Stem Cell Research Vs Abortion

While discussing patient autonomy in making decisions, it is important to discuss the concept of competency. While competency is typically associated with the patients, it also refers to the physicians. Competency establishes that the patient and healthcare provider are making rational decisions when accepting and creating healthcare plans. Many different factors establish whether or not a patient is competent enough to make possible life altering decisions. For instance, children, mentally ill patients, and comatose patients are not competent to make medical decisions. This is because these patients are more likely to make rash decisions, are unable to process fatal diagnoses, or are simply unable to speak. While

While few can debate the potential “miracle cure” aspect that seems to be wrapped within stem cell research, the method for obtaining such cells has been a topic for debate. The process of extracting pluripotent cells destroys their host embryo, and as yet, no pluripotent cells have been found in older adult tissues. Opponents of research on embryonic cells claim that embryos – from the moment that fertilization occurs – are sentient human beings and should therefore be afforded the same protections against abuse as anyone else (“The Cases For”). But what if a method were readily available were viable stem cells could be extracted from an embryo in a manner that would not deny life – however such life were defined – to the unborn fetus? What if such a potential solution could ease the minds of not only those who oppose stem cell research but also help to quell the dispute of another “Do Not Kill” issue – abortion?

The ethical issues of stem cell research are closely tied to their social issues. Embryonic stem cell research causes many social dilemmas and raises the long-debated question of when life conception starts. To many, life conception starts immediately after fertilization, supporting the idea that the embryo is the equivalent of a human life. As a result, pro-life supporters and religious groups view ESC research as the equivalent of murder. On the contrary, some do not believe that embryos possess the same moral status as a living person. Supporters also argue that the blastula, where ESCs are derived from, are already commonly created and destroyed by fertility clinics. Therefore, instead of destroying surplus blastula, they could be put into better use in ESC labs, which could lead to more treatments. While ESCs hold a tremendous potential for advancements in human health, people still wonder if the benefits outweigh the costs. People have the duty of respecting human life, however to many, ESC research violates this principle, since it results in the destruction of a human embryo. Meanwhile, people also feel the moral responsibility of helping

The main ethical issue with therapeutic cloning is the moral status of the cloned embryo, as it is created solely for destruction (Kfoury, 2007). Embryos created using this method are not treated with dignity, as they are not allowed to live more than a few days (Kfoury, 2007). Even though some scientist believe that this method can provide a source of cells for therapy in the future, others argue that it would result in commercial pressures and competition which could force scientists to undergo more research on embryos, which would just become a resource for researchers (Hug, 2015). This could mean millions of egg’s from women a year would be needed (Douglas and Savulescu, 2009). This method will mainly affect women in third world countries or places that have fewer legal restrictions as they could be used for their eggs (Kug,

Everyday people come face to face with the choice of protecting an unborn child or treating the ill. In this case the unborn child is in the form of an embryo and the treatment comes from the usage of embryonic stem cells. This up and coming treatment has gained a lot of praise as well as speculation from the media, medical and religious officials. Deciding whether to preserve the unborn, or treat the ill, leads to the question of the morality of using embryonic stem cells. There may be controversy over the use of embryonic stem cells but despite moral convictions, this type of research provides hope and promise to researchers and patients in need. Some believe the use of adult stem cells can abolish the use of embryonic stem cells but embryonic stem cells hold the most promise, and despite disagreements, could provide the most benefits.

There are many thoughts that Stem Cell Research on embryos meant for treating infertility should not be funded by the United States government because it is unethical and immoral. People have created the thought that embryos are babies when they aren’t just yet. (JCI) “Some people [] believe that an embryo is a person with the same moral status as an adult or a live-born child.” People have assumed that embryos are babies, thus giving forth to the idea of taking cells for research from said embryos is immoral, when in reality an embryo is nothing but a ball of cells that are constantly manipulating each other and multiplying. The embryos can’t possibly be babies just yet because there is no brain, no beating heart, and no functioning organs; there is no self-sustaining life functions until the fetal heartbeat begins at 5 weeks of gestation. (JCI) “Although some may view the derivation and use of [Embryonic Stem] cells as ethically distinct activities, we do not believe that these differences are significant from the point of view of eligibility for federal funding.” Stem Cell Research should not be rejected for federal

Although there are endless possibilities, one of the key issues that has faced stem cell research is the ethical means of this method of research. As stated before, embryonic stem cells have the greatest potential to cure diseases, but they are also the ones that raise a key ethical question. That question is whether or not it is worth to destroy embryos and to put a mother’s life on the line to acquire these stem cells. There are multiple views on this topic, some people, mostly religious, believe that all life begins at conception (“Stem Cells” 1). This is the biggest problem facing stem cell research, and there is no clear or definite answer. Others, however argue that since the embryo is undeveloped and does not have a nervous system or

Stem cell research is full of controversy with a million different opinions on each side of the argument. In this essay, the “pro” side will be viewed and discussed. The background, the pros, the experiments and other information will be deliberated. Hopefully by the end of the composition, one will understand the benefits of stem cell research.

Stem cell research is controversial due to the process of how the cells are generated. The process begins with eggs being voluntarily donated. The eggs are fertilized in a lab to form embryos. Stem cells are then obtained from the embryos multiple days after fertilization. At this point, the embryo is a congregation of cells scientifically called a blastocyst. Despite being the size of a pinhead, a blastocyst has the potential to grow into a fetus. “For people who believe that life begins at the moment of conception, this practice represents a troubling ethical issue” (Lee and Griswold). With the use of these embryos having full potential human qualities, many anti-abortion activists are against this practice. These activists believe the use of

Controversies are brought up arguing if the embryo is human and whether or not that embryo has legal and moral rights. If the inner cell wall of the mass is removed, it prevents the fertilized eggs from developing (“The Great Debate Over Stem Cell Research”). Some believe that human life begins at the moment of conception and that the embryo deserves to be protected. Also, there are some cultures that do not support the use of human life to someone else besides its producer. They also believe that the embryo only has moral rights as a human only after a few months of development (“The Stem Cell Debate: Is it Over?”).

Stem cell research has already identified potential diseases it could combat against; from Cancer to Alzheimer’s, Diabetes to Parkinson’s, Multiple Sclerosis to Huntington’s, and possibly many more. With such a wide array of possible beneficial outcomes of further researching stem cells, is it ethically sound? Or is this putting too much power in the hands of our scientist, who some believe are “playing god”? It is quite evident that there are great possibilities from further researching stem cells, but at what cost?

Stem cell research is the study of basic cells that are grown in laboratories where tests are made to determine the essential properties of the cells. Over the past few decades, stem cell research has become a popular scientific debate and controversy. Stem cell research is still considered to be relatively new technology that is responsible for taking human cells and developing them into 220 different cells in the human body. Stem cell research has the potential to help disease research and management (Murnaghan, 2010). The two most common stem cells that scientist work within animals and humans are embryonic and non-embryonic (“somatic” or “adult”) stem cells (Stem cell basics, 2009). This paper will examine the two different types

A less common view holds that obtaining stem cells from cloned embryos poses fewer ethical problems than obtaining stem cells from discarded IVF embryos. Several Scientist and Ethicist have argued that embryos resulting from SCNT do not have the same moral status we normally accord to other embryos: the combination of a somatic nucleus and an enucleated egg a “transnuclear egg”, is a mere “artifact” with no “natural purpose” or potential “to evolve into an embryo and eventually a human being,” and therefore falls outside the category of human beings. A similar argument views that obtaining stem cells from cloned embryos is less morally problematic because embryos resulting from SCNT are better thought of as tissue culture, whereas IVF

Human embryonic stem cell research proposes a great deal of hope for leasing the human suffering brought on by the damages of disease and injury. Human embryonic stem cells are distinguished by their capability for self-renewal and their capability to separate into all sorts of cells of the body. The most important objective of embryonic stem cell research is to classify the devices that govern cell separation and to turn embryonic stem cells into exact cell types that can be used for take care of life frightening diseases and injuries.“Despite the tremendous therapeutic promise of HESC research, the research has met with heated opposition because the harvesting of HESCs involves the destruction of the human embryo” (standford, 2014). The ethical question of when human life in fact does begin has been highly talked about and linked to discussions and disagreements over abortion. “It is not uncertain that embryos have the potential to become human beings; if inserted into a woman’s uterus at the suitable hormonal phase, an embryo could implant, grow into a fetus, and become a live-born child”(ncbi,2009). People believe that an embryo is a person with the equal ethical status as an adult or child.

The world of science and medicine is constantly growing, unveiling amazing things such as cures and treatments. However, due to the potential of this field, boundaries are hard pressed or ignored, creating tensions. This lack of boundaries yields unimaginable results, which create vaccinations for viruses, cures for incurable diseases, and even recreation of parts of the body. All of these advances would not exist if it were not for the people of medicine and science that have spent countless hours researching. These people spend their lives trying to make others better. However, in the pursuit of achieving greatness, sometimes ethical lines are crossed that many people in the world frown upon. To these people, the saying “the ends justify the means” does not apply, especially when it comes to embryonic stem cell research. These cells come from aborted fetuses; some people believe that abortion is morally wrong, and therefore any result of it, is also immoral. However, medical research revolves around making the human race’s life better. This research resulted in numerous breakthroughs throughout the years, and will continue to unveil new impossibilities for centuries to come. Medical research should not be inhibited, especially by something that is not living, nor is being harmed.