their needs and sustaining human life. It is a fact that in today’s age, sufficient usage of stem cells could cure many diseases and solve medical problems that at one time could not be solved. This could change the fate of the future and save many lives in the long run. What stem cells are, are very young specialized cells that are removed from a human embryo and of which have the capability of developing into more specialized groups of cells or tissues which can help specialists and doctors in disease prevention, and in other medical areas where before there was no surefire way of helping people efficiently. Studies have defined that in 2001 alone scientists had the ability to develop 110 different types of tissues such as blood, brain, or even heart tissue (Robinson 2001-2002). The problem lies in the ethical dilemma of this matter. Many are opposed to stem cell usage from embryos but what society fails to realize is these embryos were already discarded by women who had aborted them and did not want them. It is a known fact that stem cell research has been the focus of debate among scientists, medical professionals, politicians and ethicists alike. The reason for their concern however, differs depending on their position on this issue - for or against it. The basic issue that prevails among the intellectual communities and those religious alike has been the bioethics of continuing with this kind of research where human embryos are being used to replicate "life" (Pearson 2006). However, with the recent developments in stem cell research, even this argument has dwindled as scientists have found new ways of accessing stem cells for regenerative bioengineering for curing diseases such as spinal cord paralysis, heart failure and Alzheimer etc. The gravity of the inclusion of stem cell research into the mainstream health care industry can only be realized if one is aware of its benefits to mankind (Josefson 1999). This has been stated again and again in this literature and it is clearly true. The only thing holding back such an astounding form of science are the people in the communities themselves who are stuck on ethical issues while life is dwindling away and cures are being placed on back burners. This in itself produces all types of ethical and moral issues because medicine is meant to save life not let it suffer such as what has been taking place for a long time now. It has been unequivocally proven that researchers could now serve a great purpose to the public by providing the stem cells needed to save lives and help in medical areas such as for burn victims, etc. The possibilities are endless but there is such a huge debate over the ethics of the matter that it has seemingly put a stall to some of the efforts put forth by scientists. Not only this but the FDA even has a hand in this equation as some medical techniques that have been developed must first be approved by the FDA before ever being allowed to be administered to those in society. So there is not only an ethical problem but there is an area of legality into the science of this area as well (Lenoir 2000). Alternative Issues in Stem Cell Research The scientific study of stem cell research is still ongoing despite the fact that the funding of this research was already achieved. Gary Stix who is a writer for Scientific American stated in 2001 that one company “Advanced Cell Technology ACT” finally developed the capability to clone embryonic stem cells which could be put to use to help thousands of people with medical problems that up until now have not been able to be treated correctly. Furthermore, this scientific testing was carried out to also try and cut down on the ethical arguments about the utilization of embryos for stem cell research just not being morally right. What scientists have engineered is a way to take stem cells from tissues of an early stage embryo one time only and then clone them. In fact, the real embryonic stem cells would not have to be utilized but rather the cloned ones could be instead. In this way those in society who are against embryonic utilization of stem cells could have their arguments laid to rest because they would not be being used at all, only clones would be (Lauritzen 2002). Currently as it stands there are not enough embryonic stem cells being manufactured to cover all people’s needs in the world at this point in time but the fact remains that great headway has been made and it is only a matter of time until a numerous amount of people could indeed be helped through this scientific discovery. The steps that have currently been made might not seem like much to some but for the scientists and the possibilities it is bringing to the medical world it is a huge amount of difference from what science could previously offer to health care. Of course, as has been stated the main dilemma lies with those who are against this science. There are many who do not approve of embryonic stem cell research period. The reasons are numerous but feasibility for the utilization of them can be given just as easily as the arguments against their usage. For instance, people with heart disease and kidney failure could be cured with an operation that is relatively cheap if only embryonic stem cell usage was available now. The costs of surgeries like these today are very expensive and often a matching donor can not be located for a dying patient. However, if stem-cells were utilized, organs would be accessible to possibly everyone on the waiting lists all around the world, saving thousands of lives every day. Not only could these stem cells provide organ transplant patients with hope but they can also be utilized to treat other diseases and health problems as well, such as multiple sclerosis, certain forms of cancer, burn patients, and a vast array of other health care concerns that otherwise are difficult to treat and provide positive outcomes for patients for (Lee 2002). Nevertheless, despite the huge differences that this research could make in people’s lives there are still those few who see it as morally wrong and it would seem that there is no argument that could be given, besides their own weakening and failing health that could possibly sway their thoughts on the subject. There are a myriad of reasons that can define why stem cell usage is pertinent to the health care system and of which does not equal the destruction of life but rather equates the saving of life. Stem cell research or regenerative medicine has great potential in changing medicine in the coming era, specifically as it evolves into research for repair of specific tissues or organs, by using stem cells. Stem cells "are primal undifferentiated cells which retain the ability to differentiate into other cell types. This ability allows them to act as a repair system for the body, replenishing other cells as long as the organism is alive” (Caplan & McGee 2001). Some examples that places stem cell research in a positive light deal with circumstances in life that normally would be crippling and reduce the quality of life for people. People left crippled by disease or injury could have feeling restored and even be able to walk again thanks to stem-cell research. Furthermore, there have been cases in the country of Brazil where doctors were able to report some success after taking stem cells from the blood of 30 patients who had paralyzed limbs. The cells were injected back into the affected area, eventually leading to increased movement and sensation in 12 cases (Murray 2005). Researchers have also been able to use stem cells to regrow nerve tissue. A team from the University of California injected paralyzed rats with the cells and, after nine weeks, the animals could walk again. Researchers in the UK have stated that these stem cells could possibly be the key to combating one of the biggest killers as well, not just in the UK but in the world at present. This deadly disease is known as, “heart disease”. In fact, they could be used to regenerate or replace damaged heart tissue and muscle. American doctors have already treated cardiac patients using cells from their own bone marrow, which of course should not hold any controversial issues whatsoever since it is their own cells at any rate. Researchers at the Texas Health Science Center found that through injecting specific stem cells directly into heart muscle, they greatly helped patients with severe heart failure that were at risk of dying. The cells formed muscle and blood vessel cells, which were found to lead to fewer angina attacks and greater blood flow. Furthermore, two months following the procedure, 13 out of 14 of the patients were still alive (Murray 2005). If this does not validate the positivism of stem cell research it is beyond any scope of reasoning what possibly could. Various supporters of this form of research perceive the embryos that are being utilized as not alive due to the fact that they only have a few cells remaining and they are stored in a lab, frozen until the time comes for their utilization. It is said that there was at one point the possibility for them to live and thrive but once they were aborted that potential was indefinitely lost and therefore was not associative with stem-cell research. Furthermore, many of these embryonic cells come from aborted fetuses where life was not going to continue in any regard because the women did not want them. Therefore the perception is why waste what is left of an unwanted life when it could go to healing and sustaining life already in progress? Too many there is no ethical dilemma in the fact that these cells are being used to regenerate life instead of destroying it. That is respectfully the right thing to do rather than letting that potential life go to waste. Currently there are over 110,000 embryos being stored in the United States alone, these embryo’s have no hope for life whatsoever but they do have the power to regenerate life for others through the many capabilities they have to give in medicine (Robinson 2002). Paul Lauritzen (2002) questions the pro-life statements that claim an embryo is: A person from conception. What sense does this make when we are dealing with an organism that can only be loosely defined as an embryo and which has not conceived at all? It can be seen in both of these cases that stem-cell research should be not only allowed, but also encouraged. It could mean hundreds of thousands of saved lives every year. The Future Use of Stem Cells and the Research Scientists are also keen on the potential of stem cells in the treatment of other diseases not actually by curing them, but through repair processes. These include: Replacement of Diseased Cells: This could be carried out by creating certain specialized cells of any characteristic that could then be used to treated cells that are diseased, such as with diseases like Parkinson’s, diabetes, and even conditions that damage cells in the body Injection of Islets: This could be carried out by producing stem cells from other healthy cells and then injecting them into an individual. This could help with diseases that affect the liver, arthritic conditions, and other disorders that have to do with the pancreas as well Formation of new Tissue: In order to gain the ability to do this stem cells would have to be injected into diseased organs such as failing hearts or kidneys in order to keep them functioning instead of the individual having to wait for a delayed heart or kidney transplant. Ultimately it would protect their bodies from further disease due to their condition. New Medications: This is plausible to consider because a large number of laboratories would have extremely more positive opportunities to research human tissue and thus gain viable medicinal research that could lead to new drug remedies for certain illnesses Experimentation: Though this sounds far fetched it is needed in medical research. The developed stem cells and tissues could be used to study and learn more about the human body, its defects, diseases, and other developments so that a better understanding on how to combat disease and illness could be gained by scientists, doctors, researchers, and others in medicine for the future. (Price 2002). The Underlying Reasons why Some still Argue it is Wrong There are two main ethical principles that are to be considered when discussing the ethics of embryonic stem cell research. One of these principles focuses on the prevention and alleviation of human suffering, the other principle focuses on the value and respect for human life (Holland et al 2001). Which of these principles should have precedence over the other? The harvesting and culturing of embryonic stem cells has great potential to help in the prevention and alleviation of human suffering, but at the same time, harvesting embryonic stem cells is destroying the embryos they were taken from , in essence, destroying human life (Shreeve 2005). For one of these principles to be founded, the other must be sacrificed. To determine whether embryonic stem cell research is the right thing to do or not, we must also evaluate possible alternatives. There has been some research involving adult stem cells that have shown the ability to differentiate into a limited number of different cell types. They have not, however, shown the ability to differentiate into any cell type in the way that embryonic stem cells can (Freed et al 2002). Use of adult stem cells does help in avoiding the ethical questions that are raised from the use of embryonic stem cells, but they do not have the proof that these types of stem cells would be as beneficial as embryonic stem cells. Another advantage of using adult stem cells is that the tissues grown utilizing these stem cells can be transplanted into that person without the fear of the body rejecting them. The main part of the argument is in regards to deciding when a human actually develops into a human being? This is the question at the heart of the debate over embryonic stem cell research. Some would argue that because human embryos do not resemble human beings, they should not be considered human beings and that they do not deserve the basic rights of all other living creatures (Holland et al 2001). The fact is, human embryos resemble exactly what they are, human beings in the embryonic stage of their development. Human embryos, once formed, are whole living beings that have the ability to develop into adult human beings using resources from within themselves (Holland et al 2001). It has been argued that location and stage of development should be a factor in determining whether a human being should be denied rights or not. Does it matter if an embryo is located in a petri dish or inside a womb? Does it matter if the embryo is one day old or eight months old? If we use these arguments for the basis of our decisions regarding embryonic stem cell research, we are likely to contradict ourselves (Kadereit et al 2005). Claiming that because a human embryo is not fully developed and able to survive on its own is a good reason to deny them basic human rights would be like saying a baby that was born prematurely, without the ability to survive outside the womb on its own does not deserve every medical attempt to save its life. The argument exists that because some embryos are created in petri dishes and require implantation into a womb to achieve their full potential, they should not be considered human life, and therefore, can be denied basic human rights. Isn't it true, however, that regardless of location, human embryos, whether located in a dish or a womb, carry the same characteristics (Kadereit et al 2005)? The only difference is one was created naturally inside the mother and the other was created by scientific means. We fight to save children who were unfortunate enough to be brought into this world under less than acceptable conditions. Children born in Ethiopia deserve the same fundamental rights as children born in the United States. Food and safety is something that should be afforded to all human beings. Therefore, location is not a basis for determining human rights. An argument that appears to be very contradictory is the argument for the use of existing stem cells and against the creation of new stem cells. This argument has conflicting ethical ideas in its reasoning. Saying that it is wrong to create new embryos specifically for destructive research because they are human beings but it is acceptable to destroy existing embryos because they will be disposed of anyway is contradictory reasoning (Holland et al 2001). Human value is not determined by its expected lifespan. If it is acceptable to use an embryo that is expected to last only a short period of time it should also be acceptable to perform open brain surgery that will surely end the life of a patient who is already dying of a brain tumor in the interest of medical advancements. Some might argue that allowing the destruction of embryos may lead to an increased tolerance to loss of life, including late-term abortions and treatment withdrawal for the severely disabled. This is why we should put a stop to this abuse and disrespect for human life before it is too late (Lee 2002). The Main Argument for Stem Cell Research As has been respectively stated in this literature, embryonic stem cells are the only cells with the ability to develop into any other type of cells. Continued research in this area is necessary to discover new treatments for those with incurable conditions like spinal cord injuries, neurological conditions, and anything else we still have not discovered a cure or treatment for. Claiming that a bunch of cells in a petri dish are the same as a human being is a stretch. An easy way to determine whether human embryonic stem cell research is right would be to look at the possible benefits in contrast to the possible losses (Lenoir 2005). The stem cells currently in use for this type of research are ones that would otherwise be wasted anyway. They are mostly from aborted fetuses and leftovers from infertility treatments. There is no reason to allow them to be wasted without any benefit from them before they are destroyed. To say it is allowable to use some embryos and not others is a contradictory idea. An embryo is an embryo, regardless of where it came from. If an embryo was an aborted fetus, created for use in fertility treatments, or if it was created specifically for stem cell research, there should be no distinction between where these cells came from and there shouldn't be a ban on stem cell research based on how the cells were obtained. The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalizing abortion in the early stages of development because they do not believe an embryo should be considered to be a human being. The same reasoning can be adopted when considering embryonic stem cell research. An embryo is simply not the same as a fully developed human being (Benson 2004). There has to be research done by many scientists to determine the exact benefits of stem cell research. The day a person takes their first steps after being paralyzed for 10 years, or Alzheimer's has been completely eliminated will be an incredible breakthrough in modern medicine (Benson 2004). This cannot be achieved without continued learning and research in stem cells and human development. Conclusion So which side is right? Both arguments have good, valid points. Each side believes they have the right answer. In order to devise an informed opinion, one must fully explore each option and be open to the different ideas, then make their decision based on knowledge and their own personal beliefs. One's opinion of ethics and morals is based not only on education but also on their culture and beliefs. The argument against human stem cell research takes the position that a human being is a human being regardless of what stage of development it is in, and we should fight to protect human life (Lee 2002). . The argument for human stem cell research takes the position that human embryos are not the same as actual human beings and we should use scientific research to improve the quality of life for the future of the human race. To keep the puzzle in a clear and logical framework, it has to be kept quite straightforward that embryos have stem cells which have been proven to be highly effective in medicine and the future of disease treatment. It has become a fact that embryonic stem cells have the potential to transcend into almost any organ or tissue within the genetic makeup of the human being. These stem cells are undoubtedly the basis of life in an embryo and in regenerating life in living human beings as well. In an embryo they have an unlimited potential because they have not been directed toward a certain function yet, which is what makes them so highly flexible in the medical environment. The President of the United States is aware of this and agrees with it to a certain point as well but his main goal is to appease both sides of the controversy according to the White House Columnist Eric Draper (2002). Currently President Bush has agreed to fund stem cell research but only on the existing lines of stem cells currently frozen. Although it is believed this is lessening the controversy (as was the Presidents goal) the problem still remains that there is not an unlimited supply of the embryonic stem cells and therefore the future goals remain uncertain in the continuing research. D’Agnese (2002) reported that there are fewer than 30 stem cell lines available now and this limits the scientific possibilities. The big question is why should the decision against stem cell research by a minute few determine the fates of so many more. This is where the true ethics enter in, not in the actual science. There are many degenerative conditions that could benefit from this type of research. If we can improve the lives of millions of people by simply harvesting and culturing embryonic stem cells, we are obligated to do so for the benefits that may come from it. This type of research could possibly lead to other controversial issues regarding ethics and morals and whether or not people are "playing God", that is why it must be federally funded and regulated (Lee 2002). This will help assure that researchers are not stepping outside of their boundaries. It will also help to ease the concerns of those who are against this type of scientific studies. More education and research on this topic is needed to fully realize the benefits and consequences of stem cell research, but in order to discover all there is to discover, we must allow the scientists to do their job. Adding further for just a moment, stem cell research is quite possibly one of the biggest medical debates in history and has the potential of providing many forms of medical advancements for years to come. The research holds the potential, but for it to be effective the people of the world have to come to accept it. Stem cells could save millions of lives in the next few years, only if it is proven to be the right thing to do by approval from the majority in society.          Works Cited Benson, Rusty. “What Some Scientists Really Hope to Find in Stem Cell Research.” American Family Association Journal (2004): 87. Caplan, Arthur & McGee, Glenn. “Stem Cell Research.” The Hastings Center Report 31 (2001): 4-14. D’Agnes, Joseph. “The Debate over Stem Cells Gets Hot.” Discover 23 (2002): 1. Freed & Curt & Simon, Levay. “Healing the Brain.” New York: Times Books, 2001. Holland, Suzanne & Lebacqz, Karen & Zoloth, Laurie. “The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate.” The MIT Press (2001). Josefson, Deborah. “Adult Stem Cells may be Redefinable.” BMJ Publishing 318 (1999): 282. Kadereit, Suzanne & Mollard, Richard & Lowry, William. “International Society for Stem Cell Research.” New York: The New York Times, 2005. Lauritzen, Paul. “Broadening the Debate on Cloning and Stem Cell Research”. America 186 (2002): 186, 22. Lee, Jacqueline. Embryonic Stem Cells: The End Doesn’t Justify the Means. Lousiville: Claritin Publications, 2002. Lenoir, H. “Europe Confronts the Embryonic Stem Cell Research Challenge.” Science AAAS (2000): 1425. Pearson, Helen. “Early Embryos can Yield Stem Cells and Survive.” News and Nature Science Publication 439 (2006): 216-219. PLOS Medicine. “Stem Cell Expansion: Testing the Potential of HOXB4 in Non-Human Primates.” PLOS Med 3 (2006): 243. Price, Joyce. “Study Supports Versatility of Adult Stem Cells: Research Could Reduce Need for Embryonic Tissue.” The Washington Times (2002): AO3. Murray, Thomas. The Hastings Center Report 35 (2005): 8-18. Robinson, B. A. “What are Stem Cells?” New York Times 21 (2001): 1. Schwartz, Robert. “The Politics and Promise of Stem Cell Research.” New England Journal of Medicine 355 (2006): 1189-1191. Shreeve, Jamie. “The Other Stem Cell Debate.” New York: The New York Times Magazine, 2005. Snow, Nancy. “Stem Cell Research: New Frontiers in Science and Ethics.” University of Notre Dame (2003): 150-175. Read More

It would seem that a statement from a country’s president such as this would quell some of the disharmony but yet it still continues and it is extremely hard to understand why. This is especially true when these cells can save lives because they can reproduce blood cells and this is something that people can not live without because life can not continue without blood cells in the blood stream. Also, stem cells can be found in many types of adult tissue, and not only do stem cells help replace blood cells they replenish all cells that the human body normally wears out.

It is also being found that blood stem cells can change the course of life by having the ability to produce skin cells, liver cells, or any cell other then a blood stem cell (PLOS Medicine 2006). Scientists have uncovered this amazing technology through their advanced research in animals. Untold amounts of gathered data and research have shown that animals have helped to prove that stem cells previously thought to be committed to the development of one line of specialized cells are able to develop into others.

Recent experiments in these animals have shown that different cells have developed out of bone marrow, especially liver cells (Schwartz 2006). From all the research which is being done and all the research which has been done there seems to be enormous promise in stem cells with regard to the development of new therapies for the most devastating of diseases. Science and scientists are searching for the very best sources for these stem cells, and when these are identified, regardless of their source, scientists and researchers will use them to pursue the development of new cell therapies.

The development of stem cell lines, both pluripotent and multipotent, which produce many tissues of the human body are an unquestionably important scientific breakthrough. It seems that with the way research and science is going, if it continues on this pace then there is potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine and improve the quality and length of life. One area that it could definitely place a positive influence in is with the disease of “Diabetes”. About 1.4 million people in the UK have been diagnosed with diabetes and another million have the condition but don't know it yet.

The disease means the pancreas doesn't produce enough insulin - the chemical which helps control blood sugar. Scientists are working on a possible cure, which involves creating insulin-producing cells, known as islets, from stem cells and then transplanting them into the pancreas (Snow 2005). Studies at the University of Florida found that stem cells from a patient's bone marrow could be a viable source of islets, while researchers at New York University have had some success creating islet tissue in mice (Snow 2005).

This is just an example to show that the continuation of research in stem cells could lead to curable summations of diseases in the next ten to fifteen years, at least for the disease of diabetes. Stem Cell Research: The Dilemma With everyday that passes people who have terminal illnesses or who need organ transplants die. The estimated amount of these deaths which could be saved by stem cell research is approximately 3,000 a day in the United States. Many of these people are dying while waiting on organ transplants (D’Agnese).

Not only is this a detrimental problem to sustaining life that could be rectified through the utilization of stem cell research but over 66,000 people remain on organ donor lists in the United States, making the possible deaths escalate due to the need for organ donors and also the limited supply of the necessary organs for these people. The sad point to this dilemma is that few of these people in need of organ transplants will ever live to see their names rise to the top of the organ transplant recipient list and scientists who work in stem cell research say that there is just no plausible nor logical explanation for people such as this suffering in this way or having to die when science has the ability of meeting their needs and sustaining human life.

Read More