argumentation
Although the embryonic stem cell have been proved it’s pluripotent characteristic, people who are against for is because that they doubted the sources of these experimental embryos. Moreover, it is even said that some of these embryos require the intentional creation of human embryos precisely for scientists’ destruction in the course of harvesting stem cells from them. In order to clarify this suspicious point, there are four channels for the scientists to get the embryos for their research. The first way is the embryonic tissue left from the legal abortion. Before the operation, the abortion hospital crews would ask patient to sign the operation agreement forms. And once the operation is done, the hospital would ask the person involved whether they want to deal with the left embryonic tissues or give it in to the hospital. Because most of the parents will feel guilty to the embryonic tissues, they would place the tissue in the temple in order to help the soul of the unborn baby to settle down. However, once the patient decided to leave the embryonic tissues in the hospital, hospitals have the right to handle the unwanted embryonic tissues, even give it in to the embryonic stem cell research (Donate Eggs for Research). In my first-hand data collection, there is 83.6% of Survey responsers agree with this way to obtain the embryonic stem cells while there are 11.5% totally disagree. The second way to get the experimental embryos is often from embryos that are “left over” from in vitro fertilization--artificial fertilization. A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children (Donate Eggs for Research). When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. A few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born, and are today healthy children. Once a couple successfully has children, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. Some will not survive during long storage and others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science by the parents and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. In 1997, there are 143,652 to 502,782 left over embryos and later in 1999, the total numbers of these extra embryos are increased from 176,000 to 609,000( Parson 158). There are 70.5% of survey responser approve of this channel; 26.2% disapprove of it. If these extra embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?
The third method is using the eggs and sperms which are donated by donors to create experimental embryos. The HFEA---The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, which is the UK’s independent regulator overseeing safe and appropriate practice in fertility treatment and embryo research, they license and monitor centers carrying out IVF(In Vitro Fertilization), donor insemination and human embryo research. According to them, they currently licensed 33 embryo research projects. These licensed research groups obtain embryos through the donation of embryos which are left over from the couples how are undergone the IVF. Once these embryos are not suitable in the treatment, the couples can decide to donate the embryos to the research, (Human Fertilization & Embryology Authority).This way is similar to the second one. However, the embryonic stem cell research is strongly prohibited to create embryos from the sperm bank or egg donation. And from the first-hand data collection we can found that the rate of people who stands for this method or not are stands nearly half-half. 50.8% verses 42.6%. The last method is obtaining the embryos from the somatic cell nuclear transfer. “It is a laboratory technique for creating an ovum with a donor nucleus. It can be used in embryonic stem cell research or in regenerative medicine where it is sometimes referred to "therapeutic cloning"” (Stem Cell Biology). Moreover, In the United States, scientists at the Harvard University Stem Cell Institute, the University of California San Francisco, and possibly Advanced Cell Technology are currently researching a technique to use somatic cell nuclear transfer to produce embryonic stem cells. However, there are some limitations in this channel. For instance, the stresses placed on both the egg cell and the introduced nucleuses are enormous, leading to a high loss in resulting cells. Moreover, one concern is that blastula creation in human stem cell research will lead to the reproductive cloning of humans. Although this method is still being discussed, there are still 73.8% of survey responser agree with this way to obtain the experimental embryos.
The science periodical divided the standards of this research into four levels. The first level is absolutely prohibition, not even research. These countries included France, Switzerland, Iceland, and Poland. America and Germany are both at the second level. According to the declaration from George W. Bush in last August, he would allow stem cell research on 64 existing embryonic cell lines, opened the lid lightly on federal funding. The president stated, “I have 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” (Kiessling 189). The third level is allowing the research to use the “extra embryos” which are left from the legally abortion or IVF. Japan, Canada, and Australia and Taiwan are belonging to this level so far. And Mainland China get loosely standard toward this research, they allow producing embryos for experimentation. Those who question the sources of experimental embryos should know that the governments would keep an eye on such controversial research projects. And any illegal channel to get the experimental embryos will be strongly prohibited(林雨靜). The second reason for people to against this research is that they consider those experimental embryos are already human-beings, especially the religious people. If using these embryos for experimental uses, this behavior is equal to commit a homicide. At the beginning of the research, the researchers used the stem cell from mice for test. But this treatment is for healing human diseases, therefore, except use the stem cells from mice; the use of real human embryonic stem cell is necessary, too. After all, the scientists can not use the stem cells from mice to remedy the human illness. Otherwise, how can the researchers be sure that this therapy can really be treated on human bodies? However, are these embryos already human-beings? As mentioned before, the embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass of an early stage embryo which is known as a blastocyst. “Human embryos reach the blastocyst stage 4-5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50-150 cells” (Kiessling 184). From the religious perspective, some religions consider that life begins at conception. “In the fifth century, Saint Augustine proclaimed that abortion before the quickening---when the baby becomes large enough to have its movements.felt by the mother, approximately 4 to 5 weeks of development---was neither a sin nor a homicide, because one can not say that there is a living soul in a body that lacks sensation…the flesh has not yet been formed and thus has no capacity to feel,” (Kiessling 184). In the twelfth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas develop the theory of delayed humanization which stands for that at the day 40, concluding that abortion before then could not be considered as a homicide. Moreover, different religion holds different definition of human beings. For instance, Islam accepts abortion before the 80th day. Buddhists treat every life in the universe equally; therefore embryo is equal as a new born baby. Nevertheless, most Buddhists agree that the mother has the right to make the decision whether or not to do the abort. In other words, mother could also decide to donate the embryos for research. For Judaism, although the embryo is shown as sacred, it is not considered a person until it takes its first breath of life at birth. Besides, religions that are liberal on abortion are generally positive about embryonic stem cell research. In sum, the church has issued a statement saying that such research must be limited to those embryos that do not have the chance of growing into personhood or not available for donation to another woman for personal or medical reasons. (Kiessling 186)
In the perspective of law, there are diverse definitions of embryo and life according to different countries. The general definition of life in law is that while the embryo has the ability to breath by itself which means it has the potential to live on it own, and then it could be defined as a human being, (Kiessling 195). Therefore, embryo cannot be considered as a life. Instead, the infant who has the ability to breath can be called so. However, different countries hold diverse opinions toward this research. Taking America, British, Germany, Japan and Taiwan for example, in America, the decision of whether or not to pass the issue of human embryo research is uncertain. The court concluded that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment(林雨靜). Thus the idea that a 5 days old embryo is a human is not support by the U.S. law. During President Clinton’s administration, the director of the DHHS ( United States Department of Health and Human Services) lifted the moratorium and Congress passed the NIH ( National Institute of Health) Revitalization Act in 1993. But in 1994 because of the interruption by the Catholic College of Cardinals, Clinton decided not to set aside the ban on the federal funding. From this interposal of religious group, it is a dilemma when law conflicts with the religious faith. Although federal funding for embryos research is unavailable from the government, the research itself is not illegal. And could be support by private institute, (Kiessling 188~189). The attitude toward this research from German government is similar to that America. They passed the Embryo Protection Law and prohibited any genetic-related research with embryos. However, they did not forbid importing the embryos for experimental uses. According to different situations from every country, the scientists in German may allow to import embryos from those countries which hold more open attitude toward the embryos control. England holds the most open attitude toward this research. They passed the Human Embryology Act in 1990. They can not only use the donated embryos but also create embryos by themselves for experimentation. The Japanese government is more side with to permit the embryonic stem cell research. About Taiwan, we did not forbid the research, but the source of experimental embryos can only come from the embryonic tissue left from naturally miscarriage, the embryonic tissue from the abortion which fits the genetic health law, or the embryos that are remain from the IVF but not over fourteen days (林雨靜).
The third method is using the eggs and sperms which are donated by donors to create experimental embryos. The HFEA---The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, which is the UK’s independent regulator overseeing safe and appropriate practice in fertility treatment and embryo research, they license and monitor centers carrying out IVF(In Vitro Fertilization), donor insemination and human embryo research. According to them, they currently licensed 33 embryo research projects. These licensed research groups obtain embryos through the donation of embryos which are left over from the couples how are undergone the IVF. Once these embryos are not suitable in the treatment, the couples can decide to donate the embryos to the research, (Human Fertilization & Embryology Authority).This way is similar to the second one. However, the embryonic stem cell research is strongly prohibited to create embryos from the sperm bank or egg donation. And from the first-hand data collection we can found that the rate of people who stands for this method or not are stands nearly half-half. 50.8% verses 42.6%. The last method is obtaining the embryos from the somatic cell nuclear transfer. “It is a laboratory technique for creating an ovum with a donor nucleus. It can be used in embryonic stem cell research or in regenerative medicine where it is sometimes referred to "therapeutic cloning"” (Stem Cell Biology). Moreover, In the United States, scientists at the Harvard University Stem Cell Institute, the University of California San Francisco, and possibly Advanced Cell Technology are currently researching a technique to use somatic cell nuclear transfer to produce embryonic stem cells. However, there are some limitations in this channel. For instance, the stresses placed on both the egg cell and the introduced nucleuses are enormous, leading to a high loss in resulting cells. Moreover, one concern is that blastula creation in human stem cell research will lead to the reproductive cloning of humans. Although this method is still being discussed, there are still 73.8% of survey responser agree with this way to obtain the experimental embryos.
The science periodical divided the standards of this research into four levels. The first level is absolutely prohibition, not even research. These countries included France, Switzerland, Iceland, and Poland. America and Germany are both at the second level. According to the declaration from George W. Bush in last August, he would allow stem cell research on 64 existing embryonic cell lines, opened the lid lightly on federal funding. The president stated, “I have 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” (Kiessling 189). The third level is allowing the research to use the “extra embryos” which are left from the legally abortion or IVF. Japan, Canada, and Australia and Taiwan are belonging to this level so far. And Mainland China get loosely standard toward this research, they allow producing embryos for experimentation. Those who question the sources of experimental embryos should know that the governments would keep an eye on such controversial research projects. And any illegal channel to get the experimental embryos will be strongly prohibited(林雨靜). The second reason for people to against this research is that they consider those experimental embryos are already human-beings, especially the religious people. If using these embryos for experimental uses, this behavior is equal to commit a homicide. At the beginning of the research, the researchers used the stem cell from mice for test. But this treatment is for healing human diseases, therefore, except use the stem cells from mice; the use of real human embryonic stem cell is necessary, too. After all, the scientists can not use the stem cells from mice to remedy the human illness. Otherwise, how can the researchers be sure that this therapy can really be treated on human bodies? However, are these embryos already human-beings? As mentioned before, the embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass of an early stage embryo which is known as a blastocyst. “Human embryos reach the blastocyst stage 4-5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50-150 cells” (Kiessling 184). From the religious perspective, some religions consider that life begins at conception. “In the fifth century, Saint Augustine proclaimed that abortion before the quickening---when the baby becomes large enough to have its movements.felt by the mother, approximately 4 to 5 weeks of development---was neither a sin nor a homicide, because one can not say that there is a living soul in a body that lacks sensation…the flesh has not yet been formed and thus has no capacity to feel,” (Kiessling 184). In the twelfth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas develop the theory of delayed humanization which stands for that at the day 40, concluding that abortion before then could not be considered as a homicide. Moreover, different religion holds different definition of human beings. For instance, Islam accepts abortion before the 80th day. Buddhists treat every life in the universe equally; therefore embryo is equal as a new born baby. Nevertheless, most Buddhists agree that the mother has the right to make the decision whether or not to do the abort. In other words, mother could also decide to donate the embryos for research. For Judaism, although the embryo is shown as sacred, it is not considered a person until it takes its first breath of life at birth. Besides, religions that are liberal on abortion are generally positive about embryonic stem cell research. In sum, the church has issued a statement saying that such research must be limited to those embryos that do not have the chance of growing into personhood or not available for donation to another woman for personal or medical reasons. (Kiessling 186)
In the perspective of law, there are diverse definitions of embryo and life according to different countries. The general definition of life in law is that while the embryo has the ability to breath by itself which means it has the potential to live on it own, and then it could be defined as a human being, (Kiessling 195). Therefore, embryo cannot be considered as a life. Instead, the infant who has the ability to breath can be called so. However, different countries hold diverse opinions toward this research. Taking America, British, Germany, Japan and Taiwan for example, in America, the decision of whether or not to pass the issue of human embryo research is uncertain. The court concluded that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment(林雨靜). Thus the idea that a 5 days old embryo is a human is not support by the U.S. law. During President Clinton’s administration, the director of the DHHS ( United States Department of Health and Human Services) lifted the moratorium and Congress passed the NIH ( National Institute of Health) Revitalization Act in 1993. But in 1994 because of the interruption by the Catholic College of Cardinals, Clinton decided not to set aside the ban on the federal funding. From this interposal of religious group, it is a dilemma when law conflicts with the religious faith. Although federal funding for embryos research is unavailable from the government, the research itself is not illegal. And could be support by private institute, (Kiessling 188~189). The attitude toward this research from German government is similar to that America. They passed the Embryo Protection Law and prohibited any genetic-related research with embryos. However, they did not forbid importing the embryos for experimental uses. According to different situations from every country, the scientists in German may allow to import embryos from those countries which hold more open attitude toward the embryos control. England holds the most open attitude toward this research. They passed the Human Embryology Act in 1990. They can not only use the donated embryos but also create embryos by themselves for experimentation. The Japanese government is more side with to permit the embryonic stem cell research. About Taiwan, we did not forbid the research, but the source of experimental embryos can only come from the embryonic tissue left from naturally miscarriage, the embryonic tissue from the abortion which fits the genetic health law, or the embryos that are remain from the IVF but not over fourteen days (林雨靜).
posted by eliza @ 5/02/2007 04:13:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home