The state of this contemporary medical research is languishing because the issue is swollen with hesitation regarding public funding, opposition from right-to-life advocates, matters of possible abuse that could lead to notorious cloning technology, and laws and law-creating that have not necessarily been interpreted to include stipulations regarding stem cell research or given permission to pursue this profound research under strict governmental guidelines. The questions of whether stem cell re

According to a report issued by the National Institutes of Health in 1999 discussing their attempts to reform the existing policies of publicly funded embryonic research Congress in 1995 passed a bill that attached a clause that prohibited the funding of any research that included human embryos. The bill vanquished all opportunities for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to garner monetary subsidies to continue stem cell research. The bill stated:

While society must intelligently assess the benefits of stem cell research, neither scientific promise nor legal admissibility can ever completely justify embracing the technology without questioning the ethical appropriateness of it.

(b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘human embryo or embryos’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means one or more human gametes or human diploid cells (www.nih.gov)

Many people argue, as I that human embryos should not be the subjects of stem cell research that would benefit anyone other than the embryos themselves; however, the process of in vitro fertilization is contrary to that philosophy because it caters to the parenting desires of two people who are adamant about having a child of their own genetic make-up, that they are willing to pay enormous sums of money, and discard embryos for the sake of their happiness. Adoption would be a more moral alternative; however, the Pope of the Catholic Church or pro-life advocates have not been heard emitting those prudent expressions. It is also argued that embryos are human beings and that there is no moral justification in killing them to improve the lives of others; however, that is precisely what in vitro fertilization is accomplishing – improving the life of a husband and wife. So, why are there not persons debating the ethical and moral nature of IVF treatments rather than debating the ethics of stem cell research, which is simply making a technological advancement (IVF) that was an otherwise unethical and immoral procedure, a valid, sound and honorable procedure? The argument for morality is simple, but it is compelling - until IVF procedures are illegal, embryonic stem cell research should remain legal, for it would be antithetical to the oath of doctors and scientists to serve, save and supply life if we continued with artificial transference of life and did not include stem cell research.

Some topics in this essay:
Catholic Church, According AAAS, MORAL ARGUMENTS, President Bush, Health NIH, Civil Society, Questions Vogel, Policy Brief, George Bush, Parkinson’s Alzheimer’s, stem cell, cell research, stem cell research, stem cells, embryonic stem, cell lines, adult stem, adult stem cells, pluripotent stem cells, pluripotent stem, embryonic stem cell, public funding, vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cells, cells tissues,