Latest advancements in transplantations of aborted fetal tissue portend an increase in demand for embryos as a resource of donor cells. Aborted fetal tissue is already being transplanted into individuals to manage health problems like diabetes and other illnesses. Such tissue has the potential to be effective in the process of developing cures for several serious disorders, which affect the lives of millions of people. Nevertheless, using the biomaterial from aborted fetuses for transplantation and scientific research has become a contentious topic among researchers, clinicians, patients, and the government.
To understand the ethics of using aborted fetal tissue, there is a need to understand the history of this research, pointing out the general tendencies of the public and scientists. Even though the background of fetal tissue experimentation may be viewed in a variety of ways, officially, this type of research in the USA is linked to the legalization of abortions with the Roe v. Wade case by the Supreme Court in 1973 (Gottweis, 2010). After this historical point, the debates about the necessity to protect the unborn from harm have been utilized to push the issue of abortion into the formerly distinct arena of developing policies to control fetal experimentation.
While most people hesitate to accept this research, history demonstrates a relatedness between scientific principles and prevalent interpretations of research involving aborted tissues rather than a long-established split. This research was portrayed as a scientific discovery of first-rate significance by both scientists and journalists following the Second World War, keeping with favorable perceptions toward biology and research (Wilson, 2016). Dissected cells were thoroughly regarded as natural resources for scientific research in operating rooms, scientific journals, and newspaper articles (Wilson, 2016). For the majority of the 20th century, neither researchers nor journalists were concerned with the problems of permission.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, most of the discussion surrounding studies involving human reproductive tissues centered on this specific topic. This battle resulted in an illegitimate prohibition on state funding for any sort of embryonic experimentation from 1988 to 1993 (Gottweis, 2010). The primary argument expressed by opponents of embryonic testing under the Reagan and Bush presidencies relied on the assumptions that such testing may induce women to pursue abortions due to the possible advantage to material recipients and scientific pursuits.
The limitations of state funding of embryonic experimentation indicated the establishment of a conflicting national approach that drew a distinct line between public and private medical studies. The core argument in this situation was that the lack of community unanimity pertaining to the moral view of the fetus precludes both the creation of regulations limiting such scientific studies and the utilization of public financing to promote it (Gottweis, 2010). Despite the lack of federal funding of various types of fetal and embryo experimentation, privately funded scientific projects proceeded in the dearth of federal supervision (Gottweis, 2010). Bill Clinton abolished the restriction on government financing for researches using aborted fetal tissue in 1993 during his presidency.
Therefore, fetal tissue has been a strong topic for a long time, making people either tolerant towards this kind of research or against it. Researchers have been studying tissue samples for a long time, and there is a big potential of using this biomaterial to heal or relieve the symptoms in ill people. Fetal tissue has specific properties that make it particularly beneficial in certain treatments (Ishii & Eto, 2014). Embryo cells grow far quicker than cells of an adult human, speeding up the clinical effectiveness, a major benefit for chronically ill patients.
Since the cells are not as allergenic as their mature counterparts, they may be less likely to be rejected by the patients. Such features eliminate the requirement for perfect genetic matching, which can induce complications in similar situations (Ishii & Eto, 2014). Fetal tissue is also quicker to grow, and it propagates faster than the tissue of adult humans (Ishii & Eto, 2014). Additionally, because of the increased incidence of abortion procedures, this biomaterial is in increased accessibility.
Therefore, there are many beneficial sides to using aborted fetal tissue. According to studies, fetal tissue has the capacity to be used to treat a broad array of different illnesses. With the help of the cells that fetuses contain, a lot of people with chronic diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease or diabetes have a chance to alleviate the symptoms or cure the illness. Additionally, aborted fetuses contain cells that can be utilized in vaccine creation.
Parkinson’s disease is a chronic neurodegenerative disorder that has a negative impact on the lives of millions of Americans. The condition impairs the mind’s ability to create vital chemicals (Ferrari, 2018). Consequentially, the individual experiences spasms, stiffness, and immobility before succumbing to their illness. Substantial animal study research shows that transplanting embryonic cells into the damaged area of the brain will generate the necessary chemicals in adequate amounts to relieve symptoms and avoid future degeneration (Greene et al., 2021). Individuals with additional nervous system illnesses, including Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic somatoform disorder, and Huntington’s disorder, can improve their conditions with the help of fetal transplantation as well.
Fetal transplantations are also a viable treatment option for the million children in the United States who have diabetes. Although the condition may be handled to different degrees with insulin injections, the lives of people who are susceptible to this disease are frequently shortened, caused by rapid atherosclerosis, renal diseases, and other significant complications (Gimbel, 2017). Considerable experimental research suggests that transplanting embryonic cells into a person with diabetes might restore a normal insulin level and avoid additional complications (Gimbel, 2017). Effective embryonic transplantation might help millions of such individuals while saving society a lot of money. People who have Parkinson’s disease and diabetes are by far the most typical recipients of aborted fetal tissue transplantations, although other individuals can benefit as well.
Many of the most well-known vaccines on the markets were developed with the help of fetal transplants. Rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis A, shingles, and rabies vaccines are all generated using cells obtained from embryos aborted in the 1960s (Gimbel, 2017, p.240). The initial embryonic host cells have been engineered to multiply infinitely in what the published research refers to as an “immortalized culture” (Gimbel, 2017, p.241). Therefore, no new or extra-embryonic cells are needed to facilitate the cell cultures from which most vaccines are produced today.
The utilization of aborted fetal tissue in vaccine research is still being pursued. For example, the cells are utilized in experiments for an Ebola vaccine (Gimbel, 2017). Since vaccines have the opportunity to benefit the entire populace, among the most compelling grounds for its continuous availability to doctors and scientists is the use of fetal tissue in their production (Foster, 2019). Considering the ongoing use of preserved cells for vaccine production, this health sector reflects just a minor need for fetal tissue.
A further benefit of researching fetal tissue is that major reforms for treating common ailments in embryos are developed that perform effectively during gestation. There are indeed technological advancements for direct involvement during gestation, such as practices that will aid in potential organ transplants (Gimbel, 2017). As a result, a fetal experiment may be especially beneficial to women who are torn between the termination of pregnancy and giving birth to a child with known lifetime problems.
Although alternative clinical options to fetal cells are in the process of development, effective long-term treatments remain uncertain. In order to regulate blood glucose levels, most people with diabetes now use genetically modified human insulin in conjunction with meticulous nutrition. Even with decent blood sugar control, the disease advances, and people with the disease develop cardiovascular disease at a young age (Du Toit, 2019). People diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease benefit from the substance levodopa. Still, even with drugs, they proceed to have scenes of motor function, and many young people start losing their ability to function properly at workplaces and home.
Therefore, the use of aborted fetal tissue can be considered ethical on the grounds of health benefits for chronically ill patients or the safety of the entire population. If fetal tissue donations will benefit people with severe cases of Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, as well as other illnesses, there is a responsibility to explore these treatments, which is only negotiable if the biomaterial is not collected in an ethical manner. Considering the fact that a fetus is only regarded as a person at a specific stage of development, some aborted fetuses can be considered as biomaterial, which can change the lives of many people struggling with illnesses.
Nonetheless, people have expressed serious ethical concerns about this kind of procedure. Pro-life activists are concerned that this might encourage abortion. Others predict that many will become pregnant and terminate the pregnancy in order to generate the tissue, potentially creating a market. Most strident critics advocate for restrictions on cell transplant procedures from abortions, as well as restrictions on funding for this kind of experimentation. More reasonable critics advocate for strong regulation of the conditions under which genetic information is procured, such as a prohibition on the selling of fetal cells and the donation of the aborted fetal tissue.
The escalating debate over procedures with aborted fetal cells demonstrates yet again the ability of scientific advancement to confront ethical perceptions and practices. People refuse to look at the result and benefits of cell donations. Sympathy for severely ill people seems to be at odds with response to human life and wider systemic ethical theories. Therefore, if scientific advancement in this specific field is to be made, the issue must be solved.
Almost one million terminations of pregnancies were implemented in the United States in 2011, with the abortion rate being 16.9 percent. Although this figure represents a continued existence of the overall decrease in abortion rates since they peaked at 29.3 in the early 1980s, it remains strong (Gimbel, 2017). By the age of 45, approximately 30% of women in the United States will have had an abortion (Gimbel, 2017). The demographic makeup of women who get abortions varies. However, certain patterns in the abortion rate along race and class indicate a larger proclivity to pursue and receive abortions among non-white, unwed mothers (Gimbel, 2017). As a direct consequence, these women make up a larger proportion of the cell donation pool.
A strict dependency on abortions to receive tissue samples is the primary ethical argument to the procedure. Aborted fetal tissue transplants, as well as postmortem organ transplants, rely on death to bring good to another. However, the organs are collected only after the unfortunate loss of the donor, with tough protective measures in place to ensure that the donor’s rights are not jeopardized for the sake of obtaining organs.
The termination of pregnancy that delivers cells for transplant, on the other hand, is organized. The source, the woman who provides the cells, simply prefers to kill the unborn child for purposes unrelated to cell sourcing. Even though the termination that produces the cells is legitimate and happens for issues unrelated to cell sourcing, countless people who reject this termination make the argument that obtaining this biomaterial dishonors and misuses the unborn child. Many are concerned that fetal stem cells donations will institutionalize abortion and may even result in many abortions in order to create cells for transplant. As a result, they could very well severely restrict, if not outright forbid, all aborted tissue transplants, or at the very least, preclude the governing party from financing the study of the subject or treatment.
Still, even if we assume that the embryo is a murder victim, the debate against using legal abortion keeps failing. Murder victims, such as car crash victims, are able to qualify as organ donors. The only restriction would be requesting the authority of death for permission. If the female is found to be a murderer, the closest family member, such as the husband, father, child—or, if none is accessible or qualified, a court order—would have jurisdiction to donate tissue.
Another argument considering the ethical side of aborted cell donations is focused on religions. The Catholic Church believes that a fetus must be regarded as a person from the moment it is conceived. The embryo during the conception time frame is thought to represent the entire genetic material of a human being (Bhattacharya, Bhattacharya, & Stubblefield, 2019). The fertilization stage is the start of an activity that includes growth and maturation and activates the initial stages of biological life.
Some people regard fetal brain function as the first indication of the fetus’s introduction to life. This means that this is the moment when the fetus begins to form into a new specific person (Bhattacharya et al., 2019). Nevertheless, modern research has indicated that the phase of brain function in the fetus is more like a neural stimulation stage, in which fetal awareness is not well evident.
Both Catholic and Orthodox churches view every life as inviolable and sacred and, therefore, it should not be harmed. Representatives of these churches emphasized the importance of not tolerating abortion while also being ready to provide emotional support to women because priests are obligated to embrace as well as provide spiritual support (Dozier et al., 2019). Despite the fact that all representatives stressed the significance of kindness and understanding for individuals who have unwanted pregnancies, only representatives who were “pro-choice” demonstrated a moral responsibility to encounter denigrating attitudes and beliefs toward individuals who had abortions.
However, only certain infrequent second-trimester terminations of pregnancies that result in the death of alive fetuses raise ethical concerns. This must be claimed that throughout the time frame, when the fetus outside the uterus is alive, it makes a claim on the rights of an individual. Throughout this time, solid legal and ethical concepts make the argument against the use of fetal tissue. Non-therapeutic experimental research without full consent from an individual is immoral, especially if the research project is emotionally or physically damaging. The same general doctrine could be used to make an argument against the donation of an organ from a dying newborn, but it is not unconditional.
As a result, it stands to reason that tissue transplantation from live embryos must be outlawed. Abortion cells from the second trimester, on the other hand, ought to be accessible for transplantation as soon as embryo death is deemed by a licensed doctor. Before the process of termination of pregnancy, a woman should be able to give permission to the use of cells from a dead embryo, and there is no moral prohibition against notifying a scientist of the eventual death.
Even though some people have ethical concerns about terminating a pregnancy, many people would definitely endorse countless scientific uses of this biomaterial, especially when the terminations are performed for causes apart from cell sourcing. In any case, the administration’s constitutional status prevents it from prohibiting all experiments and curative uses of embryos, although not forced to support studies or treatment using aborted fetal tissue. The use of this biomaterial invariably involves the intense emotions that termination of pregnancy elicits.
Nevertheless, the number of challenges generated can be addressed separately, ensuring that ethical problems and termination of pregnancy politics do not thwart scientific studies. Transplants with aborted cells from safe and planned abortions, for example, do not always imply permission of the pregnancy and abortion performed to generate cells for transplant. Acknowledgment of the parent’s decision to make a donation of the cells will not essentially lead to the purchase and sale of embryos or the payment of mothers to terminate a pregnancy. Lastly, aborted cell transplants create uncertainty about metaphorical prices as well as basic freedoms. The metaphorical prices of using the biomaterial to relieve severe illnesses are numerous. Sorting out the symbolic and freedoms and liberties issues about aborted tissue transplants will aid in the preservation of both essential moral principles and scientific advancement.
Hence, the study of fetal tissue holds great potential for value for the entire population. This practice neither justifies nor refutes the deeply personal decision to terminate a pregnancy, and thus, the utilization of those cells must be considered completely irrelevant to political matters. The cadaver experiment is neither pro- nor anti-death. This research only regards dying as a reality upon which as much beneficial potential understanding as feasible can be developed. Beyond the scientific realm, dying is predetermined in the particular instance of fetal tissue study, but proper maintenance and involvement can generate information and treatments for future gains. It is now necessary to move forward with those beneficial strategies, professionally and without sentimentalism.
References
Bhattacharya, N., Bhattacharya, S., & Stubblefield, P. G. (2019). Ethics Pertaining to the Use of Aborted Human Tissues for Research and Therapeutic Purposes. Medical Glory, 3(1), 19-25.
Dozier, J. L., Hennink, M., Mosley, E., Narasimhan, S., Pringle, J., Clarke, L.,… & Rice, W. S. (2020). Abortion attitudes, religious and moral beliefs, and pastoral care among Protestant religious leaders in Georgia. PloS one, 15(7), 1-10.
Du Toit, A. (2019). Restrictions on fetal tissue research. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 17(8), 462-462.
Gimbel, V. N. (2017). Fetal tissue research & abortion: Conscription, commodification, and the future of choice. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 40, 229.
Gottweis, H. (2010). The endless hESC controversy in the United States: history, context, and prospects. Cell Stem Cell, 7(5), 555-558.
Greene, P. E., Fahn, S., Eidelberg, D., Bjugstad, K. B., Breeze, R. E., & Freed, C. R. (2021). Persistent dyskinesias in patients with fetal tissue transplantation for Parkinson disease. NPJ, 7(1), 1-8.
Ferrari, D., Gelati, M., Profico, D. C., & Vescovi, A. L. (2018). Human fetal neural stem cells for neurodegenerative disease treatment. Springer.
Foster, T. (2019). Abortion, the human fetal cell industry & vaccines. Foster, T.
Ishii, T., & Eto, K. (2014). Fetal stem cell transplantation: Past, present, and future. World Journal of Stem Cells, 6(4), 404.
Wilson, D. (2016). A troubled past? Reassessing ethics in the history of tissue culture. Health Care Analysis, 24(3), 246-259.