This article discusses the ethical and medical issues of embryonic stem cell therapy, with opponents citing concerns about the invasion of human life, treatment safety issues, and the risks of egg harvesting. Proponents emphasize the treatment of incurable diseases and the economic benefits, but explain that the opposing position is more reasonable given the existence of ethical alternatives and the lack of safety.
The concept of embryonic stem cells and the current state of research
Interest in embryonic stem cell research is growing again after a brief lull following the recent publication of a study that used embryonic stem cells to restore sight to blind patients. According to the medical journal The Lancet, 18 patients with dry age-related macular degeneration, a retinal disease that causes age-related blindness, and Stargardt macular dystrophy, a rare retinal disease, were successfully transplanted with retinal pigment epithelial cells made from embryonic stem cells to restore their vision. Thirteen of the patients in the trial had improved vision, demonstrating the great promise of embryonic stem cells in treating rare or incurable diseases.
Embryonic stem cells are a type of stem cell that has the ability to differentiate into any tissue. In particular, embryonic stem cells originate from fertilized eggs, which are formed when a man’s sperm fertilizes a woman’s egg. Embryonic stem cells, which can be derived from blastocyst embryos just before implantation or from fetuses that have miscarried between 8 and 12 weeks of gestation, have the theoretical potential to differentiate into all the cells that make up the human body. But are there only positive aspects to these stem cells?
Arguments in favor of embryonic stem cells
Proponents of embryonic stem cells support their research and utilization for several reasons. First, proponents argue that embryos up to 14 days after fertilization are nothing more than a clump of non-human cells. However, this argument may be a deliberate way of characterizing embryos as “clumps of cells” to avoid ethical issues. There is no intrinsic change in the development of a fertilized egg into an embryo, fetus, or newborn, only a change in form. Given that dignity is inherent in life itself, not in increasingly distinct forms, the pro-life argument fails.
Second, proponents argue that embryonic stem cells can help cure incurable diseases. Saving a dying life is invaluable, but it can only be justified if it is not done at the expense of another life or in an ethically questionable way. Since an embryo can be considered a life, it is not justifiable to cure an incurable disease at the expense of another life. If there are other ways to treat incurable diseases that are not ethically problematic, then it is reasonable to pursue them further.
Third, proponents argue that embryonic stem cell research helps economic development. However, allowing embryonic research for economic reasons puts human dignity below material value, which risks creating an unethical society. If materialistic thinking is prevalent, the wealth gained from embryonic stem cell research is likely to corrupt society. Therefore, this argument is not a sufficient reason to support embryonic stem cell research.
Arguments against embryonic stem cells
There are four main arguments against embryonic stem cells.
First, there are ethical concerns. Proponents try to sidestep the ethical issues by conveniently treating embryos as clumps of cells. While embryonic stem cells are defined as cells that have lost their totipotency (the ability to form an individual) by removing their envelope and retain their pluripotency (the ability to differentiate into multiple organs), there are studies that show they can regain their envelope if given the right culture environment. This means that there is no denying that embryos are essentially human life. Therefore, embryonic stem cell research is not immune from the ethical issues of utilizing life.
Secondly, embryonic stem cells are not the only way to treat incurable diseases. In addition to embryonic stem cells, there are adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells. Adult stem cells can be derived from a mother’s umbilical cord blood or an adult’s bone marrow, and they have the advantage of not being immunologically rejected and are less likely to cause teratomas. Induced pluripotent stem cells are cells that have been injected with specific genes and proteins to revert them to an early stage with properties similar to embryonic stem cells, but they are less likely to be immunologically rejected and it is easier to find a donor. With these ethically unproblematic alternatives, there are fewer reasons to use embryonic stem cells.
Third, there is the issue of the therapeutic safety of embryonic stem cells. In 2014, a clinical trial using embryonic stem cells was approved in Japan, but was subsequently halted due to concerns about side effects and successful treatment outcomes using induced pluripotent stem cells. In clinical trials using embryonic stem cells, there is a possibility of rejection and teratoma development, making it difficult to ensure safety in actual treatment. In contrast, treatment with induced pluripotent stem cells has rarely resulted in side effects.
Fourth, there are side effects and risks associated with the egg retrieval process. Embryonic stem cells are harvested from fertilized eggs obtained through in vitro fertilization, and during this process, women may experience side effects such as abnormally enlarged ovaries due to the use of fertility drugs. Long-term use of ovulation inducers can increase the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and ovarian cancer, and there is also a risk of respiratory distress or heart attack during egg retrieval under general anesthesia. It is inappropriate to use such a risky method to obtain embryonic stem cells.
Conclusion
In this article, we’ve discussed the concept of embryonic stem cells and the arguments in favor and against them. There are ethical issues involved, it’s not the only way to treat incurable diseases, and there are issues with the safety of the treatment. There are also many side effects and risks for women during the egg harvesting process. Therefore, research and experiments with embryonic stem cells should be stopped.
