Philosophical Issues in Medical Science

Name
Professor
Course
Date
Philosophical Issues in Medical Science
Introduction
Conventionally, medical science is regarded as the most important field because it deals with the promotion of both physical and mental well-being of the human population. Nearly all the decision processes that take place in medical science are critical to the very existence of human beings because they affect people’s lives. Due to the relative importance of medical science, medical practitioners are guided by a set of ethical codes that have implications for practitioners, patients, healthcare leaders and the general humanity. Philosophical issues arise when there is no clarity in the right thing to do or when a disagreement arises over what is best for humanity. This paper discusses the major philosophical issues associated with stem cell research, gene therapy and human cloning. The paper is organized into three different sections with the aim of answering philosophical questions that are prevalent in gene therapy, human cloning and stem cell research.
Gene Therapy
Extensive research in the medical field has come up with new genetic manipulation approaches that can treat and prevent diseases by using genes. Primarily, professionals in the field have mapped out the genome that will allow doctors to treat genetic disorders without the use of drugs or surgery in future. Conventionally, this approach to genetic disorder treatment is referred to as gene therapy. Researchers are currently testing a variety of approaches to this form of treatment that include substituting the problematic genes with perfect ones, inactivating weak genes with new and healthy one to aid in combating a disorder. Although this technique is a potential curative alternative for a multiplicity of illnesses such as cancer, there is a need for continued research considering it remains perilous to ascertain its safety and effectiveness.
Over the years, public debate has raged over the ethical issues of gene alteration as a viable treatment choice for human disorders. The reason for a passionate interest in this potential treatment technique lies behind the worst fears associated with contemporary medicine. Many people see this approach as a move that would alter the blueprint of human life, raising questions about playing the role of God. In this regard, the most underlying issue of gene therapy is centered on how Christians understand human beings. While other people see the potentiality of gene therapy in eliminating virtually all human related illnesses, others view it as a technique for eugenics and cataclysmic consequences (“Moral and Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy”).
However, looking at gene therapy in the contextual meaning of how we relate to God creates boundaries to the independence of this technique like any other scientific project. Against Christianity’s view of humanity, it can be argued that we as human beings will not lose anything that relates to our existence by influencing the nature and the form of genes. The approach can serve as a tool for caring for our fellow human beings. It can only result in the enhancement of the relationship that we share with other people. In this view, gene therapy can be considered as a prolongation of God’s creation hence glorifying Him as the creator. Indeed, there is no need to constrain how to improve the extent to which humanity is vulnerable.
Nonetheless, the debate is gradually moving from a general philosophical and theological view to a practical review process for research protocols. In the most recent times, the main ethical issue that arises from the identification of gene therapy for the purpose of genetic manipulation is the role of medicine. By distinguishing therapy from enhancement, most geneticists argue that gene therapy belongs to the standard notion of medicine’s obligation to heal and is not ethically problematic. Geneticists can see the suffering that people with genetic abnormalities go through due to their inherited conditions and discrimination from fellow human beings. This suffering makes them more tolerant and humane, which supports the argument that medicine should not only treat defects, but also improve the lives of people who suffer from various illnesses (Cahill, and Farley).
Considering the knowledge of the human body and its functioning has increased, treating various gene related abnormalities using this approach to alleviating human suffering is more than welcome. We can now envisage the provision of cure to those suffering from genetic disorders before birth. The suffering experienced by the people with gene related abnormalities can eliminated. However, our learning and experience of our fellow human beings’ suffering, which makes us more tolerant and humane, would not be made obsolete. As Christians and people from other religious walk, we are strongly encouraged to come up with and embrace efforts that would help alleviate the suffering of people.
Indeed, with the new capabilities of medicine to treat the human body through the manipulation of genes also comes a new level of moral concerns of using a relatively young scientific technique. However, it would seem to raise a moral problem if medical professionals allowed people to continue suffering because of genetic abnormalities while science has the potential to treat such disorders. There would be, however, nothing morally wrong with the replacement of defective genes with healthy ones. Such replacements would eliminate many types of genetic diseases allowing us to make unhealthy individuals feel better. The concern in this context is and should be the medical obligation to alleviate human suffering and ensure improvement in the lives of fellow human beings. In my view, although proper caution is necessary because this technique is still young, gene therapy does not differ significantly from other medical practices considering they all seek to improve the health of people using scientific methods.

Human Cloning
Luppicini (86) defines cloning as the practice of deriving one organism from another organism through asexual reproduction. Cloning first made news headlines in 1997 when Ian Wilmut and his team fruitfully cloned an adult sheep. However, instead of celebrating a milestone in the field of medical science, the public, with inadequate knowledge of the subject, and professionals alike, vehemently condemned this new technique. Cloning received sharp criticism almost the world over, with most Western countries passing legislation to ban this act. Almost two decades later, the situation remains the same: most countries still have effective legislations that ban cloning. In particular, cloning is condemned globally because of the moral issues that surround this technique.
On ethical grounds, the clergy have argued that humans cannot do what they want with nature. Also, politicians, the media and the public in large have termed the whole idea of cloning as a bizarre, narcissistic and ethically impoverished scientific practice. Other ethicists have argued that humanity, which is supposed to be an endless chain and not a series of mirrors, stands to be an endangered species. In some other ethical views, human cloning is considered so repulsive that it should be banned entirely because only God is entitled to create life. In this regard, many say that allowing human cloning would be like playing God (Luppicini 86).
Still, many other people object to human reproduction cloning because they argue that the practice is liable to abuse. They further argue that it involves a person’s right to individual autonomy and selfhood, allows eugenic selection, uses humans as a means and that cloned humans may suffer psychologically. Additionally, they believe this leads to safety concerns, especially the increased risk of genetic malformation and serious ailments like cancer or shortened lifespan.
On the other hand, supporters of cloning hold that the practice could serve many useful purposes, and further technological development that could lead to much less alarming procedures in the medical practice. Indeed, scientists have proven it is possible to grow new cells from a single one removed from a human embryo (Luppicini 86). If permitted to grow normally, the cells could grow into genetically identical adults. Such growth would produce duplicates, like identical twins although not some preexisting adults. The only difference between cloned twins and naturally existing twins is the fact that cloned twins are scientifically induced to grow.
Among other justifications of human reproductive cloning, some of them exotic, are that people should have the freedom of making personal reproductive choices, engage in scientific inquiry and eugenics. Most arguments, and perhaps the strongest, involve cloning as a way of providing treatment and avoiding diseases. In addition, supporters of cloning have pointed out that there is a very small percentage of organs available for therapeutic purposes. According to the supporters, a huge discrepancy exists and continues to grow annually between the number of potential organ recipients and potential organ donors. In this regard, they argue that cloning should be allowed to help raise the number of organs and tissues available for therapeutic purposes (Luppicini 87).
Despite arguments of its benefits to the society, I think it would not be right for governments to lift the ban on cloning and make it a common practice. It would result in more complication in life. Nothing in the human existence would be concrete or absolute. Families would be torn apart, and confusion would be common in the society because of cloning. For instance, a mother would not identify her real child if it were cloned. The same way, a child, would not identify its parents if they were cloned. Parents and children would be the same genetically although questions are raised as to whether or not their personality will be the same. These types of issues are the main reason scientists have not yet adopted cloning as a common practice.
In regard to the issue of cloning, I believe that the human race should be left as it is and scientists should not make attempts to modify humanity by making ‘people’ from human beings. Doing so would stand against the whole purpose of humanity and being unique in our existence. More so, it would be prudent to differ from the normal process of reproduction, which is necessary for a healthy diversity among the human population. Cloning would be turned into a business for profit, where only the rich and those with outsized egos could afford it. In addition, clones would be exploited because, as argued by supporters for cloning, they would mainly be used as sources of organs to be harvested for the original human being. This would present confusion because it is difficult to argue whether or not it would be inhumane to use clones as sources of tissues and organs from which the original human being has a right to his DNA.
Stem Cell
The potential of Stem cell rests on the prospects of finding new treatment options for a multitude of human illnesses as well as offering improved understanding of the human body functions and the process of cell differentiation. A stem cell is defined as an undeveloped cell that can be differentiated into specialized cells in the human body. Stem cells fall under two classifications: stem cells from adults and stem cell from embryos. While adult stem cells can be obtained from mature tissues with little harm to a person, embryonic stem cells are removed from embryos. The latter is the main area for debate in this technique as many embryonic stem cell researchers acquire these cells from embryos of aborted fetuses (Akabayashi 32).
The central philosophical issue is the source of the stem cells. Without a doubt, stem cells derived from adults beget fewer ethical issues than those derived from embryos. In this regard, adult stem cells do not involve the moral status of human embryos, which is the primary concern of those opposed to stem cell research. Critics of embryonic stem cell research have argued that embryos have a moral status as soon as fertilization has taken place in the human body. They maintain that an embryo is a human being and that the moral principles applying to human life should apply to embryos, especially in the context of stem cell embryonic research.
As many people would expect, those who advocate for life are concerned about the process involved in the harvest of stem cells. Because of the procedure involved in the removal of embryonic stem cells, embryos are destroyed and in consequence, pro-life supporters have argued that this is a morally impermissible act. According to the belief of these advocates, embryos qualify as humans, and thus, bringing about their destruction in the name of acquiring stem cells is likened to killing an adult in order to obtain stem cells. In their view, despite how an excellent resource an embryo of an aborted fetus may be to medical practitioners, it is morally wrong to use them as sources of stem cells.
All of the ethical questions that surround stem cell research, especially the embryonic type, might have led people to forget about the medical and health benefits that are associated with this research. According to the research on stem cells, these cells prove to have the capability of treating many diseases. Currently, stem cells are applied as a viable source of replacement cells for the treatment of diseases. It is observed that the number of people waiting to receive organ transplants is relatively higher than the supply. Those waiting for organ transplants are as many as those waiting for the transplants. Stem cells have the potential to minimize the morbidity and mortality rates since they can be applied in the treatment of arthritis, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and heart related diseases (Murnaghan).
Stem cells have the potency of reversing diseases which are mentioned above. For example, a person suffering from heart attacks and has sustained damages in the heart muscles could have the damaged tissues replaced with healthy and fresh muscle cells. In addition, destroyed brain cell as a result of Parkinson’s disease can be replaced by other functioning brain cells that are healthy and new. Even more promising for the stem cell research is the potential to tackle genetic disorders that are present at birth by replacing defective cells with normal healthy cells that are deficient of any defects (Murnaghan). However, to understand this potential, medical researchers are carrying out studies on how stem cells undergo transformation or differentiation into the various specialized cells that make up the human body. Conditions such as cancer and birth complications, which medical professionals think is caused by problems that occur in the differentiation process of cells in the human body, will be eliminated.
However, the central deciding issue as to whether or not stem cell research should be limited to use adult embryo cells from abortion does not lie in the potential for its benefits. In my opinion, embryos have a moral standing that equal that of all living persons. In this perspective, destroying them during the course of research is similar to killing a person and therefore not acceptable. Specifically, issues of the moral status of an embryo should be central to the decision of the type of stem cells used in research. Basing the decision on the potential of stem cells would encourage abortion, which is a complete disregard of the human dignity.

Works Cited
“Moral and Ethical Issues in Gene Therapy.” Society, Religion and Technology Project. 14 Apr. 2010. Web. 2 Apr. 2015. <http://www.srtp.org.uk/srtp/view_article/moral_and_ethical_issues_gene_therapy>.
Akabayashi, Akira. The Future of Bioethics: International Dialogues. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 2014. Print.
Cahill, L.S., and M.A. Farley. “Basic Distinctions in Genetic Manipulation.” Embodiment, Morality, and Medicine. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. Print.
Luppicini, Rocci. Evolving Issues Surrounding Technoethics and Society in the Digital Age. New York, NY: IGI Global, 2014. 86-87. Print.
Murnaghan, Ian. “Benefits of Stem Cells.” Explore Stem Cells. 5 Feb. 2015. Web. 2 Apr. 2015. <http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/benefitsofstemcells.html>.