Argumentative essay stem cells
Stem cell research is a debatable topic for many modern scientists because it raises ethical and moral questions and dilemmas within the scientific community. Medical science has made a great step toward the new approaches in medicine and innovative solutions for terminal illnesses. Many scientists are not sure about the end results of the numerous studies conducted on the subject; the stem cells misuse based on wrong or incorrect concepts’ definition spurred many of the debates on the subject.
despite harsh criticism of the wide stem cell usage, the main advantage of stem-cell research is that doctors will be able to target the initial causes of a disease rather than simply treat a disease condition; the advantages of the research for healthcare professionals are to cure millions of patients around the world.
Arguments FOR stem cell research
There are different philosophical theories accompanying stem cell studies, which aim to interpret and define the objects of embryonic material used in the research.
The scientific discovery addresses such concepts as “reality” and “real”, “dissociations” and “embryonic germ cells”.
These definitions would help researchers and the state to come to agreement and clearly understand benefits and threats of this research. The author also explains that the main advantages are that stem-cell material holds medical benefits which could improve human health. These include treatments for cancer, hemophilia, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, etc.
Arguments AGAINST stem cell research
Opposition to embryo research and use became vehement in 1999 when the prospect of stem-cell study appeared. It can develop into all the cells and tissues of the human body and divide many times. Opponents state that lives might be saved and suffering avoided if the research could be allowed to proceed with federal support. Unethical behavior and maltreatment are the main arguments against stem-cell research.
Ethical and moral dilemma
Ethical and moral arguments put limits on the scientific developments and, often, adversely affect science. Scientists believe that stem-cell studies might be carried out in ways that would not require the use and destruction of embryos; the use of adult stem cells, for instance, could be an alternative to stem cells. A theoretical way is open to the use of those cells not only for embryogenesis research and gene research, but for important therapeutic purposes.
When analyzing stem cell research, one has to note that there are many different research strategies currently available. The conventional model of treatment, even if rarely articulated in any precise way, is to undertake every effort possible to save life. The use of these cells for medical research presents an ethical double-edged sword in that the potential value to human life is countered by philosophical questions about the destruction of human life.
Any proposed solution to this controversy is surely to conflict with the strongly held moral and religious convictions of one group or another. The fundamental issue of the beginning of human life appears to have created an unwarranted tension between science and religion when it comes to embryonic research.
Advantages of using stem cells
The main benefit of stem cells is the ability to replace diseased or damaged cells in virtually every tissue of the body. At the same time, in today’s technologically advanced world there are many ethical dilemmas that are beginning to emerge.
There is the ethical dilemma of using in vitro fertilization (IVF) along with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and human leukocyte antigen (HLA) typing to create a human life that can be a perfect organ and tissue donor to an ill sibling.
The strengths and weaknesses of this issue are discussed and evaluated in the following sections.
The process of stem cells is such that many embryos are created and then tested to determine if an embryo has a specific genetic disorder. This process is legal in the United States, although in some parts of the world this practice is banned; it is strictly regulated in many countries as well. As technology has advanced, the uses of this process have changed. Not only are parents able to test for specific diseases, but with the HLA typing they are able to create an embryo that will be an identical match to an older sibling who is afflicted with a life threatening disease. The new embryo is designed to be able to donate cord blood and bone marrow.
Arguments FOR stem cells
Individuals arguing FOR creating savior siblings state that stem cell research is a safe and effective way to ensure that an embryo will not have any genetic disorders; they add that HLA tissue typing ensures that the savior sibling will be a genetic match to the existing ill child. Supporters argue that the benefits of the procedure far outweigh the risks to the mother, the embryo, and the existing child.
Creating embryos just to be destroyed would be ethical, but if the embryo that can be specifically created could save the life of an existing child then the net worth of the destroyed embryos is much less than the benefits of creating a savior sibling. The physical pain experienced by a savoir sibling is little to none, because the cells that are harvested come from the placenta and the umbilical cord.
There are several issues that must be evaluated to better understand the matter of stem cell research controversy. The value of a human life is at stake. A sick patient will die without a donor and if all other resources are exhausted, then it seems that, for the greater good, another life should be created to help save an existing life. Respect for human life would be valued on this side. Respect for the life that already exists and respect for the life that will be created.
Stem cell study will safe lives of patients with the help of genetic reprogramming. There are some arguments against saving the life of an individual. What limits should be placed on performing such type of gene research? The way in which science moves forward regarding how the researchers choose to save the life of a person is the only key question that remains.