Is it possible to obtain stem cells by ethical means

For some doctors, including those at the Stamina Foundation, using cutting-edge but untested stem cell therapies is the only way to offer treatment, and hope, to people suffering from otherwise untreatable diseases. Even though they are advancing untested therapies, advocates argue that these treatments are saving lives — and there is certainly merit in wanting to save lives now rather than wait the excruciating months and years it can take to have a new treatment approved.

Given the choice between certain death from a debilitating disease and an untested treatment that just might save them, or at least lessen their suffering, many patients are willing to try these treatments even though there may be risks. Another major concern stems from the manner in which these treatments are being administered. This openness allows other researchers to verify the validity of results by replicating them independently of the original study.

There is certainly an ethical dilemma involved in charging desperate people large sums of money for an unproven treatment. As always, however, it is a difficult line to draw. A doctor overcharging patients for her own gain is clearly violating her ethical responsibilities, but if the treatment is legitimately that expensive, it may be defensible. Are there situations when it is ethically responsible to treat patients with untested therapies?

Should doctors be allowed to treat patients with stem cells now, provided that patients make an informed decision regarding their own treatment? Or do doctors and scientists have a duty to wait to offer these treatments until they are based on solid scientific data? Either way, these dialogues need to continue so that informed policies that protect patients and foster responsible, ethical research practices can be enacted.

Ilana Kelsey is a Ph. EuroStemCell, 23 March National Institutes of Health, Science, 11 Oct. Dialogues need to continue so that informed policies that protect patients and foster responsible, ethical research practices can be enacted. To obtain embryonic stem cells, the early embryo has to be destroyed. This means destroying a potential human life. But embryonic stem cell research could lead to the discovery of new medical treatments that would alleviate the suffering of many people.

So which moral principle should have the upper hand in this situation? The answer hinges on how we view the embryo. Does it have the status of a person? Chapter 1 of this film introduces some of the key ethical arguments. Find this film and others in our video library. The moral status of the embryo is a controversial and complex issue. The main viewpoints are outlined below. The embryo has full moral status from fertilization onwards Either the embryo is viewed as a person whilst it is still an embryo, or it is seen as a potential person.

Development from a fertilized egg into to baby is a continuous process and any attempt to pinpoint when personhood begins is arbitrary. A human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage, just as an infant is a human being in the infant stage. Although an embryo does not currently have the characteristics of a person, it will become a person and should be given the respect and dignity of a person.

An early embryo that has not yet been implanted into the uterus does not have the psychological, emotional or physical properties that we associate with being a person. It therefore does not have any interests to be protected and we can use it for the benefit of patients who ARE persons. It needs external help to develop.

Even then, the probability that embryos used for in vitro fertilization will develop into full-term successful births is low. Something that could potentially become a person should not be treated as if it actually were a person. A candidate for president is a potential president, but he or she does not have the rights of a president and should not be treated as a president.

There is a cut-off point at 14 days after fertilization Some people argue that a human embryo deserves special protection from around day 14 after fertilization because:. The embryo has increasing status as it develops An embryo deserves some protection from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, and its moral status increases as it becomes more human-like. Implantation of the embryo into the uterus wall around six days after fertilization. Appearance of the primitive streak — the beginnings of the nervous system — at around 14 days.

The phase when the baby could survive if born prematurely. If a life is lost, we tend to feel differently about it depending on the stage of the lost life. A fertilized egg before implantation in the uterus could be granted a lesser degree of respect than a human fetus or a born baby. Other legal systems permit the creation and destruction of human embryos specifically for research purposes. Ultimately, these regulations always raise questions about the moral status of early human life. When does the human embryo become a human being in the moral sense?

From fertilization, from implantation in the uterus, from a certain stage of development or, for example, only from birth? A proven method of ethically evaluating an action is to ask about the legitimacy of both the objectives pursued by the action and the means used. Since the justifiability of the means also depends on what other means are available, the question of possible alternatives plays an important role. You can find a more detailed description of many core questions relating to stem cell research here.

Stem cell research has since developed beyond the stage of pure basic research. The first clinically tested therapies with stem cells are approved and many other therapeutic approaches are under development.

With the increase in clinical trials, the involvement of clinical ethics committees in the approval process for stem cell-based applications is becoming increasingly important. Tissue databases are being created for stem cell research, particularly for research on induced pluripotent stem cells. But what rights do the original tissue donors have to the processed cell cultures and how are they to be involved appropriately in the research results? Should tissue donors be informed when research reveals abnormalities in their tissue samples?

Non-therapeutic applications of stem cell research are also pursued, such as the production of meat from Petridishes or the testing of new drugs. Such developments always raise further ethically relevant questions. For example, cultures from human stem cells or iPS cells could be used to test drugs and active substances and thus contribute to reducing the number of animal experiments. The production of meat from animal muscle stem cells has been possible for some time.

Research and industry worldwide are now working on the marketability of lab-grown meat. The normative effects, for example with regard to animal welfare and climate protection, are enormous. These and many other questions will have to be discussed in the coming years by normative scientists, political decision-makers, and the public. The potential of stem cell research has also raised many expectations in society.

Patients suffering from severe and previously incurable diseases, in particular, have high hopes of being cured by tissue replacement. At this point, however, it must be emphasized that clinically proven stem cell therapies have so far only been available in a small number of areas cf. Which stem cell therapies are available?

Unfortunately, however, hundreds of commercial providers offering stem cell treatments that have notbeen clinically tested have now become established worldwide. Such services are often associated with high costs for the patients and a carefulevaluation and aftercare do not take place.