Moral Issues Relating to the Therapeutic Use of Embryonic Stem Cells in Humans

Therapeutic Use of Embryonic Stem Cells in Humans

Moral issues relating to the therapeutic use of embrionic stem cells in humans

Moral issues relating to the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells in humans

The inception of the idea of research of stem cells became plausible in several decades, in the past. Additionally, the research caused an ensuing countless debates to accompany the issue. In considering the research on the stem cell, several issues accompany the debate. These issues are either ethical, which are about the potential moral effects the stem cells may bring. The second issue is of the legal aspect, which consider the regulation of the stem cell technologies by the government and the policy makers in the helping the public (Ostnor, 2008). The last issues are social in nature, influencing and involving the society as a whole.

Human embryonic stem cells are the current subject of heavy and intensive discussion; not only by the biologists who discovered the practice, but also the medical professions, media, ethicists, governments and politicians. The stem cells are relatively 'super cells' that have a significantly remarkable clinical potential to heal and repair the affected body tissue (Sullivan, Cowan & Eggan, 2007). The proponents of the stem cell technology believe that, it is a representation of a possible relief and cure to most of the widespread range of common disabilities. The replacement of the defective cells in a patient through the transplantation of human embryonic stem cells, equivalent to the defective cells restores the normal function of that tissue.

Despite the possible positive impacts, the technology of stem cells represents, the use of the human embryonic stem cells continues to elicit highly controversial debates because of their origin. The debate is because; they come from the human pre-plantation embryos. This means that, most of the embryos, in the establishment of human embryonic stem cells are spare embryos from IVF (Ostnor, 2008). Additionally, there is a discussion of the model used to create and derive the stem cells. The biggest of the reasons for the controversy surrounding the technology of stem cells is the transfer of the nucleus of the somatic cells from a patient to an oocyte that is enucleated (unfertilized egg) so that they can produce the human embryonic stem cells. The cells produced therein are genetically identical to that of the patient for 'autologous' transplantation, famously called "therapeutic cloning." This prevents tissue rejection in time of transplant. Therefore, the issue of therapeutic cloning is eliciting strong debates, especially as the fertilization of the oocyte with the somatic cell-nucleus brings the subject of cloning into the subject (Sullivan, Cowan & Eggan, 2007). Therefore, embryonic stem cells use in humans for therapeutic reasons is not as bad, but the issue comes in with of the same for eugenistic purposes.

The question as to the morality of the issue is if the cells are isolatable and independently usable. Therefore, if they are independently isolatable, then what are the conditions and restrictions bordering the high political and ethical agenda? Several countries across the world continue to formulate policies and legislations to facilitate and regulate the extent of the derivation. For instance, the United Kingdom is the first country to pass the law that governs the use of the human embryo from the stem cells research. Additionally, the European Science Foundation established a committee that makes the inventory of the positions of different countries in Europe on the subject of human embryo stem cell research and usage. This contributes to the extended debate on the subject across the world.

To address the ethical and moral aspects associated with the isolation and use of the human embryo stem cells, it is significant to fathom the holistic approach in deriving the cells. This is what brings the controversy observed across the world, especially in the so-called 'liberal or democratically advanced countries' (Sullivan, Cowan & Eggan, 2007). The stem cells are primarily primitive cells that have a capacity to mutate and divide; giving rise to identical stem cells that specialize on as a form of somatic tissue. There are two broad categories of the stem cells, which are the embryonic stem cells, derived from a pre-implantation of an embryo. This form of stem cells has the ability to form cells and tissues of equal potential as the adult organism cells; hence the name, pluripotent. The other form of stem cells is the stem cells found in a variety of tissues in the fetus and the after birth. Under normal conditions, the specialized cells, also called 'multipotent' have the capacity to function as tissue replacement and repair (Ostnor, 2008). The human embryonic stem cells can form all somatic cells in the body; but cannot form the extra embryonic tissue necessary for the complete development of the individual tissue. For instance, the cells cannot form the placenta and the membranes that give rise to new complete individual. The embryonic stem cells are immortal and express remarkably high levels of a gene called tolemerase (Kiessling & Anderson, 2007). The protein product that facilitates the chromosomes that retain and maintain cell division and thus the cell does not undergo senescence. The other cells that have the same potential derive from primordial germ cells, which can form the gametes if there is no abortion of the fetus.

Additionally, in the human body, a variety of tissues found to have the stem cell population is present. The example of such tissues includes the brain cells, skeletal muscle, bone marrow and umbilical cord blood. However, the adult stem cells only have the capacity to form only cells similar to the organ from which they originate. There are several tests in animals on the cells implantation and they work as expected, proving the isolation and usage of the cells. Similarly, the tests continue to engage the humans, with several tests and trials being successful (Kiessling & Anderson, 2003). This shows the extent of the embryonic stem cell technology advancement in the world. The scientists and medical practitioners proved that it is useful in therapeutic application, in the medical care systems across the world. However, the issue of concern, despite all these benefits is the question of how immortal these trans-differentiated cells can acquire the appropriate function in the host tissue. Rapid research and advancements towards the establishment of the immortality of the stem cells is picking relative velocity towards the stem cells research subject. This is the issue of contention towards the subject of therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells, as the side effects and impacts of the issue in moral, ethical and political aspects.

The ontological status of the embryonic cells in view of the ethical aspect compares to the equivalent embryos. The research into the development of cell-replacement therapy requires the application of instrumental use of pre-implantation embryos. These current technologies for deriving the cells require the lyses trophectoderm. The embryo disintegrates; thus, destroyed when the cell replacement takes place. The considerable different opinions exist and culminate with regard to the ontological and moral status of the pre-implantation embryo. On one side, the conventionalist view is that 'the embryo is a person' and this bases their strong version of the argument that, due to its ability and potential to develop into a person, it is referable as a person (Ostnor, 2008). On the other side of the opponents, we find the argument that the embryo, and even the fetus, is non-person. Therefore, they ought not to have any attribution of moral status. These two views present a gap that has various extremes and intermediaries. The overlapping consensus of the subject and the ensuing debate is that, the embryo has a real but relatively low moral value. The arguments presented therein are those of the moderate version of the potentiality argument. The potentiality argument has the provocation that, the embryo deserves some form of protection due to the potentiality to become a 'person'. The argument further proceeds that the embryo is a representation of a beginning of life. The differences on these opinions venture around the weight of how much protection the embryo deserves. Additionally, the same applies to the pre-implantation embryo, and protection to award the embryo.

From the ethical view, the pre-implantation embryos represent a single class of embryos that are aneuploid and mostly non-viable (Monroe, Miller, & Tobis, 2007). For the non-viable embryos, the potentiality of the argument does not apply. This is because, the moral status only basis on their symbolic value, which is low in the pre-individualized pre-implantation embryos. The precise implications of the moral difference for the regulation of the instrumental application of the embryo are beyond the scope of the present research scientists. There are calls on the research about the subject of pre-implantation embryos to be forbidden. However, this call to forbid the research remains on a shaky basis, and it is difficult to reconcile the social acceptance of contraceptive intrauterine devices and implantations. The dominant view and argument in ethics is the relative moral value and the justification of the same under the conditions. The international debate focuses on the definition of the conditions governing the instrumental use of pre-implantation embryo.

The main ethical issues with of concern are the derivation of life in the exploration of the stem cells research. A substantial group of Americans objecting to research on embryonic stem cells in human technology argues of the destruction that occurs with the harvested cells. The embryonic stem cell research is controversial for all who believe that the five-day-old pre-implantation human embryos should be left to live; no matter how valuable the research is to the society (Masters, Palsson & Thomson, 2007). Life is a fundamental gift, and as such, it deserves proper treatment of care and provision. To date, the stem cell scientist succeeded in producing several disease-specific stem cells that are positively applicable in addressing genetic disease fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy. However, the therapeutic application of research into the biological development of the technique of somatic cell nuclear transfer is controversially growing the ensuing debate on human embryo implantation. The use of the somatic cell transplant is cloning of the being.

The people who are opposing the embryonic stem research have various bases. The bases are either religious or just other personal reasons that all the pre-implantations have moral standing equal to the living persons (Kiessling & Anderson, 2007). However, the opposition of the same claim that, the religions, not all have traditions grant full support for the, moral standing to early-age human embryos. For instance, according to the Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist traditions and various Western Christian views, the moral standings observed today apply much later during the gestation period. This is a contrary opinion to the belief that once the egg fertilization takes place, the embryo is human and as such, it requires and is worthy of same moral treatment as the growing living being. The religions that do not have this view believe that the fetus must reach a certain age of viability where it is capable of living outside the womb. The fact that the society around is pluralistic requires every person to learn and appreciate tolerance of the differences in religious and personal convictions over such theoretical matters. This determines the moral standings and observations that appear first during the development. Additional critics of the embryonic stem research believe that the pre-implantation embryos do have the ability to become fully fledged beings; thus should not undergo the destruction. However, the opponents argue that it is simply false since, most of the clinical embryos have a poor quality and; therefore, they are not capable of producing a fertile pregnancy (Kiessling & Anderson, 2007). Additionally, no embryo can have a potential to become fully developed human unless they undergo implantation into a woman's uterus. Prior to this implantation into the uterus, the embryo is only existent as an abstract and a hypothetical sense.

The belief that, no end believed to be good can justify this intervention kind. The preparation of the differentiated cells used for what looks as a promising therapeutic procedure is not justification for the harm caused with human embryos. The good end of the act does not justify the wrong end; hence, the moral issue therein. The ablation of the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, which irremediably and critically damages the human embryo, ending its development, is a gravely immoral act and consequently illicit (Stewart, Kerridge & Parker, 2007). The Catholics, in their position, explicitly confirm the doctrine outlines and affirms the faith of the Christian people. The Christian religion continues to affirm and hold that, the result of human procreation must remain in existence and respected. The being deserves unconditional respect, morally due to the weight of totality and unity in the body and spirit. The human deserves treatment with respect as a person from the moment of conception and; therefore, from that moment the person has the right to recognition as a person with inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Additionally, it is morally licit engage in the therapeutic cloning by producing and destroying the embryo to produce the ES cell. Every form of therapeutic cloning implies producing human embryos and destroying them to produce stem cells. This is morally wrong as the being has the right to life. Moreover, affects morality is the ES cells and differentiated cells obtained another issue from them (Kiessling & Anderson, 2007). These cells, no matter, which researcher supplies them remain negative according to the beliefs of those who oppose the production and manipulation of the human embryos. Cloning proves scientifically that life begins at the time of conception. The position that most philosophical Christians hold remains the basis of all the moral topics of discussion. All those who participate in ESCR and IVF procedures, recognize that there is no real distinction between pre-embryo and embryo and that conception marks the beginning of life (Hug & Hermere-n, 2011). Therefore, they argue that, as a nation, there should be an adjustment of the moral and legal treatment of the status of the embryo as people and not object or property from the conception point.

The therapeutic cloning, in which the adult undergoes a cloning procedure that results in duplication of their cells in order to stave off disease or illness or effect of an injury. The procedure starts with the cloning of the somatic cell for transfer. In the therapeutic cloning, the embryos live for up to fourteen days, after which the trophoblasts are ready. They are then harvested and the highly prized stem cells donated for treatment purposes. Therefore, the procedure for therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning begin the same; only the intended outcome is different. Additionally, if the stem cells get implantation, they can have a full embryo; however, temporarily. The proponents of the research are; however focusing on gaining ground by passing the legislation in Congress to support their funding. Additionally, the strategic research polls indicate that, most American population does not approve the use of public funds to destroy the human embryo in the medical research. The justification of the embryos left in IVF clinics; which are numerous in the United States alone, being discarded away reflects the chilling absence of moral conscience (Ostnor, 2008). The issue of developing stem cells for therapeutic use is comparable to the subject of deriving organs from dying patients and prisoners on death row before they die; to increase the chances of another being to live. The contemporary moral issue often follows the flow of money. The stem cell research and cloning are simply transforming the majesty and mystery of life into a mere malleable and marketable commodity. This is great a business and the pioneers and biotech companies who master the secret to harness power of life through cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Therefore, it is clear that the cloning research is for personal gain and development of these masters of biology.

Lastly, there is the aspect of disadvantages associated with embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). The scientific research findings do not support the public opinions. The first complication is that, the use of the human embryonic stem cells requires lifelong reliance with on drugs that prevent the rejection of the cloned cell by the tissues. This is costly and affects the life and health of the individual as these drugs have other associated side effects on the health of the person. Therefore, as such, the moral impact of the action affects the lifelong health of the individual (Stewart, Kerridge & Parker, 2007). Secondly, the therapeutic injection of the embryonic stems cells can result in a consequent production of tumors. The rapid growth nature of the associated cells in the body can overgrow, leading to tumor growth in the body of the person. This is injurious and could result to the death of the patient as the tumors can kill. When a person dies due to such a tumor, this is an ethical and moral issue in the society. Therefore, it is clear that the embryonic stem cell implant has more moral impacts and ethical effects that it is benefitting the people. Another disadvantage is as the revelation of a report in March 8, 2001, in The New England Journal of Medicine indicating the tragic side effects from an experiment that involved the insertion of fatal brain cells into the brain of Parkinson's disease patient (Sullivan, Cowan & Eggan, 2007). The results of the commission involved, uncontrollable movements: writhing, twisting, head jerking and constant chewing. This means that the person lost total control of their being and as such got permanent deformation of self. These are the impacts the clone could have on the being if the fatal cell gets implantation into a being. This is ethically wrong and morally unacceptable as the duty of doctors is to save lives and not impair the patients further. Therefore, the act of cloning and transplanting cells into the body of healthy or slightly deformed being could have disastrous effects of the patient.

Moreover, the report released recently in the Journal of Science reported that the mice cloned from ESC are genetically defective. The human's cells are unstable, and as such could materially compromise the efforts to transform the cells extracted from embryos into the successive medical therapies. This could have detrimental impacts on the being as the failed compromise could result in loss of life or permanent deformation. Additionally, the research findings may have impairment due to the aspect that, the testing occurs in the mouse cells and not the actual human cells. Therefore, it means that, in case of approval of treatment; the same would require approval of FDA, which then requires the safeguarding to prevent transmission of animal diseases to the people (Sullivan, Cowan & Eggan, 2007). It is not clear how many cell lines safeguarded are in place. Therefore, this amounts to a host of problems to relating to the transgenic issues therein. This is a moral aspect of the issue as well and requires critical and careful approach to address conclusively.

The adult stem cell research, in all fairness, has a restriction in differentiation potential and do not proliferate as well as the embryonic stem cells. While the ESCR yields, meager results have only far and distant possibilities in successful clinical applications (Grier, 2006). The current applications of adult stem cells are abundant. These include for the treatment of the following: corneal restoration, brain tumors, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, liver disease, leukemia, lupus, arthritis and heart disease. There are thousands of people treated using the adult stem cells. The alternative sources of adult stem cells include placenta, cord blood, bone marrow organ donor and some fat cells. Therefore, it is clear that these moral implications of the issue of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) are affecting the development of the treatment procedures. It is for these moral implications that the research should focus on the stem cell research rather than the embryonic stem cells in humans.