Reeve

isshinwhat · Sep 17, 2002

http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,132199-1-6,00.html

Reeve, paralysed seven years ago when he was thrown from his horse, said he was "angry, and disappointed," that Bush had hampered developments in stem cell research which might have led to human trials aimed at rebuilding the nervous systems of quadriplegics.

"I think we could have been much further along with scientific research than we actually are," he said.

The actor said President Bush had paid too much heed to the Catholic church.

"There are religious groups - the Jehovah's Witness, I believe - who think it's a sin to have a blood transfusion. Well, what if the president for some reason decided to listen to them, instead of to the Catholics, which is the group he really listens to in making his decisions about embryonic stem cell research?" Reeve was quoted as saying.

  If he cannot see the difference between a blood transfusion and destroying an embryo, then may God have mercy on him and show him the light.  I pray that his injuries don't make him bitter nor angry.

Chris†opher Paul · Sep 17, 2002

Heh, yeah, let's kill another person so that you can walk. Right.

VOW · Sep 17, 2002

I want to know if his recent reports of sensation were caused by work with stem cells, or if it's part of some other experimental treatment.

HOWEVER it came about, why can't he rejoice in that instead of hurling barbs at the Catholic Church?

Having said that, though I still must admire his drive, and his ambition. If I were paralyzed from the neck down, I don't know if I would have had the strength to do what he has done. He is an eloquent spokesperson for spinal cord injuries, and he has done a tremendous job of making himself visible for everyone to see, a reminder that people with spinal cord injuries can enjoy life.

But you don't raise yourself up by stepping on those lower than you are. And even in his debilitated state, an embryo is still lower than he is.

Peace,
~VOW

KC Catholic · Sep 17, 2002

I thought Superman fought for "Truth, Justice and the American Way?"

I guess the American way is to use every means possible to save your life, even if it means taking anothers life.

AngelAmidala · Sep 17, 2002

Boy was I a dolt...I thought this was a discussion on the Reeve in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.

It really is sad to hear someone like him talk like that. Kind of hard for someone who many have looked up to, not only for his acting career but for all he's done since his accident...and now to hear him say what he did about stem cell research. RAR.

VOW · Sep 17, 2002

Something just popped into my mind. I'd like to get ahold of a panel of people talking about stem cell research.

I seem to recall from my biology classes, that if the early embryo, say just a few hours old, divides into two complete embryos, you will have twins. The first few divisions are simply non-differentiated cells, in other words, all the cells are identical. So you should be able to "slice" the embryo in two, and obtain twins.

How would you feel if your embryotic twin had been sacrificed to yield stem cells for research? Essentially, it would be another "you" that ends up in the garbage.

Now isn't THAT a gruesome thought!

Stem cells are available from many sources. I've heard the placenta, and even the blood in the umbilical cord will furnish stem cells. Instead of all the uproar over these "discarded embryos" why don't the researchers harvest all the placentas and umbilical cords from normal, uncomplicated births? Most of those are just discarded as medical waste.

And they sure wouldn't be trashing people that way!!

Peace be with you,
~VOW

seebs · Sep 17, 2002

My understanding is that stem cell research is mostly based, not on killing someone who would otherwise have lived, but taking cells from someone who is already dead or dying, and beyond medical care. I see it as more like organ donation than like abortion.

As to Reeve, he's been doing some fairly obvious things that were written off as "that wouldn't work". I believe he's the first person in recorded history to get better *AT ALL* from nerve injury this severe and this old - and this probably means that some of the treatments (including "prop him up on a treadmill and stimulate his nerves with electronics") may well be used on other people.

Nonetheless, I think that stem cells certainly ought to be used for research. Should we make and then discard embryos to do it? No. If an embryo is dying anyway (miscarriage or whatever), should we consider it? Certainly! It's the same thing, I think, as organ donation, and I approve of (voluntary) organ donation. (I think the decision should be with parents for kids too young to have made such decisions.)

You want a scary thought? Imagine, if you will, that we've established that we could take a zygote at the "several cells" stage, and split it apart into two zygotes, and both would develop normally.

Are we morally obliged to do this, since failure to do this means one less life?

I remain totally stumped by the question of how to tell whether or not a given quantity of protoplasm is currently "a life". Every view I've ever heard has been reasonably consistent and plausible; I rather wonder what God's opinion on the matter is.

VOW · Sep 18, 2002

To Seebs:

Take it one step further: deliberately create a "twin" from the zygote so you have a ready supply of spare parts! No rejection!

And the stem cells which are argued about are from the excess fertilized eggs when a couple uses in-vitro fertilization. I don't think a miscarriage would yield viable stem cells, because something obviously has gone drastically wrong with the pregnancy, in order to create the miscarriage. There are sources of stem cells in adults, though, and in the placenta and umbilical cord. I'm sure harvesting stem cells from the placenta would be a lot less tidy from building your own from frozen embryo leftovers courtesy of the fertility clinic, but hey!

I get emails from ABCNews, informing me of upcoming programs. Christopher Reeve is being interviewed by Barbara Walters this Friday, and she has this to say about him:

He can now move some of his fingers, and, in water, without the weight of gravity, he can move his legs. This has been accomplished by the most intensive exercise program and by electronic stimulation of his muscles. Chris can also feel both hot and cold, and has feeling in the upper part of his body.

Amazing, huh? And all of this progress is done WITHOUT stem cells!

Peace be with you,
~VOW

seebs · Sep 19, 2002

I seem to recall that about 80% of fertilizations end with some form of miscarriage, many long before anyone notices them. So... I wouldn't be surprised if many of them had healthy stem cells.

I do agree that I'd rather see them not use "spare" embryos. It's a tough call; I have no clear idea of how to tell a "life" from a "set of cells". It seems to me that it would be reasonable to err on the side of caution.

Nilhil Obstat · Sep 19, 2002

I just think it rediculious that he blames the Catholic Church for defending life. I understand he is suffering and frustrated, but he has made great strides without the additional research.

I think he needs to offer it up to God and trust that God will direct the doctors to the solution.

seebs · Sep 19, 2002

The question is, is everything about current stem cell policy really about defending life? With the example of, say, placental stem cells (if there are any), I don't see why this would be a big deal... I think it's easy for us to, realizing that something *could* be dangerous, not put enough effort into finding ways to avoid the bad part, while still getting some of the benefits. I think stem cell research, if a non-lethal way to research it can be found, is potentially a good thing.

Nilhil Obstat · Sep 19, 2002

I've seen several comments by researchers who say that the success rate with fetal stem cells is being inflated in order to further the research and that there has not been enough research done on the use of adult stem cells.

Additionally, they could get the same type of stem cells from the ambilical cord and the remenants of the after-birth. Certainly they could find alternatives.

VOW · Sep 19, 2002

To Seebs:

Oh, stem cell research has the potential for incredible achievements! But Message of Love is absolutely right, there's more politics than science going on right now.

It's just QUITE curious that Reeve, who is one of the fervent supporters of embryonic stem cell development, has achieved his recent successes NOT THROUGH STEM CELLS, but by other means.

Politics, bah!

Peace,
~VOW

isshinwhat · Sep 19, 2002

The question is, is everything about current stem cell policy really about defending life? With the example of, say, placental stem cells (if there are any), I don't see why this would be a big deal... I think it's easy for us to, realizing that something *could* be dangerous, not put enough effort into finding ways to avoid the bad part, while still getting some of the benefits. I think stem cell research, if a non-lethal way to research it can be found, is potentially a good thing.

I don't believe the Catholic Church is against stem cell research altogether, seebs, only those types which would cause death to a fetus, embryo, or any person during harvesting. Using placental stem cells, those from organ donors, and the like are fine in the eyes of the Church, I think. If they can develop technology by non-lethal means, I am all for it.

God Bless,

Neal

Wolseley · Sep 19, 2002

Yeah, but you can only get stem cells fom a placenta if you carry a baby to term; and in Amerika, we tend to abort our babies....placentas aren't as plentiful as they might be. Which drags the whole politicized abortion mess into the debate....yeeech.

seebs · Sep 19, 2002

I wouldn't say we "tend to" abort our babies, statistically speaking; I think many, many, more babies are born than aborted. (Which leads me to wonder why they don't just take stem cells from those placentae.)

Oddly, I can't seem to find a page with clear statistics on number of babies born. It looks like the American birth rate is about 14 births per 1000 people, so, on a population of 278,000,000 people, that's about 3.9 million... So, not an order of magnitude higher, but definitely higher.

VOW · Sep 19, 2002

To Seebs:

3.9 million live births would result in one TREMENDOUS pile of placentas! And unless there is a pathological need to examine the placenta for deformities, that is considered "medical waste" and simply disposed of.

Umbilical cord BLOOD is often a very valuable resource!

WHY is all this being discarded?

Peace,
~VOW

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Reeve

Pro Deo et Patria

Based on a True Story

Moderator

Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

Legend

Moderator

God Made Me A Skeptic

Moderator

God Made Me A Skeptic

GO Fighting irish!

God Made Me A Skeptic

GO Fighting irish!

Moderator

Pro Deo et Patria

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

God Made Me A Skeptic

Moderator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency