The major ethical issue standing in the base of embryonic stem cell research concerns mainly the moral status of the embryo. The question whether the embryo should be given a full moral status, as the one that would be given to an individual is a matter of serious debates. The two sides of this debate are concerned with the following matters; on one hand, those who are against the embryonic stem cell research defend the idea that from the moment of the conception, the embryo has full moral status, and on the other hand the defendants of the idea that no moral status should be assigned to embryo at the time when used and destroyed in the research. The debate appears to have not only moral but political significance to a major extent (Brock, 2010). Along with simply fighting pro and con positions, researchers and scientists are trying to work on finding alternatives to help them continue the stem cell research, without overstepping any moral boundaries.
The hopes for the development of the embryonic stem cell research have risen after Obama’s inauguration, as his new policy allows funding for continuation of the research, but only with embryos that are remaining after IVF. His policy, however, does not constitute for embryos specifically raised for embryonic stem cell research. Obama’s strategy appears to provide somewhat of a compromise to the opposition, as it suggests that only the surplus embryos will be used in the research and those embryos do not have potential to develop into human beings, since they will not be used in in vitro fertilization (Brock, 2010).
While scientists are excited for the progress of the research, government and religious leaders are scandalized with the suggestions of raising and destroying embryos for research. Still, while the obvious ethical issues are mainly taken in consideration for the base of the debate, the positive causes of the research are left on second plan. In his research, Nicholas Agar explores three main arguments that aim to promote the positive outcomes of the embryonic stem cell research. His first argument is closely related to Obama’s policy, and states that using the IVF surplus embryos is giving them the chance to serve a productive purpose, which has a strong moral charge – to save other lives. Second, Agar argues that embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer do not have the same status as embryos created by the interaction between the sperm cell and the egg. And his last argument is based on formulating different categories to which the different embryos belong. He considers that the embryos created in the instant interaction between the sperm and egg and attached to a womb belong to a different category, as their purpose is to develop into human beings, while the embryos created through somatic cell nuclear transfer are specifically produced to be used in an embryonic stem cell research, and for this reason they should not be assigned any moral status (Agar, 2007). On the opposing side stands the viewpoint that if we consider children who have been conceived through in vitro fertilization to have a full moral status, we should regard the embryos created through IVF as human beings with a full moral status, as well. Another state of the embryo is also taken in consideration, and this is the state where the embryo is neither a human being with full moral status, nor is just a mass of tissue with no status at all. This middle state aims to reflect the potential of the embryo to develop into human being (Brock, 2010). It is important to note that this intermediate status is assigned not only to embryos, but to animals as well, and if it is not moral to kill animals for research, therefore is immoral to do so with embryos, says the opposition. However, on the contrary some animals are used and killed in research, but the cause of it is to improve quality of human life, and even though it may seem immoral it has been accepted that the cause justifies the animal killings. In relation to the embryonic stem cell research issue, the abortion debate is also taken in consideration. Many who do not support abortion stand on the side against the use of embryos for stem cell research. While those who argue against abortion are mainly basing their disagreement solely on the immorality of killing, the supporters of the embryonic stem cell research make their argument by emphasizing the strength of the potential which embryos have in the research (Agar, 2007).
The ethical issue with stem cell research appears differently in different countries. In Germany, for example, couples were encouraged financially to donate the surplus embryos created through IVF to other couples or for research. Although this whole process may seem like a commercialized merchandize of embryos, the idea behind it had a higher moral significance. The importance of the beneficial factors of embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, is major, especially in the treatment of chronic diseases, repair of heart muscle tissue, and treatment of patients with Parkinson’s disease.
In terms of cultural differences, while in Germany there was somewhat of a commercialization of the embryo and egg donations, other countries, such as Great Britain and USA were more skeptically oriented towards this matter. A lot of social groups in Germany however, started to become more concerned for the moral status of the embryo and this caused the Embryo Protection Act to be passed in 2002. According to this act any fertilized egg must be considered to have a potential for development into an individual, and for this reason must be implanted into the uterus of the biological mother, and must under no circumstance be destroyed (Krones, 2007). In order to better understand the feelings and attitudes of in vitro fertilization patients towards the embryonic stem cell research a study was conducted in Germany by researchers from the University of Marburg in collaboration with the Universities of Berlin, Leipzig, Giessen, and Heidelberg. The study took place in two separate IVF clinics where separate interviews were taken with each of the participants. The questions concerned opinions on subjects, such as egg donation, embryonic research and related to this actions, and the importance of the continuation of the genetic history. The results were analyzed based on a scale of 1 to 6 where 1 stood for morally completely acceptable, and 6 stood for morally completely unacceptable. As far as the unethical attribution of egg and embryo donation, the answers showed that most of the participants considered that to be somewhat morally unacceptable. Furthermore, in terms of the legalization of the egg and embryo donation, and the use of embryos in stem cell research, 77% of the IVF patients approved the egg donation, 60% approved the embryo donation, and 75% approved the embryonic research when done for creating a better understanding of the genetically linked diseases (Krones, 2007). When studying the willingness of the couples to donate eggs and embryos for research, more than half of them gave positive responses – their age, gender and religion did not have any influence. The research showed an overall positive attitude of the participants towards the stem cell research and also their understanding of the research’s significance in improving scientific development.
It’s obvious that the potential of embryos in stem cell research is equally understood in different societies. Scientists believe that studying the stem cell will provide extremely useful information on the existence and development of certain diseases, which will eventually lead to discovering treatments for them. Hopes have risen especially in the cases of developing a treatment for Parkinson’s disease. Research is done to determine whether stem cells derived from embryos can be used to replace the damaged cells, which were primarily used to produce dopamine. Current experiments with rats led by Oleg Isacson of Harvard Medical School in Boston, have shown progress and a potential for success (Vogel, 2002). Some of the most common diseases which may find a prospective treatment include Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, osteoarthritis, and liver diseases.
The fact that stem cells can independently divide to restock damaged cell, stands to prove the incredible potential of the use of embryonic stem cells for curing serious medical conditions. Another important attribution of these cells is that they do not have specified functions, but can be derivate for specialized cells, and this makes them capable of producing endless supplies of tissues, such as heart muscle, blood cells or nerve tissue, which could be use in human transplantation. This quality gives them a unique significance in their healing potential. Scientists have concentrated their work on developing strategies for using stem cells in the production of dopamine neurons. The fact that the stem cells have unlimited potential in terms of dividing could guarantee endless quantities of dopamine neurons which could be transplanted in patients with Parkinson’s disease (Saxena, Singh and Gupta, 2010). The development of the embryonic stem cell research would not only provide possibilities for serious diseases treatment but would also offer solutions for understanding birth defects, and developing drugs and treatment plans to control those. Another argument used to justify the use of embryos in research is the so called “nothing is lost” principle. It is a fact that in vitro fertilization involves several procedures, where several embryos need to be used in order for the fertilization to be accomplished. This leads to the creation of multiple numbers of embryos for each stage of the fertilization process, since it is unknown how many exactly will be needed to accomplish positive result. Currently in the USA it is estimated that there is a 400 000 embryo surplus frozen in separate IVF clinics. Those embryos will remain frozen until a decision is made for further actions. Using this surplus in research, would allow these frozen embryos to serve a good purpose. This is where the opposition comes to argue that the “nothing is lost principle” cannot be applied in case a decision is taken for these embryos to be used in stem cell research, since, as they can remain frozen for unlimited time, they are not considered to be lost. They will not die or experience self destruction, but their fait depends solely on the decision of researchers who will be experimenting with them. When speaking of the creation of embryos purposely for research, supporters of the stem cell research point out the fact that if the creation of embryos surplus is justified for the succession of IVF, then so should be the creation of embryos solely for research. Yet, these arguments are not sufficient enough to convince the opposition in the constructive effects of the embryonic stem cell research, and they debate that the intentions in the above example situations are different, while the IVF’s intention is reproduction, and is usually accomplished, this of the researchers may aim reproduction, but the results are uncertain (Brock, 2010). Along with that comes the question why are fresh embryos better than frozen. And the researchers respond that fresh embryos are more valuable in deriving stem cell lines (McLeod and Baylis, 2007).
A lot is done nowadays to seek alternative methods for developing stem cells without the need of destructing embryos. Adult stem cells are also useful in the treatment of certain diseases, and can be derived from human bone marrow. Especially over the last 30 years the use of adult stem cells had significantly increased in cases of tissue transplantation. The only disadvantage, if it could be called so, consists in the fact that when replicating, the adult stem cells tend to replicate the tissue situated around them. This is why stem cells in bone marrow replicate into red, white blood cells and platelets. It has recently been discovered that there is a prospect to believe that stem cells from certain tissue can develop a completely different tissue (Saxena, Singh and Gupta, 2010). There are several other propositions for obtaining stem cells with pluripotent functions, for example, through altered nuclear transfer, which consists in creating a non embryonic environment, and hybrid cell which carries the genetic information of a stem cell but is not gained with cost of an embryo being destroyed. However, a moral issue appears here as well, since it will be hard to distinguish whether the product created through the altered nuclear transfer could be determined as one of a non – embryonic nature (Condic, 2007).
There is a strong political intervention in the debate over the ethical side of the embryonic research, and not only the research related to deriving stem cells but also the research done in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and altered nuclear transfer. The political attention is not targeting the results that have been accomplished through these researches, but rather using outdated arguments and conservative beliefs to fight the scientific progress, instead of combining energy and recourses in improving the quality of human life. Yet, after President’s Obama’s new policy took place on March 9th, 2009, it raised hopes that the debate will finally be set to an end and the embryonic stem cell research will continue developing and providing more optimistic results.
References
AGAR, N. (2007). EMBRYONIC POTENTIAL AND STEM CELLS. Bioethics, 21(4), 198-207. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2006.00533.x.
B., C., O., C., M., P., M., B., F., M., & P. N., B. (2008). Embryo transfer in biopsied embryo. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 16S-14. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Brock, D. (2010). Creating Embryos for Use in Stem Cell Research. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38(2), 229-237. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00483.x.
Dresser, R. (2010). Stem Cell Research as Innovation: Expanding the Ethical and Policy Conversation. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38(2), 332-341. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00492.x.
Green, R. (2010). Political Interventions in U.S. Human Embryo Research: An Ethical Assessment. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38(2), 220-228. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00482.x.
Krones, T., Neuwohner, E., Bock, K., Manolopoulos, K., Tinneberg, H., & Richter, G. (2006). Attitudes of patients, healthcare professionals and ethicists towards embryonic stem cell research and donation of gametes and embryos in Germany. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 13(5), 607-617. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Saxena, A., Singh, D., & Gupta, J. (2010). Role of stem cell research in therapeutic purpose -- a hope for new horizon in medical biotechnology. Journal of Experimental Therapeutics & Oncology, 8(3), 223-233. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
No comments:
Post a Comment