Ethics concerning stem cell research

[Guest guest]

Crew,

Here is an article I found concerning the Ethics of stem cell research. It's

quite an interesting read.

Mark

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Ethics

As stated earlier in this report, there are many ethical issues involved

with this cutting edge research.

This section strives to reveal these issues. The major problem that people

have with stem cell

research is the fact that in order to investigate pluripotent stem cells

(recall that these are only found

in the first stages of human life: the embryo). Like abortion, many of the

arguments are the same.

Because the embryo must be destroyed in order to fully understand these

important cells, many

people are upset on the grounds that the research is demeaning human life.

While the argument lies

in when a mass of undifferentiated cells becomes a human is still debated,

there are many more

facets to the argument.

The biggest group that speaks out against stem cell research is the National

Conference of Catholic

Bishops. They have published a multitude of articles discussing the

injustices of this research. While

they do try to use some of the current research into adult stem cells to

their advantage, many of their

arguments do not seem to understand the complete science behind the

research. Their main

argument is that we should simply engage solely in adult stem cell research

because the body will

most likely accept the new cells, we will therefore not have to overcome the

problem of immune

system rejection. In an August 18, 2000 article by M. Doerflinger,

he claims simply

because one group of scientists found that adult stem cells could be coaxed

into forming other types

of cells that we should abandon the embryonic research1. Yet why should we

limit ourselves?

Would it not be in our best interest to know all that we can about

ourselves? The answer seems

clear yet many still have problems with destroying what they classify as

human life. The National

Institute of Health does take into account the fact that adult stem cells

are becoming more useful, yet

it claims that “considerable evidence that adult stem cells may have limited

potential compared to

pluripotent stem cells derived from embryos or fetal tissue.”, furthermore

“it is vitally important that

scientists study and compare both pluripotent and adult stem cells.”3

Another NCCB article2

claims that the NIH overlooks the alternatives to embryonic stem cell

research, yet this is obviously

not the case. Doerflinger chastises Reeve for believing in

pluripotent stem cell research.

Doerflinger claims that “He (Reeve) said that so-called “spare” embryos from

fertility clinics will be

“tossed away as so much garbage” in any case, so it is not morally wrong to

get some use out of

them.” This is the point at which the NCCB’s argument does not make sense.

Fertility clinics

retrieve many eggs from their clients at a time due to the rigorous

procedure of obtaining the eggs.

Therefore, there are most often many fertilized eggs waiting on hand for

fertility treatments; when a

couple has succeeded in having a child, there are still usually fertilized

eggs left over. While this cell

does have the potential to become a human life, it never actually does and

that is what the bishops

do not take into account. The National Institute of Health has set up a

plethora of guidelines so that

the embryos are not exploited, yet it does take a stand that using embryos

that are “in excess” is

allowed, as it should be. The bishops fear that clinics will soon begin to

harvest even more eggs

simply for research, knowing that there will never truly be a need for them.

While this could be

possible, the NIH guidelines strictly state “No inducements, monetary or

otherwise, should have

been offered for the donation of early human embryos for research purposes”.

4 So there is no real

reason for the clinics to start harvesting that many excess egg cells.

The third argument that the NCCB has against this research is the fact that

it is going back on

longstanding federal policy. 5 They claim that “the guidelines seek to

reverse that policy in doing so

they violate fundamental moral norms on human experimentation and fall far

beyond the proper

authority of the National Institute of Health”. Supposedly these new

guidelines go against

Congress’s requirements that aborted fetuses be treated the same as fetuses

intended for live birth.

Yet the embryos that scientists will use are “in excess” and should

therefore not be considered under

this statement.

A very important aspect of this moral dilemma is in fact the government

interference, which is key.

Without government funding, the research will still occur yet it will be

privately funded. Therefore the

results of this research will become expensive and therefore unavailable to

many individuals. And

this fact greatly out weighs the dilemma of destroying human life: “In our

view (NIH), the ban

conflicts with several of the ethical goals of medicine and related health

disciplines, especially healing,

prevention, and research. These goals are rightly characterized by the

principles of beneficence and

nonmaleficence, which jointly encourage pursuing social benefits and

avoiding or ameliorating

potential harm”. 6 With this in mind, it could be argued that whatever we

as a society choose to do

will be unethical. So we might as well do the research, and gain the

knowledge we need to cure

many people of their ailments. What is more, President Bush has spoken out

against stem cell

research. In a January 26, 2001 press conference, he answered “No, I don’t”

to the question of

whether or not he believed that “federal money should be used or spent on

fetal tissue or stem cell

research derived from induced abortions.”7 President Bush cannot let his

views on abortion get in

the way of this very important research. At all times in history there has

been opposition to new

knowledge but it slowly becomes an integral part of society, something we

take for granted. This

knowledge, no doubt, will unfold in a similar manner, yet we have to do what

is in our power to

ensure that we reach that knowledge, and restricting our research rights is

not what our society

needs.

[Guest guest]

Mark,

The ethics statement contains many opinion statements as you probably

noticed. I had thought I was beyond being shocked by much of anything these

days, but the statement below did catch me by surprise. The capitalization

for emphasis is mine.

....Yet why should we limit ourselves?... What a selfish question. Indeed,

why can't we all have/do whatever we want to without restraint? Because

we're in a society that is interdependent and the strong are to protect the

week, not prey on them. If not, eventually only the very strong survive and

society will self-destruct.

....A very important aspect of this moral dilemma is in fact the government

interference, which is key. Without government funding, the research will

still occur yet it will be privately funded. Therefore the results of this

research will become expensive and therefore unavailable to many individuals.

And THIS FACT GREATLY OUT WEIGHS THE DILEMMA OF DESTROYING HUMAN LIFE: “In

our

view (NIH), the ban conflicts with several of the ethical goals of medicine

and related health disciplines, especially healing, prevention, and

research....

Murder of innocents is OK as long as it's for a good cause. :-) How nice.

I'm not responding as if you wrote this, Mark, I just recognize that many of

us tend to take statements like this at face value and not stop to analyze

them. This one is full of opinions shaded to look factual.

One more thing. Maybe people are aware and maybe they aren't. There are

people who have gone through the whole invitro-fertilization (IVF) process

and had the children they desired. Some have begun to recognize that since

the embryos IF they were to be implanted were their hopes for children, they

have a dilemma of what to do with the embryos that are " in excess " to use the

ethics terminology from the article. There are couples who have adopted out

their " excess " embryos allowing other couples to have the opportunity to use

them and have children. These couples do not want the embryos used for

medical research or destroyed because they see them essentially as children

waiting to be born. Side point: wouldn't it be neat if abortion clinics had

signs on the walls letting women know that adoption is another option? A lot

of people might choose adoption instead of suffering through the IVF process.

...Donna

...Donna

...Donna

[Guest guest]

Oh, boy... I made a deal with myself I wouldn't get into it with anyone on this list today...

I respectfully disagree with you Donna and I have no desire to debate abortion on this list but I wanted you to know that I don't agree.

Bette