![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 18 of 18. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 19:16:27
???
I don't see anything wrong with it...
I mean, people seem to get it all inexorably tied up with the abortion debate. But I think they are seperate issues. Regardless of what one thinks about abortion - what is wrong with stem cell research???
Posted by Camille Dumont on May 28, 2005, at 20:52:50
In reply to Whats wrong with stem cell research, posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 19:16:27
I think its mainly because of pro-life issues.
If on the one side people argue that an embryo is a human being, even when it is composed of only a few cells and that at the same time they allow scientists to create those very cells that an embryo is built from (my understand, I'm no biologist so I may be wrong) then perhaps they might think that it will weaken their stance on the abortion front.
If you argue that bunch of cells have rights, then its hard to justify scientific experimentation on similar bunches of cells.
That being said, I really do hope that they further research in that field. It does seem very promissing in the battle with many debilitating and invasive diseases.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 21:09:48
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research, posted by Camille Dumont on May 28, 2005, at 20:52:50
> If on the one side people argue that an embryo is a human being, even when it is composed of only a few cells and that at the same time they allow scientists to create those very cells that an embryo is built from (my understand, I'm no biologist so I may be wrong) then perhaps they might think that it will weaken their stance on the abortion front.
Yup. I think I get you.
But...
Do scientists have to create those very cells in order to conduct research on them?
I didn't think that they had to. I thought they could get them from present sources (miscarrages, terminations presently performed on medical grounds, something to do with the 'leftovers' of fertility treatments - sorry an awful way of putting it... - other people will know more about this than me).
What I mean is that there are those kind of cells around just dying - why not let research be conducted on them?
The issue of whether researchers should be allowed to *make* such cells could be a seperate topic...
Posted by Nickengland on May 29, 2005, at 4:51:23
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research » Camille Dumont, posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 21:09:48
I dont see a problem with stem cell research for servere life threatening illness(s)
However there are some iussues with stem cell research that cause alot of controversial agruements and quite rightly so.
These arguements are about the issues of so called "designer babies"...being able to choose your childs eye colour, hair colour, their intelligence levels etc.. This is where the research drifts from the point of helping people to have healthy babies which are free of serious illness, to then taking the reseach to the level of a "fashion" baby.
This is where people would begin to play god in my opinion. How far do you go with this reseach and the benefits it can bring to society?
The worst thing that could happen is repeat of history in a sense of the Nazis...improving a race of people and exterminating the inperfect??...hmm
Only time will tell what happens in the future, the benefits of eradicating serious illness though is definately a good idea, I don't see how anyone could disagree that, just depends how far they push the reseach.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 5:55:58
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research, posted by Nickengland on May 29, 2005, at 4:51:23
> These arguements are about the issues of so called "designer babies"...being able to choose your childs eye colour, hair colour, their intelligence levels etc..
Is that to do with stem cell research or is that something else? I thought that was more to do with genetic engeneering or the consequences of being able to chose which (I can't think of the term - embryo???) gets to be the lucky person on the basis of genes for those things???
>This is where the research drifts from the point of helping people to have healthy babies which are free of serious illness, to then taking the reseach to the level of a "fashion" baby.
Yeah. I think I agree with you in that case.
But I'm not sure that has a lot to do with stem cell research - or maybe I am missing something...
Stem cells have the ability to become any kind of cell (including brain cells and motor neurons). So inject some of them in someones severed spinal column and hey presto they can move...They are doing it in china...
But...
We don't know much about whether the cells will start to grow out of control over time (to become cancer basically...)So...
More research needs to be done...
But it is a shame it has got all caught up in the abortion debate.
Because it really could be the cure for a lot of people out there if we can control the cells growth...
Posted by eloaf on May 29, 2005, at 12:18:30
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research, posted by Nickengland on May 29, 2005, at 4:51:23
> I dont see a problem with stem cell research for servere life threatening illness(s)
>
> However there are some iussues with stem cell research that cause alot of controversial agruements and quite rightly so.
>
> These arguements are about the issues of so called "designer babies"...being able to choose your childs eye colour, hair colour, their intelligence levels etc.. This is where the research drifts from the point of helping people to have healthy babies which are free of serious illness, to then taking the reseach to the level of a "fashion" baby.
>
> This is where people would begin to play god in my opinion. How far do you go with this reseach and the benefits it can bring to society?Surely some folks are crazed and selfish enough to be so materalistic that they would want to create the perfect child or for that matter perfect race of people. It seems to me though that we are meant to use our technology to be good keepers of the earth and good keepres of the earth would, in my opinion, use stem cell technology to help people... The debate over what actually helps people and what dose not is what the real argument should be about; not wether or not one specific technology is the cause for good or harm... Its not knowledge or technology that is our enemy its how we use it.
>
> The worst thing that could happen is repeat of history in a sense of the Nazis...improving a race of people and exterminating the inperfect??...hmm
>
> Only time will tell what happens in the future, the benefits of eradicating serious illness though is definately a good idea, I don't see how anyone could disagree that, just depends how far they push the reseach.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2005, at 12:31:44
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research, posted by eloaf on May 29, 2005, at 12:18:30
> Surely some folks are crazed and selfish enough to be so materalistic that they would want to create the perfect child
Please don't post anything that could lead those who might like a perfect child to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Nickengland on May 29, 2005, at 12:56:21
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research, posted by eloaf on May 29, 2005, at 12:18:30
> The debate over what actually helps people and what dose not is what the real argument should be about; not wether or not one specific technology is the cause for good or harm... Its not knowledge or technology that is our enemy its how we use it.
I agree with what you say totally...it just so happens that the knowledge and technology is going forward into finding out how to create babies with certain eyes colours, hair coulour etc. As why would they be reseaching this, if they didn't plan on using it? (they already know its possible)
No one can say for sure now how this technology will be used. I think it is safe to say though that the first priority will be to use this technology for the greater good of humans and society with regards to illness.
Posted by Nickengland on May 29, 2005, at 13:11:52
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research » Nickengland, posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 5:55:58
Hmm maybe what I was talking about was more to do with genetics and not stem cell research? I'm not sure to be perfectly honest although perhaps there is a link somewhere.
Curiously enough;
USA Designer Babies
Select Sex of Baby with PGD 100% California Egg Donors Online Photos
www.eggdonors.comThat came out of a search engine when I went to find out some more.
Maybe I was talking about embryonic stem cells? lol I really dont have a clue, although i'd be interested to know more if anyone else can shed some light on this matter.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 17:57:32
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research » alexandra_k, posted by Nickengland on May 29, 2005, at 13:11:52
> Hmm maybe what I was talking about was more to do with genetics and not stem cell research? I'm not sure to be perfectly honest although perhaps there is a link somewhere.
I think so...
You see, people are working on 'gene mapping'.
That is about finding where characteristics like eye colour etc are located on the chromosomes. Some genetic diseases are locatable too so that is one obvious practical application of the project. There is still a lot of work to be done on this.There could be the practical application of being able to 'fix' genetic disorders (or screen embryos so that the parents can have a healthy child).
But yeah, there is also the practical application of 'designer babies'.
> Curiously enough;
> USA Designer Babies
> Select Sex of Baby with PGD 100% California Egg Donors Online Photos
> www.eggdonors.comSelecting sex, hmm...
The danger is what one society culture decides are the desirable characteristics. Basically, diversity is good - the more diverse human beings are the more chance we have of being able to adapt should the environment alter...
We don't know what certain characteristics might come in handy for one day.
For instance, fair skin is all very well in a cold / dark country... But with the decreasing ozone layer people with fair skin are a whole heap more susceptible to skin cancer.
I can't remember which way round it goes... But one sort of eye colour can detect light wavelengths on a slightly lower end of the spectrum which enables better vision in darker conditions.
So....
We are wise not to make lots of 'all the same'...
> Maybe I was talking about embryonic stem cells? lol I really dont have a clue, although i'd be interested to know more if anyone else can shed some light on this matter.
To the best of my knowledge... gene mapping is a different project to stem cell research...
Posted by Camille Dumont on May 30, 2005, at 22:50:38
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research » Camille Dumont, posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 21:09:48
> > If on the one side people argue that an embryo is a human being, even when it is composed of only a few cells and that at the same time they allow scientists to create those very cells that an embryo is built from (my understand, I'm no biologist so I may be wrong) then perhaps they might think that it will weaken their stance on the abortion front.
>
> Yup. I think I get you.
>
> But...
>
> Do scientists have to create those very cells in order to conduct research on them?
>
> I didn't think that they had to. I thought they could get them from present sources (miscarrages, terminations presently performed on medical grounds, something to do with the 'leftovers' of fertility treatments - sorry an awful way of putting it... - other people will know more about this than me).
>
> What I mean is that there are those kind of cells around just dying - why not let research be conducted on them?
>
> The issue of whether researchers should be allowed to *make* such cells could be a seperate topic...
>I'm not sure that the supplly could be predictable and / or important enough without growing more cells. From what I understand, the whole buzz about those cells is that they can be come anything.
If you take skin cell and make it duplicate itself, you get another skin cell, whereas a stemcell has the potential to become anything ... including things like neurons and nerves, hence the hope for some serious degenerative diseases and to repair damaged spines and such.
Skin cells are being produced, I think artheries are also being grown in a lab and cartilages as well ... all living cells in that they grow, duplicate and die ... so where does one draw the line? Is it more wrong to create one kind of cell or another? Where does the line between buch of cells and organisms lie? How many cells does it take to be considered a human being?
I don't think they "create" them from nothing per say. They probably come from sources but then they make them multiply themselves. Just the same way they do with modern skin grafts ... they take a small amount of skin and in the right conditions, the cells multiply and you end up with a larger supply of new skin to graft on burns or whatever. So I think its probably the "growing" part that's the problem.
Posted by Camille Dumont on May 30, 2005, at 22:57:33
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research, posted by Nickengland on May 29, 2005, at 4:51:23
> I dont see a problem with stem cell research for servere life threatening illness(s)
>
> However there are some iussues with stem cell research that cause alot of controversial agruements and quite rightly so.
>
> These arguements are about the issues of so called "designer babies"...being able to choose your childs eye colour, hair colour, their intelligence levels etc.. This is where the research drifts from the point of helping people to have healthy babies which are free of serious illness, to then taking the reseach to the level of a "fashion" baby.
>
> This is where people would begin to play god in my opinion. How far do you go with this reseach and the benefits it can bring to society?
>
> The worst thing that could happen is repeat of history in a sense of the Nazis...improving a race of people and exterminating the inperfect??...hmm
>
> Only time will tell what happens in the future, the benefits of eradicating serious illness though is definately a good idea, I don't see how anyone could disagree that, just depends how far they push the reseach.I think there is a deeper issue at play. In a way, modern medecine "is" playing god ... we help people survive, people who, given their injuries, would not.
When we "cure" diseases, are we not trying to erradicate "imperfections" or all sorts? Where does the "disease" or "disorder" stop and when does it become just an issue of "design".
We do "treat" things that are not life threatening ... me for example, I was born with an endocrine defficiency which made me a normally proportionned ... only smaller. I would have been 4'7" had I not received growth hormones. Was that a "disorder"?
I would have survived without the treatment, I probably would not have had adverse effects beyond social ones. Yet, it was deemed that it was prefferable that I be treated and made to be taller to be more "normal" ... but its all relative.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 30, 2005, at 23:35:32
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research, posted by Camille Dumont on May 30, 2005, at 22:57:33
Yeah. I found out some more info (the next threads on 'links').
I am seeing the relevance to the abortion debate now...
:-)
Posted by skybdark on June 7, 2005, at 19:00:43
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research » Camille Dumont, posted by alexandra_k on May 30, 2005, at 23:35:32
"Many people have come out in opposition to stem cell research. Why? Because the major source of stem cells for research today is embryos, and the embryos are destroyed in the process of extracting the stem cells.
What's the big deal? Genetically, an embryo is a human being. A very tiny, undeveloped human being, but a human being nonetheless. Even if stem cell treatments ultimately prove successful, embryonic stem cell treatment involves the deliberate killing of a human being in order to use his body parts to treat another human being.Supporters of embryonic stem cell research point to all sorts of good that might result. They paint glowing pictures of the diseases that might be cured and the people who might be helped. But does this justify killing an innocent human being?
Surely we all appreciate the value of organ transplants. No one questions that many, many lives have been saved because of organ transplants, and many more have been improved in one way or another. But a continuing problem is the shortage of healthy organs available for transplant. There are long waiting lists for transplant organs. Suppose that someone suggested that this probably could be easily solved if we made it legal to kill selected people so that there organs could be "harvested". Think of all the good that could result! Why, one such person could provide dozens of organs -- a heart for this patient, two kidneys for two more, retinas, bone marrow, etc etc. Think of how many lives could be saved by one death! Wouldn't that make it worth it? And we could carefully choose the people who would be selected as donors.
They could be chosen from particularly disliked groups, like minorities, the handicapped, or lawyers.
How would you react to such a proposal? That is exactly what is being proposed here. Medical researchers think that they may be able to save or improve the lives of some people by killing others.
So they insist that it should be legal to kill these human beings in order to help others." sigh
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 3:11:26
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research, posted by skybdark on June 7, 2005, at 19:00:43
Thanks for sharing your thoughts :-)
I think I am with you up till about here:
> They could be chosen from particularly disliked groups, like minorities, the handicapped, or lawyers.> How would you react to such a proposal? That is exactly what is being proposed here.
That would be analogous with choosing which embryos to conduct stem cell research on on the basis of race etc. I don't think that strategy has been suggested. All embryos are equal as far as stem cell research is concerned.>Medical researchers think that they may be able to save or improve the lives of some people by killing others.
Whoa.
I grant that a pre-embryo (4-8 cells) and an embryo is genetically human, but I don't grant them personhood. They are potential people to be sure, but they aren't people yet.
And most of them... Will never get to be if they are destroyed. I'm not sure that they still are being destroyed. But they used to be destroyed.There the point was that they were going to die anyway.
It doesn't hurt them to be researched on if they are going to die anyway.
But I think they have to stay in the freezer now...
Untill we run out of freezer room and then have to rethink that option...
How about this...
(Maybe my empirical details need correcting)
An egg is half a human being.
A sperm is half a human being.
Is it okay to research on them?
Posted by Camille Dumont on June 9, 2005, at 17:35:45
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research, posted by skybdark on June 7, 2005, at 19:00:43
> "Many people have come out in opposition to stem cell research. Why? Because the major source of stem cells for research today is embryos, and the embryos are destroyed in the process of extracting the stem cells.
It all depends on what your definition of an "embryo" and a "human" is. When a woman chooses to have an abortion, at least in the legal sense in Canada, she is making a decision on a part of her body. The developing embryo is made from her and in her and thus still for her to decide what to do with, just like someone can decide to donate a kidney.
Umbilical cords are also a source of stem cells. They can be extracted after birth and if not they are discarded with the placenta anyway.
> What's the big deal? Genetically, an embryo is a human being. A very tiny, undeveloped human being, but a human being nonetheless. Even if stem cell treatments ultimately prove successful, embryonic stem cell treatment involves the deliberate killing of a human being in order to use his body parts to treat another human being.
How about a reproductive cell? Its also genetically potentially a human. When people go to a fertility clinic, severa eggs are fertilized, frozen and eventually destroyed when they are no longer needed, why not use those? How about when people get an abortion, those also get destroyed. If you make laws so that nobody can get any sort of advantage (monetary or otherwise) from supplying stem cell material then there would be no financially-motivated incentive and should not make people have abortions just for the sake of selling the stem cells.
>
> Supporters of embryonic stem cell research point to all sorts of good that might result. They paint glowing pictures of the diseases that might be cured and the people who might be helped. But does this justify killing an innocent human being?
>
Killing a human being or harvesting something from tissues destined to be destroyed anyway?> Surely we all appreciate the value of organ transplants. No one questions that many, many lives have been saved because of organ transplants, and many more have been improved in one way or another. But a continuing problem is the shortage of healthy organs available for transplant. There are long waiting lists for transplant organs. Suppose that someone suggested that this probably could be easily solved if we made it legal to kill selected people so that there organs could be "harvested". Think of all the good that could result! Why, one such person could provide dozens of organs -- a heart for this patient, two kidneys for two more, retinas, bone marrow, etc etc. Think of how many lives could be saved by one death! Wouldn't that make it worth it? And we could carefully choose the people who would be selected as donors.
Again, it is where you draw the line between a simple living organism and a human being with rights. A fuzzy and complex legal issue for sure.
>
> They could be chosen from particularly disliked groups, like minorities, the handicapped, or lawyers.
>
In some sort of totalitarian regime perhaps. But it seems to me that such an example is perhaps extreme. Yes in some countries, poor people sell their organs but I've yet to hear of anything resembling state-ordered organ donation or harvesting. I think the important thing is that people never profit when giving something from their body. That way they don't do it for financially-motivated reasons and thus poor people cannot be coaxed / tempted / bought.> How would you react to such a proposal? That is exactly what is being proposed here. Medical researchers think that they may be able to save or improve the lives of some people by killing others.
>
> So they insist that it should be legal to kill these human beings in order to help others." sigh
Posted by alexandra_k on June 9, 2005, at 18:44:47
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research, posted by Camille Dumont on June 9, 2005, at 17:35:45
> When people go to a fertility clinic, severa eggs are fertilized, frozen and eventually destroyed when they are no longer needed, why not use those?
That was what I was thinking too. I think that they aren't being destroyed anymore though. They have stopped destroying them for the same reasons they are saying it isn't ok to kill them by using them for stem cell research - because they are genetically human beings and thus we shouldn't kill them.
>How about when people get an abortion, those also get destroyed.
Yeah. But that isn't going persuade people who think abortion is not okay to believe that stem cell research is ok.
> Again, it is where you draw the line between a simple living organism and a human being with rights. A fuzzy and complex legal issue for sure.Preembryos are genetically human beings.
You could say 'killing human beings is wrong'.
But then capital punishment would have to go.
Most people want to say that it is ok to kill another human being in self defence.
You could say 'killing innocent human beings is wrong'. But if you accidentally kill someone and you did take due care most of us want to say that you didn't do anything wrong.
You could say 'deliberate killing of innocent human beings is wrong'. But then that would rule out euthenasia too...
But... Some people don't think euthenasia is ok.
I don't know that it is useful to cite euthenasia as a case where it is okay to kill an innocent human being and say that maybe stem cell research is another case like this. Maybe people who don't like stem cell research would have similar issues with euthenasia...
Also... A pre-embryo can't make an 'informed decision'.
Posted by mike13 on June 13, 2005, at 2:51:48
In reply to Re: please be civil » eloaf, posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2005, at 12:31:44
> > Surely some folks are crazed and selfish enough to be so materalistic that they would want to create the perfect child
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead those who might like a perfect child to feel accused or put down.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
hahahahhahah!
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.