Ethical stem cells

[Kylie]

Noone here is against stem cell usage, though for all of the money put into finding therapeutic usage of embryonic stem cells, it has been a big bust. While adult stem cells have been used for over 50 years now and have treated many diseases. This thread is about the usage of stem cell lines in testing new drugs and in production of new vaccines. So it seems your view is that however these cells were collected, they have done far more good than the initial harm to the fetus that procured them. But to a Catholic, that initial harm was murder and to us, profiting from that murder is not ethical or moral. So you don't have to agree with my argument; but please try to see how easy it would be to cleanse these cell lines and avoid our ethical dilemma. I would pose one hypothetical here. Our current Pope weighed the good of the vaccine against the bad of using these cell lines for testing (in the case of Moderna and Pfizer) and came out with the opinion that Catholics could take the vaccine. What if he had come down on the other side of that and said no? Millions of Catholics might have rejected the vaccine and put themselves at risk of death simply because noone wants to take the time to grow ethically sourced stem cell lines.

I have to wonder how many medical treatments we have today that we developed through unethical practices, such as the torture/abuse of patients?

Also, there are some who believe that using these techniques gives their lives meaning, that even though they died/had horrible things done to them, their suffering has led to good.

 

[tz620q]

I have to wonder how many medical treatments we have today that we developed through unethical practices, such as the torture/abuse of patients?

How true. I was actually going to bring up the development of biological and chemical weapons research done by the Japanese on the Chinese during WWII as an example; but I hate to pollute the well of this issue with extreme examples. All research that uses organs or tissue from someone should involve informed consent on the part of the donor. Likewise, people should not be subjected to medical procedures or drugs that are experimental without their consent.

Also, there are some who believe that using these techniques gives their lives meaning, that even though they died/had horrible things done to them, their suffering has led to good.

That is truly a Catholic way of looking at this. We believe that God can bring good out of suffering if we allow that suffering to benefit others. So volunteering to take an experimental treatment that might cause you bad side effects or an experimental therapeutic drug that might cure your illness or might cause severe issues is considered noble because it is done with the consent of the person and for the benefit of others.

 

[Tanj]

Noone here is against stem cell usage, though for all of the money put into finding therapeutic usage of embryonic stem cells, it has been a big bust.

No, it hasn't. We needed embryonic stem cells to know what the heck a stem cell looked like. They are directly responsible for the ability to create IPSC. The fact they are needed less now does not obviate the need for them at the start.

While adult stem cells have been used for over 50 years now

No, they haven't.

History « Boston Children's Hospital

Whilst we started looking in mice about 50 years ago, human work in embryonic stem cells was first described in 1998, and the ability to generate and use IPSC has only been around for a decade or so.

I understand your ethical concerns, but they don't need false understanding for support.

 

[tz620q]

No, it hasn't. We needed embryonic stem cells to know what the heck a stem cell looked like. They are directly responsible for the ability to create IPSC. The fact they are needed less now does not obviate the need for them at the start.

I found you post informative but the early research was done on plant and animal stem cells and not human lines. So there is no ethical problem with this type of research. The ethics only comes in when they used embryonic stem cells from abortions to start their IPSC stem cell lines. If they had used donated tissue at that time, all of the ethical considerations would have been avoided. I might just be a grouchy old curmudgeon that suspects everyone; but it seemed at the time that they were trying to find a reason to support the abortion industry by showing some scientific benefit from abortion-procured stem cells.

No, they haven't.

History « Boston Children's Hospital

Whilst we started looking in mice about 50 years ago, human work in embryonic stem cells was first described in 1998, and the ability to generate and use IPSC has only been around for a decade or so.

I understand your ethical concerns, but they don't need false understanding for support.

From the article that you posted of the history of Boston Children's Hospital in stem cells:
"1953 — Leroy Stevens, a Maine scientist performing cancer research in mice, finds large tumors in their scrotums. These tumors, known as teratomas, contained mixtures of differentiated and undifferentiated cells, including hair, bone, intestinal and blood tissue. Researchers concluded the cells were pluripotent, meaning they can differentiate into any cell found in a fully grown animal. Read more.

1957 — E. Donnall Thomas, a physician-scientist working in Seattle, attempts the first human bone marrow transplantation. (He later wins the Nobel Prize for this work in 1990)."

So this highlights that even in the 1950's it was known that pluripotent cells induced into an animal could lead to development of tumors. While in 1957, they were already using adult stem cells donated from the bone marrow of the recipient to provide stem cell treatments with little chance of rejection or tumor growth. We have pumped decades of research money into trying to find a treatment using embryonic stem cells with little results. At the same time adult stem cell research has progressed rapidly with less funding (at least until recently). I understand that research into stem cells includes many different types of stem cells at different levels of differentiation; but it seems self evident to say that research into pluripotent stem cells requires undifferentiated stem cells that have to be procured from embryonic cells. My issue is not with the research; but with the politics and ethics behind using stem cells from abortions to provide that tissue.

 

[Tanj]

I found you post informative but the early research was done on plant and animal stem cells and not human lines.

Plant research isn't relevant here, plant cells are too different for any utility in the animal kingdom. The first work was done on mice.

So there is no ethical problem with this type of research.

It's also not enough. Mice are not people. Their body chemistry is very different in key macro and micro markers.

The ethics only comes in when they used embryonic stem cells from abortions to start their IPSC stem cell lines.

That is not what we do now, and I'd have to go back and check but I don't think we ever did. The utility of IPSC is autologous lines from the person that has a disease. We generate IPSC from born people, not unborn ones.

But like I said, I understand you have ethical concerns regarding the use of aborted fetal tissue. However, your position is not helped by the misinformation you are spreading.

From the article that you posted of the history of Boston Children's Hospital in stem cells:
"1953 — Leroy Stevens, a Maine scientist performing cancer research in mice, finds large tumors in their scrotums. These tumors, known as teratomas, contained mixtures of differentiated and undifferentiated cells, including hair, bone, intestinal and blood tissue. Researchers concluded the cells were pluripotent, meaning they can differentiate into any cell found in a fully grown animal. Read more.

1957 — E. Donnall Thomas, a physician-scientist working in Seattle, attempts the first human bone marrow transplantation. (He later wins the Nobel Prize for this work in 1990)."

So this highlights that even in the 1950's it was known that pluripotent cells induced into an animal could lead to development of tumors.

That is the exact opposite of both of those findings. The first shows that cancers contain undifferentiated cells. They were already there, not introduced in anyway. The second is CURING cancer in HUMANS, not causing it in animals, and as an aside, relates to leukemias, not solid tumours. Surely you have heard of bone marrow transplants.

It highlights my point. You misunderstand almost every part of what has happened and is happening in this space.

While in 1957, they were already using adult stem cells donated from the bone marrow of the recipient to provide stem cell treatments with little chance of rejection or tumor growth.

Bone marrow does contain blood progenitors, which are not the same as stem cells as they are multipotent not pluripotent (blood stem cells can only make blood cells). More importantly, they didn't extract the stem cells in these treatments, they injected the entire marrow, warts and all.

We have pumped decades of research money into trying to find a treatment using embryonic stem cells with little results.

Yet more misinformation. As I said initially, we needed to see an actual stem cell so we could make one from adult tissue. You cannot have one without the other.

At the same time adult stem cell research has progressed rapidly with less funding (at least until recently).

it progressed because of the embryonic work it was built on, and it received less funding (assuming that is even true) because we couldn't do it until recently.

I understand that research into stem cells includes many different types of stem cells at different levels of differentiation; but it seems self evident to say that research into pluripotent stem cells requires undifferentiated stem cells that have to be procured from embryonic cells.

Yet more complete and utter lack of understanding of the field. Do you even know what IPSC stand for?

My issue is not with the research; but with the politics and ethics behind using stem cells from abortions to provide that tissue.

An issue drastically weakened by your insistence of making up fabricated stuff about what actually goes on in the field.

 

[Belk]

I agree with the above conclusion:
that messing with human cells is a definite banner-waving way to offend those who are Christian, and who are aware of the spiritual nuances of re- using human cells for a purpose that they were not intended for by God.
In short:
1. God created those cells.
2. He had a specific purpose for every single cell.

Where did he state that each cell has a specific purpose?

3. The idea of "repurposing" or "reusing" those cells for something other than what God intended is no different (and no less abhorrent) than re-using human body parts or body cells for experimentation.

How do we determine what is or is not God's intention for an individual cell?

4. God had a specific idea and purpose for the creation of those specific cells. So when man steps in, and harvests body parts or cells for a different purpose, he trespasses on God's perogitive to decide who gets which cells, and for what purpose they will be used.
We have laws against trespassing on property that belongs to someone else.
We have laws against using another person's words without their permission.
We have laws against theft.
So why is it that somehow we feel that body parts of a person that we don't know can be harvested, changed, and recycled for a purpose that Our Creator never intended??
Something to think about.

Yes, it makes me think many people make claims for God that they have no way of knowing.

 

[Tanj]

3. The idea of "repurposing" or "reusing" those cells for something other than what God intended is no different (and no less abhorrent) than re-using human body parts or body cells for experimentation.

Australian breakthrough in stem cell kidney research - Murdoch Children's Research Institute

You just want innocent children like this to suffer and die. Now that is abhorrent.

 

[SkyWriting]

Noone here is against stem cell usage, though for all of the money put into finding therapeutic usage of embryonic stem cells, it has been a big bust. While adult stem cells have been used for over 50 years now and have treated many diseases. This thread is about the usage of stem cell lines in testing new drugs and in production of new vaccines. So it seems your view is that however these cells were collected, they have done far more good than the initial harm to the fetus that procured them. But to a Catholic, that initial harm was murder and to us, profiting from that murder is not ethical or moral. So you don't have to agree with my argument; but please try to see how easy it would be to cleanse these cell lines and avoid our ethical dilemma. I would pose one hypothetical here. Our current Pope weighed the good of the vaccine against the bad of using these cell lines for testing (in the case of Moderna and Pfizer) and came out with the opinion that Catholics could take the vaccine. What if he had come down on the other side of that and said no? Millions of Catholics might have rejected the vaccine and put themselves at risk of death simply because noone wants to take the time to grow ethically sourced stem cell lines.

It's not just the time. It 's the effort it takes to document and test the vitality of the cells and document the DNA. We don't just document entire DNA but pick out certain sections and validate the sections and test how they react. Changing the source material is a huge deal.

You've gotten used to our alphabet. It would be like creating a new similar alphabet after 50 years. Pretty much the same alphabet, with some changes in the arraignment. Then slowly reissue 50 years of written books.

 

[chad kincham]

If we decide to stop using stem cell lines that were created decades ago, then we should also kill off any people that have benefitted from these lines and also eliminate any of their offspring. The idea is to stop any activities based on past procedures. So killing off any children from people who are alive due to stem cell research is the next logical step.

Every day, stem cells save lives -
Tens of thousands of people benefit each year from stem cell transplants (as bone marrow transplants) to treat blood cancers such as leukaemia and lymphoma and ...

But those aren’t taken from unborn humans butchered in the womb.

 

[tz620q]

It's not just the time. It 's the effort it takes to document and test the vitality of the cells and document the DNA. We don't just document entire DNA but pick out certain sections and validate the sections and test how they react. Changing the source material is a huge deal.

You've gotten used to our alphabet. It would be like creating a new similar alphabet after 50 years. Pretty much the same alphabet, with some changes in the arraignment. Then slowly reissue 50 years of written books.

Thank you, I understand now more about the difficulties of doing this. It is too bad that noone thought of the ethics of using aborted stem cells when these cell lines were picked many years ago. It seems odd that this discussion has taken nearly 50 years to reach a level where people can start questioning the ethics of this.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But those aren’t taken from unborn humans butchered in the womb.

I think a more positive view would be that taken by the more enlightened families of deceased organ donors; that whatever the circumstances of the death (which we don't know), at least something good could come from it.

 

[chad kincham]

I think a more positive view would be that taken by the more enlightened families of deceased organ donors; that whatever the circumstances of the death (which we don't know), at least something good could come from it.

Last I heard, fetal stem cells have a bad habit of causing cancer, but not adult stem cells, BTW.

Israel developed a way to culture adult cells and turn them into stem cells, and thus a persons own cells with no rejection problems can be used - so that should negate ever using fetal stem cells or donor adult stem cells.

 

[SkyWriting]

Thank you, I understand now more about the difficulties of doing this. It is too bad that noone thought of the ethics of using aborted stem cells when these cell lines were picked many years ago. It seems odd that this discussion has taken nearly 50 years to reach a level where people can start questioning the ethics of this.

They did. It has always been controversial since day one.
It's not the practical people who have objected.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Last I heard, fetal stem cells have a bad habit of causing cancer, but not adult stem cells, BTW.

It's been known that both embryonic and fetal stem cells have the potential to become cancerous when used in tissue therapy, but this is irrelevant to use in vaccine preparation - the cells are not part of the vaccine.

 

[pacomascarot]

There appears to be two problems with fetal stem cells:

1. Were they ethically sourced? In most cases, no.

I ONLY ever get organic free-range stem cells.

 

[dgiharris]

Thank you, I understand now more about the difficulties of doing this. It is too bad that noone thought of the ethics of using aborted stem cells when these cell lines were picked many years ago. It seems odd that this discussion has taken nearly 50 years to reach a level where people can start questioning the ethics of this.

I really hate disingenuous arguments.

The reason why scientists, researchers, academics, doctors, and engineers went down this dark path was simply to save future lives.

It is very simple math. Every year, there are around 600,000 abortions done (down from 1,200,000 twenty years ago...). This number does not really change.

Someone had the bright idea to use these abortions to save lives.

Look, I get it, we hate abortion. But don't conflate issues, don't turn people into mustache-twirling villains hellbent on committing evil for the sake of evil.

Have you ever seen a parent's face when they are looking down upon their dying child? The amount of pain and suffering radiates off of them like heatwaves from the Sarah sun.

Australian breakthrough in stem cell kidney research - Murdoch Children's Research Institute

You just want innocent children like this to suffer and die. Now that is abhorrent.

This is what it is all about. IN the past, some doctors, researchers, and scientists looked at the cold cruel math of inevitable annual abortions and they had an idea-- what if we could use this bad to do some good? What if we could save lives? What if we could not only save some lives but usher in a revolutionary new way of treating patients and saving lives. What if we could foster a quantum leap in healthcare equivalent to us going from the dark ages of medicine to the 20th century of medicine within our lifetime?

What I abhor about ethics arguments when it comes to stem cells is this notion that our respective delicate sensibilities about what we feel is right and wrong are somehow more important than the life of some child somewhere dying from something that ONLY stem cells could fix.

Right now, right this second, there is a mother and a father on their knees with hands clasped in prayer. There are tears streaming down their faces and they are begging God to save the life of their child. They are begging and offering anything-- even their own lives-- in exchange for saving their child. Their pain and suffering is on a level that is unimaginable to those who have not lost a child. And in some cases, stem cells and stem cell research will save the life of their child. But "we" are going to come in and put our ethical conditions on this research and in some cases ban it and prevent it. We are going to tell these parents "no, we will not allow this unethical practice to save the life of your child"

When someone dies in a car accident, we don't object to using their organs, blood, etc.

Regardless of our opinions, the fact is, there are going to be 600k abortions this year no matter what. No matter what. NO MATTER WHAT!!! If those abortions can be used to save thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives then why not? Why not? WHY NOT?

I'm sorry, I prioritize the lives of the living over the ethics of the dead. I prioritize the pain and suffering felt by those parents over our delicate sensibilities of "the ethics of using aborted fetuses".

Now, if this led to the development of fetus farms and the establishment of an industry where women purposefully get pregnant and abort and collect $50k then yes, we can definitely have that ethical argument. But that is not the case for now.

I realize that the argument is about stem cells but truthfully, the "real" argument is about using aborted fetuses in any way shape or form. So I'd just as soon grab the bull by the horns and argue the real argument.

And sorry, an abortion is a tragedy, it is sad, I wish they didn't happen. But do I really need to stifle research that would save lives because of my delicate sensibilities? Right this second, someone had an abortion. It is done, it is over, whether we like it or not it has happened.

The aborted fetus is now suspended between two parallel universes.
--IN parallel universe X: the fetus goes into a trashbag and is incinerated.
--In parallel universe Y: the fetus is used for medical research which helps foster in new medical treatments that save the lives of 25 to 250 people per year.

I simply do NOT understand why we want to live in universe X???

 

[Carbon]

I'm sorry, I prioritize the lives of the living over the ethics of the dead

You sure you're a Baptist?

 

[Ophiolite]

I really hate disingenuous arguments.

The reason why scientists, researchers, academics, doctors, and engineers went down this dark path was simply to save future lives.

It is very simple math. Every year, there are around 600,000 abortions done (down from 1,200,000 twenty years ago...). This number does not really change.

Someone had the bright idea to use these abortions to save lives.

Look, I get it, we hate abortion. But don't conflate issues, don't turn people into mustache-twirling villains hellbent on committing evil for the sake of evil.

Have you ever seen a parent's face when they are looking down upon their dying child? The amount of pain and suffering radiates off of them like heatwaves from the Sarah sun.



This is what it is all about. IN the past, some doctors, researchers, and scientists looked at the cold cruel math of inevitable annual abortions and they had an idea-- what if we could use this bad to do some good? What if we could save lives? What if we could not only save some lives but usher in a revolutionary new way of treating patients and saving lives. What if we could foster a quantum leap in healthcare equivalent to us going from the dark ages of medicine to the 20th century of medicine within our lifetime?

What I abhor about ethics arguments when it comes to stem cells is this notion that our respective delicate sensibilities about what we feel is right and wrong are somehow more important than the life of some child somewhere dying from something that ONLY stem cells could fix.

Right now, right this second, there is a mother and a father on their knees with hands clasped in prayer. There are tears streaming down their faces and they are begging God to save the life of their child. They are begging and offering anything-- even their own lives-- in exchange for saving their child. Their pain and suffering is on a level that is unimaginable to those who have not lost a child. And in some cases, stem cells and stem cell research will save the life of their child. But "we" are going to come in and put our ethical conditions on this research and in some cases ban it and prevent it. We are going to tell these parents "no, we will not allow this unethical practice to save the life of your child"

When someone dies in a car accident, we don't object to using their organs, blood, etc.

Regardless of our opinions, the fact is, there are going to be 600k abortions this year no matter what. No matter what. NO MATTER WHAT!!! If those abortions can be used to save thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives then why not? Why not? WHY NOT?

I'm sorry, I prioritize the lives of the living over the ethics of the dead. I prioritize the pain and suffering felt by those parents over our delicate sensibilities of "the ethics of using aborted fetuses".

Now, if this led to the development of fetus farms and the establishment of an industry where women purposefully get pregnant and abort and collect $50k then yes, we can definitely have that ethical argument. But that is not the case for now.

I realize that the argument is about stem cells but truthfully, the "real" argument is about using aborted fetuses in any way shape or form. So I'd just as soon grab the bull by the horns and argue the real argument.

And sorry, an abortion is a tragedy, it is sad, I wish they didn't happen. But do I really need to stifle research that would save lives because of my delicate sensibilities? Right this second, someone had an abortion. It is done, it is over, whether we like it or not it has happened.

The aborted fetus is now suspended between two parallel universes.
--IN parallel universe X: the fetus goes into a trashbag and is incinerated.
--In parallel universe Y: the fetus is used for medical research which helps foster in new medical treatments that save the lives of 25 to 250 people per year.

I simply do NOT understand why we want to live in universe X???

I am moved when someone eloquently combines passion and reason, compassion and logic. It is too rare on this forum. Thanks.

 

[tz620q]

I am moved when someone eloquently combines passion and reason, compassion and logic. It is too rare on this forum. Thanks.

Frankly, when I read his response to my argument, I did not feel much compassion. Maybe I didn't explain my position well enough, but I have always been able to see his side of this issue and I agree with most of what he said. That being said, I had a good friend that was working in adult stem cell research in the 1980's and 90's and he was very concerned that there was a push by government and private grant money to fund research using fetal stem cells as therapies for various diseases. This flew in the face of science, where adult stem cell therapies had been used since the 60's and were showing great promise in treating many different illnesses. That is a separate field of research from usage of fetal stem cell lines in drug testing and production and I agree with Ophiolite that the ethical concerns are much less and the benefits outweigh the ethical qualms. My whole point and one that he did not seem to address was that this whole ethical argument could have been avoided if they had simply used donated cells to begin with.