Paralysis, Roman Reed, and a ban on stem-cell research

Reed, Don C.

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16639-7

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, by writing ‘It is far from clear that the promises [of stem cell research] are ever likely to be fulfilled’ 1 , Cregan tries to belittle ‘what may well be the greatest advance in medical history’ 2 . Indeed, in view of the findings of recent studies, it has lately been stressed that ‘Each potential use of stem cells promises revolutionary advances’ 3 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics of embryonic stem cell technology: science versus philosophy

Baschetti¹

2005

Internal Medicine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics of embryonic stem cell technology: science versus philosophy

Baschetti¹

2005

Internal Medicine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issues in Development

Rugh¹

2012

International Development in Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolutionary, Biological Origins of Morality: Implications for Research with Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Baschetti¹

2005

Stem Cells and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical research with human embryonic stem cells, despite its enormous potential to reduce human suffering, is banned in many countries and heavily restricted in others. "Moral reasons" are invoked to justify bans and restrictions on this promising research. Rather surprisingly, while those moral reasons have been extensively discussed and hotly debated in several papers, not a single article on the moral aspects of that research has attempted to answer this fundamental question: What is morality? Considering that a scientifically objective definition of morality is essential to determine whether those moral reasons are justified or groundless, this article focuses on the evolutionary origins of morality and its biological basis. Morality arose as a selectively advantageous product of evolution and preceded all religions and philosophies by millions of years. For the 99% of humankind's evolution, morality was axiomatically aimed at reducing the sufferings of the social members, because pains and afflictions, as expressions of diseases and impairments, tended to hasten the extinction of the small ancestral groups, which characteristically consisted of a few tens of members. Had the therapeutic use of human embryos been available in remote times, our ancestors would have deemed it unquestionably immoral to save amorphous and microscopic agglomerates of insensitive cells representing neither parental nor social investment, at the expense of the lives of the suffering members of their little communities. Unless we venture the untenable thesis that the unlikelihood of extinction of our immense societies entitles us to overturn the meaning of morality, we cannot but conclude that bans and restrictions on research with human embryonic stem cells are patently immoral.

show abstract

Paralysis, Roman Reed, and a ban on stem-cell research

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Ethics of embryonic stem cell technology: science versus philosophy

Ethics of embryonic stem cell technology: science versus philosophy

Issues in Development

Evolutionary, Biological Origins of Morality: Implications for Research with Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About