Attention: PIEN chat room readers:
The following speech was made by a fifteen year old discussing the ethical
dilemma of stem cells from an embryo. It sums it up, in simple terms, better
than most summation articles I've seen!
******************************************
Scenario: A woman really wants to have a child but because of her
genes and chemistry she isn't allowed to by nature. So she seeks scientific
help. They take her through a process called in-vitro fertilization, which
is when she has dozens of her eggs removed and fertilized inside a petrii
dish and then reinserted into her womb, and she is able to have a child. But
what is to be done with the left over fertilized eggs since she couldn't
possibly have used them all? Throw them away or experiment on them so that
scientists can find cures for diseases that never had a cure? This is a major
controversy that pro-life people argue with scientists about When it comes
down to it, what is the ethical thing to do? What is the right decision?
Scientists experiment using certain cells called stem cells by
removing them from the fertilized eggs. The special type of stem cells that
are extracted are called pluripotent cells. They are cells that can be
directed to become any type of body cell though they can never be created
into life if inserted into the womb. After they placed in a designated
area, they multiply and become the cells that they are told to be and
potentially cure a certain disease.
Some of the advantages of doing this research are as follow. The
cells theater used are ones that will potentially be incinerated or destroyed
in one ay or another. If these cells are used, then its a high percentage
potential for a cure for certain diseases and could potentially vivify the
sick. It can also lead to potential cures for other diseases. Pro-life
should be called pro-stem cell research! Instead of creating only one life,
if the unused eggs were experimented on, they would allow for the aid in
saving many lives. Studies have shown that more than 10% of the population
would benefit if the research proves successful. Example: You are diagnosed
with severe congestive heart failure. Your doctor admits you to the hospital.
During an operation later that day, she injects some stem cells into your
heart forming new heart cells, and after an integration period of a few days,
your heart is substantially healed. You integration and lead a healthy life.
But on the other hand, rather than killing the possible life, we
should consider saving it to create one later if the woman wants another
child or if it should be donated to couples unable to have children. It could
be considered a type of abortion if they use it for experimentation. (The
woman has the eggs fertilized and capable of having a child born from them
and then killing the cells by experimenting on them.) In some minds, it seems
more humane to incinerate them rather than make them “guinea pigs” in labs.
People find the experimentation completely atrocious. So there's more
reason for debate and it does seem more ethical to not do the research.
Either way, one should look at the large picture instead of the small one.
The benefits from the experimentationseem to greatly outweigh the
cons of it. It has proven more beneficial than saving the egg just to create
one single life. It could also fuel future research and give other ideas to
find different approaches such as creating a stem cell, which would end the
debate completely. But that takes research.
But whether it be ethical or not, their search is probably better
for our future by helping to save hundreds of lives from disease that may be
because of this research.
What does his Grandfather say?
Grandpa says:
"Research is a blind date with knowledge.
Come, let us welcome the bride with flowers."
