posted
We had a guest speaker today in my Introduction to Bioengineering class. One of the things he mentioned was embryonic stem cell research. He said that it absolutely must happen and dismissed any opposition to it as "politics." (Which is really very unfair to the anti-stem-cell crowd, methinks.) This got me thinking about a few things. First, it doesn't seem that ethical taboos regarding science and medicine last long. Dissection used to be illegal; now it's standard practice in medical schools. Will our grandchildren look back on the stem cell debate, or the arguments about genetic engineering and wonder how we could have been so silly?
Second, I happen to opppose embryonic stem cell research enough that I wouldn't participate in it. But what if a cure for neurodegenerative diseases was found? What if I had a severed spinal cord or Parkinson's and it could be fixed by such technology, with existing cell lines? My choice to accept or decline the treatment would not cause the destruction of more embryos. I think in that case I would allow myself to be treated. Perhaps it would not be the morally perfect decision to make, but I am, alas, not a morally perfect person.
So, what do you all think? If something can be done, are we really obligated to do it? Would you decline a treatment because it stems (heh) from a tainted source?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are scientific practices that are becoming less acceptable with time, such as vivisection and experimentation on uninformed or unwilling human subjects.
quote:There are scientific practices that are becoming less acceptable with time, such as vivisection and experimentation on uninformed or unwilling human subjects.
And medical people have been complaining about those restrictions ever since.
Successfully.
The pendulum is beginning to swing ever so slowly the other way.
posted
The thing that I don't understand is why all of the focus for stem-cell research is on embryonic stem cells. There are other less controversial places to get stem cells - such as donated placentas and bone marrow. Since I think stem cell research holds such promise for curing debilitating medical conditions, I think it should be continued - just using less-controversial sources for the cells. Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would I decline stem cell treatment? That's hard. I can't know until I am faced with that situation. I ahve a pretty strong self preservation instinct. I would ask that the cells I am treated with be sourced from non-fetal cells. As a parent, there is another question too- even if I were willing to deny myself treatment or moral grounds do I have the (ethical) right to deny my children such treatment? I don't think it would be moral for one of them to face death or paralysis because of my belief in the matter.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I believed that it would cause more harm than good to my children to be treated in that way, then I could not in good conscience allow them to be treated.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[edit: in response to dpr] Do you think it is moral to deprive your children of a parent or your spouse of a partner because of the same belief?
If Chris were terminally ill and could be saved by stem cell thereapy, yet chose not to be, I would probably be very bitter and feel very betrayed.
posted
That's a very good point, KarlEd. Especially salient while the children are minors...but it's very hard to lose your mother no matter your age, especially when she could have chosen to live. I would never want to do that to my family.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont' oppose stem cell research - I oppose the manner in which many of those stem cells are obtained.
There are, as mentioned already, alternate sources.
It's my hope and prayer that great strides will be made in the areas of medical research using adult stem cells and stem cells from donated umbilical blood.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember reading about MD forced to steal corpses in cemetaries to do autopsies, not so long away (I mean, in the 17 or 16th century). But I may be wrong here.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admit that I haven't done as much reading into this as I told myself I would at the end of my last biomedical ethics course, but when was the plasticity between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells found to be equal?
*poster's note*
I'm not trying to get into a discussion of the pros and cons between embryonic and adult lines. I'm not trying to discuss possibilites of the treatment. I'm just curious to know if a huge scientific breakthrough passed me by without my knowing. Which happens a lot more than I'd like it to.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to make it clear that I was only talking about embryonic stem cells. I have absolutely no qualms about using cells from placentas, bone marrow, and so forth. It's the destruction of embryos that bothers me, especially when they are made for the sole purpose of being harvested for cells.
I don't think it's been determined that adult cells are as flexible as embryonic cells. However, I believe that researchers have sucessfully turned "adult" (not as in 18+...I think this refers to umbilical cord cells, for instance) into many different kinds of body cells.
Dagonee, you have a good point. Some things are becoming less rather than more permissible. So if our morality can change so drastically in a few hundred years and we look back with shock at what our ancestors did, then what determines our code of ethics? Is it just fashion, and if so why bother? What besides popular opinion can we base ethics on, especially in a society where people don't all share the same religious beliefs?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have to say that if the treatment was found because of research on embryonic stem cells, but the treatment itself did not utlilize those stem cells, I would probably have the treatment. I believe this would actually make the death of the embryos more meaningful than if they were simply thrown down the garbage disposal.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you be ok with it if the treatment did use stem cells but didn't require the destruction of any further embryos? In other words, if the cells already existed in culture and it wouldn't be necessary to do any more harvesting, ever?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a touchy subject that can split alot of hairs depending on which way you want to go with it. If you withdraw any moral or ethical qualms (by this I mean a neutral stance, not a completely immoral, unethical, or illegal viewpoint) and approach it from a pragmatic view, how does it benefit the continuation of the species?
I don't even want to get into the 'rights' debate concerning this.
Someone raised a good point: Just because we can do something does not always mean we should.
Of course, just because it's deemed illegal, does not mean it will be completely discarded. It will just be done in other countries or in secure facilities out of public view with a staff of employees bound by non-disclosure agreements.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grigori, why is continuation of the species a "pragmatic" goal? Pragmatism requires goals, and goals are made for a reason. Some (most?) people assign a moral/ethical value of "good" to the survival of the species as a whole. Some people assign it a value of "bad". Some assign a neutral value, and/or are not sure. For this value, embryonic stem cell research is only "good" for/to the first group of people.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
