The use of stem cells is the new advance in science and they are produced by embryos, which are destroyed in order to take these cells. They can replace every type of cell in our body and this is how scientists assure that most diseases can be cured. Biologically, this discovery is wonderful; even paralyzed people will be able to walk again by replacing the damaged cells in the spinal chord. But there is controversy on the issue: is it morally or ethically right to kill embryos?
Undoubtedly it is a great discovery and many lives can be saved, but at the same time there is a moral issue involved. Apart from paralysis in the spinal chord, there are other diseases that can be cured, such as diabetes, Alzheimer and heart problems. That is why, for a sick person the use of stem cells is a great advance in science; they know what it feels to be sick, and it is for sure that they want to be treated. But beyond those great and remarkable results, embryos are potential individuals. And if we kill what is likely to become a person in order to save another life, we are depriving someone’s right to live.
As far as I’m concerned, stem cells are, for sure, an incredible success in science, which shows that we are really improving health treatment. But the fact that embryos have to be destroyed is worth considering. We can’t just discard them because we are trying to save another person, or doing research. This issue is closely related to the controversy over abortion or euthanasia, so I think that it will be as difficult to solve as those issues are. When human life plays a role in the matter, we have to be careful with the choices we make. So, if you are alive, you have the right to live, why should you kill a life that is just beginning?
In my opinion, the research with stem cells that need to sacrifice the embryo shouldn’t be done. The only way I approve the research is with the stem cells that can be taken from the umbilical chord when the baby is born. They are not as efficient as the ones in the embryo, but taking them doesn’t steal the possibility of a person to develop.
References:
- 60 Minutes. Report by Ed Bradley. Feb. 26, 2006
“Dr. Hans Keirstead believes that embryonic stem cells are a medical milestones seen only every 100 years, and he hopes to conduct clinical trials on humans.”
Undoubtedly it is a great discovery and many lives can be saved, but at the same time there is a moral issue involved. Apart from paralysis in the spinal chord, there are other diseases that can be cured, such as diabetes, Alzheimer and heart problems. That is why, for a sick person the use of stem cells is a great advance in science; they know what it feels to be sick, and it is for sure that they want to be treated. But beyond those great and remarkable results, embryos are potential individuals. And if we kill what is likely to become a person in order to save another life, we are depriving someone’s right to live.
As far as I’m concerned, stem cells are, for sure, an incredible success in science, which shows that we are really improving health treatment. But the fact that embryos have to be destroyed is worth considering. We can’t just discard them because we are trying to save another person, or doing research. This issue is closely related to the controversy over abortion or euthanasia, so I think that it will be as difficult to solve as those issues are. When human life plays a role in the matter, we have to be careful with the choices we make. So, if you are alive, you have the right to live, why should you kill a life that is just beginning?
In my opinion, the research with stem cells that need to sacrifice the embryo shouldn’t be done. The only way I approve the research is with the stem cells that can be taken from the umbilical chord when the baby is born. They are not as efficient as the ones in the embryo, but taking them doesn’t steal the possibility of a person to develop.
References:
- 60 Minutes. Report by Ed Bradley. Feb. 26, 2006
“Dr. Hans Keirstead believes that embryonic stem cells are a medical milestones seen only every 100 years, and he hopes to conduct clinical trials on humans.”
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario