Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[liam1230]

I was driving to work the other day and an odd thought occurred to me in regards to Embryonic Stem Cell Research that presents a personal moral dilemma. It’s more in a “what if” vain, but could at some point (if the hype is to be at all believed) pose a moral dilemma. What if, as a result of the research (I’m specifically referring to “Embryonic” as opposed to “Adult” Stem cell research) a cure for a disease such as Alzheimer’s or Cancer is found? What would be the moral implications of accepting a cure that was only discovered through an immoral procedure? On the surface, an acceptance of the cure would seem at least hypocritical and at worst immoral. However I would also think it irresponsible to let a loved one, such as my wife, suffer from a disease that has a cure. I’m not sure if I could sit idly by knowing there was a cure.

I’m reminded of a similar argument in the medical profession from the mid 1970s regarding the ethical applications of some of Nazi Germany’s medical findings from its human experimentations (abominations). From what I recall, the argument in this case was that at least the massive numbers of deaths would not have been entirely in vain.

I’d be interested in hearing people’s thoughts in this regard. I visit this sight often but don’t post much in that I usually find someone else will beat me to the punch with a question, but I’ve yet to see this issue addressed.

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

liam1230:

However I would also think it irresponsible to let a loved one, such as my wife, suffer from a disease that has a cure. I’m not sure if I could sit idly by knowing there was a cure.

Would you feel the same way if the cure was developed using newborns? Because there’s no difference.

Try to separate your relationship to the diseased from the discussion; whether your wife or not, the principle is the same. Don’t confuse it with emotion.

ESCR kills babies, and is therefore an intrinsic evil.

 

[Mom_of_one]

I have a patient who has ALS. He is on a ventilator, has a feeding tube, and can’t move anything from the neck down. His nurses or his wife have to do everything for him. He is also fully aware of what is going on. I asked him if he would take embryonic stem cells if it would cure him. He said no. I asked him if he’d use adult stem cells. he said yes.

 

[puzzleannie]

liam1230:

What if, as a result of the research (I’m specifically referring to “Embryonic” as opposed to “Adult” Stem cell research) a cure for a disease such as Alzheimer’s or Cancer is found? What would be the moral implications of accepting a cure that was only discovered through an immoral procedure? On the surface, an acceptance of the cure would seem at least hypocritical and at worst immoral. However I would also think it irresponsible to let a loved one, such as my wife, suffer from a disease that has a cure. I’m not sure if I could sit idly by knowing there was a cure.

.

what if, after all the hype, all the research, embryonic stem cells turn out to be a dud - you have to use the innards of a 3 month old baby, which of course must be killed to process the beneficial substances, but the resulting compound will destroy cancer, cure autoimmune diseases like lupus, regenerate brain tissue in alzheimers and repair spinal cord injuries. What will be the moral implications? Would you authorize governments to support labs that produce embryos, develop them in artificial wombs until gestation is complete, and grow them to 3 months of age for the purpose of slaughter in the name of saving lives?

 

[JimG]

puzzleannie:

what if, after all the hype, all the research, embryonic stem cells turn out to be a dud - you have to use the innards of a 3 month old baby, which of course must be killed to process the beneficial substances, but the resulting compound will destroy cancer, cure autoimmune diseases like lupus, regenerate brain tissue in alzheimers and repair spinal cord injuries. What will be the moral implications? Would you authorize governments to support labs that produce embryos, develop them in artificial wombs until gestation is complete, and grow them to 3 months of age for the purpose of slaughter in the name of saving lives?

There would no doubt be a push to indicate that nobody really knows when life begins but it obviously doesn’t begin until at least age 4 months; and newborns to 3mos would be referred to as “post-fetuses” or “pre-infants.”

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

Actually, we do know when life begins. Life begins at conception.

 

[puzzleannie]

JimG:

There would no doubt be a push to indicate that nobody really knows when life begins but it obviously doesn’t begin until at least age 4 months; and newborns to 3mos would be referred to as “post-fetuses” or “pre-infants.”

precisely the position promoted by Peter Singer, the infamous Princeton professor

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

puzzleannie:

precisely the position promoted by Peter Singer, the infamous Princeton professor

And moral relativism marches on…

not much of a legacy, considering that this is our culture.

 

[liam1230]

Perhaps I should have framed the question better. I’m not in favor of gov’t funding of embryonic stem cell research and didn’t intend to come across as an advocate. I’ll attempt to differentiate. I’m not refering to the “farming” of human embryos for body parts for some future use, more so to the research that involves the behavior of stem cells from the embryo. From my understanding of the science, the research is into the fundamental behavior of cells.

So allow me to paint a scenario - through the ongoing research into stem cell behavior, a certain cell characteristic is found. From there, may be determined that through a manipulative or perhaps medicinal process (not involving embryonic cells) that a cure for some disease is possible. The cure would not be through direct use of human embryos, but was only found through the research.

What then?

 

[DeniseR]

liam1230:

Perhaps I should have framed the question better. I’m not in favor of gov’t funding of embryonic stem cell research and didn’t intend to come across as an advocate. I’ll attempt to differentiate. I’m not refering to the “farming” of human embryos for body parts for some future use, more so to the research that involves the behavior of stem cells from the embryo. From my understanding of the science, the research is into the fundamental behavior of cells.

So allow me to paint a scenario - through the ongoing research into stem cell behavior, a certain cell characteristic is found. From there, may be determined that through a manipulative or perhaps medicinal process (not involving embryonic cells) that a cure for some disease is possible. The cure would not be through direct use of human embryos, but was only found through the research.

What then?

Interesting question. Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that the research itself would use embryos but, in your hypothetical, may find a cell or gene that researchers could learn from and perhaps find a cure for a disease. The mecicine or procedure developed wouldn’t take any more lives but the research would not have been found without taking the lives in the first place. The resulting cure would not destroy anymore life and it would be useful to cure an ailment. And you’re asking if it would be immoral to benefit (or a loved one benefit) from such a cure, immorally discovered.

I’m sure we both agree that such an outcome would not be worth the distruction of even one life but ESCR marches on, just as abortion does. And even though the Adult Stem Cell research has shown more promise, researchers continue to want to destroy lives in an effort to find cures for anything and everything.

I think the argument is the same, as someone pointed out, as the research used by the Nazis. I don’t think that it would be wrong to be treated with a drug or procedure if a new life is not taken and it’s after the fact. For example, embryonic stem cell research finds something that can will work using adult stem cells. The evil is in the ESCR but the results are tried using adult stem cells and a cure is discovered! From that point on adult stem cells are used an no more life is destroyed. Personally, I would consult a priest but I tend to think that it would be OK to benefit after the fact.

In the meantime, I think we are all in agreement that ESCR should end immediately with no more lives destroyed, regardless of a possible cure even using the scenero above.

 

[puzzleannie]

you should be okay using human embryos for research, but if you try it with rabbits, rats, penguins, monkeys or other animals PETA will be all over you, such is the moral climate of PC science today.

 

[grotto]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_2_137.gif Let’s all just follow the yellow brick road for a moment. The embryonic stem cell (seems so unfamiliar to us we don’t recognize it - must not matter - AND looky here! it seems we can use it to cure suffering - MAYBE? Well, maybe not with the embryonic version. Lets move on to the more familiar bunch of cells - like the fetus in the womb. Right - its just a fetus, what’s a fetus? smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_6_201.gif That didn’t work but we can try a smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15_1_55.gif ! Thats right, and since we are getting so good at this, we will next take some parts from those who don’t SEEM to be able to use them because… they can’t move around, speak, see, hear, aren’t pretty to look at, can’t afford stuff, got too old to cut the mustard. OOPS! there goes another mistake. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_14_2.gif Hey, we are making alot of money at this even if it is Wrrrrronnnngggg!
Get those Christian right-wing radicals, those zealots, to stop telling people that no good can come from EVIL! Lets see if their cells are any good - that will shut them up and give us more “research material”. Yeah, thats a good one, “research material”, no hint of embyonic, fetus, human to confuse anyone about our good intentions. Enough? Nuff for me! Lets close the yellow brick road - its
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_14_16.gif

 

[liam1230]

DeniseR:

Interesting question. Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that the research itself would use embryos but, in your hypothetical, may find a cell or gene that researchers could learn from and perhaps find a cure for a disease. The mecicine or procedure developed wouldn’t take any more lives but the research would not have been found without taking the lives in the first place. The resulting cure would not destroy anymore life and it would be useful to cure an ailment. And you’re asking if it would be immoral to benefit (or a loved one benefit) from such a cure, immorally discovered.

I’m sure we both agree that such an outcome would not be worth the distruction of even one life but ESCR marches on, just as abortion does. And even though the Adult Stem Cell research has shown more promise, researchers continue to want to destroy lives in an effort to find cures for anything and everything.

I think the argument is the same, as someone pointed out, as the research used by the Nazis. I don’t think that it would be wrong to be treated with a drug or procedure if a new life is not taken and it’s after the fact. For example, embryonic stem cell research finds something that can will work using adult stem cells. The evil is in the ESCR but the results are tried using adult stem cells and a cure is discovered! From that point on adult stem cells are used an no more life is destroyed. Personally, I would consult a priest but I tend to think that it would be OK to benefit after the fact.

In the meantime, I think we are all in agreement that ESCR should end immediately with no more lives destroyed, regardless of a possible cure even using the scenero above.

Thanks Denise - your wording was mch better than mine. And I agree, ESCR should end, but it’s doubtful that it will. The federal gov’t had curbed it and many states, including my own, are about to invest in it. But even if Gov’t funding is restricted or eliminated, there is nothing that stops private companies from investing in the research. I realize that this sounds somewhat defeatist, but it’s also realist.

 

[liam1230]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_2_137.gif Let’s all just follow the yellow brick road for a moment. The embryonic stem cell (seems so unfamiliar to us we don’t recognize it - must not matter - AND looky here! it seems we can use it to cure suffering - MAYBE? Well, maybe not with the embryonic version. Lets move on to the more familiar bunch of cells - like the fetus in the womb. Right - its just a fetus, what’s a fetus? smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_6_201.gif That didn’t work but we can try a smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15_1_55.gif ! Thats right, and since we are getting so good at this, we will next take some parts from those who don’t SEEM to be able to use them because… they can’t move around, speak, see, hear, aren’t pretty to look at, can’t afford stuff, got too old to cut the mustard. OOPS! there goes another mistake. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_14_2.gif Hey, we are making alot of money at this even if it is Wrrrrronnnngggg!
Get those Christian right-wing radicals, those zealots, to stop telling people that no good can come from EVIL! Lets see if their cells are any good - that will shut them up and give us more “research material”. Yeah, thats a good one, “research material”, no hint of embyonic, fetus, human to confuse anyone about our good intentions. Enough? Nuff for me! Lets close the yellow brick road - its
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_14_16.gif

I couldn’t agree with you more about the immorality of ESCR, and if you look at my original post, I intentially equated it with the Nazi atrocities. My intent was not to debate ESC research, rather to pose a hypothetical scenario that may or may not occur.

 

[Trelow]

JimG:

There would no doubt be a push to indicate that nobody really knows when life begins but it obviously doesn’t begin until at least age 4 months; and newborns to 3mos would be referred to as “post-fetuses” or “pre-infants.”

I think now it’s up to 2 years in Holland.

 

[jayb]

Hey bretheren,

Hope I’m not intruding but i need some help to answer this argument in favor of embryonic stem cell research. I appreciate your help and expertise. I’m in another message board and happen to be the only catholic in this debate on stem cells so i need all the help i can get. Cheers and God bless!

*"This is what happens when people make arguments without understanding the actual science behind it.

An adult stem cells ARE embryonic stem cells “grown up.” A embryonic stem cell can turn into an adult stem cell if it undertakes a certain differentiating pathway. Basically, **every disease that can be cured by adult stem cells are be cured, probably with better results, by with embryonic stem cells. **

It is more like
Adult stem cells - 58
Embryonic stem cell - 58 (if allowed to differentiate into adult stem cell) and MUCH MUCH MORE!!

The reason for the MUCH MUCH MORE is that embryonic stem cells are more flexible and powerful than the adult stem cell. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent and have not differentiated as much as an adult stem cell.

Depending on the growth factors given it the embryonic stem cells, you can decide how it grows up. Embryonic stem cells can change into adult stem cells, nerves cell, muscle cell, nearly any cell in the body. The adult stem cell is already grown up, it has less choices.

Repeat: Embryonic stem cells can do everything an adult stem cell can, plus more and better. We just need funding to find out what that more is. As another poster kindly showed, the get strides have been made with adult stem cells, the promise of embryonic are even greater b/c they are pluripotent.* "

 

[grotto]

JayB: Says who? Follow the money - go to the bottom line as the saying goes. God creates life and does not want life killed!! People repeat the sin of Adam and Eve in that they want to be God. Power, money, pride are the apples on the tree. Disregard God and have at it, enjoy the apples, you will know when YOU have turned rotten!

Those in the “bidness” of cloning and killing have the three motivations of power, money and pride. They have invested their time and talents and are disguising their desire in order to NOT BE STOPPED! Who is the master of disguise and trickery? All of this comes from him - he only takes your soul in exchange. The disguise is to misidentify what is being killed - LIFE! The trickery is to claim GOOD from EVIL!

Scrap the lies about helping and curing the ills of humanity. Be ashamed of the acts of those who take pride, money and power and want to be God. They are not to be thanked - they need to ask forgiveness ASAP.

Using cells from the umbilical cord for medical research will enhance life. Yes, it seems to have arrived well after the evil has amassed souls, but like always: God wins! If He is willing for our good that umbilical cord research yields good fruit we will be thankful to the Lord God Almighty! If not, tough - we don’t do EVIL!

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

"This is what happens when people make arguments without understanding the actual science behind it.

On the contrary. Many of the claims behind ESCR are based on junk science.
An interesting article:
California Dreaming from Touchstone Magazine

 

[The_Angelus]

The yellow brick road has reopened temporarily… sorry, Grotto, but I think there’s some more material in here. So pardon me if I sound apocalyptic.

"And in other headline news. Congress this morning passed a bill allowing the use of stem cells from all persons with IQs less than 80. This would enable physicians to quietly euthanize these impaired persons and use their stem cells to produce cures for devastating diseases afflicting the intelligent and valuable members of society.

Next on CNN: The House has already passed the bill number 666X, which if made a law would allow the selective sterilization of all persons who are determined to have mental or physical impairments. Spokesmen say that this would drastically reduce the numbers of the criminal element of society, as well as increasing the number of intelligent, beautiful persons. Pro-life activists protest outside the House chambers clashed with police, and over a hundred arrests were made.

Also, the former Princeton professor and current Senator Peter Singer, whose controversial stance on these matters angered reactionary fringe groups, goes to Sweden today to recieve his Nobel Peace Prize for helping push the 666 series of bills, designed to reduce the criminal population.

Singer said that his next bill would be to legalize the shipping of parts of euthanized bodies to Third World Countries to alleviate the food shortage there. This is expected to meet with strong support - next on CNN."

Okay, that’s it for the yellow brick road… :banghead:

 

[Benedictus]

Sgt Sweaters:

And moral relativism marches on…

Peter Singer is not a moral relativist. He is a utilitarian. Utilitarianism is a defective philosophy, but it is not the same as relativism.