 |
| [1] |
The discovery of stem cells and their potential uses has been controversial since it was found that two types of stem cells could be obtained; one from embryos in the earliest stages of development and the other from fatty tissues in fully developed adults (3). An embryo is a fertilized egg that marks the beginning of the development cycle to make humans. While both are avenues to obtaining stem cells, embryonic stem cells appear to be the practical choice; they have not had time to be manipulated into a certain type of cell, thus allowing them the possibility to become any type of cell (4). This is unlike the adult stem cells that regenerate into the tissue of their origin (4). When dealing with stem cells, those coming from embryos draw the most attention in the battle of ethics.
The main controversy being discussed today is whether harvesting stem cells from embryos, which are fertilized in labs, is ethical. The human population has been exposed to this argument about when life truly begins for numerous years in the wake of the issue of abortion. The notion of when life begins is very subjective and relies on certain beliefs, varying between religion and science. It is the unknown status of when life begins that is holding back the possibilities that stem cell research has to offer. There are several arguments contributing against the use of embryos for stem cell testing. The New England Journal of Medicine says that the arguments against embryonic stem cells originate from the fear of potentially “dehumanizing practices” if the embryos are allowed to develop into human fetuses (5). Those opposed to embryonic stem cell research because of this fear believe that if we allow these cells to be extracted from embryos, what will stop us from developing cloning or creating babies for the purpose of harvesting organs? These are morbid thoughts, I know, but they exist and must be thought through to test their validity. Their argument is based on pure speculation and “what if” possibilities. With the incredibly strict regulations that the US has put on stem cell research, the likelihood that the government would allow practices to escalate to that level is essentially nonexistent.
This nonexistent outcome of fetal cloning and harvesting is already in practice in countries that have little to no regulations on stem cell research. Japan is notorious for their lack of regulation when it comes to new medical procedures and the same goes for their research on stem cells (6). Through my research, there have not been scandalous reports of any kind about ethical misconduct regarding stem cells or cloning thus far. While it is possible that something like this has just not surfaced, the possibility of a human medical professional having the ability to do something so heinous is unthinkable. Though this action is inhumane, it is not impossible. Therefore, multiple countries around the world have set up a system of guidelines when it comes to stem cell research. In Canada, legislation has been passed that allows the research and testing of embryonic stem cells as long as it follows certain protocols. These protocols include research having potential benefits for Canadians, the donors have free and informed consent and full disclosure, and that they are not paid for their involvement (7). Australia has passed laws against the practice of cloning, as well as Canada, Chile, and Denmark specifically. I think it is understood that cloning and harvesting is not going to be a part of this research anywhere around the world. However, Australia, Canada, Denmark, as well as France, have moved to make their regulations more lax, allowing for the research of embryonic stem cells if it is done on donated embryos or leftover IVF embryos that are no longer needed (7). France explains that “research can be authorized on the embryo and embryonic cells when they are likely to allow great therapeutic progress” when people willingly donate their eggs (7). More countries, especially the United States, need to understand the importance of allowing this research to take place. It appears that more and more countries are coming to terms with this and revising their strict guidelines on stem cell research, which is the direction that allows the US to move forward with its studies. Historically, the US has ranked among the top leaders in the world when it comes to technology and research. Imagine if our country embraced this opportunity to save millions of lives.
Another major argument against embryonic stem cell research is that fertilized embryos are the beginning of human development and thus the beginning of human life. The New England Journal of Medicine goes on to say that those who believe embryonic stem cell research is wrong because of this, but support IVF fertility treatments, are hypocritical in their convictions. If this is true, then all medical procedures involving embryos should not be allowed, including fertility treatments. These treatments collect eggs, inject them with sperm, create an embryo, and then implant the eggs back into the female body (8). However, not all of the eggs are implanted; they are either frozen or thrown away. Throwing away fertilized eggs and using embryos for stem cells essentially has the same end result. They are both no longer viable to create a human, however the stem cells could potentially provide life saving cures, whereas throwing away the embryos eliminates the potential to help anyone. The government restrictions are only seen with stem cells and not with fertility treatments. These treatments have been successful for couples hoping to create a family, so the rules should be less restrictive on stem cell research, enabling scientists to save millions of people, and quite possibly the families that IVF helped to create.
The political status of stem cell research has been on a roller coaster ride in the past decade. In 1998, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison published their research on stem cells. They had found a way to isolate “stem cells from human embryos” (9). Since this finding had to do with embryos, it was closely associated with the even more controversial and political issue of abortion. Due to this association, “the national government has waded into the ongoing battle over embryonic stem cell research intermittently since 1998” (9), as the public has called on them for the banning/defunding of or the support of the research. Those that are against stem cell research and the government supporting it usually believe that human life begins at conception. This is customarily a religious belief, since a large majority of our country is Christian (78.4%), Jewish (1.7%), and Muslim (0.6%), and thus believes in this notion (10). Due to the beliefs of this vast majority, politicians feel the pressure from their constituents to vote against the funding and support of stem cell research. Therefore, politicians are letting their fear of not being reelected deter them from reinventing stem cell laws, an action that could help masses of people in the future. In the United States, we pride ourselves in having a democratic government that separates church and state. This is not a choice that I believe politicians should be allowed to make and I think the religious beliefs of many have clouded their view on this issue. This is considered a political issue and it should be nothing of the sort. Stem cell research is strictly a medical discussion that should be handled by medical professionals with medical degrees. Politicians do not have the credibility nor the experience and knowledge to pass legislation about stem cell research. Also, medical professionals practice under the Hippocratic oath, an oath of ethics, and a guide that all certified doctors practice under. We can trust that doctors and research teams would put the best interest of humans first and practice in an ethical and professional manner, allowing for the extensive research of stem cells and the prospects of innovative medicines to cure the incurable.
Stem cell research is a topic that is very controversial, but has been shut down due to fear and beliefs outside of logical reason. Society is shrouded in the misguided notions regarding stem cells and is blinded by personal and political motives to act against a potentially wonderful discovery. We, as a society, need to realize the importance of researching stem cells and lift the extensive bans on a potential cure that would help our society today and future generations tomorrow. How much longer can we allow the senseless passing of terminally ill human beings when a possible cure is looking us right in the face? I hope that we can come together and do right by all that could be saved from terminal diseases and allow them to the long, healthy lives they deserve.
Works Cited
1. American Cancer Society, "Cancer Facts & Figures 2013." Last modified 2013. Accessed February 12, 2014. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-036845.pdf
2. Parkinson's Disease Foundation, "Statistics on Parkinson's." Last modified 2014. Accessed February 12, 2014. http://www.pdf.org/en/parkinson_statistics
3. Peter, Crosta. MediLexicon International, "What Are Stem Cells?." Last modified July 19, 2013. Accessed January 29, 2014. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/stem_cell/.
4. National Institues of Health, "Stem Cell Basics." Last modified April 28, 2002.
Accessed January 29, 2014. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/pages/basics1.aspx.
5. The New England Journal of Medicine, "Embryo Ethics — The Moral Logic of
Stem-Cell Research." Last modified July 15, 2004. Accessed February 3, 2014.http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048145
6. Nature, "Unknown Territory." Last modified February 06, 2013. Accessed
February 3, 2014. http://www.nature.com/news/unknown-territory-1.12360
7. The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, "Overview of
International Human Embryonic Stem Cell Laws." Last modified 2012. Accessed February 10, 2014. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/appendix-e-overview-of-international-human-embryonic-stem-cell-laws.
8. American Pregnancy Association, "In Vitro Fertilization: IVF." Last modified
May 2007. Accessed February 19, 2014. http://americanpregnancy.org/infertility/ivf.html.
9. Karch, Andrew. The University of Utah, "Vertical Diffusion and the
Policy-Making Process: The Politics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research."
Last modified October 27, 2007. Accessed February 19, 2014.
http://prq.sagepub.com/content/65/1/48.full.pdf+html
10. Pew Search: Religion & Public Life Project, "Religious Landscape Survey."
Accessed February 20, 2014. http://religions.pewforum.org/reports.
Photo Credits
1. Photo by UCI UC Irvine
No comments:
Post a Comment