Stem Cell Research: Argumentative Essay

What if there was a chance of curing degenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s? Everyone should be in favor of ending the suffering of the thousands of people who have these diseases and their families that have to be brought in by such a curse. These diseases and a surplus more can be cured with the potential results of stem cell research. Embryotic stem cells are undifferentiated cells in the womb. The factor of being undifferentiated is crucial to embryotic, and in disease cures, tissue development. Through each stage of fetal development, the embryo will have its stem cells differentiated into different cells. Examples will include muscle, neural, intestinal, cardiac, liver, and blood cells. Research using these undifferentiated cells requires the destruction of an embryo, making the practice an immoral undertone. Some will argue that the embryos in the womb do not deserve disrespect, based on the idea of not harming any form of life. While the other side, in favor of stem cell research, will overlook such unethicality for the benefit of future cures that could save many other out-of-womb lives. Nations around the world should fund stem cell research due to the possible cures in the future.

Stem cells are our baseline for development in the womb and can build 260 different kinds of cells in the human body. Sadly, this research involves using and destroying embryos and “possible lives”, to save lives and make them easier. Using embryonic cells can result in negative outcomes, and has been greatly associated with causing brain tumors and cancer. In addition to governmental reinforcements, many limitations, including immune rejection which can cause death and tumor possibility, are factors that convince the public that the research should not be advanced. Others can see this research as “playing god”. As described by Peter Lachmann, ‘playing god’ “carries with it the proposition that there is knowledge that may be too dangerous for the mankind to know (2).” Later in his work, Lachmann digs up an ancient code of conduct still used today, the Hippocratic oath. The Hippocratic oath swears that by your own hands every Ph.D. shall not knowingly cause harm to another life. Reaching back to morals, the scientists and doctors involved are breaking the Hippocratic oath, by tearing apart the fetuses in the womb, whether natural or lab-made.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

On the other hand, the scientists who see eye-to-eye with stem cell research are currently restricted by the amount of federal funding and embryonic cells available for research. The reason for this is the fact that everyone sees that any products and medication put forth from this medical boom would be far too expensive. Some scientists worry that if strict regulations of stem cell research continue, private companies may bypass the standards put in place by the National Institute of Health and conduct unregulated research. If the United States wishes to remain a premiere country in biomedical research and maintain order and control of embryonic research being performed, action must be taken to address this issue.

Barack Obama says that “…we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.” Governments around the globe have passed legislation to regulate stem cell research. In the United States, laws prohibit the creation of embryos for research purposes. Scientists instead receive 'leftover' embryos from fertility clinics with consent from donors. Most people agree that these guidelines are appropriate. Disagreements surface, however, when political parties debate about how to fund stem cell research. The federal government allocates billions of dollars each year to biomedical research. Legislators have had the unique challenge of encouraging advances in science and medicine while preserving respect for life. U.S. President Bush, for example, limited federal funding to a study of 70 or so hES cell lines back in 2001. While this did slow the destruction of human embryos, many believe the restrictions set back the progress of stem cell research. President Obama overturned Bush's stem cell policy in 2009 to expand the number of stem cell lines available to researchers.

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. An imperative factor in stem cell therapy 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 the 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 stores 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's identity. It, consequently, follows that if the 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.

Overall, though the destruction of a life is typically seen to be unethical, the moral status of an embryo in the blastocyst stage is unclear and therefore cannot be equated to the moral status of an adult human being. Also, ethical sources of embryonic stem cells exist that do not take the life of future beings (i.e. unwanted frozen embryos produced via in vitro fertilization, donated egg cells fertilized in a laboratory). For these reasons, in combination with the possibility of reducing suffering for future beings, embryonic stem cell research is ethical under certain circumstances. As long as the stem cells are isolated in a manner that does not harm an embryo with the plan of developing into an adult human, the subsequent research is ethically justified. With this in mind, embryonic stem cell research should receive greater government funding so that continued progress can be made.

The debate over embryonic stem cell research is a scientific, moral, and political issue. Embryonic stem cells, hold important value for scientific researchers in search of cures for untreatable diseases, medicine to regenerate an assortment of tissues, or a better understanding of early human development. 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 studies.