what are the negative aspects to stem cell therapy?
359710
It's not so much the acutal medical risks, but the ehtical and moral implications of conducting research in the field.\n\nThe following is an excerpt from a research paper I recently wrote concerning stem cell research:\n\nEmbryonic stem cell research raises immense ethical and religious concern:\nThe issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children or to save children already born. The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths- even many of the same faith- coming to different conclusions. Many people are finding the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions. (“Bush Embryonic Stem Cell Decision” 1)\nQuite often, the status of an embryo is debated among scientists, politicians, theologians, philosophers, and even everyday people. There are many ideas circulating the globe as some vie to protect the embryo and others hope to use it to benefit society. Those that oppose stem cell research claim that the methods scientists use are not morally justifiable. Human embryos, in their minds, are “not mere biological tissues or clusters of cells; they are the tiniest of human beings” (Espejo 49). According to the Human Embryo Research Panel and the National Bioethics Commission, the embryo should be considered a living organism from its earliest stages (Espejo 46-50). People therefore claim that scientists are alienating the rights of living human beings by performing experiments on embryos: \nThe painful lessons of the past should have taught us that human beings must not be conscripted for research without their permission- no matter what the alleged justification- especially when that research means the forfeiture of their health or lives. Even if an individual’s death is believed to be otherwise imminent, we still do not have a license to engage in lethal experimentation- just as we may not experiment on death row prisoners or harvest their organs without their consent. (Espejo 49)\nThe widespread Christian view that life begins at the moment of conception has caused many to believe that the destruction of the human embryo is murder (Espejo 4). People also believe that is irrelevant whether the embryos are capable of implanting in a uterus and developing, as they are embryos nonetheless (Morris 2). As Morris questions, “are we willing to recognize life, even if it’s living in a Petri dish?” (2). Those that sympathize with these concerns feel that research requiring the destruction of a human embryo should be banned. Others argue that since IVF procedures often generate more embryos than needed, the excess embryos should be used for potentially life-saving research rather than being discarded (Espejo 36-37). Also, they claim embryos do not have the same rights as adult humans. The suggestion that a mass of 50-100 cells with no heart and no brain is entitled to the same protections is “unprecedented and not embodied in American law” (Espejo 38). With this in mind, it seems that embryonic stem cell research should not be undermined by the aforementioned arguments. There are additional concerns however. The use of SCNT is often criticized by those opposed to cloning, as a majority of people view cloning as morally wrong.  SCNT has been used in reproductive cloning, such as the cloning of Dolly the sheep. In the public’s mind, the distinction between this form of cloning and therapeutic cloning, which involves SCNT used for medical purposes, has blurred. The two should not be confused however, as they are completely separate procedures. Outlawing the use of SCNT would prevent the development of very promising techniques for curing disease
671386
radiation therapy, like chemo therapy, attacks rapidly dividing cells(hair, skin, cancerous growths) in the body but radiation is typically done to a local site such as your mothers breast while chemo is ingested or injected and has wider spread effects. typical radiation therapy to the breast tissue can cause a multitude of side effects including: fatigue, pulmonary fibrosis and or edema, infection (decreased white blood cells) decreased clotting (low platelet counts). it is important to remember that each patient is different and will respond a little differently. also many patients may be on a combination of cancer therapies(like chemo and radiation)
693540
Embryonic stem cell research is unquestionably wrong because it involves the destruction of a human baby.  There are other sources of stem cells such as placental cord blood, adult stem cells, etc. that are right and good research which promises to produce many good therapeutic procedures and products.  Stick to that kind of stem cell research and many good things will come of it.  But, at all costs, avoid anything to do with embryonic stem cell research.
18080
Embryonic stem cell research generally involves the death of an embryo.  The objection to stem cell research is basically a pro life position held in the belief that an embryo is human and should not be experimented on and killed like it is not human.
954161
I'll ignore the religious aspects--you can find Scripture to support or condemn pretty much anything.\n\nI think some of the ethical problems people have with cloning are:  We might accidentally create people with the lab equivalent of severe birth defects, who would suffer because of our imperfect skill.  People might be cloned as replacements for dead people or as organ factories for sick ones, and not be allowed to live their own lives.  Some people worry about clones being used in identity theft as well.
1104083
If mothers who just gave birth decide to not keep the stem cells from the umbilical cord (there are programs for that), they should be able to donate them (my cousin wanted to donate them and was not allowed to).
147249
Stem cell research can lead to discoveries of cures for diseases.  Transplants save people with bad organs from dying.
730714
1)  EVERY advance gained from stem cell research has come through adult stem cells\n\n2)  ZERO advances have come through embryonic.\n\n3)  When ZERO advances come along, private funding for research dries up.  Who wants to throw money at a losing proposition?\n\n4)  Stem cell research is not illegal.\n\n5)  The push for stem cell research is a veiled move to push for public funding for FAILED avenues of research.\n\n"To date there is no evidence that cells generated from embryonic stem cells can be safely transplanted back into adult animals to restore the function of damaged or diseased adult tissues. The level of scientific rigor that is normally applied (indeed, legally required) in the development of potential medical treatments would have to be entirely ignored for experiments with human embryos to proceed. As our largely disappointing experience with gene therapy should remind us, many highly vaunted scientific techniques frequently fail to yield the promised results. Arbitrarily waiving the requirement for scientific evidence out of a naive faith in "promise" is neither good science nor a good use of public funds."
765492
A stem cell is essentially a cell with potential; it hasn’t yet become a specific, ‘useful’ cell. Stem cells are capable of becoming a variety of ‘useful’ cells. For example, a blood stem cell may become any type of blood cell, such as red or white. The basis of stem cell use in medicine is to manipulate their growth into tissues which people have lost through injury or disease, such as loss of certain brain cells in Parkinson’s disease, and thereby treat diseases previously considered incurable.\n\nTHERE ARE INFACT TWO TYPES OF STEM CELL undergoing medical research: Embryonic Stem Cells (ESCs) and Adult Stem Cells (ASCs). \n\nASCs are taken from a human adult, and usually either transplanted to another part of the body, or artificially encouraged to grow to greater numbers. ESCs are taken from human embryos which have been created artificially. Under the right conditions, these cells can then be grown in a lab, and if given the appropriate chemical signals, can be manipulated to become virtually any type of cell imaginable. In either case the aim is to replace tissues lost through disease.\n\nThose opposed to the use of ESCs strongly advocate the use of ASCs. However, many scientists believe that ASCs are ultimately less useful medically, as they cannot replace all types of cells. They exist in very small amounts and are therefore hard to find, and in extremely limited supply if wanted for transplantation on a large scale. They are also difficult to grow in culture. By contrast, ESCs are easy to isolate, grow and manipulate, and have a greater variety of uses. Thus, they are favoured by scientists as a medical tool. As ASCs come directly from the adult patient, there is essentially no controversy, as there are no life-issues at stake. It is the use of ESCs which\nis the cause of the debate, as it involves artificially creating a human embryo, harvesting the cells and then destroying the embryo. The moral objections to this revolve around a fundamental question - when does a group of cells constitute a human life? Put simply, are we playing God, and it is morally acceptable for us to do so? There has been no definitive conclusion, and the argument continues.\n\nThe variety of diseases which can potentially be treated with ESCs is huge, ranging from degenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, to diabetes, and even cancer. If successful, it could be the greatest reliever of human suffering since the introduction of antibiotics. However,\nthe moral arguments surrounding their use do not look set to be resolved any time soon. Regardless, the immense potential medical benefits cannot be ignored, and so research continues amidst the controversy.
773123
Ok, I've had to write a similar paper about a zillion times in college, so here's some advice: Write on the positive and negative outcomes it could have such as organ transplant and the possiblity of people trying to sell their own organs for $$$, and how there could be a large black market of organs for sale. This will make a rise in the homocide rate (people killing other people to steal their organs) and because there has not been a lot done w/ stem cell organs, they do not know the longivity of them. Most religious people are aganist it because they think that it will increase abortion. I don't know....Good luck!
83841
Women are going to have abortions. Whether it's right or wrong to do so, they are going to do it.  Why shouldn't we as a society utilize this stem cell resource?  We're more than willing to destroy the rain forests and other resources for chemical "cures".  We'll pump ourselves full of chemicals and endure side effects worse than the disease we're trying to treat when stem cells offer cures, not just symptom cover ups.
128352
It is not wrong and it is neccessary for humnas to move ahead and be able to combat the more debilitating diseases.\n\nI think some limits need to be in place and any research should be vetted by a committee for ethics, scientific rationale and soundness, but if it meets that criteria, then stem cells should be used to find new treatments for disease.\n\nWhat is sad is that many groups would like you to think that a baby has to die to obtain stem cells. This is far from the truth. There are many fetal sources for stem cells, and none are from aborted fetuses. Many of these sources are just incerated as medical waste because of current legislation promoted by those ignorant of basic biology. \nScientists should be free to do life saving research that will benefit all of humankind.
459713
Hopefully, Stem Cell Research may be of help
520604
i dont' suggest it. do you want to use stem cells to help yourself when they had to kill babies to get it? i wouldn't. i'm sorry for your MS though. truly.
73516
What bothers me more is that so many are pushing for Fetal Stem Cells, and not Umbilical Stem Cells.\n\nUmbilical Stem Cells are benificial, and do not carry any of the stigma of the Fetal Stem Cells.  And at this time, they are simply thrown away.\n\nI would like to see more research on Umbilical Stem Cells.  Once the techniques are perfected, then Fetal ones can be looked at for the problems that Umbilical Stem Cells can not cure.
805439
I'm sorry, but some of the answers on here are utterly wrong in terms of science - there is a very big difference between stem cells from embryos, and stem cells from places like bone marrow.\n\nTHERE ARE INFACT TWO TYPES OF STEM CELL undergoing medical research: Embryonic Stem Cells (ESCs) and Adult Stem Cells (ASCs). \n\nASCs are taken from a human adult (eg from bone marrow), and usually either transplanted to another part of the body, or artificially encouraged to grow to greater numbers. ESCs are taken from human embryos which have been created artificially. Under the right conditions, these cells can then be grown in a lab, and if given the appropriate chemical signals, can be manipulated to become virtually any type of cell imaginable. In either case the aim is to replace tissues lost through disease.\n\nThose opposed to the use of ESCs strongly advocate the use of ASCs. However, many scientists believe that ASCs are ultimately less useful medically, as they cannot replace all types of cells. Blood stem cells can only become blood cells. They exist in very small amounts and are therefore hard to find, and in extremely limited supply if wanted for transplantation on a large scale. They are also difficult to grow in culture. By contrast, ESCs are easy to isolate, grow and manipulate, and have a greater variety of uses. Thus, they are favoured by scientists as a medical tool. \n\nAs ASCs come directly from the adult patient, there is essentially no controversy, as there are no life-issues at stake. It is the use of ESCs which is the cause of the debate, as it involves artificially creating a human embryo, harvesting the cells and then destroying the embryo. The moral objections to this revolve around a fundamental question - when does a group of cells constitute a human life? Put simply, are we playing God, and it is morally acceptable for us to do so? There has been no definitive conclusion, and the argument continues.\n\nThe variety of diseases which can potentially be treated with ESCs is huge, ranging from degenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, and even cancer. If successful, it could be the greatest reliever of human suffering since the introduction of antibiotics. To give some examples: A univeristy research team in America is close to creating a CURE to diabetes. Stem cells can be encouraged to produce insulin. These can then be transplanted into the patient, and they will never have to inject themselves with insulin again!! Another research team, in the UK, has managed to get stem cells to grow into liver tissue. This tissue can be used to test new drugs, so removing some of the need for animal testing - something I think most people would like to see! In the future, we will be able to grow whole organs for people!!\n\nI would like to point out that aborted babies are NOT used for stem cell research. The embryos are created in the lab, and growth is stopped when it reaches 8 cells. This way, all the cells are still stem cells, and so useful. Babies which have been aborted are far too large and devoloped to be useful in this way.\n\nHowever, the moral arguments surrounding their use do not look set to be resolved any time soon. Regardless, the immense potential medical benefits cannot be ignored. It is my view that the research should be allowed to continue, as it could help people in so many ways. Those who are opposed do not have to make use of the treatments once they become available, like Jehova's Wittnesses, who refuse blood transfusions because it against their beliefs. But I belive in giving people the choice.
757631
Stem cells are cell in the humane body that have not yet been defined. meaning they have not developed to the point of of becoming an organized mass called tissue such as muscle tissue  or skin tissue or nerve tissue. This is important because researchers are investigating ways to coax stem cells into developing  into specific types of tissue  within the body  to aid in the cure of injuries and disease. For example if someones spinal cord was cut and you could get stem cells to develop into spinal cord tissue to repair the damage . this has actually been demonstrated in mice. now this is somewhat of an oversimplification but you get the idea.\n\nNow as stated by previous answers there are 2 types of stem cells Adult and Embryonic. The controversy is over the use of Embryonic stem cells. there are several ethical debates that arise from embryonic stem cells..\n1.Obviously by their nature they are derived from embryos or fertilized eggs. Now those believing that life begins at inception (such as myself) think that is destruction of viable life and object on these grounds.. Others say there are thousands of embryos created for in-vitro fertilization and many go unused and likely will never be implanted so why not get some good from them. To better illustrate my position let me paint a slightly different picture. Let say one person had a unique  immune system that created antibodies that would attack and destroy all types of cancer.. Obviously these cells would be useful to curing those afflicted. Now would it be ethical to pass a law requiring that individual to donate blood and tissue against his will so that thousands could be cured. Worse yet would it be ethical to require that individual to submit cells for cloning  so even more could be cured. this brings us to the second Issue\n2. The second way to to get embryonic stem cells is by cloning and harvesting the stem cells before the embryo develops into  a fetus. The moral and ethical implications here are obvious. you might call this the production line approach and the very idea is intolerable to many people.\n3. Lastly, Once use of embryonic stem cell is deemed acceptable would it be legal to sell ones eggs much like people sell plasma today.Currently there is no prohibition on the practice  and it would likely be used. Realizing that the female body produces a finite supply of eggs determined at birth the use of financial incentives to induce women likely poor woman to donate raises it's own ethical questions \n\nCurrently federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on new embryo's is banned. the government has made an exception for a few strains of cells that were developed prior to the funding ban. This ban is not on research but on federal funding the private sector as well as state funding wholly with state dollars is still legal\nAs far as Adult stem cell research goes there are no restrictions I know of\nSo there you have the debate in a nutshell as for yourself you have to decide on your own ethics. I have tried to give as unbiased a coverage as I can detailing the pertinent facts.