stem cell research

[Oliver Clozoff]

Where the FUCK is the SEARCH function when one needs it?

We have discussed the question, "When does 'life' begin?" over and over and over and over since i've been at Lit...

WHEN is our reliable SEARCH function coming back!

You wouldn't be looking for this, would you?

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=29867

(the pertinent discussion begins on page 2)

 

[alltherage]

Not for nothing but the death penalty is applied based on racial and economic bias in this country and for that reason alone i am against it. Add in the numbers of innocent people who have been executed and the fact that each execution attacks a mob partying at the gates of the prison and i fail to see how it can ever make us better as a people. The natural inclination for revenge when someone kills someone you love is perfectly natural. Our outrage at particularly heinous crimes is equally so. The question is do we need the modern equivilant to the Roman Arena in the 21st century.

 

[JazzManJim]

daughter,
My beliefs on the onset of life are a combination of religion and what I believe to be common sense. They are, of course, my own, and I don't expect anyone else to hold to them.
I believe that life begins at the very second the cell begins to divide, and we can identify without fail that the thing dividing will become, if allowed to continue, a human being. At that point it's a human. That just kind of seems to be obvious to me. I fervently oppose abortion except in the most extreme cases of immediate threat to the life of the mother.
As far as stem-cell research goes, I'm as fervently opposed to using human beings non-consentually for medical purposes. Human embryos shold have at least the same basic right to self-determination as the rest of us. I realize that parents may consent to have cells and marrow used for medical purposes to save lives. Ibelieve that's just in the cases of embryos also. If removing the stem cells kills the embryos, we've crossed the line. That doesn't have to be the case, though. Umbilical stem cells seem to be showing every bit as much promise as the rest, with almost no threat to the life of the child.
Otherwise, on the entire cloning issue (which isn't really cloning, but twinning - another process entirely), the genie's out of the bottle. There's no chance at all that we'll be able to prohibit it to any reasonable extent, nor should we. But we do need to take a serious and reasoned look at the implications before we go charging into things.

 

[Unclebill]

Members--

There is a myriad of issues surrounding this topic. One of them is defining where life begins and assigning protective rights for newly defined personhood. If an embryo is give personhood status, how will that affect a woman's reproductive rights? Will an embryo's rights supersede its mother's?

Peace,

daughter

Try this for a clearly stated case for the rights of the woman regarding your question: http://religion.aynrand.org/abortion_prolife.html

Originally posted by Laurel
It's a complex issue, but the implications of that question scare me.

Laurel, maybe the above will offer you some intellectual encouragement and comfort.

Fortunately, the men who founded this nation and formulated the Federal government were intelligent enough and aware enough to realize the dangers of allowing religion to be the means of dictating morality via government and consequently established a secular state giving not only freedom of religion but more importantly freedom from religion and its attendant dogma.

Perhaps they took note of the fact that the word was ruled by the church for a few centuries, a period aptly known as the Dark Ages, and wished and attempted to spare Americans of that threat.

As to stem cell research, man's mind is his means of survival and advancement. To deny the full use and application of that is irrational. The potential benefits are enormous and yet may not yield anything in reality. Yet the potential for failure is no reason to deny the pursuit of the scientific knowledge. Even worse would be allowing the irrational fear of unprecedented success to be the reason to suppress such research.

The greatest danger faced I think is that science may stumble upon the proof that there is no god, that religion is nothing more than mythology and that is unthinkable to too many people.

Originally posted by cymbidia
. . . Here's the short course:
Life, biological life, begins at conception. . .

So does this mean that the cells which combine are not alive prior to union? Or is it just not biologocal life? And could you differentiate between "life" and "biological life"?

If, as my dictionary supposes, biology is the science of life and living organisms, what is the alternative life to which you refer?

 

[bearlee]

Moridin187, not lately. Used to keep up on that kind of stuff. My feeling is one is too many. Unfortunately, we don't have a perfect system and we don't live in a perfect world. Our system to try to go out its way to make sure no one was wrongly convicted. I remember in law school somebody said, someone much smarter than me, that it is better that 100 guilty people go free than to convict one innocent person.

Didn't always believe in the death penalty. Ideas or beliefs change as you get older I guess. Doesn't really make either one of us wrong and neither one of us right.

The fact is, any criminal defense attorney will tell you 99% of people charged are guilty(that may be a tad high). Do I care about the other 1% or so. Sure I do! Biggest problem is poorly trained attorneys or lazy attorneys, legal aid and public defenders. I can tell you where I believe OJ would one day be sitting with Timmy McVeigh if he had had a public defender. Nothing against PDs, they just have caseloads that are overwhelming and lack the resources. Court appointed attorneys for those jurisdictions not having public defenders are even worse. Just a bunch of attorneys, not all of them, that can't make a living any other way except off the public dole. They get paid very little and try to rush cases along in order to make a buck.

Anyway, only said I could probably benefit from stem cell research and threw the thing in about the death penalty. Although Laurel was talking about other stuff too, she is right about petrie dishes and all. That just raises another question though about creating life. Bunch of ethical issues someone else can figure out for me. The fact is, stem cell research will be done(The Bush Plan is kind of stupid though) and if I can benefit from the research, don't think for a minute I'll turn down a cure because I oppose abortion. I'll be one of the first in line.

Interesting though, it does go to show that people cannot be simply classified as liberals or conservatives. At one time I supported all abortion rights and the death penalty. So, Imay seem conservative on issues, but for example, I'm about as militant as you can get on environmental issues, so like I said before, go figure!

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

But we do need to take a serious and reasoned look at the implications before we go charging into things.

I'm enjoying this thread and the different perspectives found here. Jim's final statement summarizes my nascent thoughts on the issue. Science seems to always outrun ethics and public policy ought to try to build in time to examine the implications of potentially problematic discoveries lest we open ourselves up to some terrible social implications (eg the problems resulting from the invention of atomic weapons). There are some good posts here, but I think the average person is unprepared to tackle an issue like this one because of some basic misunderstandings/ignorances. In the interest of increasing clarity of thinking on this issue, these are some of the "nuts and bolts" considerations that should be remembered.

Is all stem cell research ethically questionable?

No.

As several posters on this thread have mentioned, there are several types of stem cell research going on and not all of them are fraught with difficult ethical questions. Stem cells are found in umbilical cords and placentae which can be harvested after birth with absolutely no danger to mother or baby. Stem cells also exist in within certains tissues of all people throughout all stages of life. These can be harvested from adult fatty tissue easily with only a minor inconvenience to the subject. These two types of stem cell research raise no greater ethical questions than your generic medical experiment.

The experiments that are ethically questionable, however, are those that seek to gain stem cells from growing embryos (hence their name "embryonic stem cells". Harvesting these cells is not so benign a procedure and generally requires the termination of the nascent life. The question therefore is whether or not it's ethically permissible to "terminate" these embryos for the purpose of experimentation on their stem cells.

It should be remembered though, that these 3 sources of stem cells are not necessarily equivalent and thus studying all three is scientifically warranted (i.e. arguments that embryonic stem cells need not be researched because of ongoing research with umbilical and adult stem cells aren't valid).

Funding Considerations

It's also important to remember that there are two general types of funding which underwrite this research:

1. Private research is funded without government money, and although it is subject to government regulation (as is all medical research), operates more freely from the political process and is therefore less contentious. Private embryonic stem cell research has been going on for around 15 years, so this isn't a brand new question.

In that time, researchers have been allowed to harvest embryonic stem cell lines with the stipulation that no embryos be terminated for the purposes of the research. Stem cells were supposed to come only from embryos that were to be aborted anyway. However, there have been a number of violations of this order in which researchers have created embryos in the lab for the express purpose of destroying them and harvesting their stem cells.

2. Federally-funded Research: The other kind of funding is from the Federal government and potentially could account for the vast majority of funding for embryonic stem cell research. Earlier this year President Bush granted the first ever Federal funding for this type of research, but with one major stipualation: that all research receiving federal dollars could only use stem-cell lines already existing before his decision. His intent was to fund a promising research field without requiring the termination of a single future embryo.

There are obviously lots of problems with this compromise, but I applaud him on a good-faith effort to resolve a tricky ethical dilemma.

The bottom line is that embryonic stem cell research involving newly-terminated embryos is going on in the private sector, but not in the public sector. It's probable that some private researchers are creating embryos and terminating them in violation of federal guidelines, even now. Still, it's a promising area of research so it should be allowed to continue.

But in my view the restrictions are warranted.

 

[HoldenMcCrank]

A Fathers point of Veiw

As a Father of a Daughter that has Genetic Disorder (CF). I am for Stem Cell research. This offers a great opertunity to Cure my Daughter. As of now there is no cure for CF.

I am personally againts abortion but I am for a Womans right to choose.

I am not the smartest person in the world but I do know this. The pace of our Technology and Scientific abilities has out paced our ablitity to define our Ethics and Moral obligations.

Holden

 

[patient1]

Brava Literotica ! I've never seen this much ethical territory traversed without it getting ugly & personal.

 

[daughter]

I believe we could

patient1--

Call me weird, but I believe we can discuss a volitile topic without becoming hostile, and I am glad folks didn't reduce this to a senseless, unproductive thread.

Fox asked my view. I asked the questions because I don't have any definitive answers. I believe we benefit greatly from research. However, I think we all can cite enough instances where our technology has outpaced our ability to foresee the repercussions of advancing technology and medicine.

I question how relevant it is to question when life begins. We take life and manipulate it now irrespective of when it begins or could end. The right to abort and the death penalty says plenty of what our society deems moral and ethical.

I do not believe that being religious or spiritual automatically means you cannot logically look at an ethical issue. Human beings impose standards and regulate behavior so that we can live humanely among one another. I'm sick of the snides thrown at religious tenets. Call governing principles whatever you like. It should matter more whether the beliefs support the overall well-being of humanity.

I think it is more important to ask ourselves that whatever benchmark we draw in defining life, can we live with our actions regarding that life? Are we prepared to accept the consequences on acting on an entity we have defined as alive and consequently given status as person protected by our laws?

What rights will be accorded to newly defined persons? What rights and responsibilities will hosts have? Do we inject new jargon into the societal psyche to include 'hosts' where previously we said 'parent'?

We are seeing challenges already in courts about the rights and responsibilties of sperm donors. In parts of the world, donors are being held legally and financially responsible for children that were born because of their genetic material.

Stem cells are genetic material. We are doing things with this material that is outpacing our ability to determine how it fits into to larger scheme of things.

If an embryo is granted personhood, I believe we will have challenges about individual rights. A woman's rights will be eroded. Right wingers will push for legislation that says the state has an obligation to protect it and that it should supercede a woman's rights over her body.

Peace,

daughter

 

[Desdemona]

Biomedical Ethics Soapbox

Daughter, as many others have already said, this is a very interesting thread. For me, the major issue is that our ethical decision making processes have not kept pace with medical scientific breakthroughs.

I think that for most people, it is very difficult to see the many sides of these arguments. Whenever I have had these discussions with friends and acquaintances, I find that people rapidly become very passionate advocates for their particular point of view; and often are completely unable to see that any other perspective my have validity.

If you truly begin to examine the issues from different perspectives, it becomes increasingly difficult to come to one valid conclusion. Our real challenge is to find a balance that is humane; one that we could feel comfortable with if it directly impacted us or someone we love. These questions not only involve the rights of fetuses, the rights of women to control their bodies, religious implications, the point at which life begins.... they also involve fair use of resources; whether they be financial, physical, intellectual or emotional. Quite frankly, many of these resources are in extremely short supply.

In the short run, it is very easy to view research or evolving technologies as somehow evil or bad; especially if someone undergoing the experimental treatment has a "negative outcome". If it involves a child or fetus, this bad feeling is magnified.

Lets do a case study. Not so many years ago, I was in this precise spot.... feeling very badly about participating in an experimental treatment that was truly an exercise in futility and horrific suffering. I almost changed my profession completely and did change specialties quite rapidly. Within 5 short years, that same treatment had been developed to the point that it routinely saved lives; some patients even undergo this treatment in their homes now. Yes, I still feel badly for the patient and family who suffered so much. But, they were told on the front end that it was experimental, probably would not work, and were informed of all the possible complications and problems that could arise. This courageous patient and family chose to go forward anyway. Because of them and many others like them, lots of people are alive that would otherwise have died.

I support medical research. I also see the need for guidelines to help us use the findings appropriately. Thats where the ethical decision makers come in. I'll shut up now.....