Controversial Issues:

Human Embryonic Stem Cells

 Yolanda  

Ethics 111

Professor Walkup

April 6, 2005

Introduction

            Over the past few years there has been much debate over the use of embryonic stem cells in research. Scientists believe stem cell research could greatly advance the practice of medicine, and a vast majority of people suffering from disease could benefit from this research in the future. Although scientists believe stem cell research will enhance medicine, others strongly feel this type of research is immoral because the process results in the destruction of human embryos.

            Stem cells were discovered in 1998, the embryonic stem cell had been grown successfully in cell culture. Unfortunately, Congress banned federal funding for research on human embryos which currently leaves funding up to private investors. The fear in using human embryonic tissue in research is that some believe it could develop a slippery slope in the world of medicine.

Supportive and Disapproving Arguments

On Stem Cell Research

            The article Human Embryo Research (2001) reports, “Human embryos are defined as human organisms derived by fertilization from 1 or more gametes or diploid cells” (p. 813). Researchers are hoping that with further study of stem cells, the specialized cells will provide treatment, or possibly cure many serious and incurable diseases, diseases like leukemia, Alzheimer’s, diabetes as well as Parkinson’s disease and spinal-cord injuries. Use of healthy stem cells could someday replace dead tissue in the hearts of patients with heart disease or liver tissue in patients with liver disease. Embryonic stem cells have the potential to repair or regenerate tissues, organs and in the probable future repair permanently damaged limbs. These are arguments for stem cell research.

Stem cells are a very specialized type of cell. They are unique and unlike any other cells in our bodies. These cells are what scientists call unspecialized because they have the ability to become or turn into more specialized type of cells. Also they are able to divide for a long period of time, (a pool of stem cells will continue to replenish itself with new, identical stem cells).  There are different categories of stem cells: there are embryonic stem cells which come from embryos; fetal stem cells (from fetuses); umbilical stem cells (from umbilical cords); and adult stem cells which can come from many parts of the body. For the purpose of this essay focus will be on embryonic stem cells.

            Embryonic stem cells according to scientists hold the most promise for medical research. According to the Stem Cells in the Spotlight article (2004), these particular categories of stem cells are “pluripotent”. They have the greatest potential to become any kind of cell in the human body. These stem cells come from an embryo or blastocyst that has developed for five days.  Scientist reported; a blastocyst, or hollow collection of cells (formed four or five days after fertilization) is composed of two individual layers. The outer layer of cells will form into the placenta and the inner layer becomes any cell type in the body. The inner layer of the cell is the portion used in the researching process (p. 2).

            The debate of stem cell research is a continuing controversy overlapping the morality and ethics of abortion because some believe an embryo is a living being with a “fundamental right to life”. Opponents say this is an intolerable practice and destroying human embryos is a violation of the protection of human life, and manipulation of embryos and stem cells are strictly unacceptable. They feel under all circumstances, embryonic stem cell research should not take place nor should it be funded by federal dollars (p. 2).

            Nancy Frazier O’Brien (2005) claimed, “Embryonic stem cells have never treated a human patient, and animal trials suggest that they are too genetically unstable and too likely to form lethal tumors to be used for treatment anytime soon. …this kind of promise has been exaggerated and has misled researchers and patient groups before. …in the case of fetal tissue from abortions, which a decade ago was said to promise miracle cures and has produced nothing of the kind” (p. 1). Since the University of Wisconsin researchers discovered how to isolate and manipulate human embryonic stem cells in 1998, there has not been any actual successful treatment to any human disease or condition with the cells. O’Brien suggests that scientists are functioning on theory.

Other Avenues of Research

                        Since embryonic stem cell research is causing such divisions, even though they are thought to hold the highest potential in treating and possibly curing diseases, many other aspects of research can be explored. Maybe scientists should further research the use of adult stem cells and abandon the usage of embryonic stem cells altogether. They have found stem cells to come from three sources reported O’Brien (2005): “pregnancy (tissue of an umbilical cord, placentas and amniotic fluid), adult tissues and organs such as bone marrow, liver, skin, intestine, brain and even fat; and rarely, postmortem human brains up to 20 hours after death” (p. 1).  Unfortunately, unlike the embryonic stem cell, it is found that adult stem cells do not have the capability of becoming any particular type of cell. The adult stem cells are limited to what they can and cannot become. It is likely this alternative will satisfy pro-life supporters.

Ethical Theories

            The solution of using other sources of stem cells would satisfy the deontologist also known as nonconsequentialism. An ethical theory based upon some other moral standard or higher standard. Standards such as, the Divine Command Theory (Ten Commandments) and Kant’s Duty Ethics. Unlike teleological theory (a theory concerned with the consequences of actions) deontological theory in this situation is more concerned about the actual act than the consequence of the act. In the long run this research would help an astronomical number of individuals in ways the individual himself could only understand, but because it is believed a human life is being destroyed to save others, Kant would argue that all humans at all ages and stages of life deserve to be treated with ultimate respect, and embryonic stem cell research should not be done under any circumstances.

            Ethical Egoist, concerned more about their own self-interest than the better regards of others, would disagree with Deontological theories in this matter. Feeling we should act in our own self interest and who should care if we are harming an embryo. It has no feeling, spirit, or any attachment to life as we know it. If it would benefit me in the long run, then I should definitely use it as a resource. Or perhaps to say the need to affect the greatest number of people. The research may interrupt the possible life of a living being, but it is well worth the sacrifice of a few embryos (it would save lives of so many others).

            Utilitarian supporters, an ethical theory originally established by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, both advocates of bringing about good consequences and/or happiness to all those involved (the greatest good for the greatest number), or as an Act Utilitarian, stating one should perform that act which will bring about the greatest amount of good for all concerned, would argue who is to determine whether or not the act of using human embryonic stem cells for the bettering of the world is morally wrong. It will produce an overall amount of pleasure in the long run for many people in the world. Those who are in need of cures from disease feel their particular circumstance is good enough reason to take the action of using embryonic stem cells produced for the purpose of research or otherwise. The end results are the only thing which should matter in this case.

Discussion

In conclusion, I find support of human embryonic stem cell research very convincing. It is believed scientists are speculating on nothing more than a theory in this matter. Theorizing that all of the previously mentioned advantages of embryo use will come to fruition just as any other hypothesized theory.

In science courses, the first and foremost objective to be covered is the definition of science. I was taught that science is nothing more than a branch of knowledge that produces theoretical explanations of phenomena based on experiments and observations. Scientists are supposed to study, experiment and observe cases under study to enrich and enlighten the world. That is what embryo researchers are trying to accomplish.

Before modern medicine, many rejected theories based on the function and make up of the human body. Veins and arteries were not believed to be filled with blood but instead air. It was not until decades later that the basic functions of the human body were understood. According to Mary Belles (2005), rejection also occurred when Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis, physician and advocate of antisepsis, (preventing infection by stopping the growth of infectious agents) theorized a treatment that would reduce the incidence of death in maternity wards in 1846. At first, just as human embryonic stem cell promises are being refuted, his theory was also refuted by his colleagues because at this point in history his theory went against all scientific opinions of that time. But in the long run his theory was proven when the death rate was reduced more than 90% between the years of 1846 and 1848. The point made is that sometimes theories seem preposterous to those who have not had the vision of a proposed idea. It is only natural to refute what we think is impossible.

I believe the controversial issue is misunderstood by many people. Before writing on this topic, I asked several people of their opinion on the issue. Though I approached educated individuals, the terms used in relation to the topic required clarification. For instance, defining stem cell as well as embryo. Also, the procedures involved in the research process had to be explained before the individuals could comment on how they really felt about the issues concerning embryonic stem cell research.

The name embryonic stem cell research is misleading. When such words are heard, many people usually unconsciously associate an embryo to a fetus. In fact, in this situation it is not. This is the result of sperm and an oocyte (egg) fusing together after fertilization has taken place in a petri dish. In order for these cells to ever become a human being it must first be inserted into a uterus and must then implant itself to the uterine wall. The embryo has a different meaning to different people: agreeing with ethical relativism. We can not believe that our own views are the norms of others.

Educating the public of distinct defining words is most important. Also, scientists as well as those who practice medicine should clearly come to a universal definition of an embryo. Ricki Lewis, (2004), pointed out, “ in the 1980s, and embryo wasn’t an embryo until it had a primitive streak, sprouted three layers, and could no longer split to yield twins – then became a full-fledged embryo” (p. 56). Reported in an article Human  Embryo Research (2001), “Fertilized oocytes that appear viable are transferred to the uterus with the hope that 1 or more will implant [to the uterine wall] and result in pregnancy” (¶ 10). Which supports my previous statement; life of an embryo cannot ever reach life as we know it until it takes the actual step of completion and that is to implant itself to the wall of the uterus and continue to grow in the womb. Science has advanced greatly, but even so implantation of cells to a uterus has not been accomplished by human hands alone, nature must still take its course.

References

Bellis, M. (2005). Ignaz Semmelweis: In History of antiseptics.

Retrieved April 5, 2005 from http://inventors.about.com/library/ inventors/blantisceptics.htm

Human Embryo Research. (2001). American Academy of Pediatrics, 108(3), 813.

            Retrieved April 4, 2005, from iconn library database (A78536460).

Lewis, R. (2004, December 20). Stem cell semantics: an embryo is an embryo is an embryo—except when it’s not. The Scientist, 18(24), 56. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HWRC/hits?

            docNum=A127059329

O’Brien, N. F. (2005). Stem-cell basics. The Tidings.  Retrieved April 5, 2005,

            from http://www.the-tidings.com/2005/0318/stembasic_text.htm

Stem cells in the spotlight. (2004, August). Today’s Science. Retrieved            

            March 10, 2005 from Facts On File News Services Web Site:

            http://www.2facts.com

Stem cell research: Hope and controversy (Special Report). (2001, August).       World Almanac Encyclopedia. Retrieved April 5, 2005 from Facts On File News Services Web Site: http://www.2facts.com

Update: Stem-Cell Research. (2004, August 5). Issues and Controversies.      Retrieved March 10, 2005 from Facts On File News Services

            Web Site: http://www.2facts.com

Wright, S.J. (1999). Human embryonic stem-cell research: Science and ethics   American Scientist. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from iconn digital library database (A555306585).