Stem Cell Research

[SilentScope001]

Unapplicable situation. How would a friendless and family-less hermit go into a coma and get put on life support?

 

I seen a video in my Bioethics class where that actually happened. A friendless and family-less female person who spoke Spanish had a medical problem and was given to a Hospice where she was treated and given a feeding tube. So they went looking for the persons who are firends or family of that hermit.

 

There was a boyfriend of that hermit, and the boyfriend wants to keep that person alive, with a feeding tube. However, the doctors did not want that. They let the feeding tube stay in the person, and she never totally recovered. She still needs help, and the boyfriend left her. However, now, she is able to say that she wants to stay alive, therefore, the doctors cannot end treatment. They later transfered her to some other place, made it someone else's problem.

 

And the doctors really wanted her to die.

 

I'm serious. The doctors who showed this video in the Bioethics class mentioned it to me, mentioned it to the whole class. She said her life was miserable, and she would be better off dead, because then the Hospital would save money, and she would be out of her misery. And I agree with her. But the doctors also note that this is very cold, and I agree too.

 

There is something in Bioethics called "person's best interest". If you can't find anyone connected to anyone else, then the doctors decide what to do with this female hermit. They would have chosen to end treatment.

[GarfieldJL]

The issue is there is absolutely no reason to destroy embryos to get stem cells when they can get stem cells from the umbilical cord of a mother whenever a baby is born...

[Jae Onasi]

Pavlos--the stem cells are harvested from an embryo, but an embryonic stem cell is not the same as an embryo. The stem cells are one of a number of different types of cells that an embryo has, like nerve cells or skin cells, etc. So an umbilical stem cell may be the same as one from an embryo, but that's just a part of the embryo, not the whole embryo.

[Nancy Allen``]

Excuse for wandering in here with comments that may have already been addressed, but stem cells, they can help a lot of people right? We should be doing everything we can to help people shouldn't we? But there's a lot of concern over what this does over the sancity of your soul if this goes ahead? Let's talk about that, could the moral issues over stem cell research be explained to me? Isn't it something about using or killing off body parts, stem cells to encourage strong growth or something?

[SilentScope001]

Excuse for wandering in here with comments that may have already been addressed, but stem cells, they can help a lot of people right? We should be doing everything we can to help people shouldn't we? But there's a lot of concern over what this does over the sancity of your soul if this goes ahead? Let's talk about that, could the moral issues over stem cell research be explained to me? Isn't it something about using or killing off body parts, stem cells to encourage strong growth or something?

 

Currently, the only proven method to extracting embyronic stem cells is to destroy an embryo and harvest its stem cells. Once that happens, you can then test on their stem cells.

 

The destruction of the embryo is a bad, bad thing according to conservaties and pro-lifers, who claim that an embryo should have rights and not be killed for research purposes. They are calling for the resepct of the life of an embryo. This leads to scienitsts trying to define "life" in stating that one cell in one stage is not living but another cell in a second stage is not living, pro-choicers coming in with their arguments, and these recent experiments to generate stem cells without harming the embryo.

[GarfieldJL]

Excuse for wandering in here with comments that may have already been addressed, but stem cells, they can help a lot of people right? We should be doing everything we can to help people shouldn't we? But there's a lot of concern over what this does over the sancity of your soul if this goes ahead? Let's talk about that, could the moral issues over stem cell research be explained to me? Isn't it something about using or killing off body parts, stem cells to encourage strong growth or something?

 

 

The thing that in my mind makes taking embryonic stem cells from embryos just an excuse to butcher human life is that they can get stem cells from the umbilical cord of a newly born infant. Something that has to be cut from the infant anyways and is then part of the afterbirth. See stem cells without killing embryos.

[Windu Chi]

The thing that in my mind makes taking embryonic stem cells from embryos just an excuse to butcher human life is that they can get stem cells from the umbilical cord of a newly born infant. Something that has to be cut from the infant anyways and is then part of the afterbirth. See stem cells without killing embryos.

Well, it looks like this issue is going to be never resolved.

The religious arguing with the atheists.

I won't lose no sleep if stem cell treatment can save someone in my family, from the clutches of death.

 

This whole argument is ridiculous, but that is my bias opinion.

[Jae Onasi]

This whole argument is ridiculous

 

If you think it's ridiculous, don't post in the thread. Otherwise, don't make these characterizations.

[Darth InSidious]

Isn't this all a moot point now that the skin-cell conversion is possible? Provided that it is viable, it seems to me that it offers a more practical use, given that the minute chance of cell rejection.

 

?

[Windu Chi]

If you think it's ridiculous, don't post in the thread. Otherwise, don't make these characterizations.

What you are going to get mad at everything I say, now?

The argument over stem cell debate is about protecting cells, it's ridiculous the religious fight to save cells why people continue to die from horriable diseases.

I lost my grandmother and aunt to the cluthes of death that, if these religious republicans didn't stall stem cell research over the years, they probably could've been saved.

 

If you don't like how I see it, then I really don't care, Jae.

[GarfieldJL]

What you are going to get mad at everything I say, now?

The argument over stem cell debate is about protecting cells, it's ridiculous the religious fight to save cells why people continue to die from horriable diseases.

I lost my grandmother and aunt to the cluthes of death that, if these religious republicans didn't stall stem cell research over the years, they probably could've been saved.

 

If you don't like how I see it, then I really don't care, Jae.

 

 

Trying to remain calm, I'm going to state flat out that I take offense to what you just said. I lost my grandfather due to complications from parkinsons disease, you think I didn't want my grandfather cured. Well get this I did, however I know that my grandfather wouldn't have wanted to be cured at the cost of several human lives that hadn't even been born into the world yet! Republicans haven't stalled stem cell research on adult stem cells or stem cells from umbilical cords, Republicans (myself included) take issue with killing human life for the purpose of research.

 

What will we have next, clones being grown to be slaughtered for new organs? Slaughtering embryos for the sake of research is a devaluing of human life in my opinion.

[Pavlos]

What will we have next, clones being grown to be slaughtered for new organs? Slaughtering embryos for the sake of research is a devaluing of human life in my opinion.

 

Pure science fiction. From a business point of view, why grow a clone when you can just grow an organ? Our ability to create new organs that are anything but a sort of callus tissue is limited... but so is our ability to clone a human successfully - you'd need a factory just to get one successful clone, what with the minuscule success rate in these things.

 

If there is a method as efficient, or effective as extracting stem cells from an embryo then that would be fine and dandy. But until such time as it is as cheap and effective as our current methods, there is no point and no justification in switching over - especially when we run the risk of slowing down vital research. Human life takes priority over potential human life. I know, I have muddled views... it's what I get for being a liberal, humanist student of science (who's also studying English Literature for some reason...).

 

And shall we leave political parties out of this? The debate is already charged enough without introducing the "I'm a Democrat/Republican/Liberal/Conservative/Standing at the back dressed stupidly and looking stupid party member, thus better than you" element...

 

Edit: In other words... I have no qualms about stem cell research, or the methods used.

[Nancy Allen``]

I should have voted for Al Gore. Last time Bush didn't win the election, Kerry lost, and I'll be voting Democrats in 08. Okay, I know, not funny.

 

One of the things that is always muddy for me is that people treat organs or cells as being more important than human life. A fetus takes presidence over a person? In whose eyes? And not to knock people who are against stem cell research for this reason, or enviromentalists for that matter, but this is the same reasoning people such as Earth First and the Sierra group hold, that they are against something such as spiking trees. Not because it would break a chainsaw and potentially kill loggers, no, because that's all it'll do, for them that type of action isn't good enough.

[GarfieldJL]

I'm against murdering innocent human life just to possibly save a human from some sort of ailment, especially when they can save the human in question without murdering the innocent. Seriously, they can get Stem Cells without even using embryos or fetuses. There are several ways now, it's just people seem to want to cheapen the worth of human life in my view.

 

Also Bush won in 2000 by the way, there is something called the Electoral College for a reason, so that people that live in states like Rhode Island have a say in whom the President is going to be, that makes it so a few big states doesn't determine whom our President is.

[Windu Chi]

Trying to remain calm, I'm going to state flat out that I take offense to what you just said.

You take offense too what I said, I don't care.

That is how I feel about this issue, you must understand that, GarfieldJL.

 

I lost my grandfather due to complications from parkinsons disease, you think I didn't want my grandfather cured.

What do you mean, I think I didn't want your grandfather cured.

I don't know you, I don't know your life.

 

My family mean everything to me, you must understand this.

I don't give a damn about no cells, if they will save someone in my family from the cluthes of death.

 

Well get this I did, however I know that my grandfather wouldn't have wanted to be cured at the cost of several human lives that hadn't even been born into the world yet!

I'm a open-minded individual I do believe in souls, but I think when the brain is formed the soul maybe come into existence, wherever the hell it comes from.

 

Republicans haven't stalled stem cell research on adult stem cells or stem cells from umbilical cords, Republicans (myself included) take issue with killing human life for the purpose of research.

Yeah, but adult stem cells has not bared no fruit.

Also won't the religious be concern about the life of adult stem cells, since they believe cells are alive and worth saving.

 

This seems to be a bit ironic, you know.

 

 

What will we have next, clones being grown to be slaughtered for new organs?

Hmm, I figure that the religious would consider clones souless, since they believe their god can only insert souls in life.

Now, I will be against that if that happen; hell no on the slaughtering of clones for new organs.

But I will like to have a clone, it seems a clone will be the only one that understands me.

Slaughtering embryos for the sake of research is a devaluing of human life in my opinion.

 

Yeah, thats your opinion, but if God is so powerful should it have the ability, not to allow that to happen?

Heh, I thought it was all powerful and all knowing, should it know to take the souls out of embryos, that who's life become at risk?

[Jae Onasi]

My family mean everything to me, you must understand this.

I don't give a damn about no cells, if they will save someone in my family from the cluthes of death.

Death is as much a part of life as any other life event. Stem cells are not going to be the cure-all and won't make death go away. You can be angry at death, or you can enjoy life.

 

Yeah, but adult stem cells has not bared no fruit.

Also won't the religious be concern about the life of adult stem cells, since they believe cells are alive and worth saving.

This seems to be a bit ironic, you know.

 

Adult stem cells won't turn into another separate life.

 

Adult stem cell research has absolutely bore fruit. A _lot_ of fruit. See a previous post on that for all the results that have come out of _adult_ stem cell research--bone marrow transplants for cancer patients being one of the biggest uses right now out of the dozens of different treatments derived from adult stem cells.

[Windu Chi]

Death is as much a part of life as any other life event. Stem cells are not going to be the cure-all and won't make death go away. You can be angry at death, or you can enjoy life.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, Jae.

But I don't enjoy my present life now.

I'm not as happy go lucky about my life as you seem to be.

 

Also I don't think stem cells will cure all, but the possibility of new organ growth, bone growth etc.

Is a very tempting prospect.

Death is as much a part of life as any other life event. Stem cells are not going to be the cure-all and won't make death go away.

You must realize, I believe that absolutely nothing is impossible, so...death will meet it's end one day.

Looking from my perspective!

We just aren't going to come to an agreement on this issue, Jae.

 

 

Adult stem cells won't turn into another separate life.

Well, I'm ignorant of that, but I will look it up and get a scientific understanding of it.

I study mathematics and physics, biology rarely.

 

Adult stem cell research has absolutely bore fruit. A _lot_ of fruit. See a previous post on that for all the results that have come out of _adult_ stem cell research--bone marrow transplants for cancer patients being one of the biggest uses right now out of the dozens of different treatments derived from adult stem cells.

 

If that is the case, then why do I continue to see the religious battling the atheists over this issue?

[Jae Onasi]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, Jae.

But I don't enjoy my present life now.

I'm not as happy go lucky about my life as you seem to be.

Well, life isn't always great for me, either, Windu, but it is way too short to dwell on the crap and miss out noticing and enjoying the good parts. Check out Leo Buscaglia. Being angry at the world takes way too much work.

 

You must realize, I believe that absolutely nothing is impossible, so...death will meet it's end one day.

Looking from my perspective!

We just aren't going to come to an agreement on this issue, Jae.

a. why do we have to come to an agreement?

b. death may meet its end one day, but the probability that death will be eliminated in our lifetimes is extraordinarily small, so I'm going to work with what I've got now.

 

If that is the case, then why do I continue to see the religious battling the atheists over this issue?

 

The fundamental issue isn't the stem cells themselves. The fundamental issue is the definition of life and when it starts or stops, and the right to life. A secondary issue is the possible effects on abortion rights.

[Windu Chi]

Well, life isn't always great for me, either, Windu, but it is way too short to dwell on the crap and miss out noticing and enjoying the good parts.

Well, you should realize from my colorful posts over the past...3 years I have been here, that I don't see the good parts, yet.

 

Check out Leo Buscaglia. Being angry at the world takes way too much work.

Not the world, the universe, the world alone is far to insignificant, when you are as open-minded as I'm, Jae.

 

a. why do we have to come to an agreement?

Well, you know, I'm always prepare to battle aggressively over the issues.

 

So I'm going to work with what I've got now.

And I'm going to continue to decipher the secrets of existence, as I do on my spare time at home.

 

The fundamental issue is the definition of life and when it starts or stops, and the right to life.

Well, I'm open-minded, so keep it coming.

A secondary issue is the possible effects on abortion rights.

Now this may come as a surprise, but I'm against that abortion stuff, concerning fetuses.

[Jae Onasi]

Well, you should realize from my colorful posts over the past...3 years I have been here, that I don't see the good parts, yet.

The good stuff is there. Sometimes it gets drowned out by the cacophony of nastiness, but if you listen and look for it specifically, you will find it.

 

Not the world, the universe, the world alone is far to insignificant, when you are as open-minded as I'm, Jae.

OK, substitute 'universe' where I wrote 'world' then. It takes a whole lot of effort to be angry at an entire universe/multiverse/whatever's out there. That's more than I want to expend with the limited time I have on earth.

 

And I'm going to continue to decipher the secrets of existence, as I do on my spare time at home.

Well, since I got that part figured out already, I can move on to other things.

 

Now this may come as a surprise, but I'm against that abortion stuff, concerning fetuses.

What's the difference between killing an embryo for stem cells and killing an embryo or fetus in an abortion? They're just as dead either way.

[Windu Chi]

The good stuff is there. Sometimes it gets drowned out by the cacophony of nastiness, but if you listen and look for it specifically, you will find it.

If I listen!

Heh, girl you sound like a Jedi: Kreia, before she was the betrayer.

 

OK, substitute 'universe' where I wrote 'world' then. It takes a whole lot of effort to be angry at an entire universe/multiverse/whatever's out there. That's more than I want to expend with the limited time I have on earth.

That substitution, already had occurred, before the statement existed.

 

Well, since I got that part figured out already, I can move on to other things.

Yes, the code breaker I have become.

 

 

What's the difference between killing an embryo for stem cells and killing an embryo or fetus in an abortion? They're just as dead either way.

 

I don't know, I'm ignorant of biology, Jae.

But I will use philosophy and ponder on that question.

[Pavlos]

I thought that this column from The Indy would be relevant to the discussion.

 

 

In the black gloop of down-beat news on global warming and Iraq, we sometimes forget that, in at least one respect, we are living through a shimmering moment of progress that should fill us with awe. The 21st century is - as the science writer Ronald Bailey puts it - an era of Liberation Biology. Every week now, scientists are steadily defusing the diseases that have cut human life short for millennia, and stolen from us the grandparents we never knew or the lovers who died too soon. They are setting us free.

 

Only yesterday, it was revealed by Yale University scientists that they have been able to make primates with severe Parkinson's disease walk and eat unaided, by injecting them with human neural stem cells. The implications for further research into humans are obvious - and dazzling.

 

Even those of us who are not privileged to be scientists can get the gist of what is happening. In 1998, researchers were first able to isolate embryonic stem cells - immature cells taken from human embyros.

 

These cells matter because they have the potential to develop into many different types of tissue. Scientists are now slowly discovering which molecular signals make them develop in different ways. If they can unlock this code - if they can make the cells grow into whatever we need - they will be able to transplant nerve cells into broken spines, making the lame walk. They will be able to inject insulin-producing cells into diabetics. They will be able to generate motor-neurone cells to treat Parkinson's. And on the list goes, each one freeing millions of humans from misery.

 

But - incredibly- there is a large slice of humanity that stubbornly refuses to see any of this as progress. Instead, they see it as a massacre.

 

The religious backlash against Liberation Biology has been viciously successful, holding back scientific progress in almost every part of the world. In Nigeria, mullahs have this year successfully prevented the World Health Organisation from finally eradicating polio from the human condition, by claiming the vaccine is part of an "anti-Islamic plot" and ordering their congregations to refuse it.

 

In the US, President Bush again pledged this week to veto legislation sent to him by Congress that would permit federal funds to be used for stem-cell research. And - lest we Europeans get smug - Britain is about to introduce new laws restricting the development of "hybrid embryos" that will slowly strangle life-saving research.

 

This is all part of an old story: the conflict between science and religion. For all the prattling by bishops that there is "no incompatibility here", in reality they are based on fundamentally contrasting ways of understanding the world. Science is based on strict empirical observation of the world, and deductions based on reason from it. Faith is based on divine revelation (that is, hallucination), or following the words of men who claim to have experienced it.

 

This battle has been playing out ever since modern science developed. The religious damned autopsies, organ donation, IVF, and even pasturised milk. Today, they are trying to halt the latest wave of Liberation Biology because they claim that blastocysts - hollow spheres of cells almost invisible to the naked eye - are "human beings," and therefore cannot be harvested for life-saving stem cells.

 

What fact or reason can they point to, to make this point? There are none. We can see through empirical observation that blastocysts have no brains, no thoughts, no capacity to feel pain. So the religious ignore empirical fact. Instead, they say that an invisible thing called "the soul" magically appears at the moment of conception. How do they know? They just do. Okay?

 

These beliefs have animated the hardcore evangelical base in the US to fight to retard and suppress research - and they have won. If they can delay research in America - which is the world's laboratory, due to its pro-science Enlightenment constitution - they can do it anywhere.

 

Scientists have been forced by this backlash into a massive diversion, where they have had to try to use adult stem cells instead. Until recently, it was thought that they are only capable of forming their tissue of origin, making them far more limited. But it seems there has been a breakthrough: researchers at UCLA claimed last month that they have been able to take normal adult tissue cells and reprogramme them to act as embryonic stem cells.

 

So is there, at last, a chance to dodge this debate with fanatics and make progress? Sadly, it's not that simple. Previous "breakthroughs" in this area have turned out to be dead-ends. And even if this isn't another one, adult stem cells are much harder to harvest at a reasonable cost. It takes human embryonic stem cells 25 days to grow from 10 million cells to 10 trillion cells. It takes adult stem cells two weeks longer, and it takes a hundred times more tissue culture surface to do it. So research based on adult stem cells will be slower, burn up more of the limited research funds - and therefore save fewer lives.

 

Here in Britain, we have a more subtle problem, with the debate focusing on the plea by scientists to allow them to create "hybrid embryos" - taking an animal egg and injecting it with human DNA. They need to do this because there are so few fully human stem cells to experiment with. At the moment, they are dependent on the cast-offs from IVF. By contrast, acquiring and adapting animal eggs offers an almost unlimited supply.

 

But a string of tabloid headlines immediately conjured images of "chimpmanzees" and "pig-girls" being made by latter-day Dr Moreaus. One headline shrieked: "Can centaurs and talking pigs be far behind?" This is a pig-ignorant question. At Newcastle University, for example, the team led by Lyle Armstrong wants to use cow eggs to develop treatments for diabetes and paralysis. These are not villains; they are heroes. We should be cheering them on, not throwing obstacles into their paths.

 

But the Government is doing just that. In December, they announced an outright ban on hybrid embryo research. Last month, they backed off - but only a little. The 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act - which has covered these issues until now - outlined a few general ethical rules of thumb, but left the science to an independent body of experts to assess. The new legislation junks this approach, instead offering mind-boggling detail outlining very narrow confines within which scientists can operate.

 

There is none of the openness to new development of the old system; in time, it will choke off innovations in the name of primitive, unfounded fears.

 

Progress, it seems, never comes without a punch-up. Even the most beautiful advances are fought against, by people speaking in the name of "prophets" who thought demons and witches caused illnesses. Every day they succeed in delaying this research is a day thousands of us die unnecessarily.

[GarfieldJL]

There is a significant difference here Pavlos, we're talking about murdering innocent humans to potentially save some other group of humans from an ailment. This doesn't have to do with being against scientific advancements, this has to do with the ethical implications. I'm not against using Adult stem cells or stem cells from the umbilical cord for research that in my view is ethical. The idea of slaughtering embryos to harvest stem cells in my view is completely unethical. The ends do not necessarily justify the means.

[ET Warrior]

Yeah, I will say the embryo has something in common with humans--he or she has his/her own DNA and functioning cell processes.

And so does my appendix, but nobody cries murder when appendectomies occur. And yeah, my appendix wasn't going to eventually develop into a full-grown person, but it's every bit as aware as a newly fertilized blastocyst.

 

See discussion above--what I do with my own eggs and what a guy does with his own sperm is one thing--that's our own genetic material and our own cells. They've not combined into a separate person.

Yet, if you are taking active measures to not get pregnant at every opportunity you are actively working to ensure that your egg (which is half-human) does not receive the opportunity to join with a sperm cell (also half-human) and grow up to experience all of the wonders that life has to offer. It just does not seem rational to believe that a cell goes from not-human to 100% human almost instantly.

[GarfieldJL]

We're not talking a blastocyst, we're talking an embryo, unlike your appendix an embryo does have motor functions which indicates a functioning nervous system.