Illness & Morals

[Laurel]

Nancy Reagan came out yesterday in favor of stem cell research.

I found that odd, though considering her husband's illness and the good that could come out of it (especially for Alzheimer's & Parkinson's sufferers) I guess I shouldn't have been so surprised.

But it did make me wonder...for those of you who oppose stem cell research because of where those cells come from: if such research meant the difference between life & death for your father/mother/S.O./sister/best friend, do you think you would still be against it? Do you think it would affect your judgement? Who or why not?

 

[Desert Amazon]

 

[morninggirl5]

The issue becomes even grayer when you consider the production of embryos specifically for stem cell research. It's one of the issues that clearly illustrates how far our technology has come without similar advances in ethical considerations.

I support the use of the embryos that are otherwise to be destroyed. Creation of embryos for research is one of the areas that I still struggle with.

My grandfather was diagnosed with Parkinson's several years ago, so far his condition has not deteriorated significantly. The current medications available have provided significant benefits. Even with that consideration, I can't say, yes allow creation of embryos for research.

 

[Laurel]

Stem cells can also be extracted from adult tissue, without harm to the subject. Unfortunately, they are difficult to remove, are severely limited in quantity, and appear to be limited in usefulness.

I recently read (damn, can't find the article) that they can extract stem cells from adult fat tissue - such as what is removed during liposuction. I can't remember how they compared to the stem cells retrieved from fetal tissue, but if they were at all useful, that would solve so many problems! Instead of a cosmetic procedure, liposuction would be a donation, like at the blood bank. I wonder if the Fat Bank give out pints of Ben & Jerry's like the Blood Bank does...

 

[Laurel]

The issue becomes even grayer when you consider the production of embryos specifically for stem cell research. It's one of the issues that clearly illustrates how far our technology has come without similar advances in ethical considerations.

That is soooo Brave New World. Part of me is appalled, yet I'll happily munch on a chicken breast that was born, raised, and killed on a factory farm. I suppose the idea of people-farming is sickening to me, yet I don't see why raising other forms of life to be killed for our purposes is any better or worse.

 

[morninggirl5]

This is a FAQ article about stem cell research.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/07/11/gupta.debrief.otsc/index.html

The embryonic stem cells appear to be of the most value scientifically and where the research focus is expected to produce the most results.

 

[Desert Amazon]

 

[Laurel]

LOL! Yep, the image of sucked-out fat kills my dessert cravings, too. Maybe dieters should put a picture of a lump of thigh fat on their fridge.

Great link, morninggirl5.

 

[morninggirl5]

Just remember Oprah's wagon she dragged out the time she was on that fasting diet. It's enough to kill any craving.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I have to disagree with the premise that morality even plays a part.

Why? Liberals have for so long fought to make this a country of law because they are really uncomfortable with the mores and customs approach to society since so many would be left by the wayside.

There is only what you do. Research, learn, discover truth, hope you like what you find.

We already have a Brave New World in many respects and too many who want to follow Europe down into that bizzare little rabbit hole.

The only currnet value to human life is that which is codified. Anybody working from a moral perspective puts themselves at a terrible disadvantage in any current arguments about the sanctity of life.

 

[Silverlily]

I believe illness does change your viewpoint. I was extremely uncomfortable with such research until my mother was diagnosed with Lou Gerhig's disease. All the stem cell research in the world will not cure her in time, but if it will stop this illness, I will learn to live with it.

 

[*Lazer*]

There is also a another source of the stem cells and that is from the placenta (afterbirth). This is a far more accetpable source of stem cells and easily harvested from the cord blood. I do object to the use of frozen embryos for research use. It is repugnant to me and I do not believe I could sanction it even if terminally ill. It is fascinating to me that Mrs. Reagan always so prolife now takes such a position. Andra Jenny I don't believe Nancy is a liberal and her husband did a great deal towards enacting law aimed at "moral issues".

Medical research is generally presented to an ethics committee for review. The board has community members along with the clergy and medical proffessionals. Pharmaceutical companies are not always so circumspect in their examination of the ethical issues rather they follow the letter of the law. I believe AJ this is the reason some "liberals" have felt the need to enact laws. Sometimes people even the liberals do things for noble reasons and even do the "right" thing along the way.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

If any profession is using ethics, then these must be codified and put into law so the majority can say what the morality and ethics of each profession. Otherwise, I must argue for dismantling of much of our social law and social engineering attempts. We must rectify this inconsistency.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

What are the ethics of raising a cell outside of the womb, never having a mother? When did life being? When the mother created the egg? Is the pill then a form of murder as it prevents each and every egg from fulfilling its destiny? Is every egg destined to become a child? What will we do with all of them? Women create a lot of eggs. Should we harvest them to protect thier unborn life? Legislating morality and choice is a tough business.

 

[WriterDom]

There is a lot of support for stem cell research. Bush's main problem is political. While I don't think your typical republician is way out there on the right damning the secular world, the bible thumpers are a significant enough vote to carry 20% or so in a third party effort if they are totally alienated. Just as the democrats couldn't win if they angered the black leadership enough for a Jesse Jackson third party run. I don't see the current two party system lasting another 30 years. I think the democrats and republicans will merge and oppose the socialists/communists/greens with a couple of other fringe parties mixed in. But I'm getting off topic and I don't want to piss WriterDom off.



Stem Cells Polls at a Glance

.c The Associated Press


Some recent public opinion polling on stem cell research. The ABC News-Beliefnet poll of 1,022 adults was conducted June 20-24. The CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 998 adults was conducted July 10-11. The NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll of 806 adults was conducted June 23-25. All three have error margins of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

ABC News-Beliefnet

Sometimes, fertility clinics produce extra fertilized eggs, also called embryos, that are not implanted in a woman's womb. These extra embryos are discarded, or couples can donate them for use in medical research called stem-cell research.

Some people support stem-cell research, saying it's an important way to find treatments for many diseases. Other people oppose stem-cell research, saying it's wrong to use any human embryos for research purposes. What about you, do you support or oppose stem-cell research?

All people surveyed:

Support, 58 percent

Oppose, 30 percent

No opinion, 12 percent

Among evangelical white Protestants:

Support, 50 percent

Oppose, 40 percent

Among white Catholics:

Support, 54 percent

Oppose, 35 percent

Among conservatives:

Support, 44 percent

Oppose, 44 percent

Among moderates:

Support, 63 percent

Oppose, 26 percent

Among liberals:

Support, 76 percent

Oppose, 14 percent

The federal government provides funding to support a variety of medical research. Do you think federal funding for medical research should or should not include funding for stem-cell research?

Should, 60 percent

Should not, 31 percent

No opinion, 9 percent

CNN-USA Today-Gallup

Do you think the federal government should or should not fund this type of research, or don't you know enough to say?

Should, 30 percent

Should not, 13 percent

Don't know enough, 57 percent

Which comes closest to your view of this kind of stem cell research?

Morally wrong and is unnecessary, 20 percent

Morally wrong, may be necessary, 34 percent

Not morally wrong, may be necessary, 35 percent

Not morally wrong but is unnecessary, 4 percent

No opinion, 7 percent

NBC News-Wall Street Journal

There is a type of medical research that involves using special cells, called stem cells, that are obtained from human embryos. These human embryo stem cells are then used to generate new cells and tissue that could help treat or cure many diseases. I am now going to read you two statements about this type of research.

Statement A: Those OPPOSED to this type of research say that it crosses an ethical line by using cells from potentially viable human embryos, when this research can be done on animals or by using other types of cells.

Statement B: Those IN FAVOR of this research say that it could lead to breakthrough cures for many diseases, such as cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injuries, and this research uses only embryos that otherwise would be discarded. Who do you agree with more - those opposed or those in favor?

Agree more with the opposed: 23 percent

Agree more with those in favor: 69 percent

 

[Mensa]

Just asking

I recently read (damn, can't find the article) that they can extract stem cells from adult fat tissue - such as what is removed during liposuction. I can't remember how they compared to the stem cells retrieved from fetal tissue, but if they were at all useful, that would solve so many problems! Instead of a cosmetic procedure, liposuction would be a donation, like at the blood bank. I wonder if the Fat Bank give out pints of Ben & Jerry's like the Blood Bank does...

I, too, have heard of that. I was wondering if people cured using such a process could be said to be "living off the fat of the land"?

 

[*Lazer*]

Great topic Laurel!!

AJ there is a difference between an egg and a embryo perhaps you did not realize it. As I said there are other sources of stem cells then the embryo and my opinion is we should take advantage of them. I believe most people would have less reservation with the research being conducted if this was done. I believe you would see a big change in the polls too.

 

[Demian]

Wut's Next?

Euthenasia(sp?) and Soylent Green? Chip implants?

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I know the difference. I also recognize a group of people who will turn any inch into a mile.

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: Great topic Laurel!!

AJ there is a difference between an egg and a embryo perhaps you did not realize it. As I said there are other sources of stem cells then the embryo and my opinion is we should take advantage of them. I believe most people would have less reservation with the research being conducted if this was done. I believe you would see a big change in the polls too.

The embryonic stem cells and the placental stem cells are fundamentally different. Harvesting eggs to create the embryos is a costly, difficult process and if using placental stem cells would yield the same results, I'm sure we wouldn't be having this discussion. All the information I am able to find about the current research is that the placental and fatty tissue stem cells do not have the potential to develop as fully as the embryonic stem cells.

 

[Unclebill]

My first thought is that most people's objection has its roots in religious beliefs and dogma. I'd be curious to hear from someone whose beliefs are strictly from the intellect, i. e., no religious, superstitious or other beliefs involved.

Originally posted by Laurel
That is soooo Brave New World. Part of me is appalled, yet I'll happily munch on a chicken breast that was born, raised, and killed on a factory farm.

Laurel, chickens are hatched, not born.

Originally posted by Laurel
I suppose the idea of people-farming is sickening to me, yet I don't see why raising other forms of life to be killed for our purposes is any better or worse.

I offer a question for you to ponder, then. If you clone a human being, you essentially have a replication of the original entity including the brain. In all likelihood, the content of that brain, i. e., memories, will be unique to the exposure and experiences of the new being.

Is the new being a human? Why?

Originally posted by Andra_Jenny
I have to disagree with the premise that morality even plays a part.

Why? Liberals have for so long fought to make this a country of law because they are really uncomfortable with the mores and customs approach to society since so many would be left by the wayside.

I offer a difference of perspective and perception. Liberals have sought to create laws which allow them to use the force of government to deny the freedom of choice to others whose behaviors and choices in life do not conform to what their sensibilities have determined is the proper human behavior.

A country of law in the spirit of the Founders idea of a government of laws, not of men is a nation in which all men are treated with the same respect and procedures and processes by the government. Yet the Liberals have established laws that exactly contravene that principle because they demand that people be treated differently by government, specifically, affirmative action, taxation, etc.

They deny the most fundamental concept of freedom by their attempt to initiate the use of force against those whose behaviors may be stupid, ignorant or morally offensive yet are their right to exercise if they are acknowledged to be free men in a free society.

As to codifying ethics, I oppose that until and unless you can find a universally accepted set of ethics. Ethics are moral guidelines, not something that should be enacted as law. Once you start down this path, you are headed for nothing more than mob rule, for whoever can garner the greatest support is the one who is allowed to DICTATE morality.

 

[Laurel]

Just remember Oprah's wagon she dragged out the time she was on that fasting diet. It's enough to kill any craving.

Blecch! I remember that...I wonder if she still has that wagon...

I believe illness does change your viewpoint. I was extremely uncomfortable with such research until my mother was diagnosed with Lou Gerhig's disease. All the stem cell research in the world will not cure her in time, but if it will stop this illness, I will learn to live with it.

It's a tough choice, but I think I'm with you on this. I do believe that a fetus is alive, but I'm not entirely convinced that one cultivated in a petri dish and "used" when it is no bigger than my hand can be said to be of the same level of consciousness as a born human being.

I know this sounds harsh, but I would give up the life of a fetus to save the fully-grown people I love. If someone very close to me was losing his ability to function and on his or her way towards an early death, I know there would be no question. But I'm selfish like that. I love animals and abhor animal experimentation (especially for silly things like cosmetics), but if I had to sacrifice a chimp to save Manu's life, I'd do it. Wouldn't like it, but I'd do it. And I'd have less of a problem using fetal tissue grown in a lab for that purpose, and I'd have EVEN LESS of a problem using fetal tissue that was "donated" from an abortion or a miscarriage - tisssue that would be dead whether I used it or not, and would likely go into the trash.

My friend is afraid that legalizing his would create a "black market" for women to conceive babies for the purpose of selling them to scientists. This is so ridiculous. It's mucch simpler for them to fertilize their own eggs and make their own tissue, if they're allowed to do so. Black markets generally exist only when something is made illegal and there's no other way to procure it.

This same friend then proceeded to go off on the "playing god" argument. Doctors "play god" every day. They cure diseases. They bring people back from the dead. They alter the course of our lives all the time. I'm not entirely convinced that this is all that different from skin grafts, organ transplants, or other "unnatural" life-saving procedures.

Of course, it's all a red herring to some degree because they haven't been able to do studies on the scale necessary to determine if implanting stem cells will actually do enough people any good to be worth it. If it does turn out that it can actually slow or stop these diseases, then I support it 100%. The benefits to living, conscious people with friends and lovers are great enough to make the sacrifice. It could be my grandfather/aunt/friend who's afflicted next.

 

[Laurel]

Laurel, chickens are hatched, not born.

LOL! Got me again, Bill...

I offer a question for you to ponder, then. If you clone a human being, you essentially have a replication of the original entity including the brain. In all likelihood, the content of that brain, i. e., memories, will be unique to the exposure and experiences of the new being.

Is the new being a human? Why?

Hmmm.... I would think that on a purely structural level, you would have to say yes, it is. It has the genes of a human. It has the organs and looks of a human. Then you get into "spirituality" and what "other" ingredients contribute to our humanity. Since I don't believe in any extraneous ingredients - since I believe that we are essentially the sum of our parts, I would have to say yes, it is a human. And if you asked it, I'm sure that's the answer it would give.

I offer a difference of perspective and perception. Liberals have sought to create laws which allow them to use the force of government to deny the freedom of choice to others whose behaviors and choices in life do not conform to what their sensibilities have determined is the proper human behavior.

Not to turn this into a political thread, but it is the Conservatives who in numbers opposed stem cell research as well as abortion. WriterDom's poll, posted in this thread, confirms that. And the Conservatives who oppose these things generally do so - as you mentioned - on religious grounds.

 

[gleam]

Except that the issue of even whether or not to have laws against murder is itself a moral issue. I don't think there's any real way to avoid the moral viewpoint.

I have to disagree with the premise that morality even plays a part.

Why? Liberals have for so long fought to make this a country of law because they are really uncomfortable with the mores and customs approach to society since so many would be left by the wayside.

There is only what you do. Research, learn, discover truth, hope you like what you find.

We already have a Brave New World in many respects and too many who want to follow Europe down into that bizzare little rabbit hole.

The only currnet value to human life is that which is codified. Anybody working from a moral perspective puts themselves at a terrible disadvantage in any current arguments about the sanctity of life.

 

[bluntforcemama]

Re: Wut's Next?

Euthenasia(sp?) and Soylent Green? Chip implants?

Hell, if I live to be old and decrepid, I sure hope they'll euthanize me.