.png)
By Alexia R.
In modern American medicine, a widespread debate continues to question the boundary between ethics and advancement. This issue is over the legality and ethics of the role of the use of stem cells in regenerative medicine. These cells, harvested from 3 to 5-day-old embryos, can develop into a variety of biological components, allowing for mass regenerative technological advancement and providing more application flexibility than the more ethically gathered nonembryonic cells. The question then is to what extent should these cells play a role in American regenerative medicine? Although some may argue that stem cell use in this field defies the principles set forth by religion and evades legality surrounding consent, this research should be allowed to continue so long as it provides necessary aid to disease recovery.
Many argue that stem cell application in American regenerative medicine evades the fundamental principles of religious belief. As stated by representatives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), “As believers who recognize each human life as a gift of […] God, we insist that every human being […] matters to God” (“On Embryonic Stem Cell Research”). This stems from the belief that each embryo is a human being. According to USCCB, “This new living organism has […] human genes and is actively expressing those genes to live and develop” (“On Embryonic Stem Cell Research”). However, this claim of religious reasoning behind the move to prohibit the use of stem cells extends the belief of specific groups of people onto mass audiences. Considering that medicinal allowances are of the state, it is crucial to look towards the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Accordingly, it could be said that religious bias for scientific ruling has no application in an American medicinal debate. Instead, as put by Kirk Walters in his cartoon on the topic, scientific advancement can only take place in the separation of religion and politics. The idea of using a specific religion as a basis for the allotment of embryonic stem cell use is, therefore, unjustifiable. Instead, policymakers should be taking note of the country’s overall polled opinions. In a February 2023 survey by Gallop, results showed that the American public generally supports embryonic stem cell use by large margins: 63 percent in support to 32 percent not in support.
An additional argument states that stem cell application in American regenerative medicine evades the natural and politically represented right of consent. Writing for the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Charles F. Thomas and Robert Vassallo, pulmonary medicine researchers, state that “consent for an incompetent research subject [...] [is] allowed only if there is minimal risk and therapeutic benefit for the incompetent research subject,” as gathered from the Declaration of Helsinki, the Nuremberg Code, and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. This statement provides some reasoning as to why many see the practice of embryonic stem cell harvesting as an intrusion upon legal consent. However, while not exactly applicable, a similar and widespread application of consent in the field of medicine counters this very statement. The commonly applied practice of “pulling the plug” relates to a right to determine the outcome of an unconscious, life-support-dependent, patient’s life. The right of choice is passed upon a legally associated party, whether it be a parent, child, or spouse. By definition, ending the patient’s life is not to the benefit of the human, as many have come out of unconscious states and lived a continued life. However, at some point, the continuity of supported life becomes a question of ethics and moral association. Similarly, embryos, dependent on host decision-making, pass their inability to consent onto these individuals. As long as the person carrying the embryo consents to stem cell harvest, this is, by the logical application of the previous example, the only necessary consent.
With all of this in mind, stem cell application in the field of American regenerative medicine should be allowed so long as it provides aid to disease recovery. The power and potential of applying these cell types is too strong to ignore. In the study of genetic disorders and the generation of corrective medicines and replicative technology, these cells are needed desperately. As Janet Rowley, a University of Chicago professor of medicine, states, “Investigators also desperately need embryonic stem cells developed from patients with these genetic disorders to confirm that studies with induced pluripotent cells faithfully reproduce the genetic disorders”. Without having access to these extremely versatile cells, not only are the lives of those struggling with ongoing disorders put at risk, but the very research used to find other cures can not be successfully pursued. For example, in the field of organ synthesis, embryonic stem cell application “promotes the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. It is the next chapter in organ transplantation and uses cells instead of donor organs, which are limited in supply” (Rowley). As argued above, the advancements allowed by stem cells allow for incredible change in the world. Ailments that harm large groups of people - genetic disorders, organ failures, and decreased bodily function - can finally be researched with access to embryonic stem cell lines. Thus, so long as the scientific application continues to be related to these fields, the benefits are too good to ignore.
In the end, the issue of embryonic stem cell application in American regenerative medicine can be provided with a simple solution. So long as consent is prioritized, religion is separated from political decisions, and stem cells are applied towards the general betterment of the life of those struggling with disease, this application should be allowed.
References
Rowley, Janet. “Embryonic Stem Cell Research Does Too Much Good to Be Evil, Says Janet ...” US News,
-does-too-much-good-to-be-evil-says-janet-rowley.
“On Embryonic Stem Cell Research”, USCCB
Publishing, Washington, DC, 2008, https://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/upload/On-Embryonic-Stem-Cell-Research.pdf.
“Stem Cell Research.” Gallup.com, 6 Feb. 2023,
“Stem Cells: What They Are and What They Do.” Mayo
Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 19 Mar. 2022, https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/bone-marrow-transplant/in-depth/stem-cells/art-20048117.
Thomas, Charles F., and Robert Vassallo. “Against the ATS Statement on Human Embryonic
Stem Cell Research.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/ajrccm.174.3.357a.
Walters, Kirk. “Newspaper Cartoon on Stem Cell Research.” Cagle, The Toledo Blade, 21 July
コメント