Amniotic Tissue Research: Is The Moral Cost Too High To Ignore? Essay, Research Paper

It seems that there is always new groundbreaking technology introduced into society. Our hope is to find some magical chemical that will cure all diseases or cancer. Imagine that a miracle substance was found but came, at what some may think is to high a price. Amniotic tissue is remarkable in its healing abilities, however, many think it is wrong to utilize the tissue since it is taken from aborted fetuses and embryos. Are the research processes of fetal tissue in direct conflict with our moral values, or is it negligent for us not to do research that might lead to cures for Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and Parkinson’s disease.

Stem cells are like clay, featureless and dull; but they can morph into blood, skin, bone or any of the body’s replaceable tissues. They also have the gift of self-renewal which, to curb the risk of cancer, is withdrawn from all the body’s mature cells. Embryonic stem cells are created in the first stages of the embryos development; from them, all the bodies tissues and organs are generated. Once the body is formed, the embryonic stem cells disappear, leaving only a few descendents to help keep the body healthy. These descendents, often called adult stem cells, lack the embryonic stem cell’s power of generating any and all of the body’s tissues. (Wade)

After years of funding from Geron, two research teams announced simultaneously last fall that they had finally isolated embryonic stem cells. One team retrieved the cells from young embryos and the other from immature sex organs of aborted fetuses. Preliminary evidence from research on mice suggests that stem cells obtained from embryos may have medical advantages over those isolated from aborted fetuses. (Weiss)

Human embryonic stem cells carry an ethical burden in that they are derived by destroying an embryo, although it would otherwise be discarded by the fertility clinic where it was created. The Embryo at this stage has no fetus-like features; it is a microscopic sphere of cells that holds an inner clump of cells waiting to form all the tissues of the embryo (MacLean). These cells, grown in the laboratory for the first time in 1998, were approved for use by government-supported researchers in August after sustained opposition from opponents of abortion. (Wade)

The use of aborted fetuses for research also has created a stir in the world of abortion politics Many pro-life supporters, such as Eileen Hofer, believe that by allowing research on fetal tissue research more women will have abortions. However, the research does not affect whether or not an abortion will occur. A 1997 General Accounting Office study confirmed that longstanding guidelines prevent the decision to donate tissue from influencing the decision whether to have an abortion in the first place (Samuelson). For example, tissue donors are prohibited from deciding who will receive a tissue transplant and outlaws payment to women who decide to donate.

What’s more, fetal tissue research has produced lifesaving results. Medical science has used tissue remaining from elective abortions for decades, producing such breakthroughs as the polio vaccine. In the case of Parkinson’s, the six-year ban on federal support for the research delayed progress, but is now beginning to bear fruit. Scientists are confident an effective treatment using transplanted cells will emerge (Samuelson).

The biggest problem facing scientist is the daunting task of learning how to prod batches of stem cells to mature into specific kinds of cells for transplantation into people, such as liver cells for cirrhosis or specific kinds of brain cells for patients with Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease. Scientists have had some small successes in encouraging stem cells to turn into desired types, such as blood cells and nerve cells (Weiss).

Last December, for example, Johns Hopkins University researcher John Gearhart stood before a Senate subcommittee and unveiled a poster-sized photograph of spidery living cells with branched, outreaching arms. “These appear to be healthy human brain cells,” said Gearhart, “grown in a laboratory dish from a starter batch of stem cells by feeding them a special recipe of nutrients.” He has injected some into the brains of rodents this fall and has started to assess their potential as a treatment for brain diseases. However, Gearhart’s method is far from foolproof. Many stem cells treated with the same nutrients do not become neurons, and retain the potential to become bone, muscle or other cells later on -cells that would not be welcome in a patient’s brain.

Despite all the potential for future success, pro-life supporters are still adamant about stopping fetal tissue research. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) opposes federal funding of experimentation using body parts of deliberately aborted human beings. Douglas Johnson believes that “if unborn children become a routine source of spare parts, their wholesale destruction will be even more ingrained in our culture and public policies.” If fetal tissue transplantation should become a proven therapy, abortion opponents fear that it could influence public sentiment toward abortion. People might view abortion more favorably if they knew some good might come to others-or themselves-from it (Butler 708).

Some of the pro-life activists’ fears are warranted though. An expos? by 20/20 reviled that human fetal tissue is being donated and then in turn being sold on the research black market for as much as $999. The demand for fetal tissue skyrocketed when President Clinton lifted the ban on the research in 1993. This horrifying fact has made many think twice about where they stand on the issue. Obviously this needs to be stopped, but it should not be the cause of a halt on research altogether.

The selling and buying of aborted fetuses is probably one of the worst setbacks the medical community could possibly have. By having this association, they appear to be monsters when in fact they quite the opposite. The scientists need to stop this problem immediately or they will rapidly lose support from the public. And without public support a demand will come to stop research all together. For this above all is morally wrong, fetuses are not for sale, which should be obvious to anyone.

So the question the pro-life community has faced is: If remains from a legal abortion can save lives, should the tissue be made available to scientist, or thrown away? When staunch pro-life senators like Strom Thurmond, Connie Mac, and then majority leader, Bob Dole reviewed these facts in March 1992, they voted for the research (Samuelson). Dole put it most memorably: Supporting the research was the “true pro-life position.” Every time the position has come up, Congress has supported the research by large, bipartisan majorities.

The controversy over fetal tissue research reveals some of the complexities in the relationship of ethics and public policy. That a certain practice is judged morally wrong by some does not mean that banning it for all is justified. It remains to be seen if it is possible in practice, as it appears to be in principle, to separate elective abortions from the recovery of fetal tissue from those same abortions. Imagine the endless possibilities and applications of fetal tissue. Can we really turn our backs on such a miracle substance and still think of ourselves as morally right? You decide.

Bibliography

Wade, Nicholas. “Teaching the Body To Heal Itself” New York Times. 7 Nov 2000. ProQuest. Online. 19 Nov 2000

Samuelson, Joan. “Pro-Life And Pro-Hope” The Washington

Post. 17 Feb 2000. ProQuest. Online. 20 Nov 2000

Johnson, Douglas. “Letters to the Editor” The Washington

Post. ProQuest. Online. 20 Nov 2000

Butler, J. Douglas, Walbert, David F. Abortion, Medicine,

and the Law. New York: Facts on File, 1992

Fetuses For Sale. Prod. ABC and 20/20. 8 Mar 2000

Hofer, Eileen. Telephone interview. 25 Nov 2000

MacLean, Hunter. Cabrillo Collage Health Reference Center-

Academic. 22 Jan 1996, v109 n4

Weiss, Rick. “Stem Cell Discovery Grows Into A Debate; New

Field Faces Tests On The Hill.” The Washington Post. 9

Oct 2000 ProQuest. Online. 20 Nov 2000