Stem Cell Research

[lawtonfogle]

Why would you not be willing to sacrifice a small number of lives (who by the way are unaware of their existance and without a nervouse system so there is no physical or mental suffering) to save an indefinate number of lives in the future.

Answer this: A train was out of control and about, without a doubt, hit five people. You have the opportunity to switch the track and redirect the train to hit just one person instead. Would you do it? Or would you let the larger population die?

Or if there is a fat man on an overpass in a position that if you were to push him off, he could stop the train with his size.

Based on what you are indicating you are willing to stand there and let the larger crowd die.

Based on what I said, I said no opinion about my position on the subject. I just said that society does apply boundaries to research, and this is one area where there is conflict. Did I ever say one side was right or wrong?

Also, are you asking if I would murder someone just because the situation justified it in my mind?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Why would you not be willing to sacrifice a small number of lives (who by the way are unaware of their existance and without a nervouse system so there is no physical or mental suffering) to save an indefinate number of lives in the future.

Answer this: A train was out of control and about, without a doubt, hit five people. You have the opportunity to switch the track and redirect the train to hit just one person instead. Would you do it? Or would you let the larger population die?

Or if there is a fat man on an overpass in a position that if you were to push him off, he could stop the train with his size.

Based on what you are indicating you are willing to stand there and let the larger crowd die.

As to the actual question, there are many ways to phrase it. Would you be willing to kill one child to save hundreds, what about killing hundreds to save thousands. What if the child that must die is yours, what if another child must die for yours to live? What if you are actually looking back on yourself and the child to be killed is you, what if another must die to save you?

Do you support Auschwitz and the work of those like Josef Mengele?

Maybe I do, maybe I don't. It is not your job to decide if I do, or even guess. It is your job to decide for yourself.

 

[Vene]

Well, I've done a little bit of research and I have found some very conflicting results. There are some sources that suggest that adult stem cells have had great success (1) which is all well and good. And then I found some with reports that there have been many problems with it, including a very high death rate (2). There are also sources that say some of the promising research into adult stem cells was flawed (3 4 5 6)

As of right now, it looks as if both adult and embryonic stem cell research have a lot of work to do. Either could be a very valuable breakthrough, but neither has really shown to be greatly valuable. Maybe in time and with more research (into both) there could be greater results.

I'm going to look even more into this and would welcome any messages with sites to look at or more posts here with more data.

But, I'm just not seeing the ethical dilemma on researching on a blob of cells that are medical waste, even if they have human DNA.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Well, I've done a little bit of research and I have found some very conflicting results. There are some sources that suggest that adult stem cells have had great success (1) which is all well and good. And then I found some with reports that there have been many problems with it, including a very high death rate (2). There are also sources that say some of the promising research into adult stem cells was flawed (3 4 5 6)

As of right now, it looks as if both adult and embryonic stem cell research have a lot of work to do. Either could be a very valuable breakthrough, but neither has really shown to be greatly valuable. Maybe in time and with more research (into both) there could be greater results.

I'm going to look even more into this and would welcome any messages with sites to look at or more posts here with more data.

But, I'm just not seeing the ethical dilemma on researching on a blob of cells that are medical waste, even if they have human DNA.

And some people really don't see a problem with eating another human who is dead. Funny thing about ethics, it is a bit hard to see outside the walls around you.

Psychologically speaking, I would like to know where ethics originate, but I don't think the brain is understood enough to even attempt to answer such an inquiry.

 

[Vene]

And some people really don't see a problem with eating another human who is dead. Funny thing about ethics, it is a bit hard to see outside the walls around you.

Psychologically speaking, I would like to know where ethics originate, but I don't think the brain is understood enough to even attempt to answer such an inquiry.

So, are you going to explain why or are you just going to make emotional appeals?

 

[Skaloop]

Granted there are special cases where this is done, I would be following the international guidelines that such research will benefit the patient, not induce additional risk, is done with his/her consent (or guardians if s/he is unable to give consent), ect. What if those guidelines were removed?

If the guidelines were removed, I would not find such procedures acceptable. But in these cases, we are dealing with sentient, autonomous individuals, not embryos.

 

[KarateCowboy]

What is the main issue with this field? I don't understand how research that will further our medical understanding can be a bad thing.

There is no problem with using stem cells. Only embryonic stem cells, which many people support. Given that the average IQ is 100, we still haven't learned from slavery, the Indian wars, women's suffrage, gym crow, etc. . .

 

[cantata]

You mean like this?

http://www2.mahidol.ac.th/spectrum/page4a_vol8_no2.htm

It seems to me that if the embryos are to be discarded anyway then it is better that they are used for something useful.

 

[nitecrawlur]

All stem cell research is a good thing. If you religious people had a child in need of medical care and the only cure came from this research, there is no doubt that you would accept it.

What would you say to the doctor?
"No doctor, we cannot do that procedure to save my kids life because it was discovered from stem cell research and I don't want to support that"

You guys can't be serious. Sacrificing organisms without a nervous system or awareness to save those who do have those capabilities is the right thing to do.

 

[KarateCowboy]

You mean like this?

http://www2.mahidol.ac.th/spectrum/page4a_vol8_no2.htm

Ha.

Just give them a rope . . .

 

[TheReasoner]

Well... As you don't have to use embryos I certainly don't see why we shouldn't do all we can do in this area. I am opposed to fertilizing human egg cells for the purpose of hacking the result apart. But I am certainly in favor of stem cell research. the potential such research holds is immense.

 

[The Nihilist]

The embryos that serve as the source for stem cells are going to get destroyed anyway. What is the problem here?

 

[TheReasoner]

The embryos that serve as the source for stem cells are going to get destroyed anyway. What is the problem here?

I know this comparison seems OTT, but I think it opens a door to understanding why some are opposed to stem cell research.
First off, it is under the assumption that the stem cells are from embryos.
Then, there is the underlying assumption - to which I am inclined to agree - that an embryo is a human being.

So, you can retort with the following comparison/statement:

'Those jews were going to be killed anyway. So what is the problem?'
about the Nazi experiments on Jews during WW2.
Note that this is neither a comparison I have made nor have heard others make. Yet if you put yourself in this frame of mind it is a valid one.
And a source for another debate... *starts new thread*

By this philosophy, if an embryo is created - you have a human being. If that embryo is purposefully destroyed, you commit murder by the same reckoning.
Hence, any use of embryos like this equals mass murder.

And of course a lot of the opposition is from people who do not realize that stem cell research does not need embryos.

 

[lawtonfogle]

So, are you going to explain why or are you just going to make emotional appeals?

Explain why to what? The statement about ethics (which by the way is in no way an appeal to emotion)?

Simple really. If you think X is right, without logically reasoning why, it is hard to understand why X is wrong. Also, vice versa.

For evidence, I offer all those who hold beliefs despite what logic you offer them.

 

[lawtonfogle]

If the guidelines were removed, I would not find such procedures acceptable. But in these cases, we are dealing with sentient, autonomous individuals, not embryos.

In both cases, you are dealing with ethics being enforced onto science (which was my main point). My question is this, how should the ethics be chosen?

 

[lawtonfogle]

There is no problem with using stem cells. Only embryonic stem cells, which many people support. Given that the average IQ is 100, we still haven't learned from slavery, the Indian wars, women's suffrage, gym crow, etc. . .

The average IQ is 100 because 100 is the average IQ. The keep standardizing the test so that an "average" person will always score a 100. In the last few years, the standard has risen by about 3 points (last I heard anyways).

 

[Vene]

Explain why to what? The statement about ethics (which by the way is in no way an appeal to emotion)?

Simple really. If you think X is right, without logically reasoning why, it is hard to understand why X is wrong. Also, vice versa.

For evidence, I offer all those who hold beliefs despite what logic you offer them.

Explain why embryonic research is immoral. It's a bundle of undifferentiated medical waste.

And the emotional part was comparing stem cell research to cannibalism. Explain to me why this comparison is valid.

As for those who hold beliefs, would it be ethical if the majority of people decided that stem cell research is moral? Are you suggesting that morality doesn't hold to some ideal. I read a lot that atheists have flexible morality, but that's exactly what you are suggesting right here. Is morality relative?

 

[jayem]

As always, the conflict boils down to the fact that we don't have any consensus on what is a "person." For me, it's just too much of a stretch to believe that a ball of 100 or so undifferentiated human cells is the same as a newborn baby. I have trouble wrapping my brain around the idea of 100-celled people. But that's just me.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Explain why embryonic research is immoral. It's a bundle of undifferentiated medical waste.

My argument only depends upon someone, no matter who, thinking it is immoral. No need for there reasoning to exist, it can be bad logic for all my argument cares. Unless you want to hold the position that if you don't hold it immoral then no one does, but then I will have to ask you for proof of that.

And the emotional part was comparing stem cell research to cannibalism. Explain to me why this comparison is valid.

Had you been in my most recent ethics class, you would have realized it isn't, but then again, you weren't. So, basically, all I am saying is that something you find immoral can be found moral by others and something you find moral can be found immoral by others. Under this, cannibalism (as long as someone finds it moral) counts as an example. So is animal research, or working on Sundays.

As for those who hold beliefs, would it be ethical if the majority of people decided that stem cell research is moral? Are you suggesting that morality doesn't hold to some ideal. I read a lot that atheists have flexible morality, but that's exactly what you are suggesting right here. Is morality relative?

What I am suggesting is that different people have different morals. As to if they are correct, or if there is a universal moral everyone 'should' have, I make no comment.

As to what the laws state, that is a different issue depending, but I believe everyone has absolutes for the laws (for most, such things as murder being illegal), but also people have things they find immoral but that should not be a law (I find homosexuality immoral, but I have no reason it should be against the law).

 

[cantata]

'Those jews were going to be killed anyway. So what is the problem?'
about the Nazi experiments on Jews during WW2.

The difference is that experimentation causes more pain than just killing.

Bundles of cells don't have the capacity for pain.