Ethics analysis of the human embryonic stem cell research debate
| Abstract | Controversy regarding Human embryonic Stem Cell (hESC) research is evident in the medical and scientific community, legislative, judicial, and executive branches of the government, private companies, religious affiliations, special interest groups, and among the general American public. Stem cells are derived from adult stem cell resources, which are termed non-embyronic or from the cells of immature blastocytes termed embryonic stem cells. Non-embryonic cells do not have the ability to differentiate into other specialized tissues, whereas embryonic cells are capable of differentiating into almost any type of tissue. hESC research, which is the focus of this paper, includes the direct creation and therapeutic cloning of human embryos, known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) during the blastocyte-stage of development, the use of surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization, and from tissue derived from extracted embryos through abortion. The purpose of hESC research is threefold: (1) to advance science and medicine, (2) prevent disease, and (3) cure certain diseases. hESC research is an ethical dilemma facing the United States of America. Opponents of hESC often cite the rights of the embryo and define the embryo at conception. Supporters of hESC research include the scientific and medical community, and private hESC research companies. The unique political system of the United States has allowed for a dichotomous policy to arise, where federal funding of hESC is prohibited, but private companies and individual states are able to legally forge a path in hESC research. The prohibition of federal funds has created an abyss between states who choose to fund hESC research and those who prohibit it. It has also set the stage for yet another private corporation to advance in hESC and place profit above the American public. The embryo is the only silent member of this debate. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesHossam E. Fadel (2012). Developments in Stem Cell Research and Therapeutic Cloning: Islamic Ethical Positions, a Review. Bioethics 26 (3):128-135.
Mark T. Brown (2009). Moral Complicity in Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (1):pp. 1-22.
Shelley Tremain (2010). Biopower, Styles of Reasoning, and What's Still Missing From the Stem Cell Debates. Hypatia 25 (3):577-609.
John A. Robertson (1999). Ethics and Policy in Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9 (2):109-136.
Jackie Leach Scully & Christoph Rehmann-Sutter (2006). Creating Donors: The 2005 Swiss Law on Donation of 'Spare' Embryos to hESC Research. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (1-2).
Matthew Herder (2006). Proliferating Patent Problems with Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (1-2).
Andrew Fenton & Frederic Gilbert (2011). On the Use of Animals in Emergent Embryonic Stem Cell Research for Spinal Cord Injuries. Journal of Animal Ethics 1 (1):37-45.
Jan P. Beckmann (2004). On the German Debate on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (5):603 – 621.
Mark Moller (2009). Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the Discarded Embryo Argument. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (2):131-145.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads23 ( #53,853 of 549,088 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,088 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
