Stem cells have aroused a great deal of controversy over the past years. Questions have been raised about whether or not cloning is appropriate and which stem cells are ethical to use. Aside from the question regarding their usage, there is also conflict surrounding the benefits that come from the use of stem cells.
When people donate embryos to research for differentiating into stem cells they get some sort of payment. This payment usually covers travel expenses, etc. and does not go much beyond that. Conflicts arise when something is produced in the research of those stem cells and it is commercialized. There would now be a profit to be made from the originally donated embryos. This could be a huge market because of stem cell research now holding the power to create possible treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s and cancer. The questions are: is it appropriate for the donors of the embryos to receive part of this profit? Should a specific percentage be set up in advance in the occurrence of a profit? How much money is too much?
I think it is only acceptable for the contributor to receive part of the profit if the agreement had been made before the embryos were donated. It would be unfair to give the embryos and then to suddenly decide to become involved again once a profit was recognized. There would have to be a constant connection (at minimum in the form of a contract stating what money would be owed). For example, when people were donating to the human genome project, there was a huge conflict when patents were made for DNA sequences. There were issues because individuals felt that they had rights to part of this patent since it was discovered using their donated genes. It would also be difficult to decide on an appropriate percentage of the profit for the donator to receive. It would not be a conflict when dealing with a small profit, but when the profit reaches, lets say millions of dollars, and the originally predicted small percentage of this profit is now a huge sum of money, it would become a problem. Offering the possibility of such a large sum of money could skew the types of people who donate embryos and might draw in people who are only interested in the money (this would border on coercion). Those individuals with less money may begin to feel obligated to make such donations in order to earn a living, and the donation may not really occur willingly. It would be difficult to determine what amount of money is considered “too much.”
References:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12790728/Stem-Cell-Research-For-the-Benefit-of-Today-and-Tomorrow
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=740804
2 comments:
Coercion Through Monetary Compensation
I do not agree that donors of stem cells should be given monetary compensation. Giving any amount of money would violate medical ethics as presented in both the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont report. No matter how much money is promised, the idea that monetary compensation could be given may affect some individuals’ decisions. Promising any amount of money would thus violate the principle of freedom of consent without coercion.
You argue that some amount of money can be given as long as it is not “too much.” However, the issue is that there is a wide variation in what different individuals in society perceive as temptation enough for them to donate stem cells or any other organ. Reducing the (possible) amount of money given to the donors would only serve to target more and more socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals as these individuals would be the ones who find the monetary incentive attractive enough to donate stem cells etc.
On a slightly different note, I also believe that the choice to participate in experiments such as those involving stem cells should be made with the greatest possible altruistic intentions. Ideally, individuals would donate stem cells for the good of society, not for any personal reasons or gains. The possibility of getting money would skew individuals’ choices and would also take the nobleness out of the act of giving of oneself for society.
I have to disagree with Wynne on this one. Given how stalled and stunted stem cell research has become, employing incentives for donations is entirely justifiable. It is standard practice in other areas of medicine and human research to provide compensation for participation, from psychological testing to taking part in experimental drug trials. Compensation for the donation of sperm and eggs is widely practiced. Medical research, to a certain extent, hinges on the presence of a large population of willing subjects or donors, and it seems unlikely that the same population would continue to exist with the removal of any sort of monetary incentive.
The idea of coercion to apply in this case would require those conducting the study to take a much more active role, threatening or cajoling an individual, enforcing participation rather than making it more attractive. Even hyping the "nobility" of uncompensated participation or donation is itself a form of coercion, if you choose to define it as you do, because it indicates some sort of reward, intrinsic or otherwise. To assign monetary value to one's participation does not co-opt the nobility of the action, and if it does, the end result remains the same. As much can be learned from an embryo donated in exchange for a check as from an embryo donated in exchange for the comfortable knowledge that one is advancing human medicine.
Post a Comment