Download Model Position Paper 1

Student name:
Instructor name:
A-NCCT 2330: Position Paper
Date:
Should Human Embryos Be Used in Stem Cell Research?
Embryonic stem cell research has been an extremely passionate and debatable subject in
recent years. Stem cells are different from other types of cells because they are unspecialized
cells; they are able to renew themselves through cell division and to develop into more than two
hundred types of cells that humans have (Clemmitt 12). These cells are capable of surviving a
lifetime. Stem cells “under certain physiologic or experimental conditions . . . can be induced to
become tissue or organ-specific cells with special functions” (Kollmann 146). Embryonic stem
cells originate in the inner cell mass of an embryo. They have the ability to transform into most
of the tissues in the body (9). This is scientifically referred to as “pluripotentiality” (Shostak 9).
The opposing struggles associated with this debate include religious morality and groundbreaking medical science. The fundamental obstacle to the religious and moral issue is the
destruction of the unborn child. The predominant argument for medical research supporters is
that the lifesaving capabilities of such treatments outweigh any misgivings over the destruction
of embryos. Human embryos should not be used in stem cell research because the possible
scientific benefits of stem cell research do not justify the immoral actions.
A number of possible alternative solutions to embryonic stem cell research currently exist
in the United States. These alternatives of obtaining stem cells do not involve the destruction of
the fetus. The first option to embryonic stem cell research is utilizing adult stem cells. The main
function of adult stem cells is to sustain and heal the tissues where they are located (Kollmann
2
148). Adult stem cells reside in many areas of the body such as: bone marrow, brain, skeletal
muscle, heart, liver, blood vessels, placenta, and umbilical cord (148). The second alternative to
embryonic stem cell research is using the umbilical cord blood to provide stem cells. It only
requires collecting the umbilical cords after birth, instead of discarding them. Most pregnant
women are not informed that umbilical cord blood cell research exists; therefore, they are
ignorant of the possibilities and benefits of donating their umbilical cords (190). The third
alternative to embryonic stem cell research is utilizing the discarded placenta.
It offers a
sufficient amount of stem cells and “extracting stem cells from the human body after birth
without posing harm to the individual – is now far more promising than initially expected”
(Kollmann 189). Adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood stem cells, and placenta stem cells
provide valuable research and are not controversial because a human embryo is not destroyed.
When stem cell research initially began, it did not include embryonic stem cells. In the
early 1900s, it was discovered that some cells could generate blood cells. The first application of
stem cell research was unsuccessfully administered orally. Bone marrow was fed by mouth to
patients suffering from blood diseases such as anemia and leukemia (Clemmitt 12). The first
successful bone marrow transplant occurred between identical twins. Bone marrow transplants
between siblings were successfully attempted next, followed by unrelated bone marrow
transplants (12). Embryonic stem cell research was first introduced to the public “in the
November 6, 1998 issue [of] . . . Science, the team led by James Thompson at the University of
Wisconsin . . . announced that it had isolated and cultured human ES cells from 20 to 36 human
blastocysts left over from in vitro fertilization” (Shostak 14). In 2005, cord blood stem cells
were found in the umbilical cords and placentas of newborn babies (Clemmitt 4). In the early
1900s, doctors recognized there was something extraordinary about bone marrow and attempted
3
to cure blood disorders with it. The detection of stem cells was a lifesaving discovery. Finding
stem cells in the umbilical cord blood and placenta is very important because these stem cells are
a significant replacement to the debated utilizing of embryonic stem cells.
Supporters of embryonic stem cell research possess aspiring, encouraging, and potentially
vital, life-saving, medical research. Supporters fight for the possibilities to cure or treat diseases
such as: Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes, sickle cell anemia, and even paralysis (Shostak 14).
Supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that excess in vitro embryos, left over after
fertility treatments, will eventually die and be discarded anyway. Why not perform vital medical
scientific research with them? There are over 400,000 frozen embryos (Kollmann 188), and the
“United States scientists will not receive support . . . allowing them to cull human stem cells
from the detritus off in vitro fertility clinics” (Shostak 15). Supporters of embryonic stem cell
research claim that the United States will be in danger of losing its first place status in medical
research and this ” may cause long-term damage to American biomedicine” if embryonic stem
cell research is discontinued (Clemmitt 10). Supporters of embryonic stem cell research value
health and medical advancement; they feel obligated to discover new treatments and provide a
better quality of life with the highest ranked medical care possible. They also believe the
consequences of embryonic stem cell research could be medical breakthroughs with the
possibilities of ending or easing pain and suffering.
The opponents of embryonic stem cell research have effective, compelling, and ethical
concerns regarding the destruction of human life. Opponents believe that human beings should
not terminate a human life; they believe God creates and places a soul in the body at conception,
and He alone chooses when to end that life. To opponents, a difference does not exist between a
living, breathing human being and a five-day-old embryo. They are both equally human because
4
God placed a soul in them at the moment the cell was fertilized (Clemmitt 4). Opponents of
embryonic stem cell research dispute that nothing justifies killing a human being. They maintain
that the embryos to be destroyed are equal in moral status to other humans and should not be
used in medical research, because the embryos were not given the opportunity to offer consent
(6). Opponents of embryonic stem cell research argue that supporters of embryonic stem cell
research risk creating a disease like cancer while trying to cure another condition or disease.
Researchers have discovered that “ the retroviruses used to deliver the genes into cells’
chromosomes may cause cancer if they connect to a gene that keeps cell division in check”
(Kollmann 150). Opponents value human beings; they specifically value the sanctity of life.
Opponents feel obligated to protect all human life, from conception to natural death. They
believe that the consequence of killing a human being, even a human embryo, has spiritual
repercussions.
The “slippery slope fallacy” argument is practiced by both supporters and opponents of
embryonic stem cell research. Both parties apply the “parade of horrors” fallacy and provide a
collection of possible consequences that may occur if we go down that certain path. The
supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue for the “possibilities” of curing diseases. They
provide a long list of horrible illnesses that people will live with if a cure is not found. The
opponents of embryonic stem cell research advocate for the lives of the embryonic humans.
They provide a very serious consequence: spiritual repercussions.
After reviewing the arguments presented by both sides, I continue to be a passionate and
enthusiastic opponent of embryonic stem cell research, and strongly disagree with the undeniable
destruction of human embryos for research purposes. To me, the potential medical benefits do
not justify killing innocent humans. Pope John Paul II suffered from Parkinson’s disease, which
5
is believed to be receptive to successful treatment utilizing stem cell research; however, he
passionately lectured against embryonic stem cell research, even though it could have benefited
him. He stated that embryonic cells need to be protected because they “are a form of a human
life” (Kollmann 172). I value and respect human life because life is sacred. The Catechism of
the Catholic Church points out that: Human life is sacred . . . no one can under any circumstance
claim for himself the right to destroy an innocent human being (Catechism 2258). I also hold the
moral stance to value the sanctity of the human embryo. A five-day-old human is killed to
acquire embryonic stem cells; supporters of embryonic stem cell research diminish this wrong by
stating that “an embryo could not have any sensation or consciousness before any neural cells
differentiate, which does not occur until well after the appearance of the primitive streak”
(Greely 573). I cannot consent to the killing of spare embryos, or accept the excuse that the
embryos will be dying anyway. All human beings will “be dying anyway,” but that does not
validate killing a person. The fact that a human embryo is neglected by his or her parents does
not give anyone the right to kill that five-day-old human being.
I feel obligated to protect all humans, especially, innocent unborn babies. All human
beings were once embryonic humans; that is the foundation for my belief that destructive
embryonic stem cell research is an immoral act. I believe that “The fact that Jesus became a
human being at the moment of conception reinforces that all stages of human life have inherent
value” (Clemmitt 5). I also believe that the consequences of moral insubordination have spiritual
repercussions. I will continue to advocate the religious and ethical concerns surrounding
embryonic stem cell research, while still supporting ethical advancements in research that seek to
end human suffering.
6
In conclusion, embryonic stem cell research continues to offer one of the most intense
and complicated dialogues today. The main difficulty of this debate includes opposing views
between religion and medical science. The central complication to the religious issue is the
destruction of an innocent child. The key argument for supporters is that the lifesaving potential
overshadows everything else, including the destruction of embryos. Even though the supporters
of embryonic stem cell research offer compelling arguments for their belief, one must remember
that human embryos should not be used in stem cell research because the possible scientific
benefits do not justify the immoral actions. Embryonic stem cell research remains a dangerous
option and I stand firm, with the opponents, because of my faith values. I value the sanctity of
life because life is sacred. I am obligated to protect all humans, especially innocent unborn
babies; and I believe that the consequences of moral insubordination have spiritual
repercussions. I believe that this is the best option, even if that means that I, or a loved one like
Pope John Paul II, could be faced with a devastating disease.
7
Works Cited
Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 5th ed. Vatican: Libreria Editrice
Vaticana, 1995. Print.
Clemmitt, Marcia. "Stem Cell Research." CQ Researcher (1 Sept. 2006): 697-720. Web. 31 Oct.
2011.
Greely, Henry T. "Moving Human Embryonic Stem Cells from Legislature to Lab: Remaining
Legal and Ethical Questions." PLoS Medicine 3.4 (2006): e143-0575. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 5 Oct. 2011.
Kollmann, Maite S. "Taking the Moral High Road: Why Embryonic Stem Cell Research Should
Be Strictly Regulated." Faulkner Law Review 2.1 (2010): 145-192. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 5 Oct. 2011.
Shostak, Stanley. Becoming Immortal: Combing Cloning and Stem-Cell Therapy. Albany: State
U of New York P, 2002. Print.