stem cell
...ate has generated about three different views: one side sees them as a person, another sees them as property, and a third sees them as a special entity that deserve respect. Those that argue against using the discarded embryos in research are mostly the pro-life organizations and see them as a person. Their position on the matter is that embryos hold the potential for a unique individual life; thus they should be treated with the respect of a human life. They would argue, “failure to show full respect for embryonic life threatens to de-value all human life” (Momeyer 94). Some fear that the research for stem cells are going to use aborted fetuses, that embryos will be manufactured for profit, or we will start cloning humans. On the other side of the debate of classification, the view has been taken that the embryos as having no moral value and should be seen as property. They would say that the embryo “satisfies none of the reasonable criteria for having intrinsic moral status: it has no personhood, no consciousness, no self-consciousness, no sentience, and no interests” (Momeyer 94). This view tends to be supported by how our laws are at this time starting with the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. It said that “states have no ‘compelling’ interest in protecting any legal interests of the potential life because, presumably, the embryo or fetus has no chance for survival outside the womb” (McGough 175). So, since life does not start at conception, as the law states it, the use of stem cells in research is by all means legal. But is it truly moral to take this position? Should we see and treat embryos as something no different than say a pebble? A third view could be considered a compromise between the other two. There has been an increasing view from “commentators, institutions, and courts (who) may be inclined to classify the embryo as neither person nor property, but as a physical entity deserving of ‘special respect’” (McGough 180). One such case, Davis v. Davis, was seen in the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The dispute was between a divorced couple who argued about what was to be done with their frozen embryos. The court found that, since before the divorce, the embryos were not seen as mere “property” but as an “ownership” interest. Before, in cases like these, the decision would go along with any existing consent agreement. In this case there was no agreement, so ultimately the court held that “the party wishing to avoid procreation should prevail” (McGough 181). The court achieved its decision by adopting the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s position with the idea that “special respect to the early embryo helps to distinguish embryos from mere things” (McGough 181). Though this may be one case that may go against others like it, it shows that even throughout our courts today there are still some questions about how we should classify embryos. Most scientists believe that to discontinue with the research would be unethical. How could such promising research be ignored? Government officials’ position, on the other hand, has a more difficult time because they are the ones who have to balance and compromise the public and scientific views. There have been a number of committees that have tried to come to consensus about how to classify and to handle embryos. Even though current laws plainly say that embryos are not living things, our moral and ethical consciousness tells us that we should still not treat them as only object. Federal and states governments have been trying to determine how to handle this dilemma for years. Funding of research has been a way that governments give their endorsements to various issues through out our country. So, if we are to proceed with research, “federal funding helps to attract the best and brightest scientist” (Bush). The federal and state governments will not just give funding with out any endorsements, so during the late 1970s, the federal government only endorsed funding for human embryo research if it was recommended by the Ethical Advisory Board appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services. However, during the Reagan administration, the Ethical Advisory Board lapsed and the funding quit. Some believe that federal funding would hinder the research, so it was thought that private funding would be the best step forward. This, however, does not provide any ethical or medical regulations to be followed. Since that time, our government has gone back and forth on if and how it should fund stem cell research. In 1994, the National Institute of Health recommended that funding should be permitted on the use of surplus human embryos that were voluntarily donated by parents who had in vitro fertilization (IVF). It went on to say that it recommended “that the deliberate creation of human embryos for research purposes (should) be allowed” (McGough 162). However, the Clinton administration decided to pass on any funding for the creation of embryos for research. Though funding for created embryos was prohibited, he did authorize funding for research of embryos that were donated from IVF treatments. One obstacle during the Clinton administration was the ban of 1996. The Republican Party had control of the House and the Senate, so with a conservative view in charge, it favored to halt any spending on stem cell research by adding it to a temporary spending bill. So section 128 of the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act stopped all funding for this research. Funding did not resume until 1998, when the Clinton administration proceeded to reevaluate the significance of this kind of research. Stem cell research started to move forward during this time because the Clinton administration saw the possible benefits it could lead to. In 1999, there was a report put out by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission that stated, “human embryonic stem cell research is legally, ethically and morally acceptable if certain guidelines are followed” (McGough 165). The purpose of the guidelines was to make sure that this kind of knowledge was not used in a negative way. There was still the fear that this kind of technology could be used for human cloning, which most believe to be unethical. The guidelines essentially stated that the kind of cells that were to be used is those that were first intended for in vitro fertilization. It further stated, “only those excess embryos that have been frozen could be used” (McGough 167). Couples had to be informed of the options they had concerning their embryos. They could be stored for several years or used in transplant research that could lead to commercial profits, which they could not gain from. Donors were not to receive any kind of reward or compensation for their embryos to guarantee that they did not create embryos for profit. Clinton’s administration noticed the importance this research could have to thousands of people, but also wanted to keep an ethical perspective about it. The guidelines that they put in place were to help scientist from using the knowledge unethically or carelessly. However, in 2001, this course of action was withdrawn by the next administration. Bush’s conservative administration seemed to focus more on the dangers of stem cells than on the benefits that could result from it. On August 9, 2001, Bush addressed this issue stating that he opposed the use of human embryo stem cells for research. However, he would fund the use of “research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma” (Bush). These kinds of cells have shown to limit prospects as compared to human embryo stem cells. In essence, Bush halted all funding for the research that was showing the greatest promise for cures on a number of diseases and disabilities. While Bush did not totally pull all funding like he promised in his campaign, he has significantly slowed down the progress. Private funding is still available, but it has its disadvantages compared to government funding. In the private sector, there is no one to regulate how the research is conducted. There have been other cases where experimentation in the private sector has led to “egregious abuse of research subjects (like) in the Tuskegee Syphilis study and the Willowbrook Hepatitis inoculation experiments” (Momeyer 103). This led to the development of the Institutional Review Board which set up guidelines for research with human subjects. When the government is involved with an issue that is as controversial as one like stem cells, the private sector tends to follow the governments lead. When the government stopped funding on the research, the scientists would most likely move to finding private funding. Since it has been determined that they would not be breaking any laws, they have all the right to. While there may not be as much money available in the private sector, they could still resume their research. In the private sector, there would not be any kind of guidelines to follow, so they would have no limits to how they got their conducted their experiments. This seems to go against what has everyone concerned. ...