This is so crazy how relevant this is to our project, but I saw this news story shared on my Facebook newsfeed: Link here because I can’t embed the video for some reason.
While we’re working on telling the story of artificial hearts in the Texas Medical Center, at the same time researchers in the Texas Heart Institute right here in Houston are taking heart transplants to the next level. Bypassing even a total artificial heart transplant, they are now using stem cells to manipulate pigs’ hearts into hearts that can work in humans. In the video, you can see so far they have successfully been able to transforms the cells the pig’s heart into a mold of a human heart and the next step is to insert cells inside the heart so that it will properly perform the pumping functions. It was crazy how the reporter was able to hold this modified heart (still white from being grown by stem cells) and squeeze it like it was a toy.
However, the meat of the piece started when the reporter started questioning Dr. Doris Taylor, the head researcher, on the ethical implications of conducting this stem cell research. I was surprised at how quickly Dr. Taylor defended her work, probably because this was a commonly asked and attacked question. Instead of thinking about the lives that may be lost by using stem cells, she reasoned that because she had the ability and the tools able to save lives, even if those tools were stem cells, it would be “morally wrong not to go forward using those tools”.
I noticed in this video how they utilized emotional (ethos) and moral (pathos) appeal to convince the viewer to support the stem cell research. The beginning of the news piece features a young woman who, suffering from a terminal heart disease, waited and eventually received a traditional heart transplant from a dying man. I was kind of confused at first because I thought the news piece was going to be more of this young woman’s story but instead turned into a news story about stem cell research. However, they brought her back at the end of the piece and asked her if she would support someone getting a heart made out of stem cells, and with tears in her eyes, the patient talked about how lucky she was to get a heart and how if it was possible in any way for others in need to get the same she was all for it. Now, I do have my own opinions about whether it’s morally right to conduct stem cell research and I won’t be sharing it here, but to me it was an obvious storytelling tactic to get viewers to sympathize and support stem cell research.
The concept of ethical conduct in research and treatment has been an ongoing issue for the physician. Dr. Akers faced similar concerns and backlash when he performed testing of artificial hearts on animals and in society today the hot topic is the consequences of using stem cells. I am not a medical student, but I have heard that when a student first enters medical school they must recite the Hippocratic Oath that states they will vow to take care of the patient as best they can and do no harm to them. But for the physician (and the government), is the best way possible a solution that involves stem cells and should stem cell research be considered unfairly taking a life from another to save someone else? Or is it indeed is morally wrong not to use whatever means possible to save a person’s life?