Science

[lithium.]

I have a qestion, but i think i know the answer.  When Scientist proof something or make something.  That changes our life or saves peoples life why does some people get pi$$$$ about it.  Today i was watching tv and i seen Christopher Reeve on a talk show and he was talking about ways of helping him and other people like him, stem-cells and other really promising ways of helping people like nanotechnology.  But yeah you may think that its Wrong cause of what it says in the bible, but if it can help someone and save there life i say do it no matter what.  The people here in the USA sometimes go over board on there Religion. 

 

[sakamuyo]

The only problem I have with Christopher Reeves is when he says that he will not have his life back until he is "healed" fully. He's basically telling other quadraplegics that they are worthless. It's this message that I have a big problem with.

I'm all for the research that is being done (though I do think there need to be boundaries about what should/shouldn't be played with), as long as an attitude is kept that people who are not healed of their injuries are not somehow of lesser value.

 

[sakamuyo]

No. I do not agree with "no matter what" reasoning.

What if to save one person's life, I have to make life miserable for hundreds or thousands? Should we perform medical testing on babies with Down's Syndrome just because "they aren't going to have a meaningful life, anyway, and this testing will eventually enable someone else to live?"

I think most (I won't say all) of us believe limits have to be placed /somewhere/. The problem is in deciding where, exactly, to place the limit.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by sakamuyo
No. I do not agree with "no matter what" reasoning.

What if to save one person's life, I have to make life miserable for hundreds or thousands? Should we perform medical testing on babies with Down's Syndrome just because "they aren't going to have a meaningful life, anyway, and this testing will eventually enable someone else to live?"

I think most (I won't say all) of us believe limits have to be placed /somewhere/. The problem is in deciding where, exactly, to place the limit.

But there shouldn't be any reason why people should have diseases and other problems.  If there wasn't any limits alot of the diseases in the world would be gone.

 

[sakamuyo]

Or new diseases would take their places? Fast-mutating viruses can be nasty that way. Otherwise, HIV would be gone by now.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by sakamuyo
Or new diseases would take their places? Fast-mutating viruses can be nasty that way. Otherwise, HIV would be gone by now.

no no no the only reason HIV is still here is cause people will not stop having sex with out protection, and there should be better protection, but you can't stop a virus with out testing, the only way to completely stop this virus is for people to stop having sex heh which we know can't happen.  Let me just say this yeah there was to be limits, there shouldn't be full human clones, only body parts.

 

[sakamuyo]

We agree on the 99%, but will fight to the death over the 1%!!!

You know... You don't have to stop all sex to stop HIV. If we were all virgins at the time of marriage & then only had sex with that one person & didn't share needles...

 

[Morat]

 Umm, Seesaw? One of the reasons we've not managed to make an effective vaccine (although there are several in testing, now) against HIV is that HIV mutates quickly.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Morat
 Umm, Seesaw? One of the reasons we've not managed to make an effective vaccine (although there are several in testing, now) against HIV is that HIV mutates quickly.

YEP

 

[Sinai]

As far as I know, it is not stem cell research per se that is controversial, but rather the type of stem cells that should be harvested that tends to be controversial.

There are two basic types of stem cells: embryonic (which come from human embryos and primarily form during the early stages of pregnancy) and adult (which come from such sources as the placenta, umbilical-cord blood, skin, brain tissue, bone marrow and body fat). Since adult stem cells have been used for years, they have a proven track record of helping patients and show great promise for future uses.

The controversy regards the use of embryonic stem cells, since it requires that the fetus die in order for the stem cells to be harvested. Proponents of this research believe the potential therapeutic benefits to patients offset the loss of human life to the fetuses. Opponents point out that there is no evidence the embryonic stem cells will be significantly better for patients than adult stem cells, that there is evidence that embryonic stem cells are difficult to control, and that it is not risk the loss of human life required to harvest embryonic stem cells.

Proponents generally answer that we won't know all the answers to the opponents' arguments until scientists are permitted to fully engage in the research, and that the embryonic stem cells would come from fetuses being aborted anyway. Opponents generally answer that it is dangerous to place such life-death decisions in the hands of the people who most stand to gain from a particular decision.

Both sides seem to agree that additional research needs to be done on adult stem cells, since existing research shows that these cells may be almost as versatile as embryonic ones and may be fully capable of converting into various cell types for healing the body....and would not require the death of human life to be harvested.

 

[Morat]

  1) Embryonic stem cells are considerably more flexible than adult stem cells. Recent research has indicated that adult stem cells might be as flexible (in terms of becoming any other cell) but nothing conclusive has shown up. Given that embryonic stem cells can become any other sort of cell, and that adult stems cells might become any other sort of cell, how can adult stem cells be more useful?

(2) I thought most embryonic stem cells are harvested not from abortions or miscarriages, but from unused embryoes from IVF.

 

 

[sakamuyo]

But, many of us Christians still feel that live begins at conception, whether it happens in the bedroom or the test lab. So, using an embryonic stem cell is using a living (it does not have to be "viable" to be living in my opinion - this is a matter of opinion) being. The question is whether or not this is ethical.

This returns us to the heart of the original question. Let's assume (and I do not know this is correct, let's assume for the sake of argument) that the embryonic stem cells are better for research. Does that alone mean we should use them? Where do we define a limit/boundary where we say, "Yes, this would be beneficial science, but the cost is too high."??

 

[Morat]

  Well, let's see. If the choice is "use them" or "throw them in the trash", I'd imagine it's a pretty easy choice. Once pregnancy is confirmed, they generally don't hang onto all those spare embryo's.

   I suggest you start with agitating against IVF.

 

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Morat:
  1) Embryonic stem cells are considerably more flexible than adult stem cells. Recent research has indicated that adult stem cells might be as flexible (in terms of becoming any other cell) but nothing conclusive has shown up. Given that embryonic stem cells can become any other sort of cell, and that adult stems cells might become any other sort of cell, how can adult stem cells be more useful?

Theoretically (and logically), embryonic stem cells should be at least as flexible as adult stem cells, though--as we have both mentioned--recent research has indicated that the adult cells might be as flexible as the embryonic cells. However, there also is evidence that embryonic stem cells are difficult to control, which could put patients who are treated with such cells at risk for potentially serious side effects.

(2) I thought most embryonic stem cells are harvested not from abortions or miscarriages, but from unused embryoes from IVF.

As long as there are substantial restrictions, prohibitions or lack of governmental funding for using aborted fetuses for harvesting stem cells, IVF embryos may be more plentiful than the aborted ones. This would likely change if the legal or political climate changes. Which also raises the question of whether a mother should be paid for aborting a pregnancy [think of the legal and moral implications in that one!], or should only the doctor or abortion clinic make a profit?

 

[Morat]

Sinai: You're approaching it backwards. I suggest you go do a little research. Fetal stem cells would be the most flexible, not adult. In fact, the existance and limited flexibilty of adult stem cells was quite a surprise.

  Nor is there a need for a vast influx of new stem lines. New stem lines, yes. But once a stem cell line is fixed, it can generate a great many generations of stem cells. There is no need, even if research was wide open, to go outside the pool of IVF discards. Indeed, to go outside the pool of people willing to allow stem-cells to be harvested from their IVF discards.

   You're tackling a moral issue that, at least at the moment, is highly unlikely to ever be an issue. It'd be more productive to focus on the actual moral issues at hand, since they're admittedly more pressing.