Address the questions at the end of the case. Be sure to respond to at least two of your classmates to generate a real and sophisticated analysis. Use your ethical theories. Be charitable with each other.
1. I believe that the Bush federal funding policy was too restrictive. I think that only using the existing stem cell lines was unnecessary, and that those after August 9, 2001 should have been used as well.
2. I believe that some people may argue that Obama's policy had more moral issues than Bush's policy, but I think Obama's policy is better since it isn't as restrictive.
3. Although I do like Obama's policy more, I do believe that more could be done to make the research efforts better. However, I do not know too much about stem cell research, so I'm not sure exactly what I'd recommend. But perhaps taking some limits out and letting more research happen would be a good start.
I agree I think that the Obama plan makes more sense. But I think we have to keep in mind that Bush put the embryo research restrictions into affect in 2001 and Obama changed that in 2009 the times were different and maybe stem cell research wasn't being as readily practiced or needed as it was in 2009.
I think the time is a really good point, Maria! So much can change and advance in 8 years, especially in medicine and health care, and even our views about certain topics.
Time means a lot in every case that happens. If we had discussed stem cell research 40 years ago, it would have been considered something out of science fiction. I also agree with Stephanie that taking some limits out to allow more research would be a good step in the plan.
1. I think the Bush federal funding policy was too restrictive. Although it allowed research in the many stem cell lines already created, it closed any opportunities for new ones to be made, thus limiting the potential research that could be done on stem cell lines not yet thought of or not yet useful.
2. I think Obama's policy is less morally defensible than Bush's since it lessened limits on the volatile subject of stem cell research. However, it somewhat amended this fact by placing restrictions on how the new stem cell lines could come about.
3. Although I am not well versed in the topic of stem cell research, I find that Obama's policy is a great starting point since it allows for new research to open up regarding stem cells but also limits the lines to come from excess embryos of fertility clinics.
I agree that the Bush federal funding policy closed any opportunities for new research. I found it silly that an expiration date was being put on extensive research.
Why do you think that the Obama policy is a great starting point if you think that it is less morally defensible? Shouldn't that make it a weaker starting point?
When I say it is less morally defensible, I mean to say that his position is more prone than Bush's to be protested based on the views some hold on stem cell research. I personally do not have anything against such research (as long as the cells are obtained in a justifiable manner) but I realize that many could present objections.
I think that, no matter what kind of research is being done, there will always be objections and those against it. Although I also don't have anything against stem cell research, there will always be those that view it as "wrong". However, I disagree that his plan is less morally defensible. I would say the restrictions he puts on it make it more morally defensible.
1. I think Bush federal funding policy is too restrictive because it doesn't allow for new stem cell lines to be created it only allows the scientist to use the existing 60 stem cells lines that were already created and if you limit how many lines they can have you are limiting the amount of research they can actually do. 2. Personally I think that Obama's policy is more morally defensible because it isn't as restrictive, which allows for more research to be done which could possibly lead to more discoveries, and there are restrictions on how the stem cells line come to be stem cells lines. 3.Personally, I think that Bush's policy is too restrictive because it doesn't allow for new research and that Obama"s policy is a good starting point because it puts restrictions on how the stem cell lines come about and it allows for new research come about because they can develop new stem cell lines.
I agree that the Obama policy is a good starting point with this topic. It's hard to knock down all restrictions all at once. It's important to ease the public into difficult topics like this.
I would argue that Obama's policy is less morally defensible than Bush's because of the nature of morally volatile issues like stem cell research. The possibility of results and discoveries does not automatically outweigh any injustice conducted in the research (look at the Nuremberg trials).
However, I would agree that in this case the results to be gained from the research offsets the moral quandaries that would result.
I have to disagree with Obama's policy being more morally defensible. By removing the restrictions on a volatile subject this policy doesn't put itself in a better position than Bush's policy. If anything it leaves itself in a less morally defensible position.
I would agree with you on the Bush policy being too restrictive. The stem cells after August 21 gives you more research to do and more discoveries to make.
1. I think that the Bush federal funding policy was too restrictive because its putting scientific exploration to a hault. It doesn't allow for new stem cell lines to be manufactured, it only allows the usage of the existing stem cell lines that had already been created. There's already an expiration date on their research. When they run out of stem cell lines, their research is over. 2. I can see how people might see Obama's policy as more controversial, but a political compromise was made. Obama's policy allows more leadway into scientific research. It still has restrictions, just less. 3. I think that the Obama policy is definitely a good starting point on this topic. I believe that more can be done to assist this research but baby steps must be made with a controversial topic like this.
I agree with your point on number 3. Once the research starts coming in and they can see how useful this information is and how they can use it to our advantage they will start taking bigger steps. However, with bigger steps comes more controversy.
1. In my opinion the Bush policy was too restrictive. By putting this policy into place you limit the opportunities and information that can be accessed when you limit yourself to only a set number of embryos. If he had allowed more embryos to be tested more information could have been discovered. Different embryos can offer an array of information that maybe the other embryos couldn't provide. 2. I think that all in all the Obama plan offers more possibilities and research to be developed. Some people have issues with embryo research but other than those people I don't see why people would prefer the Bush plan because it did not offer much for research. 3.I don't think that there should be extensive amounts of money going into this research when there are other things that should take priority over this but it is still a plan worthy of investments and research.
I like the point you made for number 3. I agree with you, that we have greater and more pressing problems to solve right now and we shouldn't invest a lot of money into this research right now. But hopefully in the future we will be able to devote more money to this subject for research
Definitely would agree with you on point. While it is a hot topic for research there are more important issues that are going today that needs more attention and money.
What would you say considering those who have issues with embryo research (meaning those who believe this goes against those embryo's right to life)? I understand the value of research, but is it really necessary to use embryos? Do you think those who take issue with that have a point?
1. I feel that the Bush policy was too permissive. It is important to remember that these sixty lines of stem cells originated from embryos that at one point had the potentiality to develop fully into a human being. Based on this I feel that my position would be supported by Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative that calls for no member of humanity to be treated as merely a means but as an ends of themselves. 2. I feel as though the Obama policy is less morally defensible. This case follows the classic line of a slippery slope argument. It begins with research allowed on only sixty lines of stem cells. Then it is opened up to allow more lines of stem cells by removing some of the restrictions. This is starting down a path to less and less restrictions until eventually there aren't any. This is in contrast with Kant's ethical theory. His theory is totally based in respect for persons. The embryo that is used to obtain stem cells has in itself the potentiality to develop fully into a human being if left alone. Because of that the embryo is deserving of the same level of respect as any other human being. 3. The optimal approach to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is to fund research on embryonic stem cells that are obtained in such a way that no embryo was used merely as a means.
I also brought up Kant's argument that no being should be used as a means, but as a comparison to my opinion. While I like to agree with Kant's argument, I also can see the significance of using the stem cells for research.
I agree with you in saying that Bush's policy was too permissive and Obama's less morally defensible. I like how you brought up Kant's issue of respect for persons. Neither policy seems to give much consideration to this concept in relation to the embryos.
I think that the Bush federal funding policy was too restrictive because is limiting the number of embryos to be used before a specific time. It is strange to me that he would "approve" such embryos for research at certain time, but if past that then he would not. He even admits in his speech he importance of having embryos to use in research and describes the positive outcomes of having them used. I think the Obama policy is significantly justified. Although it does require restrictions (the guidelines to decide which stem cell to be used in research), it still is flexible. You definitely have to have a combination of the Obama policy and something else to be successful. I think no matter what approach is taken, it will always be controversial. I do think that the Obama policy is something that can be progressed and expanded.
What is the point in Obama's plan to allow more research to be done on different genetic lines? Surely 60 different established genetic lines is more than enough for stem cell research to be conducted upon as the cells should never run out if properly grown?
1. I feel that the Bush administration decision was too restrictive. If it's considered moral to make use of the existing stem cell lines, then it should be considered moral to use other embryos after August 9, 2001. Even though it's allowing the research to be done to the existing stem cells, it is restricting the possible research from future stem cells. Because I'm looking at the positive result of existing and future using stem cells (research and findings), I would be in conflict with Kant's theory. Kant argues that it is wrong to use others as a means for a desire (which in this case, would be using the stem cells to achieve desirable research).
2. Obama's policy is a little more relieving, because it allows for future stem cells to be used for research. Because of the possibility of further research, it's easier for me to be able to support the campaign. However, it would be interesting to know more about the guidelines National Institutes of Health uses for ethical decisions.
3. I agree with Obama's campaign on continuing research. A hopeful approach for funds would possibly be donation campaigns to help build up money for the research.
I agree with you about Obama's policy being more relieving to allow further stem cells to be used for research. What guidelines could the NIH institute that would make the research unethical to you?
1.I think that the policy Bush passed is too restrictive. Once you have committed to doing the research at all there should be less restrictions on how many lines you can use. If you're going to do it you should fully commit and get as much information as you can out of it. 2. I think they are both equal in the moral spectrum. Both are performing the research but Bush's plan just limits the amount of lines. One area I like about Obama's plan is that there are guidelines as to which embryos are used and how they are collected. 3. I think Obama's plan is headed in the right direction. Adjustments I'm sure will have to be made but I don't see any other alternative way of conducting the research.
What specifically is it that you like about Obama's guidelines? That the new genetic lines are from excessive cells or did not result in the "parents" benefiting financially?
I believe that the Bush federal funding policy too permissive it is an attempt to compromise on an issue which should never be compromised. The 60 different lines of stem cells were at one time egg cell that had been fertilized and thus a human being by my definition. To allow research to be conducted on stem cells therefore is highly unethical. The Obama policy is less morally defensible than the Bush policy because it goes further to allow more human beings that have been "killed" for stem cell research to have experiments conducted upon them. I believe neither of these plans are heading in the right direction and stem cell research from human embryos needs to be stopped immediately.
I understand where you're coming from, which makes the scenario all the more difficult since these stem cells may end up helping scientists discover treatments or cures to many serious diseases.
I can see your point, but I don't think that stem cell research should be stopped entirely. If we already have sixty existing stem cell lines and they are regenerative we should utilize them to the best of our ability. Yes, it is sad that those were lives that were lost but we can't do anything about it now. We should use them so that the embryos were not destroyed for no reason.
1. I believe that Bush’s federal funding policy is too restrictive. Although progress has been made in creating the sixty stem cell lines, more diverse research can be accomplished with the creation of more cell lines. Research into creating therapies and cures is an excellent cause, as many stem cell lines as possible should be created for research. 2. I think that Obama’s policy is along the same lines of being morally defensible with Bush’s policy. President Obama has gone into detail stating that the NIH will be deciding guidelines to decide which stem cell lines it would be ethical to use. When the NIH came out with their guidelines, they seemed very ethically respectable. 3. An optimal policy regarding federal funding for ESCR would be a policy that respected controversial ethical values regarding how the embryo cells are obtained and used. I think that the Obama policy is a great start, with some tweaking and more explanations on how the ethical values are being maintained it has the potential to be an optimal policy.
I agree with the fact that we should do as much research as possible to find therapies and cures, but if the stem cell lines are regenerative, then why should be take more than what we have?
The possibilities of what can be done with the cell lines are endless. Although the cell lines are regenerative, multiple cell lines equate with multiple uses for the lines. The current cells lines cannot serve as a "cure all" for everything.
1. Yes, I believe that the Bush funding policy was too restrictive. I can understand him being cautious and not wanting to cross any moral boundaries, but so much potential research lies within those unexamined embryos/stem-cell lines. 2. I find it difficult to pinpoint whether or not Obama’s plan is more/less morally defensible. Although its lack of restrictions could leave us vulnerable to future problems, it’s not as though he hasn’t considered the prominence of this situation. This case states that the NIH has established a set of guidelines in regards to this type of research, so as to prevent any type of future research from being conducted with immorally-based intentions. 3. I believe that Obama’s pre-existing policy is heading in the right direction; I myself don’t know enough about ESCR to provide a detailed enough alternative optimal policy regarding federal funding, though I appreciate the plan that Obama has established, and in particular that of limiting federal funding to lines created from excess fertility clinics.
1. I definitely would have to say that the Bush funding policy was very restrictive. The stems cells after August 9, 2001 could definitely have opened up a new opportunities. 2. I would say that the Obama policy is the about the same as the Bush policy. The only difference that I see in my eyes is that the Obama policy opens up a wider door to stem cell research, which could lead to a new discovery. 3. I think that the Obama policy is well on its way. I'm sure that there needs to be a few adjustments to the policy and maybe more restrictions but it could be heading in the right direction.
1. I would say that the Bush funding policy was fully justified. If there was another approach to collect embryonic cells without harming the child then it would be a different matter. I believe that Bush was trying to protect future embryos from potential harm by placing these restrictions. 2. I would say it is less morally defensible. It seems to me that Obama is okay with harming embryos to further research and while furthering this research is important, I believe the protection of human lives is more important. 3. I believe Bush's policy was good. If the lines were going to be eligible for eternal uses and researches then why should we take more than what we have? On top of that, why should our tax money go to fund something that we don't agree with?
1. the bush funding policy is to restrictive. its hard to be effective when doing research when you have restrictions on what you can do your research on. 2. obamas plan leaves more room for growth and opportunity which could eventually lead to more findings and greater possibilities. 3. a policy that allowed researchers to do whatever they thought was necessary and morally acceptable that would get results done.
1. The Bush federal funding policy is too permissive. If one looks at the basic moral issue underlying all of these complicated policies and the like, the solution is not overly difficult. Embryos are developing human beings, and to do experiments with them and terminate their development is wrong. If one was to argue that scientists are not totally certain if these embryos are human beings, I would argue that this is not sufficient reason to assume that they are not. If one was to destroy a building but there was a possibility that there could be a person inside, but they were not sure, would they still destroy it knowing their could be a person they would be killing? It is not morally permissible to assume that life does not exist for these embryos. They are being exploited for the advancement of research without having been paid respect to their personhood. 2. Again, as the basis of both of these policies is the research and killing of developing human beings, the Obama policy is not morally defensible. 3. An optimal policy would to be not to allow the research of embryonic stem cells at all.
1. I believe that the Bush federal funding policy was too restrictive. I think that only using the existing stem cell lines was unnecessary, and that those after August 9, 2001 should have been used as well.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that some people may argue that Obama's policy had more moral issues than Bush's policy, but I think Obama's policy is better since it isn't as restrictive.
3. Although I do like Obama's policy more, I do believe that more could be done to make the research efforts better. However, I do not know too much about stem cell research, so I'm not sure exactly what I'd recommend. But perhaps taking some limits out and letting more research happen would be a good start.
I agree I think that the Obama plan makes more sense. But I think we have to keep in mind that Bush put the embryo research restrictions into affect in 2001 and Obama changed that in 2009 the times were different and maybe stem cell research wasn't being as readily practiced or needed as it was in 2009.
DeleteI think the time is a really good point, Maria! So much can change and advance in 8 years, especially in medicine and health care, and even our views about certain topics.
DeleteTime means a lot in every case that happens. If we had discussed stem cell research 40 years ago, it would have been considered something out of science fiction. I also agree with Stephanie that taking some limits out to allow more research would be a good step in the plan.
Delete1. I think the Bush federal funding policy was too restrictive. Although it allowed research in the many stem cell lines already created, it closed any opportunities for new ones to be made, thus limiting the potential research that could be done on stem cell lines not yet thought of or not yet useful.
ReplyDelete2. I think Obama's policy is less morally defensible than Bush's since it lessened limits on the volatile subject of stem cell research. However, it somewhat amended this fact by placing restrictions on how the new stem cell lines could come about.
3. Although I am not well versed in the topic of stem cell research, I find that Obama's policy is a great starting point since it allows for new research to open up regarding stem cells but also limits the lines to come from excess embryos of fertility clinics.
I agree that the Bush federal funding policy closed any opportunities for new research. I found it silly that an expiration date was being put on extensive research.
DeleteWhy do you believe that the Obama policy is less morally defensible?
DeleteWhy do you think that the Obama policy is a great starting point if you think that it is less morally defensible? Shouldn't that make it a weaker starting point?
DeleteWhen I say it is less morally defensible, I mean to say that his position is more prone than Bush's to be protested based on the views some hold on stem cell research. I personally do not have anything against such research (as long as the cells are obtained in a justifiable manner) but I realize that many could present objections.
DeleteI think that, no matter what kind of research is being done, there will always be objections and those against it. Although I also don't have anything against stem cell research, there will always be those that view it as "wrong". However, I disagree that his plan is less morally defensible. I would say the restrictions he puts on it make it more morally defensible.
Delete1. I think Bush federal funding policy is too restrictive because it doesn't allow for new stem cell lines to be created it only allows the scientist to use the existing 60 stem cells lines that were already created and if you limit how many lines they can have you are limiting the amount of research they can actually do.
ReplyDelete2. Personally I think that Obama's policy is more morally defensible because it isn't as restrictive, which allows for more research to be done which could possibly lead to more discoveries, and there are restrictions on how the stem cells line come to be stem cells lines.
3.Personally, I think that Bush's policy is too restrictive because it doesn't allow for new research and that Obama"s policy is a good starting point because it puts restrictions on how the stem cell lines come about and it allows for new research come about because they can develop new stem cell lines.
I agree that the Obama policy is a good starting point with this topic. It's hard to knock down all restrictions all at once. It's important to ease the public into difficult topics like this.
DeleteI would argue that Obama's policy is less morally defensible than Bush's because of the nature of morally volatile issues like stem cell research. The possibility of results and discoveries does not automatically outweigh any injustice conducted in the research (look at the Nuremberg trials).
DeleteHowever, I would agree that in this case the results to be gained from the research offsets the moral quandaries that would result.
I have to disagree with Obama's policy being more morally defensible. By removing the restrictions on a volatile subject this policy doesn't put itself in a better position than Bush's policy. If anything it leaves itself in a less morally defensible position.
DeleteI would agree with you on the Bush policy being too restrictive. The stem cells after August 21 gives you more research to do and more discoveries to make.
Delete1. I think that the Bush federal funding policy was too restrictive because its putting scientific exploration to a hault. It doesn't allow for new stem cell lines to be manufactured, it only allows the usage of the existing stem cell lines that had already been created. There's already an expiration date on their research. When they run out of stem cell lines, their research is over.
ReplyDelete2. I can see how people might see Obama's policy as more controversial, but a political compromise was made. Obama's policy allows more leadway into scientific research. It still has restrictions, just less.
3. I think that the Obama policy is definitely a good starting point on this topic. I believe that more can be done to assist this research but baby steps must be made with a controversial topic like this.
I agree with your point on number 3. Once the research starts coming in and they can see how useful this information is and how they can use it to our advantage they will start taking bigger steps. However, with bigger steps comes more controversy.
Delete1. In my opinion the Bush policy was too restrictive. By putting this policy into place you limit the opportunities and information that can be accessed when you limit yourself to only a set number of embryos. If he had allowed more embryos to be tested more information could have been discovered. Different embryos can offer an array of information that maybe the other embryos couldn't provide.
ReplyDelete2. I think that all in all the Obama plan offers more possibilities and research to be developed. Some people have issues with embryo research but other than those people I don't see why people would prefer the Bush plan because it did not offer much for research.
3.I don't think that there should be extensive amounts of money going into this research when there are other things that should take priority over this but it is still a plan worthy of investments and research.
I like the point you made for number 3. I agree with you, that we have greater and more pressing problems to solve right now and we shouldn't invest a lot of money into this research right now. But hopefully in the future we will be able to devote more money to this subject for research
DeleteDefinitely would agree with you on point. While it is a hot topic for research there are more important issues that are going today that needs more attention and money.
DeleteWhat would you say considering those who have issues with embryo research (meaning those who believe this goes against those embryo's right to life)? I understand the value of research, but is it really necessary to use embryos? Do you think those who take issue with that have a point?
Delete1. I feel that the Bush policy was too permissive. It is important to remember that these sixty lines of stem cells originated from embryos that at one point had the potentiality to develop fully into a human being. Based on this I feel that my position would be supported by Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative that calls for no member of humanity to be treated as merely a means but as an ends of themselves.
ReplyDelete2. I feel as though the Obama policy is less morally defensible. This case follows the classic line of a slippery slope argument. It begins with research allowed on only sixty lines of stem cells. Then it is opened up to allow more lines of stem cells by removing some of the restrictions. This is starting down a path to less and less restrictions until eventually there aren't any. This is in contrast with Kant's ethical theory. His theory is totally based in respect for persons. The embryo that is used to obtain stem cells has in itself the potentiality to develop fully into a human being if left alone. Because of that the embryo is deserving of the same level of respect as any other human being.
3. The optimal approach to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is to fund research on embryonic stem cells that are obtained in such a way that no embryo was used merely as a means.
I also brought up Kant's argument that no being should be used as a means, but as a comparison to my opinion. While I like to agree with Kant's argument, I also can see the significance of using the stem cells for research.
DeleteGoing along with what you said in the third question, how would this be achieved?
DeleteI agree with you in saying that Bush's policy was too permissive and Obama's less morally defensible. I like how you brought up Kant's issue of respect for persons. Neither policy seems to give much consideration to this concept in relation to the embryos.
DeleteI think that the Bush federal funding policy was too restrictive because is limiting the number of embryos to be used before a specific time. It is strange to me that he would "approve" such embryos for research at certain time, but if past that then he would not. He even admits in his speech he importance of having embryos to use in research and describes the positive outcomes of having them used. I think the Obama policy is significantly justified. Although it does require restrictions (the guidelines to decide which stem cell to be used in research), it still is flexible. You definitely have to have a combination of the Obama policy and something else to be successful. I think no matter what approach is taken, it will always be controversial. I do think that the Obama policy is something that can be progressed and expanded.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point in Obama's plan to allow more research to be done on different genetic lines? Surely 60 different established genetic lines is more than enough for stem cell research to be conducted upon as the cells should never run out if properly grown?
Delete1. I feel that the Bush administration decision was too restrictive. If it's considered moral to make use of the existing stem cell lines, then it should be considered moral to use other embryos after August 9, 2001. Even though it's allowing the research to be done to the existing stem cells, it is restricting the possible research from future stem cells. Because I'm looking at the positive result of existing and future using stem cells (research and findings), I would be in conflict with Kant's theory. Kant argues that it is wrong to use others as a means for a desire (which in this case, would be using the stem cells to achieve desirable research).
ReplyDelete2. Obama's policy is a little more relieving, because it allows for future stem cells to be used for research. Because of the possibility of further research, it's easier for me to be able to support the campaign. However, it would be interesting to know more about the guidelines National Institutes of Health uses for ethical decisions.
3. I agree with Obama's campaign on continuing research. A hopeful approach for funds would possibly be donation campaigns to help build up money for the research.
I agree with you about Obama's policy being more relieving to allow further stem cells to be used for research. What guidelines could the NIH institute that would make the research unethical to you?
Delete1.I think that the policy Bush passed is too restrictive. Once you have committed to doing the research at all there should be less restrictions on how many lines you can use. If you're going to do it you should fully commit and get as much information as you can out of it.
ReplyDelete2. I think they are both equal in the moral spectrum. Both are performing the research but Bush's plan just limits the amount of lines. One area I like about Obama's plan is that there are guidelines as to which embryos are used and how they are collected.
3. I think Obama's plan is headed in the right direction. Adjustments I'm sure will have to be made but I don't see any other alternative way of conducting the research.
What specifically is it that you like about Obama's guidelines? That the new genetic lines are from excessive cells or did not result in the "parents" benefiting financially?
Deletei agree with pipes, bush is to restrictive and obamas plan is a step in the right direction but there can be more done.
DeleteI believe that the Bush federal funding policy too permissive it is an attempt to compromise on an issue which should never be compromised. The 60 different lines of stem cells were at one time egg cell that had been fertilized and thus a human being by my definition. To allow research to be conducted on stem cells therefore is highly unethical.
ReplyDeleteThe Obama policy is less morally defensible than the Bush policy because it goes further to allow more human beings that have been "killed" for stem cell research to have experiments conducted upon them.
I believe neither of these plans are heading in the right direction and stem cell research from human embryos needs to be stopped immediately.
I understand where you're coming from, which makes the scenario all the more difficult since these stem cells may end up helping scientists discover treatments or cures to many serious diseases.
DeleteI can see your point, but I don't think that stem cell research should be stopped entirely. If we already have sixty existing stem cell lines and they are regenerative we should utilize them to the best of our ability. Yes, it is sad that those were lives that were lost but we can't do anything about it now. We should use them so that the embryos were not destroyed for no reason.
DeleteI realize that the embryos were not destroyed without purpose but at the same time I have to ask does the end justify the means?
Delete1. I believe that Bush’s federal funding policy is too restrictive. Although progress has been made in creating the sixty stem cell lines, more diverse research can be accomplished with the creation of more cell lines. Research into creating therapies and cures is an excellent cause, as many stem cell lines as possible should be created for research.
ReplyDelete2. I think that Obama’s policy is along the same lines of being morally defensible with Bush’s policy. President Obama has gone into detail stating that the NIH will be deciding guidelines to decide which stem cell lines it would be ethical to use. When the NIH came out with their guidelines, they seemed very ethically respectable.
3. An optimal policy regarding federal funding for ESCR would be a policy that respected controversial ethical values regarding how the embryo cells are obtained and used. I think that the Obama policy is a great start, with some tweaking and more explanations on how the ethical values are being maintained it has the potential to be an optimal policy.
I agree with the fact that we should do as much research as possible to find therapies and cures, but if the stem cell lines are regenerative, then why should be take more than what we have?
DeleteThe possibilities of what can be done with the cell lines are endless. Although the cell lines are regenerative, multiple cell lines equate with multiple uses for the lines. The current cells lines cannot serve as a "cure all" for everything.
Delete1. Yes, I believe that the Bush funding policy was too restrictive. I can understand him being cautious and not wanting to cross any moral boundaries, but so much potential research lies within those unexamined embryos/stem-cell lines.
ReplyDelete2. I find it difficult to pinpoint whether or not Obama’s plan is more/less morally defensible. Although its lack of restrictions could leave us vulnerable to future problems, it’s not as though he hasn’t considered the prominence of this situation. This case states that the NIH has established a set of guidelines in regards to this type of research, so as to prevent any type of future research from being conducted with immorally-based intentions.
3. I believe that Obama’s pre-existing policy is heading in the right direction; I myself don’t know enough about ESCR to provide a detailed enough alternative optimal policy regarding federal funding, though I appreciate the plan that Obama has established, and in particular that of limiting federal funding to lines created from excess fertility clinics.
1. I definitely would have to say that the Bush funding policy was very restrictive. The stems cells after August 9, 2001 could definitely have opened up a new opportunities.
ReplyDelete2. I would say that the Obama policy is the about the same as the Bush policy. The only difference that I see in my eyes is that the Obama policy opens up a wider door to stem cell research, which could lead to a new discovery.
3. I think that the Obama policy is well on its way. I'm sure that there needs to be a few adjustments to the policy and maybe more restrictions but it could be heading in the right direction.
I agree with Obama's policy being well on its way to becoming an optimal plan. What adjustments would you add to the policy?
Delete1. I would say that the Bush funding policy was fully justified. If there was another approach to collect embryonic cells without harming the child then it would be a different matter. I believe that Bush was trying to protect future embryos from potential harm by placing these restrictions.
ReplyDelete2. I would say it is less morally defensible. It seems to me that Obama is okay with harming embryos to further research and while furthering this research is important, I believe the protection of human lives is more important.
3. I believe Bush's policy was good. If the lines were going to be eligible for eternal uses and researches then why should we take more than what we have? On top of that, why should our tax money go to fund something that we don't agree with?
1. the bush funding policy is to restrictive. its hard to be effective when doing research when you have restrictions on what you can do your research on.
ReplyDelete2. obamas plan leaves more room for growth and opportunity which could eventually lead to more findings and greater possibilities.
3. a policy that allowed researchers to do whatever they thought was necessary and morally acceptable that would get results done.
1. The Bush federal funding policy is too permissive. If one looks at the basic moral issue underlying all of these complicated policies and the like, the solution is not overly difficult. Embryos are developing human beings, and to do experiments with them and terminate their development is wrong. If one was to argue that scientists are not totally certain if these embryos are human beings, I would argue that this is not sufficient reason to assume that they are not. If one was to destroy a building but there was a possibility that there could be a person inside, but they were not sure, would they still destroy it knowing their could be a person they would be killing? It is not morally permissible to assume that life does not exist for these embryos. They are being exploited for the advancement of research without having been paid respect to their personhood.
ReplyDelete2. Again, as the basis of both of these policies is the research and killing of developing human beings, the Obama policy is not morally defensible.
3. An optimal policy would to be not to allow the research of embryonic stem cells at all.