The debate about Stem Cell Research has been going on for as long as the technology has been available. Should we destroy embryos that might one day become humans for research for common, life-shattering diseases or should we let the diseases continue and the embryos grow into people. Utilitarian or Deontologist? The utilitarians think that it is worth destroying a few small cells if we can find a cure for diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and help birth defects, and repair major organ damage. If we can do this then the ends will ultimately justify the means and it will be the best for everyone once we find a cure. The deontologists however believe the opposite. They think that we should be focusing on the fact that these embryos will turn into humans and that it is unethical to take a life away for the main purpose of research. Some say that "We should not mess with human life" and that " human's should not try and play god."
Of course there are other sources of Stem cells, such as bone marrow, but embryonic is said to be better because it is pluripotent, meaning it can grow into almost any kind of other cell, whereas adult stem cells are tissue specific.
And so the debate continues, single human life, or possibly many lives? Consequences of actions, or ends justify the means? Nobody can tell, but one thing is for sure: we won't be figuring the answer out any time soon.
Technically a deontologist wouldn't be concerned about embryo's (they're not persons - so no rights to worry about). However, a late-term (past embryo) and you might be right!
ReplyDelete