Stem Cells and Ethics

I agree with you, but I was merely pointing to the fact that a sperm or egg has a different genotype to the fertilized egg, whereas other somatic cells differ from that egg only in expression of that genotype.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

The feelings of morality that I have are exactly the things I try to avoid. Look at it this way. The people that tied Mathew Sheppard and beat him to death relied on their feelings of what morality was. The sons of a bitches that wanted to erect a statue to commemorate Sheppard's so-called "entrence into hell" also relied on their feelings of morality. Even our very "logical" nemesis jug also rely his feelings of morality on this issue.I concluded a long time ago that these feelings of morality that everyone should have are not reliable at all. If I can't trust nemesis jug's feelings of morality, why should I trust my own? This scenario would definitely give me a moral dilemma IFF I consider all human life to be equal. I'm going to tell you another thing about my beliefs that will make everyone, conservatives and liberals alike, hate me. I don't believe that all human lives should be given the same weight. Furthermore, I believe that the value of life depends on the situation.In this particular case, I would definitely go and try to save the boy. Why?The boy would feel a great deal of pain before he dies. The embryos won't even feel a thing. They won't even complain. Heck, they won't even have an opinion on the matter.The boy I know for sure have some potential to contribute for the better of humanity. Furthermore, I know for sure that he will not just fall down and die for no apparent reason after I saved him. The embryos, on the other hand, have potentials that are too uncertain. For all I know, the rising temperature could have already at least lead the way to the death of the embryos. For all I know, they could simply be thrown away like so many other embryos.Permit me to introduce a scenario where I could potentially choose to rescue an embryo over a boy.Fire in building, boy on one side, embryo on other, could only save one, blah blah. The embryo happens to have the genetic makeup for an immunity against a terrible and deadly disease that could kill many people. In other words, an antibody could be made using what the future person that is currently this embryo. In this particular case, I might, and I must stress the word might, go to try to rescue the embryo and leave the boy. See, by this definition of being able to feel pain and such would make an unborn child that is 30 minutes away from being born a person. Or, you could argue the other way and say that because a 2 day old child's consciousness is so primitive that he can't really feel pain the way we do therefore shouldn't be considered a person.I've thought through all of these. It stopped being so obvious, to me at least, after thinking about it for so long. It's a really big grey area.Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : changed "a" to "an" right before a word started with a vowel

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

You can't go the route of similarities in genetic makeup. The chimpanzee is 99.4% genetically identical to a typical human, which is more similar than some genetic disorders out there. Very shaddy area.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Personhood is a less inclusive definition than human life, at least in the terms of medical practice for termination of life support. In the Terry Schiavo case there was no person left, but the brain stem was functional. Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion again:

quote:

---

Personhood

​

The second standard is a little more difficult to establish on a broad cultural and social basis except by taking into considerations the beliefs of the family involved and the diversity of levels acceptable to individuals. This includes the concept of personhood.

It is firmly established, both in case law and in medical ethics, that competent adult patients have the right to refuse life-supporting medical treatments, even artificial nutrition and hydration. By the same token, an appropriate surrogate can refuse life-supports on behalf of the legally incompetent if there is sufficient reason to believe the patient would have refused treatment in the present circumstances. Because of this broad legal and moral right to refuse treatment, life-supports that are unwanted or are considered unhelpful -- including life-supports for permanently unconscious patients -- can be terminated without first declaring the patient dead.

This last paragraph is the key to my thinking. Until the fetus has achieved the status of "personhood" discussed above, the "appropriate surrogate" -- in this case the family -- can decide to terminate life support, and if the patient naturally expires due to failure of the {circulator and respiratory functions} to maintain life on their own, then the legal issue is settled.

---

Different families will make different choices. What we see from the survey is that 60% of the patients would donate the extra cell material to science. It is their right to make that decision.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right to make the decision. I'm just sharing my view, a view that is all too uncertain at this time.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

You could easily dehumanize us as well by noting, that, whether you were born or are still in utero doesn't take away that we too are a clump of cells. One is intentional and the other is an accident. That's like me asking God what He would do in relation to a man that slips and falls and compare it to a man who was bludgeoned to death. The stark difference is transparent.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

That is why the definition of death says that we are a clump of cells with an operating brain stem and functioning circulation system -- something a cancerous growth on your arm does not have -- to keep from dehumanizing people on life support systems.Beyond that the concept of personhood includes the function of the whole brain to allow families to disconnect life support under extreme circumstances where there is no person but the clump of cells can be kept alive by artificial means.Once the upper brain goes -- like Terri Schiavo -- then all that is left is a clump of cells, and Elvis has left the building.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : stem\upper

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

A cell, is a cell, is a cell. Neither have a brain or a circulatory system. They simply comprise the brain and the circulatory system. At most they have a nucleus to dictate their functions.But all that is besides the point. The point is whether or not it is ethical. Lets suspend the ethical question momentarily to ask purely pragmatic questions-- like, what compelling indication is their that would allow us to play God in the first place?This is what we currently know: That adult stem cells have a proven success rate. Fetal stem cells are hypothesized to cure all sorts of maladies based on their pluripotency. The problem is that it metastasizes so quickly that its been nothing but destructive.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Exactly: passing laws to outlaw abortion based on religious conviction does that. Passing laws to outlaw stem cell research based on religious conviction does that. You presume to speak for your god. Stem cells can SAVE lives. You have scientific literature that supports this assertion?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : added religious conviction

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I wouldn't, and you don't speak for everyone. Off-topic; dear God I hope no one responds to this dribble. Self-contradictory statement, lovely! By drawing your line where you do, you believe you are playing it on the safe side by not endangering some poor baby's embryo's life. However, you do not realise that you are endangering the lives of people much older who are actually capable of cherishing life”folks with cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, etc. By recognizing the embryo as alive, you are putting yourself in the position to choose which life is more important, a position you are in no right to hold. Is letting one die from a terrible, yet curable, disease any better?Perhaps you could clear that up, then maybe I'll have more questions. Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10

And the embryo would be conveying this information to you via the Taz-embryo informational-connectedness property of the fabric of the Universe? I guess allowing that poor boy in the corner to die based on your imaginary information of the world-saving power of that embryo might be likened to the Puritans' convicting women to death based on the imaginary information that they were witches?Any chance you could explain how your scenario and, by association, your morality applies to the real world? Evidently not well enough.JonEdited by Jon, : Tenses.

Then again, the same could be said of a rock.

That's why pro-lifers will probably not object to doing stem cell research using rocks only.

We are not just any clump of cells. A large contingent of our cells forms a brain which is responsible for our having a personality. I'd say that constitutes a huge difference with an embryo of a few days old. In that case I never again want to hear a pious Christian pronouncing that it's all in God's hands, because apparently it isn't.Edited by Parasomnium, : fixed quote

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

quote:

---

like, what compelling indication is their that would allow us to play God in the first place?

---

Getting rid of abortion saves lives! There is a greater chance for a fetus to come to full term and live out a normal life, such as you and I are were fortunate enough to have. (Thanks Mom! You're the best!)Than what embryonic stem cells have produced. Are you so caught up in the romanticism of what they speculate they might do, rather than knowing what we currently know?-- that they've produced nothing?

quote:

---

Fetal stem cells are hypothesized to cure all sorts of maladies based on their pluripotency. The problem is that it metastasizes so quickly that its been nothing but destructive.

---

Naturally.

quote:

---

"Medical researchers believe that stem cell treatments have the potential to change the face of human disease and alleviate suffering. A number of current stem cell treatments already exist, although they are not commonly used because they tend to be experimental and not very cost-effective.

​

In the future, medical researchers anticipate being able to use technologies derived from stem cell research to treat cancer, spinal cord injuries, and muscle damage, amongst a number of other diseases and impairments.

​

However, there still exists a great deal of social and scientific uncertainty surrounding stem cell research, which will only be overcome through years of intensive research and by gaining the acceptance of the public.

​

Furthermore, many technical difficulties remain which hinder the ultimate goals in stem cell therapeutics. Expanding stem cell populations extracted from patients remains a large problem.

​

Also, even once these populations are expanded, implanted stem cells may not expand or grow efficiently enough to add enough corrective factor to be beneficial for treatment. These and other technical problems remain to be solved.

​

Current treatments

​

For over 30 years, bone marrow (adult) stem cells have been used to treat cancer patients with conditions such as leukemia and lymphoma. During chemotherapy, most growing cells are killed by the cytotoxic agents.

​

These agents not only kill the leukemia or neoplastic cells, but also those which release the stem cells from the bone marrow. These are therefore removed before chemotherapy, and are re-injected afterwards.

---

-linkEmphasis added on key words by Nemesis_JuggernautOther links

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton