Those arguing for would also say that the research conducted using embryos and the artificial creation of embryos, is not only about saving lives, but also about improving individuals’ quality of life from the moment of birth. Artificially creating more than one embryo, screening them all for disorders prior to implanting as many as required back into the mother’s womb, can avoid for instance the inheritable disorder, haemophilia or other genetic abnormalities such as Spina Bifida. Present pre-natal screening (screening a foetus in the womb) can help prevent children with detectable disorders being born – by termination/abortion – and supporters of embryonic research argue that eradicating the problems at the embryonic stage is far less traumatic for the parents than termination at a later stage. I feel that this is, however, ethically wrong as the embryos have to be created before genetic disorders can be identified in them. EThose embryos created that are found to have a disorder arer destroyed. However, I believe that every embryo created is the beginning of a child and should not therefore be terminated. Although living with a child with a disorder or disease can be traumatic for parent and child; the child still has a right to a life and termination at any stage destroys this chance.
As well as screening embryos for their own benefit, embryonic screening has also been used to select a compatible donor. The Hashim’s, a British family, have been given the go-ahead to have embryos artificially created and then screened, firstly for any disorders and then again to find a compatible embryo to donate bone-marrow for the Hashim’s son, Zain. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with creating a child to save another – as I believe that a child should be brought into the world for no one else’s benefit other than its own. This clearly isn’t the case when the child is being created to play donor to another.
An argument used by those in favour, is that the point cells become a human life is the instant the baby is born. Hence making experimenting on embryos, in their eyes, an acceptable practice. But those opposing embryonic research, for instance anti-abortionists, would disagree and say; that the point cells become a human life is the moment of conception, making embryonic research wrong.
Pre-natal experimentation is not a new practice. During the Second World War, it was later discovered; the Nazis had been using embryos (and the later foetal stage) to experiment on. This, when discovered, was abhorrent, so much so that some people refuse to use information gathered from these experiments, even though it could help save lives. So it is terrifying to see how much the general public’s attitude has changed in just over fifty years; from classifying the experiments the Nazis carried out as evil, to what we see now; more and more procedures involving embryos being given the go ahead and private businesses being given the government’s permission to use embryos for experiments. With such a loathsome procedure now being authorised and on the face of it, accepted, it leads me to wonder how truly despicable something will need to be before it is not, in time, accepted. And with scientists receiving consent to use embryos, how much longer will it be before thoughts of using babies and even children for experiments are no longer repulsive possibilities but conventional practice?
Another point against using embryos in experiments is who is there to police the practice and decide at what stage it becomes immoral? The government is powerless to stop happenings in the U.S.- a country pioneering the use of embryos. Also, the guidelines for embryology are less firm there, allowing those who have been refused in this country a chance to engage in what they have not been entitled to do here. In addition, organisations conducting embryo experiments could easily do so in secret without the government’s knowledge. The HFEA (or Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority) are again powerless to stop anything they do not know about. Laws have been passed dictating that experiments should not be carried out after a certain stage. However, with no strict policing and probable secret organisations, who is checking to see if this law is adhered to?
Using embryos in experiments is disgraceful, as it involves producing something which given a chance would grow into a unique human being. No person in their right mind would allow experiments, with unknown consequences, to be administered on babies. The only difference between a baby and an embryo is that the baby has been given enough time to develop, so it can survive outwith the womb. Why then should we have any right to subject embryos to experiments, and not see it as wrong?
Certain experiments (for instance cloning) require the results to be monitored over an extended period of time to assess any repercussions. In this case it is likely that the embryos would have to be grown past the embryonic stage and even up until the point of birth. This, it must be agreed, is wrong.
Even though embryos on which experiments have been conducted (if given the chance) grow-up and are themselves perfectly healthy, who is to say that the experiment will not have repercussions- such as infertility- generations into the future?
The more and more advanced our understanding of science gets, it seems that our acceptance of certain practices is pushed further and further away from what I- and millions of others- believe is ethically and morally right. Embryo research is to me disgusting. However, now or in the future it is unlikely that embryonic research will be stopped, as it is allowing businesses to cheaply exploit our appetite for advance, even at the expense of others.
Bibliography:
www.guardian.co.uk
The Kingfisher Illustrated History Of The World
Guinness Book Of Knowledge
Encyclopaedia Britannica PC-CD
Encarta ’98 PC-CD
