Introduction
The advancement of science and technology, especially around the treatment process of living creatures, has greatly worked to reduce the global burden of disease on public infrastructure. It has also, more importantly, assessed the disability-adjusted life years (DALY) (a time-based measure that calculates the number of productive life years lost due to premature morbidity and mortality) (Hoang et al.). For many people, being allowed to access quicker intervention for injuries, diseases and prevention of a variety of risk factors likely to affect or cause disability and also make them a burden to their family members and health infrastructure is a positive as it allows for better health and makes them a more productive member of the society.
Stem-cell Therapy can be considered to be one of the key medical intervention practices that have contributed greatly to the reduction of the global burden of disease. Effectively, stem cell therapy is a new therapeutic approach that applies the use of stem cells to treat or prevent diseases from occurring, and in the case that they have occurred, it protects them from damaging vital organs (Aly). It can be applied to any living creature, even human embryos, for research, disease prevention and treatment of potential abnormality. Overall, the following essay argues that while stem cell therapy provides immense potential for revolutionizing medical treatment and disease intervention (as it has the potential to address a wide array of diseases and conditions), the ethical debate aimed at the use of embryonic stem cells creates a significant opposition to its use (Lo and Parham). However, the continued development of research into the ethical frameworks of use of the cells, as well as the immense benefits of stem cell therapy (SCT), can be seen to outweigh the myopic ethical issues that come with the use of embryonic SCs and pave the way for groundbreaking medical advancement.
Defining Stem Cell Therapy
As already defined, SCT is the ability to harvest the body’s raw material (stem cells) and use it for treatment and disease prevention. It does this by replacing damaged or diseased cells with healthy ones. At its foundational basis, stem cells are the body’s raw material, i.e. cells that, upon harvesting, can be manipulated into different types of cells, including muscle, blood and brain cells. Researchers indicate that they are different from other cells as they have the ability to divide and renew themselves over a longer period of time, as such being a critical foundational material to understanding the human body’s healing process (Zakrzewski et al.). Considered an unspecialized cell of the human body, they can differentiate into any cell or an organism and with the ability to self-renew, the potential limits for their use in medical treatment are boundless, and it’s only starting. Poliwoda et al. outline that in humans, these cells exist in embryos and adults.
These cells usually serve as the basic repair system for the whole body, and their unspecialized nature allows them to effectively be redefined into any type of cell. What makes them more advantageous is the fact that SCs “stand out among the cellular crowd because they’re the only cell type that replicates itself indefinitely and creates specialized cells that can repair damaged cells.” (Ghasroldasht et al., p2850). At the moment, health practitioners use SCT to manage the treatment of blood cancer, blood disorders, tissue regeneration, cardiovascular disease treatment, and brain disease treatment (Poliwoda et al.). Additionally, researchers believe that through continued research into the SCs, there is a great potential to treat and possibly create cures for other serious illnesses such as paralysis and Alzheimer’s disease (Aly). All these considerations place immense expectations on the ability of SCT and all related research in this field to cure diseases and reduce the global burden of disease.
Controversies Surrounding SCT
As already outlined in humans, stem cells can be derived from adults and embryos. Specifically to embryonic cells, there is the Pluripotent SC- these embryonic stem cells are sourced from the inner mass of pre-implanted embryos and from the epiblast of implanted embryos, all of which are considered to be pluripotent cells as they have a greater potency or ability to be differentiated into a wide array of cells (Zakrzewski et al.). Embryonic stem cell (ESC) research is where the bulk of ethical and political controversies lie, as these cells are fraught with disputes regarding the treatment definition of what is considered to be human at the onset of human personhood and the implication of human reproduction for procreation.
The ethical issues arise around the lack of informed consent to harvest the cells from the embryos as some political inclinations deem the embryos as the basic form of human development to be respected and accorded human dignity, while others disagree with this implication (Aly). Additional ethical issues that arise with SC harvest and use surround the use of SC lines derived from other institutions, especially in cases where there are conflicting legal and ethical standards from one jurisdiction to the other (Lo and Parham). Also, human stem cell (ESC) research involves the destruction of embryos or is based primarily on the creation of embryos specifically for research purposes (Appelbaum and Lidz). Here, the main issue lies in how the embryo is defined, as it is the onset of humanhood. The hSC involves the trade (buying and selling) of embryos (from oocyte donors); this has an immense medical risk to the donor as the retrieval process is very complicated and risks destroying the reproductive system of the woman, leading to infertility (Brignier and Gewirtz). While these ethical considerations seem like a technicality, their connection to personal freedoms and political rights of expression risk stalling research into stem cell therapy, effectively undermining the potential for disease treatment and intervention in the long run. This risks increasing the burden of disease and DALYs.
Development of Better Ethical Frameworks
To avoid the potential development of SCT unethical conduct, it is important for researchers to develop a realistic understanding of the process involved during a clinical trial. Better frameworks and policies for the use of hSC should feature a broad range of information and a holistic consideration of all stakeholders in order to adequately define the process and understand the implications. Research outlines that at the moment, stakeholders in many jurisdictions that actively participate in clinical trials tend to overestimate the benefit of the trial and downplay the significant risk it poses to the matter of consent and the health of the donors (Lo and Parham). The scientific rationale and potential benefit of the research often tend to justify this perspective as researchers see what they are doing to be of potential benefit to the human race. Appelbaum and Lidz state that while the research is beneficial, understanding the risks involved and the potential precedence, the lack of acknowledging embryonic cells as the onset of humanhood risks delineates important stakeholders in religious and political platforms as they downplay their ideological beliefs on humanhood.
While his research is important and a positive achievement in the long run, the creation of better ethical frameworks should first be considered in order to lay the foundation for unbothered research. Lo and Parham outline that measures should be put in place to enhance informed consent, and this should take into consideration all ethical, religious, and political considerations of the stakeholders. The first basis of understanding their perspective is for investigators of hSC clinical trials to create adequate informed consent that accurately describes the risks and prospective benefits realistically to the potential donor, based on laws of the jurisdiction around embryos’ humanhood status (Brignier and Gerwitz). Secondly, the discussion around consent needs to be based on information on broader implications, including the potential for failure of the clinical trials (Lo and Parham). Thirdly, all researchers should adequately verify that the participants have an adequate understanding of the clinical process and implications through verbal or written responses (Appelbaum and Lidz). Careful attention to these details, as proposed by researchers, would lessen the potential ethical dilemma that may surround the process of.
Conclusion
Effectively, stem cell therapy, a form of hSC use, is revolutionizing treatment and disease prevention. There is a wide range of potential benefits for the technology that is still at a nascent stage of development. This includes brain diseases, heart disease, cancer and tissue regeneration treatment. It has the potential benefit of reducing the global burden of disease for many and eradicating DALYs, which is good for health infrastructure and social development. However, the lack of clear ethical frameworks around clinical trials risks and benefits, as well as poor application and retrieval of informed consent from the participants, risks derailing the research and development process. Adequate inclusion of all stakeholders in defining embryos relative to womanhood, as well as respect for the donors, is critical in ensuring that hSC research continues uninterrupted. In my personal opinion, if all stakeholders within a society are properly told about the implications of stem cell therapy, objections to its advancement would not be as outspoken as they are at the moment. Lack of education on the matter leaves a bigger room for speculation and exposes many to assumptions about the procedure. I also agree that consent and proper information provision for the people likely to be affected are critical in advancing its adoption. I do believe there are more positives to hSC than negatives, and misinformation is its biggest campaign.
Works Cited
Aly, Riham M. “Current state of stem cell-based therapies: an overview.” Stem Cell
Investigation, vol. 7, 2020, pp. 6-8.
Appelbaum J., and Lidz. “The therapeutic misconception.” Emanuel EJ, Grady C, Crouch RA,
Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler D, eds- The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics, Oxford University, 2008, pp. 214-605.
Brignier, Anne C., and Alan M. Gewirtz. “Embryonic and adult stem cell therapy.” Journal of
Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 125, no. 2, 2010, pp. S336-S344.
Ghasroldasht, Mohammad M., et al. “Stem Cell Therapy: From Idea to Clinical Practice.”
International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 23, no. 5, 2022, p. 2850.
Hoang, Duc M., et al. “Stem cell-based therapy for human diseases.” Signal Transduction and
Targeted Therapy, vol. 7, no. 1, 2022.
Lo, B., and L. Parham. “Ethical issues in stem cell research.” Endocrine Reviews, vol. 30, no. 3,
2009, pp. 204-213, doi:10.1210/er.2008-0031.
Poliwoda, Salomon, et al. “Stem cells: a comprehensive review of origins and emerging clinical
roles in medical practice.” Orthopedic Reviews, vol. 14, no. 3, 2022.
Zakrzewski, Wojciech, et al. “Stem cells: past, present, and future.” Stem Cell Research &
Therapy, vol. 10, no. 1, 2019.
write