The ethics of embryonic stem cell research
Curzer, Howard J.
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2004 October; 29(5): 533- 562
In this article I rebut conservative objections to five phases of embryonic stem cell research. I argue that researchers using existing embryonic stem cell lines are not complicit in the past destruction of embryos because beneficiaries of immoral acts are not necessary morally tainted. Second, such researchers do not encourage the destruction of additional embryos because fertility clinics presently destroy more spare embryos than researchers need. Third, actually harvesting stem cells from slated-to-be-discarded embryos is not wrong. The embryos are not sacrificed for the good of others because they would have been destroyed anyway. Fourth, harvesting stem cells from embryos that are not doomed is morally acceptable, because preserving frozen embryos is futile therapy. Finally, creating embryos solely for the sake of harvesting stem cells from them is morally acceptable because the assumption that embryos have the right to life has very counterintuitive implications.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Moral pluralism and the debate over research on embryonic tissue [review of The Human Embryo Research Debates: Bioethics in the Vortex of Controversy, by Ronald M. Green; The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy, edited by Suzanne Holland, Karen Lebacqz, and Laurie Zoloth] Lustig, Andrew (2002-09)
A bill to provide increased Federal funding for stem cell research, to expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines available for Federally funded research, to provide ethical guidelines for stem cell research, to derive human pluripotent stem cell lines using techniques that do not create an embryo or embryos for research or knowingly harm embryos, and for other purposes United States. Congress. Senate (2007-01-23)