Using Human Embryos in Stem Cell - Essay Example

Running Head: USING HUMAN EMBRYOS IN STEM CELL RESEARCH Using Human Embryos in Stem Cell Research BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Using HumanEmbryos in Stem Cell Research Introduction Utilizing human embryos in stem cell research involves harvesting the blastocyst, a genuine human embryo that exists four to five days after the fertilization process and just prior to permanent implantation in the female uterus (Zhang, Lin, Kong, Wang, Wang, Wang & Armant, 2013). The early-stage embryo only contains between 200 and 300 different cells in this very immature stage of development. It is during this period in gestation that the blastocyst becomes the prime target for the harvesting of pluripotent stem cells that are extracted for research. There is a hotly debated ethical issue, however, in harvesting of immature embryos for this purpose as many individuals in society believe that embryos in this very early stage of development should be considered living beings with the same moral rights as the average human (Baldwing, 2009). Those that prescribe to the deontological view of ethics believe this is an immoral act and that these early-stage embryos should be afforded the same universal human rights as fully developed human beings. Deontologists believe there is a singular moral code that should justify all actions against the call of duty toward this code (Norcross, 2009). The utilitarian view of ethics and those who believe in this ideology of morality believe that it is perfectly acceptable practice so long as the utility of the majority in society is satisfied. After weighing all of the appropriate evidence about the moral and ethical acceptability of blastocyst harvesting, I determine that the utilitarian view of moral acceptability of utilizing human embryos for stem cell research is most viable and appropriate to end the substantial ethical debate. Three Points of Support The utilitarianist perspective on the destruction of early-stage embryos as a means of advancing knowledge and medical treatments for those in society afflicted by disease is that this is morally permissible and should be heralded. The utilitarian view of ethics is that the ends serve to justify the means so long as the utility of the majority is satisfied (Bredeson, 2011). Stem cell research maintains the ability to cure or otherwise treat countless members of society that suffer from genetic diseases and even severe physical trauma. The regenerative properties of stem cells derived from early-developed embryos have significant tissue damage repair capacities. This fact maintains substantially-positive benefits to many members of society. Stem cells could, theoretically, reduce the over-crowding problem in North American hospitals, reduce expenditures on medical care that could translate into lower costs for many in society and even promote research into human life span expansion that could radically enhance the quality of life of virtually every citizen across the world. Those who hold firm to the convictions of utilitarian thinking would openly support and congratulate the efforts of medical researchers for their role in harvesting these important cells to advance valuable medical research knowledge. Additionally, there are many in society that believe it is the responsibility of individuals involved in the production of blastocysts who should be giving consent about the moral acceptability of stem cell harvesting from embryos, not government or any other concerned third party that attempts to exhibit control and authority over this decision-making. A 2009 survey of 2,295 random demographics indicated that two-thirds of the sample group were in favour of this harvesting process as a means of reaching a cure for a variety of health problems and diseases. In the case of in vitro fertilization as a means of gaining access to important stem cells from blastocysts, where there are third-party donors of gametes, the patient is given absolute authority and discretion whether the donated gametes should be destroyed or donated for future research endeavours (Lo, et al., 2010). Those who prescribe to utilitarian doctrine of ethical and moral behaviour would agree, suggesting that authority for destruction of cloned, donated or laboratory constructed embryos should be left at the discretion of those who maintain ownership of the early-stage blastocyst especially when the implications to broader society are so significantly positive with the advancement of this research. What really is the difference between donor gametes and subsequent embryo destruction in this process and through early-stage blastocyst harvesting when the developmental phase of the embryo, in both instances, is virtually identical? There simply is no solid universal set of ethics and moral values that can or should be imposed on society simply to appease the objections of the deontological moralist. Yet a third support principle for approving and continuing the advancement of stem cell research through the utilization of human embryos is strictly related to the ideology of utilitarianism. The utilitarian viewpoint would assert that any sacrifice that does not somehow increase (either moderately or significantly) the total sum of social happiness is a complete waste of time and effort (Hooker, 2011). If government were to intervene and establish legislation which states that harvesting of embryonic stem cells was illegal, it would be sacrificing the health and well-being of those who could have been cured or treated with advancing medical research. This sacrifice, therefore, would be completely in vain (a waste as described by Hooker) and no legitimate moral or ethical demand satisfied, but only managed to strip many members of society of the opportunity to pursue their rights to liberty and self-security. The Argument of the Deontologist There are some members of society who strongly contest the continuation and legalization of the practice of harvesting stem cells from blastocysts. Deontological arguments would state that medical researchers are obliged to conform to universal principles of right versus wrong (a moral duty). This viewpoint is succinct in affirming that regardless of the consequences of an action (the means), it is morally unacceptable to justify any actions that go against an ethical requisite (the ends) even if the consequence is performing good and maximizing utility for majority members of society. In essence, the ends do not justify the means under this doctrine and ideology. Basic human rights, at least true in North American countries, are established upon the moment of birth and ensure that the individual is protected, legislatively, from harm and murder. Deontological social proponents arguing about the acceptability of harvesting early-stage embryonic cells would consider harvesting four to six day-old embryos as fundamentally moving against their basic, established rights as humans and would call for abolishment of this practice even if the end result was a cure for countless neurological diseases. A Final Ethical Decision There is, legitimately, no universal standard of ethics that would be embraced by all societies and cultures. It does not make sense, in my opinion, to satisfy the arguments of a few while sacrificing the needs of the many. Those who stand to benefit from stem cell research which utilizes barely-formed embryos should not be dissuaded due to a set of unrealistic, deontological principles of ethics and morality. Embryos that do not even have complex systems, but rather a gaggle of immature cells, do not have the capacity to think or even maintain awareness of their existence. As such, the utilitarian view of ethical acceptability of the practice is more pragmatic and serves to maximise the utility of the majority in society, thus making harvesting of embryos morally acceptable. Conclusion Though the argument will likely continue to rage on, deontologists strongly opposed to embryonic stem cell research should reconsider their stance against the practice of harvesting. The long-run implications to majority society are substantial. Society, as well as governments, has not even defined the stage of development, concretely, in which embryos should be given full rights for security and well-being in the same proportion as the rest of society. The practice, even from the view of a nursing student sworn to protect and serve the public, believes the ramifications of continued research is of critical importance to society and embryonic stem cell research is simply not breaking any respectable codes of ethics. References Baldwing, A. (2009). Morality and Human Embryo Research: Introduction to the Talking Point on Morality and Human Embryo Research, European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 10(4), pp.299-300. Bredeson, D. A. (2011). Applied Business Ethics: A Skills-Based Approach. Cengage Learning. Hooker, B. (2011). Chapter 8: The Demandingness Objection, in T. Chappell, The Problem of Moral Demandingness: New Philosophical Essays. Palgrave MacMillan. Lo, B., Parham, L., Cedars, M., Fisher, S., Gates, E., Giudice, L., et al. (2010). Research Ethics: NIH Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Gamete Donors, Science, 327(Spring), pp.962-963. Norcross, A. (2009). Two Dogmas of Deontology: Aggregation, Rights and the Separateness of Persons, Social Philosophy and Policy, 26(1), pp.76-95. Zhang, S., Lin, H., Kong, S., Wang, S., Wang, H., Wang, H. and Armant, D.R. (2013). Physiological and Molecular Determinants of Embryo Implantation, Molecular Aspects of Medicine, 34(5), pp.939-980. Read More