Many people do not realize the significance this research can have on a human and society. This research can make paralyzed humans walk again. If this research was legal then who knows how far it can advance many different medical fields. It argued that this research is immoral because a fetus must be used, but this topic falls on all the same lines as abortion. The fetuses that come out of abortion can even be used in stem cell research.
The moral argument is that scientists are killing fetuses to improve the medical condition of living patients. I think that this argument is completely absurd. I think that if a person wants to donate an embryo for this type of research, it should be left up to them. My way of thinking on this issue is very nonconsequentialist which insist that consequences, effects or outcomes are irrelevant: morality is about doing what is right as a matter of principle, regardless of consequences. That means you do the right thing no matter what happens (Thiroux).
Brain rejuvenation is not ethical especially compared to the first medical procedure you performed on Julia North. Julia North was given a fair opportunity to live by having her brain placed in a noter person's body. However, when you want to construct a brain that is the exact same as the original brain of a person and replace it with the old brain, I believe this is very unethical. If you were to make more replicas of Nick's brain and put them in other people's bodies then there would be more than one Nick, which is impossible and unethical because it should not be possible to have this issue in the first place. Therefore I believe you and the committee need to reconsider your decision on allowing brain rejuvenation and disallow it.
Despite Natural Law forbidding abortion, there is a doctrine of double effect that can be implemented. If the mother’s life is threatened as a result of the pregnancy, for instance during an ectopic pregnancy, then the destruction of the fallopian tube would be acceptable. Here, the primary aim is not the terminate the pregnancy but to save the mother’s life. The secondary effect is that the embryo is destroyed. Here, abortion would be permissible even by Natural law followers, who believe in the sanctity of life.
My theory also is that eventually people will start bidding on artificial organs and the richer people will have say over a family that doesn't have a lot of money. If doctors wanted to replace original organs with artificial ones, it would take a lot of perfecting and obligating a clean bill of health for the patient. Who, if anyone, should be a prime candidate for these types of artificial/synthetic replacements? Do you feel that anyone should have access to them? Even a life-long smoker or alcoholic who knowingly subjected themselves to harmful substances?
The purpose is to argue that potential organ donors should be rewarded for their generosity .In addition, Satel argues the current system of altruistic donation is yet noble, it is not the most motivating course for organ donation out of all the alternatives to save people’s lives. The author gives examples including her own organ recipient experience to illustrate how the current system can be altered and improved otherwise the only people who would volunteer to donate organs would be ones that no longer needed them, the deceased. Satel pinpoints the short comings with the current system and offers rebuttals to altruism supporters. Compensation is given for blood plasma donated at clinic. “Today we routinely assign valuation to the body.
Science ceases to serve humanity and instead creates the base of prejudice where love is no longer left to chance as the social norm, but gets individuals genetic codes to aid in decisions for love. When fate and prejudice are determined by our genetically engineered birth, self-improvement is only possible through great personal sacrifice. When science and technology control every aspect of our lives, work is narrowly viewed as the most crucial determinant of a person’s success or failure. Procreation is taken out of god’s hands as the new normal way to have a child is in the hands of science. When science and technology begin to control every aspect of our lives, we will lose everything that makes us human beings.
Opinions in society differ over whether there should be any genetic manipulation of humans. Some people believe curing diseases such as cystic fibrosis and other genetically disabling diseases should be considered ethical and acceptable, but advancing human intelligence, strength and personal characteristics is not. Others believe that genetic manipulation of humans of any form is unethical and therefore should not be done while others believe it is advantageous and advancements should be pursued. One of the main reasons people are opposed to genetic manipulation of human beings is because it could go wrong. It is very hard to determine all the potential effects of gene therapy.
Harvey 1 Jeffrey Harvey Mrs. Commons Pre-AP English II 19 March 2014 Outline Stem Cells: Decades of Controversy Thesis: Cloning for research or reproduction is immoral and unnecessary. Adult stem cells have proven to be more effective and do not require the destruction of embryos. I.Human cloning has always been a wild science fiction dream, and a controversy for decades. A. Research cloning would be used mainly to reproduce embryos for their stem cells.
Thus creating a huge debate in the public world, and many ethical decisions to whether (hESC) is morally wrong. Considering Human Embryonic Stem cell research today's Pandora's box, the benefits of embryonic stem cell research outweigh the moral costs because of the