Scientific research has come a long manner since the first usage of human embryos to handle and forestall diseases. The infantile paralysis vaccinum was invented in the 1950’s from the usage of human foetal kidney cells. foetuss in womb were used to develop techniques like amniocenteses and bettering cognition about inborn bosom disease in the 1970’s. and in the 1980’s the organ transplant of foetal tissue into grownups to assist with serious conditions like. diabetes or Parkinson’s ( Gold. 2004 ) . While there has ever been concern and contention over the usage of human embryologic cells. today the argument is ethical.
This ethical argument prevarications within the devastation of human embryos in order to utilize them for medical research. This paper will speak about how two different theories ; utilitarianism and relativism position this ethical issue and the job it presents. every bit good as my personal positions on usage of embryologic root cell research. The theory of utilitarianism determines what is best by looking at the consequences of an act. Harmonizing to Mosser ( 2010. subdivision 1. 7 ) . “utilitarianism argues that. given a set of picks. the act we should take is that which produces the best consequences for the greatest figure affected by that pick.
When looking at the usage of embryologic root cells for research. utilitarianism looks at the terminal consequence. Embryonic root cells have the possible to salvage lives by bring arounding diseases and through the usage of organ transplant. While some utilitarianism’s may still see the devastation of these cells as the devastation of human life they recognize that their potency is a far better pick. being that this research can potentially assist salvage many lives. The resistance to embryologic root cell research may hold a relativists position.
Although one individual may see embryologic root cell research as right. another may see it as incorrect based on their ain ethical criterions that have been provided by their civilization or background ( Mosser. 2010 ) . The resistance of embryologic root cell research position the embryo as a individual from the twenty-four hours it is conceived. although it does non hold any features of a individual. it will one twenty-four hours go a individual. The idea of destructing human life has raised many of import inquiries that can non be answered by scientific discipline. When does life get down? Is a human embryo equivalent to a human kid?
Does a human embryo have any rights? Might the devastation of a individual embryo be justified if it provides a remedy for infinite figure of patients? Since ES cells can turn indefinitely in a dish can. in theory. still turn into a human being. is the embryo truly destroyed. ( The University of Utah. 2012. parity. 5 ) So what moral position does the human embryo hold? To the relativist resistance. the inquiry can merely be answered by their personal moral positions. To better understand the argument about embryologic root cell research one must foremost understand the importance of embryologic root cell research.
Embryonic root cells are pluripotent cells that are derived from the inner cell mass of the human blastodermic vessicle ( early embryo ) ( Hynes. 2008 ) . Many wonder why the usage of these cells is so of import in scientific discovery. Embryonic root cells are capable of distinguishing into all types of cells in the organic structure. This allows research workers to utilize ES cells to make any type of cell needed for any patient. Many ask why the usage of grownup root cells is non good plenty. Adult root cells are uniform cells found within the organic structure.
These cells merely have the ability to “divide or self-renew indefinitely and bring forth all the cell types of the organ from which they originate” ( Science. 2012. parity. 1 ) . Adult root cell research is non controversial. as it does non necessitate the devastation of human life to get them. While big root cells have been used to successfully handle things like leukaemia and related bone/blood malignant neoplastic diseases. embryologic root cells offer a wider assortment of intervention options because they have the ability to develop into more than 200 cell types in the organic structure every bit long as they are specified to make so ( Science. 2012 ) .
Both sides of this argument may be influenced by faith. There are some faiths that regard a human embryo as holding human position from the clip of construct while others say that an embryo does non hold full human position before 40 yearss ( EuroStemCell. 2011 ) . The Roman Catholic. Orthodox. and conservative Protestant Churches are against human embryologic root cell research. where Hebraism and Islam look at and stress the importance of the result that embryologic root cell research can convey ( EuroStemCell. 2011 ) .
As with any argument those who have the same theory may still believe otherwise based upon their civilization. upbringing. and spiritual background. I find that one could be of a certain faith ( Catholic ) and still see embryologic root cell research as a better solution than merely flinging fresh embryos. The Catholic useful may reason that the it is better to use the embryologic root cells from an sterility clinic for research to potentially salvage many lives than to fling the cells as if they were.
On the other manus the Catholic relativist/utilitarian might reason that this goes against their spiritual beliefs and is non what is best for the common good. As one can see in this illustration a individual may exert more than one theory in their lives. One may hold been raised to see embryologic root cell research. as incorrect because it destroys human life. but they may besides see it is a manner to assist the common good. This is when these types of determinations. to be for or against something. go a personal battle. Does one travel against what they were raised and taught to believe or make they make what they think is right for the common good of society?
Mosser ( 2010. Section 1. 7 ) provinces that. “utilitarianism gives us what seems to be a clear and reasonably easy rule to use to ethical jobs and so find the right thing to make in specific instances. ” This may be the instance when it comes to simple determinations that are easy to explicate and warrant. but when it comes to a moral determination between right and incorrect utilitarianism can simply steer us and assist clear up these ethical jobs ( Mosser. 2010 ) . Unfortunately this is why there is such a het argument with embryologic root cell research. What one sees as morally right another sees as morally incorrect?
The grounds may be different. but the terminal consequence may be the same. In this instance one believes the act of utilizing human embryos for research will assist the common good where the other side believes non utilizing human embryos for research will assist the common good in value of ethical motives and what position they view the human embryo. Relativism allows one the chance to travel along with what their civilization believes is right or incorrect. It keeps one safe. as many people are afraid to show their ain sentiments and positions against anothers positions ( Mosser. 2010 ) .
As with any ethical issue. this theory allows those who do non cognize plenty about it to remain safe and construct their positions and sentiments based on those around them. This allows one to judge another based on a position that has been acquired by commonalty instead than facts. This can travel both ways with embryologic root cell research. Although the relativist position can be regarded as the “popular” position it can be really powerful if one bases their position on facts and cognition and non merely the cultural position. While their will ever be dissensions about the usage of embryologic root cell research I find that their usage if more good than it is destructive.
While everyone is entitled to their ain beliefs. is it selfish to oppose the usage of embryologic cells. which will be discarded anyhow. because it is seen as the devastation of life? I think so. If there is a manner to assist another in the hereafter through the usage of embryologic root cells. why non? I find myself in understanding with the utilitarianism theory on this affair. It is of import for research workers to go on their research to assist the common good. The research and research workers must hold restrictions though.
