Transcript 1 - 4S1rosalindlee

Stem Cell Research: Is a Life
for a Life Required
Arguments
for:
possible benefits:
self-healing cells /
repair of organs /
end to death?
Arguments
against:
practical and
utilitarian view:
if people can be
cured, why not?
ignorance towards
failures in stem cell
research:
sacrificing of embryos
for acquirement of stem
cells treatment therapy:
unable to differentiate
stem cells, overgrowing of
stem cells into tumours,
immune system rejecting
the cells
is the sanctity of human
life being challenged here?
trafficking of human body
parts (cells)?
The Cases For and Against
Stem Cell Research
Against:
Religious and antiabortion groups
Against research
on stem cells
derived from
aborted fetuses
Legalized abortion
does not mean
legitimacy for this
kind of research.
Against stem cell
research based on
human embryos
Human life starts at
the moment of
conception.
Embryos should have the
same rights as other
humans, thereby should be
protected from any form of
abuse
Embryonic stem cell research, which
involves the destruction of human
embryos, violates and devalues human
life. It also coarsens the consciences of
the society.
For:
Scientists and
ethicists
Unethical and
unnecessary
Adult stem cells are
more versatile than
previously thought and
more suitable for
research
Embryos used for
research are not
yet human beings
Medical benefit
State oversight
At one week, when the
research is carried out,
embryos are merely a
cluster of cells
A ban might cut off scientific
opportunities "to those most
qualified to make dramatic
advances towards using stem
cells for the treatment of
disease,"
Private sectors will
continue with the
research, even without
state approval
Most scientists argue that an embryo is
not a person until it is at least two
weeks old, when it develops a so-called
primitive streak, the first evidence of a
nervous system.
State approval will accelerate the
research by enhancing its talent pool,
thereby enabling it serve the medical
need of the public in near future
Lifting the ban on research would allow
the government to gain better
oversight of embryonic research, so
that to prevent it to develop into more
controversial research, such as human
cloning.
Benefits outweighs moral controversies
The Need for Bioethics - Ethical
Dilemma in Biology and Medicine
Anyone involved in the
treatment of disease /
illness must have a
primary and overriding
duty to their patients.
Physicians,
scientists,
medical
researchers
Disease:
Medical condition for
which a person seeks
both treatment AND
advice.
Patient:
Person recieving
immediate medical
treatment, AND anyone
for whom a treatment is
being prepared or
researched
Potentially
everyone in
society
The Need for Bioethics - Ethical
Dilemma in Biology and Medicine
Second fundamental principle: those
who need help (patients) must seek
out caregivers who do their duty to
put the patient's interest first, who
took up this profession not for fame
or fortune, but sincerely for helping
others.
First fundamental principle:
physicians must help other humans,
not for profit, fame, or anything that
is self-serving.
Gong Tingxian's maxims for
patients: "choose 'enlightened
physicians' and thereby receive
help in their ailment. They have to
be careful, because life and death
follow each other closely."
Hippocratic Oath: "I will apply
dietetic measures for the benefit
of the sick according to my ability
and judgment; I will keep them
from harm and injustice.“
Patients also carry an ethical duty
to themselves for their well-being
-Patients also carry an ethical duty
to themselves for their well-being
Gong Tingxian's maxims for
physicians: "adopt a disposition of
humaneness: this is a justified
demand. They [physicians] should
make a very special effort to assist
the people and to perform farreaching good deeds."
Cloning: Then and Now by
Daniel Callahan
The notion that
cloning is possible
started in 1960s
By a report that
salamander had been
cloned
Caught the attention of
many scientists
Cloning becomes a
symbol for “the new
biology” which is
molecular genetics
1970s: Many articles and
book on ethical issues
surfaced, saying that
cloning is a token of
radical generic
possibilities
Overwhelming
reaction of the people
towards cloning was
negative
Cloning: Then and Now by
Daniel Callahan
Past and present
responses
for/against cloning:
1.Response to scientific
technological developments
2.Reproductive
rights
3.Infertility relief and research
possibilities
Mid 1960s to late 1960s: There was a strong
anti-technology strain
The right to procreate
Relief of infertility is a major growth area in
medicine
A number of writers were even prepared to
indict technology for America’s failings
In early 1970s: Reproductive
rights movement was just
started
Help those cannot reproduce due to late
procreation of STDs
There were suspicion of technology at that
time
Hostility to genetic technology
Presently: Biomedical research and
technological innovation encounter more
support
Fewer critics of biotech, technology-bashing
has gone out of style
Science projects receive more funds
(including Human Genome Project)
Cloning has gotten more support from
people nowadays.
Animal cloning will go forward but human
cloning still remains rejected
Cloning may also cure infertility
Presently: This argument is
weaker, because since
reproduction is purely a private
matter, and if it is thought
wrong to morally judge the
means people choose to have
children, or their reasons for
having them, cloning cannot
be resisted
Help a couple both of whom are carriers of a lethal
recessive gene
Save a life who needs bone marrow transplant
Procreate child with cells of a deceased husband