Researchers from all around the world emphasize on the enormous possible benefits that stem cells may have for the treatment of diseases. However, this technology is considered morally problematic when the source of t...Researchers from all around the world emphasize on the enormous possible benefits that stem cells may have for the treatment of diseases. However, this technology is considered morally problematic when the source of the stem cell is from a human embryo. Nonetheless, there is a consensus that of all the types of stem cells, hESC （human embryonic stem ceils） are the most promising for particular and important research and therapies. Yet, there are controversial issues regarding the ＂killing＂ of the human embryo for stem cell derivation. There are two general ethical conditions that should govern the instrumental use of embryo. One of them, the principle of subsidiarity, which is defined as ＂a state we have that we have to choose the less contentious means of achieving the intended goal＂. Based on this principle, we ought only to use hESC when there are no other alternatives, which are less morally controversially. Subsidiarity is based on the assumption that there is something ethically unsound about the use ofhESC. However, this principle only makes sense if it is based on consistently upheld views of the moral status of embryo, moreover, the law should also not limit or prohibit hESC research based on this principle. In this paper, I argue---using the South African law for hESC technology--that criterion for deciding which type of stem cells to use should be based on their potential and suitability for advancing scientific knowledge and development of new therapies which will be greatly beneficial in alleviating human suffering.展开更多
文摘Researchers from all around the world emphasize on the enormous possible benefits that stem cells may have for the treatment of diseases. However, this technology is considered morally problematic when the source of the stem cell is from a human embryo. Nonetheless, there is a consensus that of all the types of stem cells, hESC （human embryonic stem ceils） are the most promising for particular and important research and therapies. Yet, there are controversial issues regarding the ＂killing＂ of the human embryo for stem cell derivation. There are two general ethical conditions that should govern the instrumental use of embryo. One of them, the principle of subsidiarity, which is defined as ＂a state we have that we have to choose the less contentious means of achieving the intended goal＂. Based on this principle, we ought only to use hESC when there are no other alternatives, which are less morally controversially. Subsidiarity is based on the assumption that there is something ethically unsound about the use ofhESC. However, this principle only makes sense if it is based on consistently upheld views of the moral status of embryo, moreover, the law should also not limit or prohibit hESC research based on this principle. In this paper, I argue---using the South African law for hESC technology--that criterion for deciding which type of stem cells to use should be based on their potential and suitability for advancing scientific knowledge and development of new therapies which will be greatly beneficial in alleviating human suffering.
