Stem cell research...

[LindsayDunn228]

I totally agree...and love your quote! It is a great reminder!

Isn't it awesome? I use it all the time!

 

[Galahad]

I don't think it's true that all opposition to embryonic stem cell research is superstitious or even religious. There are many arguable bioethics concerns about it that are entirely non-religious. But I think, that if this technology pans out, most of the objective concerns with it could be eliminated. That there are still folks being "all or nothing" about the issue will still be a problem. But since the direct issue isn't the legality of the research but the funding of the research, perhaps this will loosen the purse strings, get enough folks on board to override any veto (though the White house signaled interest in the technology) to speed up the work in a way that's palatable to more bioethisists.

 

[Charade]

I don't think it's true that all opposition to embryonic stem cell research is superstitious or even religious. .

I agree. But it's better to attach "religious right wing" to the opponents of stem cell research as that apparently makes their opposition less deserving of consideration.

 

[bicker]

I agree with this to a certain extent. I also think, however, that there are a million band wagons out there. And it is impossible to be involved with each, no matter how important the cause.

Surely, the bandwagon aiming for reducing misery and death, in general, would be one of those folks would be more deferential towards.

 

[bicker]

I don't think it's true that all opposition to embryonic stem cell research is superstitious or even religious. There are many arguable bioethics concerns about it that are entirely non-religious.

Bioethics is often about injecting personal belief into science. I'm not saying that there isn't a place for bioethics, but we need to be honest about it and acknowledge that is often a reflection of superstition rather than proven cause-and-effect. Given that, what cause-and-effect -based bioethical concerns have been raised about this new procedure and/or the use of stem cells in general?

 

[shortbun]

I agree. But it's better to attach "religious right wing" to the opponents of stem cell research as that apparently makes their opposition less deserving of consideration.

We attach religion to the discussion just as the POTUS does. He's what he said in August 2001. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html

While I agree that the main discussion regarding stem cells should be in the lab, seems the POTUS gives equal or heavier weight to the church discussions. Since he's the "decider", for now, we all have to be concerned with the way he "decides."

 

[noodleknitter]

Surely, the bandwagon aiming for reducing misery and death, in general, would be one of those folks would be more deferential towards.

There are multitudes of ways to reduce misery and death, which include all those I earlier listed. This is merely another tool for possibly dealing with them. I would not condemn anyone who chose to put all of their time and effort into working with spousal abuse rather than petitioning for another issue. Different strokes for different folks. That is what makes the world go around. And I am quite thankful for it. I like diversity. And I tend to think that most people do the best they can with what they have.

 

[Charade]

We attach religion to the discussion just as the POTUS does. He's what he said in August 2001. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html

While I agree that the main discussion regarding stem cells should be in the lab, seems the POTUS gives equal or heavier weight to the church discussions. Since he's the "decider", for now, we all have to be concerned with the way he "decides."

But Galahad's point was that there are people who's disagreement with stem cell research is not based on religious beliefs however, that's the one that gets the most focus because it's newsworthy. Plus it gets under the skin of those that think a person's religion should be kept in thier closet.

 

[cardaway]

I don't buy that religion has anything to do with this in the long run. Just an excuse to be on one side at the early stages.

When there are eventually benefits to be gained, the religious folks originally against it will be in line to receive theirs, with bells on.

 

[bicker]

I think you're selling religious folks short. I know that I won't be "in line to receive mine" if in order to "gain the benefits" my religious beliefs would have to be violated.

 

[chobie]

I don't buy that religion has anything to do with this in the long run. Just an excuse to be on one side at the early stages.

When there are eventually benefits to be gained, the religious folks originally against it will be in line to receive theirs, with bells on.

ITA. Maybe some people against for religious reasons would not change their beliefs for their own health, but I'm willing to bet that they would be first in line if it was their children who could benefit from the stem cell research.

 

[ead79]

ITA. Maybe some people against for religious reasons would not change their beliefs for their own health, but I'm willing to bet that they would be first in line if it was their children who could benefit from the stem cell research.

I'm sure that some people would indeed change their opinions. But I think a lot of people would be firm in their beliefs. Not everyone has situational ethics, even when they are personally affected. My parents are very much against stem cell research, and I know that their opinion wouldn't change if one of them, God forbid, got Alzheimer's disease. I'm not 100% sure where I stand on some parts of the stem cell research issue so I'm still researching it to better form my opinion.

 

[chobie]

I'm sure that some people would indeed change their opinions. But I think a lot of people would be firm in their beliefs. Not everyone has situational ethics, even when they are personally affected. My parents are very much against stem cell research, and I know that their opinion wouldn't change if one of them, God forbid, got Alzheimer's disease. I'm not 100% sure where I stand on some parts of the stem cell research issue so I'm still researching it to better form my opinion.

Do you think you parents would change their opinion if something happened to you that stem cell research could make better?

 

[noodleknitter]

ITA. Maybe some people against for religious reasons would not change their beliefs for their own health, but I'm willing to bet that they would be first in line if it was their children who could benefit from the stem cell research.

I would believe that the sky is green and the grass blue, to save one of my kids... But then, again, I am hoping that the new options will work, and the controversery give way to progress.

 

[ead79]

Do you think you parents would change their opinion if something happened to you that stem cell research could make better?

Honestly, I do not believe that they would change their opinions. They feel very convicted about the issue of stem cell research. It would not be a matter of them not loving me, but rather a matter of them believing whole-heartedly that stem cell research is morally wrong. Though it's far from a perfect example, they would see it similarly to a situation like this: if I needed a kidney transplant to survive, they would not track down a matching donor and kill them to get the kidney for me. They see stem cell research as being as wrong as killing the donor in my example. I'm not saying that everyone sees it that way, but that if you do see it that way, you're not likely to change your views even in dire circumstances.

 

[JennyMominRI]

That's probably as sad a statement as anything. People already think way too much about themselves and way too little about others, in this country.

It's sad to admit that it's true though... I don't think I would be so passionate about AIDS advocacy did I not have it

 

[JoyG]

I'm sure that some people would indeed change their opinions. But I think a lot of people would be firm in their beliefs. Not everyone has situational ethics, even when they are personally affected. My parents are very much against stem cell research, and I know that their opinion wouldn't change if one of them, God forbid, got Alzheimer's disease. I'm not 100% sure where I stand on some parts of the stem cell research issue so I'm still researching it to better form my opinion.

Elizabeth,

I think it's brave of you to admit you don't know where you stand on this issue yet. I feel the same way. I'm not sure I see it the same way as I see abortion.

If someone leaves an embryo alone in a woman, it will eventually turn into a baby. Even if it hasn't attached yet, it will get there eventually (in most cases)....

However, if someone leaves an embryo alone in a petri dish, it will never turn into a baby.

So I don't know yet...

On the other hand I wouldn't like to see people creating embryos for the sole purpose of using them for stem cell research....



Joy


P.S. I obviously have NOTHING against adult stem cell research...research away on that one.

 

[ead79]

Elizabeth,

I think it's brave of you to admit you don't know where you stand on this issue yet. I feel the same way. I'm not sure I see it the same way as I see abortion.

If someone leaves an embryo alone in a woman, it will eventually turn into a baby. Even if it hasn't attached yet, it will get there eventually (in most cases)....

However, if someone leaves an embryo alone in a petri dish, it will never turn into a baby.

So I don't know yet...

On the other hand I wouldn't like to see people creating embryos for the sole purpose of using them for stem cell research....



Joy


P.S. I obviously have NOTHING against adult stem cell research...research away on that one.

Joy, I feel the same way and the things you addressed are some of my concerns as well. I just don't know how I feel yet. It is definitely a difficult issue with many facets.

 

[Galahad]

Given that, what cause-and-effect -based bioethical concerns have been raised about this new procedure and/or the use of stem cells in general?

One of the larger objective concerns is in fact Darwinian (which I suppose is also religious) or Dawkins-inian. The short version would state that any species or civilization that increases the emphasis on benefit to the current generation at the expense of future generations will fail. The ethic dilemma is the question “does the cure of my personal malady hold more importance than to potential birth of a unknown human?” It may be that the answer is yes. But I don’t think that it’s an ethical slam-dunk. Again, speaking in Darwinian terms, successful species are driven toward successful reproduction and the survival of their offspring, first and foremost over and above their own personal survival. According to even neo-Darwinists, this is true of individual members of a species or the species collectively. From that standpoint, IVF is ethical but destroying embryos is not.

Another example is taken from the 2001 report on the subject by UNESCO (The UN’s Scientific organization).


23. Amongst modern philosophers, there is an active debate about the philosophical foundation for research into, and use of, embryonic cells precisely because of the potential of the human embryo to develop into a human being with the unique and special qualities inherent in that status. Such debates are not confined to a religious and spiritual context. Philosophers of no religious opinion, and humanists approaching the issues in a wholly secular way, have expressed the need for the development of principles to guide the ethical permissibility of embryonic stem cell research and use.


From Page 9-11

VI. Ethical Arguments: The Status of the Human Embryo
32. The ethical legitimacy of performing human embryonic stem cell research depends, in large measure, on the status which is attributed to the embryo. Although there are other considerations having a bearing on the ethical question - such as the consent of the “owners” or creators of the embryo (the parents) -, the categorising of the embryo is crucial to the question of what can be done with it. Much of the ethical debate in this area has been taken up with the question of just what the embryo is. If the embryo is a human being (or person), then our treatment of it is limited to that which we are allowed to do to other human beings. If, by contrast, it is no more than a collection of human cells, then there are far fewer restraints on our handling of it. Mid-way views on the embryo allow for varying degrees of restraint on its use.

33. It is clear that the human embryo has a unique status in biological terms. Unlike any other cluster of living cells, it has the capacity to develop into a functioning complex organism that will be substantially differentiated from the entity it once was. This difference may be described as the embryo’s potential - the potential to become a fully-developed human being. That is, of course, only a biological fact, but it is a biological fact in the face of which we stand in moral awe. In so far as our ethical notions depend upon the valuing of human life, then the human embryo demands respect as the source of the human life to which we attach such significance. But how far should this respect go? Much in nature is respected, but is still used by humankind for its benefit. The real issue is whether the embryo can be brought within full membership of the moral community to which we exclusively admit human persons and human persons alone. If the embryo can be admitted to this community, then it becomes ethically impermissible to use it as a means to an end, and not as an end in itself. More problematic is potential for membership of this community. In one view, the fact that the embryo has the potential to become a human being gives it a particular status, which should protect it from destruction.
34. Arguments about whether the human embryo can be considered a person have been prolonged and marked by a failure to reach agreement. In one view, personhood begins with the fertilisation of the ovum by the sperm; from that moment on, the admittedly primitive organism has an identity which will link it continuously to the infant, to the child, and later to the adult human being it will become. To end the life of the embryo, then, amounts to an ending of the future life of the infant and, indeed, of the child and the adult. Personhood in this view is an ethically significant quality, which human beings have at every stage of their lives, beginning with the embryo and surviving until death brings it to an end.
35. This view of personhood has been challenged by those moral philosophers who see personhood as being dependent on an ability to experience those features of life which lend to life its value and meaning. From the biological point of view, personal individuality can be attributed to the embryo only after the day in its early development when division into normal twins is not possible any more (up to 13 days after-fertilization). Embryos are therefore entitled to respect, but would not enjoy the personhood.

36. A major subject of debate is that of the potentiality of the embryo. The human embryo has the potential to become a person even if it is not yet a person. For this reason, the defenders of a protected embryo status argue that it is wrong to do to the embryo anything that will prevent it from fulfilling this potential. Opponents of this view argue in turn that the potential to become a thing does not give one that status which goes with having become that thing. Ova and sperm are components of the zygote, which later becomes an embryo and then a fetus, but that does not mean that they can enjoy the status appropriate to a zygote or a fetus until that stage of development has been reached. We do not accord fetal status to sperm; why, then, accord human being status to an embryo? Moreover, an embryo resulting from in vitro fertilization, but which will not be implanted in a uterus, has no potential to develop into a human being. The same applies to “embryos” made by nuclear transfer, which should not be implanted for the purposes of human reproductive cloning.

VII. The Direction of the Debate

37. Any perusal of the debate which has been ongoing over the past few decades about the status of the embryo will reveal that this is an area in which strong convictions have been pitted against one another, and that consensus has usually eluded those who enter the debate from opposing starting points. In these circumstances, one might ask whether it is possible for a body such as the IBC to pronounce on the subject, or whether one might simply conclude that the use of embryos for research purposes is a matter of private conviction. From such a perspective, it might be argued that at a national level, each society should determine what appears to be an acceptable national position and regulate the matter accordingly. This might involve the choosing of that position - facilitative or otherwise - which reflects the majority view, or it might involve a compromise between prohibition and permission, perhaps allowing for embryo research in exceptional circumstances and under very strict control. An alternative is to have no laws on the subject at all and indeed no official ethical position. This would mean that embryo research is left a matter of individual conscience, with the organs of society taking no position on the matter. This last option does not appear at present to attract a great deal of support: there is a widespread view that this area of research needs at least some degree of regulation, and this view is reflected in the increasing tendency for national legislative and governmental bodies and national ethics committees to take a position on human embryo research. In these circumstances, it is appropriate for the International Bioethics Committee to clarify the different positions and indicate their ethical implications.

VIII. The Use of Human Embryos for Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Options

38. In relation to the question of embryonic stem cell research, the IBC confined its attention to the human embryo in its early stages of development and before implantation in the uterus: it did not consider the status of the human fetus implanted in the uterus and further along the line of development that will normally result in birth. This is a separate question on which it was not necessary for the IBC to take a view in this Report.
39. Three principal positions have emerged in the national and international debate on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. These are: (a) the position which holds that use of human embryos for deriving embryonic stem cells is intrinsically unethical, (b) the position which holds that such use is ethically acceptable for certain medical purposes and subject to rigorous safeguards; and (c) the position which considers that, taking into account the present risks linked with this research and its possible ethical drifts (inter alia, the risks of instrumentalization of the embryo), embryonic stem cell research should not be allowed. The IBC recognises that all these positions are ethically intelligible positions to adopt and deserve deeper discussion.

If someone leaves an embryo alone in a woman, it will eventually turn into a baby. Even if it hasn't attached yet, it will get there eventually (in most cases)....

However, if someone leaves an embryo alone in a petri dish, it will never turn into a baby.

I think the above is a specious argument though. If you leave me in a Petri dish (or in this case a closed room with no food or water) I will die but if you leave me where I can obtain food or water I will not. It would not be ethical to leave me with no food or water, but if you do and I die I am not a less valuable human being than one left with food and water.

 

[bicker]

< snip > That is, of course, only a biological fact, but it is a biological fact in the face of which we stand in moral awe.

Opinion based on personal belief -- not fact, not cause-and-effect. As a Pantheist, I'm in awe of the way planets and comets go around the sun, but if a comet is heading for Earth, I'll be the first to vote for nuking it out of that trajectory.

Much in nature is respected, but is still used by humankind for its benefit. The real issue is whether the embryo can be brought within full membership of the moral community to which we exclusively admit human persons and human persons alone.

Another opinion based on personal belief -- not fact, not cause-and-effect. See below for a cause-and-effect-based definition of when something can be considered a person. According to that definition, in a petrie dish, it cannot; in a uterus, it can only after a specific point it its development.

In one view, the fact that the embryo has the potential to become a human being gives it a particular status, which should protect it from destruction.

Another opinion based on personal belief -- not fact, not cause-and-effect.

From the biological point of view, personal individuality can be attributed to the embryo only after the day in its early development when division into normal twins is not possible any more (up to 13 days after-fertilization). Embryos are therefore entitled to respect, but would not enjoy the personhood.

This is better, but still isn't cause-and-effect, because it is still relying on an arbitrary criterion, rather than based on how this decision causes something considered by most everyone to be absolutely good while the opposite decision causes something considered by most everyone to be absolutely bad.

One interesting aspect of the article was from where the decision should be made. It (again abitrarily) deigns that the decision should be at the national level. This is a states' rights issue, and the decision should be driven down to the lowest level practical, perhaps even the county. Thereby, embryonic stem cell research would be prohibited in communities where the vast majority of folks object to it, but would be permitted in communities where it is more acceptable.