Ethics of Stem Cell Research Essay Example
Ethics of Stem Cell Research Essay Example

Ethics of Stem Cell Research Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 9 (2265 words)
  • Published: April 11, 2017
  • Type: Research Paper
View Entire Sample
Text preview

Stem cell research has sparked a recent ethical debate. Stem cells are special cells that can transform into various types of cells in the body, making them highly valuable for medical purposes. While stem cell technology began progressing in the 1960s, it wasn't until August 2001 when President George W. Bush approved federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that this topic received significant political attention.

The intense debate surrounding stem cell research reveals emotional biases and a lack of logical arguments. Ethical concerns arise from normative ethical theories, the abortion debate, and business ethics. These moral challenges result from the rapid progress in this field. To fully understand and evaluate this ongoing discussion, it is crucial to differentiate between the two types of stem cell research.

The first type of stem cell research, called adult (somatic or germ-li

...

ne) stem cell research, is universally accepted and supported by all groups. This research involves extracting stem cells from human bone marrow or other deep tissues and has been employed for many years in the treatment of different diseases, especially Leukemia. It is worth noting that even the Catholic Church endorses adult stem cell research and has partnered with specific organizations to ensure its funding. However, there is contention surrounding embryonic stem cell research, which involves generating and subsequently terminating a human embryo to acquire the desired stem cells.

The preference for embryonic cells is due to two main factors. Firstly, the technology and cost involved in studying embryonic stem cells are more advanced and affordable compared to somatic cell research. Secondly, the quality of collected cells is crucial. Adult stem cells have limited potential as they can only differentiate

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

into a few specific cell types. In contrast, embryonic stem cells have pluripotent characteristics and can divide into various cell types within the body.

Recent research indicates that the conversion of adult stem cells into pluripotent cells is comparable to embryonic stem cells in terms of efficiency. However, the high costs and initial growth challenges associated with induced pluripotent cells discourage many scientists from pursuing further studies due to financial feasibility concerns. Consequently, the ongoing ethical debate centers around justifying the extraction of stem cells from human embryos for scientific progress and medical treatments.

The normative ethical theories, namely virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism, all assert their objectivity in ethical thought. Yet, when it comes to stem cell research, deontology and utilitarianism hold contrasting views. John Mill, a utilitarian advocate of the greatest happiness principle, argues that embryonic stem cell research is not just morally permissible but imperative. This perspective disregards the moral status of the embryo as the advantages derived from such research surpass any harm inflicted upon the destroyed embryo.

Recent medical applications of stem cell research indicate that pluripotent stem cells have the potential to treat lupus. Moreover, there is evidence suggesting that embryonic stem cells could be the key to treating multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease in the future. These advancements imply that supporting embryonic stem cell investigation aligns with a utilitarian perspective. Conversely, Immanuel Kant's deontological philosophy focuses on achieving the categorical imperative. This objective viewpoint emphasizes our duty to avoid causing harm to others, regardless of potential consequences.

The Catholic Church believes that embryonic stem cell research is morally unacceptable because it treats the embryo as a person and emphasizes

its integrity. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, from the moment of conception, the embryo should be cared for and healed like any other human being. Pope John Paul II further states that killing innocent human creatures, even if it is done to help others, is completely unacceptable. However, there appears to be a contradiction in this stance regarding abortion. The pope opposes abortion for similar reasons as embryonic research but distinguishes cases where an embryo or fetus is destroyed to save a mother's life - considering it not as abortion but as saving the mother. Conversely, he maintains that embryonic research is ethically wrong despite aiming to develop life-saving medical techniques and treatment for incurable diseases.

The Church would need to accept the permissibility of embryonic stem cell research in order to uphold its moral principle of intent. Support or opposition to stem cell research is often determined by how the embryo is viewed in terms of "personhood." Although ethical criteria may vary among individuals, it is generally acknowledged that all human beings have ethical standing, making it morally wrong to kill a person.

In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II and many other pro-lifers argue that an organism with a complete human genome should be treated as a person and respected morally. If we agree that genetic code alone determines personhood, this perspective would greatly hinder stem cell research. However, there are criticisms against this argument questioning its validity or claiming it is too limited. For example, consider someone who has lost their arm in an accident - the arm still possesses the human genome similar to any other body part.

Is it possible to

acknowledge that this isolated arm should now be regarded as a person and treated ethically? This scenario appears improbable because the arm does not possess rationality or autonomy. To establish an ethical society, it might be crucial to take into account qualities beyond genetic sequences for recognizing ethics. Asserting that personhood is solely determined by birth lacks persuasiveness.

The Catholic Church believes that a child an hour before birth and a newborn hold the same ethical value. Their significance is equal, with the only difference being how they obtain nourishment. Thus, the Church asserts that no specific stage in human development designates a fetus or embryo as more of a "person" than any previous point.

According to the Church's catechism, the embryo is considered a person because it cannot be seen as having gained any more personhood before or after a certain point. This argument is backed by the fact that within two months, an embryo develops into a fetus with fully formed organs, limbs, and brain activity. If we were to recognize moral value in the fetus based on its possession of essential human characteristics, it would be difficult to deny moral worth to the embryo only weeks earlier when these traits are still developing.

Mary Anne Warren challenges the argument that granting personhood to neonates and newborns implies embryos should also be considered part of the ethical community. However, she acknowledges that embryonic stem cell research only destroys embryos with sixty-four or fewer cells, compared to the billions of cells in a newborn. Warren defines people as conscious, reasoning, self-motivated, communicating, and self-aware, which is often the defense used by pro-choice advocates. However, the morality of

killing newborns and infants, who may not meet all of Warren's conditions for personhood, remains a concern for proponents of her theories.

According to Jean Piaget's modern psychology, self-awareness and reasoning do not fully develop until years into life. The final stage of logical reasoning does not occur until puberty. It may seem as though this troubling criticism supports the idea of killing children under Warren's philosophy, but it actually serves as another slippery-slope argument. Warren argues for any kind of reasoning ability rather than fully adult rationality. She also points out that even if embryos are granted personhood, that personhood does not seem to hold the same ethical significance as a fully adult and rational conception of personhood.

Labeling embryonic stem cell research as murder can be seen as an exaggeration. However, the author's arguments seem weak when considering newborns and individuals with mental disabilities who may not meet the criteria for personhood. While "personhood" is a key concept in debates on stem cell ethics, some involved in the abortion debate do not view it as significant.

Baylor professor Alexander Pruss presents an argument in support of the pro-life stance that does not rely on the concept of personhood. Pruss asserts that the ethical standing of an embryo should be recognized because it has the potential to develop into a human being, just like himself. He argues that this capacity for rationality alone justifies granting the embryo ethical significance. According to Pruss, when considering the continuous progression of life from embryo to fetus to neonate to newborn to infant to child to adult, "Bob" remains "Bob" at every stage, including when he is an adult, a newborn,

and even an embryo.

According to deontology, it would be ethically troublesome to kill an embryo as it would mean killing a potential human being named "Bob". Based on the categorical imperative, Pruss is obligated to refrain from destroying human embryos which have the potential for a future human life, therefore defining embryonic stem cell research as morally wrong. In addition to this, the argument can also be analyzed through the lens of virtue theory. Aristotelians acknowledge the gravity of destroying a being with the potential for human life, but this does not eliminate the possibility of conducting embryonic research.

The question is whether embryonic stem cell research is character building and adheres to the Golden Mean. The research must have clear goals and avoid using more embryos than necessary to avoid callousness and light-mindedness. If the goals and procedures outweigh the gravity of destroying embryos, virtue ethics permits embryonic stem cell research.

One issue with defending virtue ethics is that the virtues often have conflicting requirements and subjective definitions. This can lead Aristotelian thinkers to be perceived as relativistic. For instance, promoting character development in society may necessitate advancing science to enhance everyone's capacity to lead a "good life." However, Aristotle would certainly oppose infringing upon an individual's autonomy, as it would hinder their ability to cultivate character.

According to Aristotle, if we consider the embryo to be human, then we must determine which virtue is the most important. We should also consider whether it is possible to exercise this virtue while committing a vice. Aristotle suggests that we should make this decision based on a "mean relative to us," which is defined by reason (Aristotle bk 2,

38-39). A virtue ethicist would argue that reason is objective and therefore, all individuals would come to a similar conclusion when defining and prioritizing virtues.

The argument concerning the permissibility of embryonic stem cell research is often ambiguous, as individuals hold varying beliefs about which virtues should take precedence. This relativistic nature makes it challenging to reach an objective decision on this matter. Rosalind Hursthouse, a virtue ethicist, acknowledges that defending virtue theory against all criticisms would be an ongoing endeavor. In contrast, Alexander Pruss's deontological interpretation appears to have an advantage in this debate, even if only by default.

The argument of the Catholic Church can be easily dismissed, as there exist numerous sources of the human genome that lack ethical standing. Mary Anne Warren's definition of personhood seems overly restrictive, as it excludes infants and individuals with mental disabilities from ethical consideration. Utilitarianism appears to be the most logical and supported viewpoint in favor of embryonic research. However, the subjective nature of determining the "greatest happiness" makes it impossible to definitively ascertain whether the benefits derived from destroying an embryo outweigh the destruction itself.

Determining the moral status of an embryo is a challenging task due to the absence of consensus regarding its personhood within the ethical community. Likewise, virtue ethics presents flaws as interpretations of Aristotle's virtues vary among individuals, and agreement on which virtues hold utmost importance remains elusive. Pruss's argument heavily relies on his comprehension of the immorality behind murder. His viewpoint suggests that murder deprives individuals and others of specific experiences and encounters they would have otherwise encountered.

Pruss argues that performing embryonic stem cell research on human embryos is ethically incorrect

because it denies them a future. However, there are two considerations to be made regarding his assertion. Firstly, one must agree with his moral reasoning pertaining to homicide. If this is the case, then we must acknowledge that an embryo created for destruction has the capability of evolving into a human life. This biological aspect adds more validity to Pruss's argument.

The discussion surrounding embryonic stem cells encompasses ethical, legal, and business aspects. It involves evaluating the morality of this scientific field and dealing with federal funding, research legality, and business ethics. If a prominent individual in a research firm finds embryonic stem cell research immoral, it raises the question of whether they should stop the research due to moral obligations or prioritize profitability for stockholders. There is also potential to explore induced pluripotent stem cell research as an alternative; however, uncertainties exist regarding the cost-effectiveness of developing these technologies.

The Ayn Rand egoist or libertarian Milton Friedman argues that the businessperson's duty in this scenario is to maximize profit. According to Friedman, this means utilizing embryonic stem cell research as it would be the most strategic business decision. However, there is a contrasting viewpoint from libertarian John Mackey, who believes in a business philosophy that includes some level of social responsibility. Mackey's perspective suggests that businesses should engage in moral business practices, which would require opting for the more costly induced pluripotent cells instead, if embryonic stem cell research is deemed unethical by Mackey and his business partners.

According to Pruss, stem cell research in medicine has the potential to revolutionize healthcare. However, he argues that using embryonic stem cells raises ethical concerns due to the

destruction of embryos and hindering their development. Instead, attention should be directed towards studying induced pluripotent stem cells and exploring further applications for adult stem cells.

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New