Let's talk about

[RyanBlack]

Another article which provides insights into the type of research mentioned by MR can be found here:

“The Politics of Human-Embryo Research — Avoiding Ethical Gridlock,” New England Journal of Medicine 334: 1329-32.

What is unfortunately left out is the influence of "for profit" research which is the culdesac where we end up with the ethical dilemmas.

 

[RyanBlack]

The following is an excerpt of an article which posits the use of "public stem cell banks":

Public Stem Cell Banks: Considerations of Justice in Stem Cell Research and Therapy.



by Ruth R. Faden , Liza Dawson , Alison S. Bateman-House , Dawn Mueller Agnew , Hilary Bok , Dan W. Brock , Aravinda Chakravarti , Xiao-Jiang Gao , Mark Greene , John A. Hansen , Patricia A. King , Stephen J. O'Brien , David H. Sachs , Kathryn E. Schill , Andrew Siegel , Davor Solter , Sonia M. Suter , Catherine M. Verfaillie , LeRoy B. Walters , John D. Gearhart


The forthcoming transition in the focus of stem cell research from basic science in the development of therapies raises important questions of justice. This transition is marked by increasing interest in establishing banks of stem cell lines, both to facilitate research and in anticipation of the eventual use of stem cell-derived transplants to treat such diseases as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's, and diabetes. (1) The creation of stem cell banks raises questions about who stands to benefit from these banks and their research and therapeutic applications. First, there is a question about who, financially, will have access to stem cell-based therapies. (2) Also, given that some nations have legislated against allowing the use of embryonic stem cells, there may be a question of who legally will have access to therapies derived from banked stem cell lines, particularly those of embryonic derivation.

A final issue, and the one we will discuss in this paper, is who biologically will have access to cell-based therapies. As we will show, the biological properties of stem cells themselves may make them less accessible to some potential recipients than to others, a situation we term the problem of biological access. Unless the problem of biological access is carefully addressed, an American stem cell bank may end up benefiting primarily white Americans, to the relative exclusion of the rest of the population. We must therefore ask which of all possible ways to structure an American stem cell bank is the most just.

 

[call_me_Melody]

Another article which provides insights into the type of research mentioned by MR can be found here:

“The Politics of Human-Embryo Research — Avoiding Ethical Gridlock,” New England Journal of Medicine 334: 1329-32.

What is unfortunately left out is the influence of "for profit" research which is the culdesac where we end up with the ethical dilemmas.

So basically....
Pro-life vs Pro-Choice as well as the quest for the almighty dollar thrown in the mix with a lot of angst and human heartache is what we are getting at as the crux of the dilemma? (Yes I know I'm massively over-simplifying, but I'm actually juggling a number of things.)

So that being said, if it were a given we could eradicate specific diseases or that it would find a true "cure" would it then be worth it?

 

[RyanBlack]

I would love more information on that. If you don't feel comfortable sharing that on the board (ie:hometown) would you mind PMing me with it?

http://www.biologynews.net/archives...versatility_of_amniotic_fluid_stem_cells.html


there are hundreds of articles on this research vector---this one is a little more mainstream and less academic if you like it--there are more most of which are not location specific

 

[mikeroman336]

http://www.biologynews.net/archives...versatility_of_amniotic_fluid_stem_cells.html


there are hundreds of articles on this research vector---this one is a little more mainstream and less academic if you like it--there are more most of which are not location specific

That's the one.

 

[southerntierguy]

So basically....
Pro-life vs Pro-Choice as well as the quest for the almighty dollar thrown in the mix with a lot of angst and human heartache is what we are getting at as the crux of the dilemma? (Yes I know I'm massively over-simplifying, but I'm actually juggling a number of things.)

So that being said, if it were a given we could eradicate specific diseases or that it would find a true "cure" would it then be worth it?

For at least some of the people who would debate the issue (I am not a "life begins at conception" person, but I believe it begins far earlier than my more liberal counterpoints generally would suggest), that question may be tantamount to suggesting the Nazi experimentation on Jews would have been worth the cost had they found valid scientific data that advanced the understanding of the human condition.

What cure could be worth it, if you are giving one group of humans a reason to exterminate a number of other human beings?

Do you suppose that there is only ONE way to arrive at a cure for such diseases? If not, might not moral imperatives have a much more important role in these discussions than the mere availability of the "resources" aspect of the discussion?

I don't see how this issue can be divorced from the "when does life begin" element.

 

[RyanBlack]

So basically....
Pro-life vs Pro-Choice as well as the quest for the almighty dollar thrown in the mix with a lot of angst and human heartache is what we are getting at as the crux of the dilemma? (Yes I know I'm massively over-simplifying, but I'm actually juggling a number of things.)

So that being said, if it were a given we could eradicate specific diseases or that it would find a true "cure" would it then be worth it?

It is not as much a question of Pro Choice vs Pro Life as it is a question of what is the purpose of a human life, fetus, embryo etc...and where to we draw the line between right and wrong, research and resource. . .

The results of these choices have much farther consequences than are talked about or presented in the majority of public forums---

Nor is the answer going to be cut and dried or simple---

Our decision MUST be divorced from our emotions because the answer to questions like "who would I be willing to kill to save the life of my child" see the Movie with Denzel Washington which deals with that question of economics--cant for the life of me remember the name of it right now---is going to be answered without any legal or moral constraints----at least for me it would be.

 

[RyanBlack]

For at least some of the people who would debate the issue (I am not a "life begins at conception" person, but I believe it begins far earlier than my more liberal counterpoints generally would suggest), that question may be tantamount to suggesting the Nazi experimentation on Jews would have been worth the cost had they found valid scientific data that advanced the understanding of the human condition.

What cure could be worth it, if you are giving one group of humans a reason to exterminate a number of other human beings?

Do you suppose that there is only ONE way to arrive at a cure for such diseases? If not, might not moral imperatives have a much more important role in these discussions than the mere availability of the "resources" aspect of the discussion?

I don't see how this issue can be divorced from the "when does life begin" element.

The reason it must be divorced from that question is because the standard is that legally life begins at conception if you kill the fetus of a pregnant woman when you are driving drunk, at the moment before the baby is delivered if you are having a Partial Birth Abortion proceedure. These two times are separated by 9 months and both are legal definitions.

The truth is that we are certainly willing to deny life to some for the benefit of others---this is a fact--not an opinion. The question is can we live with the consequences of using a cheaper method with Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research because it is cheaper instead of using other sources though they are more expenisive.

 

[daus42]

I have a good friend who had an aggressive form of lymphoma cancer. Normal treatment was not going to be effective so he opted for stem cell transplant that gave him a 30% chance of survival. That was five years ago and he is 100% cancer free. Stem cell research saved his life. I know the world is a better for having this good, kind, & intelligent man still in it.

My sons girlfriend has cystic fibrosis and I've seen the hardship she endures. A cure for that disease is not that far over the horizon.

When this issue hits close to home your perspective changes and it's no longer some vague debate.

My viewpoint is the potential benefits outweight the chances for abuse. While I oppose use of human embryos for research, I think the research should continue.

 

[call_me_Melody]

So, then does it come down to..
What cost human life? And who's life is more important?

 

[call_me_Melody]

I have a good friend who had an aggressive form of lymphoma cancer. Normal treatment was not going to be effective so he opted for stem cell transplant that gave him a 30% chance of survival. That was five years ago and he is 100% cancer free. Stem cell research saved his life. I know the world is a better for having this good, kind, & intelligent man still in it.

My sons girlfriend has cyctic fibrosis and I've seen the hardship she endures. A cure for that disease is not that far over the horizon.

When this issue hits close to home your perspective changes and it's no longer some vague debate.

My viewpoint is the potential benefits outweight the chances for abuse. While I oppose use of human embryos for research, I think the research should continue.

I'm glad your friend is cancer free. This is the type of thing that brought me to this discussion today.

 

[southerntierguy]

It is not as much a question of Pro Choice vs Pro Life as it is a question of what is the purpose of a human life, fetus, embryo etc...and where to we draw the line between right and wrong, research and resource. . .

The results of these choices have much farther consequences than are talked about or presented in the majority of public forums---

Nor is the answer going to be cut and dried or simple---

Our decision MUST be divorced from our emotions because the answer to questions like "who would I be willing to kill to save the life of my child" see the Movie with Denzel Washington which deals with that question of economics--cant for the life of me remember the name of it right now---is going to be answered without any legal or moral constraints----at least for me it would be.

I assume you mean John Q -- unless you mean The Book of Eli.

Of course, we in the U.S. are going to have these debates, because despite the left's claims that "death panels" are ridiculous notions that the right has just made up (which to a degree the right HAS exaggerated), as long as the federal government moves more and more into health care management and regulation, decisions on the allocations of scarce resources are going to be made by politicians in public discussions rather than by physicians or panels of physicians behind closed doors. This debate will just be another of those debates.

And let's face it, the end decisions are probably going to be made based on humanity's lowest common denominator (money, and it's influence on maintaining power) rather than on ethical, moral, and philosophical values.

I don't predict a solution to this issue in my lifetime.

 

[southerntierguy]

The reason it must be divorced from that question is because the standard is that legally life begins at conception if you kill the fetus of a pregnant woman when you are driving drunk, at the moment before the baby is delivered if you are having a Partial Birth Abortion procedure. These two times are separated by 9 months and both are legal definitions.

The truth is that we are certainly willing to deny life to some for the benefit of others---this is a fact--not an opinion. The question is can we live with the consequences of using a cheaper method with Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research because it is cheaper instead of using other sources though they are more expensive.

Those are CURRENTLY the legal definitions. However, should society so desire, those definitions could EASILY be changed. There is nothing hard and fast about the law.

And yes, we do as a society make choices as to how we allocate scarce resources. What choice do we have? Not all life-saving resources are available in sufficient qualities. However, to date I do not know of any situations where we give legal cover to the taking of an innocent life in order to extend the lives of others, except in the conditions where as a society we cannot come to an agreement on whether an entity is entitled to be considered human life.

 

[call_me_Melody]

Well, ok, now that I have a few minutes to discuss further and a little more intelligently, should we take into consideration that embryonic stem cells make up a significant proportion of a developing embryo, while adult stem cells exist as minor populations within a mature individual (ex. in every 10,000 cells of the bone marrow, only 10 will be usable stem cells). This would make embryonic stem cells easier to grow and cultivate. Granted, again this may come down to financial but isn't this just logical then?

 

[RyanBlack]

I have a good friend who had an aggressive form of lymphoma cancer. Normal treatment was not going to be effective so he opted for stem cell transplant that gave him a 30% chance of survival. That was five years ago and he is 100% cancer free. Stem cell research saved his life. I know the world is a better for having this good, kind, & intelligent man still in it.

My sons girlfriend has cystic fibrosis and I've seen the hardship she endures. A cure for that disease is not that far over the horizon.

When this issue hits close to home your perspective changes and it's no longer some vague debate.

My viewpoint is the potential benefits outweight the chances for abuse. While I oppose use of human embryos for research, I think the research should continue.

I am glad your friend is cancer free--and as anecdotal argument it is valid---to save my friend or my son I would do pretty much anything and deal with the consequences later if there were any.

The point where our opinions differ dramatically is your statement that benefits outweigh the chances for abuse.

I believe that the chances for abuse or or devaluation are far greater and it would lead to social and economic division and the kinds of behavior we currently characterize and abhorrent. The Nazi experiments on Jews were at heart genetic research to acheive a desired end---an aryan race---those actions are considered only in the most horrendous verbage; and yet how is it different than the possibility of breeding fetuses for genetic research which will result in longer lives for affluent white americans?

And Yes John Q was exactly the name of the movie I was thinking of---thanks STR

 

[call_me_Melody]

I believe that the chances for abuse or or devaluation are far greater and it would lead to social and economic division and the kinds of behavior we currently characterize and abhorrent. The Nazi experiments on Jews were at heart genetic research to acheive a desired end---an aryan race---those actions are considered only in the most horrendous verbage; and yet how is it different than the possibility of breeding fetuses for genetic research which will result in longer lives for affluent white americans?

Ok, so then... how does this get resolved? How do we become more proactive and discover a workable solution?

 

[RyanBlack]

Well, ok, now that I have a few minutes to discuss further and a little more intelligently, should we take into consideration that embryonic stem cells make up a significant proportion of a developing embryo, while adult stem cells exist as minor populations within a mature individual (ex. in every 10,000 cells of the bone marrow, only 10 will be usable stem cells). This would make embryonic stem cells easier to grow and cultivate. Granted, again this may come down to financial but isn't this just logical then?

Logical---Certainly it is Economically more Logical---but then survival of the fittest is at heart an economic philosophy---however let me couch it in different terms---If a child has down's sydrome it makes much more economic and rational and logical sense to Euthanize them (kill) because they are not economical to maintain--unfortunately their genetic derivation (mutation at the zygote level) makes them unfit for medical research---shall we feed them to the pigs so that their cells will have a purpose?

Of course that is extreme--but if you do not think it is being discussed at the major university Medical Bio-Ethics levels--think again--there is substantial teaching in the field that "Quality of Life" should be used to determine viability and sustainability for infants and fetuses with genetic abnormalities.

 

[call_me_Melody]

Logical---Certainly it is Economically more Logical---but then survival of the fittest is at heart an economic philosophy---however let me couch it in different terms---If a child has down's sydrome it makes much more economic and rational and logical sense to Euthanize them (kill) because they are not economical to maintain--unfortunately their genetic derivation (mutation at the zygote level) makes them unfit for medical research---shall we feed them to the pigs so that their cells will have a purpose?

Of course that is extreme--but if you do not think it is being discussed at the major university Medical Bio-Ethics levels--think again--there is substantial teaching in the field that "Quality of Life" should be used to determine viability and sustainability for infants and fetuses with genetic abnormalities.

*huge discouraged with humankind sigh*

 

[RyanBlack]

Ok, so then... how does this get resolved? How do we become more proactive and discover a workable solution?

This---this is what we do---we talk, argue, debate, dialogue and work together so synthesize something that we can live with as the best thing we can do--no the most expedient one


In my opinion bearing the greater costs associated with using non fetal stem cells carries a much lighter burden for humanity.

We do assign value to lives--as a culture we value our "lifestyle" (read that as socio-economic status)" enough that we are willing for other people to die or go hungry or go without more than we want to alter our economic status.

We care emotionally about our loved ones and friends more than we care about the people dying of AIDS in Africa.

We value our politics more than we value our liberties.

These are simple facts of life so to speak---My argument is that we must divorce our determination of what we find permissable based on the fact that I dont want my son to die of (fill in the blank)---because I would do whatever it takes to protect and provide for him and "fuck the philosophy and morality crap"

I just dont want to open the door to doing those things at the cost of further devaluing our humanity; the minute we elevate some lives as more valuable than others we open the door to very very dangerous moral relativity.

 

[RyanBlack]

*huge discouraged with humankind sigh*

http://www.ecmaj.com/cgi/reprint/159/2/159.pdf

An interesting journal artical for health care practicioners. Read the phrase "Quality of Life" as the opinion left to the discretion of the Doctor in Question.

There are also numerous case law studies of Mercy Killings in nursing homes and hospitals where health care providers take it upon themselves to "ease the suffering" of the elderly---often without the involvement or consent of the patient or families in question.

 

[southerntierguy]

This---this is what we do---we talk, argue, debate, dialogue and work together so synthesize something that we can live with as the best thing we can do--no the most expedient one


In my opinion bearing the greater costs associated with using non fetal stem cells carries a much lighter burden for humanity.

We do assign value to lives--as a culture we value our "lifestyle" (read that as socio-economic status)" enough that we are willing for other people to die or go hungry or go without more than we want to alter our economic status.

We care emotionally about our loved ones and friends more than we care about the people dying of AIDS in Africa.

We value our politics more than we value our liberties.

These are simple facts of life so to speak---My argument is that we must divorce our determination of what we find permissable based on the fact that I dont want my son to die of (fill in the blank)---because I would do whatever it takes to protect and provide for him and "fuck the philosophy and morality crap"

I just dont want to open the door to doing those things at the cost of further devaluing our humanity; the minute we elevate some lives as more valuable than others we open the door to very very dangerous moral relativity.

And you can extend the debate further to the value to humanity of biodiversity. What is the value to mankind of allowing or restricting the deforestation of the Amazon? How about the potential problems of ridding the world of the Snail Darter? Would it be worth it to use all of the world's supply of a rare plant to save the life of 5,000,000 children? How about 5 children? What if we found a cure for diabetes that would require 90% of the world's cat population to be exterminated? What if we found that we could only keep our cell phones if the mining process to mine required elements destroyed the only habitat where pandas could live in the wild? What if we found the honeybee problems that are eliminating so many hives in the US were being caused by excessive power consumption in the countryside, or in the cities? Would it make a difference that it is a honeybee problem, and they are needed to pollenate so many food sources, rather than termites, who consume dead wood (actually, another invaluable process)?

 

[RyanBlack]

And you can extend the debate further to the value to humanity of biodiversity. What is the value to mankind of allowing or restricting the deforestation of the Amazon? How about the potential problems of ridding the world of the Snail Darter? Would it be worth it to use all of the world's supply of a rare plant to save the life of 5,000,000 children? How about 5 children? What if we found a cure for diabetes that require 90% of the world's cat population to be exterminated? What if we found that we could only keep our cell phones if the mining process to mine required elements destroyed the only habitat where pandas could live in the wild? What if we found the honeybee problems that are eliminating so many hives in the US were being caused by excessive power consumption in the countryside, or in the cities? Would it make a difference that it is a honeybee problem, and they are needed to pollenate so many food sources, rather than termites, who consume dead wood (actually, another invaluable process)?

that is another discussion but also a valid one---

Humaity is to me more valuable than a snail darter but can humanity exist with out a certain regard for the value of the snail darter? that is a good question

 

[call_me_Melody]

that is another discussion but also a valid one---

Humaity is to me more valuable than a snail darter but can humanity exist with out a certain regard for the value of the snail darter? that is a good question

Oh I completely agree with this statement. I think perhaps I'm too close to the issue to fully be objective but I guess it really comes down to cost at least for me.

At what cost human life?

And cost doesn't have to mean financial...
cost in spirt, soul, morality, freedoms, humanity, dollars, etc...
Everyone has their price.

 

[southerntierguy]

that is another discussion but also a valid one---

Humaity is to me more valuable than a snail darter but can humanity exist with out a certain regard for the value of the snail darter? that is a good question

Oh, I admit it is a SOMEWHAT different discussion, but in some ways it deals with the same issues:

(1) What value do we place on the individual, and specifically the individual human, rather than the whole of society, or of the whole ecosystem?

(2) When do (or can) we have to factor in what that individual does for society in making determinations regarding scarce resources, and what factors should we consider?

(3) Should there be a limit on the amount of resources that can be expended to save the life of an individual? To extend their life for a certain period of time? What is the trade off in amount of time vs. amount of resources needed to acquire that time, and is that an optimal use of those resources? Does that vary from person to person, and if so, how and why?

(4) Are we pursuing short term goals at the cost of long-term problems?

 

[southerntierguy]

Oh I completely agree with this statement. I think perhaps I'm too close to the issue to fully be objective but I guess it really comes down to cost at least for me.

At what cost human life?

And cost doesn't have to mean financial...
cost in spirit, soul, morality, freedoms, humanity, dollars, etc...
Everyone has their price.

So, just curious, what is your answer?

I also have to say, I hope you are wrong. I hope not everyone has their price. I think that most, but not everyone, has a price at which they can be bought.