Abstract

Growing human organs has been a technology that researchers and scientists have been studying for years.  It was only in the recent years that this study has become a reality.  The ability to help shorten the transplant waiting list has become possible.  People no longer having to worry about losing a loved one too soon is in the near future.  There is concern about what it will cost to achieve these possibilities, and the ethical issues that may be involved.  Concern for what researchers and scientists have done to reach this point in the ability to grow human organs has been raised by people that do not agree with the steps taken.  Their beliefs teach against the process used in most studies that are conducted.  Each person has a right to choose what they agree with.  What is acceptable in the study for how to grow organs may drastically change as time goes on.

Keywords: Growing organs, Transplant, Ethical issues

Growing Human Organs

Researchers are using stem cells to study the ability to grow human organs.  This means that the cells are taken from an embryo, and used to form the organs that are needed.  After the cells that are needed are taken, the embryo is destroyed.  Scientists and researchers have been using this research to try finding a way to shorten the transplant waiting lists, and speeding up the process of healing.  There have been various breakthroughs in the research.  Some people have believed that there may be a way to take cells from a lizard, or other animal with regenerative properties, and put them in humans.  This idea was dropped after many failed attempts to make it work.  It is believed that with the right procedures, and improved study techniques, this research can become invaluable to people’s health.  There are many illnesses and issues that people face today.  Examples of this would be kidney failure, lung cancer, liver failure, stomach cancer, lung cancer, etc.  The medical field would be able to better help people with these medical problems.  Doctors would not have to worry about losing as many patients.  Even with the positive views, there are some that do not agree with this type of research.  Stem cell research and growing human organs is the most controversial technology.

 

Historical Timeline

The timeline  shows approximately when some of the research to grow human organs started.  As most studies go, the procedures are practiced on animals first.  These tests are done to see how they react to the procedure.  Humans have decided that risking an animal is better than risking a human life.  Using a human is against the medical and human rights laws.  People have viewed these studies as being too grotesque for their time.  Researchers have been studying the growth of human organs since the possibility was discovered.

Research and Discovery.  “Researchers announced they had found an immortal line of human embryonic stem cells.  The cells could be grown into any type of human tissue in the right environment.”  (Science Magazine, 1998).  Imagine being able to take a stem cell and replace damaged tissue.  This would mean that a paralyzed person would have the chance to walk again.  Someone that had to have half of their heart removed could grow it back.  These were the ideas given to people that read the article.

The discovery brought about further studies and research to see how it could be done.  It gave hope that there may be a cure for a lot of the diseases that exist.  “The announcement came after the researchers managed to take the embryos of mice, and get them to form glial cells.  This is a support cell that produces myelin, an insulating sheath for the neurons.” (Steghaus-Kovac, 1999, p.650).  There have been numerous studies conducted since then, in order to prove this can be accomplished.

Reasons for Research.  Not even a year later, researchers went into another frenzy to save countless lives.  The loss of thousands of lives that is mentioned the following journal entry is what inspired this frenzy.  “There were over 72,000 people on the waiting list for organ transfers.  The loss of over 6,100 of those people led various groups into a series of studies which focused on techniques for fashioning new organs.  This included using cells from embryos, cadavers or patients themselves, combined with special biomaterials.” (Garr, 2001, p.74).  This incident was one of the reasons used to justify the research.

These studies have led to the discoveries on how various human organs function, as well as, what things cause various effects on them.  It has also led to the development of various human rights groups that do not condone this type of research.  Researches have been able to come up with improved machines that are used in the medical field.  They have also help develop better procedures for the ones that already exist.  Laser surgery is one of the devised technologies.  Finding ways to do things less intrusive, to keep the body as intact as possible have also derived from these studies.

Breakthrough in Research.  Jumping years later, 2006, researchers have discovered that it is possible to grow a human bladder.  As mentioned in National Geographic, “a British medical journal, The Lancet, talks about implanting laboratory grown bladders into children and teens which have Spina Bifida.” (Lovett, 2006).  This is a birth defect known to cause a host of medical problems which include: kidney failure, liver failure, heart failure, etc.  Other medical problems include high blood pressure, low blood sugar, and other issues that are similar to the severe side effects of medications.  The traditional procedure would involve the doctor grafting stomach or intestine tissue onto the bladder.  This process was used to build a whole new bladder.  This procedure had existed for hundreds of years, according to one doctor.

This procedure has led way to further organ growing, and has helped improve the treatment of various birth defects and issues.  It has also paved a way for regenerative medicine to be studied.  The procedure is seen as an alternative to stem cell studies that have been conducted.  It may have also given a more definite answer to the issue of the transplant waiting list.  The technique of growing a human bladder in a lab opens the eyes to a wider view of possibilities.  This could be the solution to many of the problems people have today.

Over the years, there have been many studies and research projects conducted.  These have all been in search for the answer to the diseases, and illnesses humans face today.

Growing Human Organs Impact Analysis

Impact of Research

            Social Impact.  Embryos are considered to be humans to some even though they have not started to develop.  Some societies believe that the embryo is not a human until it grows into one and draws breath.  People in different societies have a certain way of looking at things.  When it involves the curing of a human being, there are limits to how far society is willing to take things.  Many arguments have come from the different views on this topic.  It has left some societies divided on the topic all together.

“The Bonn Medical Center is one research group that is studying the possibility of coaxing cells to take the shape of various organs.  They used the embryonic stem cells from mice, and got them to form glial cells.  These cells are what produce Myelin, which protects the neurons.  Once the cells were injected into a rat with a defect that kept them from producing Myelin, the injected cells started working to correct the defect.” (Steghaus-Kovac, 1999).  Further in the article, it is explained that there was a motion to lift the ban on embryo research.  The UK and Germany both kept their ban active to preserve the fundamental values of human dignity and health.

This technology has given society a hope that someday loved ones can live a longer life.  It has also brought the thought that illnesses may be cured once and for all.  Imagine being a patient with stomach cancer getting a transplant and being cured.  Or someone who has been on the waiting list for a new kidney, and getting it replaced before the time runs out.  The wait list and the death toll from a waiting list would be decreased.  The negativity from this research has upset people within some societies.  There have been incidents where people have broken into these labs to stop the research all together.  Most societies today are still split on this technology.

Cultural Impact.  Most cultures believe that the embryo can be considered to be a human being.  Others believe it is not considered a human until it forms into one, and can breathe.  “Many politicians, scientists and celebrities are seeking to allow publicly funded researchers to kill living human embryos, and use their cells for medically promising experiments.”     (Mcgovern, 2000).  This type of decision is one that could not be made lightly, if at all.  (Figure 1) Below shows how the views change after things are explained to the public.

Scientists and researchers want to find a way to help cure illnesses and defects.  By killing a live embryo, the chance for it to grow into what it was meant to be is seen as a violation of its rights.  Our culture used to see human lives as something precious, including ones that have not fully developed.  The taking of embryos from a human after an IVF procedure used to be seen has harming human life.  Stem cells that are removed from an embryo would be similar to taking someone’s lung for an experiment, or even a kidney.

In our current culture this kind of research is not talked about much.  Only people that have a strong opinion on the topic will say something.  The developments through the research being done have caused cultures to change some views and values in regards to the human embryo.  As a culture, we do not view embryos the same way they have been viewed over the years.  In other cultures, the destruction of an embryo is similar to taking a life or even destroying a soul.  Most of the cultures that view the destruction of an embryo as a bad thing have not changed.  Even with the most recent discoveries, most cultures are very cautious about what it costs to conduct the research.  They do not agree with preventing the embryo from growing into a human.

Each cell is meant to grow to become some part of the human body.  Removal of these cells could hinder the development, and cause issues when the embryo starts to grow, if it is not destroyed in the research.  Today it is viewed as a way to cure things, without regard to the fact that it is a living thing that is being destroyed.  It is not thought of as a human losing an organ, and then being killed after the tissue is taken.  It is seen as a cell that is there to be studied and manipulated in order to grow whatever is needed to save lives.

Political Impact.  Politics play a part in the research being conducted.  They can ban or protect the research depending on which side of the topic they sit.  “President Bill Clinton introduced new National Institutes of Health guidelines that sidestep a law forbidding federal funding of any research “in which a human embryo is harmed or destroyed.” Because of the “potentially staggering benefits,” he said” (McGovern, 2000).  This is just one political view on the topic.

This is the same issue discussed all over the world.  As mentioned before, Germany and the UK are two of the countries that have banned the research.  There are countries that are liberal on the subject, and believe it is a necessity to study this technology.  “The growth of human organs has to win approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  And that means organ builders will need a standardized, reproducible manufacturing process” (Garr, 2001).  The developments being made with this technology have made governments around the world question whether or not it should be allowed.  The fact that one of our presidents sidestepped the banning of the research shows it has the power to change even political views.

Economic Impact.  Growing human organs is a multi-million dollar study that has been conducted since the early 1980’s.  “Scientists discovered ways to derive embryonic stem cells from early mouse embryos more than 30 years ago, in 1981.  The detailed study of the biology of mouse stem cells led to the discovery, in 1998, the method to derive stem cells from human embryos and grow the cells in the laboratory.” (NIH, 2016).  This advance in the technology boosted researchers demand for funding.  The deaths of thousands of people on the waiting lists for transplants, has also been a motivator for the funding of this research.

People have paid millions of dollars for this type of research to be conducted.  There has been an increase in the demand for embryos to study, as well as the demand for funding.  There have been multiple organs grown through tissue samples that have been collected from patients themselves.  There has not been any steady production available for people to acquire, and have used on family members that are on the waiting lists.  Much of the study is still in the research phase, and has not been approved for human application.  There are a lot of people willing to spend money to acquire the results from this technology.

Environmental Impact.  Much like the economic impact, there is not much that this research has done to the environment.  The study of growing human embryos in animals to grow them into organs has been a newly discovered study that has organizations such as PETA fighting for the animal’s rights.  It is viewed as a violation, and a dangerous way to practice these experiments.  Aside from this issue, the research does have a low environmental impact.  There are no fumes being produced by the labs.  None of the wildlife is being affected in the process.

The only affect that this research has is the one caused on the embryos that are destroyed in the name of research.  Long-term and short-term effects apply to the destruction of the embryos, and the side effects of the studies being conducted on the animals.  The embryos that are destroyed have the potential of growing to be someone’s son or daughter.  A long-term effect would be the embryo not growing into a human being that could be one of the people to make a major difference in the world.

 

 

Ethical Issues and Considerations

What to Believe

The idea of being able to grow replacement organs has raised the hopes of curing various illnesses and diseases.  These include Parkinson’s, diabetes, myocardial infarction, kidney failure, lung cancer, etc.  The research involved to develop the ability to cure these medical conditions has also raised ethical concerns.  People are concerned about the fact that an embryo is destroyed in the process of the studies among other concerns.  Using the deontological theory of Immanuel Kant and the utilitarian theory of John Stuart Mill, these theories show how the concerns may be resolved.

Deontological Theory.  A living thing is defined as something that displays the key characteristics of life.  An embryo could be considered a living thing since it does function under these key characteristics.  This means that destroying an embryo is achieved by killing it.  Under the principle of universality of Immanuel Kant, “the ethical rule is applied to everyone.” (Baase, 2012).  This means that if killing is unethical, it applies to everyone.  The rule on killing would mean that according to Kant, destroying an embryo is unethical.

Kant’s second idea, “logic or reason determines the rules of ethical behavior.  The actions are intrinsically good because they follow from logic.” (Baase, 2012, p.29).  He taught that by using our reason, rationality and judgment without emotion, the decision we make is a wise one.  The conclusion that the logical decision determines killing is wrong, without the emotional involvement would mean that the decision is a wise one.  If the logic ignores this and determines that destroying the embryos is necessary, then this is the wise choice.

Kant’s third idea is “that people must never be treated as a means, but as an end in them self.” (Baase, 2012)  Since an embryo is considered the starting stage of a human by some, a person is being used as a means through its destruction.  This would go against Kant’s first and third ideas as long as killing is considered wrong.  It would only go against the second idea if it is not seen as logical to destroy the embryo.  This means that by Kant’s teachings, stem cell research could be seen as an unethical process.

Utilitarian Theory.  The other way to look at stem cell research is from the Utilitarian principle “expressed by John Stuart Mill, the increase in happiness, or “utility”.” (Baase, 2012)   “An action is right if it tends to increase aggregate utility and wrong if it tends to decrease it.” (Baase, 2012, p.30).  This means that if the act of destroying an embryo helps increase aggregate utility, then the action is right.  Aggregate utility is the choice for a society as a whole.  The calculation is the sum of the utility gains minus the negative impact on society.  If the number turns out to be a positive, then the action is right.

Destroying the embryo brings solutions to growing organs, which can help patients that are on the transplant wait lists.  It also helps develop ways to treat nerve damage, or repair damaged organs to an extent.  This would increase the happiness of thousands to millions of people.  The destruction of the embryo upsets thousands to millions of people.  The only way to measure the aggregate utility is to conduct a poll.  The latest poll published by U.S. News, shows there are more supporters than those who oppose the research.  This means that the overall aggregate utility says that destroying an embryo is considered right.

 

Each person has a different view and some may not agree with either deontology, or utilitarianism.  The ones that do agree with deontology believe in rules that are to be followed.  They feel that if killing is wrong, then the stem cell research is a bad thing.  The ones that agree with utilitarianism believe that the research is good, but only when it is improving the happiness of the majority of people.  These two theories may turn out to agree with each other.  Both theories have a chance to state that the research is a bad thing, therefore agreeing it should not be done.  With killing being wrong, if the calculations of a utilitarian find it to also be wrong, then they would agree.  What we agree with is determined by our belief in what is right or wrong.

With all the advancements and changes that have been made through research and testing.  Stem cell research has brought the biggest opportunity for improving the health of millions of people.  It is left to us to decide whether or not the cost of the research is worth it.  We also need to determine if the method being used is the right one to achieve the goal of saving lives.  Keeping Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills in mind, we must decide if what is being done is the right thing.  The way we were raised will guide us to what we believe is right.  With every culture having a different belief, there will always be a disagreement.  No human is perfect in a controversy like this one.  An embryo is what potentially grows into a human being.  What an embryo is considered varies from person to person.  When destroyed, it could be considered killing a living being.  Whether or not it is human is where we must decide on what we believe.

References

Baase, S. (2012) A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computer Technology (4^th Ed.).  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Funding for stem cell research as of 2013 as reported by NIDCR. (2013) retrieved from: https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/AboutUs/BudgetCongressionalStatements/CongressionalJustifications/FY2013CongressionalJustification/

Garr, D. (2001) The Human Body Shop. Technology Review, Vol.104 (3), pp. 72.

Lovett, R. A.(2006) First Lab-Grown Organs Implanted in Humans.  National Geographic News.  National Geographic. Retrived from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0404_060404_bladders.html

McGovern, C. (2000) Medical Promise or Moral Poison?. Report / Newsmagazine (Alberta Edition), Vol. 27(11), 42.

NIH (2016). Stem Cell Basics I. Stem Cell Information. (NPG.) retrieved from: https://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/1.htm

Public opinion on stem cell research before and after explanation. (2011) retrieved from: http://newsbatch.com/stemcells.htm

Statistics of latest embryonic stem cell research poll published by US News. (2011) retrieved from: https://gameofroles.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/tiny-cells-giant-hope/

Steghaus-Kovac, S. (1999). Stem Cells as Potential Nerve Therapy. Science, Vol. 285 (5428), pp. 650-651. Retrieved from: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu:5050/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=cdafef19-a097-494a-ac3f-b81cafa9344b%40sessionmgr4006&vid=9&hid=4109

 

Peer Evaluation Analysis

The classmate that did an evaluation on my paper stated that all the sections were included within the paper.  They stated that the introduction and conclusion were not marked.  The subsections of the impact analysis were not marked.  They noted that the ethical considerations should have been marked to keep the reader focused.  They also stated that some of the sections were missed when the paper was put together.

The first visual on page 4 was stated to be missing a citation.  It was stated that the citations were properly formatted.  The dates of some of the sources were said to be old, and possibly outdated.  Format and use of primary sources were stated to have been completed.  The textbook was noted to have been used, as well as properly formatted.  Length of the paper meets the requirements as per the review.

A thesis and introduction were included.  There was confusion with one of the sentences within the introduction.  There were various changes recommended for each section of the paper.  There were some paragraphs that were completely removed after reviewing the assessment that was conducted.  Some of the sentences that did not make sense were also removed.  There were other sentences that had to be moved in order to place them in the right spot.  The introduction and conclusion were not given a marker within the paper.

According to the APA resources that were reviewed, the introduction and conclusion are not supposed to be marked, as they are automatically implied to be part of the paper.  For this reason the change was not made.  The other changes were made due to the assessment being accurate about the information being confusing.  Headings were added to the appropriate areas as necessary to keep the reader focused.  The review was accurate and had a lot of good recommendations that were necessary to make the paper come together.