Dawn of a Medical Evolution
It was the best of time, it was the worst of time, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity. In August 23 of 2001, President Bush announced one of his most controversial and far-reaching decisions on stem cell research. He concluded that “we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem-cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made.” Although Bush's decision was intended as a compromise between the two sides of the emotionally charged debate, it has drawn fire from advocates on both sides of the issue. In the past decade, embryonic stem cell research has become a great advancement in the world of science. However, this issue is very complex and has caused an ethical controversy amongst the public. This debate centers mostly on ethical and moral issues and it is the classical battle between religion and science. As a science advocate, I strongly believe that the moral imperative is to find medical cures and remedies to help people and save lives as soon as possible. To better grasp the challenges that this research poses, an understanding of the basics of human stem cell research must be accomplished. The issue of stem cell research burst on the scientific
Although most people would agree that the potential of this research is good, the major conflict is the manner in which the stem cells are derived. Early human embryos must be destroyed in order to derive ES cells. As a consequence, two radically opposed groups have emerged in society: those who advocate absolute respect for human life beginning at conception, and those who do not. The main ethical issue raised by ES cell research is that it requires the destruction of human embryos. Some people argue that human embryos deserve the same respect as any other human being since a blastocyst is not an ordinary cluster of cells. It contains a complete set of genetic instructions and the capacity for the epigenetic determinations needed to develop into a viable human being. Critics of ES cell research believe that technological advances should be encouraged, but not through the destruction of human life. They claim that this research is illegal, immoral and unnecessary. The idea that science and technology works against humanity has been a repeating theme throughout history. Many opposing groups, the so called “pro-life” groups, are afraid of the freedom and the power that has been given to science; furthermore, they believe that by stem cell research, science has crossed the line. Other groups, such as The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, argue that “the destruction of human embryonic life is unnecessary for medical progress, as alternative methods of obtaining human stem cells and of repairing and regenerating human tissue exist and continue to be developed.” The final controversy over this issue can be answered by one question. Does the value of cures for many diseases and new openings in medical advancement is more important or the ethical issue of destroying human embryos that are viewed by some as individuals? As a science advocate and the proponent of stem cell research, I believe science has a duty to apply its knowledge to benefit humanity. ES cell research can be an answer to many of the medical problems that we have. I believe that the government should observe this program very carefully to ensure the proper and respectful usage of this research while allowing the research to grow. T
Some topics in this essay:
President Bush,
Research Ethics,
Advocates ES,
Adult Stem,
Critics ES,
cell research,
stem cell,
,
stem cell research,
es cell,
es cell research,
human embryos,
human life,
stem cells,
destruction human,
es cells,
embryonic stem cell,
embryonic stem,
adult stem,
destruction human embryos,
adult stem cell,
Join now to see the rest of the essay!
Approximate Word count = 1507
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
More Essays on Dawn of a Medical Evolution Professional Papers: |
CUSTOMER SERVICES
|
|
Saved Papers
You haven't saved any papers.
|