Strokes alone affect 700,000 Americans a year. Also every 45 seconds some one has a Stroke(American Stroke Association, 2002). The research being conducted is destroying the embryos though. It is morally wrong to destroy a life to further scientific development, we as a society hold all life as precious. Does the ends justify the means? This question is of moral rectitude. Society has moral principals that act as the glue of the civilized world, but what if these principals collide head on? Which one will dominate the social spectrum?.
Dr. Maurice Rickard of the Social Policy Group in 2002 simplifies the two moral principals that have been brought up in Bioethics of embryonic stem cell research. "One principle enjoins the prevention or alleviation of suffering and the other enjoins us to respect the value of human life"(p. 2).Which principal takes precedence over the other? Before one can answer such a question the two options must be defined and explored throughly.
The prevention and alleviation of suffering is a fundamental belief. If we can stop pain and suffering we should. This is a basic consensus among all moral institutions. This research can bring about cures for millions of people around the world. From the elderly to the prenatal. Grandparents would no longer have to fear forgetting their family members as seen in Alzheimer's disease. Stroke victims no longer will be a shadow of who they once were. The 2% of people over the age of 65 will not need to be treated for Parkinson's disease(Murphy, 2001). This is just the beginning of the possible applications of stem cell based therapies. So it is established that much good can come from embryonic stem cell research. What is the controversy then? What would we allow scientist to do to create such medical astonishments? Would we allow them to kill?.
This question is the bases of the controversy. The second principle that we hold dear is the respect for human life.