Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stem Cells and Ethics
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 81 (406627)
06-21-2007 3:56 PM


The owners have spoken.
A surprising survey of infertility patients finds that 60 percent are willing to donate their frozen embryos for stem-cell research. Science favored over adoption. (link no longer works).
Fertility Patients Favor Donating Unused Embryos for Research
(added) the Science article: Willingness to Donate Frozen Embryos for Stem Cell Research (/added)
These are the owners of the genetic material. Ethically they can do with it what they want to do. It is their decision. Not congress, not schwubbia.
That is all the argument that is necessary.
Enjoy.
social issues forum
Edited by RAZD, : forum
Edited by RAZD, : changed links

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 7:35 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 10 by Doddy, posted 06-26-2007 7:52 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 06-26-2007 8:27 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 06-26-2007 8:46 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 01-16-2008 5:19 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 81 (407412)
06-26-2007 6:44 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 3 of 81 (407417)
06-26-2007 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
06-21-2007 3:56 PM


Embryo = Human being?
RAZD writes:
These are the owners of the genetic material. Ethically they can do with it what they want to do. It is their decision.
The pro-life lobby wields the argument that an embryo is a human being, and human beings belong to themselves. I doubt whether a human being would, if they could, decide to donate themselves wholesale to stem-cell research, while still alive.
The crux of the matter is whether a clump of a dozen or so cells constitutes a human being, complete with all the human rights that come with that status. If so, then the pro-lifers have a point, but then I wonder what God, that pro-lifer par excellence, has in mind with all those spontaneous abortions that happen to occur all the time, and have done so throughout human history. Either this God is malevolent, or he considers an embryo not yet human after all.
Since the pro-lifers usually tout religious motives, their own premise presents them with an existential conundrum.

"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.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2007 3:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 06-26-2007 8:23 AM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2007 8:28 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 81 (407421)
06-26-2007 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Parasomnium
06-26-2007 7:35 AM


Re: Embryo = Human being? ... and Cells Legally Dead.
The pro-life lobby wields the argument that an embryo is a human being, and human beings belong to themselves. I doubt whether a human being would, if they could, decide to donate themselves wholesale to stem-cell research, while still alive.
There is a real simple answer to this: have the cells declared legally dead. From Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion:
quote:
The first legal standard of death is very clear -- from
the Legal Definition of Death (click)
:
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustained either
(1) irreversible cessation of circulator and respiratory functions, or
(2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead.
A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

(Note link is updated, original no longer works)
As there is no circulatory system and no brain stem they are de facto legally dead. If removed from life support systems the cells will die. Once legal death is declared then the owners of the cell material can either have it disposed of (buried, cremated, whatever) OR they can donate all or parts to medical research or to transplant into living humans as they wish.
This should also get around any restriction on using living cell material in research.
The crux of the matter is whether a clump of a dozen or so cells constitutes a human being, complete with all the human rights that come with that status.
Dead humans do not have the rights that living humans have. The families of the dead humans then decide whether they want to dispose of the body (buried, cremated, whatever) OR they can donate all or parts to medical research or to transplant into living humans as they wish.
Since the pro-lifers usually tout religious motives, their own premise presents them with an existential conundrum.
They have the right to be involved in the decisions of their families with regard to dead bodies and cells. They do not have the right to interfere in those decisions made by other families.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 7:35 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 8:40 AM RAZD has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 5 of 81 (407424)
06-26-2007 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
06-26-2007 8:23 AM


Re: Embryo = Human being? ... and Cells Legally Dead.
Perhaps it's sophistry, but I think I could reason my way around your legal death clause: the law you cite states that there must be a cessation of the functions mentioned. The fact that these functions weren't there in the first place means that they cannot have ceased.
If theft is defined as taking possession of something that belongs to someone else, without their consent, and I take possession of something without anyone's consent, but which doesn't belong to anyone either (for example, a breath of air), then it's not theft, is it?
Therefore, the law doesn't apply, and the cells aren't legally dead. What do you make of that?
Mind you, I am playing the advocate of the devil here. I'm all for stem-cell research, without any ethical reservations.
Edited by Parasomnium, : added theft example

"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.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 06-26-2007 8:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 06-26-2007 10:07 AM Parasomnium has not replied
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 07-14-2007 5:43 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 81 (407442)
06-26-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Parasomnium
06-26-2007 8:40 AM


Re: Embryo = Human being? ... and Cells Legally Dead.
Perhaps it's sophistry, but I think I could reason my way around your legal death clause: the law you cite states that there must be a cessation of the functions mentioned. The fact that these functions weren't there in the first place means that they cannot have ceased.
And the counter argument to that is IF the functions necessary for the definition of death are not being exhibited, then the cells are not legally alive to begin with. This would be the same as cell material taken from donors for transplants: blood, kidneys, lungs, etc: where the donor is still a living human being the parts are not.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 8:40 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by DorfMan, posted 06-26-2007 10:18 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 7 of 81 (407444)
06-26-2007 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
06-26-2007 10:07 AM


I just came across this ---- disgusting
Chimera embryos have right to life, say bishops
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:01pm BST 26/06/2007
Have your say Read comments
Embryonic stem cells explained
Human-animal hybrid embryos conceived in the laboratory - so-called “chimeras” - should be regarded as human and their mothers should be allowed to give birth to them, the Roman Catholic Church said yesterday.
Under draft Government legislation to be debated by Parliament later this year, scientists will be given permission for the first time to create such embryos for research as long as they destroy them within two weeks.
advertisementBut the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, in a submission to the Parliamentary joint committee scrutinising the draft legislation, said that the genetic mothers of “chimeras” should be able to raise them as their own children if they wished.
The bishops said that they did not see why these “interspecies” embryos should be treated any differently than others.
The wide-ranging draft Human Tissue and Embryo Bill, which aims to overhaul the laws on fertility treatment, will include sections on test tube babies, embryo research and abortion. Ministers say that the creation of animal-human embryos - created by injecting animal cells or DNA into human embryos or human cells into animal eggs - will be heavily regulated.
They insist that it will be against the law to implant “chimeras” - named after the mythical creature that was half man and half animal - into a woman’s womb.
The bishops, who believe that life begins at conception, said that they opposed the creation of any embryo solely for research, but they were also anxious to limit the destruction of such life once it had been brought into existence.
In their submission to the committee, they said: “At the very least, embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings, and should be treated accordingly.
“In particular, it should not be a crime to transfer them, or other human embryos, to the body of the woman providing the ovum, in cases where a human ovum has been used to create them.
“Such a woman is the genetic mother, or partial mother, of the embryo; should she have a change of heart and wish to carry her child to term, she should not be prevented from doing so.”
The draft Bill will also allow the screening of embryos for genetic or chromosomal abnormalities that might lead to serious medical conditions, disabilities, or miscarriage. It will permit doctors to check whether an embryo could provide a suitable tissue match for a sibling suffering from a life-threatening illness.
The Bill would abolish the requirement for fertility clinics to consider the need for a father when deciding on treatment. This means clinics will no longer be able to deny treatment to lesbians and single mothers.
The Catholic bishops said that most of the procedures covered by the Bill “should not be licensed under any circumstances”, principally on the grounds that they violate human rights.
News: Breaking stories & updates - The Telegraph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 06-26-2007 10:07 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 06-26-2007 11:57 AM DorfMan has not replied
 Message 9 by Doddy, posted 06-26-2007 7:38 PM DorfMan has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 8 of 81 (407461)
06-26-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by DorfMan
06-26-2007 10:18 AM


Re: I just came across this ---- disgusting
Exactly what is it that you find "disgusting?"

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by DorfMan, posted 06-26-2007 10:18 AM DorfMan has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 9 of 81 (407559)
06-26-2007 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by DorfMan
06-26-2007 10:18 AM


Re: I just came across this ---- disgusting
They insist that it will be against the law to implant “chimeras” - named after the mythical creature that was half man and half animal - into a woman’s womb.
Bah. What about plant and human DNA? Maybe I could synthesize coffee in my brain...

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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by DorfMan, posted 06-26-2007 10:18 AM DorfMan has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 10 of 81 (407561)
06-26-2007 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
06-21-2007 3:56 PM


RAZD writes:
These are the owners of the genetic material. Ethically they can do with it what they want to do. It is their decision. Not congress, not schwubbia.
It's good to see some public support for science, but many would liken it to parents who want to sell their children off for research. Thus, they would think the government does ethically have a right to intervene, just as the government does in the case of mistreated children.

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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2007 3:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 11 of 81 (407568)
06-26-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
06-21-2007 3:56 PM


*sigh*
I've been hesitant to comment on this because what I have to say goes against the general liberal opinion.
As I have said before elsewhere, I believe that human life begins at the point of conception. Why? Because at this point in time noone can adequately define what a human is and by what standard we should strive for. I honestly don't know how to define what a person is, so I'd have to fall back to the safest possible point in time until we can better define what a person is. In other words, rather than taking a chance by picking a line in a grey area, I'd rather pick a line at the beginning of the grey area.
This is the reason why I have been iffy with stem cell research. After all, our sense of what's right and what's wrong tells us that performing experiments on a human being is worse than killing him. Personally, I'd rather be killed quick and simple rather than going through all the experiments the Nazi scientists did to their victims.
Now, notice that I said iffy, because although I have reservations on the issue, I do not outright oppose stem cell research.
So, personally, I am against fertility treatments and invitros simply because the world is already filled with orphans. We simply don't need to add more misery to this front in human suffering, especially if we create dozens of children at a time (children by my own personal standard) only to pick out a few and kill off the rest.
No, I don't agree with the way Bush is putting it, because he hasn't explained clearly what his position on life is. All he's said after he vetoed the latest bill on stem cell research was that the bill would cross a moral line, a moral line that many of us see as a very large fuzzy grey area.
Now, aren't you glad I don't usually share my opinion on this issue?

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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2007 3:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Doddy, posted 06-26-2007 9:47 PM Taz has replied
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2007 5:30 PM Taz has replied
 Message 25 by Jon, posted 07-14-2007 3:05 AM Taz has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 12 of 81 (407570)
06-26-2007 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
06-21-2007 3:56 PM


Saving them all
I agree with the stance taken by the infertility patients. Perhaps it would be instructive to consider the implications of pushing their opponents' reasoning to a logical conclusion.
Many--a number approaching "most"--embryos are spontaneously aborted for one reason or another. Whether by scattering a million eggs in the ocean or presenting monthly candidates to the womb, nature works by tossing up a thousand possibilities to each successful reproduction.
If we are to see all embryos as persons, then we must set about the task of rescuing those embryos that would otherwise be rejected, for whatever reason, in the event of spontaneous abortion. Women would have to be checked monthly for fertilization events, and some intervention attempted to insure successful implantation and maturation of the embryo. If they (the embryos, not the women) are persons, our moral imperative to save them is as clear as a lifeguard's at a drowning.
That is, of course, absurd, though that level of womb surveillance would be acceptable to many. A fertilized embryo is no more a person than one of my indvidual sperm.
Edited by Omnivorous, : tpyo

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2007 3:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Doddy, posted 06-26-2007 9:39 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 13 of 81 (407578)
06-26-2007 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Omnivorous
06-26-2007 8:46 PM


Re: Saving them all
Omni writes:
A fertilized embryo is no more a person than one of my indvidual sperm.
I disagree. I think a fertilized embryo is qualitatively different from a sperm cell, as a sperm cell is haploid. But, I think that a fertilized egg is only quantitatively different from a skin cell, liver cell or brain cell.

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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 06-26-2007 8:46 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Omnivorous, posted 06-26-2007 9:53 PM Doddy has replied
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 06-26-2007 11:35 PM Doddy has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 14 of 81 (407579)
06-26-2007 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Taz
06-26-2007 8:27 PM


Taz writes:
As I have said before elsewhere, I believe that human life begins at the point of conception. Why? Because at this point in time noone can adequately define what a human is and by what standard we should strive for. I honestly don't know how to define what a person is, so I'd have to fall back to the safest possible point in time until we can better define what a person is. In other words, rather than taking a chance by picking a line in a grey area, I'd rather pick a line at the beginning of the grey area.
Nobody knows how to define a person. But, I don't think you should choose a particular stance just because it is easy to define, but rather you should choose one that matches the feelings of morality that you have, and leads to the most acceptable conclusions. As Omnivorous (and others before him) have pointed out, there are unacceptable moral conclusions to your particular view.
Consider the following scenario:
You are are firefighter running down the corridor of a IVF clinic, which is on fire. You are looking for survivors. Inside a room, you see a six year old boy, huddled in the corner. On the other side of the room, in an open fridge, is a freezer box that is clearly marked as containing 24 human embryos from Subject A541. Suddenly, you hear the groaning of the roof truss above you - the room is in danger of collapse. There is no way you could make it across the room to save both - which do you save: the little boy, or 24 human embryos?
I don't know about you, but to me the pain that the child will feel makes him by far the better choice to save. To me, the ability to think and feel is a much better indicator of humanness than simply possessing a set of unique human chromosomes.

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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 06-26-2007 8:27 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 06-26-2007 11:21 PM Doddy has not replied
 Message 37 by DorfMan, posted 07-15-2007 9:50 AM Doddy has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 15 of 81 (407581)
06-26-2007 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Doddy
06-26-2007 9:39 PM


Re: Saving them all
I understand your numerical objection, but I stand by my observation that neither sperm nor fertilized eggs are persons.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Doddy, posted 06-26-2007 9:39 PM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Doddy, posted 06-26-2007 10:04 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024