Ethical arguments for embryonic stem cell research in healthcare

Healthcare Ethics -- Stem Cells

Stem cell science has been one of the major areas of ethical controversy in healthcare in the early 21st century. That is largely because the most valuable types of stem cell tissues are those that are derived from embryonic sources, primarily fertilized ova (zygotes) from unused embryos created in-vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics (Levine, 2008). The principal objection to their use for medical research comes from those who argue that human life begins at conception and that any experimental or therapeutic use of embryonic human tissues is, therefore, fundamentally immoral (Levine, 2008). Comprehensive ethical analysis requires consideration of four ethical parameters: autonomy, beneficence, non-malfeasance, and justice.

Autonomy

In principle, the prohibition of the use of embryonic fetal stem cells violates the autonomy of patients, particularly when the patients themselves are the source of the embryonic tissues. For example, under current U.S. law, none of the extra embryos created in conjunction with in-vitro fertilization procedures can be used for research or for therapeutic purposes, even when the individuals whose reproductive tissues created those embryos expressly consent to such us (

Levine, 2008). There is no justifiable reason why embryos that will never be allowed to develop beyond the zygote stage should be protected in this manner, especially because they are treated as medical waste anyway. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research suggest that any human embryo is necessarily entitled to full human status. However, that belief raises important issues of law and justice (Dershowitz, 2002).

Beneficence and Non-malfeasance

Certainly, both the concept of beneficence and non-malfeasance absolutely prohibit the use of fetal stem cells from any fetus that is sufficiently developed to be considered a "person" as well as from any fetus that is sufficiently developed to sense pain. Medical authorities may debate where the exact point is where "personhood" first becomes an issue, but in principle, that characterization must be a function of objective criteria and never subjective beliefs of laypeople, especially based in religion (Dershowitz, 2002).

Both beneficence and the duty to avoid malfeasance prohibit using any person against his will or against his best interests in the event the individual is not yet capable of maintaining any will or consciousness. Those duties would naturally require medical ethicists to err on the safe side and avoid ever exploiting a substantially developed fetus for research purposes (Levine, 2008). However, it is equally clear that a fertilized human zygote consisting of only a few undifferentiated cells cannot possibly be entitled to any "rights" since it is too undeveloped to have any ability to sense pain, much less to survive on its own.