In
recent years modern medical technology has advanced by leaps and bounds. There
have been many new technologies and new developments. One such area of recent scientific
development is stem cell therapy. Stem cell therapy is a very promising area of
research. Research has indicated that stem cells could be used in the treatment
(and even cure) of disease such as Alzheimer’s, diabetes, cancer, Parkinson’s
disease and paralysis. Many scientists have heralded this research as the next,
up-and-coming ‘wonder drug’. However, this emerging technology is not without it’s
ethical concerns. Before diving into the ethical concerns surrounding stem cell
therapy it is important to have a basic understanding of exactly what stem
cells are and what stem cell therapy is. To put it succinctly, stem cells are
cells that have not differentiated. Differentiation is the process a cell goes
through to become specialized. There are over two hundred different types of
cells in the human body and they all have their origin in stem cells. Every
cell in the human body starts out as a stem cell. Stem cells have three general
properties: they are capable of dividing and renewing themselves for long
periods; they are unspecialized; and they can give rise to specialized cell
types (“Stem Cell Basics”). There are many different types of stem cells. All
stem cells fall under two broad categories; adult (tissue specific) stem cells
and embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells can differentiate into any type
of cell in the body; they are referred to as Pluripotent stem cells. Conversely,
adult stem cells are much more limited in their ability to differentiate,
thusly they are called multipotent stem cells. Induced pluripotent cells are
non-pluripotent cells that were engineered (‘induced’) to become pluripotent,
that is, able to form all cell types of the body. In other words, a cell with a
specialized function (for example a skin cell) was ‘reprogrammed’ to an
unspecialized state similar to that of an embryonic stem cell. While IPS cells
and embryonic stem cells share many characteristics they are not identical (“An
Overview of Stem Cell Research”).
Adult
stem cells have been used in the treatment of many different diseases for a
great number of years. Bone marrow contains blood-forming stem cells
(hematopoietic stem cells) that have been used for decades to treat blood
cancers and other blood disorders. Umbilical cord blood is another source of
hematopoietic stem cells that is being used in treatment.
There
are very few ethical concerns arising from the use of adult stem cells for
research, beyond the normal ethical concerns involved in research. However,
that is most certainly not the case with human embryonic stem cells (hESC).
Currently, research on embryonic stem cells may well be one of the
most hotly contested ethical dilemmas in healthcare. Despite this, there is very
little real understanding of the heart of the issue. In order to fully grasp
the ethical quandaries presented by hESC research it is imperative to have a scientific
understanding of exactly what is occurring during research. As we have already
discussed, a stem cell is an undifferentiated cell. The National Institute of Health
(NIH) defines human embryonic stem cells (hESC) as cells “that are derived from
the inner cell mass of blastocyst stage human embryos, are capable of dividing
without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are known to
develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers.” A human being
is considered an embryo from conception through the end of the second month. In
order to manufacture hESC, scientists create an embryo (or use one left over
from IVF), and after it undergoes several cycles of division they extract the
stem cells. The extraction of the stem cells necessitates the destruction of
the embryo. It is this fact that is the key issue of the hESC debate. The
entire debate hinges on this one question: “is an embryo a human life?”
The Britannica
academic edition online defines biologic life as “Matter characterized by the ability to
metabolize nutrients (process materials for energy and tissue building), grow,
reproduce, and respond and adapt to environmental stimuli.” An embryo fits this
description for the moment of conception. So we know that an embryo is alive,
now is it a human life? Each human embryo
contains the DNA to become a genetically distinct human life. It would be
unethical to define human life by age, developmental status, usefulness, or ‘wantedness’. Therefore, an embryo being by definition
alive and by genetic design a human, is a human life worthy of protection. Human life is
priceless, from the very moment of conception to the last breath. The creation and destruction of human embryos violates every
single ethical criterion. It goes against nonmalevoelce (do no harm) as it
kills a living human being. It also defies autonomy, as that embryo does not
have a say in what is happening to it. It defies benevolence for obvious
reasons and well as Justice. Where is the justice in killing a child before
it’s even a week old? There is therefore no ethical way to use hESC for
research. To deny that the prospects of hESC research is anything less than
thrilling would be futile, nonetheless it is vital that we tread with caution. It
is imperative for the sake of our generation and future generations that we
continue to uphold the ethical and moral principles that have held our society
together. To abandon our integrity for any reason is to step unto the path of
self-destruction.
The question remains as to what to do with the surplus of
human embryos left over from IVF and other fertility treatments. As we have
already discussed, using human embryos for research is unethical. Different
pro-life ethicist have come up with solutions one such solution is to place the
embryos up for adoption. Several organizations have been created for this
purpose.
In
conclusion, creating human life for the specific purpose of destroying it or
performing experiments on it is grotesque. Doing the wrong thing in hopes of
achieving the right outcome is never acceptable. People have used the argument
of ‘the end justifies the means’ to justify many inhumane, horrific acts. As a
nation it is imperative that we do not give into the pressure to compromise our
values for the sake of finances. The maintenance of integrity is worth every
cost and every sacrifice. If we are to survive as a nation it is imperative
that we protect the sanctity of human life, at all stages of development.
No comments:
Post a Comment