Stem Cell: The Ethical Dilemma - Term Paper Example

Running head: STEM CELL RESEARCH Stem Cell Research: The Ethical Dilemma You’re Name University Abstract 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. Stem Cell Research: The Ethical 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 are 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. They 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 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. 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. 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 the 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. To conclude, 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. In finality, 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.          Bibliography D’Agnes, Joseph. (2002, January). The Debate over Stem Cells Gets Hot. Discover, 23, 1. Draper, Eric. (2001, August). Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research. US Dept. of Health and Human Services, 18, 1. Lauritzen, Paul. (2002, February). Broadening the Debate on Cloning and Stem Cell Research. America, 186, 22. Lee, Jacqueline. (2002, February). Embryonic Stem Cells: The End Doesn’t Justify the Means. Lousiville: Claretin Publications. Robinson, B. A. (2001, August). What are Stem Cells? New York Times 21, 1. Stix, Gary. (2002, February). What Clones? Scientific American, 286, 18. Read More