Rural Public Health Analysis Health And Social Care Essay Free Essays

string(36) happen even before hospitalization. Current State of the Problem Foundation: The number of inhabitants in country Texas is around 3,060,392 which is around 8 % of the whole Texas populace ( 25,145,561 ) . Orchestrating to the US nose check Bureau about 70.4 per centum of area ‘s populace is white, 11. We will compose a custom exposition test on Provincial Public Health Analysis Health And Social Care Essay or then again any comparative point just for you Request Now 8 for every centum is Afro-american, 3.8 per centum is Asiatic, and 37.6 per centum is Hispanic ( 2010 ) . There are around 4044 hospitals in Texas and just a unimportant 149 of them are situated in rustic nations ( 3 ) . In spite of the fact that the rustic networks of Texas have 499 exigency clinical authorities and 303 certify providers and 193 first respondent associations yet at the same time around 21 districts are denied of authorize exigency clinical help association in their nations and just 32 % ( 161 ) hospitals are situated in provincial regions ( 10 ) . The provincial nations are going up against a potential ruin as to exigency administrations. This open health issue is beginning as an outcome of scarceness of exigency clinical prepared staff, inconsistent monetary assets, obsolete clinical gear use and flexibly, geographic obstructions, imparting spreads. The near danger for perish from engine vehicle thump in rustic nations is multiple times higher than urban nations, balanced for sexual orientation, age and sort of clank and 40 for every centum higher hurt related expires in country nations than urban nations ( 6 ) . These measurements mirror the evaluation of interest of value exigency consideration benefits in provincial nations. Doctor Recruitment and Retention Problem: The 2001 investigation by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners expressed there are a total of 196 rustic Texas districts out of which 24 regions had no specialists, 22 had two specialists and 19 of them had simply one specialist. An investigation indicated that the urban nations have multiple times higher figure of doctor when contrasted with provincial nations ( Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, 2003 ) . In country Emergency Department, there are a more noteworthy figure of essential consideration specialists on contract or ephemeral specialists than exigency clinical claim to fame prepared specialists working only a little network. Rustic nations are going up against employments, for example, a large portion of Emergency clinical administrators are non prepared in exigency clinical strength which intensifies the situation other than lead to staffing work. This is mainly occurring as an outcome of insufficiency of monetary assets and particular specialists deciding to gain utilized in urban nations than rustic networks. Other Problem is clinical negligence risk protections in rustic nations of Texas especially in Rio Grande Grade Valley and the South Texas ( 4 ) . Prepared Staff deficiency: Rural Emergency administrations have shortage of EMS experts and around one tierce of rustic exigency clinical powers deliberate. Around 57 to 90 for every centum voluntaries are first respondents in quite a while ( 4 ) . These voluntaries may non be accessible nonstop and are non to the full prepared to oversee complex occasions. This structures a significant test for EMS in light of the fact that a large portion of them are non clinical experts ( 10 ) . On the off chance that we analyze regions on balance of cutting edge life bolster ability so simply 5 provinces have that establishment and 22 regions have fundamental help associations and 45 out of 131 regions have first respondent associations ( 10 ) . It is hard to flexibly exigency consideration administrations for low volume populace with inconsistent monetary assets, inadequacy of prepared staff and essential clinical gear. A few EMS associations despite everything utilize manual defibrillators and are non outfitted with all symptomatic apparatus. Fitting to DHHS, Texas has 3106 authorized land ambulances out of the solitary 22 % are for provincial nations ( 10 ) . Geographic boundaries: One of the a large portion of import property that impacts course to wellbeing consideration in provincial nations is the enormous separation among homes and administrations. The capacity to transverse these separations gets basic in acquiring health consideration. The greater part of the rustic inhabitants shun looking for clinical administrations due to the clasp and cash they need to go in getting rewarded for a particular illness. Language Barrier: In South Texas unconventionally at U.S-Mexico scoundrel part, phonetic correspondence hindrance is another activity looked by country EMS. In excess of 20 percent populace in country Texas is bilingual and Spanish discourse creation populace ( 10 ) . Assets Allocation Problem: Reason for less exigency clinical expert are low wages, longer removals, and geographic inaccessibility. The country networks generally depend on the fundamental exigency administration providers and willful first respondents. EMS is beyond all doubt won in provincial nations contrast with urban nations since they spread bigger nation. They to a great extent get low overall gain so hold to trust on unpaid staff. Since the majority of the main respondents work willful so they can non manage the cost of significant distance travel for exigency. Injury Related Injuries and Deaths: Harmonizing to the Texas Department of Health ‘s Bureau of Emergency Management, in Texas about everyday 30 individuals bite the dust as a result of injury related damages. Injury is one of the taking reason for expires among age bunches 1 to 44yrs. 11,898 individuals passed on from hurt in Texas and in that 68.8 per centum were unwilled perishes ( 4 ) ( 2002 ) . From surveies, if horrendous harmed quiet get mediation from injury focus will hold better chance of continuance ( 2 ) . The above insights mirror that injury are one of the significant reasons for perishes which call for guaranteed going to particularly in provincial nations. Brilliant Hour and Response Time: ‘Golden Hour ‘ is the term utilized for the principal hr after episode occurs. A patient getting mediation inside this first hr of occurrence has more prominent chances of continuance. A casualty ‘s life would be endangered if the hanging tight clasp is expanded for more than 30 proceedingss. The rustic nations have mean reaction cut 18 proceedingss and for urban nations it is 8 proceedingss lesser than provincial nation ( 5 ) . A five twelvemonth study in Arkansas rustic district, 72 for every centum perishes happen at scene as a result of deferred intercession. Reaction cut for urban nation is 7 min. also, for rustic nation its 13.6 proceedingss thus travel cut is 17.2 min and for urban its 8 proceedingss ( 11 ) . The greater part of perishes from injury in rustic nations happen even before hospitalization. You read Rustic Public Health Analysis Health And Social Care Essay in classification Article models Harmonizing to Bureau of Emergency Management at Texas Dep artment of Health, the preventable expire rate in provincial nations is around 85 % higher in country nations when contrasted with their urban inverse numbers. Orchestrating to Vermont and New York city review, the pediatric injury perish occasions is twice in rustic nations contrasted with urban nations ( 11 ) . The data of Texas Department of Health Bureau of Epidemiology ( Texas DSHS ) shows that provincial nations have a reaction cut as long as 2 hours and 16 proceedingss and movement clasp to clinic was 2 hours and 12 proceedingss. 157 of 254 areas of Texas have reaction clasp of around 10 proceedingss and for 151 provinces transport cut is more noteworthy than 20 proceedingss ( 2002 ) ( 10 ) . An investigation led by the National Highway Transportation Administration demonstrated a significant contrast of 98 % in the reaction cut for exigency benefits among provincial and urban nations ( 15 ) . This has been represented in the figure beneath The chart unmistakably demonstrates the difficulty in getting to travel administrations and holding up cut in the country clinics. Medicare and Medicaid: Other occupation is uninsured populace ; around 25 for every centum of Texas Population was uninsured in 2002 ( 4 ) . A heft of rustic tenants are monetarily feeble and are less inclined to hold protection inclusion than urban inhabitants. This proposes the rustic populace will stand up to more noteworthy asset restrictions in getting to consideration. Country tenants will in general hold lower livelihoods, and are ordinarily independent as husbandmans. Other than the worry houses in provincial nations are littler in size and the protection benefits gave by the businesses are more averse to cover the standard wellbeing consideration administrations. Consequently, almost certainly, we can happen more prominent uninsured or underinsured populace in these nations and with regards to getting to clinical administrations they need to pass a gigantic total contrasted with urban populace. Country populaces have all the more maturing populace so they require progressively prompt and solid exigency administrations. In 2001, Texas was top positioned for unsalaried consideration regarding gross patient gross ( 4 ) . Hardware and establishment Problems: From 2002 Texas Department of Health revealed 61 Texas areas have no clinics, 105 had one hospital and 26 regions had two hospitals ( 4 ) . In 2002 Texas Hospital Association led Emergency Care Issues Survey and found that 72 % of provincial establishments had issues reassigning the patients and coordinating ambulances on account of lack of beds. Fitting to Texas Department of Health, there are 131 injury habitats have essential Level IV establishments in Texas State. Level IV injury is essential exigency administration, ordinarily they need gear and prepared staff. The majority of mishaps happen on country streets on account of high speed, wasteful use of spot belts, intoxicant ingestion. The hold in reassigning the patients to hospitals prompts entanglements like pneumonia, sepsis and multi-organ disappointment. Since the country exigency clinical administrations have shortfall of prepared staff the majority of the rustic exigency administrations are working over their ability subs equently imperiling the nature of administrations. Survey of Current Policies Affecting the Subject Government Policies: The Emergency Medical Treatm

Pesticide Essays - Pesticides, Environmental Health, Biocides

Pesticide Pesticides are synthetic compounds that make our produce great, and our yards free of bothers. Nonetheless, this flawlessness includes some significant downfalls to a wide range of individuals. Pesticides are harms with the sole motivation behind executing. They are expected to slaughter weeds, creepy crawlies and parasite. There are three sorts of pesticides called herbicides, bug sprays, and fungicides. Each pesticide has a functioning fixing, and an inactive fixing. The dynamic fixing is the toxic substance that executes he bother, and the inactive fixing is the conveying, or spreading compound. (Nectar pg. 2) Pesticides were once thought of as a marvel remedy for hunger. They should keep crops liberated from bugs, and misquitos leveled out. Individuals didn't know about the risks that these toxins had. DDT* should be a, sponsor for all mankind (Honey pg. 2). There were not many guidelines on the utilization of DDT use. It was even splashed where kids played. It was proposed to slaughter misquitos, yet it wound up harming, in any event, executing individuals. (Nectar pg.2) Elizabeth Rollings says that one of her instructors, Mrs. Keller, had a sister that kicked the bucket from DDT harming when Mrs. Keller was a kid. Individuals came to her home that splashed the shrubs with DDT to control misquitos, and when Mrs. Keller and her sister played close to the shrubberies they were presented to the dangerous toxic substance. Presently a days the U.S. has seen the perils that pesticides have furthermore, prohibited numerous sorts from use in this nation. Be that as it may, the U.S. presently can't seem to boycott them from being made here and sent out to remote nations. Truth be told, 25 tons are sent out each hour. (Nectar pg. 1) There are three primary issues with this: the guidelines are low in the spots the U.S. fares to, a significant number of the individuals in those spots are uninformed of the risks, and the pesticides can return on the produce that the U.S. imports. A particular case of how uninformed the individuals are is an occurrence in Costa Rica. The field laborers in a sugar ranch were not recounted the risks of the pesticides that they applied, and they were not given any defensive attire. A considerable lot of them went shirtless, and in tennis shoes without any socks. They had utilized this pesticide for a few days when numerous started to gripe of migraine and sickness; some started to upchuck blood. One man kicked the bucket, yet luckily the issue was found so as to treat the remainder of the laborers before they kicked the bucket. One more of the issues that emerge from pesticide exportation is getting it back in the produce we import from these nations. 33% of the toxin prohibited in the U.S. returns in what is being known as the hover of toxin, which is when pesticides that are sent out and utilized on produce that arrival on the produce, back to the individuals it was being intended to fend off from. (Scanlan pg.1) To maintain a strategic distance from this, numerous individuals are shopping at wellbeing food stores where pesticides have not been utilized on the food. There is an essential movement that happens when the body is harmed by a pesticide. First there is a biochemical inactivation of a protein. Next this biochemical change prompts cell change. At that point the cell change causes side effects of harming seen or felt in the specific organ where the catalyst that was deactivated was. This changes a body's homeostasis*, and when homeostasis can not be kept up or reestablished, infection happens. Most impacts aren't changeless, however may take a long time to totally recuperate from. Be that as it may, some reason lasting harm. The harm of pesticide harming differs. It can impact only one specific organ framework, or it can impact various organ frameworks.( GTI. Signs of Poisonous Effects. pg 1) Another issue that pesticide harming have is identification. A past filled with being presented to synthetic compounds can cause ailment that can be difficult to recognize from a viral contamination, for example, this season's flu virus. One may go to long without treatment thinking they have an infection that they will in the long run survive, when as a general rule they have been harmed by pesticides, which can lead to more awful and more regrettable harm after some time. Individuals who handle synthetic concoctions every now and again throughout their occupations and become sick, should tell their doctors about their past introduction to synthetic concoctions. (GTI Manifestations of Toxic Effects) The measurements of damage from pesticides are various. Every year 25 million individuals, fundamentally from the Southern Hemisphere, are harmed through word related presentation to pesticides; of those 220,000 bite the dust. Pesticides have been connected to malignant growth in numerous

The Law of the Garbage Truck

The Law of the Garbage Truck One day I hopped in a taxi and we took off for the airport. We were driving in the right lane when suddenly a black car jumped out of a parking space right in front of us.My taxi driver slammed on his brakes, skidded, and missed the other car by just inches!The driver of the other car whipped his head around and started yelling at us! My taxi driver just smiled and waved at the guy. And I mean, really friendly. So I asked, “Why did you just do that? This guy almost ruined your car and sent us to the hospital!”This is when my taxi driver taught me what I now call, “The Law of the Garbage Truck.”He explained that many people are like garbage trucks. They run around full of garbage (frustration, anger, and disappointment, etc.). As their garbage piles up, they need a place to dump it and sometimes they’ll dump it on you.Don’t take it personally. Just smile, wave, wish them well, and move on. Don’t take their garbage and spread it to other people at work, at home, or on th e streets.The bottom line is that successful people do not let garbage trucks take over their day. Life’s too short to wake up in the morning with regrets, so love the people who treat you right pray for the ones who don’t.  Life is ten percent what you make it and ninety percent how you take it!Have a blessed, garbage-free day.Author Unknown

Learn How to Make Crystals With These Easy Experiments

Common Green Rocks and Minerals

Book Review of “Cheaper” by the Dozen Free Essays

The autobiographical book Cheaper by the Dozen was written in 1949. Since then, it has been reprinted numerous times, most recently in 2003. The book, written by Frank B. We will write a custom essay sample on Book Review of â€Å"Cheaper† by the Dozen or any similar topic only for you Order Now Gilbreth Jr. and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey, two of the twelve children of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, is about Frank Jr. and Ernestine’s recollections of growing up, in the company of ten other siblings and two high-powered engineers as parents, in a huge house in Montclair, New Jersey, around the turn of the 20th century. Much of the humor within this book is because the father of this huge family, Frank, is a good-hearted man who loves his twelve children and their antics, but is also an engineer (as is his wife Lillian) by profession, and an â€Å"efficiency expert†. Frank Sr. likes to believe problems and conflicts can be solved in a sort of mechanical way, and sometimes with just one quick solution for every problem (at least that is his theory). Many funny and ironic situations arise from this questionable premise. Still, as the authors of Cheaper by the Dozen recall, â€Å"Dad was happiest in a crowd, especially a crowd of kids† (p. ). But since, as an engineer, Frank Sr. owns a scientific management company, he continually tries to apply his various principles of â€Å"scientific management† at home, with mixed results. In one incident, he does so by taking motion pictures of his children washing dishes and doing other household chores, which he calls â€Å"motion study† (p. 3) in order to study their efficiency at these tasks (or the lack thereof), and then hopefully apply what he has learned from these homemade â€Å"motion studies† to other workplace situations. Frank Sr. lso has each of his twelve children chart their weights and other progress each day, on a â€Å"progress and weight chart† (p. 3) he has put up on the bathroom wall, as soon as they can physically write (which is early, since the father has high expectations of his children in every respect). There is sometimes disagreement between Frank Sr. and the children’s mother, Lillian, which points out some of the differences between them. For example, Lillian wants to save a spot on the â€Å"progress and weight charts† for recording the children’s daily prayers, but Frank Sr. ever the practical man of action rather than contemplation, insists there is no room for that. Many of the funniest episodes in the book derive from these types of conflicts (always rather gentle ones) between the parents, especially since their mother, Lillian, is more relaxed in terms of her personality, and sees everything more individually and perhaps, at times, more clearly as well (although Lillian never directly insists on this to Frank Sr. , but just lets things happen until the truth becomes apparent on its own). Although both Lillian and Frank Sr. re brilliant engineers, Lillian seems to have more personal insight into her children as individuals. And, despite Frank Sr. ‘s considerable â€Å"efficiency†, Lillian often has more common sense. This is perhaps reflected in the way Frank Sr. and his philosophies of â€Å"efficiency† are joked about, much more in the book, than Lillian or her actions or beliefs are joked about. Lillian was an early career woman, and one of the other themes of this book is how she handled, so well, especially for those times, a high-powered career and raising twelve children. Lillian Gilbreth herself, although not the main focus of this book, is very inspiring in that way. The main reason, overall, that I liked this book is because the humor within it is good natured, and the high-powered Gilbreth family, even though it is so large and chaotic, and has its own share of challenges and setbacks, is not â€Å"dysfunctional† in any way, like so many, even smaller, families today. That, in and of itself, is amazing. Whatever is happening, inside or outside the family, there is always love, solidarity, and teamwork within the family itself. The authors also mention how Frank Sr. would never criticize his family to anyone outside the family. Obviously, this book was set in far simpler times than today. For example, as the now grown up Gilbreth siblings first describe their father: â€Å"Dad was a tall man, with a large head, jowls, and a Herbert Hoover collar†¦ † (p. 1). This tells us right away that the book takes place many decades ago, since Herbert Hoover was President in the 1920’s. Even the conflicts and disagreements detailed within the book, which are always described truthfully and in detail, seem humorous, good-natured, and reasonable, especially compared to many kinds of family conflicts today. Also, these conflicts are always agreeably resolved, without any lasting damage to any of the children or their egos. This, also, is truly amazing, since both parents are so busy, not only inside but outside the home. Also, the mother and the father are very different from one another by nature, but as the authors point out, they work well together and do everything well as a team. They are always supportive of each other and their children. Dr. Lillian Gilbreth seems the true hero of the Cheaper by the Dozen family. Frank Gilbreth Sr. died before any of his children had reached 20 years old. Lillian continued raising the children on her own, while working and lecturing full-time. Moreover, she managed to put them all through college. Lillian Gilbreth, amazingly, given both the time and the large number of children she had, also had a very distinguished career in her own right when few women had such careers, and even fewer were also mothers of such large families. Still, Lillian Gilbreth managed to be a loving and attentive mother to all of her children. I found Cheaper by the Dozen to be a very inspiring book, and always very honest and humorous. Cheaper by the Dozen conveys the message that family members who love one another, stick together, and have a sense of humor about things that happen in families, and in life, can make it through anything. Therefore, I highly recommend the book Cheaper by the Dozen as an excellent reading experience for everyone. How to cite Book Review of â€Å"Cheaper† by the Dozen, Essay examples

Culture Analysis free essay sample

Cultural analysis | Vietnam| Individualism | 20| Power distance| 70| Masculinity | 40| Uncertainty Avoidance| 30| Long-Term Orientation| 80| http://www. geert-hofstede. com/ Individualism Individualism focuses on the degree to which members of a culture focus on the individual or the group. In fact, Vietnam is a low individualism ranking type society with a more collectivist nature which means that the individuals bear strong ties amongst themselves. Floreal Knitwear Ltd will have to operate along with the culture and norms of Vietnam in order to lessen the difference of culture. http://www. cyborlink. com/besite/hofstede. htm Power Distance Power Distance concerns the level of equality or inequality amongst people in the society. A high power distance ranking shows that employees are afraid to take risks as they are in a certain way scared of their bosses who tend to be autocratic. In Vietnam, the level of power distance is high and this means that the Floreal Knitwear Ltd will have to operate in an adequate way as regard towards the authority such as the government. We will write a custom essay sample on Culture Analysis or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page http://www. cyborlink. com/besite/hofstede. htm Masculinity Masculinity focuses on how the society reacts to the masculine work which is associated with achievement, assertiveness and material success. On the other hand, femininity focuses more on quality of life and good decision making. In Vietnam, there is a rather low masculinity level which means that Vietnamese prefer quality of life to material success. Floreal Knitwear Ltd will have to take that into consideration while recruiting and managing the organization. They will have to give proper motivation and offer facilities to the employees who will consider it profitable both for the company and his family. http://www. cyborlink. com/besite/hofstede. htm Uncertainty avoidance Uncertainty avoidance deals with the level of tolerance of the society towards uncertainty and doubt. In a high uncertainty avoidance ranking society, laws and regulations are set up in order to decrease the risk of uncertainty. On the other hand, a low uncertainty level shows that the society is more prone to take risks and to accept changes as they are less concern about uncertainty and doubt. Vietnam has a low uncertainty avoidance index which means that employees accept change more easily. This could be a problem as they will tend to change jobs more easily. FLoreal Knitwear Ltd will have to propose a good remuneration and motivate their employees in order to keep them. ttp://www. cyborlink. com/besite/hofstede. htm Long-Term orientation A high level of long-term orientation shows that the employees are characterized by perseverance and are more concerned about the future. Vietnam has a significant level of long-term orientation whereby the employees believe that their present efforts and hard work will pay in the future. Floreal Knitwear Ltd will have to show the Vietnamese the advantages of working for the organization which they will benefit not only in the present time but also in the future. http://www. cyborlink. com/besite/hofstede. htm

Sir Isaac Newton Essays (2693 words) - Copernican Revolution

Sir Isaac Newton Sir Isaac Newton Through his early life experiences and with the knowledge left by his predecessors, Sir Isaac Newton was able to develop calculus, natural forces, and optics. From birth to early childhood, Isaac Newton overcame many personal, social, and mental hardships. It is through these experiences that helped create the person society knows him as in this day and age. The beginning of these obstacles started at birth for Newton. Isaac was born premature on Christmas Day 1642, in the manor house of Woolsthorpe, 7 miles south of Grantham in Lincolnshire. It is said that ?Because Galileo, . . . had died that year, a significance attaches itself to 1642?(Westfall 1). Though his father had died before Isaac was born, he was given his father's name. He was born into a farming family that had worked their way slowly up the ?social ladder?. The Newton's were one of the few families to prosper in Lincolnshire(Westfall 1). At the age of three Isaac's life would take a drastic turn. When Isaac was three his mother, Hannah Ayscough, remarried to the Reverend Barnabas Smith(Internet-newtonia). Isaac and the Reverend never got along and the Reverend would not have a child that was not his living with him. Isaac stayed with his grandparents when his mother went to live with the Reverend in North Witham. His maternal grandmother raised Isaac until he was ten. It is believed that his mother's second marriage and her leaving caused many problems for Isaac as a child. While living with his grandparents he attended day school nearby in Skillington and Stoke. Many cousins and other family members in the area surrounded Isaac though, ?He formed no bond with any of his numerous relatives that can be traced later in his life?(Westfall 11). In 1653 his mother returned after her second husband died. With her she brought one half brother and two half sisters. Although it is not known, bitterness may have inflicted Isaac when his three new siblings arrived. Never the less, two years later at the age of twelve he was sent to Grantham to attend grammar school. While attending grammar school Isaac lived with the apothecary Mr. Clark(Westfall 12). Mr. Clark had three stepchildren from the first marriage of his wife, Miss Storer, who were also living in his house. In school and at home Isaac was apparently different and did not get along with any other bo ys. He was often in fights and remembered only one nice boy from school, Chrichloe. All the other boys seemed to hate him. He was more comfortable in the company of girls. He made doll furniture for Mr. Clark's daughter. From this Isaac's first and last romantic experience developed. ?Indeed, as the two grew older, something of a romance apparently developed between him and Miss Storer?(Westfall 13). From doll furniture Newton moved on to other little machines. He used all the money his mother sent him to buy tools and filled his room with the machines. He fell in love with Mr. Clark's library and would read as often as possible. At times he would spend so much time on projects that he would fall behind in school. When he realized he was falling behind all Isaac had to do was pick up his textbook and would immediately be caught up. Through his machines Newton became proficient in drawing and his inventions steadily became more elaborate. At the age of seventeen in 1659, Newton left Mr. Clark and had another life changing experience. When Newton was seventeen his mother took him out of school and brought him back to the family farm. Trying to teach him how to run the farm and manage the estate was a failure. Newton would always bribe a hired hand to do the work he was supposed to. When he was supposed to be in town selling produce he would go to his old room in Mr. Clark's house a nd read or play with his machines. In all of his spare time he returned to inventing and building machines. Newton's uncle and old schoolmaster saw that he was in the wrong trade and urged his mother to prepare him to attend the University(Westfall

Ethnography Research Paper Conducted at Local Mall McDonalds

Ethnography Research Paper Conducted at Local Mall McDonalds Free Online Research Papers Ethnography Research Paper Conducted at Local Mall McDonalds The ethnography research that I studied took place at the food court. I visited the McDonalds stall in the food court of Pacific Fair Mall on a Saturday at around 1pm. Pacific Fair is the biggest shopping mall in Gold coast, Australia. The food court is located in the first level of the mall. The first level was roofed with some kind of translucent material so that sunlight can come in to the mall; also, it can thwart the customers from rain, especially during the winter. In a square shaped area, the stalls were to be found on the sides leaving a big space in the middle, where, large number of tables and chairs were placed. When alls said and done, it created a cozy feel for the customers. The food court comprises of more than 25 individual stalls, from coffee shops to proper cuisine. The shoppers had a wide range of food variety to choose. Some of the stalls are self service and the others were served by food runners (waiters). There was a lot of running around and quick moves between the counter and the kitchen. Most of them working in the stalls appeared to be younger than eighteen years of old. The reason for young staffs could be, less pay per hour. I was amazed by the fact, most of them wearing black trousers as their uniform, but, the shirt differ from stall to stall. Apart from this, there were people working in blue clothing, looked a little elderly, were cleaning the tables with left over food and the wrapping papers. It was a late Saturday afternoon and the food court was filled with people off all ages, there were families with kids, couples, individuals and teenage groups. I could see different races of people, Asian to African. It is easier to assume people with their cameras clicking some pictures are tourists. Apart from that I could see people of different race speaking Australian lingo, for instance, â€Å"no might (mate)†, â€Å"woudcha? (would you)†. These people could be the migrants to Australia and made Australia a multi-cultural destination. Out of the whole crowd I noticed this group of friends who were loud in laughing and cracking jokes. They got seated before they could order food; I guess this was to ensure a seat due to the increasing crowd. The group was between the age group of 15-16 years old. I was seated between them and the counter, which made it very easy for me to hear their conversation at both ends. The group consisted of three boys and two girls. Out of which, one of the guys was loud and cracking jokes and the other two were listening to him, out of the girls one was listening to the first guy’s comments and the other one was meddling with her hand bag and finally removed a Mobil phone, probably checking her message she must have received on it. This is one difference I have noticed between the two sexes everywhere. No matter how big or small a Mobile phone is, men always carry it in their pant pockets where as women always use their hand bags. The boys were dressed sporty. Two among the three were wearing cap and the other guy was blonde. The third guy had a good hair-style. Among the three, two were wearing t-shirts (Billabong) and the other one was wearing a white colored vest. All the three were wearing surf shorts. And to my greatest surprise two guys were not wearing any shoes. And the other one was wearing flip-flops. Among the two, one girl was wearing a tight top and a short denim skirt. And the other one was wearing sleeveless top and a surf shorts. Both the girls were wearing caps. I was surprised because according to the country where I come from, going places with out shoes is considered as indecent. Also in a big shopping mall it is impossible to find one person without shoes. From their dress code we can assume two points: typical summer clothing and they belong to the popular culture, the surf culture. As soon as after they got their seats, both the girls sat back and the guys got up to take their food orders. In most countries and even the one I come from India i.e. when there is a group of girls and boys the girls rarely get up to order their own food. Most of the boys make use of this opportunity to show their graciousness. The group spent a lot of time looking at the menu board which had the list of the different kind of burgers. After much discussion among each other the boys ordered their food. The girls got a small burger and a salad respectively, but, the guys grabbed the Big Macs. Well this reminded me of a Jack Nicholson movie, in which he positively passes a statement saying women never eat on dates. In agreement to that I can not remember ever noticing a girl eating more than the guy on the table. Every one in the group got a drink as well. I guess which an indication of the increasing heat is. The conversations began to flow again and this time they were talking about the food they had ordered. The boys exchanged bites of each others burgers and took comparatively larger bites. After each one of them started eating their meals the conversation grew less among the guy but the women continued to whisper and mutter words among each other. The boys just quickly ate through their food. Where as, the girl who was eating the smaller burger took really small bites and had longer intervals between them. The girl who ordered the salad plate kept on playing with the food by just mixing everything in the plate using a fork and took equal portions of each vegetable. Conclusively, female have more table manners than guys; no matter which age group they belong. Research Papers on Ethnography Research Paper Conducted at Local Mall McDonaldsHip-Hop is ArtPersonal Experience with Teen PregnancyAssess the importance of Nationalism 1815-1850 EuropeEffects of Television Violence on ChildrenMarketing of Lifeboy Soap A Unilever ProductThe Masque of the Red Death Room meaningsWhere Wild and West MeetResearch Process Part OneGenetic Engineering19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided Era

Choose your favourite decade in make up and hair and explain why Essay

Choose your favourite decade in make up and hair and explain why - Essay Example or Miss. Coming out of the confusion of the seventies with its disco and punk rock, the eighties became increasingly concerned with symbols of power and business. This was encouraged by the privatization of industries and the de-regulation of the stock market introduced as a part of Thatcherism. As a result, the prevailing attitude regarding the economy became one of every man for himself. Electronics were gaining in popularity in many areas of life – synthesizers and keyboards in music, the introduction of the music video and digital animation, computers in the workplace and video games from the arcade becoming available in the home. New innovations in technology including the ‘nuclear age’, innovations in hair gel and mousse and increased use of personal technology made the science fiction shows on television seem possible just around the corner. All of these elements combined together to create a vibrant and outspoken era in hair, fashion and makeup that thrill s me with its energy and innovative symbolism. One of the major influences on 80s fashions was the designer Vivienne Westwood, who developed her talents in the thick of the 1960s and 1970s rock and roll movement in Britain. Her fashions exemplify the sexual freedom and aggressive stance of female expression emerging in the women’s movements that rocked the world at this time. Through her early designs, Westwood discovered that â€Å"there was a dramatic potential in the clothes themselves that could be heightened: laden with associations, biker gear links sexuality, violence and death, in a twentieth century archetype† (Savage, 2001: 28). She began a new line of clothes that were based on these ideas by adding metal studs, chicken bones, chains, zippers and other gear to the clothing she made. Doing this, Westwood became the mother of the punk rock fashions (Savage, 2001: 28). These designs included a heavy use of the corset as a fetish object, frequently making it in leather,

Research Report,what was going on in the world at the time of my birth Essay

Research Report,what was going on in the world at the time of my birth - Essay Example However this did not pen out as hoped and eventually the leadership took complete control of the country and transformed it into a totalitarian state (Kenez 67). There were several issues that had not been foreseen during the creation of the unified state. Part of the group, that was not Russian, resisted assimilation into what would make them a Russian state, and these non-Russian groups made up over fifty percent of the population. The Soviet Union was also in an arms race against the United States of America which saw the economic plan that was drafted to drive the state forward fail. The ideology that this state was built on, that is communism, which was also a big failure as totalitarian rule dominated. Mikhail Gorbachev came into power with the aim of transforming the state, as political and economic issues plagued the soviet union and put it in stagnation mode (Daily Mail Reporter). Gorbachev drafted a reform policy that allowed freedom of speech and he also started to rebuild the economy of the country; sadly, the goals that he had set for the economy did not come to fruition as expected. Giving the people a voice worked against him, they used their new found freedom to criticize Gorbachev’s failure to improve their economy. Their anger was fueled even more by the bottled up emotions of their political past (Gottfried 14). The fall The crumble of the Soviet Union started slowly, first in the areas that were occupied by non-Russians. In 1987, there was a demand for autonomy from Estonia, which was later joined by Lithuania and Latvia. Gorbachev decided not to take any harsh steps against the people who had participated in the protest. The fact that allowing the masses their freedom to do as they will would mean that the Soviet Union had less chances of survival was not lost to him (Sommers 2013). In a short span of time, protests gathered momentum in the Soviet Union. In the southern part of the Soviet Union, the Armenians demanded that they be al lowed to leave the union and join their country, the republic of Armenia. Gorbachev’s government though, refused to give the Armenians the permission to leave. The situation turned into a dispute which became volatile and eventually into a fully fledged war. The result of the protests and wars was a weak soviet union but a group of communists decided to fight and save the Soviet Union from disintegrating. They organized a coup d’etat, this they did by kidnapping their ruler, Gorbachev, and then later announced that he was very ill and could not govern the country anymore (Darraj 85). This statement caused uproar in most of the cities of the Soviet Union and in a bid to restore some peace; the military was called to calm the people. The military also decided to go against the orders and rebelled, they said that they could not fire at their people. After a gruesome three days, the organizers of the coup decided to surrender after coming to conclusion that they could not win the battle without the help of the military. They did not have enough power against the masses in the absence of the military and therefore decided to surrender, and my grandfather, whom I interviewed, informed me of the uncertainty that was felt during this time. He also stated that people all over the world

Ethical Questions in the Stem Cell Debate

Ethical Questions in the Stem Cell Debate The Stem Cell Debate: Ethical Questions The story for the year 1997 was the sacred. We fear a Promethean blunder. We fear that our own human hubris will violate something sacred in our nature; and we fear that nature will retaliate with disaster. To protect ourselves from a possible Promethean blunder by science, we are tempted to stop further research with the commandment: thou shalt not play God! Then, during 1999, we opened the first few pages on chapter two of the cloning controversy story. I will refer to this chapter as the stem cell debate. The debate has only begun. What is not yet clear is just what needs to be debated. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps everything. What is clear is that the fallout from the cloning explosion is still lighting fires here and there. Whether or not the public will add stem cells to the fuel to make those fires burn hotter remains to be seen. Stem cells have become front page news in Australia, as well as in the United States and other countries. On February 4, 1999, the Australian National Academy of Science issued a position statement. Note the structure of Recommendation 1. Council considers that reproductive cloning to produce human fetuses is unethical and unsafe and should be prohibited.However, human cells derived from cloning techniques, from germ cells should not be precluded from use in approved research activities in cellular and developmental biology Here two things are put together. First, disapproval of reproductive cloning for the purposes of making children. Second, approval of research on human embryonic stem cells, approval even in the face of ethical squeamishness regarding embryo research. If this Australian statement is a barometer, we need to ask: what is the cultural weather forecast? What might be coming? In what follows it will be my task to report on the fast-moving frontier of stem cell research within the field of anthropology, agenda questions raised by science that need to be addressed by systematic theologians and public policy makers. I will ask more questions than I am ready to answer. Yet, I believe that such work invested in trying to formulate the relevant question (die Fragestellung) takes us more than just halfway toward a helpful answer. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate Science, Ethics, and Public Policy Edited by Laurie Zoloth Human embryonic stem cells can divide indefinitely and have the potential to develop into many types of tissue. Research on these cells is essential to one of the most intriguing medical frontiers, regenerative medicine. It also raises a host of difficult ethical issues and has sparked great public interest and controversy. This book offers a foundation for thinking about the many issues involved in human embryonic stem cell research. It considers questions about the nature of human life, the limits of intervention into human cells and tissues, and the meaning of our corporeal existence. The fact that stem cells may be derived from living embryos that are destroyed in the process or from aborted fetuses ties the discussion of stem cell research to the ongoing debates on abortion. In addition to these issues, the essays in the book touch on broader questions such as who should approve controversial research and what constitutes human dignity, respect, and justice. The book contains contributions from the Ethics Advisory Board of the Geron Coroporation; excerpts from expert testimony given before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which helped shape recent National Institutes of Health policy; and original analytical essays on the implications of this research. Pros and Cons Debates over the ethics of embryonic blastocysts. Latest Developments The most recent research has shown that there are many options available other than working with embryonic stem cells. Stem cells can be obtained from cord blood or derived by manipulating differentiated cells (i.e. skin cells) to revert them to a pluripotent state. These are alternatives that may help broaden the acceptance of stem cell research. Background In November 1998 the first published research paper reported that stem cells could be taken from human embryos. Subsequent research led to the ability to maintain undifferentiated stem cell lines (pluripotent cells) and techniques for differentiating them into cells specific to various tissues and organs. The debates over the ethics of stem cell research began almost immediately in 1999, despite reports that stem cells cannot grow into complete organisms. In 2000 – 2001, governments worldwide were beginning to draft proposals and guidelines in an effort to control stem cell research and the handling of embryonic tissues, and reach universal policies to prevent â€Å"brain-drains† (emigration of top scientists) between countries. The CIHR (Canadian Institute of Health Sciences) drafted a list of recommendations for stem cell research in 2001. The Clinton administration drafted guidelines for stem cell research in 2000, but Clinton left office prior to them being released. The Bush government has had to deal with the issue throughout his administration. Australia, Germany, UK and other countries have also formulated policies. (Continued from Page 1) Pros The therapeutic cloning. Stem cells provide huge potential for finding treatments and cures to a vast array of diseases including different cancers, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimers, MS, Huntingtons, Parkinsons and more. There is endless potential for scientists to learn about human growth and cell development from studying stem cells. Use of adult-derived stem cells, from blood, cord blood, skin and other tissues, known as IPSCs, has been demonstrated to be effective for treating different diseases in animal models. Umbilical-cord-derived stem cells (obtained from the cord blood) have also been isolated and utilized for various experimental treatments. Another option is use of uniparental stem cells. Although these cells lines have some disadvantages or shortcomings compared to embryonic cell lines (they are shorter-lived), there is vast potential if enough money is invested in researching them further, and they are not technically considered individual living beings by pro-life advocates. Cons Use of embryonic stem cells for reasearch involves the destruction of blastocysts formed from laboratory-fertilized human eggs. For those who believe that life begins at conception, the blastocyst is a human life and to destroy it is unacceptable and immoral. This seems to be the only controversial issue standing in the way of stem cell research in North America. Where It Stands In the summer of 2006 President Bush stood his ground on the issue of stem cell research and vetoed a bill passed by the Senate that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Currently, American federal funding can only go to research on stem cells from existing (already destroyed) embryos. Similarly, in Canada, as of 2002, scientists cannot create or clone embryos for research but must used existing embryos discarded by couples. The UK allows embryonic stem cell cloning. Use of stem cell lines from alternative non-embryonic sources has received more attention in recent years and has already been demonstrated as a successful option for treatment of certain diseases. For example, adult stem cells can be used to replace blood-cell-forming cells killed during chemotherapy in bone marrow transplant patients. Biotech companies such as ACT are researching techniques for cellular reprogramming of adult cells, use of amnionic fluid, or stem cell extraction techniques that do not damage the embryo, that also provide alternatives for obtaining viable stem cell lines. Out of necessity, the research on these alternatives is catching up with embryonic stem cell research and, with sufficient funding, other solutions might be found that are acceptable to everyone. On March 9, 2009, President Obama overturned Bushs ruling, allowing US Federal funding to go to embryonic stem cell research. However, the stipulation applies that normal NIH policies on data sharing must be followed. Despite the progress being made in other areas of stem cell research, using pluripotent cells from other sources, many American scientists were putting pressure on the government to allow their participation and compete with the Europeans. However, many people are still strongly opposed Research Ethics and Stem Cells Stem cells show potential for many different areas of health and medical research, and studying them can help us understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are caused by problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause these medical conditions. Research on one kind of stem cell—human embryonic stem cells—has generated much interest and public debate. Pluripotent stem cells (cells that can develop into many different cell types of the body) are isolated from human embryos that are a few days old. Pluripotent stem cell lines have also been developed from fetal tissue (older than 8 weeks of development). As science and technology continue to advance, so do ethical viewpoints surrounding these developments. It is important to educate and explore the issues, scientifically and ethically. The discovery, isolation, and culturing of human embryonic stem cells has been described as one of the most significant breakthroughs in biomedicine of the century.1 This description would be warranted by virtue of the biological uniqueness of these cells alone—their ability to self-renew infinitely while retaining a remarkable capacity to differentiate into any form of cell tissue. But as well as this, the culturing of embryonic stem cells holds tremendous potential for the development of new forms of regenerative medicine to treat debilitating or fatal conditions that would not otherwise be curable.2 It is somewhat of an irony that the discovery of cells with such a tremendous potential for improving and prolonging our own lives, should bring with it some of the most trenchant and intractable questions about the value of life itself. The harvesting of embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of the embryos from which they are harvested. It results, in other words, in the expiration of the very beginnings of a possible human life. Issues about the value of life emerge here in perhaps their most stark and poignant form in the question of whether life for those already existing should be improved at the seeming expense of a possible human life that has just come into being. Needless to say, what the most ethically justified response is to this sort of question is far from obvious. It is not immediately apparent, either, just what should count as the appropriate criteria for assessing possible responses to it. Indeed, it is even contentious as to what the right concepts and terminology are for framing the central questions. What is clear, though, is that it would be remiss to fail to engage with these questions in a manner that is commensurate with their depth, complexity and importance. With due regard to that, the following discussion provides a brief overview of some of the core ethical issues arising from the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 and to some extent the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002.3 The public debate has focused mostly on ethical problems associated with the destruction of embryos (in the case of the first Bill), and with the creation of cloned human embryos (in the case of the second Bill). The current paper will confine its primary focus to the first set of problems, since many of the salient ethical issues about cloning will arise, as it turns out, in connection with embryonic stem cell research.4 1 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research The paper takes most of the major ethical concerns in the debate to be encompassed by the following core questions: †¢ What, in principle, is ethically at issue with destructive embryo research? †¢ What is important when it comes to judging the value of the potential consequences of destructive embryo research? †¢ In what does the value of the human embryo consist? †¢ Does the means by which an embryo expires—whether it is destroyed or merely succumbs—make a moral difference? †¢ Is there anything morally worse about using embryos created for research purposes compared to using existing excess or surplus ART (assisted reproductive treatment) embryos? The purpose of the following discussion is to clarify some relevant moral and conceptual distinctions connected with these core questions, and to clarify the basic structure of the major views and argument themes that have been developed by philosophers, bioethicists and theologians in response to these questions. Of course, in their more fully expanded form these distinctions and arguments will involve subtleties and complexities that are beyond the limited scope of this paper to address. Nonetheless, the discussion here will hopefully give an impression of where some of those further complexities and subtleties might lie. The Basic Ethical Problem The possibility of destructive embryo research, particularly embryonic stem cell research, presents us with a moral problem because it appears to bring into tension two fundamental moral principles that we esteem very highly: one principle enjoins the prevention or alleviation of suffering, and the other enjoins us to respect the value of human life. As noted, the harvesting and culturing of embryonic stem cells has considerable potential to bring about remarkable potential benefits in the way of alleviating debilitating medical conditions. So, it satisfies the first principle to a very great degree. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that the harvesting of human embryonic stem cells violates the second principle in that it results in the destruction of human life with value (i.e. human embryos). Accordingly, both principles apparently cannot simultaneously be respected in the case of embryonic stem cell research. The question then is which principle ought to be given precedence in this conflict situation. Should we give more weight to the first, and permit destructive embryonic stem cell research because of its remarkable potential benefits? Or should we give more weight to the second, and prohibit destructive embryonic research because it violates respect for the value of the 2 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research embryo as the very beginnings of a possible human life? This, at bottom, is the ethical problem generated by destructive embryo research. Crude as it may sound, responding to this problem calls for a moral calculation—a decision about how the positive value of destructive embryo research is to be weighted, from a moral point of view, in comparison to the negative value (or disvalue) of destroying embryos. Whatever way that calculation is done, it is important to get a clear idea of what moral weight each side of the equation has. This will involve: (i) developing a sound and accurate picture of what the real value is of the benefits of embryonic research, and (ii) clarifying what the value of embryos might consist in, and what, if anything, may be wrong with destroying them. The rest of this paper outlines some of the ethical arguments and philosophical considerations that have been considered relevant to these two matters. Evaluating the Benefits of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Evaluating the beneficial consequences of embryonic stem cell research is not straightforward. There are complexities associated with assessing how realistic the potential of the benefits is, how alternatives with different combinations of benefits and drawbacks are to be compared, and factoring in all of the sometimes overlooked possible consequences of embryonic research. Judging the Benefits Most attention has centred on the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research and cultivation, particularly somatic gene therapy for genetic disorders5, and the generation of replacement tissues and organs for transplant.6 There is no doubt that these outcomes, once realised, would be highly valuable. It is important to keep in mind, however, that currently these benefits are potential ones. A sound evaluation of stem cell research needs to take account of the likelihood of achieving its beneficial outcomes. In matters of science, and particularly, in areas that are newly developing and comparatively uncharted (such as embryonic stem cell research), it is sometimes difficult to settle on those probabilities with complete confidence. It is the nature of scientific discoveries and progress, that they are not easily predicted. Both advances and impediments to advancement can arise unexpectedly. This uncertainty about how real the potential benefits are, needs to be kept in mind wh en weighing and evaluating the consequences of embryonic stem cell research. 3 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Comparing the Benefits and Harms of Alternatives to Embryonic Stem Cell Research Adult Stem Cell Research Whether destructive embryonic stem cell research is the right thing to do or not, will partly depend on what the alternatives are, and how their particular benefits and drawbacks balance out. There is another research program involving adult stem cells that are present in and drawn from bone marrow, brain and gut, and other tissues. Some of these stem cells have a capacity to differentiate into a limited number of different cell types, such as blood cells, muscles and neurones (i.e., they are multipotent), but they have not been shown to be pluripotent (able to differentiate into any cell-type) in the way that embryonic stem cells are.7 This limitation means that adult stem cells offer more limited potential benefits in regenerative medicine and gene therapy, at least from the standpoint of our current understanding and available biotechnology. (But with that said, it is worth keeping in mind the points made above about the limited predictability of scientific advances, including the possibility of inducing adult stem cells to differentiate into a greater range of tissue types.) The harvesting and use of adult stem cells for biomedical purposes, however, avoids some of the ethically and biomedically problematic features of using embryonic stem cells. For a start, harvesting adult stem cells does not involve the destruction of embryos. The extent to which that is an advantage will depend on the extent to which that destruction turns out to be a bad thing, (and this will be taken up shortly). Tissues grown from adult stem cells will be immunologically compatible with the person from whom the stem cells are harvested. This means that those tissues can be transplanted into that person without fear of the body rejecting them. Tissues produced from embryonic stem cells for the purpose of regenerative therapy, however, are unlikely to be immunocompatible with the person for whom they are intended. The immunological properties of the tissue are set by the characteristics of whatever embryo the stem cells are derived from. Apart from the ongoing use of immunosuppressant drugs (with its possible serious side effects), two other potential solutions to this immunological limitation have been suggested. The first proposes a tissue bank with a sufficiently large number of different embryonic stem cell types to generate tissue that can be immunologically matched with different recipients. Hall points out, however, that this would require a huge number of human embryonic stem cell lines (the number being a matter of debate). Such an embryonic stem cell bank would be technically difficult and expensive to generate. The number of embryos that would be required to produce the cell bank would probably test public support †¦ 8. The second possible way of overcoming the problem of immunological incompatibility is through what has been called therapeutic cloning. In this process, the nucleus of a human oocyte or egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of a cell taken from the body of the intended tissue re cipient. The new egg is induced to develop into an embryo, from which immunocompatible stem cells are harvested. The embryo will be a human embryonic clone of the recipient, with all his/her 4 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research exact genetic characteristics. To date, there have only been one or two reported attempts at human cloning that have met with some success. A number of ethical objections have been expressed to therapeutic cloning, all revolving around the creating of an embryo, and moreover, the creating of an embryo for a use that will destroy it. These objections and arguments usually rely centrally on certain views about the value or moral status of the embryo, and these views will be outlined later in the paper. Whatever benefit the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells has in generating immunocompatible tissue, this benefit is likely to be possible only at the cost of having to engage in either the morally contentious practice of human (therapeutic) cloning, or the morally contentious practice of using (and destroying) a large number of embryos to create a sufficient range of embryonic stem cell lines for organ banks. It is especially important to note also, that if the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is passed in its current form, and any kind of human cloning, including therapeutic cloning, is prohibited, there will be less opportunity to maximise the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, and embryonic stem cells will effectively have less of the advantage they would otherwise have over adult stem cells. The Inevitable Succumbing of Surplus IVF Embryos The Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 only permits excess ART embryos existing before 5 April 2002 to be used for research purposes in accordance with a licensing regime. It is a fact about those embryos that they would likely expire or succumb anyway. They would still be destroyed, in other words, but through exposure to natural processes. On the face of it, this looks as if the harm or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not. In each case the embryo will expire. But this impression can be a little oversimplified. Some philosophers argue that there is a moral difference between acts and omissions, between actively killing something, and passively failing to intervene to stop its death from other causes (when one could have). Even though the outcome is the same in each case, it can be argued that there is something worse, or more morally culpable, about actively bringing about the death oneself. There are different views on what the moral difference between killing and letting die amounts to, and there are those who argue that there is no significant difference. Whichever way one comes out on this, it is not clear that the act-omission distinction maps neatly onto the particular embryo research scenario under discussion. Destroying surplus embryos through research is certainly an act. But so too, some would argue, is removing surplus embryos from the cold storage that keeps them from expiring. They would hold that this looks less like failing to intervene in independently occurring causal processes (that will lead to expiry), than an act that sets those processes in motion. If this is true, then the first impression above will stand. The harm or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not. 5 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Some would argue that there is an important logical upshot from this. If the only two alternatives in the circumstances (destroying embryos in research vs making them succumb) involve the same level of harm or disvalue or moral wrongness, but embryo research involves much greater benefits than the other alternative, then it could be argued, it makes sense to opt for the more beneficial embryo research. And indeed, some might construe that as a sufficient case for the moral preferability of that option. (This would change, of course, if the relevant alternatives change—if say, embryos were purpose created for research, which were not pre-existing and destined to be expired).9 Taking into Account all of the Relevant Benefits and Harms The embryonic stem cell debate has been pre-occupied with the biological and medical benefits or drawbacks of that research. Central as these certainly are, there are nonetheless other, often-overlooked non-medical impacts that may be important to factor in. Some of the major among these are possible social impacts including: De-sensitisation to the Destruction of Human Life It is argued by some10 that allowing the destruction of embryos to become an entrenched practice would serve to desensitise the scientific establishment, regulating bodies, and society in general, to the destruction of life in general. An increased social toleration of loss of life, it would be argued, may make it easier for society to accede to (currently) more controversial practices involving the ending of life such as, late term elective abortion, or withdrawal of treatment for severely disabled infants, for example. This slippery slope argument about potential consequences is based on empirical assumptions about the causes and effects of certain social attitudes, and needs to be assessed in the light of their plausibility. Contributions to Social Oppression One strong but minority strand of argument emphasises the impact that biotechnology has on broader social relationships. It has been argued that research should be evaluated not only in terms of its effects on the subjects of the experiment but also in terms of its connection with existing patterns of oppression and domination in society.11 There is a considerable body of writing that explores the impacts of new reproductive technologies (such as IVF) on the interests of women, particularly how those technologies might contribute to oppression.12 In the case of embryonic research, it is sometimes argued that women who donate ova or embryos are at risk of exploitation to the extent that male-dominated medical practice appropriates their reproductive labour for research and commercial benefits. Women are at risk, therefore, of being alienated from their reproductive labour. Moreover, it is argued that womens body parts are at risk of being commodified, and their acts of altruistic dona tion demeaned, if downstream users can develop commercial applications for stem cells developed from their ova and embryos.13 6 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research The Value of the Embryo What weight does the other side of the moral equation have? What is wrong, if anything, with destroying embryos? If there is something wrong with that, is it sufficiently wrong to outweigh or override the benefits of embryo research, and therefore, render that research morally impermissible? Most of the leading arguments about the rightness or wrongness of destroying embryos are based on some view or other about the moral status of the embryo—how the embryo ought to be regarded or treated from the moral point of view, in virtue of it arguably possessing certain morally important intrinsic characteristics. It is relatively uncontroversial to describe embryos as human life (at its very beginnings). It is another thing, however, to describe embryos as persons, or human beings, or potential persons, etc. These descriptions are morally laden in that they carry with them potential implications about what can and cannot be done to embryos from a moral point of view. What those potential implications are, and indeed, whether they are sound ones, will depend on the nature and plausibility of the particular arguments that accompany each view on the moral status of the embryo. There are different views about this moral status. The leading views speculate that embryos have the status of: †¢ persons, or †¢ potential persons, or †¢ divine creations, or †¢ subjects of moral harm, or †¢ the beginnings of human life, with intrinsic value, or †¢ organic material with no more moral standing than other body parts. Each of these will be outlined in turn, with particular attention to (i) what the intrinsic moral characteristics are the each particular view attributes to embryos, and (ii) what these alleged characteristics or moral status are held to imply for our moral treatment of embryos—particularly whether they can ever or never be destroyed. Embryos have Status as Human Beings or Persons Some argue that, despite obvious physical differences between developed humans and embryos, the latter ought still be regarded as human beings or persons. One of the more plausible arguments to this effect relies on pointing out that there is no non-arbitrary point in the physical growth continuum between embryo and developed human that counts as a morally significant dividing line.14 Consequently, if individuals at their fully developed stage are human beings or persons, there is no non-arbitrary ground to think that they should not count as the same at their embryonic stage. Those who hold otherwise, 7 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research according to this argument, need to indicate the developmental point at which personhood, or status as a human being, is acquired. The argument continues that it is a very deeply and commonly held view in modern liberal democracies that individual persons are deserving of especially strong moral respect in certain ways. All individuals, by virtue of being persons, have fundamental rights not to have their basic human interests interfered with in certain ways, and most importantly, their interest in the maintenance of their life and bodily integrity. If embryos have the status of persons, then they too will have rights not to be harmed or killed. Or, put in another way, we will be under a very strong moral obligation not to harm or kill embryos. Most prominent ethicists, philosophers and commentators would agree that persons have a status deserving of strong and special moral respect, protection and dignity. Many, however, would dispute that embryos should be considered persons or human beings in any serious sense. Even if one cannot point to an exact black and white dividing line in human development, it is still reasonable (they hold) to point to the fact that wherever the transition occurs, embryos do not have the psychological, physiological, emotional, intellectual properties that we tend to centrally associate with personhood. Embryos, particularly the very early pre-implantation blastocysts involved in stem cell research,15 do not, for instance, have consciousness, individuality, the ability to reason, or the ability to form courses of action in life and to choose between them.16 Embryos have Status as Potential Persons Some ethicists have a response to the foregoing objection to viewing embryos as persons. It is to concede that embryos do not currently exhibit these properties of personhood, but they will, if allowed to develop and fulfil their potential. To the extent that embryos are potential persons, it is argued, they ought to still be accorded the moral respect and dignity that personhood warrants. This potential person argument Ethical Questions in the Stem Cell Debate Ethical Questions in the Stem Cell Debate The Stem Cell Debate: Ethical Questions The story for the year 1997 was the sacred. We fear a Promethean blunder. We fear that our own human hubris will violate something sacred in our nature; and we fear that nature will retaliate with disaster. To protect ourselves from a possible Promethean blunder by science, we are tempted to stop further research with the commandment: thou shalt not play God! Then, during 1999, we opened the first few pages on chapter two of the cloning controversy story. I will refer to this chapter as the stem cell debate. The debate has only begun. What is not yet clear is just what needs to be debated. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps everything. What is clear is that the fallout from the cloning explosion is still lighting fires here and there. Whether or not the public will add stem cells to the fuel to make those fires burn hotter remains to be seen. Stem cells have become front page news in Australia, as well as in the United States and other countries. On February 4, 1999, the Australian National Academy of Science issued a position statement. Note the structure of Recommendation 1. Council considers that reproductive cloning to produce human fetuses is unethical and unsafe and should be prohibited.However, human cells derived from cloning techniques, from germ cells should not be precluded from use in approved research activities in cellular and developmental biology Here two things are put together. First, disapproval of reproductive cloning for the purposes of making children. Second, approval of research on human embryonic stem cells, approval even in the face of ethical squeamishness regarding embryo research. If this Australian statement is a barometer, we need to ask: what is the cultural weather forecast? What might be coming? In what follows it will be my task to report on the fast-moving frontier of stem cell research within the field of anthropology, agenda questions raised by science that need to be addressed by systematic theologians and public policy makers. I will ask more questions than I am ready to answer. Yet, I believe that such work invested in trying to formulate the relevant question (die Fragestellung) takes us more than just halfway toward a helpful answer. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate Science, Ethics, and Public Policy Edited by Laurie Zoloth Human embryonic stem cells can divide indefinitely and have the potential to develop into many types of tissue. Research on these cells is essential to one of the most intriguing medical frontiers, regenerative medicine. It also raises a host of difficult ethical issues and has sparked great public interest and controversy. This book offers a foundation for thinking about the many issues involved in human embryonic stem cell research. It considers questions about the nature of human life, the limits of intervention into human cells and tissues, and the meaning of our corporeal existence. The fact that stem cells may be derived from living embryos that are destroyed in the process or from aborted fetuses ties the discussion of stem cell research to the ongoing debates on abortion. In addition to these issues, the essays in the book touch on broader questions such as who should approve controversial research and what constitutes human dignity, respect, and justice. The book contains contributions from the Ethics Advisory Board of the Geron Coroporation; excerpts from expert testimony given before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which helped shape recent National Institutes of Health policy; and original analytical essays on the implications of this research. Pros and Cons Debates over the ethics of embryonic blastocysts. Latest Developments The most recent research has shown that there are many options available other than working with embryonic stem cells. Stem cells can be obtained from cord blood or derived by manipulating differentiated cells (i.e. skin cells) to revert them to a pluripotent state. These are alternatives that may help broaden the acceptance of stem cell research. Background In November 1998 the first published research paper reported that stem cells could be taken from human embryos. Subsequent research led to the ability to maintain undifferentiated stem cell lines (pluripotent cells) and techniques for differentiating them into cells specific to various tissues and organs. The debates over the ethics of stem cell research began almost immediately in 1999, despite reports that stem cells cannot grow into complete organisms. In 2000 – 2001, governments worldwide were beginning to draft proposals and guidelines in an effort to control stem cell research and the handling of embryonic tissues, and reach universal policies to prevent â€Å"brain-drains† (emigration of top scientists) between countries. The CIHR (Canadian Institute of Health Sciences) drafted a list of recommendations for stem cell research in 2001. The Clinton administration drafted guidelines for stem cell research in 2000, but Clinton left office prior to them being released. The Bush government has had to deal with the issue throughout his administration. Australia, Germany, UK and other countries have also formulated policies. (Continued from Page 1) Pros The therapeutic cloning. Stem cells provide huge potential for finding treatments and cures to a vast array of diseases including different cancers, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimers, MS, Huntingtons, Parkinsons and more. There is endless potential for scientists to learn about human growth and cell development from studying stem cells. Use of adult-derived stem cells, from blood, cord blood, skin and other tissues, known as IPSCs, has been demonstrated to be effective for treating different diseases in animal models. Umbilical-cord-derived stem cells (obtained from the cord blood) have also been isolated and utilized for various experimental treatments. Another option is use of uniparental stem cells. Although these cells lines have some disadvantages or shortcomings compared to embryonic cell lines (they are shorter-lived), there is vast potential if enough money is invested in researching them further, and they are not technically considered individual living beings by pro-life advocates. Cons Use of embryonic stem cells for reasearch involves the destruction of blastocysts formed from laboratory-fertilized human eggs. For those who believe that life begins at conception, the blastocyst is a human life and to destroy it is unacceptable and immoral. This seems to be the only controversial issue standing in the way of stem cell research in North America. Where It Stands In the summer of 2006 President Bush stood his ground on the issue of stem cell research and vetoed a bill passed by the Senate that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Currently, American federal funding can only go to research on stem cells from existing (already destroyed) embryos. Similarly, in Canada, as of 2002, scientists cannot create or clone embryos for research but must used existing embryos discarded by couples. The UK allows embryonic stem cell cloning. Use of stem cell lines from alternative non-embryonic sources has received more attention in recent years and has already been demonstrated as a successful option for treatment of certain diseases. For example, adult stem cells can be used to replace blood-cell-forming cells killed during chemotherapy in bone marrow transplant patients. Biotech companies such as ACT are researching techniques for cellular reprogramming of adult cells, use of amnionic fluid, or stem cell extraction techniques that do not damage the embryo, that also provide alternatives for obtaining viable stem cell lines. Out of necessity, the research on these alternatives is catching up with embryonic stem cell research and, with sufficient funding, other solutions might be found that are acceptable to everyone. On March 9, 2009, President Obama overturned Bushs ruling, allowing US Federal funding to go to embryonic stem cell research. However, the stipulation applies that normal NIH policies on data sharing must be followed. Despite the progress being made in other areas of stem cell research, using pluripotent cells from other sources, many American scientists were putting pressure on the government to allow their participation and compete with the Europeans. However, many people are still strongly opposed Research Ethics and Stem Cells Stem cells show potential for many different areas of health and medical research, and studying them can help us understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are caused by problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause these medical conditions. Research on one kind of stem cell—human embryonic stem cells—has generated much interest and public debate. Pluripotent stem cells (cells that can develop into many different cell types of the body) are isolated from human embryos that are a few days old. Pluripotent stem cell lines have also been developed from fetal tissue (older than 8 weeks of development). As science and technology continue to advance, so do ethical viewpoints surrounding these developments. It is important to educate and explore the issues, scientifically and ethically. The discovery, isolation, and culturing of human embryonic stem cells has been described as one of the most significant breakthroughs in biomedicine of the century.1 This description would be warranted by virtue of the biological uniqueness of these cells alone—their ability to self-renew infinitely while retaining a remarkable capacity to differentiate into any form of cell tissue. But as well as this, the culturing of embryonic stem cells holds tremendous potential for the development of new forms of regenerative medicine to treat debilitating or fatal conditions that would not otherwise be curable.2 It is somewhat of an irony that the discovery of cells with such a tremendous potential for improving and prolonging our own lives, should bring with it some of the most trenchant and intractable questions about the value of life itself. The harvesting of embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of the embryos from which they are harvested. It results, in other words, in the expiration of the very beginnings of a possible human life. Issues about the value of life emerge here in perhaps their most stark and poignant form in the question of whether life for those already existing should be improved at the seeming expense of a possible human life that has just come into being. Needless to say, what the most ethically justified response is to this sort of question is far from obvious. It is not immediately apparent, either, just what should count as the appropriate criteria for assessing possible responses to it. Indeed, it is even contentious as to what the right concepts and terminology are for framing the central questions. What is clear, though, is that it would be remiss to fail to engage with these questions in a manner that is commensurate with their depth, complexity and importance. With due regard to that, the following discussion provides a brief overview of some of the core ethical issues arising from the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 and to some extent the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002.3 The public debate has focused mostly on ethical problems associated with the destruction of embryos (in the case of the first Bill), and with the creation of cloned human embryos (in the case of the second Bill). The current paper will confine its primary focus to the first set of problems, since many of the salient ethical issues about cloning will arise, as it turns out, in connection with embryonic stem cell research.4 1 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research The paper takes most of the major ethical concerns in the debate to be encompassed by the following core questions: †¢ What, in principle, is ethically at issue with destructive embryo research? †¢ What is important when it comes to judging the value of the potential consequences of destructive embryo research? †¢ In what does the value of the human embryo consist? †¢ Does the means by which an embryo expires—whether it is destroyed or merely succumbs—make a moral difference? †¢ Is there anything morally worse about using embryos created for research purposes compared to using existing excess or surplus ART (assisted reproductive treatment) embryos? The purpose of the following discussion is to clarify some relevant moral and conceptual distinctions connected with these core questions, and to clarify the basic structure of the major views and argument themes that have been developed by philosophers, bioethicists and theologians in response to these questions. Of course, in their more fully expanded form these distinctions and arguments will involve subtleties and complexities that are beyond the limited scope of this paper to address. Nonetheless, the discussion here will hopefully give an impression of where some of those further complexities and subtleties might lie. The Basic Ethical Problem The possibility of destructive embryo research, particularly embryonic stem cell research, presents us with a moral problem because it appears to bring into tension two fundamental moral principles that we esteem very highly: one principle enjoins the prevention or alleviation of suffering, and the other enjoins us to respect the value of human life. As noted, the harvesting and culturing of embryonic stem cells has considerable potential to bring about remarkable potential benefits in the way of alleviating debilitating medical conditions. So, it satisfies the first principle to a very great degree. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that the harvesting of human embryonic stem cells violates the second principle in that it results in the destruction of human life with value (i.e. human embryos). Accordingly, both principles apparently cannot simultaneously be respected in the case of embryonic stem cell research. The question then is which principle ought to be given precedence in this conflict situation. Should we give more weight to the first, and permit destructive embryonic stem cell research because of its remarkable potential benefits? Or should we give more weight to the second, and prohibit destructive embryonic research because it violates respect for the value of the 2 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research embryo as the very beginnings of a possible human life? This, at bottom, is the ethical problem generated by destructive embryo research. Crude as it may sound, responding to this problem calls for a moral calculation—a decision about how the positive value of destructive embryo research is to be weighted, from a moral point of view, in comparison to the negative value (or disvalue) of destroying embryos. Whatever way that calculation is done, it is important to get a clear idea of what moral weight each side of the equation has. This will involve: (i) developing a sound and accurate picture of what the real value is of the benefits of embryonic research, and (ii) clarifying what the value of embryos might consist in, and what, if anything, may be wrong with destroying them. The rest of this paper outlines some of the ethical arguments and philosophical considerations that have been considered relevant to these two matters. Evaluating the Benefits of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Evaluating the beneficial consequences of embryonic stem cell research is not straightforward. There are complexities associated with assessing how realistic the potential of the benefits is, how alternatives with different combinations of benefits and drawbacks are to be compared, and factoring in all of the sometimes overlooked possible consequences of embryonic research. Judging the Benefits Most attention has centred on the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research and cultivation, particularly somatic gene therapy for genetic disorders5, and the generation of replacement tissues and organs for transplant.6 There is no doubt that these outcomes, once realised, would be highly valuable. It is important to keep in mind, however, that currently these benefits are potential ones. A sound evaluation of stem cell research needs to take account of the likelihood of achieving its beneficial outcomes. In matters of science, and particularly, in areas that are newly developing and comparatively uncharted (such as embryonic stem cell research), it is sometimes difficult to settle on those probabilities with complete confidence. It is the nature of scientific discoveries and progress, that they are not easily predicted. Both advances and impediments to advancement can arise unexpectedly. This uncertainty about how real the potential benefits are, needs to be kept in mind wh en weighing and evaluating the consequences of embryonic stem cell research. 3 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Comparing the Benefits and Harms of Alternatives to Embryonic Stem Cell Research Adult Stem Cell Research Whether destructive embryonic stem cell research is the right thing to do or not, will partly depend on what the alternatives are, and how their particular benefits and drawbacks balance out. There is another research program involving adult stem cells that are present in and drawn from bone marrow, brain and gut, and other tissues. Some of these stem cells have a capacity to differentiate into a limited number of different cell types, such as blood cells, muscles and neurones (i.e., they are multipotent), but they have not been shown to be pluripotent (able to differentiate into any cell-type) in the way that embryonic stem cells are.7 This limitation means that adult stem cells offer more limited potential benefits in regenerative medicine and gene therapy, at least from the standpoint of our current understanding and available biotechnology. (But with that said, it is worth keeping in mind the points made above about the limited predictability of scientific advances, including the possibility of inducing adult stem cells to differentiate into a greater range of tissue types.) The harvesting and use of adult stem cells for biomedical purposes, however, avoids some of the ethically and biomedically problematic features of using embryonic stem cells. For a start, harvesting adult stem cells does not involve the destruction of embryos. The extent to which that is an advantage will depend on the extent to which that destruction turns out to be a bad thing, (and this will be taken up shortly). Tissues grown from adult stem cells will be immunologically compatible with the person from whom the stem cells are harvested. This means that those tissues can be transplanted into that person without fear of the body rejecting them. Tissues produced from embryonic stem cells for the purpose of regenerative therapy, however, are unlikely to be immunocompatible with the person for whom they are intended. The immunological properties of the tissue are set by the characteristics of whatever embryo the stem cells are derived from. Apart from the ongoing use of immunosuppressant drugs (with its possible serious side effects), two other potential solutions to this immunological limitation have been suggested. The first proposes a tissue bank with a sufficiently large number of different embryonic stem cell types to generate tissue that can be immunologically matched with different recipients. Hall points out, however, that this would require a huge number of human embryonic stem cell lines (the number being a matter of debate). Such an embryonic stem cell bank would be technically difficult and expensive to generate. The number of embryos that would be required to produce the cell bank would probably test public support †¦ 8. The second possible way of overcoming the problem of immunological incompatibility is through what has been called therapeutic cloning. In this process, the nucleus of a human oocyte or egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of a cell taken from the body of the intended tissue re cipient. The new egg is induced to develop into an embryo, from which immunocompatible stem cells are harvested. The embryo will be a human embryonic clone of the recipient, with all his/her 4 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research exact genetic characteristics. To date, there have only been one or two reported attempts at human cloning that have met with some success. A number of ethical objections have been expressed to therapeutic cloning, all revolving around the creating of an embryo, and moreover, the creating of an embryo for a use that will destroy it. These objections and arguments usually rely centrally on certain views about the value or moral status of the embryo, and these views will be outlined later in the paper. Whatever benefit the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells has in generating immunocompatible tissue, this benefit is likely to be possible only at the cost of having to engage in either the morally contentious practice of human (therapeutic) cloning, or the morally contentious practice of using (and destroying) a large number of embryos to create a sufficient range of embryonic stem cell lines for organ banks. It is especially important to note also, that if the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is passed in its current form, and any kind of human cloning, including therapeutic cloning, is prohibited, there will be less opportunity to maximise the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, and embryonic stem cells will effectively have less of the advantage they would otherwise have over adult stem cells. The Inevitable Succumbing of Surplus IVF Embryos The Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 only permits excess ART embryos existing before 5 April 2002 to be used for research purposes in accordance with a licensing regime. It is a fact about those embryos that they would likely expire or succumb anyway. They would still be destroyed, in other words, but through exposure to natural processes. On the face of it, this looks as if the harm or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not. In each case the embryo will expire. But this impression can be a little oversimplified. Some philosophers argue that there is a moral difference between acts and omissions, between actively killing something, and passively failing to intervene to stop its death from other causes (when one could have). Even though the outcome is the same in each case, it can be argued that there is something worse, or more morally culpable, about actively bringing about the death oneself. There are different views on what the moral difference between killing and letting die amounts to, and there are those who argue that there is no significant difference. Whichever way one comes out on this, it is not clear that the act-omission distinction maps neatly onto the particular embryo research scenario under discussion. Destroying surplus embryos through research is certainly an act. But so too, some would argue, is removing surplus embryos from the cold storage that keeps them from expiring. They would hold that this looks less like failing to intervene in independently occurring causal processes (that will lead to expiry), than an act that sets those processes in motion. If this is true, then the first impression above will stand. The harm or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not. 5 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Some would argue that there is an important logical upshot from this. If the only two alternatives in the circumstances (destroying embryos in research vs making them succumb) involve the same level of harm or disvalue or moral wrongness, but embryo research involves much greater benefits than the other alternative, then it could be argued, it makes sense to opt for the more beneficial embryo research. And indeed, some might construe that as a sufficient case for the moral preferability of that option. (This would change, of course, if the relevant alternatives change—if say, embryos were purpose created for research, which were not pre-existing and destined to be expired).9 Taking into Account all of the Relevant Benefits and Harms The embryonic stem cell debate has been pre-occupied with the biological and medical benefits or drawbacks of that research. Central as these certainly are, there are nonetheless other, often-overlooked non-medical impacts that may be important to factor in. Some of the major among these are possible social impacts including: De-sensitisation to the Destruction of Human Life It is argued by some10 that allowing the destruction of embryos to become an entrenched practice would serve to desensitise the scientific establishment, regulating bodies, and society in general, to the destruction of life in general. An increased social toleration of loss of life, it would be argued, may make it easier for society to accede to (currently) more controversial practices involving the ending of life such as, late term elective abortion, or withdrawal of treatment for severely disabled infants, for example. This slippery slope argument about potential consequences is based on empirical assumptions about the causes and effects of certain social attitudes, and needs to be assessed in the light of their plausibility. Contributions to Social Oppression One strong but minority strand of argument emphasises the impact that biotechnology has on broader social relationships. It has been argued that research should be evaluated not only in terms of its effects on the subjects of the experiment but also in terms of its connection with existing patterns of oppression and domination in society.11 There is a considerable body of writing that explores the impacts of new reproductive technologies (such as IVF) on the interests of women, particularly how those technologies might contribute to oppression.12 In the case of embryonic research, it is sometimes argued that women who donate ova or embryos are at risk of exploitation to the extent that male-dominated medical practice appropriates their reproductive labour for research and commercial benefits. Women are at risk, therefore, of being alienated from their reproductive labour. Moreover, it is argued that womens body parts are at risk of being commodified, and their acts of altruistic dona tion demeaned, if downstream users can develop commercial applications for stem cells developed from their ova and embryos.13 6 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research The Value of the Embryo What weight does the other side of the moral equation have? What is wrong, if anything, with destroying embryos? If there is something wrong with that, is it sufficiently wrong to outweigh or override the benefits of embryo research, and therefore, render that research morally impermissible? Most of the leading arguments about the rightness or wrongness of destroying embryos are based on some view or other about the moral status of the embryo—how the embryo ought to be regarded or treated from the moral point of view, in virtue of it arguably possessing certain morally important intrinsic characteristics. It is relatively uncontroversial to describe embryos as human life (at its very beginnings). It is another thing, however, to describe embryos as persons, or human beings, or potential persons, etc. These descriptions are morally laden in that they carry with them potential implications about what can and cannot be done to embryos from a moral point of view. What those potential implications are, and indeed, whether they are sound ones, will depend on the nature and plausibility of the particular arguments that accompany each view on the moral status of the embryo. There are different views about this moral status. The leading views speculate that embryos have the status of: †¢ persons, or †¢ potential persons, or †¢ divine creations, or †¢ subjects of moral harm, or †¢ the beginnings of human life, with intrinsic value, or †¢ organic material with no more moral standing than other body parts. Each of these will be outlined in turn, with particular attention to (i) what the intrinsic moral characteristics are the each particular view attributes to embryos, and (ii) what these alleged characteristics or moral status are held to imply for our moral treatment of embryos—particularly whether they can ever or never be destroyed. Embryos have Status as Human Beings or Persons Some argue that, despite obvious physical differences between developed humans and embryos, the latter ought still be regarded as human beings or persons. One of the more plausible arguments to this effect relies on pointing out that there is no non-arbitrary point in the physical growth continuum between embryo and developed human that counts as a morally significant dividing line.14 Consequently, if individuals at their fully developed stage are human beings or persons, there is no non-arbitrary ground to think that they should not count as the same at their embryonic stage. Those who hold otherwise, 7 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research according to this argument, need to indicate the developmental point at which personhood, or status as a human being, is acquired. The argument continues that it is a very deeply and commonly held view in modern liberal democracies that individual persons are deserving of especially strong moral respect in certain ways. All individuals, by virtue of being persons, have fundamental rights not to have their basic human interests interfered with in certain ways, and most importantly, their interest in the maintenance of their life and bodily integrity. If embryos have the status of persons, then they too will have rights not to be harmed or killed. Or, put in another way, we will be under a very strong moral obligation not to harm or kill embryos. Most prominent ethicists, philosophers and commentators would agree that persons have a status deserving of strong and special moral respect, protection and dignity. Many, however, would dispute that embryos should be considered persons or human beings in any serious sense. Even if one cannot point to an exact black and white dividing line in human development, it is still reasonable (they hold) to point to the fact that wherever the transition occurs, embryos do not have the psychological, physiological, emotional, intellectual properties that we tend to centrally associate with personhood. Embryos, particularly the very early pre-implantation blastocysts involved in stem cell research,15 do not, for instance, have consciousness, individuality, the ability to reason, or the ability to form courses of action in life and to choose between them.16 Embryos have Status as Potential Persons Some ethicists have a response to the foregoing objection to viewing embryos as persons. It is to concede that embryos do not currently exhibit these properties of personhood, but they will, if allowed to develop and fulfil their potential. To the extent that embryos are potential persons, it is argued, they ought to still be accorded the moral respect and dignity that personhood warrants. This potential person argument