Embryonic stem cells are the fundamental building blocks that can develop into 260 kinds of cells in human body. They can transform to anything, namely muscle, heart, skin, brain, blood. However, embryonic stem cell research involves using embryos and terminates existence of identity. It is a debatable question since embryonic stem cell research raises legal, moral and funding issues. It is illegal in several U. S. states and European countries (Greer 48). Using embryonic stem cells has been immensely negative and associated with causing brain tumors and cancer cells. A number of experts are opposed to its improvement. Implementation of embryonic stem cell research is controversial since, unfortunately, embryonic stem cells cannot be collected without destroying the embryo. Since this research involves the devastation of the embryos from which stem cells are collected, federal financial support for it was barred by an act of Congress (Hug 107). In addition, many limitations, including immune rejection and tumor possibility, are convincing factors that the research should not be advanced. Those in favor of embryonic research advancement argue that a few excellent cell lines exist to allow scientists to accomplish what they claimed was the enormous and exceptional promise of embryonic stem cell study (Greer 51). As a consequence, if they are stopped, many people will keep on suffering from terrible diseases that could be cured. In fact, the throbbing and damaging consequences might be alleviated by technologies and therapies attained from embryonic stem cell study. However, considering the side effects of embryonic stem cell research, it is convincible to state that embryonic stem cell research should not be allowed to advance since it is illegal and its implementation would mean increase in tumors.
Arguments Why Embryonic Stem Cell Research Should Not Be Permitted
Embryonic stem cell research should not be permitted to advance since it is illegal and touches negatively ethical issues (Odorico, Pedersen and Zhang 300). Opponents of study on embryonic cells, comprising various religious and anti-abortion organizations, contend that embryos are people with the similar rights. Thus, they have to be provided with the same safeguards against mistreatment as anyone else. They acknowledge life commences at the point of conception, when a sperm fertilizes an egg. At that moment, a distinct organism has emerged into existence (Hug 111). Consequently, the devastation of an embryo is the devastation of a person's life. Encouraging advancement of this research violates human rights (Greer 69). This research poses a moral dilemma, as it brings into apprehension two fundamental ethical ideologies that people highly value. These are the responsibility to stop or alleviate anguish, and the responsibility to respect the worth of individual life. The collection of individual embryonic stem cells infringes second responsibility as it results in the devastation of human existence (De Wert and Mummery 672). Both values cannot concurrently be respected in the scenario of embryonic stem cell study. The problem is what standard ought to be given priority in this divergence situation (Hug 108). Since an embryo is supposed to be a human being from the instant of conception, it has the right to its individual life. As a result, participation in research is an infringement of that right. The Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Conservative Protestants confirm the holiness of human life at every stage of development. They believe that authentic individual personhood starts with the zygote that eventually develops into a person (Greer 91).
The other reason for banning embryonic stem cell research development is its side effects. Even though embryonic stem cells comprise the widest differentiation prospective, their employment for cellular therapeutics is eliminated for numerous reasons. These include the unmanageable expansion of teratoma, imprinting-correlated developmental oddities, and ethical matters (Hug 112). Debate leads to a question about embryonic stem cells being used to give a distribution of islet cells for transplantation into people. The answer to such question is a definite no since the field of embryonic stem cells encounters huge hurdles to overcome prior to these cells can be utilized in human body. The main predicaments to surmount are making the stem cells distinguish into specific practical cells constantly and avoiding unimpeded cell separation after transplantation (Greer 101). Solid data of constant, operation islet cells from embryonic cells in animals has not been observed. ES cells and their imitative carry the same possibility of immune rejection as a transferred organ. In fact, they have surface antigens, or proteins, by which the resistant system distinguishes invaders. Hundreds of amalgamations of different antigens are likely. Millions of ES cell lines might be required to institute a bank of cells with protected matches for most potential patients. Embryonic stem cells have various limitations, comprising immune rejection and tumors generation (Hug 113).
Arguments Why Embryonic Stem Cell Research Should Be Permitted
On the other hand, those in favor of embryonic stem cell research advancement base their arguments on embryo rights. Stem cells are primal cells with the capability to separate and produce more similar or specific stem cells and form specialized cells of somatic tissues. The embryo cannot develop into a child devoid of being relocated in a woman's uterus (Hug 114). It requires exterior aid to allow its expansion. Consequently, it does not encompass a dynamic potentiality to develop into a person without facilitation. Even with the outside assistance provided, the likelihood that embryos employed in vitro fertilization can extend into full-term triumphant births is minimized. This prospect is greatly context-dependent on the worth of external human intervention, transferability in uterus, and other issues. The question whether the embryo will develop and be born arises (De Wert and Mummery 674). Thus what could potentially turn into a person must not be ethically regarded as a person. Contrary to the preceding proclamation, the temporarily insensible persons already had all the characteristics of personhood prior to falling into oblivion and will have them once more when they recover it (Greer 110).
Despite the moral issues, these cells show an overpoweringly higher possibility to heal illness. Embryonic stem cell study contributes drastically to the systematic grasp of stem cells. Details that are currently being used to study new medical therapies utilize collected stem cells (Odorico, Pedersen and Zhang 310). An imperative factor in stem cell therapeutic treatments is the ability to use the patient's own stem cells to generate the most effective medical therapies. Such therapies will not be redundant to body's immune mechanism. New therapies employing adult stem cells like those initiated in bone marrow and teeth are important for medicinal research. Pro research advancement researchers hope that by controlling stem cells in the lab, they can be employed to treat Parkinson's disease, heart disease, diabetes and some disorders (Hug 114). The main clinical supply is the aborted fetus and unexploited embryos presently housed in frozen store at IVF facilities. An advanced stem cell line originates from a solitary embryo, rotating into a collection of cells that reproduces nonstop. Even if one cannot point to a precise separating line in human growth when personhood is acquired, it may be debated that every time the transition happens, early pre-implantation period embryos do not encompass the physiological, psychological, expressive or intellectual characteristics that are associated with a person identity (Odorico, Pedersen and Zhang 314). It, consequently, follows that if embryo does not accomplish the principle of personhood, it does not contain any happiness to be confined and thus may be employed instrumentally for the advantage of human beings. The supporters of embryonic stem cell advancement argue about the point that it will assist to alleviate some agonies (Greer 112).
In conclusion, embryonic stem cell research should not be permitted to advance since it is morally and legally unacceptable to compromise the rights of human being. It is evident that there are many supporters of its advancement; however, the violation perspectives of human rights negate the benefits associated with it. Embryonic stem cells are resultant from person embryos. Their exploitation is controversial since, unfortunately, these cells cannot be collected without damaging the embryo. Since embryonic stem cell study comprises the devastation of the embryos from which stem cells are collected, its funding was banned. Thus, no matter what the moral conditions are, every individual has the right to live. A person's existence and interests should be protected. Consequently, the life of the embryo should be secluded since it has a worth to the embryo itself.
De Wert, Guido and Christine Mummery. "Human Embryonic Stem Cells: Research, Ethics and Policy." Human Reproduction 18.4 (2003): 672-682. Print.
Greer, Erik V. Embryonic Stem Cell Research. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2006. Print.
Hug K. "Therapeutic Perspectives of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research versus the Moral Status of a Human Embryo - Does One Have to Be Compromised for the Other?" Medicina (Kaunas) 42.2 (2006): 107-114. Print.
Odorico, Jon., Roger Pedersen and Su-Chun Zhang. (Eds.). Human Embryonic Stem Cells. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. 2004. Print.