PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Research Embryo Creation”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Embryos, individuals, and persons: an argument against embryo creation and research.

One strategy for arguing that it should be legally permissible to create human embryos, or to use spare human embryos, for scientific research purposes involves the claim that such embryos cannot be persons because they are not human individuals while twinning may yet take place. Being a human individual is considered to be by most people a necessary condition for being a human person. I argue first that such an argument against the personhood of embryos must be rationally conclusive if their destruction in public places such as laboratories is to be countenanced. I base this argument on a popular understanding of the role that the notion of privacy plays in abortion laws. I then argue that such arguments against personhood are not rationally conclusive. The claim that the early embryos is not a human individual is not nearly as obvious as some assert.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1995

Embryos created for research purposes.

The creation of embryos for research use has drawn a great deal of criticism. It is difficult to defend an ethical distinction between what one can do to "spare" embryos and what one can do to "research" embryos. The strongest ground on which to argue against the creation of embryos for research is a symbolic one, having to do with respect for human life. Ronald Dworkin's work in Life's Dominion on the symbolic meaning of the abortion debate throws a helpful light on this dispute. By understanding the basic question to be, Does the creation of research embryos weaken or insult our communal respect for the sanctity of human life in some way that in vitro fertilization (IVF) or the experimental use of "spare" embryos does not?, the debate can move in a more constructive direction.

Abortion, Eugenic↗
PubMed2002

The ethics of human stem cell research.

The medical and clinical promise of stem cell research is widely heralded, but moral judgments about it collide. This article takes general stock of such judgments and offers one specific resolution. It canvasses a spectrum of value judgments on sources, complicity, adult stem cells, and public and private contexts. It then examines how debates about abortion and stem cell research converge and diverge. Finally, it proposes to extend the principle of "nothing is lost" to current debates. This extension links historical discussions of the ethics of direct killing with unprecedented possibilities that in vitro fertilization procedures yield. A definite normative region to inhabit is located, within a larger range of rival value judgments. The creation of embryos for research purposes only should be resisted, yet research on "excess' embryos is permissible by virtue of an appeal to the "nothing is lost" principle.

Aborted Fetus↗
PubMed1996

Arguing along the slippery slope of human embryo research.

One frequent argument in the debate over federal funding of human embryo research is the slippery slope argument. Slope arguments can be of several types: either logical, empirical, or full (a combination of logical and empirical slope arguments, with an additional psychological premise). A full slope argument against human embryo research suggests that funding embryo research could undermine current protections for human subjects research, erode respect for persons with disabilities, and encourage eugenics practices. While the Panel commissioned by the National Institutes of Health to issue funding guidelines regarding human embryo research acknowledges some slippery slope concerns, the Panel's final report fails to address such concerns in any depth. Given this failure seriously to address these valid concerns, federal funding of embryo research should not proceed at this time.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed2003

Cloning and stem cells: processes, politics, and policy.

The creation of good science policy requires an understanding of the scientific technologic processes as well as an appreciation of the "politicization process" and contemporary politics. This article encompasses a review of nuclear transfer and stem cell technologies and advances against a backdrop of the politicization of science. The combination of these forces has rendered it almost impossible to develop true consensus on what any national policy regarding nuclear transfer should look like. Careful consideration of the multidimensional nature of these technologies and the myriad of social, economic, and cultural factors they will impact demands, however, that, at the very least, a national dialogue be instituted in an effort to frame good policy pertaining to nuclear transfer and stem cell research.

Cloning, Organism↗
PubMed1996

Experimenting with embryos: can philosophy help?

Beyond the well-known ethical issues involved in medical experimentation on human subjects, experimenting with embryos raises unique and particularly hard problems. Besides the psychological obstacles connected with the fear of "playing God" and the awe with which we hold the process of the creation of human beings, there are three philosophical problems which are the main subject of the article: 1. The logical problem of circularity: the morality of experimenting on embryos is dependent on the status of the embryo, which in turn is partly decided by experimentation; 2. The metaphysical problem: experiments are justified by the benefits they bring to human subjects; but it is doubtful whether an early embryo is a "subject" and whether coming into being is a "benefit"; 3. The moral problem: the standard constraint on medical experiments is that they benefit either the individual subject or at least members of a relevantly defined group of patients suffering from the same syndrome. But embryo experimentation is often associated with potential cure to people of a completely different category (like geriatric patients). Finally, the article discusses the limits of the force of philosophical arguments in the formation of actual policies for regulating such practices as experimenting with embryos. The widely-shared fourteen-day limit is shown to be a sound practical compromise despite the difficulties in justifying it philosophically.

Attitude↗