Free Essays on Stem Cell Research Debate

Stem Cell Research – The Debate INTRODUCTION: Contemporary medical research and technologies have presented humankind with complex ethical questions and moral realities never conceived. These realities and quandaries necessitate cautious scrutiny and consideration as new therapies are developed to cure life-impeding acquired conditions and pitiless diseases such as spinal cord injury, burns, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and diabetes. Various organizations of government, faith, and of the medical and bioethics establishments are challenged to embrace an unprecedented life-altering technology that will potentially heal and alleviate all human forms of pain and suffering. This technology is stem-cell research. The state of this contemporary medical research is languishing because the issue is swollen with hesitation regarding public funding, opposition from right-to-life advocates, matters of possible abuse that could lead to notorious cloning technology, and laws and law-creating that have not necessarily been interpreted to include stipulations regarding stem cell research or given permission to pursue this profound research under strict governmental guidelines. The questions of whether stem cell research is legally permissible, scientifically promising and ethically proper are divisive as the Pope at the Vatican to the policy-makers on Capitol Hill contemplate and define life, the quality of life and the sanctity of life in a rapidly shifting world. STEM CELL RESEARCH OVERVIEW – WHAT ARE STEM CELLS?: Stem Cells are considered â€Å"master cells† or â€Å"early cells capable of transforming into any kind of cell or tissue in the body† (Washington Post, May 2001). They possess the ability to divide indefinitely as isolated cultures. According to the report issues by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Institute for Civil Society in 1999, there are three different t... Free Essays on Stem Cell Research Debate Free Essays on Stem Cell Research Debate Stem Cell Research – The Debate INTRODUCTION: Contemporary medical research and technologies have presented humankind with complex ethical questions and moral realities never conceived. These realities and quandaries necessitate cautious scrutiny and consideration as new therapies are developed to cure life-impeding acquired conditions and pitiless diseases such as spinal cord injury, burns, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and diabetes. Various organizations of government, faith, and of the medical and bioethics establishments are challenged to embrace an unprecedented life-altering technology that will potentially heal and alleviate all human forms of pain and suffering. This technology is stem-cell research. The state of this contemporary medical research is languishing because the issue is swollen with hesitation regarding public funding, opposition from right-to-life advocates, matters of possible abuse that could lead to notorious cloning technology, and laws and law-creating that have not necessarily been interpreted to include stipulations regarding stem cell research or given permission to pursue this profound research under strict governmental guidelines. The questions of whether stem cell research is legally permissible, scientifically promising and ethically proper are divisive as the Pope at the Vatican to the policy-makers on Capitol Hill contemplate and define life, the quality of life and the sanctity of life in a rapidly shifting world. STEM CELL RESEARCH OVERVIEW – WHAT ARE STEM CELLS?: Stem Cells are considered â€Å"master cells† or â€Å"early cells capable of transforming into any kind of cell or tissue in the body† (Washington Post, May 2001). They possess the ability to divide indefinitely as isolated cultures. According to the report issues by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Institute for Civil Society in 1999, there are three different t...

History and Definition of Human Rights in the U.S.

History and Definition of Human Rights in the U.S. The term human rights refers to rights that are considered universal to humanity regardless of citizenship, residency status, ethnicity, gender or other considerations.  The phrase first became widely used due to the abolitionist movement, which drew on the common humanity of slaves and free persons. As William Lloyd Garrison wrote in the first issue of The Liberator,  In defending the great cause of human rights, I wish to derive the assistance of all religions and of all parties. The Idea Behind Human Rights   The idea behind human rights is much older, and its much harder to trace. Rights declarations such as the Magna Carta  have historically taken the form of a benevolent monarch granting rights to his or her subjects. This idea progressed in a Western cultural context toward the idea that God is the ultimate monarch and God grants rights that all earthly leaders should respect. This was the philosophical basis of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which begins: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Far from self-evident, this was a fairly radical idea at the time. But the alternative was to accept that God works through earthly leaders, a view that seemed increasingly naive as literacy rates increased and knowledge of corrupt rulers grew. The enlightened view of God as a cosmic sovereign who grants the same basic rights to everyone with no need for earthly intermediaries still anchored human rights to the idea of power - but at least it didnt place the power in the hands of earthly rulers. Human Rights Today   Human rights are more commonly viewed today as basic to our identities as human beings. Theyre no longer typically framed in monarchical or theological terms, and theyre mutually agreed upon on a more flexible basis. Theyre not dictated by a permanent authority. This allows for a great deal of disagreement regarding what human rights are, and whether basic quality-of-life concerns such as housing and health care should be considered part of the human rights framework. Human Rights vs. Civil Liberties   Differences between human rights and civil liberties are not always particularly clear. I had the opportunity to meet with several visiting Indonesian womens rights activists in 2010 who asked me why the U.S. does not use the terminology of human rights to address domestic concerns. One might speak of civil rights or civil liberties when discussing an issue like free speech or the rights of the homeless, but its rare for the U.S. policy debate to incorporate the terminology of human rights when discussing things that happen within the boundaries of this country. Its my feeling that this comes from the U.S. tradition of rugged individualism - conceding that the U.S. can have a human rights problem implies that there are entities outside the U.S. to which our country is accountable. This is an idea that our political and cultural leaders tend to resist, although its likely to change over time due to the long-term effects of globalization. But in the short term, applying the principles of human rights to U.S. controversies may provoke more fundamental arguments about the relevance of human rights principles to the U.S.There are nine fundamental human rights treaties to which all signatories - including the United States - have agreed to hold themselves accountable under the auspices of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. In practice, there is no fully-binding enforcement mechanism for these treaties. Theyre aspirational, much as the Bill of Rights was prior to the adoption of the incorporation doctrine. And, much like the Bill of Righ ts, they may gain power over time. The phrase fundamental rights is sometimes used interchangeably with human rights, but it can also refer specifically to civil liberties.