Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:29:56.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use and Abuse of Empirical Knowledge in Contemporary Bioethics: A Critical Analysis of Empirical Arguments Employed in the Controversy Surrounding Stem Cell Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2003

JAN HELGE SOLBAKK
JAN HELGE SOLBAKK
Affiliation:
Jan Helge Solbakk, M.D., Th.M., Dr. Philos., is Director and Professor at the Center for Medical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for International Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Norway
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In two articles about the controversy surrounding stem cell research, Søren Holm claims that no argument has so far been advanced in the debate to justify the necessity of destructive research on human embryos for the therapeutic potential of stem cell research to be achieved, and that it is up to the scientists themselves to produce “convincing arguments” for their case. This seemingly defeatist statement on behalf of bioethics originates from the viewpoint that neither a reiteration of old arguments about the moral status of the human embryo nor the generation of new arguments of the same kind are likely to have any positive bearing on the controversy; on the other hand, the impact of science on the current debate is unquestionable, due to three “partially independent” developments:

Type
SPECIAL SECTION: BIOETHICS AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , October 2003 , pp. 384 - 392
Copyright
© 2003 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)