posted on August 9, 2001 06:16:54 PM new
If we use Bush's fuzzy ethics in regard to the stem cell question (providing federal funding to support research on stem cells cultivated from embryos already destroyed), I guess we could also consider providing federal funding for Nazi-like experiments on people who are in irrreversible comas, or who are terminally ill. Heck, they're not going to get any better, the damage is done, so let's have at 'em.
It's a little like providing federal funding to a murderer so long as he promises not to murder any more people.
posted on August 9, 2001 06:52:28 PM new
spazmodeus-the research is already out there, much more than any 60 lines that Bush approved for about 4% gov't. funding on this
They've been doing this with private funding all along. Private funding makes up the major portion for this research.
posted on August 9, 2001 07:10:36 PM new
I have no say regarding privately funded research; however, I do not want my taxes or my country rewarding these scientists who have acted unethically (in my opinion) and who have destroyed human life in order to obtain their "promising results."
posted on August 9, 2001 07:22:06 PM new
spaz, sometimes some very difficult decisions have to be made to promote the betterment of mankind. These cells are just that - cells. If they were to be discarded anyway, why not use them to help people with serious diseases and conditions? The potential for life does not equal life, but can be life-saving to those that need it. If people that already exist are less important than cells, then we have an even bigger problem to deal with.
posted on August 9, 2001 07:25:36 PM new
I don't know if anyone will really understand my position here, but I do not like the thought of any "living" creature's (man or beast)life having been in vain.
I personally object to creating life in a dish and freezing or destroying the unused ones! To me that's the real pity.
I think (though I might certainly be wrong) many "terminally" ill people would gladly opt to join a research program that might help someone else even if not them.
I would even imagine (though I most certainly could not say for sure) that many people in irrreversible comas would probably do the same.
Should government funds be used????? I would rather see federal money used to try and save or improve lives than find ways to destroy them. Of course, sometimes I guess it would be hard to distringuish between the two.
posted on August 9, 2001 07:54:24 PM new
Promote the betterment of mankind. Seems that phrase has been around a very long time. Whack down some more rainforests and kill off all the natural habitat...for the better of manking, of course. Pollute the oceans and the air we breath...again, for the betterment of mankind.
posted on August 9, 2001 08:15:40 PM new
There is cord blood containing stem cells collected from every hospital birth that is thrown away after being tested. Why not standardize the storage of this for stem cell research, and avoid the ethical nightmare of embryonic use?
posted on August 9, 2001 08:18:55 PM new
spazmodeus - seems to me like you're placing more value on potential life than existing life. These are not embryos, they're cells.
To say that this research is similar to Nazi experiments is vulgar.
Seems to me like you have no respect for people with spinal cord injuries, diabetes, ALS, etc. that could be helped by this research. Are you saying it's better to let these people suffer?
hep - sorry, but I've never heard of pollution, cutting down rain forests etc., be termed as for the betterment of mankind.
posted on August 9, 2001 08:25:22 PM new
Kraft, yes, it is vulgar to compare it, but it IS comparable. Hitler thought nothing of those people, did he? They were not humans. They were things.
And of course you have heard of cutting down rainforests for the betterment of mankind. How else will McDonalds raise their cattle so they can feed those burgers? Polluting the ocean because where else is the rainoff to go after a storm? Why not the sea? We must build more and more, and get that oil out of the ground and have fuel for power and heat and light. All for the betterment of mankind. This bear DOES poop in his own woods. Ours. And we are the bear.
[ edited by hepburn on Aug 9, 2001 08:25 PM ]
posted on August 9, 2001 08:33:34 PM new
Know what it reminds me of? A long time ago, I used to work in a candy store. The owners would make the stuff themselves...divinity, fudge, caramel corn, chocolate swirls with almonds, cotton candy, etc. When us girls would get hungry, instead of buying the sweets, one of us would "accidentally" drop a fudge slice on the floor. These, we would call "Oopsies". We couldnt sell them because they landed on the floor. So instead of seeing them go to waste, we would eat them outselves (making sure they didnt acutally land ON the floor..more like on the hem of our pant legs down at the bottom). By the time half a day would pass, we would have a whole pile of "Oopsies".
spelling
[ edited by hepburn on Aug 9, 2001 08:34 PM ]
posted on August 9, 2001 08:45:30 PM new
"What the hell, they're already dead".
Hmmm.
Seems to me the same logic or lack there of could be used for organ harvesting . After all, they are already dead. Or are they? Gee, they have to turn off the machines to kill them so that they can harvest the organs.For the good of mankind. Same thing here isn't it? If they are going in the trash why not use what you can? If you broke your neck tomorrow and were told you would never walk again you would be wishing they could grow some news cells that could repair the damage. If anyone says they wouldn't be wishing for that they would not be telling the truth.
Bush made me sick when he said that he did not think that living things should be used for research. Perhaps he should visit the local research lab and visit a few of his closest relatives. You know, the ones with the tops of their heads cut off and tubes put in or given aids or cancer all for the good of mankind. I think he'd find they look just like him. I would rather use little human cells than chimpanzees.
Also, how many of you have ever heard of anyone adopting an embryo and giving birth to ia baby? Bush said that it happens.Is Bush going to institiute a "Adopt an Embryo" program? Heck ,We can all adopt an embryo! If you don't want kids you can just keep yours in the petri dish in the fridge.
posted on August 9, 2001 08:47:23 PM new
Stem cells can be harvested through placenta, umbillical cords as well as embryonic cells. The only funded research will be on these types of harvesting, and only embryonics cells that would otherwise be destroyed as far as I know.
I see what you're saying hep, but I just have a difference of opinion.....the heat doesn't help either!!
posted on August 9, 2001 08:59:00 PM newSeems to me like you have no respect for people with spinal cord injuries, diabetes, ALS, etc. that could be helped by this research. Are you saying it's better to let these people suffer?
If this is the yardstick we're going to use as the basis for all of our ethical decisions, then why stop at stem cell harvesting? Let's force force medical experiments on prisoners. Let's exploit poor people who are willing to sell an organ or two just to feed their families. Let's clone humans for replacement parts -- all on the chance that some individuals may not have to suffer in the future. Hell yeah, let's leave the suffering to the poor, the disenfranchised, or those who have little or no voice -- like the unborn.
Suffering is a horrible aspect of the human condition. 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. IMHO, the ends do not justify the means.
posted on August 9, 2001 09:10:14 PM new" force medical experiments on prisoners. Let's exploit poor people who are willing to sell an organ or two just to feed their families."
Point: the first has been done and the second is an ongoing business right now.
But this question of where and when stem cells are available is an interesting one, and maybe someone knows whether the cells from embryos are more suitable for the stated purposes than are ones from umbilical cord and placenta? If they are, why is this an issue at all?
posted on August 9, 2001 09:13:50 PM new
I am so much against animal experiments that anything that can be done to stop it, should be done.
What right do we have to torture & mame animals for our benefit. Someday we will pay a terrible price for what we are doing to them, the sea, the air, the Earth.
Nature is almost perfect, but she slipped up when she made humans. Some day she will rid the world of us, the only destructive creatures on the planet. And we deserve it.
posted on August 9, 2001 09:16:38 PM new
KRS, After the speech some one was interviewed that discussed just that. It seems that the embrionic stem cells are fresher...being only six days old and therefor have more potential to be able to be grown into healthy heart tissue [for instance].
posted on August 9, 2001 09:32:25 PM new
krs, the difference is pluripotent in the embroyo vs. multipotent in the cord blood. .
"The inner cells are now considered to be "pluripotent" cells. While they will eventually form all of the tissues of the embryo's developing body, they no longer have the ability to form the placenta or membranes. The pluripotent inner cells, when used therapeutically, are considered to be stem cells.
At 14 days after fertilization, the embryo develops what is called a primitive streak, which is destined to be the spine of the baby, and the cells differentiate, in that each one of them now develops into a particular type of tissue.
These cells are now considered to be "multipotent," because they can develop into certain types of specialized tissues, and not others. Thus one cell line might develop into muscle, bone, fat, or cartilage, but not into stomach or skin. These cells can also be considered to be stem cells, but have a more limited potential than cells obtained from earlier embryos."
"Initially, scientists only knew that blood-producing stem cells were present in umbilical cord blood, which led to its routine use in transplant medicine following chemotherapy and blood disorders.
In late 1999, Japanese researchers announced that they had isolated progenitor endothelial cells in umbilical cord blood. These cells are responsible for forming the lining of blood vessels through a process known as angiogenesis. In the laboratory setting, an injection of these cells into the hearts of mice resulted in a significant increase in blood flow to the heart.
The findings were presented at a meeting of the American Heart Association and hinted at the possibility of one day growing your own heart bypass with cells present in cord blood.
Even more profound, scientists have now demonstrated that the blood stem cells, like those found in cord blood, can be coaxed into becoming other types of tissues.
All of these developments make the unique properties of cord blood stem cells, such as ready availability, immunologic immaturity, and rapid proliferation even more exciting, in terms of future potential. It may well be that each of us was born with a self-repair kit, in a sense, and that it is contained in the umbilical cord blood we now routinely discard."
And
"These cord blood stem cells, not requiring an embryo source, but with the potential ability to differentiate into a wider variety of tissues than stem cells taken from an adult, may ultimately prove to be a significant part of the solution to our moral dilemma."
posted on August 9, 2001 09:38:40 PM new
Let me try to explain my objection to Bush's decision with a comparison to what I see as a similar ethical situation.
When I was much younger I had a fleeting morbid curiosity about the atrocities of the Holocaust. ( Mind you, I'm recollecting here, so maybe what I'm about to say is inaccurate.) But I think I recall reading that after the Allies invaded Berlin they came upon volumes of medical research obtained via Nazi experimentation on Jewish and other prisoners. Research which although bizarre, revolting and utterly inhuman nevertheless contained medical data that was unique and otherwise unavailable to researchers because no one had ever performed such tests on human beings before.
Who knows, this Nazi data may have even proven helpful to postwar medical researchers in their understanding of the body. It's even possible that some of this information could have led to breakthroughs that might have alleviated suffering in people, or led to cures for disease.
But if I remember correctly, the world medical community made an ethical decision to never benefit from that Nazi data because of the means by which it had been obtained.
When Bush said he would provide federal funding for research on the stem cells generated by embryos that had already been destroyed, it seemed to me like he would have also approved using the Nazi data because, after all, the victims whose tortured bodies provided that data were already dead.
Personally, I see very little difference between the two situations. Both the Nazis and these stem cell doctors are experimenting on human beings and reducing human life to fodder for the laboratory.
Nature is far from perfect. She has been trying to get it right from day one. If nature were perfect, there would be no need for disease research, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
