Is it possible that such a common topic has not yet been debated here?
I don't recall ever comming across any such debate, and my search of the forums wielded no results. Therefore, I assume this is a fresh subject.
Should the government fund stem cell research? Is it ethical to use unborn embryos as a cure for various human diseases?
Stem Cell Research
Moderator: Moderators
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #3
Ofcourse they should. In my country, they do (We are country Nr1 on stem cell research, (Sweden)).Should the government fund stem cell research? Is it ethical to use unborn embryos as a cure for various human diseases?
I would use living babies, adults or whatever to find cures. There is nothing "ethical wrong" to be able to save lifes.
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #4
Embryonic.Is this about adult or embryonic stem cell research?
Or talk about adult too, if you want. There doesen't really seem to be any conflicting opinions on those though, considering their extraction does not destroy potential life (from what I understand).
Post #5
Let me put it this way: is there any reason I shouldn't be able to take one of my own skin cells, and reprogram it's pattern of gene expression, and then use the new cell types to cure a disease I may have?
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #7
...and if the reprogramming happens to turn on the genes that trigger cleavage and segregation into trophoblast cells and ICM cells, does that make a difference? It's my skin cell, after all.
Panza llena, corazon contento
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #8
Since we are not getting much response, I figure I will present my views.
The extremist Christian viewpoint currently tearing through America seems to bear the attitude that the unborn, unfeeling fetus takes precedence over each and every rationalizing grown human. I can't imagine how anyone may consider this ethical (not to mention Biblically promoted).
The world is now vastly overpopulated, and is getting worse every day. We currently lack the resources to adequately support even a portion of the people on this planet. There are scores of malnourished and diseased in every corner of the world. Yet, many people find it necissary to force even more people into unwilling communities all ready filled to the brim.
This does not have so much to do with the utilization of stem cells, but more the general problem we are faced with. Why should we seek to admit more people into the world when we can not even support what we all ready have?
I do not believe that the underlying principle in this issue is mere 'murder'. The debate is much deeper that that. It is about responsibility and the preservation of our race. We are faced with a decision, and I believe that a line must be drawn somewhere, lest we ALL suffer dire consequences farther down the road.
More specifically, I can't imagine how anyone ethically inclined can turn away the sick and suffering for sake of an embryo (or rather, a primitive, unorganized grouping of cells) that is destined for termination regardless of what we may decide to extract from it. As I understand it, the embryos used for research are ones that will be discarded. Technically therefore, we aren't even killing the so called "baby".
Even if the destruction of an embryo can be classified as 'murder', is not denial of treatment to the sick the very same?
I request that we would seek to improve the live's of our current residents instead of deciding to subject others to these horrors.
Quality > Quanity
The extremist Christian viewpoint currently tearing through America seems to bear the attitude that the unborn, unfeeling fetus takes precedence over each and every rationalizing grown human. I can't imagine how anyone may consider this ethical (not to mention Biblically promoted).
The world is now vastly overpopulated, and is getting worse every day. We currently lack the resources to adequately support even a portion of the people on this planet. There are scores of malnourished and diseased in every corner of the world. Yet, many people find it necissary to force even more people into unwilling communities all ready filled to the brim.
This does not have so much to do with the utilization of stem cells, but more the general problem we are faced with. Why should we seek to admit more people into the world when we can not even support what we all ready have?
I do not believe that the underlying principle in this issue is mere 'murder'. The debate is much deeper that that. It is about responsibility and the preservation of our race. We are faced with a decision, and I believe that a line must be drawn somewhere, lest we ALL suffer dire consequences farther down the road.
More specifically, I can't imagine how anyone ethically inclined can turn away the sick and suffering for sake of an embryo (or rather, a primitive, unorganized grouping of cells) that is destined for termination regardless of what we may decide to extract from it. As I understand it, the embryos used for research are ones that will be discarded. Technically therefore, we aren't even killing the so called "baby".
Even if the destruction of an embryo can be classified as 'murder', is not denial of treatment to the sick the very same?
I request that we would seek to improve the live's of our current residents instead of deciding to subject others to these horrors.
Quality > Quanity
Post #9
That's actually an interesting ethical question in its own right.The Persnickety Platypus wrote:Even if the destruction of an embryo can be classified as 'murder', is not denial of treatment to the sick the very same?
Is murder morally equivalent to allowing someone to die, when you could have easily prevented it ?
Anyway, to get back on topic... I certainly do think that humans take precedence over embryos (as well as cats and monkeys and lab rats). Thus, I hope that Sweden comes up with something interesting in the field of stem cell research pretty soon -- since America is so intent on giving up in this field.
Post #10
Perhaps AlAyeti will join us here... In another thread, this issue came up. I asked essentially the questions I posed above, with the general notion that if I take one of my own cells and reprogram it, and it happens to enter a developmental state that causes it to act like an embryo, am I killing an embryo, or am I already here? Perhaps this would be called "therapeutic cloning"--but the reality is that my immune system is unlikely to accept stem cells from anyone else. It's the classic graft rejection problem.
What AlAyeti pointed out is that this is not what is being sold to the public. The general conception, at least among biblical literalists with Moral Certainty, is that science is trying to make embryos a commodity. The idea has taken hold that women will have wanton sex, then sell their embryos for the express purpose of destroying them in order to save, or maybe merely enhance, someone else.
At this point, I consider this to be far-fetched and biologically unlikely or impossible. So far, the issue is merely to create enough stem cell lines that people can do the experiments necessary to figure out how to treat the cells to cause them to enter specific developmental pathways--whether to become blood cells, neurons, pancreas cells, or whatever. Sure, a lot of this can be done with mouse embryonic stem cells, because of our close evolutionary relationship. The signals are likely to be similar, if not identical. Still, it will be necessary to have human stem cells to determine where the slight differences are.
It will also be necessary to have a source of human oocytes, in order to fuse the donor cells with them (ie, my skin cell). At least until we understand how to do so chemically, this is the only known way to reprogram another cell. So, to some extent, AlAyeti has a point, that women may sell their ovaries or oocytes for this purpose. But once we are beyond "the early days," I think the only concern will be whether my own, reprogrammed cell counts as a new person or as a mere extension of myself.
At that point, I'd say that it would be very hard to justify allowing someone to die on the basis of some weird logic that it would be murder to use one of their own cells to cure them.
What AlAyeti pointed out is that this is not what is being sold to the public. The general conception, at least among biblical literalists with Moral Certainty, is that science is trying to make embryos a commodity. The idea has taken hold that women will have wanton sex, then sell their embryos for the express purpose of destroying them in order to save, or maybe merely enhance, someone else.
At this point, I consider this to be far-fetched and biologically unlikely or impossible. So far, the issue is merely to create enough stem cell lines that people can do the experiments necessary to figure out how to treat the cells to cause them to enter specific developmental pathways--whether to become blood cells, neurons, pancreas cells, or whatever. Sure, a lot of this can be done with mouse embryonic stem cells, because of our close evolutionary relationship. The signals are likely to be similar, if not identical. Still, it will be necessary to have human stem cells to determine where the slight differences are.
It will also be necessary to have a source of human oocytes, in order to fuse the donor cells with them (ie, my skin cell). At least until we understand how to do so chemically, this is the only known way to reprogram another cell. So, to some extent, AlAyeti has a point, that women may sell their ovaries or oocytes for this purpose. But once we are beyond "the early days," I think the only concern will be whether my own, reprogrammed cell counts as a new person or as a mere extension of myself.
At that point, I'd say that it would be very hard to justify allowing someone to die on the basis of some weird logic that it would be murder to use one of their own cells to cure them.
Panza llena, corazon contento
