posted on August 9, 2001 09:47:53 PM new
Hiya Krafty!
Spaz, I have always heard just the opposite. That some of our medical advancements have been made because of the information found.I guess I'll have to find out.
Really, I do not see how that relates to this. Those were fully grown,fully healthy human beings that the Nazis so horribly used for their hideous research. These are cells about to be thrown into the trash. I just do not see it the way you do.
Maybe the best answer is to not allow the creating of the petri dish embryos in the first place. The world really does have enough humans and there is always adoption for infertile couples. Why make any that have to be thrown out at all?
posted on August 9, 2001 09:57:40 PM newMaybe the best answer is to not allow the creating of the petri dish embryos in the first place. The world really does have enough humans and there is always adoption for infertile couples. Why make any that have to be thrown out at all?
I agree completely, Rawbunzel. I personally think in vitro fertilization is bad business, largely because of the left-over or wasted embryos, or even those that are implanted with the expectation that some will not survive.
posted on August 9, 2001 10:25:15 PM new
I'm in support of making gains in the area of medicine. If we can do this using stem cells, then I feel we should.
My reasoning. I'm 43 years old and when I was 27, I was diagnosed with End Stage Renal Failure. This is commonly known as kidney disease. I am alive today due to medical research that started in the 1950's. I have since had 2 kidney tranplants. While I was waiting for the second transplant, I was on dialysis for 4 years and 11 months. My health was in jeopardy due to this. I WAS A PRISONER IN MY OWN BODY. Finally, two very brave parents in an act of great courage donated thier 8 year old daughter's organs. I was very fortunate to match her in all the elements needed for a transplant. That was in 1994. I've been doing great ever since.
Think of this. In 1953, before TV remote controls, mircowave ovens, cell phones and home computers, experiments in kidney dialysis were first conducted. One of the first was involving a set of indentical twins. One with kidney failure and the other without. They were joined together using I.V. tubes to test the outcome of blood poisons of the twin with failed kidneys. Today, people are saved using modern fully electronic dialysis machines. This would not have happened without first these early procedures. I'm quite sure there were people in 1953 who thought this was an absolutely horrible idea.
Also, one should think of the graying of America. The elderly are the fasting growing segment of the population. This is due to the post WW2 baby boom. In my mind, it would be nice to see a cure for Alzheimer's Disease. I really don't believe that anyone who opposes stem cell research feels the Alzheimer's is a better option for their parents or grandparents. If you do, then go visit a nursing home and see for yourself people who were completely healthly 10 years ago and can't recognize their own children today.
Also, I beleive that people who are opposed to animal testing should step to the front of the line to volunteer to be the test subject. People who take this position fail to recognize that the vacinations they've had as children, that keep them healthy today, were first used on animals.
One final thought. In my having kindey disease, I did nothing to abuse my body or health. Such a condition may strike someone you know. This could be you, a parent, spouse, or your child. THINK ABOUT IT!
posted on August 9, 2001 10:32:24 PM newAlso, I beleive that people who are opposed to animal testing should step to the front of the line to volunteer to be the test subject.
Im very happy that you are doing better, believe me, I am. However, I am against animal testing and no, I have no desire to step to the front of the line. Why should I? The one who needs whatever they are testing for should be the one to step to the front, not I. The animals are tortured, and I cringe just thinking about it. They have no say. Need experiments to save your life or make you well? Then YOU be the guinea pig.
posted on August 9, 2001 10:33:39 PM new
I'm glad that this thread started out this way. During the speech, I was reminded of the scientific research that was performed on jews and others at the death camps during WWII and that several years ago, some researchers wanted to use that information obtained in horror. The debate was that no such research could possibly be duplicated without repeating the same atrocities.
It was finally decided to not use the research, as it would have done more than simply justify what took place to create such research, but also it opened up the doors to very unehtincal practices by doctors, scientists, and other types of researchers. There has to be a limit on what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to science.
So, since the "crime" is already done -- it's morally OK to just go ahead and do the research? The camel's nose sticking in the tent. Where will we draw the lines the next time?
posted on August 9, 2001 10:40:19 PM new
Yes. Thousands if not tens of thousands of lives are saved or extended today by means developed through research using live tissue from all sources who could not have benefited from those means as little as ten years ago.
Even several posters to these forums are included with those, or hope to be.
The comparisons between the work being done in directed research now and the tortuous acts performed essentially out of curiousity by Nazis 50 or 60 years ago is not valid or relevant. Those 'experimentors' did not have available the scientific wherewithall to make use of anything that they discovered and were different from children putting frogs into hot water to see how long they would survive only by horrific degree.
posted on August 9, 2001 10:57:57 PM new
The donated embryos had been placed inside a mother's womb but did not attach and were therefore doomed to be detroyed, but was saved for science instead. What is to keep the fertility doctors from adding "a few extra" fertilized eggs in a woman's womb, knowing that the chances are good that they won't attach and would then have more embryos to provide for research -- for a small fee, of course?
posted on August 9, 2001 11:03:40 PM new
Where did you find that information Borillar? I heard that the embryos had never made it out of the petri dish into the womb. If they had been implanted and then not attached to the mothers womb they would have been expelled, most likely down the toilet.
posted on August 9, 2001 11:13:51 PM new
Why do people have to go to the nth degree with this? This mad scientist thing just doesn't happen. Promoting stem cell research doesn't lead to crazy experimentations on growing fetus's, newborn babies, etc., etc. It is what it is and nothing more.
You have obviously been blessed with good health, and that's great. However, I beg to differ. You indicated "Need experiments to save your life or make you well? Then YOU be the guinea pig." I don't think most people here agree with you!
The simply fact of the matter is that when a human being is in need of medical attention and life hangs in the balance, organized research needs to be done IN ADVANCE of the need and not at the time of the need.
Here's an example. In past threads, you've said you refuse to wear seatbelts while in a car. However, if you in a car accident and suffered injuries and in horrible pain, when in th ER, I'm sure that most people reading this thread would agree with me, that YOU would take ANY pain releiver that the ER doctor could give you. You WOULD NOT question the doctor about the history of the medicine and how it was developed, or if it was ever first tested on amimals.
Or should the doctor ask you while you're in a horrible state of pain if you would like to try this new experimental drug that may not work. I know, and everybody else knows that to end your agony you will take the proven drug to end pain. You would take this even if the drug was used in animal testing.
If you have ever had any surgery in your life, you have had drugs to lessen or elimante pain. These of course were first used on various animals. So was your childhood vacine that's keeping you healthy today.
So to tell me to step to the front of the line is probally not realistic when in fact YOU have benefited from this research. There is no way of getting around this because it's a fact.
posted on August 9, 2001 11:32:40 PM new
This is an issue that I've just started exploring recently so I have a lot more questions than answers right now.
If I understand correctly the cells that would be used for this work would not "live" whether they were in the trash, in a dish, or used in the test lab. So, I'm not following how this is such a problem?
I guess it could be abused but I don't know of much in this world that doesn't at least have the potential to be abused. I thought that the main reason it was important for the President to grant funding was to place it under a more protective umbrella? I mean, whether he made this decision or not the research would still continue as it already is.
posted on August 9, 2001 11:37:15 PM new
Well, Dag nab it. I refuse to wear make up that was tested on animals.
They generally would not do the testing in the ER. I am pretty sure it could be done as it is now for some things.those that have the illness try the drug or treatment.Many people with with terminal illnesses want to participate in the testing of new drugs that could lead to a cure for the disease they have that is killing them. Alas, the drug must be tested for years on animals befor it is deemed ok to test on humans. WHY? The terminal patient would be a much better choice to try the drug IF THEY WANT TO.
posted on August 9, 2001 11:40:59 PM new
Yeager, not being in that position, I dont KNOW what I would do. You made some good points, but lets go another way for a moment. If I was in extreme pain, no, I probably would not ask. But, if I had to take a certain medication and the doctor told me BEFOREHAND what experimentation had to be done on an animal in order for to know the effects, no, I would not take it. Yes, the immunizations I had as a child is what keeps me safe from the illnesses back then, but as a child, I had no choice, did I? Would I take them again now, as an adult? Depends on what was done to find out about it.
For example, I do NOT wear makeup that is tested on animals. Mascara that is injected into a rabbits eyes and it screams with pain, just to see if it will smudge? I think not. Personally, I would love to inject that same mascara in the eyes of the person doing the injecting in the animal.
Everyone has something they feel very strongly about. Mine is animals. I dont like to talk abuot it, because it makes me crazy just thinking of the hurt and pain they experience.
I hope I dont ever have to make a choice of animal experimentation or pain to myself, because if I did, I would be experiencing a helluvalot of pain, since I would refuse it.
posted on August 9, 2001 11:44:14 PM new
On a lighter note...Im curious yeagar. Is that how you "view" me? the poster who doesnt wear her seat belt? You have a good memory, and Im LOL that you remembered that. Hell, I forgot about it myself until you said so. BTW..I wear it now. I got myself in the habit after I got a ticket awhile back for NOT wearing one
posted on August 9, 2001 11:46:35 PM new"But stem cell research is not a cure for suffering. It is simply a trade-off -- the taking of some lives to possibly alleviate suffering in the lives of others"
I understand the oopsie theory and it could be a valid concern, but I have to ask what do you suggest they do with this poor embryos?
As I have said many times, I think the real shame is in allowing so many embryos to be "created" outside the place it should naturally occur! Invitro fertilization has been going on for a long long time and nobody seems to concerned.
There have even been custody battles over them because somebody is afraid someone will use them to create a child that they might end up financially responsible for! Can you believe that?
posted on August 9, 2001 11:47:45 PM new
Also, Im inclined to agree with what rawbunzel said. If I was told I needed a cure for something, but all they have been doing so far was on animals, the first thing I would do is volunteer MYSELF. How can they find a cure on an animal that is NOT human? That is what I meant when I said "if you have an ailment then YOU be the guinea pig". And I still stand by that. If it works on me, it will work on others. But dont torture an animal for ME. I dont want it.
posted on August 9, 2001 11:51:21 PM newThere have even been custody battles over them because somebody is afraid someone will use them to create a child that they might end up financially responsible for! Can you believe that?
Or worse yet, to experiment on. Yeah, my brain is focused on mad doctor syndrome, but thats next, isnt it? What better way to test things? They are already doing it in foreign countries (prisoners). Whats to stop them from making babies, keeping them in cells (the metal kind) and using them as experiments? And dont say it cant happen or wont happen. Same thing was said about the holocaust (yes, Im back to that).
posted on August 10, 2001 12:10:40 AM new
I agree that animals should not be used for things such as makeup and related items. I have only a limited knowlwdge of this and it sets uneasy with me. The cosmetic companys are apparently very storng and funded well for lobbying purposes.
What makes me even more sick is when you hear on the news about the rotten ba$tards who torture animals for the sport of it. This includes the neighborhood kid and the so called human who use dogs, i.e., for dog fighting rings. These people are the lowest of the human race, in my opinion. Now hepburn, here's something I think we both can agree on! Why not use the animal offenders for drug trials. It seems fitting to me.
Yes! I have a good memory. I recognize people that I haven't seen in almost 20 years. I sometimes don't recall their names, but I remember their faces.
I wear my seatbelt because my transplant doctor told me to. This was even before the law.
posted on August 10, 2001 05:27:40 AM new
Yeager, I am an experimental patient. The procedures that I underwent were done with my fully informed consent.
As to why the inner cell mass can't be implanted, the blastocyst has an outer layer that develops into the placenta and other supportive tissues, and the inner layer is what is taken for the stem cells.
Informed consent: Are the people whose eggs are involved giving informed consent?
posted on August 10, 2001 06:09:47 AM new
This morning, on the Today show, a doctor from John Hopkins was on and said that the 60 stem cell "lines" President Smirk referred to are not all in the United States. In fact, only 12 lines exist in the US, while the other 48 are in Europe, etc. So, only those 12 will be federally funded, and will eventually become useless as these lines apparently start to lose their properties over time.
posted on August 10, 2001 06:30:09 AM new
I find it amazing that everyone seems to have a concrete opinion on these complex questions very easily.
Myself I am torn between several views.
As far as discarding the embryos that are not suitable I realize that that happens all the time in nature but we are not usually aware of it. If it immoral to creat embryos that are defective and discarded we should stop having sex because there are lots that do not properly develop and may not even make it to being attached to the uterine wall. It is just when they get far along so that there are some symptoms of a miscarraige that we are aware of it.
Pragmatically I also realize that the United States does not have a solid lead in many technologies and that if it is not legal here to do this sort of work it will still be done elsewhere and the natural progression of things means the benifits will go elsewhere both to patients and financially. I don't say that to say we should do wrong for gain but to enphasize how important it is, because a lot is at stake. The consequences are significant so it is not a decision to be made lightly.
If it is done elsewhere people will go elsewhere to get the treatment making it something that the rich can hop on a plane and buy elsewhere but the poor and most working people will not have. Abortion used to be this way. The rich could fly off and have it. The natural progression of research is such that this will lead to other discoveries and fields of study and they will be missing here once that link to them is broken. Some researchers will go to other countries and some who would have come here will not.
I can only imaigine how being in a wheel chair would effect my view.
I can't understand how anyone can compare the testing of cosmetics on animals or the useless tortures of the Nazi's to stem cell research. It is like comparing a farmer harvesting vegetables to starting forest fires or vandalizing your neighbor's garden.
posted on August 10, 2001 07:21:09 AM new
I have not said much about thr mindless "Bush bashing" that has been so prominent on these boards, because I felt it didn't matter. However, it's time for me to give GW a tip of the hat. His stand on this issue took real stones, as it will pi$$ off some (most) of his strongest supporters, but will not sway his detractors in his favor. He said that he would not be poll driven and, I think, he just made his case.
Sure, he is a poor speaker, but I don't give a hoot about delivery. I listen to the words. The words are important, but not as important as the actions after the words. There is an excellent chance that he just blew away the 2004 election, but I suspect he slept well last night.
Thank you GW. Not for what you did, because I'm not sure I totally agree with you. However, I admire the guts it took to do, what you thought was right.
posted on August 10, 2001 07:56:55 AM new
I agree that Bush made a very courageous and right decision on this issue.
Per Gravid's idea...I read this quote this AM. "Truth is a scarce and slipppery commodity. There are not two sides to every problem but maybe ten, held with genuine conviction by serious people who probably know more about the facts than the reporter."
James Reston
Making this decision in spite of opinions from the Pope, Trent Lott and his advisor Carl Rove, was the first courageous and right decision made by Bush since he was annointed.
posted on August 10, 2001 08:15:56 AM new
I was just doing a search on Dogpile under "bush stem cell" and discovered the dot com version of the famous "Dewey Won" headline.
Search result #4:
4. Crosswalk.com - Religion Today: Bush Won't Fund Stem Cell Research
The Crosswalk.com News Channel provides up to the minute news and comment with a Christian perspective. - Bush Won't Fund Stem Cell Research
news.crosswalk.com
When you click on it, you get this message from the dot com site: We're sorry, but the page you requested could not be found.
Guess they were convinced right up to the last second that Bush would keep to his campaign promises of no stem cell research. And that would mean he <gasp!> LIED. Let's impeach him. We shouldn't have a LIAR as a president. That's what we've been hearing for the past 8+ years, anyway...
edited to say: Bush supporters really shouldn't feel surprised about the fact that Bush didn't stand by his promise. He started sliding less than two months into his term.
"Bush said he would oppose federally funded research or experimentation on embryonic stem cells that require live human embryos to be discarded or destroyed," Fleischer said. "I think the statement speaks for itself.
February 22, 2001:http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/02/22/bush.stemcells/U.S. President George W. Bush has not decided whether to allow federal funding for stem cell research, despite a letter from 80 Nobel laureates urging him to do so.
"It's under review at HHS," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan, referring to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees how federal research money is spent. "Any decision will follow the HHS review."
posted on August 10, 2001 09:03:07 AM new
This research is going to be done whether we "like" it or not. The current debate is about "where" it will be done. Top scientists have already left the US due to the restraints placed on this research.
There is nothing remotely comparable to stem cell research and what the Nazis did.
If we extend ethical and leagal status to molecules, then nearly all research must cease.
For all those that are against stem cell research, think about this -- birth control pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting to the uterine wall. There have been millions perhaps billions of fertilized eggs denied viability by birth control pills.
No government is going to stop this research. We are on the cusp of a "Brave New World". Get used to it. The old ethical formulas no longer apply. The new will be no worse than the old, just different.
