"The Pain that you Feel Only Can Heal by Living." Stem-Cell Research Works Just As Well!

The topic this week asked whether or not it is right or wrong to obtain stem cells from embryos especially let to die. To get a further understanding of this topic, one has to look at how old an embryo is. According to an article that I read it stated "A blastocyst is an early stage embryo approximately four to five days old in humans and consisting of 50-150 cells" (What Are Embryonic Stem Cells, 2012). This is important because one can see exactly the age of what these embryos are and if they actually count as a living person or not. I for one am for stem cell research. This person is not even alive yet and is not even close to it. Sure they are a fertilized egg, but there has not been much development of the child yet. This egg is just not taken from free will. What people need to understand is that these eggs are donated, much like an organ or blood. According to another article it read it states that "Remember the embryos were donated from vitro fertilization clinics. They had either been rejected for implication, were going to be destroyed, or the couple had decided to stop storing the embryos for further use"(Myths and misconceptions about stem cell research, 2011). This article also states, "All policies require voluntary and informed consent from the women so they understand the risks and benefits of egg donation"(Myths and misconceptions about stem cell research, 2011). One can gain from this; the explanation what the question means by what it said when it mentioned "respectively let to die". If these embryos can't be used for the purpose of having a child, would it not be wasteful to not let it help a good cause like saving a life? As mentioned in my other posts, to me, this is such a big advancement in scientific and medical research. This one embryo, this life, can save many lives. Women know the risks and if they sign up for it, what is wrong with that? This is helping people in such a big way from helping those with Cancer to maybe enabling someone to walk again. According to an article that I read it states this "An early embryo that has not yet implanted into the uterus does not have the physical properties that we associate with being a person"(Embryonic stem cell research: an ethical dilemma, 2011). Though that idea may seem cruel the embryo technically speaking is not yet a person, why take away a life of (for example, a six year child) for the life of something that is not technically a person.

One of the questions asked basically stated if embryos that just died, get the same rights to patients who have just died. I don't believe that they have the same rights. These people who are ill have had to live through suffering and pain and they actually lived. In reality, this embryo never really lived, especially if it was not going to make it anyway. Another question I asked was whether or not I felt the argument of Maholwald’s a good one or not, it basically states that taking organs from a disease person is the equivalent to taking stem cells from a dead embryo that is respectively let to die. I would have to say that his argument makes sense, however more dead people given decent for the use of their organs, where as embryos never lived to make that choice. If the embryos have had a respectful death, they never actually lived. It really is equivalent because it is using something that is not longer living to benefit someone who is not yet ready to die. I do not agree with this as the same thing as the right to die, like mention in the forum question. Of course this is not the same because biologically the embryo is living but is not yet a person. In the end I feel that this is a great advancement in medical sciences. According to another article I read, the "Life-saving stem cell treatments are already successful and in widespread use of some diseases. For example, bone marrow transplants use stem cells to treat Leukemia" (Stem Cell Facts, 2012). This same article also states "Scientists are working on a wide range of stem cell-based therapies. They have created "tissue patches" for burn victims. They have grown islet cells that produce insulin to treat diabetes and healthy brain cells to ease the symptoms of disorders like Parkinson's disease. They have genetically changed cells and then used them to deliver healing or protective agents to injured or diseased areas of the body" (Stem Cell Facts, 2012). My question is with knowing this information and the benefits of this, would it not be a shame to get rid of this huge advancement? As of now, "64% of Americans support federal funding of research on chronic diseases using stem cells taken from human embryos" (Stem Cell Facts, 2012). Though that is a high number, I believe that it should be much higher. I agree 100% with this research.

Resources:
Unknown:Embryonic stem cell research: an ethical dilemma. (2011, March 23). Retrieved October 23, 2012, from EuroStemCell: [Only admins are allowed to see this link]

Unknown:Myths and misconceptions about stem cell research. (2011, January). Retrieved October 23, 2012, from California Institute For Regenetive Medicine: [Only admins are allowed to see this link]

Unknown:Stem Cell Facts. (2012). Retrieved October 23, 2012, from Americans for Cures Foundation: [Only admins are allowed to see this link]

Unknown:What Are Embryonic Stem Cells. (2012). Retrieved October 23, 2012, from News Medical : [Only admins are allowed to see this link]