Reflections on human embryo The current debate on the ethical permissibility of using embryos for research reflects important aspects of scientific mentality.
Researchers have an insatiable desire to know. When conquering a frontier, then raised how to get to the next. When curing a disease, then seek strategies to heal others or to "cushion" if that were possible, the same natural process of aging that irreversibly affects all human beings.
cutting-edge medical research wants to find the solution to many degenerative diseases. The stem cell research (also called stem) provides, in that sense, high hopes. These stem cells can come from embryos (in the early stages of development), or humans more developed (fetuses, children, adults). It is usually possible to obtain embryonic stem cells from the death or destruction of the embryos used in such experiments, unless they develop safer techniques to avoid any damage to the embryo of such cells are taken.
based research adult stem cells in itself poses no serious ethical objections. Instead, we discuss extensively on the ethical legitimacy of using embryonic stem cells, because obtaining such cells involves destroying or harming embryos.
"human embryos are" subhuman "? Some argue, is informative level, is a scientific level, the character "subhuman" of those embryos. Since 1984 there arose the term "pre-embryo" to describe the embryo in its earliest stages of life, meaning, to that end, we are dealing with a "prehombre." Society can
scared if they hear that the research destroys human beings. The company, however, is more at ease if they are told they are being used (and destroyed) pre-embryos in the laboratory.
A study published in early September 2007 by the British authorities for the Fertilization and Embryology (short English is HFEA) clearly shows that the "use" of embryos is accepted when it can convince the public character of such sub-human embryos before they get to meet 14 days of development.
"Overall, any extra ..." Another argument is put forward in favor of embryo research is that many of them are destined to an inevitable death. In the artificial reproduction clinics "leftover" embryos. Many parents are unwilling or unable to provide an opportunity to continue their existence as other human embryos.
Why not use them, if they are destined to certain death? For some scientists, are "biological material" very interesting, well used, will be used to discover and enhance modern medicine. Some even say they take these embryos is to give meaning to his death, offering a "dignified" to inevitable destruction purchase a humanitarian value to give hope to many patients awaiting help from science.
not lacking, however, scientists, bioethicists, lawyers, thinkers and philosophers who openly advocate that every embryo is a human being from the moment of fertilization. These authors believe, therefore, that the embryo must be protected: not just destroy it or damage to allow "progress" scientific.
No human being is worth less than others. No human being can be destroyed for the good of other human beings.
Those who wish to use embryos attack these authors as not serious. They think that proponents of embryo use religious or unscientific prejudices. Some authors who want to experiment on embryos say decisively that the early stages of our lives were not more than a disorganized cluster of cells with no value, and little by little he forged a more complex structure that allowed one day (do not become agree to say exactly what) on the emergence of a human being who then began to earn respect and protection.
It is difficult to give an answer to a complex discussion. There are many interests involved, and perhaps this should be the first item to consider.
examine who has interests What's in those who defend the dignity (the value) of the embryo? It seems that very little. The child is born, or not to destroy an embryo, does not produce a great benefit to a philosopher or a scientist who defend the embryo.
What do they gain, however, those who attack the dignity of the embryo? A laboratory may make a lot, so it may request more funding for research, will be quoted on the stock, you get fame, perhaps patent a certain new drugs or even (where not prohibited) patented cell lines.
The first fact is quite indicative: the fact that the destruction of embryos to benefit some and not others explains the interest of some to deny the value of these embryos and to defend the "legitimacy" of their destruction for their own interests " scientists. "
But this is not enough to prove that the embryo deserves to be respected. Those who deny the very human identity of the accused embryos, as we said, their opponents will not be scientific, not to be serious. We ask ourselves: just scientists have a monopoly on the truth when it comes to defining what it means to be human? In a pluralistic world it would be logical to listen to everyone.
also believe that a mother and father have several frozen embryos can tell if a simple cluster of cells or for their children. Discover the relationship between these embryos and their parents gives us a new horizon of values, gives us a glimpse that these embryos are more than just a "handful of cells."
What if the parents have died or reject these embryos? There are also children abandoned by their parents (perhaps died in tragic circumstances) and are found by other adults. In these cases the corporation is involved in defense of abandoned children. Can not we raise awareness in society to defend the rejected embryos, frozen, treated in a gravely dangerous to their lives?
experiments that are ethically sound Supporters of embryo research do not give up. Say, as we saw, that not using these embryos will cause a long delay for science, raise a barrier to self-autonomy obscurantist research.
We know, however, that science must accept ethical limits that can not be overcome without being dehumanized. Today, environmentalists have succeeded in respect to chimpanzees, rabbits and rats, they do not suffer, even to the detriment of scientific research. Is it less valuable to humans than chimpanzees? Is that a human embryo can be destroyed while it seems unfair that laboratories destroy eggs of birds in danger of extinction?
Humanity is faced with a debate of enormous importance. The defense of human embryos or underestimation faces two ways of looking at life and death, science and politics, human rights and the protection they deserve the weakest. Already there has been a huge injustice to the spread of abortion. Contempt embryos were placed under the same perspective of those who consider some humans as less important than others.
The defense of embryos and, consequently, the struggle to eradicate the injustice of abortion, are a challenge for people of good will. This implies, of course, some scientists are unable to carry out all experiments are on the agenda. Prohibit research involving destruction of human beings is not unfairly limit their freedom.
is simply show them the way of a true science ethics: what directs the use of their knowledge and money they receive from society to defend all human life, not to destroy some lives are seen as "less human ", even for the benefit of other human lives considered superior.
Thus his findings are based on respect for the weak, and may build a science that is really serving all people without exclusion or discrimination of any kind.
Article by Fernando Pascual ForumLibertas.com
and published in the 28/03/2011, reproduced here due to its great interest.
