Stem Cell Therapy Research
There are many pros and cons to stem cell therapy. If stem cell therapy can help patients who suffer from diseases that is no cure then why not use it? There have been cases that have helped patients with parkinson’s disease, autoimmune, alzheimers, heart attacks, etc.. Of course, like all other forms of medical treatments there are side effects: the cells not taking, sickness from the therapy, but the biggest is seen when embryonic stem cells are used. I personally see no issue in using adult or umbilical stem cells. There are families who have children with chronic illnesses who need their umbilical cords harvested so that later in life, the cells can help save them. No, this is not a cure but this is a way to better their life. Sometimes, there is just only so much man can do, we are not God, but we do have the resources He has provided us (ncbi.org).
When embryos are used for stem cell treatment, the embryo is destroyed in the process (stemcellresearch.org). There has also been only a few clinical success stories from embryonic stem cell therapy. This is because embryonic stem cells can be easily rejected, just as a kidney can be during a kidney transplant. During this research there have been obstacles. For example, there
…show more content…
But why not try and push the barriers, of umbilical and adult, until we as a culture know every possibility. If scientists are quick to jump to embryonic research and destroying an embryo in the process, why not take the time and look at every single possible side. I know that not every person in this world has the same worldview as I do. I know that not everyone sees the embryo as sacred as I do, but I do hope that the world would push and challenge every option before this one. The Bible encourages us to stay away from evil even if it is to bring good to others in Romans 3:8
I think the fact that a patient can use their own stem cells to heal is an amazing concept. It makes for a faster healing process, much less treatment than all the follow ups that are needed for grafting, and possibly less painful. If I needed this treatment I would definitely consider using stem
According to Smiths article researchers call the embryonic stem cells "spare and leftover"(Smith 24). So meaning the embryo is worthless. Smith strongly disagrees and says the use
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.
However, the success of researchers has been limited as the
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
I agree with Ridge because it is not right for people to only focus on those children that are born. People should focus on both because it should not matter if the baby is still in the womb, it is a human already.
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.
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.
Tooley argues that since an embryo is not “capable of desiring to continue existing as a subject of experiences” (from class notes provided), then it is ethically acceptable to terminate the unborn. In his opinion, if it lacks complete awareness then it
Not all of the stem cells are controversial. Mostly the only one that people don’t approve of is the Embryonic Stem cell transplant. Embryonic Stem Cell Research is when scientist take cells from aborted fetuses or fertilized eggs and use then for medical research purposes. This causes controversy because it is against most people 's religion to get abortions. Even if it not against their religion, some people still do not like the idea of taking stem cells from aborted babies and putting them into sick people.
One of the most important arguments to this debate is presented through the scientific lens. Although embryonic stem cells pose enormous potential to treat and cure diseases and conditions, adult stem cells are more effective in treating these conditions. Adult stem cells pose a much lesser risk of forming tumors or not functioning as originally intended (Smith). Adult stem cells are also currently used today, as bone marrow transplants are a form of stem cell treatment (Stem Cells in Use).
One of the furthermost essential issues in biomedical ethics is the controversy around abortion. There’s a long history on this controversy and it is still critically debated among researchers and the public in both terms of morality and legality. Some of the basic questions argued that may perhaps characterize the importance of the issue: Is abortion morally justifiable? Does the foetus/embryo/zygote have any moral and legal rights? Is the foetus a human being and, if so, should it be protected?
As stated in the paragraph above, the fetus is believed to be a person and killing is thought to be one of the most immoral crimes. Those who believe life begins at conception feel that the unborn child deserves protection. Some would argue that adoption is an alternative to having an abortion. Everyone should be familiar with the law that allows for children to be dropped off at churches, fire stations, and police departments. Why not use this route as an alternative to
Abortion is a never-ending controversial topic, that is why it is important to examine the definition of a fetus, pro-life arguments, and pro-choice arguments. “According to the Bible, life begins at birth- when a baby draws its first breath” (Knapp 45). A baby is considered living at no other time prior. Arguments among the abortion debate have brought this fact into dispute over many years, even before abortion was legalized in 1973 in the court case Roe vs Wade. As written in the Abortion Controversy, I believe that an early embryo may be called a potential human being.
Many people view this as destroying a potential for life to futher scientific research and knowledge. A lot of the opposition to stem cell research comes from the moral belief that human life begins at conception and some see it that destroying an embryo for medical research or even to treat another human is morally the same as killing a human child or adult for research. Many people with these views are strongly religious Roman Catholics or Orthodox