Moral Permissibility of Deriving Stem - Assignment Example

Argument for the Moral Permissibility of Deriving Stem Cells from Surplus Embryos In my opinion I think that it is all right to derive stem cells from surplus embryos. The purest forms of stem cells are the early stage embryos, even though they can be derived from adult embryos it is not the same. The process which derives the stem cells from the embryo breaks the embryo. The reason I am for this topic is because I myself have type 1 diabetes and these stem cells can help cure it. I think if it can help millions of lives then it is worth it. Embryos have not lived like the people with diabetes and many other diseases for which it is a cure. One way to cure this disease is by transplantation of the pancreatic islet cell, the availability of the donated organs is very less for transplant. The stem cells if are induced to differentiate into functional islet cells in the lab, they may form a renewable source for transplantation, allowing this cell-based treatment to become available on a practical scale. (Mastroieni, n.d.) "Recent reports suggest that one of the most promising potential treatments may come from the use of stem cells, undifferentiated cells that can be coaxed into becoming insulin-producing islet-like cells that reduce diabetes symptoms in mice." (Mastroieni, n.d.) Spare embryos, the principal source of embryonic stem cells, are the unavoidably surplus unions of sperm and egg produced in fertility clinics. The embryos are often stored for years and ultimately discarded (Wade, 1999). Then it should not be a problem to use these spare embryos as they will ultimately be discarded anyways. One of the basic arguments for the moral permissibility of the use of these embryos are that the cost of destroying them is far less than the cost of the personal, social and economic costs of the diseases that these stem cells can cure. They can not be equaled to human life, even though they are living things. Some embryos do not even implant after conceived. In some countries it is legal to have an abortion; here the embryo is anyways going to waste. It would be better to utilize these embryos for research and cures rather than just throwing them. Embryonic stem cells can treat a larger number of diseases because they have greater plasticity, and divide more rapidly than adult stem cells. The embryo is taken before the primitive streak is formed. Until then it can be one individual which can separate into two and become twins, or it can be two embryos which can combine and form into one. Thus taking an embryo at this time does not account it as a human being. The number of people affected by diabetes alone is 190 million people around the world. This disease can lead to death and serious complications are common. These stem cells have the ability to cure many diseases not just diabetes. Another thing to keep in mind is that if it were so wrong, the government would never allow research to happen on such things in the first place. Women who give their surplus embryos are not forced into doing so. Rules can be introduced to control the process so that misuse of these embryos does not take place. One such law suggested by Louis M. Guenin is, "The government shall support biomedical research using human embryos that, before or after formation, have been donated to medicine under donor instructions forbidding intrauterine transfer." This way the donor has full control over what happens with the embryos even after it is implanted into another human being. The arguments against the moral permissibility of deriving stem cells from surplus embryos are that some of these embryos may be helpful during research but when used on actual human beings could be dangerous. Apart from this there may be genetic side effects because of manipulation. An example is the recent successes in reprogramming skin cells by fusing them with embryonic stem cells leave scientists wondering whether the genome of the original somatic cell might be 'contaminated' by the embryonic stem cell's DNA (Vogel, 2005) Another problem with using them is that both stem cells from surplus IVF embryos and from cloned embryos are not interchangeable. There are many alternatives which do not require that stem cells be used, such as direct reprogramming of adult somatic cells; with this the cell would return to the pluripotent stem cell state. The genetic information of the donor and the cells would be the same which will help in reducing an immune reaction in clinical applications. Another thing that we can do is produce an embryo like artifact; this was proposed by Hurlbut who said we could alter the SCNT procedure. One of the most basic moral arguments is that the embryo has the ability to become a human being therefore it is not morally permissible to derive stem cells from it which eventually leads to its death. If seen from the religious aspect, it is wrong to discard human life just like that. According to religion, conception marks the beginning of the soul and to kill it like that it just like killing a human being. Ever since scientists have been researching with this, they have promised excellent results none of which have been seen up till now. ''The availability of the embryos does not justify their use,'' said Dr. Nigel Cameron, a Presbyterian theologian at Trinity International University in Deerfield, Ill. ''Here is one of us, however primitive,'' he said, referring to the embryo, ''and the question is whether members of the human species should be treated as other than ends in themselves.''(Wade, 1999) In the end I would just like to stay that there are 2 ways in which the ethical challenges can be dodged: applying the separation principle and turning to biological artifacts. Applying the separation principle clears the researcher from the responsibility of destroying the embryos and turning to biological artifacts excludes the use of embryos totally. Works Cited 1. Guenin, Louis M. (2005) A Proposed Stem Cell research policy, Stem Cells http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/full/23/8/1023 Mastroieni, Catherine, Stem Cells in the Treatment of Diabetes: Therapeutic Potential and Ethical Considerations, Santa Clara University http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/stem_cells.html Vogel G. (2005) Embryo-free techniques gain momentum. Science 309:240-241 2. Wade, Nicholas (1999) Embryo Cell Research: A Clash of Values, The New York Times http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmlres=9E03E4DE153DF931A35754C0A96F958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all Read More