Stem Cell Offer Unparalleled Potential

Stem cell offer unparalleled potential to alleviate problems associated with certain medical conditions because of their unique ability to self-multiply and turn into any specialized type of cell such as brain cell. Their use in medicine would seem uncontroversial except for the fact that the stem cells with the most promise for medicine are derived from embryos. Embryonic stem cells are, however, grown and harvested in a clinical laboratory and not in a woman's body. Their use poses no real ethical problem except for a small portion of the population that opposes their use. Reasons for opposing the use of stem cells for medical research and treatment centers on the fact that the simplest way to harvest the cells is by destroying the embryo. Yet the embryos used for stem cell research rarely have the opportunity to be used in artificial insemination and therefore would normally be discarded and therefore destroyed. Moreover, emerging medical research technologies preclude destroying the embryos from which stem cells are harvested.

However, opponents of stem cell research also claim that even if the in vitro embryo is not destroyed then stem cell research still comes dangerously close to cloning research and should be banned. Yet therapeutic cloning for stem cell research and cloning for the intent of creating a human being are two wholly different procedures. Creating stem cells for use in treating degenerative diseases, revitalizing injured or dead portions of the human spinal cord, or replenishing depleted liver cells does not at all entail growing stem cells to create a new fully-formed human being in the laboratory. Stem cell research and its applications in the realm of medical technology are therefore controversial for no rational reason. The ethical dilemmas associated with stem cell research are either rooted in hypocritical arguments against destroying in vitro embryos that would be destroyed anyway; or in unfounded fears regarding the use of stem cells in cloning. So long as the law prevents human cloning from becoming a reality, stem cell research can continue to provide promise to millions of human beings suffering from a wide range of diseases for which cures do not yet exist. New ethical dilemmas may arise if cloning becomes feasible but until then, stem cell research and cloning should remain separate issues. Health care institutions devoted to progress in research and providing patients with the broadest range of treatment options possible should welcome stem cell research as a means to further the goals of the medical establishment.

Global competition is already having a profound impact on healthcare policy in the United States. The rise of medical tourism presents particularly interesting challenges for businesses in the health care sector. Patients are increasingly likely to fly to Mexico, India, and Thailand for their medical services because of the lower costs and high quality of care. The same procedures cost far less in developing nations, and often doctors in countries like Thailand receive their training in American medical colleges. Furthermore, international hospital affiliations enables patients in the United States to find reputable institutions to patronize for services that they cannot afford at home. Procedures not or only partially covered by insurance plans are made more affordable abroad, even when the cost of flying and hotel rooms are taken into account.

One potentially positive effect of global competition is a price war that might reduce the cost of health care in the United States. Health care costs in the United States are exorbitant compared to the same procedures abroad, and many medical services are only partially alleviated by private insurance policies. Even when personal healthcare insurance covers some of the costs associated with treatment, patients pay for a large amount of their medical bills out of their own pockets. Employee healthcare plans are often insufficient to meet the needs of many patients, and health care policy in the United States has yet to keep up with the demand for cheaper services.

Also, American health care policy does not really allow for much patient choice in terms of their doctors or the services they request. Patients are instead at the mercy of their insurance companies for determining the extent of care they receive and where they receive it. Any patient who wants a procedure or a medication not covered by their plan and any patient whose insurance company denies coverage of certain procedures is forced to foot the bill themselves. In most cases the bills are outlandish and only the very wealthy could afford to avail themselves of desired services.

Global competition makes medical procedures and pharmaceutical interventions available for a wider range of people. The lower price tags on medications and the cheaper surgeries offered by doctors in foreign countries has encouraged patients to seek medical attention abroad rather than in the United States. Because physicians in foreign countries are frequently well-trained, even trained in the United States, patients are becoming more open to medical tourism. Global competition has yet to affect American healthcare policy, which favors the interests of insurance companies and private institutions more than the interests of the average American citizen. In the future as more and more American money is spent abroad in the search for affordable, desired medical care then U.S. healthcare policies may change. The United States might need to become more competitive on the global healthcare market by limiting the power insurance companies have over healthcare costs and coverage. Health care policy in the United States has yet to keep up with the burgeoning global market but before long, health care institutions and insurance companies will start to feel the financial sting of medical tourism. Competitive pricing would be the most ideal way of addressing the issue in policy but it is also likely that public policy will become more protectionist. For example, policies preventing patients from seeking treatment abroad via collaborations with foreign health care institutions could limit the range of services available for Americans traveling abroad.