Ethics Case Study: Stem Cells
Tessa Rowe
11/2/17
There are many ethical theories that exist to describe ways in which people think and respond to controversial issues and decisions. Some of these theories include utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, contract theory, and egoism. Specifically utilitarianism is an ethical theory that deals with making decisions that do the most amount of good and the least amount of bad. In the case of utilitarianism, people act to cause the most happiness to the most amount of people. A utilitarianist would weigh the options and decisions and decide upon the decision that would benefit the most people and cause the most happiness in the long run. In utilitarianism moral rules may be broken in order to achieve happiness and benefits for the most amount of people, therefore they may go ahead with something that is perceived as immoral because of the end happiness and good it could provide. In utilitarianism, people are usually consequentialists meaning they care more about the end outcome than the means to get there. The end result may be very beneficial and provide lots of happiness, which justifies the means to get there even if that may be making a decision that seems immoral. However, with utilitarianism, a decision that provides the most happiness to the most people does not seem immoral to those who believe this theory but it may seem immoral to others who believe in different ideas and theories. In all, utilitarianism has the thought process that the ends justify the means and the main goal is to provide the most happiness and good to the most amount of people.
Point of View of a Utilitarianist:
After weighing her options, I think that Raina voted to approve proposition 71 to fund embryonic stem cell research for the next ten years. I, as a utilitarianist, would have voted yes as well to approve proposition 71 to allow and fund embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells have been extensively researched and have been proved to provide possible treatments for many very severe and devastating diseases and/or injuries. These diseases and injuries may include Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cystic fibrosis, spinal cord injuries, and more. The possibilities of these stem cells are endless because they can become any type of cell and can be manipulated in many ways to provide lots of opportunities. The idea behind funding embryonic stem cells research and allowing embryonic stem cells to be donated to research provides endless opportunities for what these stem cells can do for people. Donating stem cells and funding research on them can help to further develop treatments and cures to serious diseases and injuries. Finding these cures, implementing treatments, and fixing sever injuries all because of donated embryonic stem cells will provide happiness to many people around the world. For starters, embryonic stem cells are most commonly donated from left over in vitro fertilization, therefore donors who have donated their cells to embryonic stem cell research that helped to find a cure to a disease or injury will be overwhelmed with happiness and satisfaction that their donation is helping people all around the world. Patients with injuries or diseases will be consumed with happiness when embryonic stem cells have helped to treat and cure them and they are once again healthy. The loved ones of sick or injured patients will be happy to have their loved one healthy and happy again and involved in normal everyday life. And lastly people all around the world who may have the possibility of disease or injury can be at ease knowing there are very strong treatments and cures using embryonic stem cells. The overall happiness and benefits of embryonic stem cells and their research is so widespread across the world and across many types of people that the ends justify the means to donate embryonic stem cells. They can have such a positive effect on the world and provide so much good that it would seem like an easy decision for me to vote yes on proposition 71 to allow so much happiness to be spread to so many people. The pros and benefits of embryonic stem cell research outweigh the cons and fear of a potentially amazing person being born from the cell mass from which embryonic stem cells are taken. The chance and unknown behind the person that the blastocyst that is donated may become is so uncertain that the happiness and benefits that come from embryonic stem cell research justify the means to donate the blastocyst cells to be used as embryonic stem cells in research.
Without looking at the outcomes and possible benefits of donating and researching on embryonic stem cells, in the eyes of utilitarianism, a five-day old embryo should be accorded the status of a human person. This is because in the eyes of a utilitarianist, the five-day-old embryo would have the possibility of becoming an amazing human being and having lots of friends and a family that would be very happy to have this potential person in their life. The possibilities of this five day old embryo becoming a person that brings lots of happiness to the world is why a utilitarianist would consider the five day old embryo as human, however looking at the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research as mentioned above, would outweigh the ethical objections in the eyes of a utilitarianist.
As a utilitarianist, I agree with president Bush’s decision because it is the best of both worlds. On one end it is still providing embryonic stem cells for research to help develop treatments and cures for disease as well as to test the normal development of cells and test drugs, but on the other end it is preserving future five day old embryos from being discarded. If the current cell lines already in existence are being used for embryonic stem cell research they can be researched on to find potential treatments and cures for diseases to help people all over the world and bring happiness to people being cured by these treatments and the loved ones of sick patients. On the other end, the destruction of additional human embryos is further prevented so that these embryos have the potential of growing into strong human beings that can bring lots of good and happiness to the world through their relationships with friends, family, and in the workforce. For all I know as a utilitarianist, these five-day-old embryos that are being prevented from being used for embryonic stem cell research could grow up one day to change the world and find a cure for cancer and bring happiness and relief to millions. There are benefits to both sides of the ethical argument and both can bring happiness to the world, therefore I agree with President Bush’s decision as it provides as close to the best of both sides as possible.
In the eyes of utilitarianism, I would support the use of therapeutic cloning in order to produce embryonic stem cells for treatment of disease or injury. Using therapeutic cloning to produce embryonic stem cells is very beneficial to the patient receiving the stem cells because they match the cells of a person’s own body and help to prevent the rejection of the transplanted cells by the patient’s immune system. For this reason the use of therapeutic cloning is very beneficial for the diseased or injured patient and can provide as a very strong and reliable cure or treatment. Because these cloned embryonic stem cells can do so much good for all types of patients with many types of medical concerns, they are very beneficial in the maximization of happiness to both the patients and the loved ones of patients by providing very strong possible cures. Therapeutic cloning can bring happiness to all different types of patients, loved ones, and potential patients susceptible to certain disease because they provide a hopeful cure as they can match a patient’s own body and have less of a chance to be rejected by the human immune system. On another note as well, a five-day-old embryo has yet to develop a nervous system or the capability of feeling and therefore it does not suffer or feel any pain when embryonic stem cells are removed. Because the use of therapeutic cloning does not cause any suffering or pain but only maximizes happiness and the potential for very hopeful cures, as a utilitarianist, I support the use of therapeutic cloning.
As a utilitarianist, I think a variety of approaches including both embryonic stem cells and adult cells should be pursued as possible stem cell treatment. I think both should be pursued to maximize the overall happiness and benefit around the world. If embryonic stem cell research is still continuing to be pursued it still has the possibility to tremendously advance disease and injury treatment and cures for many types of people with many different injures all over the world. This, as mentioned, before maximizes happiness for patients and loved ones. The simultaneous approach of using adult body cells and reprogramming them to make them into stem cells is a way of continuing research on stem cells to provide many possible treatments to patients that can result in much happiness, but also ends the ethical controversy over embryonic stem cells use. The use of adult stem cells does not have nearly as much ethical controversy because no embryos re destroyed in the attempt to produce stem cells from adult body cells. Because the use of adult body cells leads to less controversy, it ends pain and conflict and brings happiness to those who do not support embryonic stem cells research. Adult cells used as stem cells can still be very beneficial in medical practice and bring happiness to many patients as they can provide cures or treatments. Overall pursuing a variety of approaches to stem cells can maximize total happiness by bringing happiness to patients and loved ones, but also by diminishing the conflict and controversy for those who do not support embryonic stem cells.
My Personal Point of View:
After looking at all of the information and facts regarding proposition 71 and the use of embryonic stem cells, I think Raina would have voted yes on the proposition to support the funding of embryonic stem cell research for the next ten years. I would have voted the same way as Raina to approve of and support embryonic stem cell research. I would have voted yes because I believe the possibility for potential and hopeful cures, treatments, and benefits by embryonic stem cells is tremendous. The ability to use embryonic stem cells to treat all different patients of many different conditions would not be possible without funding of embryonic stem cell research. Research is needed to better understand and manipulate embryonic stem cells to develop different treatments and/or cures for injuries and disease that could change people’s lives. I believe that embryonic stem cells have a tremendous capability to provide great medical advances and treatments for many types of different disease that do not have a complete cure as of now. I think embryonic stem cells have the potential to change a dramatic amount of people’s lives and alter the future of medicine and treatments for many conditions. The possibilities for embryonic stem cells reach very far and funding of the research is needed to advance the technology with embryonic stem cells. I would have voted yes on proposition 71 because of the tremendous of ability of embryonic stem cells to change people’s lives around the world. Using the other shoe test, if I were affected and had an incurable disease or injury that could potentially be fixed by embryonic stem cells I would want the opportunity to embryonic stem cell treatment, which would only be possible if the research for embryonic stem cells was funded.
I do not think that a five-day-old embryo should be accorded the status of a human person because at five days old, an embryo is solely a blastocyst, which is a cell mass of some undifferentiated cells. At this point the embryo has not differentiated into many types of cells, it has not begun to form the shape of a fetus, and it has not developed a nervous system or emotional feelings. I believe at this early of a stage, a five day old embryo should not be accorded the status of a human person because it has not even begun to develop into a human being but is just an early mass of cells. It is not aware of what is happening and it is so early on its life. The main reason why in the case of embryonic stem cells, I believe it is ok to use a blastocyst to retain embryonic stem cells is because the blastocysts from which the embryonic stem cells are coming from, are in most cases left over from in vitro fertilization. A family who has used in vitro fertilization to help with pregnancy, usually only implants one of the fertilized eggs into the female body; therefore the other fertilized eggs that will develop into an early blastocyst are not being used and will end up being discarded. Rather than being discarded, I think it is ok and very beneficial to use these five-day-old embryos for donation of embryonic stem cells in order to advance scientific and medical research that could change the lives of many people all over the world. Using the other shoe test, if I were to use in vitro fertilization, and my leftover embryos were either to be discarded or used for embryonic stem cell research, I would want them to be used for scientific research to maybe change the lives of millions one day.
I disagree with President Bush’s decision to only approve federal funding for embryonic stem cells already in existence because as critics have said, existing embryonic stem cell lines only have a limited lifespan before their usefulness for research is lost. This means that after a certain amount of time all of the research that could be done on the existing embryonic stem cell lines would come to an end and the main source of embryonic stem cell research would end, as it would no longer be federally funded. The possibilities of embryonic stem cell treatment would be severely limited with President Bush’s decision. If I were in President Bush’s shoes I would have approved the use of federal funding for embryonic stem cells on cell lines already in existence as well on cell liens left over from in vitro fertilization that would have been discarded anyway. This way embryonic stem cell research can still continue and continue to change peoples lives around the world with possible treatments, but limits the ethical controversy as only embryos left over from in vitro fertilization are being used.
I support the use of therapeutic cloning in order to produce embryonic stem cells for treatment of disease or injury; however, I think therapeutic cloning is a very personal decision. Overall I support therapeutic cloning because it can provide very beneficial outcomes in producing embryonic stem cells that match the patient’s body exactly and help to prevent against rejection of the stem cells being inserted into the body. I do, however, think that the use of therapeutic cloning is a very personal decision. Initially it seems wrong to me to create an embryo just to destroy it 5 days later in order to retain embryonic stem cells, but if the donor and recipient of the therapeutic cloning are comfortable with creating a fertilized embryo to retain embryonic stem cells from the five day old embryo then I support therapeutic cloning. In the case of therapeutic cloning, the person receiving the therapy will donate a body cell of any kind where the nucleus will be removed and then placed into an unfertilized egg from which the nucleus has been removed. When that egg, with the patients specific nucleus in it, is fertilized, it will begin to form an embryo and after five days embryonic stem cells that match the donor, will be able to be extracted from the five day old embryo and used for treatment of a disease of injury. Because the person is donating their cells in order to allow therapeutic cloning to be possible, the decision to use it as a treatment is dependent upon how the recipient ethically feels about the issue. As I said earlier, I support therapeutic cloning because if I put myself in the other shoe and had a disease or injury that could be cured with embryonic stem cells, I would want to use therapeutic cloning so the embryonic stem cells would better match my body and not be rejected by my immune system. In order to cure a potential disease or injury of mine, I would be willing to donate an egg or nucleus from one of my cells to produce an embryo from which embryonic stem cells could be removed that would match my body and provide a possible treatment or cure to my body.
I think that a variety of approaches for stem cell treatment should be pursued. I believe embryonic stem cells should continue to be pursued because they are stem cells that are completely undifferentiated and can become any type of cell and have the potential to provide treatments and cures to a wide range of diseases or injury. I also think that a large portion of research should be switched to studying how to manipulate adult body cells into stem cells. Lots of research has been done on embryonic stem cells and it should still continue to be researched but a large portion of research should switch to adult body cells because the use of adult body cells to produce stem cells is a potential new avenue of stem cells that has barely been researched at all. Manipulating adult body cells to turn into stem cells, if extensively researched, could open up many opportunities for treatment and cures of disease and injury without causing nearly as much ethical controversy as embryonic stem cells. The adult stem cells could better match a patient if they are taken from the patient’s body and manipulated into stem cells to use for a treatment of their disease or injury. Embryonic stem cells are still very beneficial and promising, however they cause lots of ethical controversy. While some research is still being done on embryonic stem cells, if a good portion of research is switched to adult stem cells, the adult stem cells could one day provide the same wide spread benefit of embryonic stem cells but without the ethical controversy and as a better match of the sick or injured patient.