Stem Cell Research

[dong]

Mamab: that something doesn't produce the results that we want them to is not grounds for opposing the research itself (otherwise we'd get absolutely nothing done). The proper conditions are that we must work with what we have in appropriate means for appropriate ends.

Useful tidbit: Amniocentesis as a screening process is invasive- the risk of complications resulting in abortion is 0.5% above background.

Bigger problem: Using the argument that stem-cell research as would be run nowadays is that saying that it is tantamount to killing a human being (with regards to potentiality especially- Bush's argument, essentially) is either blatantly incorrect or would make us already guilty of being mass murderers based on our natural biological actions in the first place. Cloning is only an issue insofar as it has abitrary mass-eugenic undertones, otherwise the valid objections will fall under "the scientists are being too presumptuous again".

 

[mamab]

I wasn't insinuating that any research be stopped purely on the basis of it not producing the results "we want" it to. I'm just saying that the results they've gotten haven't proven that the embryonic stem cell research is producing ANY results. They have had more "results" with adult stem cells and amniotic stem cells.

 

[dong]

Oh okay, fair enough! ^_^

The flip side of the coin is of course that there is no point beating a dead horse, unless, for some reason, it were to be revived. But then I am generally against beating horses...but by now the analogy has dissolved

 

[tater03]

I don't know I don't have any problems with this in the least. Having lost someone who would have benefited from a cure if found, I just feel that we need to do something to find a cure for these diseases.

 

[Andy D]

Tater, I sincerely hope that we can find cures for many of the life threatening illnessess people suffer from on a continual basis.

More generaly, what cost are we willing to pay in the name of research? I truely believe that embryo's are life. I believe they are an aspect of the person they will one day become. To destroy them for research is killing them and it is wrong. So in my opinion, I am not for killing someone in the name of research that has produced zero treatmenst or cures.

 

[Furious George]

An embryo is the potential for life. Just as a seed to an oak tree is just that--a seed, it's not a tree, nor is it a guarantee of a tree, it's the potential for a tree.

 

[FourBear]

That is true. It is sort of like chicken eggs...we eat them, and they had the potential for life, but weren't fertilized. Then again, that's the reason some people give for not eating eggs. I suppose it is all connected to the "where does life begin?" debate.

 

[Andy D]

I disagree with you George, I believe an Embryo is life. However, let me put that aside a second, and comment on your remark.

If an embryo is the potential for life, and not life, then how do we define life? Would you conider someone in a vegitative state a person, or the potential to be a person? My fear is that if we say it is ok to destroy the "potential for life" then where do we draw the line? Would terminal patients one day be ok as test subjects? Persons on death row (though that might not be a bad idea)? What about the elderly in nursing homes?

Even if you don't believe an Embryo is life, but simply the potential, where do you draw the line?

 

[framed]

I think the question of when a human inherits human rights is a very difficult thing to answer. In my view its why abortion (and by extension stem cells) are rightfully heavily debated.

Any time after conception (the first time you have a unique human's DNA) you have to think carefully about the rights of the life at stake. On the other side of the equation though, nothing with a countable number of cells is sentient, human or not. You could very easily argue that someone that isn't sentient isn't yet entitled to human rights. Obviously the further along the fetus is, the harder it is to make that argument.

I don't know the exact point that a developing baby becomes sentient. I do believe that the point when stem cells are taken is well before that though.

Doing anything with humans after conception is distasteful to me, but in the case of stem cells where theres so much potential for good, using a minimum amount of not-yet-sentient humans is OK with me.

To touch on Andy's question for a second: I've never been a fan of slippery slope arguments. We should be able to take each case individually on its own merits and make good decisions. We just need to define the box of people who have human rights and stick with it. Using my criteria: Terminal patients are still sentient and would still have human rights. (if they chose to receive experimental medications thats another matter) Elderly people are obviously still sentient people with their own rights. Since people on death row have done things to specifically lose their human rights, I'm with you that that might not be such a bad idea. ...but thats probably best left to a new thread =]

 

[dong]

Quick and easy note: one ought to keep parsimonity (essentially simplicity + consistency) in mind especially when discussing just how much we are obliged to commit to this thing called potentiality. It seems not to make any possible sense to hold inconsistent standards when we talk of things that we cannot be certain will or will not be, since to do so would presume that we can essentially predict the future to some extent.

 

[hokeshel]

It could either be life or not. Those are the only options so, I don't consider it to be trying to presume future outcomes. I just think that some people find the possiblity of life to be so precious, they hate to see even the possibilities wasted. Both sides come down to the possibility of life, beginning life, sustaining life or simply improving the quality. So, I understand the point. But, I support stem cell research, I realy don't think we would be preventing any lives, only saving them.

 

[Andy D]

Dong, you have a very valid point. At this point in the discussion, adult and embryonic stem cell research has been performed. So far, adult research has yielded many cures and treatments while embryonic has yielded zero of each. Every discussion is about the potential for success with embryonic research.

Hokeshel, I respectfully disagree. The current nature of embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of the embryo. That is destroying life to me.

 

[hokeshel]

I am sorry, I should explain myself. I am all for using adult stem cells, too. However, adult stem cells have been researched since the 60s and enryonic is still fairly new, the late 90s. It took a while to come up with results from adult stem cells, too. Embryonic stem cell research has not been given much of a chance yet and if we can do it without harming a fetus, then I am for it.
I do not think it is right to produce embryos only to destroy them. I had heard of procedures which would not destroy them. This is why I say that we would not be preventing lives. At times, fertility clinics have to get rid of embryos, and these may as well be used for research rather than thrown away. At one point, I had heard of the possiblity of using aborted fetuses. If people are going to abort, we may as well use the cells.
The reason that embryonic stem cell research could prove valuable is that they harvest them at one week of age, before any tissues have formed and it is a mass of cells. Therefore, they can use them for researching any type of tissue.
"Recently, Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. reported a technique to generate human embryonic stem cells using an approach that does not harm embryos. "http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/WhatsNew/August_2006.html
here is a stem cell timelline debate http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071800722.html

 

[hoosierhunter]

I think a lot of folks have clones and even abortion in the back of their minds when it comes to Stem Cell research. Of course things get even hairier to consider when you think about the IVF process and what unneeded embryos mean to a couple. First and foremost, IVF is expensive. Most insurance companies won't pay for it, and therefore, couples try to create as many eggs (and as a result hopefully embryos) as they possibly can in one cycle so they have the best chance of success having a baby.

Many of them have no leftover embryos to cryogenically freeze for another try, but some couples get a plethora of extra embryos, which are frozen just in case the fresh cycle is unsuccessful. The reason they freeze them is that the original cycle is very physically and emotionally trying and the meds used are expensive.

When the family is complete, there is suddenly a big problem: What do you do with extra embryos. Some folks adopt them out (snowflakes), but a lot of people leave these embryos in storage because they don't exactly want to destroy them, but they also don't feel comfortable with someone else giving birth to their biological child.

Basically at the point they are frozen, these embryos look like a cluster of grapes and do not know what they are to yet become. They can be programmed to be any type of body cell, including nerve cells, which supposedly can never repair on their own.

There is also a process by which a single cell can be harvested from one of these embryos, and there is also a lot of talk about umbillical cord stem cell harvesting, but the potential for these two technologies is lost on the anti-stem cell research sentiment. And, by the way, couples do have a single cell removed from a blast embryo quite often prior to implantation so that the embryo can be tested for genetic problems.

 

[luvcamerasnic]

OK, I'm new to the discussion, but perhaps it would be worthwhile to mention that pro-life advocates are not against stem cell research. There is more promise in the stem cels from amniotic fluid and other non-embryonic places. My grandfather had stem cell treatment using his own stem cells, and his cancer is in remission. Yet they didn't have to kill babies to do it.