Health Care Ethics Issue of Stem Cell Research free essay sample

Bringing to light ethical considerations and understanding multiple learning outcomes are paramount to comprehending elements of this topic. Adult stems cells are a special type of undifferentiated cell (a cell that is not specialized) that is found among differentiated cells in a tissue or organ system that can regenerate into some of the specialized cell type of that tissue or organ system. In short, adult stem cells are meant to sustain and restore the tissue or organ system they are designated. They are thought to exist in most of the body’s tissues such as the blood, brain, liver, intestine or skin. If the differentiations of adult stem cells are able to be manifested in the setting of the laboratory, adult stem cells may become the basis of transplantation-based therapies. The other type of stem cell research is over the human embryonic stem cell. The embryonic stem cells exist at the most early stages of embryonic growth and then form all of the types of cells of the human body. We will write a custom essay sample on Health Care Ethics Issue of Stem Cell Research or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Typically in the human development these embryonic cells are not found after roughly five days. The capability to form so many types of different cells, the embryonic stem cell is also known as pluriptotent stem cell. These cells have an almost wonder like potential but scientists today are unable to specifically control their development into different types of cells in the body. The issues arise on the subject of embryonic stem cell research. The controversy resides over the creation of, usage, and destruction of the human embryos for stem cell research. The opposition to embryonic stem cell research brings claims to the issue such as; * The use or destruction of human embryos for stem cell research is a deep violation in the right to human life and no regard toward autonomy of the unborn life. * There are other alternatives such as adult stem cell research. * All of the potential that embryonic stem cell research is capable of is just that, potential. There is no actual proof that the potential can be realized. Human trials have begun but have yet to yield significant proof of effectiveness and need more trials (Walsh, 2012). These claims make a strong point for the opposition. On the reverse the supporters of embryonic stem cell research make the claims of; * They have the possibility of better treatment and could cure a number of diseases and defects * They could be made to produce new organs without the need for transplant * The outcome of the success they would make would outweigh the ethical issues * The embryo is no more of a â€Å"life† than a flake of skin. As seen, both sides have clear and strong points for their position. James Thomson in 1998 at the University of Wisconsin was able to successfully remove cells from left-over embryos at different fertility clinics and grew more cells from them in a laboratory (UK Stem Cell Foundation, 2011). This was the most significant first step in embryonic stem cell research in its history. After Thomson’s success, this opened the door to many researches claiming that embryonic stem cells are capable to generate cells in many types of tissues or organs. Since the discovery in 1998, thousands of studies and published research has covered scientific journals each year. A large question raised in the issue of stem cell research is that of autonomy. The principle of autonomy involves recognizing the right of a person to make one’s own decisions (Pozgar, 2012). This enables a person to have the clear cut decision about what is best for themselves. This is recognized in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. What makes the principle of autonomy a compelling agreement in the case against embryonic stem cells research is that autonomy is only relative to self or in other words, the actions of autonomy of one person can’t prohibit the same rights from another person. Embryonic stem cell collections occur at about the 5 to 7 day range after conception (Stojkovic, 2004). Nearly all of the opposition to embryonic stem cell research identifies the moment of conception as the moment life begins. Supporters of embryonic stem cell research claim otherwise because the human cells at that point are not capable of sustaining life on their own and have no defining organ or human systems or identity. The start of life is currently unable to be defined. With the start of life in question, isn’t he right of autonomy in question for these human embryonic cells? That being stated in the interest of autonomy, wouldn’t the continuing of the research without a true definition to life a blow against the ethical consideration of autonomy? In Article Three of the United Nation’s â€Å"Universal Declaration of Human Rights† is states that, â€Å"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. † CITE. In 2007, The Unite d States’ Supreme Court ruled that is was illegal in America to perform partial-birth abortions (NRLC, 2007). This was based on the fact that Congress determined that the abortion methods it proscribed had a disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant. The combination of these two gives a growing insight that not being â€Å"born†, a human still has legal rights. The fore mentioned government ruling over partial-birth abortions did not over step the boundaries of the legality of Roe v. Wade (1973) but it did bring further consideration toward the life of an unborn child. The basis of this law was made because of the viability of the fetus in â€Å"live birth† scenarios. Science and supporters of human embryonic stem cells are quick to note that these cells are unable to self-sustain therefore are not considered worth having rights, but what if science was able to enable these cells to self sustain into a viable life? After all, the whole potential of curing diseases and manifesting these cells to form a specific body cell resides on â€Å"what if† as well. Considering the legal rights of individuals interacting with health care services, it is safe to say that it is in the dark as to what rights the unborn has. The ethical principles of Autonomy, Non-maleficence, Beneficience, and Justice come into mind when the issues of human embryonic stem cell debate come up. As mentioned earlier in this paper, the principle of autonomy is in question for the right of the human embryo. Non-maleficence is held in obligation to refrain from harming another person unless there is an extraordinary circumstance such as the instance of self-defense against harm (The Curators of the University of Missouri Cell Foundation, 2007). Providers in health care are held to an obligation not to harm patients outside of the long-term benefit procedures and treatment will bring. The destruction of human embryonic stem cells for the purpose of research and/or treatment proves invalid because of the current lack of definition of â€Å"life† by legal systems. The principle of beneficence is to do good for each other. Specifically the provider and patient relationship are relevant in health care. In the case of abortion of a conceived embryonic stem cell for research gains is under question. Does this really benefit of the woman who carries the conceived cell? What opportunity does this deprive of the conceived cell to develop into a human? Is there any real gain prevent the conceived cell from a pregnancy with the woman whom it is carried by? Does the mother have any implications toward carrying out the pregnancy? These answer to these questions must be fully met and all collectively one sided to ensure that beneficence for both the life of the mother and potential life are ensured. Justice of a person in whole should be equal world-wide. What is fair and who defines fairness is relative to situation, persons, nations, cultures, and morals.