Moral Status Of Human Embryo Research Articles

Ethical Aspects of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells and Alzheimer's Disease: Potentials and Challenges of a Seemingly Harmless Method.

Dementia currently affects more than 55 million people worldwide, and scientists predict that this number will continue to rise. The most common form is Alzheimer's disease (AD), which is triggered, among other things, by dysfunctional cells in the human brain. Stem cell research attempts to counteract neurodegenerative processes, for example by replacing or treating diseased cells. In addition to human embryonic stem cells, since the successes of Takahashi and Yamanaka in 2006, there has been an increased focus on human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPS cells). These cells avoid ethically challenging questions about the moral status of human embryos, but there are numerous problems, such as high production costs, side effects from the reprogramming process, or a potentially new moral status. These ethical issues will be examined primarily in relation to AD. The first part will be a discussion of hiPS cells and their importance for stem cell research, after which the focus turns to AD. Based on scientific studies, the relationship between hiPS cells and AD will be outlined as well as ethical implications presented. While potential limitations of hiPS cells have been discussed by numerous authors, an ethical perspective on the link between hiPS cells and AD seems to be neglected in the scientific community. The following risk analysis aims to identify a possible research agenda. In conclusion, the focus on individuals with AD may help to adopt an ethical stance that recognizes existing limitations and constructively engages with the possibilities of research.

Embryo Loss and Moral Status.

There is a significant debate over the moral status of human embryos. This debate has important implications for practices like abortion and IVF. Some argue that embryos have the same moral status as infants, children, and adults. However, critics claim that the frequency of pregnancy loss/miscarriage/spontaneous abortion shows a moral inconsistency in this view. One line of criticism is that those who know the facts about pregnancy loss and nevertheless attempt to conceive children are willing to sacrifice embryos lost for the healthy children they ultimately have. I respond to this criticism and argue that on the most plausible accounts of well-being, these embryos are not made worse off and thus not "sacrifices." I then make some more general remarks about what people's typical views about pregnancy loss show about their views toward the moral status of embryos.

Patients’ views on using human embryonic stem cells to treat Parkinson’s disease: an interview study

BackgroundHuman embryonic stem cells (hESC) as a source for the development of advanced therapy medicinal products are considered for treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD). Research has shown promising results and opened an avenue of great importance for patients who currently lack a disease modifying therapy. The use of hESC has given rise to moral concerns and been the focus of often heated debates on the moral status of human embryos. Approval for marketing is still pending.ObjectiveTo Investigate the perspectives and concerns of patients with PD, patients being the directly concerned stakeholders in the ethical discussion.MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews related to this new therapy in seventeen patients from two Swedish cities.ResultsThe participants expressed various interests related to the use of human embryos for development of medicinal therapies; however, overall, they were positive towards the use of hESC for treatment of PD. It was deemed important that the donating woman or couple made the choice to donate embryos voluntarily. Furthermore, there were concerns that the industry does not always prioritise the patient over profit; thus, transparency was seen as important.

14-Day Limit of Human Embryo Research: Moral Issues in the Patent Law in China

Conflicting decisions are made regarding the patentability of inventions related to human embryonic stem cells (hESC) in China based on divergent ethical judgments and arguments. Gaps between patent and health law exist, and inconsistent applications of patentability emerge. The amendment to China's Patent Examination Guidelines regulated that isolating or obtaining stem cells using human embryos which are not undergoing in vivo development and are within 14 days after fertilization could be granted patent. This regulatory scheme that uses the 14-day threshold for patenting hESC-related invention is feasible, transparent, and can be conformed with by researchers and other actors in this field. However, making policy on this matter is not straightforwardly a matter of winning a philosophical argument on moral issues: the moral status of human embryos must be still carefully weighed and balanced in the patent examination process.

Human embryo research, stem cell-derived embryo models and invitro gametogenesis: Considerations leading to the revised ISSCR guidelines.

SummaryThe ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation were last revised in 2016. Since then, rapid progress has been made in research areas related to in vitro culture of human embryos, creation of stem cell-based embryo models, and in vitro gametogenesis. Therefore, a working group of international experts was convened to review the oversight process and provide an update to the guidelines. This report captures the discussion and summarizes the major recommendations made by this working group, with a specific emphasis on updating the categories of review and engagement with the specialized scientific and ethical oversight process.

Исследование общественного мнения об этико-правовом статусе эмбриона человека

Вопрос о правовом статусе эмбриона человека относится к ключевым проблемам современного национального, внутреннего и международного законодательства. В данной работе представлены результаты исследования общественного мнения о вопросе этико-правового статуса эмбриона человека методом анонимного анкетирования. The moral status of human embryo is one of the key issues of modern national and international law. The study shows public opinion on the ethical and legal status of a human embryo according to the results of anonymous survey.

Моральный статус человеческого эмбриона в межхристианском контексте

The article offers an analysis of approaches of different Christian confessions to understanding of the moral status of human embryo in the context of modern biomedical developments. It compares challenges faced by the proponents of each denominational position and their arguments. According to documents and papers of the theologians there are at least three specific positions in relation to moral status of early human embryo: conservative, liberal and indefinite. The author focuses on arguments of such liberal Protestant authors as T. Peters, R. Cole-Turner and J. Polkinghorne; on strong and weak aspects of Roman Catholic perspective; and specific characteristics of Orthodox Christian approaches.

The Moral Status of the Human Embryo.

Moral status ascribes equal obligations and rights to individuals on the basis of membership in a protected group. Substance change is an event that results in the origin or cessation of individuals who may be members of groups with equal moral status. In this paper, two substance changes that affect the moral status of human embryos are identified. The first substance change begins with fertilization and ends with the formation of the blastocyst, a biological individual with moral status comparable to that ascribed to human organs. The second substance change begins at implantation and ends late in embryological development with the formation of the human body, an organism with moral status as a human being. The bioethical implications of each substance change are explored. The Two Substance Change theory is contrasted with continuity theories, which recognize no substance change in embryological development and with fertilization-only substance change theories.

The Argument from Potentiality in the Embryo Protection Debate: Finally “Depotentialized”?

Debates on the moral status of human embryos have been highly and continuously controversial. For many, these controversies have turned into a fruitless scholastical endeavor. However, recent developments and insights in cellular biology have cast further doubt on one of the core points of dissent: the argument from potentiality. In this article we want to show in a nonscholastical way why this argument cannot possibly survive. Getting once more into the intricacies of status debates is a must in our eyes. Not merely intellectual coherence but the standing and self-understanding of current stem cell research might profit from finally taking leave of the argument from potentiality.

Promoting Public Trust: ESCROs Won't Fix the Problem of Stem Cell Tourism

We agree with Greely (2013) that embryonic stem cell research oversight (ESCRO) committees have probably helped to promote ethics in stem cell research (SCR). In this commentary, we draw attention to a few issues that we suspect neither ESCROs nor any current form of governance of SCR is likely to fix. These issues cast a certain degree of social skepticism toward SCR that may prevent some publics from trusting SCR and in other cases, may actually lead to a loss of public trust. These include (1) a lack of a suitable ethical resolution over the moral status of human embryos and the harms to women as ova providers and whether eggs and embryos should be used for SCR, (2) the public’s unmet expectations of the therapeutic promises from SCR, and (3) the delivery of bogus therapies to patients in what is commonly referred to as the stem cell tourism industry. Public trust and public support for science are complex and multifaceted: There is no single “public” and different publics have differing levels of trust (Resnik 2011). In a similar vein, how individuals support science is also intricate, as some may support it through financial donations, performing research or teaching science, participating in clinical trials, voting for a president or other elected officials who are pro-research, or donating their body as cadavers to support medical training (Master and Resnik 2011a). In addition, there is no established causal relationship between public trust and the public support for science (Master and Resnik 2011a; Resnik 2011). Although it can help promote public trust, good governance does not guarantee it. Also, those who are troubled by SCR because they believe in the moral worth of human embryos will never trust the regulatory system, irrespective of how much oversight we place on the field. In addition, public trust in SCR may diminish as awareness of unmet promises and the harms caused by the stem cell tourism industry increase.

Metaphysical and Moral Status of Cryopreserved Embryos.

Those who oppose human embryonic stem cell research argue for a clear position on the metaphysical and moral status of human embryos. This position does not differ whether the embryo is present inside its mother's reproductive tract or in a cryopreservation tank. It is worth examining, however, whether an embryo in "suspended animation" has the same status as one actively developing in utero. I will explore this question from the perspective of Thomas Aquinas's metaphysical account of human nature. I conclude that a cryopreserved human embryo counts, both metaphysically and morally, as a person; and thus the utilization of such embryos for inherently destructive research purposes is impermissible.

BROADENING THE SCOPE OF DEBATES AROUND STEM CELL RESEARCH

Over the last decade, stem cell research has generated an enormous amount of public, political and bioethical debate. These debates have overwhelmingly tended to focus on two moral issues: the moral status of human embryos and the duty to care for the sick and vulnerable. This preoccupation, especially on the question of moral status, has not only dichotomized the debate around two fundamentally incommensurable positions, it has come at the cost of other important issues largely being ignored. In highlighting some of the bioethical and regulatory deficiencies of this fixation, we draw on recent developments in the experimental use of autologous adult stem cells to argue for a more inclusive approach to the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research.

Researchers and Firing Squads: Questions Concerning the Use of Frozen Human Embryos

Is it morally acceptable to use human embryos left over from fertility treatments in research that would harm or destroy them? Many answer "no" to this question on the grounds that all human beings, including human embryos, have a basic moral status that forbids such use. There are some, though, who accept this claim about the basic moral status of human embryos but who believe nevertheless that frozen human embryos which were generated for fertility treatments but which are no longer wanted for that project are a morally acceptable source of human embryonic stem cells and are acceptable subjects of other forms of research that would destroy them in course. The reasoning offered in defense of this position typically employs the claim that since these embryos are going to be discarded anyway, their possibly fruitful use by researchers is a preferable alternative and one that is not inconsistent with their basic moral status. Howard Curzer has offered a well-developed argument of this sort, defending the use of these embryos in the ways mentioned while at the same time allowing for their equal basic moral status. This article challenges Curzer's case and offers reasons to reject the moral acceptability of using even these to-be-discarded embryos as research material.

Potentiality and persons at the margins of life

The concept of potentiality is often invoked in debate over the moral status of human embryos. It has also been invoked, though less prominently, in debate over the moral status of anencephalic infants, individuals in permanent vegetative state, and the whole-brain dead. In this paper, I examine some of the theoretical assumptions underlying the concept of potentiality invoked in these debates. I show how parties in the debate over the ethical significance of potentiality have been talking past each other to a large extent because they rely on different concepts of potentiality. The conceptual differences are traced to different assumptions about the nature of persons and whether external factors may affect determinations of possibility and therefore potentiality. Any assessment about the ethical significance of potentiality therefore requires an evaluation of alternative concepts personhood and the connection between possibility and potentiality.

Political Interventions in U.S. Human Embryo Research: An Ethical Assessment

For more than 30 years, beginning with the Reagan administration's refusal to support and provide oversight for embryo research, and continuing to the present in congressionally imposed limits on funding for such research, progress in infertility medicine and the development of stem cell therapies has been seriously delayed by a series of political interventions. In almost all cases, these interventions result from a view of the moral status of human embryo premised largely on religious assumptions. Although some believe that these interventions are valid expressions of religious values in the public sector, it is argued here that they, in fact, contradict Rawls's conception of public reasoning. Both the prohibition of research involving the human embryo as well as bans on federal funding for embryo-related research place the particular religious views of some citizens above the pressing health needs of almost all, and thus violate the ideal of civility implicit in the Rawlsian standard.

Stem cells, human embryos and ethics: interdisciplinary perspectives

Preface by Mahendra Rao Introduction by Lars Ostnor Biological and Medical Perspectives 1. The Moral Status of Human Embryos with Special Regard to Stem Cell Research and Therapy: Biological and Medical Perspectives 2. Steinar Funderud: Stem Cells: Sources and Clinical Applications 3. Ole Johan Borge: Alternative Means to Obtain Pluripotent Stem Cells 4. Havard Olstorn, Morten C. Moe, Mercy Varghese, Iver A. Langmoen: Neurogenesis and Potential Use of Stem Cells from Adult Human Brain 5. Joel C. Glover: Can We Use Human Embryonic Stem Cells to Treat Brain and Spinal Cord Injury and Disease? 6. William B. Hurlbut: Stem Cells, Embryos and Ethics: Is There a Way Forward? Social and political perspectives 7. LeRoy Walters: An Intercultural Perspective on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research 8. Egbert Schroten: Human Embryo Research: The European Perspective 9. Theo A. Boer: Stem Cells, Pluralism, and Moral Empathy Philosophical perspectives 10. Dagfinn Follesdal: The Potentiality Argument and Stem Cell Research 11. Oyvind Baune: Can the Distinction Between the Moral and the Descriptive Support a Full Moral Standing of an Embryo? 12. Anthony Kenny: The Beginning of Individual Human Life 13. Ludger Honnefelder: Embryonic Stem Cell Research - Arguments of the Ethical Debate in Germany 14. Otfried Hoffe: The Question of Human Cloning in the Context of the Stem Cell Debate Theological perspectives 15. Lars Ostnor: Stem Cells from Human Embryos for Research? The Theological Discussion within Christianity 16. Gunnar Heiene: Theological Arguments in the Human Stem Cell Debate: A Critical Evaluation 17. Monika Bobbert: Human Embryos and Embryonic Stem Cells - Ethical Aspects

The Moral Status of ‘Unborn Children’ Without Rights

Laurence McCullough and Frank Chervenak (2008) correctly note that the descriptive term ‘unborn child’ does not entail any normative propositions regarding the moral status of human embryos and fet...

Babies by (Intelligent) Design?

Advances in reproductive technology and genetic interventions raise questions about the possibility of using these procedures to promote the birth of children with socially advantageous conditions. In Babies by Design, Ronald M. Green supports this goal and accuses its opponents of a "status quo bias." Unfortunately, some of Green's own arguments also show a status quo bias. Moreover, although he attempts to avoid the thorny issue of the moral status of human embryos, he implicitly takes a stand on it by endorsing prenatal interventions that inevitably entail the creation and loss of some human embryos. This essay identifies these and other flaws in Green's account.

Saving Seven Embryos or Saving One Child?

Suppose a fire broke out in a fertility clinic. One had time to save either a young girl, or a tray of ten human embryos. Would it be wrong to save the girl? According to Michael Sandel, the moral intuition is to save the girl; what is more, one ought to do so, and this demonstrates that human embryos do not possess full personhood, and hence deserve only limited respect and may be killed for medical research. We will argue, however, that no relevant ethical implications can be drawn from the thought experiment. It demonstrates neither that one always ought to let the embryos die, nor does it allow for any general conclusion concerning the moral status of human embryos.

The Embryo Rescue Case

In the debate regarding the moral status of human embryos, the Embryo Rescue Case has been used to suggest that embryos are not rightholders. This case is premised on the idea that in a situation where one has a choice between saving some number of embryos or a child, it seems wrong to save the embryos and not the child. If so, it seems that embryos cannot be rightholders. In this paper, I argue that the Embryo Rescue Case does not independently show that embryos are not rightholders.