The Morality of Stem Cell Research Essays

The Morality of Stem Cell Research Essays The Morality of Stem Cell Research Essay The Morality of Stem Cell Research Essay Much debate has raged over the influence of nature and nurture on how people behave. Indeed human behavior can be studied by using environmental and biological approaches. However, there is a divergence in beliefs as to the roles of nature and nurture as far as human development is concerned. Fukuyama in his book Our Posthuman Future (2002) believes that science when taken to extreme, would very well be the cause of humanity’s end. The book argues that the manipulation of the very process that define life can create minute but certain changes in our common humanity, thereby altering our collective values underlie our history. (Fukuyama, 2002, p. 7) Consequently, the author believes that biotechnology may very well signal a revolution of catastrophic levels and advocates for controlling such rapid advances in medical and biological technology. This paper seeks to analyze this argument by framing it within an existing and controversial issue which is stem cell research. Humanity: A Sense of Personhood What separates humans from animals? That question has long baffled philosophers, psychologists, and scientists alike, because the answers are both simple and complex that any one person can come up theories as to the elements that distinguish humans from other kinds of animals. More than anything else, it is the ability to be deliberate in our choices and actions as we navigate the daily responsibilities of life. The ability to be guided by reason and free will and discern right and wrong separates us from animals (Harre 1998). This ability to differentiate and reflect between right and wrong is called personhood. The idea of personhood is something that is intimately tied with our collective consciousness and humanity, which explains why it can be very difficult to define, much less describe within certain parameters. The ideas behind personhood are the basis of fundamental human rights, humanitarian acts, as well as laws and regulations of an ordered society. Personhood may be defined as that innate capacity and right of a person for conscious deliberation and self-determination, based on proper reasoning. Personhood is not merely a function of genetic or organic existence. Much of personhood is an intangible concept that goes beyond simply being labeled as a living organism. Frankfurt (1971, p 6) defines a person as a creature with the capacity to fulfill needs and desires in ways that indicate free will and reasoning. The person is able to identify these needs and desires and acts in deliberation and fr ee will in order to achieve such desires. The person, acting in such capacity, is fully aware of the motivations that lead him or her to such actions. A person is a unique creature and stands apart from other animals because humans have the ability to deliberate on desires and make the appropriate choices and actions based on their free will. The person’s free will and reasoning enables him to make appropriate actions and whether to repress these desires or pursue its fulfillment. Unlike animals that are driven by instinct and basal needs, a person has the ability to exercise his free will and reason and make a choice on what actions to take. Raz (2006, p. 3) elevates the concept of personhood further to emphasize the role of reason in the exercise of free will. Raz maintains that it is reason that determines if an individual is truly using his free will or not. Given a variety of desires and needs, the person, guided by reason, decides on what desires to act on, if at all. T he choices are based on the individual’s ability to evaluate and prioritize desires and recognize motivations and ascribe to them values of right and wrong (Watson 1987, p. 217). Analysis of Ethical Issues Unlike animals that are driven by instinct and basal needs, a person has the ability to exercise his free will and reason and make a choice on what actions to take. Raz (2006, p. 3) elevates the concept of personhood further to emphasize the role of reason in the exercise of free will. Raz maintains that it is reason that determines if an individual is truly using his free will or not. Given a variety of desires and needs, the person, guided by reason, decides on what desires to act on, if at all. The choices are based on the individual’s ability to evaluate and prioritize desires and recognize motivations and ascribe to them values of right and wrong. (Watson, 1987, p. 217) From these values we make the choices that we make and create a civilized and ordered society. However, the challenges of life create blurred lines between what is ethical and what is not. Stem Cell Research Stem Cell is deeply related to personhood. New discoveries in medicine and science technology have pushed the boundaries of medical technology and the mapping of the human DNA has given scientists the blueprint for life and the variables that make it so unique to each person. The controversy surrounding stem cell revolves around the use of embryos to harvest stem cells and use them as potential cures for wide range of illnesses from cancer to Alzheimer’s disease, from spinal cord injuries to lung diseases and most degenerative diseases. (Panno, 2006, p. 76) The curative power of stem cells lies in its undifferentiated state. These stem cells are the progeny of all the kinds of cells and tissues that form in the body. Stem cells can be developed into any kind of cell, replacing those that are aberrant or damaged in the patient’s body. Stem cells can be harvested and then planted into people with illnesses. (Fukuyama, 2002, p. 58)   Once inside the body, the stem cells can then be molded into any specific cell that the person needs. Stem cells are present in all individuals, however in adults, the stem cells lose some of their purity and patency and there is a high risk of mismatching and consequent failure to graft. However the bigger issue is that the potential of adult stem cells to differentiate is narrower, meaning that their potential to become other types of cells are limited, often limited to the type of tissue where they came from. Embryo stem cells have no such limitations; they are pluripotent – which means they have the capacity to become any kind of cell in the body. This quality of embryonic stem cells makes them the ideal source for undifferentiated cells that can be used to repair cell and tissue damage. (Holland, Lebacqz, Zoloth, 2001, p. 5) The Emotional Case Against Stem Cell Research Ethical issues arise because embryos or fetal tissues can be used only to be sources of stem cells. These embryos may be used or even destroyed in the course of harvesting and research. The developing fetus does not have the power to refuse such actions and is helpless to do anything about it. Taking the debate further, when the technology has been perfected, there is also the fear of creating embryos only for the purpose of healing someone else’s illness and not for the creation of life.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   At the heart of the debate of stem cell research is personhood and the question of the viability of life. Pro-life groups reiterate the same arguments for abortion as they are doing with stem cell research. They fight for the right of the unborn and argue that life begins upon the meeting of the sperm cell and the egg. Pro-life sections of society argue that stem cell research violate the most basic of human rights and bioethical principles, foremost of which is the principle of informed consent. Implicit to the element of respect for personhood and basic human rights is the concept of informed consent (Merrill 1998). In the medical field, informed consent is legal stipulation that presupposes that patients of legal age agree to have a medical operation or procedure done on them only after being given the full facts of the situation, including the risks that they may face while undergoing said procedure. (Beauchamp Childress 1994, p. 21) This principle extends to experimental and mainstream medical procedures. While it may be argued that the knowledge gained from stem cell research and the potential it has to save millions of lives, the knowledge gained is stained by how it was attained. Certainly there are better ways to harvest and use embryo stem cells and such information could have been obtained using more humane and ethical procedures, one that would not have to entail the destruction and the blatant disregard for human life. The concept of informed consent is grounded on the principle that medical professionals should be able to communicate properly the situation and all the possible risks that the medical intervention may entail. Based on the information given the patient will then weigh whether the benefits of the intervention outweighs the risks and then makes the decision. Informed consent empowers individual to make choices about their own health conditions and what can and cannot be done about it. Health care professionals are legally and ethically bound to engage the patient and involve them in issues that concern their own bodies. (Beauchamp Childress 1994, p. 48). Informed consent, as a manifestation of our basic human right to freedom and dignity is the cornerstone of bioethics. If we are stripped of the right to determine what happens to our own body in the name of medical science, then it is in violation of the very essence of research. However, we disregard such basic rights when it comes to the unborn precisely because they have no capacity to demonstrate their choices and no capacity to deliberate on the consequences. Because embryos have no such abilities, we assume that they do not have the right to be accorded or extended the same rights as we do adult humans. The Case for Stem Cell Research (Proponents) Those who support stem cell research argue that embryos are not viable human beings. Therefore, in the absence of personhood and the viability of life, embryos can be treated as we do any lab animal to further the cause of medical science and cure the many illnesses that beset mankind. Scientists and researchers believe that they are doing a greater good because of the great potential of stem cells to cure heretofore incurable maladies. Indeed, the ability of embryonic stem cells to cure has long been proven and there have been many instances of dramatic life-saving stories involving stem cell. The proponents have scientific data to validate their stand and they make use of the actual lives that have been saved by using stem cells. The point is to advance medical knowledge and improve existing technologies and methodologies. Some also argue that we need to do the research in order to discover ways that would harvest fetal stem cells without destroying it. (Bellomo, 2006, p. 12) Some sacrifices must be made in the refinement of the process and soon a technique may be discovered that would point to a less destructive source of pluripotent stem cells or to some technique that will enable us to create stem cells separate from a fertilized egg. The potential of stem cell research is as unlimited as the potential of the stem cells themselves. The medical community believes in its greater good to cure sick people and to extend to people the healthy and happy life that is also an inherent right of all mankind. Abortion: The Roots of the Debate Against Stem Cell Research Clearly, based on these definitions, personhood is an attempt to define the characteristics that allows us to determine whether an organism is a person or not. Simply, put three elements must be present for personhood: free will, reasoning, and moral decisions. Our actions are constantly being judged as moral or not, and we have the choice whether to ascribe to these moral laws. Of course all of these actions, whether moral or not will then have consequences that the person must deal with. Why should there be a debate in the first place as to what renders a person a human being? The debate is mainly a legal issue. Much of the legal laws that govern most societies are based on personhood and legal debate is also the basis whether an action is illegal or not. One of the most enduring and controversial issues about personhood is the question of when it actually begins. The issue of personhood determines whether stem cell research is morally and legally right. Of course, people on both sides of the fence would arbitrarily argue that personhood is one thing or another, depending on what best suits their purpose. Those who are against stem cell research would argue that personhood begins during conception, while those on the opposite side would maintain that personhood cannot exist during the fetal stage and therefore, there is no actual act of violation to the baby while in this stage. (Fukuyama, 2002, p. 89) The debate against stem cell research is intimately tied with issues of abortion. Because stem cell technology is fairly new, there is no judicial precedent yet. However, in terms of personhood and the viability of life debate first came to a head in the watershed Roe vs. Wade (1973) case. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the woman has the right to have an abortion up until a certain time when the fetus becomes â€Å"viable†. Viable in this case is defined as the period when the fetus has the potential to survive outside the womb, regardless of any medical or artificial assistance. This is generally considered to take place during the 6th or 7th month of fetal life. Abortions before this period of viability are then ruled to be permissible if needed to protect the woman’s health. The decision does not legalize abortion but allows it as long as the woman has an abortion before the fetus becomes viable and only for medical reasons (Scott 1990, p. 67). At the heart of the controversy and debate that continues to rage to this day is the respect for both the personhood of the mother and the baby inside her and the stem cells that fetal cells contain. If, by exercising her personhood, the mother decides to harvest the stem cell to help a relative or another child, is she morally wrong or right? Or what if she decides to terminate her pregnancy altogether? What conditions make stem cell harvest legal and when is it not? Of course, the much deeper issue that should be addressed is where do we go off deciding the viability of a fetus and the value of life? The case created a deep schism and polarized a country between those who were pro-life (anti-abortion) and pro-choice (pro-abortion). The decision practically upheld abortion as a basic human right, and is protected by law as long as it is done with within certain narrowly-defined parameters. The woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy falls under her right to privacy and pe rsonhood. She, being the owner of her body, has the right to deliberate and determine how she wants her own body to be. Roe was a rape victim who got pregnant as a result of the criminal act. She then wanted to have an abortion, arguing that the circumstances of her pregnancy give her moral and legal right to an abortion. Interpretation Perhaps we shall never be able to fully deliberate on the morality and legality of stem cell research because at best, we can only speculate on the viability and personhood of a fetus. In such cases, the value of a human life is debated only when stem cell harvesting becomes an option or when a legal case arises from it. In most cases, there seems to be a consensus that human life begins at the moment of conception and that personhood, as a process, begins also at this time. The controversy of stem cell research and the challenges that it poses to our moral and ethical directions is a reflection of our exercise of personhood. It should be discussed and deliberated and questioned because the failure to do so is the failure of our own collective and individual humanity. And in this case, Fukuyama may be right. Such issues that cause such polarization can very well erode humanity.