Is Stem Cell Research Ethical?

Obviously you haven't spent much time reading the bible if you think killing whatsoever is wrong. Use a different example, for example, something you can actually understand.

We can get a solid answer directly from HaShem. A person's life experience begins when egg and sperm meet. Why else would Sampson's mother be told to begin a Nazier's diet BEFORE she had even conceived? Human life is sacred and is not to be messed with. HaShem does not bless embryonic stem cell research, why else has there been nothing but cancers created by it?

Human development begins at fertilization when the sperm meets the egg to form a zygote. This highly specialized totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. You claim that human embryos are not humans until they see daylight. Embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why does that matter? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than smaller ones? Size doesn't equal value. Yes, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. Why does this matter? Four year olds are less developed than fourteen year olds. Should older children have more rights than younger ones? Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? Change of location does not change value. Every life is valuable and designed by God. Isn't everything that derives from God, good and valuable? Embryonic stem cell research and cloning is wrong. After all the research that has been done with ESCR, it has been proven that embryonic stem cells are hard to control once implanted and often form tumors. Adult cells can be extracted without harming the donor. Adult cells have proven to be much more useful and are significantly more safe than those of a human embryo. I am not opposed to stem cell research. But I am opposed to the kind of stem cell research that requires killing defenseless human beings so that others may(allegedly) benefit. Embryos don't come from stem cells; they are living human beings who have stem cells. And extracting these cells is lethal for the tiny subject. You didn't come from an embryo...you once were an embryo. Human life should not be treated as a commodity. The gift of life is beautiful and should be protected.

We are talking about possibly prolonging human life and alleviating or preventing suffering as opposed to a theoretical possibility of a human life resulting from the stem cells. We should come down on the side of helping the all ready born.

What is the real issue here? If embryonic stem cell research is based on the usage of embryonic tissue already conceived in the womb of a human then absolutely it is a matter of moral ethics and murder. However, if it is pre-emryonic, meaning the seed of a man extracted and the egg of a woman extracted, put together in a petri dish, and cultivated for the purpose of research and saving a life, then it is not a matter of ethics or morality but of accountability and responsible use of the resources which God has given us to save a life! I do not see the cultivating of our seeds as immoral. I see it as an awesome and beautiful gift from the Lord of Harvest to plant our seed and save a life!

This is a questionn you have to ask yourself...if that was your child dying of liver disease would you be willing to sacrifice the life of anothe who is not yet born? There is a lot to consider when formign an opinion on embryonic stemcell research and it is important to know your facts and consider allt he circumstances and lives that could be saved by obtaining these cells

i think stem cell research is and okay thin i mean god does thing for a reason, and when one thing dies a nother is born.

This hair splitting is enough to make me want to throw up my hands in disgust and scream. I used to work in a hospital where one of my duties was calling on judges to issue orders to force Jehovah's Witnesses to take a transfusion. A transfusion is NOT drinking blood which is prohibited in Leviticus seventeen. A similar situation exists here. I hae printed up a bumper sticker that says, "Stop Abortion: Use Birth Control." All abortions are caused by men. If a man did not impregnate a woman, there would be nothing to abort. Mad man Christians who want to make abortionists a capital offense are just that: MAD MEN. There was a situation not long ago where a law was proposed that would make killing of a person who had agreed to perform an abortion a target for killing. I just love those folks who say they are "pro-life" and then go kill someone who is going to do something they don't like.

None of us lives forever. We die young and we die old. We die from accidents and from 'natural' causes, and from diseases. Sometimes we die by our own hand or at the hands of another human. Stem cell research and stem cell use doesn't save lives. It prolongs life. There is a difference. I've been studying the ethics of using stem cells from lab embryos that were conceived for that purpose. My opinion hasn't changed~~~ that it is an unacceptible even a horrible act of violence against something that can't defend itself. Last time I looked it still takes a living sperm and a viable egg to conceive a human. That life in the sperm is straight from G-d. To combine it with an ovum to conceive a human life outside a womans body, and then by mans hand destroying it.... is simply wrong.

I disagree a human Embryo at about 2-3 Weeks has no brain, no conciseness and It is not Viable Becas=use It can not survive outside the womb. Furthermore Stem Cell Research has lots of value to humans knowledge of Biology. As for God giving life to a sperm, I am utterly apposed to that idea because a Sperm cell is just another piece of Nature/ Biology which is created through meiosis not the act of a "God"

True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But why is this relevant? Four year old girls are less developed than fourteen year old girls. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if thats true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer's disease.

Well put.

Well put.

Umbilical cords and placentas can also be used for stem cell gathering. There is no need to use aborted fetuses, or even Zygotes which have to potential to become fetuses, as this only condones abortion and the creation of life to sacrifice to save another

I was really inspired when i read this document.it showed me that its not really that bad to study stem cells before i was against it but now i think it should be carried on if it saves lives like the man with liver failure, i mean it would be shame if it didnt work and scientists couldnt actually save people like him who are in risk of losing their lives which is sad actually because some even have hope of being cured.i guess its true what they say whatever scientists do there is both good and bad in it .everything in life comes good and bad.so i guess im in stem cell research only to some extent.

I agree with you despite the moral and ethical issues the countless lives that can be saved have to be taken into consideration when forming an opinion on stem cell research

No matter how much you read and try to convince yourself...embryonic stem cell research is wrong. Research that destroys one human being so that another may benefit is wrong. We can pursue the treatment of disease in morally acceptable ways. You are not just dealing with cells here. You are dealing with beautiful human lives. Human life begins at the moment of conception. This is murder.

In my opinion I am for stem cell research but only to a certain exstent. Such as I am not for using aborted fetuses for it, because that fetus had brain function and it could feel. But I am for using pre-embyos because these embryos are only a few days old even if they were 3 days old it would only have 16 cells ONLY 16. Which means if this egg was in a woman then it wouldent even have brain function yet. Not just that but there are no bones, no eyes, no limbs, or hair. It is just as alive as a plant, it is alive yes but thats all. I mean if someone cut down a tree people would not blink an eye but if someone used a fertilized 3 day old embryo which is just as alive as a tree people freak out. I mean I think abortion is wrong and all but I dont think that can clasify under the category of abortion. What do you all think?

ok this kinda helped me with my project but im still wonderin why some people view the use of stem cells in researh and medicine unethical? and im doin my project on cancer and how stem cells affect cancer treatment etc. I need a quick summary of the answer and i cant seem 2 find it anywhere!

According to the Torah, when does life begin? I have always thought that life begins at conception. Is the conception not recognized if it occurs in a laboratory verse in the human body? It seems to me that this is the biggest question in the stem cell debate. What are your thoughts on this?

Human life definitely begins at the moment of conception. From conception onward, the human embryo is fully programmed, and has the active disposition, to develop himself or herself to the next mature stage of a human being.

Whilst doing this research, 1000's of people will die waiting for a transplant. And what if this research isn't succesful?? If you are fit and healthy, and within a certain age range, please consider donating a live organ. It is the greatest gift yo can give someone. "one who saves a life is as if they save the whole world"

Permit me to offer the following parable about stem cell research. Suppose you are a scientist working in a stem cell lab along with other colleagues. The blastocysts are stored in a protected area. A fire breaks out in the lab, and you must decide between saving your colleagues and rescuing the stem cells because you cannot save both. What is the correct choice? Isn’t the choice obvious? Pluripotent stem cell research offers the prospect of vital, life-saving therapies while violating no medical or Jewish legal principle. It might be aesthetically preferable to culture adult skin cells, but there is already convincing evidence that differentiated skin cells, even if they can be 'convinced' to revert to stem cell status, do not work quite as well. Medically necessary abortions uphold the same Jewish legal principles that allow us to utilize any method to save the life of the mother until the baby has crowned. Some may argue that the limits of extra-utero fetal survival been pushed back toward the beginning of the third trimester via NICU technology. I acknowledge that consideration, and recommend against third trimester abortions if there is an equally effective alternative to protect the mother’s health. If not, I see no barrier to termination up to the point of parturition. Elective abortions prior to the third trimester are a less ‘loaded’ issue. In Judaism, we do NOT own our bodies. Although I am not qualified to comment on the spiritual benefit/cost ratio, the physical and psychological risks to the mother of early pregnancy termination appear by all trustworthy standards to be small. I do not believe on 'abortion on demand' for spurious reasons, but have no problem recommending abortions when they conform to the halachic, medical and legal standards for women's health care. We stand at the vanguard of halachic medical feminism. I consider it a mitzvah and appreciate the opportunity. Mark Gary Blumenthal, MD, MPH Knoxville, TN

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions. If fertilized human eggs are going to be destroyed if not implanted is it ethical to fertilize more eggs than the woman can carry to term? When a friend underwent this procedure she had the understanding with her physician that he would not attempt to fertilize more eggs than he felt she could carry to term. As she said, “everything that goes out goes back in!” He removed six eggs, all of which became fertile. Four settled and began to grow. At about six weeks one died. We were very sad to know there were three children we would not know. After 30 weeks three healthy children were born. (Doctors think that is about the normal ratio of fertilized eggs which do not develop in a normal woman) After birth the umbilical cords of those children could supply stem cells with no ethical dilemma at all. In fact there are hundreds of proven treatments being used successfully today which employ umbilical cord blood stem cells. Why go where we need not go? The umbilical cord blood stem cells are from life, not death. Maybe that is why they work! I am not aware of any successful experiment using embryotic stem cells, which are derived from death of the embryo.

"Fertilized egg"? This term is very misleading. Once fertilization takes place, sperm and egg cease to exist. They surrender their constituents into the makeup of a new human organism.

Some have missed the point of this artical which raises some very important issues in both religious and medical as well as, is it ethical. Now I am not a doctor, nor am I a scholar, but this I know as I was reading this artical and listening to the Spirit of HaShem, it is permissable that the destruction of preexisting pre-embryos for stem research is permitted. I would also surgest to all to log on to Daniel Eisenberg's webb site at: http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/stemcellres.html for a more in depth understanding on the issues at hand. I thank you for this articale and also Dr. Daniel Eisenberg's comprehensive artical on the above issue. It has given me a greater understanding of the complexities of the issues which I have been troubled with for some time.

>When reading this article, I was mortified to read about cloning a cell to grow a fetus into order to grow a liver for the patient. You totally misread the article. Unimplanted pre-embryos cannot become fetuses unless they implant in a woman's uterus. The are collections of cells, little more sophisticated then cells you might floss out of your teeth. They require human intervention to become implanted, or they die. There are thousands of these cell clusters in freezers in this country that will have to be destroyed or used. How is it more ethical to incinerate "potential human life" than to use it to help others, even save lives? What harm does it cause, and to whom?

not ok it is unavoidable you are still killing a baby I am agents abortion to so no matter what you are killing a baby For a since experiment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and I am not religious

Sorry, but I do not think it is ethical to use embryonic stem cells. When reading this article, I was mortified to read about cloning a cell to grow a fetus into order to grow a liver for the patient. There are some places science should not tread, one of them being growing humans in labs. The thought of "growing" a fetus simply to harvest an organ sounds like something out of a sick horror movie. What has society come to, that we can stand the thought of human embryos being grown in Petri dishes? I know that we have a lot of excess fertilized eggs from IVF and that this raises an ethical dilemma as to what should be done with them. People figure that using them for research to help people is better than throwing them away. Yet, a lesser of two evils is still an evil. How can we use a human embryo for research? How can we create or grow life with the direct intention of destroying it? It is true that these excess eggs could not survive on their own, but they are still fertilized. I think it is wrong to take eggs out of a woman and fertilize them, knowing only a handful of them will actually be placed back in the womb to grow. The rest of them will be frozen until people decide what to do with them. I agree with the person who said if we aren’t sure if they are considered people, it is better to let Hashem decide. We don’t have the knowledge and power to make these kind of judgment calls.

Stem cells are different from cancer cells in that in cancer cells the mechanisms in the cell which regulate growth have been bypassed in one way or another to allow the cells the replicate indefinitely. Usually these cells are already differentiated. Stem cells are not differentiated. Also their growth, from what I've understood, is defined by their environment and signals they receive from it and so their growth is controlled, unlike cancer cells. If someone was to get a liver transplant made with stem cell technology, the firstly, when implanted, the cells wouldn't be undifferentiated anymore but would have differentiated into liver cells and, secondly, they would again be "in control", both by their internal mechanism and by external growth factors etc. Therefore, from what I've learned about this, there is no reason to expect that one would get cancer from implants made from stem cells.

I always wondered if embryonic stem cells really work; I mean, if they are really "pluripotent," doesn't that mean they have the ability to grow unchecked, and in effect, out of control? I finally got an answer to this question when one of my teachers in nursing school told the class that embryonic stem cells can, indeed, grow out of control, and become, in her words, "cancer cells". (Because, as we all know, the main defintion of cancer is body cells growing out of control.) Soooooooo, why is science trying to make it work, when the risks are so high? (I mean, would a person rather a spinal cord injury or spinal cancer?)

Adult Stem Cells actually don't have more promise. They cannot differentiate into every type of cell, but Embryonic Stem Cells can. Thats why scientists are trying so hard to get to be able to conduct research on Embryonic Stem Cells. As far as my opinion goes, an embryo doesn't have a mind or its 5 senses or anything else so its not alive yet. Being alive is being able to reason and think. That embryo doesn't have any of that. And i know everyone has their own opinions, but sometimes you have got to make people think. If you don't believe me go read Inherit The Wind because its a story of another controversy.

im am doing a doing a for or against stem cell research and i am for it for i have been saved by stem cell reasearch. for i had cancer at the age of 13 and i am now the age of 16 and if it where not for stem cell reaserach i would not be hear rite now so for all of you that say it is unethical and that it is murder it is not for the fact the embryos are not even remotly human untill two weeks of age. and who ever embryo saved my life i ow my gratetud to them for the life that could have been later on saved mine.

I'm also doing a research project on stem cells to either be for or against it.With all do respect, I differ with some of the people stating their opinions. Stem cells are taken from the embryo. This situation does affect everyone in one way or another because one should understand cultual diversity, and the many other confounding variables of taking stem cells from the "pre-embryo". Fact is, pre or post it's an embryo alright.

BS"D Since 1995 I have been involved in research indicating that adult, pluripotent (multipotential) stem cells exist in the brain and can be used for regenerative applications to brain diseases and injuries. These are not embryonic stem cells; rather, they are cells naturally found in the areas of the brain involved in learning and memory. This presents a viable alternative to embryonic stem cells and its attendant controversy. Let's daven that Hashem will allow this work to yield therapeutic results for those who are ill and injured.

I understand both of your situation, but you have to remember that all of us at one point were an embryos what if you were one of the ones developed to be used as study. With a sucess rate of zero why are we wasting time and money we have other issues at hand. Also with the alturnitives there is no need for the research adult cells have more promise anyway. i understand ur bias but you have to think of the situation as a whole

I'm 14 and doing a research semester project on stem cells. I believe that stem cell research is ethical because scientists are figuring out that stem cells may cure many diseases. Testing on embryos is not like dissecting a human that's alive. The embryo isnt even formed enough to wear it can be called a child. Im sorry if you don't feel the same way i do, but everyone has there own opinions. For the people who listen to others' info and take their advice on stem cell research; you need to do some research for yourself and decide on your own if this is unethical. Many people don't know what stem cell research is doing and learning so don't form opinions before you learn a little more about this debate.

I'm 14 years old, and I'm doing a big report on this for school, which makes up a major portion of my 2nd semester grade. I personally feel this controversial topic is ethical. I have a 20 year old brother, and he suffers from cerebral palsy. He is crippled in the hands, but he is a drummer and artist two things that mainly require the hands, and he is a prodigy, he is just amazing at what he does, and he deserves the right to working hands, he would only be better. It affects his life and he can never stop thinking about it. Sometimes when I was young I would here him cry and it would hurt me so bad. this made me want to pursue stem cell research as soon as a found out about it. Could you imagine making someone who was damaged from day 1better again? The only sacrifice would be a child thats not alive, so I think these religious people should have a little to think about, because I not only want him to have hands, everyone does. So I think this is very ethical.

Research that destroys one human being so that another may benefit is wrong. We can pursue the treatment of disease in morally acceptable ways. This has nothing to do with religion. It is simply the value of human life. Life begins at conception and the killing of precious, defenseless humans is morally unacceptable. I am terribly sorry about your brother. But there are other ways to seek out treatment that do not involve murder.

Even the tite is misrepresenting the topic. Stem cell research is ethical and moral. EMBRYONIC stem cell research is immoral and unethical,

.No................ There should not be existing pre-embryos stored outside a womans body. To fertilize a human egg outside the body, IVF, is acceptable to me IF that one or two eggs are then transplanted into the woman to begin what can become a full term pregnancy. To have fertilized human eggs stored somewhere that will eventually be disposed of in ANY other way, is an affront to me. ------------------------- To use the stem cells from an early spontaneous natural abortion would be something that could be considered. -------------------- It used to be that some of us lived a short life, some of us lived a long life. Either with or without disease. We still do. That fact hasn't changed. We should be eradicating the reasons we get diseases like cancer and heart disease and viruses. We are still going to die or get disease whether we get new organs or not. That's the way the world works. ------------------ With a great respect for ethical medical research, NO to killing the embryos that shouldn't be in the labs in the first place..

Not only is stem cell research ethical, I believe it is essential in order to attempt to find the answers and potential cures to crippling diseases which strip patients of their dignity and hope. We should not be put off by the slippery slope arguments and trust in UK legilsation that permits such research within tightly controlled boundaries.

i think that stem cell research is assisting the many who have severe ailments and wish to be cured which isint such abad thing as compared to abortion.those embryos are going to get disposed of anyway,might as well just use it for a rather meaningfull purpose.

Why did Hashem give us the intelligence to extend life? So we should ignore it or kowtow to Christian sentiments who consider a clump of cells a human life? I'm personally revolted by the deliberate waste of pre-embryos when they could SAVE LIVES. I have a condition similar to Parkinson's. Thankfully, it is not life-threatening. But with the proper application of a few cells could cure the affliction. Surplus cells left over from IVF will die just as certainly if they are used or not used, so why not use them for the benefit of human beings who are already alive but will die if the left overs are just flushed down the toilet like a dead goldfish? Feh!

To put ban on embryonic stem cell research because scientists will produce chimeras, hybrids of human and animals I think it is not correct. Because it would be same as putting ban on usage of atomic energy as it could be used in making an atom bomb. Now atomic energy has been used in power generation, medical, agriculture and bio-technology. As there is a worldwide ban on making atom bomb but not on using atomic energy, in same way there should be ban on usage of embryonic stem cells like formation of chimeras, hybrids of animals and human. Regarding next concern on destroying human embryo for the purpose of research is same as putting ban on creation of these embryos in infertility clinics. As these extra created embryos must be dying on one or another day. Instead of destroying, these can be used in stem cell research for the treatment of debilitating diseases.

We are struggling with such things as stem cell research. When does a human embryo become a human. Does our Father not say that before He formed us in our mothers womb that He knew us? How far does man go before he encroaches on that which God Himself should have absolute authority? We feel that maybe we humans are building towers of Babel rather than seeking Him first.

We have to look even farther ahead. What is permitted today opens the way for what will be permitted tomorrow. Already scientists are trying to make chimeras, human animal hybrids, an unimaginable source of evil in the future. These cells are their raw material. Science says what we can or could do, but it does say what is ethical to do. Adult stem cells have already been used successfully, and have the wonderful advantage of not being rejected by the body, if they are taken from the same person. This avoids the horrifying possibility of humans being farmed for their parts, humans of no value because they were raised from throwaway cells. You will say that this is not ethical, but it will surely happen if we don't put the brakes on now.

Savannah, I do not agree with your statement. The seed carries life. It just needs a little support to help it get going just like an embryo. You're pretty much saying that a sixth month old isn't a person because it can't feed and change itself.

Dear Elisheva, I need to make a point about biology. The fetus does not magically develop into a baby without effort just left on it's own. I am surprised at your use of the word "ACTIVE" in capital letterss in your response to me. While a pregnant woman does not do any of the the things she does for the fetus consciously, she is most certainly very actively providing for the fetus every minute. She breathes for it, eats for it, digests for it, processes it's metabolic waste, and provides a protection from the outside world with her own body. It iakes a lot out of her and is a tremendous expenditure of energy on her part. Any mother will tell you this is so. She is most certainly extremely active. She is not just an incubator. The fact of the matter is that if she stopped doing any of these things, the fetus would die. Now, I am not saying that implantaion is completely irrelevant. I am saying that if the standard is viability, it is not consistent with the other argument posed by the author. Further, all of this specualtion about the future is not the way that halacha works. We judge in the present. Consider Ishmael. Why did Hashem rescue him in the wilderness? He knew that Ishmael was going to grow up to be unpleasant and that his descendents would cause a great deal of problems for the house of Israel. What does the tradition tell us? While Hagar was busy crying that Ishmael might perish, Ishmael did Tsuva - and here is the important point - and Hashem judged Ishmael *as he was then*. Much rabbinic ink has been spilled over this point about the way judgement gets done. So, to carry that through, what is the zygote in the present? What is the embryo in the present? What is a baby about to be born in the present? The important question, once again is which is a full fledged person? All other questions - as far as halacha is concerned- are secondary.

Joe, interesting thoughts. However, I think the point about the zygote in the test tube vs inside the mother was just that if the zygote were left alone inside the mother, nothing need be done ACTIVELY to end up with a live baby. (Prenatal care is necessary in this day and age, but it is certainly possible to have a child without it!) On the other hand, if a zygote is left alone in a test tube, it cannot possibly grow into a viable baby. Of course, if you remove the 1 month old embryo from the womb, it will die. But the point, as I understand it, is that the implanted zygote has the potential without any human intervention to grow into a live being, whereas the test tube zygote does not.

I appriciate your response, but I believe you missed my point. What matters is that the halacha are consistent with each other. The reason why the moment of personhood is so important is very simple, before personhood is reached you are not killing a person, afterwards you are. Honestly all other questions a secondary to establishing this point. If you are not killing a person, then the injunction to live by Torah and not die by it takes a very strong position in order to save lives. If you are, then you have a totally different case. As to the issue, we need to look at the significance of 40 days vs. heartbeat. I was very surprised that the article did not go into this. Now as to the cases you have brought up: 1. We have no time travelers. If we did, your analogy would still be faulty. It is based on the assumption that the embryo will grow up to be a sweet person. Jack the Ripper was an embryo too at one point. I am actually not trying to be too flippant here with that analogy either. In a very deep sense, we are not the ones to judge. We can only follow the mitzvot of the Judge. Perhaps the embryo that would have been the next Jack the Ripper now saves lives... 2. As to preventing future human life, there is the rub - future is not present. If a pregnant woman is injured and miscarries, is the offending party charged with murder? The answer is no. By your reasoning it should be yes.

Firstly, to address the point of using umbilical cord blood stem cells in lieu of embryonic stem cells, cord blood stem cells only yield blood cells. While this has been used successfully to produce blood cells, this cannot be used to help our poor liver patient. The benefit of embryonic stem cells lies in the fact that they are pluripotent, undifferentiated cells, which have the potential to produce any type of cell, provided certain factors are manipulated. The potential is immense. Thus far, the limited research conducted with embryonic stem cells has not had success, but this is not sufficient reason to write it off. The potential is there, and with more research, amazing things may yet come from it. As for the ethical concerns of experimenting on embryos, these are embryos that have been produced through IVF methods, but have not been implanted, nor are they going to be implanted. They are sitting in a freezer because they cannot be left to die (which is what would happen if left alone), but they are also not to be implanted. These embryos are in "limbo" so to speak. The ethical concern seems to lie more in the first formation of these embryos that were not implanted, rather than in their use for research. Should they remain in the freezer indefinitely? If the potential to save lives exists, this does not seem to be a good choice.

I am not a doctor nor a member of any medical community, my opinion is a stem cell is like a seed. Until it is planted it has no life, no branches, no leaves, no life giving properties. A stem cell is given life when it becomes a part of that human being regardless of where you planet it.

Joe, I think the "ikar" of the ruling of the zygote in the test tube vs. the zygote implanted in a woman is in the phrase "left undisturbed." There most certainly is a difference between an embryo left undisturbed while implanted in a womb and an embryo left undisturbed outside of that environment. You declare anything other than defining the moment that the zygote/embryo/fetus attains "human" status as a waste of time. I disagree. Judaism works in every dimension, including time. Therefore, its answers may seem like pretzel logic to someone only looking at a temporal snapshot. Here's a question: If you walk past a large plank, and standing next to the plank is a time traveler who says, "thank G-d that plank is sitting right where it is, because in two days there will be a flash flood and a child swept up by the water will be saved by grabbing onto this plank." From an ethical standpoint, if you then went and removed the plank, wouldn't that be wrong? You're not actually killing a person, but you are taking an action that will prevent a life from being saved in the future. Similarly, if you remove an embryo that is implanted in a woman, you may not actually be destroying a "human" in the process--whether you are or not is beyond my pay grade--but you are taking an action that will prevent a future life. Isn't that wrong?

It is my understanding that until this very day there has been no embryonic stem cells that have grown into usable tissue. Thus far, all of the cells have resulted in cancer. All of them. On the other hand, umbilical chord stem cells and adult stem cells have had some very promising results. The news media has been very thoroughly overlooking this fact. If we would simply follow the areas of research that have shown the most promise, embryonic stem cells wouldn't have to be used and this would be a mute point.

Thank you. I've been curious about this, and now I know the answer and the logic behind it.

I question the validity of what is defined as a "complete human being". If a new born baby is smaller and lessed developed does that make it a "less complete human being"?..or is it just at a different stage of life. The next question is who is competent enough to define that? In a situation where the mother must chose between the life of her unborn child and possibly her own..it is exactly that "her choice". Just as any parent would have to make a choice to save their childs life knowing that they will in turn loose their own. It's my belief that as soon as the egg has been fertilized the human "divine" spark has been ignited.

No way can you take any life that G-d had a hand on.They are using Adult Stm cell and are finding out it works so why use destroy a life and choose who gets well. Leave G-d plan alon . i agree with the Rabbi's who honour life. G-d Bless you and let us keep praying and be able to confornt evil even if it is convient to be a god.

Let's start from some first principles. A zygote does not have a human heart, because it does not yet have a heart. A zygote does not have a human mind because it does not yet have a brain. The real, and only important question, which this article does not adress, is at what stage of development does a collection of cells that has human features recognizable only to a genetic analysis stop being a collection of cells and start being a human being? That is the real question. All else is a waste of time. The rational that a zygote takes a different status once implanted is interesting, but on the basis of viability (as presented here) is not logical. A zygote in the test tube would indeed die on its own -so would a one month old embryo if removed from the womb. No present technolgy could save it. Therefore, if viability is the standard, then there should be no issue with an implanted embryo either. It is implied by this article that Torah would consider the implanted zygote to be a full fledged human. Again, it has no heart and it has no brain. I am bringing up heart and brain purposefully, because of the halachic significance of when when we consider someone dead. One might argue that if one does not have the equipment to be considered alive, (halachicly) then one might be in a different halachic state than a viable human with a heart and mind. I am not trying to get into a deep halachic argument per se. However, I do want consistency in what I am told is halacha. I am absolutely glad that the rabbinate is interested in using science to save lives - and thus permits the notion of stem cell research. However, as a scientist, I sometimes cringe at rabbinic pretzels that overlook clear application of scientific principles in favor of of fitting a square scientific peg into a round halachic hole.

Dr. Eisenberg muddies the waters when he writes that once a fetus is partially-born it is considered a person and one may not abort it even to save the life of its mother. But luckily, a situation like this almost never arises. In reality, those rare situations in which a woman's health is compromised by being pregnant usually arise well before the moment of actual birth. Jewish law not only permits but mandates abortion when a pregancy threatens a woman's health. He also doesn't state strongly enough that IVF and stem cell research ARE allowed by Orthodox Jewish authorities (in the case of IVF usually with supervision from a religious expert). This is a fascinating and well-written article, but I don't want readers to come away with a false impression that Judaism is equivocal on these matters.

I saw a very reliable interview with a man who worked in the scientific field. Many years ago, he met with the Lubavitcher Rebbe. In their discussion, the Rebbe asked him why they are not doing stem cell research. The Rebbe spoke very highly of stem cell research.

What I am actually more worried about is, whether as Jews and as humans it is allowed for us to "create" human organs, parts of humans and whether itis "unfortunataly", as stated in the text, or luckily that we have no idea for now how to clone humans. Isn't G-d the third partner in the creation of a new person?... And isn't life and death the way they are and their occurance the way they have to be due to Heaven's decision?....

Umbilical cord stem cells can be used with no threat of life to mother or child

I would not support creating "pre-embryos" merely for the sake of research. But most come from fertility treatments and are going to be destroyed anyway. They exist already - we should be permitted to use them for research that may save lives in the future.

Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.." These so called PRE-EMBRYOS are known by G-d. Just because man took the eggs out of the mother and fertilized them outside the womb doen't mean they are not known by G-d. There is NO justifiable excuse that these innocent existing babies can be destroyed to provide possible future cures for people.

..and thank you so much! This helped me greatly on my social issues artwork.

thanks! it helped me to prepare my assignment on stem cells-ethical concerns

Thanks for this. This helped me on my Stem Cell research people, opposing viewpoints.

I greatly appreciate this.

Thanks.

-Masha

ive read alot on stem cell research and you only get bits and parts of it this site has by far coverd the issues that most people have wonderd, thank you this will help me a lot in my schooling

I loved the insight on some other cultures religions. Very interesting.

this is good info. LOVE IT

This is a very comprehensive and informative article. I am glad to say that you have enlightened me and informed me of the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research. This article has also made me think about where i stand in this ethical debate and what i believe to be right. Thankyou very much for this thought provoking article!

this artical really benefited me ; i'm giving a speech over stem cell research and your article enabled me to understand everything in detail.keep up the good work!

i really liked this article, it explained to me a ton of things i did not understand!!! But my question is if i could use some of this information for the debate im doing (i know everything about the piracy stuff, thats why i need to ask) Well e-mail me so i can find out.

just to be sure that i wont copy, paste anything, ill tell u that im in 8h grade.

thnx
diego

i liked your materials.please mail me more history of research , ethical issues ,potential uses of stem cells regarding the topic.

I think that for medical science to advance, research should be allowed on pre-embryo cells. Hashem would not have allowed it if He didn't think it would have helped the millions of people who need this life saving treatment. Think about it. When you look at the virus, what do you see? A one cell wonder.
Very tiny. Almost useless except for one thing. This thing is alive. So for the pre-embryo cells.
In the past, research used to be restricted to things that we can see, hear, and experiment with.
Now, we have this ability to research the tiniest organisms. I am all for it because of its ability to cure people with diseases known to kill many more people.
Pre-embryo cells are not people who need to be kept alive simply because they are and should be considered cells with one redeeming power. That is the power to cure other people. Hashem would not have allowed this to continue if the researchers are destroying the cells with impunity. Why are we so afraid of using them for the benefit of humanity? The suffering is tremendous. We should be using this powerful miracle to save more lives.
Thank you.

Hi. I think I agree with the comments and discussions that you have made in this web page. I personally believe that the big question to consider, is whether or not a pre-embryo can be considered 'a human life'. It is indeed a 'life', but you could debate on and on about whether it is morally correct to destroy a life to save one. Thus, the question to be raised is; how could you consider a pre-embryo a human life, before it has even moved on to the natural stage in life within the mother's womb?

my name is kevin brennan and I am a student at Mc Clintoch high school in Tempe Arizona. in biology my class is curently holding a debate reguarding the m,oral and ethical issues of stem cell reaserch. several points that i have made in this debate have gone unnoticed because i simply did not have a source. but I have found them heere and when the information came from an MD then people listened and we won the first two days because of it. Thank you sir.

I liked this article. I always wondered what the Torah's take on stem-cell research was. Now I know!

useful links for a student who needs research on ethical issues on stem cell research

this web site helped me a lot when I was doing a research on ethical issues on stem cell research

very interesting article. I was wondering about this myself and am happy to learn the Jewish take on it.

It is always good to philosophise about topics such as these , and having the luxury of beeing righteous .

But when you are 25 on a transplant list and wont know if you will make it , everything becomes much more realistic.

I would like to bring to people's attention that in the late 90's there was a popular drug prescribed to teenagers that would help them , given by dermatologists . Today it is a known fact that it destroyed many young lives , and damaged their vital organs .

Having a transplant is not a walk in the park , that is if you are lucky to have one . Secondly the medications that have to be taken slowly begin to do their damage .

Stem cell research could lead to the ability of growing organs that would belong to the person , there would be no rejection , or medications .

People have a full right to save their lives , especially when they suffered at the hands of the greedy pharmaceutical industry .

From what Dr. Eisenberg has shared with us, I remained unsure what G-d would require in this matter. Isaiah told us that G-d knew us in the womb, but I'm sure Isaiah never envisioned what technicalites would be created through modern science. At this point, personally, I am against tampering with what G-d has created.

In response to John White's objection that humans might become slaves if we are able to grow pre-embryos for 9 months with machines - if you read the article's wording carefully you'll see it says:

"[...] But the pre-embryo created by IVF, if left untouched in its 'test tube,' will die. The pre-embryo requires active intervention to even reach a situation which we consider to be true potential life. "

Now if we ever reach a situation where an embryo that's left untouched will not die but will indeed develop into a human (through the use of machines, etc.), then yes - such an embryo should be considered a potential life and can not be used for research. But until it is placed in that situation [being hooked up to a machine, being placed in an incubator, etc.] where if left untouched it will automatically develop into a human, it is an entity that will die if left on its own. According to the article's logic, this would be a reason to allow its destruction through research.

Who are we to say if a preembyo may become an embryo or not? isn't that like trying to play the role of G-d? What about the umbilical cords that are left after a baby is born? aren't those cords disposed? why can't we use the stem cells of an umbilical cord left over after the birth of a child for this kind of research? some people choose to have the umbilical cord frozen in a cord bank but not everyone chooses that because is so expensive, so why can't we use those stem cells to do this research? why destroy another life when we can use the stem cells of left over umbilical cords without destroying another life Dr. Eisenberg? or are you going to tell me this cannot be done when these stem cells obtained from frozen umbilical cords have been used to cure people with some forms of cancer and other illnesses.

From what I understand only Adult Stem Cells are used in treatment. Embryonic Stem Cells are not safe to use because they have caused tumors and their development into an undesired type of cell is extremely unpredictable.

On the other hand, what if there was a way through natural nutrition (Hashem's provision of food) for a person's body to produce an abundance of Stem Cells within their own body ?

This has been observed in FAS children and Type I Diabetes people to name a few. Stem cells can also migrate to the brain to become new brain cells. (JAMA Feb 19, 2003)

The abundance of Stem Cells produced internally is enabled by the availability of a new category of necessary nutrition called glyconutrients, specific carbohydrates that are not used for energy.

Research with glycoproteins is exploding. I suggest researching PubMed, the Library for NIH. There are over 400,000 articles on this and related topics. MIT Technology Review magazine has stated that this discovery will change the world.

Perhaps this offers hope to many who can not afford or do not agree with operations involving Stem Cells from other sources.

The stem cell research is still, in the category of achieving the formation of tissue organs, for transplantation. Until this becomes a reality, and practical cure, we can regard this as an unethical way of experimentation, without unknown results. We have to give the stem cell research the benefit of the doubt, and go ahead, but accepting the fact of killing a potential life in formation.

What exactly is partial-birth abortion? Does that mean part of the baby has already emerged and therefore an abortion cannot be performed at that time to save the mother's life?

I knew I could count on Aish.com to take a complicated raging contemporary issue and make it understandable, meaningful and relevant from a Jewish perspective. Thank you!

Dr. Eisenberg:

What a sensible discussion of a very difficult and yet crucially important series of complex medical issues confronting those of us in health care and those without.

You presented a splendid series of logical arguements regarding the potential involved in the circumstances for both good and the obverse results inherent in unchecked or unethical experimentation.

Compelling and cogent.

Mr. White raises a very important issue regarding the term "pre-embryo." Too often, euphemistic terms are used to obscure the ethical significance of patently unethical actions. But, from a Jewish perspective, the terminology of pre-embryo is irrelevant and is only used because it describes the time after in vitro fertilization is performed and before the placement of the embryo in the uterus.
The question from a halachic perspective is NOT "when does life begin," but "when does HALACHICALLY PROTECTED life begin." That is, potential life of the human being begins before conception, in the form of the sperm and the egg. Put another way, if I could potentially take a cell from the inside of someone's mouth and clone a person from it, is every mucosal cell a "potential life," deserving legistative protection? Surely not!
The opinions brought in my stem cell article merely argue that these "pre-embryos" are not covered by the Biblical prohibition of murder. This does not in any way minimize the status of the pre-embryo. They are potential lives and since the there is not unanimity regarding the stem cell research question, it is best to err on the side of caution and not create these pre-embryos merely to be destroyed. But, once they are created as part of the in vitro fertilization process, then we must go after the great decisors of Jewish law, several of whom have allowed the destruction of pre-embryos.

It is amazing what we can rationalize in our own minds in order to soothe our consciences. My question is this, where will it end? If you allow research on the IVF "leftovers" what happens when the scientific community comes back and says that the sample isn't large enough, or that in order to procede they need samples from a broader cross section of society? What will be the next line we cross? Will the industry then pay for eggs and sperm in order to mass produce the quantity and genetic sampling needed? Where will it end?
And the serpent said, "...your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods..."

To paraphrase a bioethicist teaching at a major university: The term pre-embryo is used carelessly as is the concept fertilized ovules.
In fact, the term 'pre-embryo' has had very little to do with scientific rigor since its appearance.
It was coined in 1979 by embryologist Clifford Grobstein, a specialist in the study of frogs, who admitted that in this way he wanted to 'reduce the status of the early human embryo'.
At that time, the birth of the first test-tube baby, Louise Brown in 1978 caused a proliferation of centers of in vitro fertilization.
Because of this, the then U.S. secretary of health, Joseph Califano, arousing ethical concerns about what was presented as human experimentation, called publicly for research on the early human embryo.
Then, Grobstein tried to resolve the concerns by declaring the early human embryo a 'pre-embryo,' namely, a non-person. (We should remember that, in the recent past, millions of Jewish persons suffered horrendously when burdened with the same libelous 'non-person' label.)
Subsequently the term was used in two important international venues: the Warnock Commission in Great Britain, directed to establishing the licit realms of human experimentation and techniques of assisted reproduction, and the Ethical Committee of the American Society for Fertility, of which Grobstein himself was a member.
Then, the scientific literature, both the specialized as well as the popular, appropriated the term, which soon became a most useful persuasive instrument of public opinion on the ethical innocuousness of embryonic manipulation.
In fact, in all the documents favorable to manipulation of the 'pre-embryo,' one can identify some criteria that justified its distinction from the 'real embryo,' which would appear magically on the 14th day of life and after.
Such criteria were based on the observation according to which around the 14th day of life some substantial novelties would occur in the development of the tiny human, such as the completion of implantation in the maternal womb, initiated around the fifth, sixth day after conception, or the increase of cellular differentiation.
But, in reality, biological research itself has established with certainty that such 'progress' in embryonic development does not represent substantial novelties, but is part of the uninterrupted evolution of the organism from the first instant, the fertilization, until the last, the person's death.
From the moment of fertilization and after, the human being has some fixed biological properties: coordination -- namely, the fact of presenting a functionally organized unit according to an established object and autonomously pursued by the organism's genetic program; gradualness -- namely, the progressive constitution through different phases of development of the final form of the individual, according to his own identity, individuality and uniqueness.
These arguments have met with broad consensus in the scientific community, to the almost total prohibition of the ambiguous expression.
Yet, in recent years, the attempts at massive distribution of the morning-after pill on one hand, and the interest in furthering research with embryonic stem cells on the other, have re-established the old debate on the human individuality of the early embryo, this time not strictly at the scientific level, but cultural and political as well.
In other words, we are before a great and conscious lie.
As C.W. Kisher states: The so-called pre-embryo is a false stage of human development invented by an amphibian embryologist for political reasons only. It has no credible scientific justification. Thus, the inclusion of this term into the language of human embryology has become a hoax of gigantic proportion.

This has made many things clearer to me and our family is going through a medical situation now. One life will not be put in danger to help another, only to give the other life. I feel more comfortable.

Very good article, it really opened my eyes about this complicated subject.

Thanks for the article. It helped clear and my confusion over stem cell research.

Thanks indeed for such a well written article that even I can understand!

Thank you for this information.

This is a great point of view, where jewish ethicism,Torah, and humanism
(scientiphic research and progress)are togheter for human life .Great!

God has put us on the earth to enjoy life, in all its pain. To do such things is to insult the processes he has put in place and make our value much less.

THANK YOU THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE PROVIDED ME WITH HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO ME EXPECIALLY IN MRS.BOWMANS CLASS

How can we judge the destruction of something does not yet completely exist as bad. If these have the potential to cure devastating diseases and save live why are we even arguing. The debate should be no more magnified than that of abortion. To create stem cells you destroy the fetus, just as you do when you have an abortion, and the fetus is not a human. I personally value a human over something that is not yet A HUMAN

I needed this exact information for a term paper. Thank you so much!

your website gave me so much great info thankyou very much!

the article gave me information which i wanted regarding the jewish view of stem cells & stem cell research.

It seems that if the present supply of pre-embryos is going to die on its own or be destroyed because their owners no longer need or want them, then they absolutely should be used to restore the health of living persons.

I agree with the person who believes that life should not be conceived in a test tube and with the person who favors research with cord blood. What ever happened to the part of the AMIDAH that states "Baruch atah adonai m'chaye b'hameytim"? It is my belief that G-d alone should decide who conceives and who does not. If my genetic material is meant to be passed along to another individual, it will happen in the natural manner. If potential parents were as selfless as some claim to be, in the case of infertility, they would at least try to adopt. There are couples at my synagogue who have adopted foreign born and hard to place children.
Is there no more to Judaism anymore than the mitzvah of pru'urvu? I have known personally women who have been 'treated' by IVF--one who had an apple shaped body type which, at best, is a body with hormonal imbalance; one who smoked cigarettes and sat on abdominal pain which turned out to be gallbladder disease and was over 35 at the time--you get the picture. Isn't respect for human life or knowledge of the identity of the baby's father also part of Jewish teaching (if an anonymous sperm donor is used, it is very hard to break this anonymity)? I believe IVF itself is wrong. Therefore, I am against stem cell research from embryos, but not with adult stem cells or cord blood.

I've been looking and waiting for a clear explanation of the halachic issues surrounding stem cell research. Thanks for the effort.

Excellent article....while stem cell research is new, it offers great hope in the saving of lives....you say: "thanks to Caesarian sections."...I'm sure there was plenty of controversy surrounding that too in the beginning...God has given us all we need..we just need to LOOK harder!!

In response to the reader who said "We should not be playing around with conception via tubes" - Great torah leaders urge us to use all the technology available for help with infertility problems. Having a baby through IVF is also a direct blessing from G-d. Infertility problems is comparable to any other medical problem. When you are sick, you go to the doctor. You don't sit at home waiting for heaven to heal you - you have to do your part, and G-d will do His. There are many beautiful Jewish children born using IVF.

Your reasoning in the article "Is Stem Cell Research Ethical?" will lead to acceptance of human slavery when science is able to keep the "pre-embryo" alive and growing for 9 months with machines and without implantation into a woman. At that point, a living creature appearing to be a fully-formed human baby would exist. But this creature would not be a human being according to the Jewish law you quoted in your article, because the creature would not have emerged in any way from a woman's body. Hence, it would have no human rights, and therefore could be used by its owner as a permanent creature of servitude (slave.) This ugly conclusion shows (I hope) the fallaciousness of your argument. In your article, you even referred to the fetus prior to emergence during birth as a "baby" (which is accurate). The problem here is caused by the adult humans' postulating an arbitrary point in the continuum of human life prior to which it is not human and after which it is human. The fundamental reality is that it's a human being from conception, with a its own human DNA sequence. Treat the pre-embryonic human being with the respect due it, and the concept of human life will be that much less easily cheapened by those worshipping the god whose name is "Usefullness."

What if we do not need stem cell research and alike? There are alternatives as natural hygiene etc. that helped me personally to avoid loosing my uterus. Many illnesses are the result of bad eating habits and not a misfortune. New treatments are not looking for the real causes (new treatments pay better). Baruch HaShem, I learned about these alternatives in time, so I do not have to live my life without children.

Besides, hospitals often create the complications that lead too often to Caesarian sections.

There are now many interesting web sites, e.g. about natural hygiene, unassisted birth etc... they are worth to take notice of.

Shalom from Israel

It is interesting to view the Torah perspective on new technology.

Why is this an issue at all? We should not be playing around with conception via tubes to begin with. I think HaShem made it very clear that He would bless us with children. Throughout Tanakh He opened and closed wombs. Sara took having a child into her own hands and convinced Avraham to concieve through Hagar. Ishmael, to this day, is still a thorn in his brother's side. Perhaps if we were not playing around with test tube babies the issue you discussed would be a non issue.

What about using the stem cell is cord blood (blood from the umbilical cord attached to the placenta)? I know they use this with certain types of cancer patients with good results. This does not risk the life of a pre-born child. This utilizes something that is usually just discarded. I have much less of an ethical issue with this type of research.

I am very concerned when we start to devalue any life. I look at our nation in despair. We've gone from abortion to save the mother's life to abortion for convenience and birth control. Now we are seeing more children abused and elderly abused. Not even to mention the push for the right to "euthanasia". Where will we stop?
Only HaShem gives life. Who are we to try to control this gift?

I believe that life starts at the moment the egg and sperm are united. A reproductive scientist said he could always tell which embryos took, because there was a minute, brief flash of light that occured in the sucessful ones.I believe it better to be over cautious than not. Let Hashem decide if the sick person is to live or not.

Thank you very much for your thougtful comments. Although your statement about Burr/Hamilton is incorrect, your halachic insight was very helpful.