Abstract This paper explains that many people in America see stem cell research as a potentially life-saving technology but others suggest that the manipulation of the building blocks of life is immoral and perhaps even murderous. The author points out that, in the past, it was a commonly accepted scientific practice to experiment on asylum inmates and criminals; today, it is becoming difficult even to justify experimenting on animals. Therefore, because of this expansion of moral sentiment, many religious groups and other bioethicists tend to look with some suspicion of anything resembling human experimentation. The paper relates the evidence that stem cells might possibly provide miraculous cures is somewhat lacking because of the restrictions under which scientists must operate in the area of stem cell research.
From the Paper "In heated public debates, both sides may loose track of the fact that not all stem cells are harvested in the same way, and there may be some way to resolve this conflict without jeopardizing scientific research. Stem cells, which are fully unspecialized and proliferate, may be harvested from blastocysts, but they can also be harvested from the cord-tissue of newborns, and possible harvested in smaller numbers from blastocysts without destroying those embryos. "All stem cells-regardless of their source-have three general properties: they are capable of dividing and renewing themselves for long periods; they are unspecialized; and they can give rise to specialized cell types.""
Abstract This paper discusses the moral or ethical aspects of the employment of embryonic stem cells in research. The paper presents a careful analysis of the scientific, political and social aspects of stem cell research and concludes with the opinion that stem cells are too dangerous to be carelessly used and applied to the human race. The paper contends that while its continued research might be slightly beneficial, in the current stage, the harms outweighs the benefits.
From the Paper "The issue of human embryonic stem cell research began in 1998, when scientists achieved a medical breakthrough that allowed them to isolate the first embryonic stem cell. When this occurred a storm of controversy began to surround the actual research and the process of extraction of embryonic stem cells. In order to delineate the truths and myths about stem cell research and its impacts on the rest of us, an accurate understanding of what exactly stem cell research is will be necessary. Stem cells are primal undifferentiated cells which retain the ability to separate into other cell types. This means that it can be used a repair mechanism to reproduce cells and repair systems for the body. It replenishes other cells as long as the actual organism is alive. The belief is that stem cells can act as special agents with an individual's body to repair specific tissues and to grow organs themselves if necessary, thus changing the face of humanity's approach to illness and disease. "
Abstract This paper discusses the background to and the ethical debate over embryonic stem cell research. The paper begins by discussing the production of stem cells in the body. It then discusses research into stem cells. The paper analyzes both sides of the debate over whether stem cell research is ethical and cites examples of how the research can be used for medical advancements. The paper concludes that a unanimous opinion on the ethics of conducting embryonic stem cell research may not be possible in a pluralistic society.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
From the Paper "Many otherwise terminal or incurable and life-threatening conditions may be cured by embryonic stem cell research (Kulka 2005). Research should be viewed as aligned with the mandate for respect and in the light of an absence of suitable substitutes. Furthermore, specific procedures and limitations suggested by the NIH already insure that federally conducted research would be consistent with the respect, which should be shown embryos. NIH guidelines included banning commercialization of embryos. Informed consent from donors should be included among the requirements. Sufficient and careful limitations for the conduct of embryonic stem cell research will establish adequate respect for the embryo as a form of human life (Kulka) to satisfy objections and allow the research to proceed in its pursuit to save lives rather than destroy, neglect or allow them to simply wither away."
The paper examines the legal and ethical status of cloning in the United Kingdom and the United States and attempts to explain the differences between the two countries' approach to the issue.
Abstract This paper is a research paper on human cloning and specifically the legal and ethical implications as they apply to the United Kingdom and the United States. The paper begins by defining the notions implied by the word cloning and then proceeds to provide a precise analysis of the legal situation in the United Kingdom and the United States in order to facilitate an examination of the evolution of cloning in the United Kingdom as well as the contradictions that may exist between what is said and what is done in the United States. The paper contends that any discussion on cloning must take place in the international arena and not just on a national level, and that morals and ethics play an important role in the debate on cloning at both levels. Finally, the paper attempts to show the danger of the absence of legislation on cloning by giving a practical view of what is currently possible. This paper includes colour photographs and charts.
Outline:
Introduction
Basic Notions
Reproductive Cloning
National Laws In Force And The Influence Of International Organisations9
The Situation In The United Kingdom
The Situation In The United States
The International Organisations' Approach
The Implications Of Ethics
Generalities On Moral Issue
Identity Issue
Religions' Views On Cloning
Clonaid
Conclusion
Information Requests Mails
Unsuccessful Attempts To Obtain Information
E-Mail Deleted Without Being Read
Adolph Grunbaum
The Experts Actively Involved In Our Project
V.J. Norris And Michael W. Shaw, University Of Reading (United Kingdom)
Jeff Macmahan And Katrien Devolder
Rosario Isasi, Jd, Mph, Faculty Of Law, Montreal University
Bilbliography
Annexes
From the Paper "In 2001, the United Kingdom passed what became one of the most liberal laws on human cloning. This may appear contradictory with what has been said in the introduction of this study, i.e. that Britain was the first nation set to ban cloning although they were the first to have legalised it. Indeed, this might have been perceived as an evolution and it would have been interesting to see why such an evolution occurred: why do people who first authorised cloning then changed their mind and finally decided to ban it? The fact is that the new piece of legislation actually covers reproductive cloning and not therapeutic cloning. However, since the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990, therapeutic cloning is legal for scientists who have been granted a state licence by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The law allows cloning and growth of human embryos up to fourteen days for research purposes. What is now expressly prohibited with the law of 2001 is the transfer of cloned embryos into a woman's womb, but this has never been legal before 2001."
