Once again Bush does his best to set us way back...

Stem cell study

Sixty percent of patients who have undergone in vitro fertilization said they would like to donate unused embryos to stem cell research, according to a study published today in the online edition of the journal Science.

The study, led by researchers at Duke University and Johns Hopkins University, surveyed thousands of men and women who had gone through fertility treatment.

When asked to choose between destroying unused embryos, donating them to infertile couples or donating them to science, 49 percent of patients said they preferred the latter. That number jumped to 60 percent when asked whether they favored using the embryos for stem cell research in particular.

On average, each of the 2,120 patients surveyed had between four and six unused embryos. The study was conducted at nine fertility centers across the country.



"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical, and it is not the only option before us," said Bush, who appeared onstage with Kaitlyne McNamara of Middletown, Conn., who was born with spina bifida and is benefiting from what Bush called "ethical stem cell research."

Even some people with conditions that might benefit from ESCR are opposed to it.

Is that all you got from that quote????

77 lines, only 21 are feasible. Approximately 29.5% Success rate.

2120 patients, 60% would donate = 1272 people to donate

1272 patients * 4 embryos = 5088 possible new lines from only 9 clinics.

Using the 29.5% success rate, 5088 *.295 = 1500 or 1501 new lines

Brandie
 
I didn't say I knew nothing, I said I know little. Do you think if I researched it more, it would change my opinion of not wanting my tax dollars funding this? I'm against abortion. So why wouldn't I be against something that also destroys potential human life? I'd be called a hypocrite if I approved of one and not the other.


But doesn't the federal government fund abortions?
Do you feel the PRESIDENT is a hypocrite?
 
Here's the Rand Study that I've mentioned....different (vastly) from the one Charade referenced, and that was in the news yesterday.:confused3 I think the difference is probably in the wording of the questioning....And Rand's study was probably bigger than the other (9 clinics in yesterday's.....I can tell you there are at least 4 in my area.....the answers would really depend on geography and demographics with such a small sample size I actually think the small sample size might invalidate the results).

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9038/index1.html

How Many Frozen Human Embryos Are Available for Research?
View the print-friendly version: PDF

Frozen human embryos have recently become the focus of considerable media attention. Frozen embryos are a potential source of embryonic stem cells, which can replicate themselves and develop into specialized cells (e.g., blood cells or nerve cells). Researchers believe that such cells might be capable of growing replacement tissues that could be used to treat people suffering from a number of diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and diabetes. Among the most contentious issues in the stem cell debate are whether frozen embryos should be used to produce stem cells for research purposes and whether it is appropriate to use federal funds for research involving human embryos.

Many of the proposed resolutions to the embryonic stem cell debate are based on assumptions about the total number of frozen human embryos in the United States and the percentage of that total that is available for research. Accurate data on these issues, however, have not been available. Guesses on the total number of embryos have ranged wildly from tens of thousands to several hundred thousand.

RAND researchers Gail L. Zellman and C. Christine Fair, together with the Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) Working Group led by David Hoffman, MD, have completed a project designed to inform the policy debate by providing accurate data on the number of frozen embryos in the United States and how many of those embryos are available for research purposes. Their findings include the following:

Nearly 400,000 embryos (fertilized eggs that have developed for six or fewer days) have been frozen and stored since the late 1970s.
Patients have designated only 2.8 percent (about 11,000 embryos) for research. The vast majority of frozen embryos are designated for future attempts at pregnancy.
From those embryos designated for research, perhaps as many as 275 stem cell lines (cell cultures suitable for further development) could be created. The actual number is likely to be much lower.


Vast Majority of Frozen Embryos Are Held for Family Building

Designated Use of Frozen Embryos in the United States as of April 2002
The practice of freezing embryos dates back to the first infertility treatments in the mid-1980s. The process of in vitro fertilization often produces more embryos than can be used at one time. In the United States, the decision about what to do with the extra embryos rests with the patients who produced them.

The RAND-SART team designed and implemented a survey to determine the number and current disposition of embryos frozen and stored since the mid-1980s at fertility clinics in the United States and the number of those embryos designated for research. The survey was sent to all 430 assisted reproductive technology facilities in the United States, 340 of which responded. Estimates for nonresponding clinics were developed using a statistical formula based on a clinic's size and other characteristics. The results show that as of April 11, 2002, a total of 396,526 embryos have been placed in storage in the United States. This number is higher than expected; previous estimates have ranged from 30,000 to 200,000.

Although the total number of frozen embryos is large, the RAND-SART survey found that only a small percentage of these embryos have been designated for research use. As the figure illustrates, the vast majority of stored embryos (88.2 percent) are being held for family building, with just 2.8 percent of the total (11,000) designated for research. Of the remaining embryos, 2.3 percent are awaiting donation to another patient, 2.2 percent are designated to be discarded, and 4.5 percent are held in storage for other reasons, including lost contact with a patient, patient death, abandonment, and divorce.


Embryos Available for Research Do Not Have High Development Potential
Although the 11,000 embryos designated for research might seem like a large number, the actual number of embryos that might be converted into stem cell lines is likely to be substantially lower. Because assisted reproductive technology clinics generally transfer the best-quality embryos to the patient during treatment cycles, the remaining embryos available to be frozen are not always of the highest quality. (High-quality embryos are those that grow at normal rates.) In addition, some of the frozen embryos have been in storage for many years, and at the time that some of those embryos were created, laboratory cultures were not as conducive to preserving embryos as they are today. Some embryos would also be lost in the freeze-and-thaw process itself.

To illustrate how such laboratory conditions might limit the number of embryos available for research, the RAND-SART team performed a series of calculations. Drawing upon the few published studies in this area, they estimated that only about 65 percent of the approximately 11,000 embryos would survive the freeze-and-thaw process, resulting in 7,334 embryos. Of those, about 25 percent (1,834 embryos) would likely be able to survive the initial stages of development to the blastocyst stage (a blastocyst is an embryo that has developed for at least five days). Even fewer could be successfully converted into embryonic stem cell lines. For example, researchers at the University of Wisconsin needed 18 blastocysts to create five embryonic stem cell lines, while researchers at The Jones Institute used 40 blastocysts to create three lines.

Using a conservative estimate between the two conversion rates from blastocyst to stem cells noted above (27 percent and 7.5 percent), the research team calculated that about 275 embryonic stem cell lines could be created from the total number of embryos available for research.[1] Even this number is probably an overestimate because it assumes that all the embryos designated for research in the United States would be used to create stem cell lines, which is highly unlikely.



Conclusion
The RAND-SART survey found that almost twice as many frozen embryos exist in the United States as the highest previous estimate. Only a small percentage of these embryos are available for research because the vast majority are reserved for family building. Among those that are in principle available for research, some have been in storage for more than a decade and were frozen using techniques that are less effective than those that are currently available.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] It should be noted that these conversion-rate estimates are based upon the conditions under which cryopreserved embryos were frozen as well as current techniques to create stem cell lines from such embryos. It is possible that as freezing procedures and laboratory techniques to create stem cell lines improve, the conversion rate could increase over time.
 
Is the above comment illegal? I think it's illegal.

Anyway, this just supports my belief that Busch is just a complete and total, despicable moron and a sorry excuse for a human being.

I do think the Secret Service could be interested in such a comment...just sayin'.

Also, I had to laugh at your spelling of Bush, at first I was wondering why you were talking about that crappy beer. ;) :rotfl:


Would you please type more than just this smiley? Perhaps for once you would like to offer an opinion. :rolleyes:
 

But doesn't the federal government fund abortions?
Do you feel the PRESIDENT is a hypocrite?

In case you missed it, I stated previously in this thread that I don't think my tax dollars should fund either.

And yes, I would consider Bush a hypocrite.
 
But doesn't the federal government fund abortions?
Do you feel the PRESIDENT is a hypocrite?

Sorry, I have to step in here... When does the fed govt fund abortions? Bush earned my ire when the very first thing he did (within his first 30 days in office) was an executive order not allowing overseas military and their dependents access to abortions. He's pretty consistently shut off all federal monies towards health clinics that perform abortions, and you can't get abortions in several states due to lack of funding AND doctors refusing to perform them.

Brandie
 
I am against impeachment for many reasons, but that's not one of them. I bet if Bush was impeached, he's roll over on Chaney to save his own butt.

Really? I would think repeatedly violating the constitution certainly would qualify one for impeachment, but I guess that's just me. :teeth:
 
Medicaid pays for abortions in cases of rape, incest and/or life endangerment.

And as I stated, in several states, women are unable to get abortions due to a lack of providers. And those in the military health care system are unable to get them at all.

Brandie
 
Biographies for the 2002 RAND study:
http://www.milbank.org/8103NC.html

C. Christine Fair is an associate political scientist with the RAND Corporation. Her research is on political military affairs, asymmetric warfare and terrorism, and developments in political Islam in South Asia. She has worked on projects on child abuse, prenatal substance abuse, and sex selection and in vitro fertilization technologies. Fair is especially interested in the international dimensions of assisted reproductive technologies.

Gail L. Zellman is senior research psychologist with the RAND Corporation and, for many years, has worked on child and youth policy. Her research interests include child care, child maltreatment, prenatal substance exposure, and parents' involvement in their children's schools. She also has investigated the effects of institutional structures and policies—particularly those of schools and child care providers—on meeting the needs of children and enhancing parents' abilities to help their children.

David Hoffman, MD: http://www.ivfflorida.com/david_hoffman.html

Brandie
 
Medicaid pays for abortions in cases of rape, incest and/or life endangerment.

I've stated before that I'm not completely opposed to abortion but I dislike them all. I don't want the governemt to fund abortions as a form of birth control.
 
And as I stated, in several states, women are unable to get abortions due to a lack of providers.

Brandie

That sounds more like a provider issue or a state issue, than a federal gov't issue. Many doctors that have been educated and trained to deliver live babies didn't go into it to provide abortions for non-medical reasons. Do you blame them? Also, some states don't have adequate health care providers for other things either (like good cardiologists, brain surgeons, good neonatal nurseries, etc.)
 
And as I stated, in several states, women are unable to get abortions due to a lack of providers.

Brandie

OK:confused3

I did not say the federal government setup abortion clinics in all fifty states(or anywhere), I said they did fund abortions. And they do, maybe not as much as you would like but that does not change the facts.
 
OK:confused3

I did not say the federal government setup abortion clinics in all fifty states(or anywhere), I said they did fund abortions. And they do, maybe not as much as you would like but that does not change the facts.

I also stated the feds (specifically Bush) cut funding for any health care clinics that DID provide abortions. So giving lip service to paying for abortions in extreme situations while shutting down clinics that provide those services counts in my book as not actually supporting the 1993 change to the 1976 Hyde Amendment.

Kinda like Bush signing statements... Bush says, "I'll pass the law, but I'm not actually going to hold my branch of government to the law...."

Brandie
 
I also stated the feds (specifically Bush) cut funding for any health care clinics that DID provide abortions. So giving lip service to paying for abortions in extreme situations while shutting down clinics that provide those services counts in my book as not actually supporting the 1993 change to the 1976 Hyde Amendment.

Kinda like Bush signing statements... Bush says, "I'll pass the law, but I'm not actually going to hold my branch of government to the law...."

Brandie

I really dont understand why you want to argue with me about abortion funding, I never mentioned my stance on the issue either way.

I stated that the Federal Government funds abortions, THEY DO, but you still contradicted and continue to post facts that do not change that.

Yes I understand that funding has been "cut"(your word), but I never said anything to the contrary.
 
Interestingly (and predictably) they were talking about this on "The View" this morning. As a side note, they really should change the name to "The Shout"....

Anyways, they talked about the study were talking about here. Even though I'm not as versed as some others, the ignorance shown on the show is amazing. It's all about "sound bites". It's a shame that the topic can't be debated in depth with all the facts and without resorting making desparaging remarks against each other.
 
Interestingly (and predictably) they were talking about this on "The View" this morning. As a side note, they really should change the name to "The Shout"....

Anyways, they talked about the study were talking about here. Even though I'm not as versed as some others, the ignorance shown on the show is amazing. It's all about "sound bites". It's a shame that the topic can't be debated in depth with all the facts and without resorting making desparaging remarks against each other.

ITA. I guess it's why the elected officials can't do it either. :confused:
 



New Posts










Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top