Over the years, there have been many controversial issues surrounding medical research, but one of the most arguable topics of all time is the use of embryonic stem cells. Some individuals believe that extracting stem cells from unborn babies will be useful to create new medications or, in most cases, help regenerate damaged cells. Although, many people disagree with the process scientists use to obtain these stem cells. By continuing embryonic stem cell research, scientists are denying an unborn child the chance to live, they are not letting nature take its intended course, and they are not adhering to the religious or moral beliefs of many people. For these reasons, embryonic stem cell research should be discouraged. According to the National Institutes of …show more content…
The worst part about this method is that the baby will not survive the steps taken to harvest the stem cells. The babies used for this research will never get to experience the joys of life. Just think, a baby used for stem cell research could have become the next President of the United States, but it was never given a chance. The possibilities are endless, but nobody will ever know what the future holds for these children unless embryonic stem cell research is stopped. Throughout history, disease has ravaged the world. Many people cannot explain this phenomenon, but others believe that God planned for it to happen. These individuals believe that God has a reason for everything. In the world today, heart disease has become a real problem among other conditions. According to the National Institute of Health, “it may become possible to generate healthy heart muscle cells in the laboratory and then transplant those cells into patients with chronic heart disease” (“Stem Cell Basics VII”). This could potentially be a cure for heart disease, but many people do not see it that way. Many individuals believe that by
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The issue of modification through gene manipulation becomes increasingly complex when considering how this technology can be used as a means to unethical and harmful uses. In the article, Babies with Genes From 3 people could be Ethical, Panel Says, Rob Stein exposes various concerns about three gene donors in an embryo, including how a scientist, “Could introduce some new disease into the human gene pool or that scientists could try to do this for other reasons-nonmedical reasons, like create designer babies where parents pick the traits of their children.” Stein goes on to explain how the gene replacement procedure would take place, which continues to usher in a plethora of concerns as whether to allow Crispr technology be tested on a embryo.
The essay “Best Hope Lies in Privately Funded Stem Cell Research”, states the importance of stem cell research and the effects it can have on curing disease more effectively than any other method. Written by Sigrid Fry-Revere, PhD, director of bioethics studies at the Cato Institute; the author of the paper emphasizes the importance of funding programs for stem cell research on highlights the government holding out on funding due to ethical reasons. Revere claims that the government is threatening the private investing of stem cell research organizations and are trying to put a stop to production of research. This essay is targeted for people who are academic/bioethics orientated and the future of the world disease control and abolishment.
The goal with fetal tissue research is to find new and improved ways of dealing with diseases. Almost everyone in our country has used a source that has come from the research of fetal tissue. (Fetal tissue, 5) So on the ethics and morals side of the argument any fetal tissue used for research has helped saved millions of people from dealing with diseases such as chickenpox, flu, etc. The argument most people make is that abortion is evil and shouldn’t be supported.
How would you feel if you tried something new that was putting your life in danger? It’s also a fifty percent chance of you making it through the new procedure. Embryonic stem research have not a total success in this world today. First, the treatments may not even work on a person why get your hopes up high. Second, they’re doing this thing called human cloning.
People who want to protect the lives of infants say we should not practice embryonic stem research on embryos because they believe it is unethical and they care about the lives of children. Since their beliefs and values differ from those of the religious beliefs and philosophical thinkers, they tend to have different reasons, and they tend to cite different evidence in support of their claim. For example, in “embryonic stem cell debate brings politics ethics to bench” Charles Marwick argues a principal claim in stark contrast to the position held by Glick. Whereas Glick said, “embryonic stem cell is ethical,” Marwick replies, “that embryonic stem cell is unethical.” And Marwick further supports his her principal claim with reasons that reflect his values and beliefs.
Ian Kerridge and Ronald Fung in "Uncertain Translation, Uncertain Benefit And Uncertain Risk: Ethical Challenges Facing First-In-Human Trials Of Induced Pluripotent Stem (Ips) Cells" talk about the discovery of “induced pluripotent stem (iPS)” in 2006 and its application in cell replacement therapy, and how it changed the debate on the ethics stem cell. In the article Ian and Ronald explain how iPS is different from the regular stem cell, and how it changes the debate of ethics in this matter. The problems with the ethics and stem cells are the experiments, and use of embryos, and ova taken from women and do research with it. Although the iPS is one alternative to the stem cell research, are different from the normal human stem cells. In conclusion
Embryonic stem cell research is the research of stem cells by removing embryos developed from fertilized eggs to be used for restoring tissue that has been damaged by diabetes, heart attacks, and other major injuries or disease (“NIH Stem Cell Information”). The controversy of this topic makes it difficult to decide whether it is right or wrong and impossible to respect both sides. Arguing for one side, the embryo must be destroyed to potentially save another human being’s life. And for the other, one life is always being sacrificed. Stem cell research destroys potential human life, and scientists should find other forms of research to obtain stem cells without harming anyone (“NIH Stem Cell Information”).
Embryonic Stem cell research is a controversial issue in America right now and has been for years. Personally when I first saw read about this topic I knew I was going to be against it because of my religious beliefs. However, after doing more research and reading more into it, I actually think we need to continue funding for this. I know many people would disagree with me but this could save millions of people from suffering every day.
A blastocyst, which is what a five-day-old embryo is considered, is just a clump of cells that has the potential of becoming a human being but just because it has the potential does not mean that it makes it a human being or that it’s alive. If harvesting the ES cell from within a blastocyst can improve the quality of life for living human beings, and then I do not have a problem with that. The current argument is that destroying human embryos is akin to killing
This experimentation, however, has caused a controversy in ethical issues. Many people believe that embryonic stem cell research is very unethical for it uses the embryo of a soon to be child for its studies. Many people against abortion feel that this goes hand in hand for it takes the embryo of what was to be a child in the future. Others believe that this embryo research is neccesarry to help prolong the lives of those who are already living. In the novel “Unwind” they used the unwinding process to prolong life with organ donation as they are attempting to do with stem cells.
This procedure’s purpose is to switch out genes for more preferred ones, especially to improve the health of the child. Genetic engineering could permit selection of desired physical and pleasurable traits for non-medical reasons, which has created concern in some people. The process of switching out the genes of a fetus to install genes that are more preferred has brought up debate about whether or not parents should be able to alter their babies genes to make them more appealing to the parents interests. There are many different ways of looking at this procedure and in contrast to other scientific procedures it can be for greater good or for unnecessary enhancement that could potentially create problems in society. Designer babies aren’t morally correct or incorrect, but are in between depending on what it is being used for.
When the stem cells are harvested, the fetus is destroyed. This breaks the code of ethics for engineers when it says, “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” . Destroying the fetus is obviously a breach of this because the engineers are not concerned with the safety or health of the fetus. Some people do not agree that this is an ethical issue because they believe a fetus does not have life yet. Most religions agree that life begins at the moment of conception, therefore destroying a fetus is murder.
The procedure putting another extra clone gene to the mom’s womb and growing is not easy and sometimes it can cause moms and the child 's death. Because we want a clone baby doesn’t mean we want to kill the moms so it is irrelevant and hazardous. Peoples want to believe that we shouldn 't be afraid of cloning babies or having engineered baby, but however people connected to their religion and didn’t want to mess with their god(religion) so because of that most of the people didn’t want to accept this technology. As seen in the (Caplan’s) article, scientists are using CRISPR CAS9 to make a new engineered baby. This tool helps to edit genes in animals and insects and now it also works on human to modify their genes and to enter the new gene to make clone babies.the intriguing instance of genetic modification was that there is a lot of controversies and agreements in human cloning.
Many questions arise when discussing such controversial issues (Jaenisch et al.). Some of these questions include "the central, apparently unresolvable issue of the moral status of the human embryo, which raises questions about which perspectives should govern appropriate pluralistic policy" (Jaenisch et al.). There are also questions as to how to weigh the "possible scientific breakthroughs" with the "less quantifiable values and perspectives" (Jaenisch et al.). While there are decent arguments on how the copying of a human being could be