embryo research Flashcards
What is embryo research used for?
This research helped to improve IVF techniques, as well as to better understand the earliest stages of human development. Research also shed light on a variety of inheritable disorders. Embryos contain stem cells which, according to scientists, could be used to cure a wide range of conditions. Stem cells can be coaxed into growing cells of any other type, which makes them potentially very useful indeed. However, removing stem cells from an embryo will kill the embryo, which some people object to.
What is the issue if the embryo is considered a person?
The most significant argument against embryo research is that an embryo should be treated as a human being, which would make embryo research equivalent to murder.The official position of the Catholic Church is that it is impossible to be certain when human life begins, so an embryo might be a person, so it should be treated as a person.
What are the benefits of embryo research?
The benefits of embryo research are potentially so significant that the provide a very strong argument in favour of allowing even very controversial research. Embryology has already helped to develop technology that has helped thousands of childless couples to have babies - over 10,000 babies a year in the UK. Embryonic stem cell research promises cures to diseases that affect hundreds of millions of people, such as Parkinson’s disease, cancer, spinal cord injuries etc.
Are there alternatives to embryos?
There are many claims about alternatives to embryonic stem cell research, such as the use of adult stem cells. It is very hard to be certain that adult stem cells would be as effective, and therefore many supporters of using embryos say that the benefits of research, and the speed with which those benefits will become available, justify the use of embryos.
What do people think about creating embryos specifically for research purposes?
The number of spare embryos available for research is very limited. There are many suggestions about how to create new embryos - using eggs from aborted foetuses, using bovine eggs etc. Each suggestion carries different concerns. Those who see an embryo as a human person believe that it is deeply wrong to create embryos just for research.
What is the case study about the first cloned human embryo?
Judson Somerville broke his spine in a cycling accident, leaving him paralysed. Scientist Jose Cibelli took cells from Somerville and, having removed the nucleus of an ovum, implanted the nucleus of one of his cells, creating the first human embryo clone. Cibelli was unsuccessful in this attempt to cure Somerville, but his work continues.
What is the case study about the embryo with three parents?
Scientists are trying to prevent a mother passing mitochondrial diseases on to her child. After her egg is fertilised with her husband’s sperm, the nucleus is removed and put into the egg of another woman. The resulting embryo has DNA from all three participants but, if allowed to grow, would resemble the ‘parents’ as the mitochondrial DNA does not dictate hair or eye colour etc.
In what way would Utilitarians support embryonic research?
t may be assumed that utilitarianism would have no problem with using spare embryos - they would otherwise be discarded, and if we get any use out of them at all, the end justifies the means. It would be easy to assume that utilitarianism would therefore support the creation of embryos for research. No harm is being done (embryos feel no pain), and much good could be done. Every aborted foetus could yield hundreds of eggs from which hundreds of embryos could be produced.
In what way would Utilitarians oppose embryonic research?
if we move past Bentham’s theory, which recognised only pleasure as being of value, we would need to ask whether an embryo has any interests. Certainly some people would argue that it is in an embryo’s interests to be implanted. The counter-argument is that embryos have no interests, but if you look at how far Singer is willing to assign interests in terms of the environment, this may not be such an easy argument to win. Further, when doing a utilitarian calculation, you would need to weigh up different possibilities. For an embryo, wouldn’t the outcome be better if you attempted to implant it rather than experiment on it? This argument is more easily dismissed, as the embryo was never going to be implanted.
Why would Kantian ethics be against embryonic research?
The destruction of embryos would be wrong and no amount of positive consequences could justify this. To be clear about why this is, imagine if embryos were experimented on as a law of nature. If this was the case, I might never have been born. This doesn’t require any assumption about the status of an embryo, merely the recognition that my genetic code was distinct from the earliest stages, and therefore to destroy or experiment on an embryo would be to prevent a specific person from being born. Also, treating someone as a means to an end.
Why would Natural Law be against embryonic research?
he Primary Precept ‘Protect and preserve the innocent’ would mean that anything done to an embryo that would prevent it from developing would be seen as wrong.
A different way of finding out what Natural Law thinks is by asking what the purpose is of somethng. The purpose of human life is summed up by the primary prescetps. However, the purpose of an embryo can be considered separately. It is designed to grow into a person, so it would be wrong to experiment on an embryo.
What view would situation ethics have of embryonic research?
Personalism, one of the four principles Fletcher’s of Situation Ethics, is the belief that people are important. Embryonic stem cell research could potentially help millions, which would make it morally justifiable. It is not clear what value a situationist would give to an embryo - situation ethics does not give specific guidance, saying that the right course of action would be to do the loving thing in any situation. A situationist who believed the embryo was a person would respond very differently from one who didn’t - the theory cannot be used to comment on the status of the embryo, merely on what to do if the embryo were a person.
Why would virtue ethics support embryonic research?
Stem cell research offers cures to paralysis, Parkinson’s disease, and many other seriously debilitating conditions. These conditions are not part of the eudaimonian ideal. Eudaimonia is complete happiness, and such a state would not be possible with the agony of such conditions. Just as we should strive to develop our character, we should prevent things that stand in the way of eudaimonia.
What happened in the case study of the Rubella vaccine of 1994?
The introduction of the Rubella Vaccine in October 94 was rejected by two Roman Catholic schools on the basis that it was developed from a dead foetus (an intrinsic wrong). The Methodist Church however takes a more teleological approach to Christian Ethics (hence it’s links with Situation Ethics) and might accept the vaccination on the basis that the good produced from immunisation against Rubella outweighs the evil derived from researching embryos – the greater end justifies the evil means.
What could the virtue of compassion say about embryonic research in virtue ethics?
Compassion could be shown to the embryos that are being used for the good of others
Compassion could also be shown to the people who are suffering from degenerative diseases such as Alzheimers
However, those who possess the degenerative diseases could be seen to be demonstrating compassion for the embryos by preventing the continuation of embryo research. Thus it could be argued both ways.
