Essay on Addressing Social Factors Affecting Population Health: The Need for Policy Advocacy

Introduction

Policy advocacy and committed resources are important in addressing social factors hat define population health (Williams, Phillips & Koyama, 2018). Socially and financially deprived colloquially in the American society are the most impacted by public policy, and can, therefore, benefit the most from policies that aim to enhance the social conditions that affect their well-being (Williams et al., 2018). There are no federal laws regulating human cloning in the United States, however, there is the exception of laws and policies restricting the federal government from backing human cloning research (Williams et al., 2018). There are seven states that overtly prohibit cloning meant for children production and biomedical research, and one of those states is Michigan (Satkunarajah, 2010). The essay will discuss the political issue related to the legislative process of human cloning in Michigan.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Michigan bars reproductive and therapeutic cloning. The violations of this prohibition can lead to administrative sanctions being imposed by the health department (Michigan State Legislature, 2008). The civil penalties include $10 million and felony criminal charges can attract 10 years of imprisonment (Michigan State Legislature, 2008). Michigan bans the use of state funds for human cloning purposes and further prohibits health agencies from allowing people to engage in cloning activity (Michigan State Legislature, 2008).

A new stem cell discovery has revived the controversy about human cloning; however, technical glitches mean scientists are far from being able to create human babies (Pappas, 2013). One opponent to this debate, Gearhart stated that nobody in their right mind would attempt stem cell surgery on humans since there is no certainty that the procedure might work at first glance (Pappas, 2013). The proponents of the debate on cloning state that cloning human embryos using the stem cell procedure is possible as these cells have the capability to develop into ant tissue within the body. They further suggest that the objective of cloning is to grow fresh cells and tissues from patients suffering from leukemia and other complex ailments (Pappas, 2013).

Many scientists have always embraced the idea of applying induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS) and dispel the notion of legalization of abortion. However, the opposers indicate that these researches if legalized in Michigan may have certain disadvantages, such as researchers not being certain how the immune system might be responding to iPS cells, therefore there is no reason for allowing any human cloning procedures either for research purposes or to create babies (Acosta & Golub, 2016).

H.R. 3498- Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2015

Mr. Harris presented an amendment motion on the bill that prohibits human cloning in Michigan and the other six states (House of Representatives, 2016). There were several findings that were cited by Congress; They stated that several people have reported that they will progress with the attempts to clone human beings using the method referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer, which has already been used to the least measure in sheep and other animals (House of Representatives, 2016). Almost all scientists conform to the notion that cloning attempts to pose a great risk of producing children who are not yet born or severely disabled (House of Representatives, 2016). The Congress also finds that the measures to create human beings through cloning epitomize a new and decisive step of turning human reproduction into a manufacturing procedure, where children are made in laboratories (House of Representatives, 2016). They also discovered that the idea of creating human life merely to be destroyed through stem cell procedures is morally unacceptable just like abortion (House of Representatives, 2016).

Article 1 and section 27 of the Constitution of Michigan (1963) maintains the ban on human cloning (Michigan State Legislature, 2008). However, the law stated that all Michigan citizens intending to have or practice stem cell therapies or cures must ensure they physicians and researchers conduct medical research in Michigan and the procedure should be done safely and ethically (Michigan State Legislature, 2008). The constitution also prohibits any stem cells from being taken from a human embryo more than fourteen days after the cell division starts (Michigan State Legislature, 2008).

Over the past five years, different studies have shown that a mouse and human stem cells can spontaneously organize in a dish into 3D structures that are the same as the original mouse. In the last year or so, scientists have taken a great step forward using mouse models (Rivron et al., 2018). They have incorporated tissues into models that resemble the placenta (Rivron et al., 2018). However, these models raise a profound ethical question on whether it could also work out on humans (Rivron et al., 2018). Proponents of the idea of human cloning suggest that scientists can use model embryos to unravel several basic principles, such as the notion of placenta supporting embryo development (Rivron et al., 2018).

The Michigan State Senate ultimately passed a law that would ensure tight monitoring and regulation of research using stem cells obtained from human embryos (Satkunarajah, 2010). The law bans the sale or buying of human eggs and would also need research facilities to document annual reports listing the exact number of human embryos they have stored and any other related information (Satkunarajah, 2010). The legislation also includes provisions for civil fines rising to $5,000 and would make some violation felonies punitive by a year in prison (Satkunarajah, 2010).

The bill was passed in a Republican-led Senate by a 25-12 vote and is set to move on to the Democrat H.R. The Democratic Speaker Andy Dillon stated that the approach by the Senate members appears to be politically instigated and does not incorporate the will of the citizens (Satkunarajah, 2010). Nevertheless, the supporters in the Senate underscored that the new legislation is meant to provide a clear meaning on a vague section of proposal 2, to permit the use of stem cell research but in a close guarded manner (Satkunarajah, 2010). Morrison, a director at the University of Michigan Life Sciences castigated the regulation due to its action of blocking the main steam research on stem cell and yet we need the economy to grow and advance the medical sector to tackle ailments, such as leukemia (Satkunarajah, 2010).

However, they find it hard to implement these kinds of ideas due to the strict Michigan legislature that strongly resolves that human cloning should not be practiced on humans (Rivron et al., 2018). Ultimately, personal jurisdictions will need to develop their own policies and regulations, putting their values and priorities at the base (Rivron et al., 2018). Despite the efforts by the proponents to illustrate the benefits of stem cells in advancing the medical sector, the opposers are still firm. Some even urge the Michigan legislature to cut further the funding for stem cell research and urge the regulators to ban the application of stem cell-based entities for reproductive goals (Rivron et al., 2018). The scientists intending to use human stem cells on ailing patients should first send some of these samples to a local independent oversight committee, in this case, Michigan State to expedite and authenticate whether it is ethical to carry on with the procedure (Rivron et al., 2018).

In conclusion, the paper has provided an analysis of political issues related to the legislative process of human cloning in Michigan. The decision of Michigan State Senate to pass a law that would ensure tight monitoring and regulation of research using stem cells obtained from human embryos sparked a debate between the Republicans and Democrats. The democrats stated the decision to pass the law did not incorporate the will of the citizens. For example, the possibility of advancing stem cell research in an attempt to provide a cure for complex ailments, such as various forms of cancers, bone marrow disorder, etc.

References

Acosta, N. D., & Golub, S. H. (2016). The new federalism: state policies regarding embryonic stem cell research. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 44(3), 419-436. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5812675/

House of Representatives. (2016). Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3498/text

Michigan State Legislature. (2008). Section 27 of the Constitution of Michigan of 1963. Retrieved from: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(nkk2hotor4aslvpdms2cwqsq))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-Article-I-27

Pappas, S. (2013). Human Cloning? Stem cell advance reignites ethical debate. Retrieved from: https://www.livescience.com/34487-human-cloning-stem-cell-ethics.html

Rivron, N., et al. (2018). Debate ethics of embryo models from stem cells. Retrieved from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07663-9

Satkunarajah, N. (2010). Michigan Senate passes stem cell regulation bill. Retrieved from: https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_92310

Williams, S. D., Phillips, J. M., & Koyama, K. (2018). Nurse advocacy: adopting a health in all policies approach. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 23(3). Retrieved from: http://ojin.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/ANAMarketplace/ANAPeriodicals/OJIN/TableofContents/Vol-23-2018/No3-Sept-2018/Policy-Advocacy.html