Although stem cell research is a very complex and hotly debated topic, I would argue that the Obama administration has done the correct thing by lifting the ban on ALL stem cell research and extending it to stem cell research done only on certain strains. Looking from a utilitarian perspective, saving one life that, in the case of it being selected for infertile couples who are no longer planning to use it and therefore probably will never become a "life", in order to potentially save hundreds of thousands of lives later on is a no-brainer. I'm currently defining life as the ability to take in nutrients, interact with its enviornment, and mature. It makes no sense, from a utilitarian perspective, to waste resources. Jennifer Hicks
I think that the article demonstrates a step forward in terms of medical ethics. The Bush Administration had a very close minded policy regarding research involving embryonic stem cells. The policy of only allowing certain lines to be propagated is very limiting. Obama’s quote suggests that there will be criteria made for more lines to be allowed for use in federally funded research. The question is whether these guidelines will be ethically acceptable. Those who think that there is no circumstance where it is acceptable to destroy embryos will likely say no. the important distinction that was pointed out was that the new lines would be coming from embryos that are excess embryos created for in vitro fertilization. Due to the process that is involved in in vitro fertilization there are many extra embryos that are created. These embryos are not all implanted and after a certain amount of time they are destroyed. If the embryos are being destroyed anyway then there is no reason for people to say that the research is ethically wrong, unless they also think that in vitro fertilization is wrong. In terms of the argument that the adult stem cells are just as useful as the embryonic cells, this is not true. In order for the adult cells to become pluripotent a virus vector is needed and the injection of virus altered cells is very dangerous, since these cells often cause cancer.
I agree with the above comments by “Richard” and “J0vial.” I am by no means an expert in stem cell research; however, I’d like to add another dimension to this conversation. Besides the Utilitarian point of view that has been pointed out already, and the deontological position, we can also view this subject in terms of virtue ethics. Simply put, Aristotle viewed human life on a belt curve. People at the beginning and the end of this curve could not achieve certain standard human actions; therefore, they may not require certain ethical considerations. While this has polemical consequences, the fact remains that in Aristotle’s point of view, saving a fully-active human life would be deemed worthier than those that are not at that point (beginning and end of life). Stem cells cannot achieve certain human qualities (although they may have the potential); and therefore, using them to help human life at a more advanced stage would be morally acceptable. That is not to say that I completely agree (though the argument is compelling), but it’s something to think about. That being said, I think the Obama administration has done a praiseworthy job as far as medical ethics are concerned. After all, they are coming from excess embryos. Bush’s policy of restricting stem cell research seemed counterproductive and morally ambiguous as well.
I think that one of the most controversial aspects of the ban lift is that the scientists who were approved to do the human embryonic stem cell experiments by the Obama administration are "federally" funded. This means that the American public is contribuiting a portion of their taxes to this project. If an individual is completely against stem cell research, this federal project takes away his autonomy and right to decide where to allocate his/her money to something they might feel can go to a better cause; he/she is esstentially paying to have their beliefs challenged. I think taking the ban away definitely betters science and those who wish to undertake it should find private investors to undertake this experiment. It gives medicine a chance to prove itself without the aid of government funds. However challenging the viewpoints of the citizens and giving government resources, albeit for benefencience, can not be done until the project shows more definitive promise and initial success is shown with test runs. First a private company should endorce the project and then if proven efficient ,we should question the public's ethical opinions. After all, stem-cell research is something that can save many lives and do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people for generations to come. What’s the point of technology and furthering ourselves as a human race if we deny that very thing that would lead to our scientific advancement? From a utilitarian perspective this research can help many people. As mentioned, even in vitro, a process where there is excess amount of resources, it seems wasteful to throw out valuable resources/embryos that can help a greatest number of people. One non-existant life can better hundreds, and isn't the medical duty to save as many lives as possible. Nothing is technically being further destroyed, rather created. Organ donating is similar in that science takes from people to better lives; it was also controversial at one point. Not everyone is willing to donate;However, if someone is willing to donate, we take this valuable resource. It is not simply thrown out. IF individuals are willing and it is not federally funded why not save lives when given a chance. Is it ethically defensible to elimimate potentially saved lives simply because an issue is controversial? If every time an issue was controversial a ban would be made, organ donating and many other advancements that have saved lives would never have taken place. Gellena Lukats
I think this change in stem cell research guidlines is a good thing. While, I don't like the fact that to extract stem cells an embryo is destroyed, I think it is ethically sound to extract the cells from embryos left over from fertiliy clinics. If the couple would no longer be using the embryo and consents to it's use in the study then I don't see this as being bad. The embryo wouldn't have the potential to develop further if the couple didn't want to use it. I think however, guidelines should be in place so that the couple is informed of what the embryo wouldn be used for, similar in genetic testing, so that the autonomy of the couple is upheld and respected. Over all, the potential for stem cells to save more lives is greater than the potential for an embryo no longer wanted by an infetile couple, to develop. That being said, more good for more people will occur under these new guidelines making it an ethically sound decision. -A.Rabens
I think the lengthening of the list of acceptable stem cell lines for research, embryonic and others, given the potential benefits is ethically justifiable. Yet, troublesome ethical sticking points still remain, and its difficult to say that there exists any absolute duty to perform such research.
The ethical arguments for broadening embryonic stem cell research are convincing. We don't know what the final destination of all of these cells is, but if they are to be discarded, their use to potentially save lives is a more ethical alternative. Also, it is arguable that an embryo, incapable of any feeling or thought is not truly human or even setient, and their destruction through research is not actually akin to destroying a human life; anti-stem cell arguments on such a basis are then flawed. Continuing, even if embryoes are established as human life, the ethical cost of losing a life at that small of a level does little to outweigh the vast benefits to countless, adult humans possible through its destruction. A cost-benefit analysis leaves little ambiguity.
Thus, the ethicality of Obama's decision outlined in the article is difficult to deny and I applaud it.
Nevertheless, we should remember that we still do not know if the benefits of this research will materialize over time in form of cures, etc. And if, over time, embryonic stem cell research proves to be unfruitful, it may be that the ethicality of years upon years of this research appears very different under that different light.
I believe that that the new process that allows government-funded research of embryonic stem cells, as long as the embryos were obtained with a private funding source, is an important step forward. The article states that “Although embryonic stem cell lines will still have to be created using private funding, federal funding will be permitted for experiments using a much larger array of lines.” Because the source of the stem cells is the ethically debated issue here, I think the government was right to say that private money should still be used to obtain the embryos that would provide the cells. The part-private, part-public funding mechanism should remain in place until society decides that public funding should be used to obtain the embryos (or not).
I would also like to touch on the ethicality of obtaining the embryos in general. Because there are proponents and opponents of the sanctity of the human embryo in this situation, I think we can draw a parallel to the abortion debate. The fact is, abortion is legal in this country. Of course there are certain restrictions on when and how abortions can be performed. But parents do have the right to choose to end a pregnancy (thereby not allowing the embryo to reach its potential). In the case of stem cells from embryos, it seems that we should be consistent in allowing parents to decide what will be done with excess or unused embryos. Regardless of one’s personal stance on the sanctity of embryos, parents should be able to decide how an embryo will be used. Otherwise, we are removing some of the parent’s autonomy. This is assuming, of course, that parents who wish to donate their embryos to scientific research give informed consent and are aware of their options and the purpose of the research.
As previously mentioned, both the Utilitarian point of view and the deontological position can be used to view this subject in terms of virtue ethics. Therefore, I plan to discuss other issues to avoid redundancy.
President Bush’s policy of restricting stem cell research seemed counterproductive and morally ambiguous. His position did not allow for debate or greatly consider the positions of both ethical viewpoints. With that being said, I think the Obama administration has done an exceptional job as far as medical ethics are concerned. They have moved forward in terms of research yet, acknowledged the concerns of both ethical positions. Fewer than two months after taking office in January, President Obama lifted the restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research, reversing a policy that “had put surplus embryos at the crossroads of science, ethics, and religion for eight years.”
As I am doing my final essay on frozen embryo storage and the increasing number of excess embryos stored in fertility clinics all over the world, I greatly approve of the plan to use excess embryos. A nationwide survey conducted by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and the Rand Corporation found that as of April 11, 2002, a total of 396,526 embryos have been placed in storage in the United States and it is estimated that there are well over 500,000 today. Couples have the four options when it comes to their excess embryos: allow them to thaw, store them, donate to another infertile couple or donate them to research.
Researchers are interested in embryonic stem cells because they have the unique potential to become any type of cell in the body and may hold promise for treating conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's, spinal-cord injuries, and others that involve the death of brain cells and other nerve tissue. unfortunately research had been greatly impeded because scientists were limited to using stem cell lines that were created before August 2001. The lifting of the ban means that eventually more parents should be able to donate unused embryos for this research. This is supported by the Boston Globe article that reports that an additional thirteen new stem cell lines can be used for research. Although some may think that thriteen may seem like a rather small number, to scientists this is a huge breakthrough, in which they believe will yield beneficial results of immense proportions.
Unfortunately, the new law won't necessarily end the patchwork nature of stem cell research funding. Almost immediately following the March announcement from the Obama administration, some state governments moved to restrict such research. So the laws and simplicity of donation still vary from state to state and drastically in most cases.
Based on the actions of many state governments tightening the restrictions on stem cell research, the new position of the federal government clearly does not solve all of the legal and ethical issues brought about by stem cell research. The continued research using embryonic stem cells will only increase the number of ethical and legal issues in the future.
I have included a couple links to some articles that relate to this topic and my research topic that I came across while doing my research that you may find interesting:
This approval of research using embryonic stem cells is definitely an important change for the scientific community, but a decision that is absolutely going to enrage some people. I think it's really great that the new Obama administration is not so close-minded as our previous President and that they are really able to view embryonic stem-cell research with a more utilitarian perspective; however, I don't necessarily agree with forcing people who are against it to fund it via taxes. I think that such research is necessary to develop cures, gain insight into the causes, and thus design various preventative measures with regard to a myriad of diseases. In agreement with "Richard", those opposed to embryonic stem-cell research may as well be opposed to in vitro, since the cells used for research are taken from discarded embryos used for in vitro fertilization. That being said, I don't think that the more conservative opinions are going to change overnight, and many people view using these embryonic cells as destroying "life," akin to abortion. Forcing such people to change their opinion and pay for the research doesn't seem ethical to me, and I think a less controversial way to gain funding would be to make it optional.
I do not think that there is any case against doing stem cell research and it is a huge step forward in science for the ban on federal funding to be lifted on stem cell research. The article stated that the embryos that they are using for research were ones that were left over by couples that had probably already undergone IVF, had implantation of other embryos and were no longer going to use these embryos. Why then would it be better to let the embryos sit in a lab in a petri dish when they could be used to better the lives of many people. No life is being destroy--the embryos were not going to be used so they never would have grown into humans anyway. The embryos clearly do not have capacity to think as humans as they are simply a group of cells that could, if implanted into another human, grow into a baby. However, many times multiple embryos are implanted into a woman anyway because doctors know that many "will not take" and will not grow into babies. I do not think that religion has any place in this debate. The parents who created the embryos have full autonomy to make decisions as to what to do with them--the catholic church by no means should have any authority to say that these embryos should not be used.
Regarding Keenan's post, it sounds like your paper is going to be very interesting. The ethical dilemma of what should happen to Stem cells if they are not being used is mind boggling. Is it possible that we could have space in facilities to store the embryos for everyone who wants. I would make the argument that it is a deontilogical duty of those involved in research and fertility work to preserve the embryos and stem cells for all their participants who want them, because it is a duty to preserve life and a negative right meaning those taking care of the cells cannot decide for the participants if they may reproduce or not. Wow, what an unknown field. It is a productive step for the Obama administration to approve the research act, but it just blows my mind that medical technology is really this advanced.
As mentioned a few times above, there are differing view points that can be taken regarding this issue. First, taking the utilitarian perspective, the amount of knowledge that can be learned from using these stem cells has the potential to benefit many people. In addition, the outcomes of this research would no focus on a specific disease, they have the ability to discover a lot about many different topics. It seems that the use of one embryo has more potential to do good than one individual life.
On the other side of this is the deontological perspective, which would view the embryo as a life and say that it should not be used for the purposed of research. Since the embryo has so much potential, using it in this form and not allowing it for it to reach that potential is unethical. Although this could be argued, the use of this embryo would have the potential to sustain life for many people.
One final thing to note is that I believe that autonomy plays an important role in this. Since this is an extremely contested subject, often tied with religious beliefs, it seems as if the only ethical way to go about the situation would be to make sure that the parents of the embryos being used for stem cell research want them to be used for this. In this way, individual people are able to use their autonomy to make their own decisions.
Provided that the cell extraction methods for the embryos are done ethically under the guidelines that Obama requested from the NIH this seems to be an amazing opportunity for the scientific community to expand into a previously, largely restricted area of research. The stem cells used thus far seem to be from “leftovers” from couples seeking fertility treatments as well, which means that the embryo, if not used for this purpose, would have remained unused in cold storage, not allowed to become a life, but also not allowed to contribute to a potentially beneficial research opportunity that would bring about good for the general population. In addition to this point though, the embryo is sustained in a state that is not really life yet. Without implantation into a woman the cells are just material in a fridge. If the material is to be discarded or put away, it seems that if some prospective benefit to society could be obtainable, then it should be allowed, given that the alternative for the material would be disposal otherwise. Even with the potential this research has, I can see that because this is federally funded research, there are many individuals that feel that their contribution into the federal government via taxes should not be used in a way that they do not support, but this can also be seen on the flip side, where people that are for this research want to see their funds allocated towards something other than war or other federal programs they don’t support. In addition to this, because this was a decision made by the president, who was approved by a majority of the country, his decisions can be seen as a reflection of the opinions of the majority of Americans who chose to elect him.
This is a blog for students of my PH 251 (Fall 2009) class. Please use this forum to initiate discussion and participate in our examinations of medical ethics. Your responses will count towards your participation grade.
Although stem cell research is a very complex and hotly debated topic, I would argue that the Obama administration has done the correct thing by lifting the ban on ALL stem cell research and extending it to stem cell research done only on certain strains. Looking from a utilitarian perspective, saving one life that, in the case of it being selected for infertile couples who are no longer planning to use it and therefore probably will never become a "life", in order to potentially save hundreds of thousands of lives later on is a no-brainer. I'm currently defining life as the ability to take in nutrients, interact with its enviornment, and mature. It makes no sense, from a utilitarian perspective, to waste resources.
ReplyDeleteJennifer Hicks
I think that the article demonstrates a step forward in terms of medical ethics. The Bush Administration had a very close minded policy regarding research involving embryonic stem cells. The policy of only allowing certain lines to be propagated is very limiting. Obama’s quote suggests that there will be criteria made for more lines to be allowed for use in federally funded research.
ReplyDeleteThe question is whether these guidelines will be ethically acceptable. Those who think that there is no circumstance where it is acceptable to destroy embryos will likely say no. the important distinction that was pointed out was that the new lines would be coming from embryos that are excess embryos created for in vitro fertilization. Due to the process that is involved in in vitro fertilization there are many extra embryos that are created. These embryos are not all implanted and after a certain amount of time they are destroyed. If the embryos are being destroyed anyway then there is no reason for people to say that the research is ethically wrong, unless they also think that in vitro fertilization is wrong. In terms of the argument that the adult stem cells are just as useful as the embryonic cells, this is not true. In order for the adult cells to become pluripotent a virus vector is needed and the injection of virus altered cells is very dangerous, since these cells often cause cancer.
I agree with the above comments by “Richard” and “J0vial.” I am by no means an expert in stem cell research; however, I’d like to add another dimension to this conversation. Besides the Utilitarian point of view that has been pointed out already, and the deontological position, we can also view this subject in terms of virtue ethics. Simply put, Aristotle viewed human life on a belt curve. People at the beginning and the end of this curve could not achieve certain standard human actions; therefore, they may not require certain ethical considerations. While this has polemical consequences, the fact remains that in Aristotle’s point of view, saving a fully-active human life would be deemed worthier than those that are not at that point (beginning and end of life). Stem cells cannot achieve certain human qualities (although they may have the potential); and therefore, using them to help human life at a more advanced stage would be morally acceptable. That is not to say that I completely agree (though the argument is compelling), but it’s something to think about.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think the Obama administration has done a praiseworthy job as far as medical ethics are concerned. After all, they are coming from excess embryos. Bush’s policy of restricting stem cell research seemed counterproductive and morally ambiguous as well.
I think that one of the most controversial aspects of the ban lift is that the scientists who were approved to do the human embryonic stem cell experiments by the Obama administration are "federally" funded. This means that the American public is contribuiting a portion of their taxes to this project. If an individual is completely against stem cell research, this federal project takes away his autonomy and right to decide where to allocate his/her money to something they might feel can go to a better cause; he/she is esstentially paying to have their beliefs challenged. I think taking the ban away definitely betters science and those who wish to undertake it should find private investors to undertake this experiment. It gives medicine a chance to prove itself without the aid of government funds.
ReplyDeleteHowever challenging the viewpoints of the citizens and giving government resources, albeit for benefencience, can not be done until the project shows more definitive promise and initial success is shown with test runs. First a private company should endorce the project and then if proven efficient ,we should question the public's ethical opinions. After all, stem-cell research is something that can save many lives and do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people for generations to come. What’s the point of technology and furthering ourselves as a human race if we deny that very thing that would lead to our scientific advancement?
From a utilitarian perspective this research can help many people. As mentioned, even in vitro, a process where there is excess amount of resources, it seems wasteful to throw out valuable resources/embryos that can help a greatest number of people. One non-existant life can better hundreds, and isn't the medical duty to save as many lives as possible. Nothing is technically being further destroyed, rather created.
Organ donating is similar in that science takes from people to better lives; it was also controversial at one point. Not everyone is willing to donate;However, if someone is willing to donate, we take this valuable resource. It is not simply thrown out. IF individuals are willing and it is not federally funded why not save lives when given a chance. Is it ethically defensible to elimimate potentially saved lives simply because an issue is controversial? If every time an issue was controversial a ban would be made, organ donating and many other advancements that have saved lives would never have taken place.
Gellena Lukats
I think this change in stem cell research guidlines is a good thing. While, I don't like the fact that to extract stem cells an embryo is destroyed, I think it is ethically sound to extract the cells from embryos left over from fertiliy clinics. If the couple would no longer be using the embryo and consents to it's use in the study then I don't see this as being bad. The embryo wouldn't have the potential to develop further if the couple didn't want to use it. I think however, guidelines should be in place so that the couple is informed of what the embryo wouldn be used for, similar in genetic testing, so that the autonomy of the couple is upheld and respected. Over all, the potential for stem cells to save more lives is greater than the potential for an embryo no longer wanted by an infetile couple, to develop. That being said, more good for more people will occur under these new guidelines making it an ethically sound decision.
ReplyDelete-A.Rabens
I think the lengthening of the list of acceptable stem cell lines for research, embryonic and others, given the potential benefits is ethically justifiable. Yet, troublesome ethical sticking points still remain, and its difficult to say that there exists any absolute duty to perform such research.
ReplyDeleteThe ethical arguments for broadening embryonic stem cell research are convincing. We don't know what the final destination of all of these cells is, but if they are to be discarded, their use to potentially save lives is a more ethical alternative. Also, it is arguable that an embryo, incapable of any feeling or thought is not truly human or even setient, and their destruction through research is not actually akin to destroying a human life; anti-stem cell arguments on such a basis are then flawed. Continuing, even if embryoes are established as human life, the ethical cost of losing a life at that small of a level does little to outweigh the vast benefits to countless, adult humans possible through its destruction. A cost-benefit analysis leaves little ambiguity.
Thus, the ethicality of Obama's decision outlined in the article is difficult to deny and I applaud it.
Nevertheless, we should remember that we still do not know if the benefits of this research will materialize over time in form of cures, etc. And if, over time, embryonic stem cell research proves to be unfruitful, it may be that the ethicality of years upon years of this research appears very different under that different light.
-Patrick Duggan
I believe that that the new process that allows government-funded research of embryonic stem cells, as long as the embryos were obtained with a private funding source, is an important step forward. The article states that “Although embryonic stem cell lines will still have to be created using private funding, federal funding will be permitted for experiments using a much larger array of lines.” Because the source of the stem cells is the ethically debated issue here, I think the government was right to say that private money should still be used to obtain the embryos that would provide the cells. The part-private, part-public funding mechanism should remain in place until society decides that public funding should be used to obtain the embryos (or not).
ReplyDeleteI would also like to touch on the ethicality of obtaining the embryos in general. Because there are proponents and opponents of the sanctity of the human embryo in this situation, I think we can draw a parallel to the abortion debate. The fact is, abortion is legal in this country. Of course there are certain restrictions on when and how abortions can be performed. But parents do have the right to choose to end a pregnancy (thereby not allowing the embryo to reach its potential). In the case of stem cells from embryos, it seems that we should be consistent in allowing parents to decide what will be done with excess or unused embryos. Regardless of one’s personal stance on the sanctity of embryos, parents should be able to decide how an embryo will be used. Otherwise, we are removing some of the parent’s autonomy. This is assuming, of course, that parents who wish to donate their embryos to scientific research give informed consent and are aware of their options and the purpose of the research.
-Rebecca Fink
As previously mentioned, both the Utilitarian point of view and the deontological position can be used to view this subject in terms of virtue ethics. Therefore, I plan to discuss other issues to avoid redundancy.
ReplyDeletePresident Bush’s policy of restricting stem cell research seemed counterproductive and morally ambiguous. His position did not allow for debate or greatly consider the positions of both ethical viewpoints. With that being said, I think the Obama administration has done an exceptional job as far as medical ethics are concerned. They have moved forward in terms of research yet, acknowledged the concerns of both ethical positions. Fewer than two months after taking office in January, President Obama lifted the restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research, reversing a policy that “had put surplus embryos at the crossroads of science, ethics, and religion for eight years.”
As I am doing my final essay on frozen embryo storage and the increasing number of excess embryos stored in fertility clinics all over the world, I greatly approve of the plan to use excess embryos. A nationwide survey conducted by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and the Rand Corporation found that as of April 11, 2002, a total of 396,526 embryos have been placed in storage in the United States and it is estimated that there are well over 500,000 today. Couples have the four options when it comes to their excess embryos: allow them to thaw, store them, donate to another infertile couple or donate them to research.
Researchers are interested in embryonic stem cells because they have the unique potential to become any type of cell in the body and may hold promise for treating conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's, spinal-cord injuries, and others that involve the death of brain cells and other nerve tissue. unfortunately research had been greatly impeded because scientists were limited to using stem cell lines that were created before August 2001. The lifting of the ban means that eventually more parents should be able to donate unused embryos for this research. This is supported by the Boston Globe article that reports that an additional thirteen new stem cell lines can be used for research. Although some may think that thriteen may seem like a rather small number, to scientists this is a huge breakthrough, in which they believe will yield beneficial results of immense proportions.
Unfortunately, the new law won't necessarily end the patchwork nature of stem cell research funding. Almost immediately following the March announcement from the Obama administration, some state governments moved to restrict such research. So the laws and simplicity of donation still vary from state to state and drastically in most cases.
Based on the actions of many state governments tightening the restrictions on stem cell research, the new position of the federal government clearly does not solve all of the legal and ethical issues brought about by stem cell research. The continued research using embryonic stem cells will only increase the number of ethical and legal issues in the future.
I have included a couple links to some articles that relate to this topic and my research topic that I came across while doing my research that you may find interesting:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9038/index1.html
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/456483
http://www.fertilityfriends.co.uk/content/view/224/103/
-KEENAN
This approval of research using embryonic stem cells is definitely an important change for the scientific community, but a decision that is absolutely going to enrage some people. I think it's really great that the new Obama administration is not so close-minded as our previous President and that they are really able to view embryonic stem-cell research with a more utilitarian perspective; however, I don't necessarily agree with forcing people who are against it to fund it via taxes.
ReplyDeleteI think that such research is necessary to develop cures, gain insight into the causes, and thus design various preventative measures with regard to a myriad of diseases.
In agreement with "Richard", those opposed to embryonic stem-cell research may as well be opposed to in vitro, since the cells used for research are taken from discarded embryos used for in vitro fertilization. That being said, I don't think that the more conservative opinions are going to change overnight, and many people view using these embryonic cells as destroying "life," akin to abortion. Forcing such people to change their opinion and pay for the research doesn't seem ethical to me, and I think a less controversial way to gain funding would be to make it optional.
I do not think that there is any case against doing stem cell research and it is a huge step forward in science for the ban on federal funding to be lifted on stem cell research. The article stated that the embryos that they are using for research were ones that were left over by couples that had probably already undergone IVF, had implantation of other embryos and were no longer going to use these embryos. Why then would it be better to let the embryos sit in a lab in a petri dish when they could be used to better the lives of many people. No life is being destroy--the embryos were not going to be used so they never would have grown into humans anyway. The embryos clearly do not have capacity to think as humans as they are simply a group of cells that could, if implanted into another human, grow into a baby. However, many times multiple embryos are implanted into a woman anyway because doctors know that many "will not take" and will not grow into babies. I do not think that religion has any place in this debate. The parents who created the embryos have full autonomy to make decisions as to what to do with them--the catholic church by no means should have any authority to say that these embryos should not be used.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Keenan's post, it sounds like your paper is going to be very interesting. The ethical dilemma of what should happen to Stem cells if they are not being used is mind boggling. Is it possible that we could have space in facilities to store the embryos for everyone who wants. I would make the argument that it is a deontilogical duty of those involved in research and fertility work to preserve the embryos and stem cells for all their participants who want them, because it is a duty to preserve life and a negative right meaning those taking care of the cells cannot decide for the participants if they may reproduce or not. Wow, what an unknown field. It is a productive step for the Obama administration to approve the research act, but it just blows my mind that medical technology is really this advanced.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned a few times above, there are differing view points that can be taken regarding this issue. First, taking the utilitarian perspective, the amount of knowledge that can be learned from using these stem cells has the potential to benefit many people. In addition, the outcomes of this research would no focus on a specific disease, they have the ability to discover a lot about many different topics. It seems that the use of one embryo has more potential to do good than one individual life.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side of this is the deontological perspective, which would view the embryo as a life and say that it should not be used for the purposed of research. Since the embryo has so much potential, using it in this form and not allowing it for it to reach that potential is unethical. Although this could be argued, the use of this embryo would have the potential to sustain life for many people.
One final thing to note is that I believe that autonomy plays an important role in this. Since this is an extremely contested subject, often tied with religious beliefs, it seems as if the only ethical way to go about the situation would be to make sure that the parents of the embryos being used for stem cell research want them to be used for this. In this way, individual people are able to use their autonomy to make their own decisions.
Provided that the cell extraction methods for the embryos are done ethically under the guidelines that Obama requested from the NIH this seems to be an amazing opportunity for the scientific community to expand into a previously, largely restricted area of research. The stem cells used thus far seem to be from “leftovers” from couples seeking fertility treatments as well, which means that the embryo, if not used for this purpose, would have remained unused in cold storage, not allowed to become a life, but also not allowed to contribute to a potentially beneficial research opportunity that would bring about good for the general population. In addition to this point though, the embryo is sustained in a state that is not really life yet. Without implantation into a woman the cells are just material in a fridge. If the material is to be discarded or put away, it seems that if some prospective benefit to society could be obtainable, then it should be allowed, given that the alternative for the material would be disposal otherwise.
ReplyDeleteEven with the potential this research has, I can see that because this is federally funded research, there are many individuals that feel that their contribution into the federal government via taxes should not be used in a way that they do not support, but this can also be seen on the flip side, where people that are for this research want to see their funds allocated towards something other than war or other federal programs they don’t support. In addition to this, because this was a decision made by the president, who was approved by a majority of the country, his decisions can be seen as a reflection of the opinions of the majority of Americans who chose to elect him.