Michael Adair
Prof. Bousquet
English 1A
25 October 2009
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: The Debate
In the past decade or so, embryonic stem cell research has become an extremely emotional and thought-provoking topic in the United States of America. Embryonic stem cells can come from actual human embryos, typically five to seven days old, or from miscarriages/aborted fetuses. So why all the hype around stem cell research? Some people, typically those with deeply held religious beliefs feel as though the production of embryos, only to remove the stem cells from them a few days later, is a form of murder. They believe that artificially creating an embryo and then removing the stem cells is murder because we are “destroying a human life.” On the other hand, other people feel as though this is not murder because it is not technically “life.” individuals do not feel as though a five-day fetus that was artificially inseminated can be defined as a human life. Typically, people fall on one side or another on this issue depending on his/her definition of human life. However, there are some who recognize this as the taking of a human life, yet feel as though the potential of embryonic stem cell research is worth the lives of fetuses that were created and not used. The governmental stand on the topic influences the entire embryonic stem cell research situation as well. It is amazing how widespread the viewpoints on this topic are, whether the parties involved are scientists, patients, politicians, people with religious objections, or progressive hippies. Each has their own unique take on the situation; hence the strong debates on all sides.
The entire stem cell debate brings up an enormous issue. How do we define life, and at what point does a life begin? Is it ethical to artificially inseminate hundreds of eggs in the hope that one of them will progress into a human life while the others are frozen and useless? Is a life only considered a life once a baby is born, in the 1st trimester, 2nd trimester, 3rd trimester, or at the point of conception? All of these questions are crucial when determining one’s view on embryonic stem cell research. There are many different viewpoints, whether you believe that a five-day-old egg is a “human being,” or whether or not you think it’s just scientific terms until you can actually see the baby with the naked eye. Some people feel that if an egg is artificially inseminated for research purposes, it is not meant to be born. Also, some people feel as though the risk of destroying human life at its early stages is definitely worth it because of the potential health benefits that embryonic stem cell research offers. Two of the primary viewpoints of this issue are of those that are opposed to embryonic stem cell research and those that are supportive of stem cell research.
Many of the people that feel as though embryonic stem cell research is destroying human lives are those of the deeply religious faith. They feel as though there is no potential in embryonic stem cell research that is worth the immoral or ethical act of using newly created embryos for scientific research. In their minds, when a sperm cell and an ovum meet each other conception, this is the beginning of human life. Furthermore, many of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research feel as though embryos receive a soul at the time of conception. This means that they are humans and deserve the right to life. This leads to their conclusion that it is homicide to kill these newly formed embryos for scientific research due to the fact they are “human lives.” Spokesperson Douglas Johnson stated that any embryo destruction of use of stem cells involves the murder of "non-consensual human subjects," (Pew Forum). However, the fact is that none of these cells have turned into anything more than stem cells. They haven’t turned into liver cells, heart cells, bone cells, or anything else. It is at this point that the advocates of stem cell research maintain that it is not a human life, but a cluster of cells, a zygote without embryonic qualities, and therefore is not murder. Non-supporters of embryonic stem cell research are discouraged from admitting that they are wrong about when a human life changes, because it could lead to increases in abortions due to the fact that people will start to consider the fetus inside them not human and abortion levels would rise.
There are many people who disagree with the religious definition of “life,” and when life is conceived. These people are perhaps more scientific in their reasoning that using newly formed embryos, which are just a cluster of cells that aren’t even specific yet, is not any form of murder. Pro-choice advocates do not feel as though a zygote is a human person. They see it as a potential person but nothing more. They believe life begins at a later stage of pregnancy.
The incredible potential of stem cell research drives these proponents because the medical possibilities that unfold with the development of stem cell research can be phenomenal. In response to a question regarding the moral implications of using components of human life for future embryonic stem cell research, James Thomson, the first scientist to isolate and culture embryonic stem cells, stated, “The bottom line is that there are 400,000 frozen embryos in the United States, and a large percentage of those are going to be thrown out. Regardless of what you think the moral status of those embryos is, it makes sense to me that it's a better moral decision to use them to help people than just to throw them out. It's a very complex issue, but to me it boils down to that one thing” (Pew Forum).
The non-supporters who are adamant about their beliefs that stem cell research is “homicide,” even though there are an incredible amount of embryos that have already been created, are halting Scientific/medical progress. These embryos are being frozen and there are hundreds of thousands of them that are not being used for any purpose. Usually they are just discarded, when they could be used for scientific research to help other people who are sick. Laurie Zoloth, Ph.D., professor of medical humanities & bioethics and religion, director of Center for Bioethics at Northwestern University stated in a congressional testimony, "While I respect that this is a difference in theology [regarding the moral status of a human child], and while I understand the passion and the conviction of those for whom the blastocyst is a person from the moment of fertilization, I do not believe this, and it is [a] matter of faith for me as well. My passion and my conviction are toward the suffering of the one I see in need, ill or wounded" (Pew Forum). Is this not morally corrupt to deny those people who are sick an opportunity, even a slight glimmer of hope, that they may someday be better? In a sense, every time someone uses birth control, it’s a form of murder. There are thousands of opportunities for potential life, yet they are stifled by the use of condoms, pills, etc. We must not let foolishness stand in the way of progress.
As with most contemporary issues, the government plays a huge role in the controversy. Due to the fact that people endorse most government decisions (whether or not they agree with the decision) through taxation, the role that the government takes on a subject is crucial. Therefore, each political party has taken a different standpoint on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. The Republican Party, led by George W. Bush, was against embryonic stem cell research. As a result, during the eight years of his presidency, embryonic stem cell research was not fully funded with American tax dollars. However, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party (generally proponents of embryonic stem cell research) have taken office, and the endorsement of stem cell research is changing.
Federal funding of stem cell research remains a hot topic. Whether or not the President decides to fund embryonic stem cell research determines whether or not the American public is paying tax money for a practice that many find immoral. George W. Bush did not entirely discourage federal funds being spent on embryonic stem cell research. He did, however, have extremely specific requirements. In order for federal funds to be used, the derivation process had to have begun before 9 PM on August 9, 2001. This limited a lot of the research that could have taken place. Also, the embryo to be used had to have been created for reproduction purposes with no intention of being used again. One last condition for the research was that there must be consent from the donators to use the embryo, and that no monetary compensation was given (National Institute of Health). These regulations really specified what types of embryonic stem cell research could take place and what types couldn’t, and made the research difficult to perform.
Recently, Obama has overturned the ban that President Bush put on embryonic stem cell research. Obama is in the house (literally) and is making changes right and left. Funding for embryonic stem cell research is no exception. In his first year of presidency, Obama has overturned Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cell funding. This is creating hope for scientists, patients, and doctors alike who felt that Bush’s policies were primarily political and were a detriment to potential scientific/medical possibilities. "I feel vindicated after eight years of struggle, and I know it's going to energize my research team," said Dr George Daley of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children’s Hospital of Boston. "Science works best and patients are served best by having all the tools at our disposal" (Guardian). This opens the door to all sorts of new medical possibilities, even though the debate over the ethical consequences of embryonic stem cell research rage on.
In spite of all the hope behind embryonic stem cell research, I must admit that many of the experiments that have involved stem cell research result in the growth of tumors. However, that is often the progression of scientific research; a few steps forward and one-step backward.
There is hope. Even without the use of embryonic stem cells, there is hope. Advances in other types of non-embryonic stem cell research have led to medical improvements. Adult stem cells are obtained from either umbilical cords or bone marrow and have proved to be effective so far. However, the problem with adult stem cells is they are very difficult to obtain. Obtaining stem cells from bone marrow is a difficult way to proceed with stem cell research, and brain/spinal cells are complicated as well. There has been significant success with the use of adult stem cells in treating spinal cord injuries. My grandmother, Joan Adair, was involved in an automobile accident. She received severe spinal cord injuries from the accident and became a paraplegic. This occurred in the late 1980’s. Eventually the injuries led to complications and she passed away. If stem cell research had been as well known as it is today, then her quality of life may have significantly improved. It is for reasons like this, injured family members that need help, that I am fully supportive of any kind of stem cell research. Why should good people suffer and die because we refuse to use resources and knowledge to expand our medical possibilities? I am a strongly religious man, yet I realize that stem cell research has many more positives than negatives, especially since the negative is an entirely subjective topic with no way to objectively resolve the ethical dilemmas because no one really knows when life begins. It appears as though there is one common theme when considering patients treated by adult stem cell research; they wish people were more informed. Everyone is so caught up in the hype surrounding embryonic stem cells that they aren’t even aware that there are alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. These alternatives, mostly in the form of adult stem cells that have been taken from bone marrow and other areas, have been used in recent years and have been enormously successful in treating diseases. Accounts of patients have been nothing but supportive of stem cell research. Those patients that are extremely religious also agree that adult stem cell research is a great thing, they just disagree with the moral implications of embryonic stem cell research. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a person that is educated in stem cell research that feels as though adult stem cells are a bad idea.
As with every argument, there is always some middle ground. This can be seen in the embryonic stem cell debate as well. Although a great number of people view this practice as “unethical, immoral, and murder,” there are also prominent figures that are pro-life who entirely agree that the scientific potential is much more important than an un-resolvable, subjective debate over the definition of life. U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah July 23, 2006, commented on President Bush's veto of federal funding for stem cell research using human embryos "I understand that many have ethical and moral reservations about stem cell research, but for the same reason I describe myself as pro-life, I embrace embryonic stem cell research because I believe being pro-life is not only caring for the unborn but also caring for the living” (Pew Forum). Medical advances can help future generations, and if the cost is an embryo that will never be used for anything more than being frozen, we should just accept it. Bill Frist, former U.S. senator and Republican majority leader from Tennessee said in a speech on the Senate floor, "I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported. ... An embryo is nascent human life. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science" (Pew Forum). For some people, faith can be incorporated into their beliefs. Logic wins out; we must progress as a society. Faith need not be compromised, just adapted. The benefits outweigh the costs. Just as Niccolo Machiavelli said in The Prince, “The Ends Justify the Means.” We can meet at a middle ground. Yes, many may consider it human life, but at what cost are we preserving a potential human life?
"Human Embryonic Stem Cell Policy Under Former President Bush." Stem Cell Information. National Institute of Health, 10 Mar. 2009. Web. 19 Oct. 2009.
Nasaw, Daniel. "Obama ends Bush ban on embryo stem cell research." Guardian.co.uk. Guardian, 6 Mar. 2009. Web. 19 Oct. 2009.
"Quotes on Stem Cell Research from Political, Religious and Other Prominent Figures." Pewforum.org. The Pew Forum, 17 July 2009. Web. 18 Oct. 2009.
"Success Stories with Adult Stem Cells Coming in Almost Too Fast to Track." LifeSiteNews.com. Life Site News, 20 Jan. 2005. Web. 19 Oct. 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment