Stem Cell Research Debate Essay Example

hSC, are undifferentiated blank cells capable of producing specialized tissues and possessing self-renewing abilities. As such, stem cells are regarded as the fundamental biological basis of the human body.

According to Harris (1998), stem cell research plays a crucial role in the emerging field of regenerative medicine. Stem cells possess three key medical characteristics: prolonged growth potential for sufficient tissue, adaptability to transform into different cell types, tissues and organs within the body (with some exhibiting superior adaptability), and manipulation of stem cell plasticity can influence cellular differentiation processes.

(Weir, 2004) Stem cells have garnered significant attention in the media since November 1998, when two American research teams announced the isolation and cultivation of human stem cells in vitro from both embryonic and fetal material. (Cahill, 2000) There are three sources of stem cells: adult or somatic cells, germ or reproductive cells, and embryonic cells. (Cahill, 2000) Of these sources, embryonic and germ stem cells are typically preferred by scientists due to their high cell plasticity and low cell differentiation potential. Researchers seek stem cells with the greatest plasticity, longest telomere, genetically normal composition, and low chance of being rejected after transplantation. Cloned embryonic stem cells that may or may not have been genetically modified are believed to meet these conditions. (Newman, 2002, p.

Stem cell therapy requires research on cell differentiation and immunological intolerance in tissue transplant, regardless of whether using adult, fetal, or embryonic cells. The most suitable tissue for this research is embryonic tissue. Although hES research and research cloning are distinct from general stem cell research, they are still important to stem cell researchers because they aim to solve essential issues such as

cell differentiation and immunological intolerance in tissue transplant. As stem cells originate from embryos with unique DNA, tissues produced this way may face rejection by the recipient.

According to Weir (2004), clinicians can use powerful immuno-suppression drugs to prevent undesired reactions, but this approach carries risks such as increased susceptibility to infections and cancer. Alternatively, Coleman (2004) suggests researching potential therapies that control chemical messengers and receptors regulating cell differentiation and reverse differentiation. Stem cell injection has demonstrated its ability to enhance organ and tissue function, with future efforts focusing on stem cell therapy development. The possibilities for stem cells are remarkable; they could generate cells, tissues, or organs for transplantation, treat degenerative diseases potentially leading to cures, and restore damaged tissue after accidents. Ultimately, replacing or repairing tissue and organs with long-lasting cells may be achievable.Weir (2004) suggests that somatic cells hold the potential for embryonic stem cell characteristics, sparking ideas about tissue banks to repair damaged body parts. Hall (2000, p.30) shares this view and compares the potential impact of stem cell research and therapy to significant medical breakthroughs like vaccines and antibiotics, which Dr. Mark Nobel at the University of Rochester Medical Center supports as well. Despite its promising possibilities in combating degenerative and infectious diseases, The New York Times (2005) highlights ethical concerns surrounding stem cell research that remain unresolved.

According to Lee (2000, p.81-83), stem cells are readily available for both research and treatment as they have the ability to replicate limitlessly in laboratory settings. The need for organ transplants is urgent, with 76,115 Americans registered for transplant in January 2004 (UNOS, 2007), and unfortunately many individuals pass away each year

without receiving one. This new therapy not only provides medical benefits and reduces pain and suffering but also has the potential to extend human lifespan while preventing considerable harm to others according to current protocols for transplant research and therapy.

Davis (2001) stated that the progress in stem cell therapies could result in replacing unethical activities like organ transplant using human cloning or growing genetically modified or cloned animals for xenotransplantation.

The triumph of stem cell therapy would have a significant impact on the demand for organ trafficking and the unethical methods of acquiring human organs that are prevalent in countries such as China and India, as documented by Scheper-Hughes (2000). The elimination of debates about the sale of organs would be the outcome. Stem cell therapy has the potential to prevent harm not only to non-human animals, human clones, socially and politically vulnerable people but also to establish an organ transplant market that is both safe and effective. Furthermore, among other options, stem cell therapy emerges as a superior choice.

According to Coleman (2004), stem cell therapy is a better option as it has greater potential for success and a higher chance of acceptance by the recipient's body. This advancement in biomedical ethics and organ and tissue replacement therapy leads to better understanding of tissue regeneration and cell biology. The application of stem cell technology also enables drug screening and testing, which is commonly conducted on non-human animals. However, animal rights activists argue against this practice due to the suffering animals undergo and limitations in determining medical benefits in humans as animal physiology, especially metabolism, significantly differs from humans.

Individuals who hold the belief that abortion is morally

unacceptable may contend that utilizing tissue from aborted fetuses would also be deemed unacceptable, as it would be implicated in the act of abortion itself (Boer, 1999). Moreover, there are apprehensions that this type of investigation could potentially increase the demand for abortions, resulting in a commercialization of human reproduction and endorsing an instrumental assessment of fetuses instead of their innate value (Cahill, 2000). These same arguments have been presented during discussions regarding the utilization of fetal tissue in other forms of examination and treatment. It should be observed that a significant source of hES cells originates from embryos contributed by individuals undergoing fertility treatments.

Stolberg (2001) stated that in vitro fertilization with donated egg and sperm is used to generate additional research embryos. To access the IMC for stem cell extraction, the embryo must be disassembled. However, the development of treatments and cell lines requires further research on these embryos, which would result in their destruction. President G.

President W. Bush adopted a moderate approach towards federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on August 9, 2001. The President allowed funding exclusively for hES cell lines that have already been established, and there was no requirement to destroy new embryos. This decision was based on the assumption that current lines are adequate for researchers to evaluate the therapeutic capabilities of hES stem cells. Nevertheless, it is uncertain whether this method is scientifically sound since the created lines are experimental in nature.

(UNOS, 2007) The use of human embryonic stem cells (hES) for stem cell research has faced opposition from those who believe that human life begins at conception due to religious or moral reasons. These individuals argue

that destroying an embryo is equivalent to taking the life of an innocent adult person. Philosophical discussion surrounding whether an embryo possesses personhood or deserves moral standing has been ongoing. (Dolgin, 2004) Additionally, there is disagreement regarding the procurement of embryos which may come from various sources including leftover embryos from fertility treatments, gamete donations used in laboratory fertilization, and cloned embryos.

According to Lippmann and Newmann (2005), the first two cases involve issues regarding the consent of gamete donors while the third case involves the morality of human cloning. Robertson (1999) argues that some people believe that the intention behind creating embryos is morally relevant. Creating embryos through in vitro fertilization with the intention of developing into human beings is considered different from creating embryos for the purpose of stem cell harvesting. Moral significance is given to embryos created for becoming children versus those created solely for research purposes. Thus, it may be permissible to use embryos created for becoming children but not those intended solely for research, as implied by the recent changes to Canadian policy on stem cell research funding involving the creation and destruction of human embryos.

Funding will be unavailable for stem cells obtained from experiments utilizing embryos solely created for research. However, stem cells already in existence from fertility clinics, with both gamete donors' consent, are eligible. "Research cloning" or "therapeutic cloning," involving the cloning of human embryos, is a contentious source of hES cells (Cahill, 2000, p.133-4). The concern centers on a perceived slippery slope leading to consequences that are challenging to predict.

The possibility of allowing cloning for cell purposes could result in cloning for reproductive purposes, which

some consider to be intrinsically and instrumentally wrong. Whether stem cells possess moral status or if they should be considered a unique type of tissue, or simply equivalent to a clump of human cells, is subject to debate. It is pertinent to consider the concept of natural development, where the natural process involves no human intervention. Are stem cells naturally like an embryo, or are they contrived because of the need for intervention in their creation, as in cloning? Without making this distinction, it may appear that every human cell has the potential for human life. (Silver, 1998) Lastly, there are concerns about the morality of stem cells and the modification of germ-line DNA.

When it comes to germ-line DNA modification, the best option is using undifferentiated hES stem cell lines that can divide continuously in vivo. However, eugenics remains a major moral concern. Nelson and Meyer (2001) noted that cloning a child involves determining their genetic composition, which is viewed as morally equivalent or the first step towards determining their genetic inheritance.

The combination of embryonic stem cell technology and cloning leads to eugenic concerns regarding desirable traits. According to Nelson and Meyer (2001), the use of genetic alteration alongside cloning raises further concerns. So far, there have been few successful genetic therapies for humans and animals. Human germ-line engineering has yet to prove successful, and both successes and failures have occurred in somatic cell engineering.

Caution is necessary when eliminating specific genes or diseases in agricultural cloning due to the possibility of inadequate accounting for complex disease and health relationships. For example, sickle cell anemia in Africa and India is believed to offer protection

against malaria. (Weir et al., 2004) The destruction of embryos and fetuses is widely regarded as the main ethical issue in stem cell technology. If there were a technological fix that could avoid this destruction, all ethical concerns would be resolved. (Nelson and Meyer, 2001) This section provides a critical evaluation of objections to stem cell research arising from the belief that destroying an embryo or fetus is inherently morally wrong due to its value.

Assuming that the only ethical concerns with stem cell technology stem from the destruction of embryos and fetuses, it seems that there are no valid philosophical arguments against its use. Nevertheless, I will contend in this paper that even if the opposition's anti-destruction stance can be refuted, which I believe it can, there still exist significant and separate moral dilemmas to be addressed in the discussion over stem cells. The concentration on hES and hEG cells in the ethical discourse about stem cell technology can be attributed to a perceived resemblance to the abortion debate. (Harris, 1998, p.)

In his writings, Harris (1998) asserts that the embryo is at the core of human biotechnology and the subject of ethical debates. Discussions surrounding the embryo are accompanied by significant controversy regarding its moral standing and legitimate reasons for exposing embryos to risk. The matter of embryo and fetal destruction is a dominating topic in debates about reproductive technology, birth control, research and practice, prenatal genetic screening, and abortion. The issue of abortion raises concern over the potential for women to become pregnant with the intention of destroying their fetuses for hEG cells, which would inevitably result in fetal death. The use of

fetal tissue is considered highly controversial due to ethical objections centered around elective abortion.

(Strong, 1991, p.74) The statement that the acceptance of hEG cells from voluntary abortions would lead to an increase in abortion rates is an empirical assertion. In addition, this scenario would involve terminating a pregnancy solely for the purpose of obtaining stem cells. There have been instances where children were conceived specifically to serve as donors for a relative, typically a sibling.

(Wachbroit, 2003) Although there is debate about this concept, parents often point out that a new child is valued not just for their usefulness, but for their own worth as well. Therefore, if the outcome of such an action is valued both intrinsically and instrumentally, it may be morally acceptable. However, with the derivation of hEG cells from a fetus, no child would ever be born as a result. (Wachbroit, 2003) This issue becomes more complicated when a fertile couple undergoes IVF and tests the resulting fertilized eggs to determine if they are suitable for tissue donation to another existing individual.

The central issue revolves around the purpose of creating embryos and determining which ones to bring to term or keep cryopreserved. Diagnostic procedures were initially developed to help individuals at high risk for genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and CF conceive healthy embryos, suggesting that it may be morally acceptable in certain cases to conceive for valuable tissue or instrumental purposes. Nonetheless, it is generally assumed that a child's value is based on more than just their disease-free status once they are born.

Davis (2001) argues that while embryos can be chosen for specific traits and valued for practical reasons, there

must be a more compelling reason to justify intentional pregnancies solely aimed at terminating fetuses for cell use. In the US, around one million elective abortions are performed annually (Robertson, 1999, p.114), leading some like John Robertson to claim that using primordial germ cells for ES cell research wouldn't necessarily result in more women having unwanted abortions due to the possibility of contributing fetal tissue for study. According to experts, there's already sufficient available fetal material accessible to meet stem-cell research and treatment demands.

Robertson and other experts argue that donating fetal material does not cause abortions, so using fetal material from abortions that would have occurred regardless does not implicate one in abortion. This argument is valid only if all fetuses produce equally effective hEG cells. Empirical evidence demonstrates that any fetal tissue has the same potential to be a stem cell source that would work similarly well in most patients. Therefore, there is no need for concern about women having abortions specifically to donate stem cells.

It cannot be excluded that if people think it is significantly better to use a stem cell donor who is most genetically similar to the patient in need of therapy, then this concern could arise. However, this evaluation is based on potential misconceptions (Wachbroit, 2003). If "being complicit with" means that an act is causally complicit with another act, then obtaining stem cells from fetal material would be considered complicit with abortion if the fetus was intentionally created for the sole purpose of using it for stem cells. Complicity would only arise in situations where 1) the pregnancy is legally terminable and provides a good source of hEG cells

within the first trimester, and 2) the woman has not considered terminating the pregnancy for any other reason.

According to Davis (2001), cases where hES cells are potentially more effective than hEG cells will be rare. Dodds (2004) suggests that if it is believed that hEG cells from a genetic sibling would be superior, then the best source would be from a conceptus with an identical genotype. This could come from therapeutic cloning or parthenogenesis, assuming these methods are successful. Given equal factors such as cost and technology availability, the medically and psychologically best option would be hES cells. Dodds proposes that if one is willing to terminate a pregnancy for stem cells, then initiating an IVF procedure or somatic cell nuclear transfer should also be considered.

(Dodds, 2004) The debate over fetal tissue as a source of stem cells cannot be fully resolved by the discussion on therapeutic cloning, even if hES cells are deemed a superior source. The issue at hand revolves around complicity. If complicity is defined as directly causing an abortion for the purpose of obtaining fetal material, the answer is no if one did not make such a decision. If one did make such a decision, the answer is yes. (Wachbroit, 2003) If complicity is defined as being causally involved in an abortion, then stating that support for the use of fetal material does not constitute complicity with abortion requires positing that the two events are unrelated in any morally significant way.

Procuring materials legally is a distinct action from their subsequent use in research or therapy. This separates fetal tissue transplant from the issue of abortion to avoid objections from those against

it on moral grounds. The standard argument for fetal tissue use does not consider a pro-abortion but anti-fetal material standpoint. It links abortion with fetal material use, assuming that abortion is morally incorrect and complicity with it makes fetal tissue use morally wrong as well.

The counter perspective argues that it is possible to be anti-abortion, yet not necessarily against utilizing tissues from aborted fetuses. However, this stance requires recognizing the distinction between the two actions and their respective intentions. If obtaining hEG cells is not the sole purpose of inducing an abortion, then these acts are viewed as separate and can be judged based on their individual intentions.

In their 1993 publication, Dennis Turner and Warren Kearney propose an alternative approach to refute the complicity stance. They contend that it's unethical to disregard the utilization of fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions (p.1034). They highlight the squandering of tissue when it gets disposed of and emphasize that this fetal tissue could offer therapeutic benefits to individuals enduring distress, directly or indirectly. According to Turner and Kearney, fetal tissue is "invaluable" for research or therapeutical purposes due to the considerable population affected by different neurodegenerative disorders.

According to (1993, p.1034), the position presented does not necessarily reject the idea that abortion is unethical or that fetuses may require protecting. Instead, it aims to maintain a balance between the interests of those involved, including the person in distress who could benefit from fetal tissue transplantation, the mother who seeks an abortion, and the suffering of the fetus (Davis, 2001). This line of reasoning is frequently employed when advocating for the use of surplus embryos from fertility treatments as

sources of stem cells. Since these embryos already exist and will otherwise be destroyed, it would be unjustifiable not to employ them in research and anticipated treatments that have the potential to alleviate so much suffering.

The argument effectively illustrates that there would be no moral debate if a process generated a by-product that could benefit society. However, the utilization of fetal tissue as a by-product is difficult due to its involvement with human tissue. Despite this, stem cell research and therapy offer significant health benefits for humans and may eventually decrease the dependence on animal testing. Additionally, it would eliminate the necessity for marginalized groups like the impoverished and prisoners to function as organ donors.

However, it is necessary to use embryonic and fetal stem cells in early stages of stem cell research, despite the potential to harm vulnerable human beings and the social implications. The use of these cells could potentially improve or protect many different lives, but at the cost of experimenting with ova, embryos, and fetal tissue. This paper aims to establish the important connections between the stem cell controversy and the abortion controversy. An analysis of arguments against embryo destruction and using fetal material from abortions shows that arguments based on intrinsic value are not persuasive. The ethical debate over the source of human stem cells remains open, and it is uncertain whether referring to the ethics of abortion can determine the morality of stem cell research and therapy.