Good News About Stem Cells!

[Nan_S]

norbert:

If embryonic stem cells had a good track record, or if cures for acne and tennis elbow really were around the corner, would you support that research? What if the only embryonic stem cells used were those derived from the excess embryos produced at IVF clinics - embryos destined for destruction anyway? What would be wrong with that? Is is more holy to throw those embryos in the IVF clinic dumpster than it would be to procure stem cell lines from them, for the possible good of all humankind?

You make the presumption that the fate for these “excess” embryos must be death, and rationalize that justifies finding a way to benefit society in their death. Not so. Hitler said that mentally retarded people were a burden on society and used that to justify profiting from their death. Poor people in third-world countries say that their daughters are “excess” and use that to justify selling them into sexual slavery. Neither one was or will ever be correct.

Even if killing enough “excess” embryos for research might have resulted in Christopher Reeve being able to walk before he died (as he so fervently advocated), I’d say implant the embryos in willing women and leave Christopher Reeve in his wheelchair.

To kill hundreds or thousands for the sake of a few? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Pope John Paul II could have advocated embryonic stem cell research to find a way to lessen his suffering from Parkinsons’ disease. He did not. Instead, he showed us how to accept our own suffering and live to the fullest despite our handicaps.

Finally, as I said earlier, embryonic stem cells do not have a good track record. They do not cause cures or lessen suffering when implanted in humans. They don’t even have a fair or marginal track record; their record is deadly for everyone. Embryonic stem cells cause violent, fast-growing, deadly cancers.

Stem cells from the placenta (after a child is born) and from adult tissues are bringing cures.

 

[BlueRain]

I e-mailed both of my state Senators saying that Adult Stem cells and those from the umbilical cord have been far more successful than the embryonic ones. But that just sais “We understand your view, but…” and than they just write about the “promise” that embryonic cells could bring. They don’t listen and don’t seem like they"ll be swayed.

I hope that cures with adult/umbilical stems cells come quicky and prove how much better they are.

 

[gnjsdad]

norbert:

If embryonic stem cells had a good track record, or if cures for acne and tennis elbow really were around the corner, would you support that research?

I would not support such research. Even if every disease known to man could be cured using this technique, killing another human being to get their stem cells would still be immoral. One cannot use immoral means to produce even a good end.

norbert:

What if the only embryonic stem cells used were those derived from the excess embryos produced at IVF clinics - embryos destined for destruction anyway? What would be wrong with that?

Seems to me that as Catholics, we ought to work to save as many of these embryos (human beings in the earliest stage of development) as possible. We ought to reject the notion that any person is ‘destined for destruction’.

BTW, the fact that these human beings exist in this state (frozen embryos) is an evil effect of the gravely sinful practice of IVF.

norbert:

Is is more holy to throw those embryos in the IVF clinic dumpster than it would be to procure stem cell lines from them, for the possible good of all humankind?

Both alternatives you present are morally unacceptable. Perhaps someone more familiar with the practical issues involved here can provide some morally acceptable ways of dealing with this issue.

 

[KathleenElsie]

norbert:

If embryonic stem cells had a good track record, or if cures for acne and tennis elbow really were around the corner, would you support that research? What if the only embryonic stem cells used were those derived from the excess embryos produced at IVF clinics - embryos destined for destruction anyway? What would be wrong with that? Is is more holy to throw those embryos in the IVF clinic dumpster than it would be to procure stem cell lines from them, for the possible good of all humankind?

No. I would not use those products that use the “existing” foetus stem cells knowingly. This has been stated in my directive and my family knows how I feel about this.

I can not force others to believe as I do. But, I feel I should not be forced to pay for something so wrong that it goes againt my firmly held moral beliefs. I can try to get people to change their hearts on this matter. I can donate to places and causes that promote what I believe is morally right.

I don’t know what to do with these children in freezers. But, I hold firmly with what not to do and that is to make them into a “product for profit.”

 

[WanderAimlessly]

vern humphrey:

Unfortunately, the purpose of embryonic stem cell research is not to produce cures to disease, but to justify abortion on demand.

With all the success with non-embryonic stem cells, I am waiting for one of the Culture of Peversion to say that these successes were really embryonic stem cells and that the right-wing extreemists are falsifying data.

PF

 

[Hildebrand]

Lilyofthevalley:

Perhaps they will find success with this and stop wanting to do embryonic stem cell research.

I wish I had your optimism.

Let say if all of a sudden everyone supported embryonic stem cell research and conservatives opposed research involving amniotic epithelial cells, the left would abandon embryonic stem cell research. They’d say embryonic stem cell research only creates tumors and then latch onto amniotic epithelial cell research.

For those driving this issue, it is not about cures, it not about the facts, it is about attacking the Catholic Church and other traditional organizations and individuals. Ask yourself, why did this become an issue in 2001, what happened in 2000 and who became president in 2001?

If tomorrow, the pope proclaims adult stem cell research as morally wrong and the president follows along… the media, academia, and other left wing groups would jump on the adult stem cell research bandwagon and fund billions of dollars into adult stem cell research.

 

[Franze]

There are good news, although the blind minds want to destroy lifes, the adult stem cells is much better, much easy and is moral, that is important

 

[Lilyofthevalley]

For those driving this issue, it is not about cures, it not about the facts, it is about attacking the Catholic Church and other traditional organizations and individuals.

So you think these scientists trying to find cures for alzeimers and parkinson’s are out to get the Catholic Church???

 

[Nan_S]

Lilyofthevalley:

For those driving this issue, it is not about cures, it not about the facts, it is about attacking the Catholic Church and other traditional organizations and individuals.

So you think these scientists trying to find cures for alzeimers and parkinson’s are out to get the Catholic Church???

No, it’s not all scientists trying to cure alzheimers and parkinsons who are out to get the Church.

The ones opposing the Church are the scientists who want to play God, by trying to create life themselves and by declaring that innocent human life is no different from laboratory mice.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Lilyofthevalley:

For those driving this issue, it is not about cures, it not about the facts, it is about attacking the Catholic Church and other traditional organizations and individuals.

So you think these scientists trying to find cures for alzeimers and parkinson’s are out to get the Catholic Church???

Tell me how stem cell research will produce a cure for Alzheimer’s?

Certainly no one in the field researching Alzheimer’s sees any relationship between stem cell research and Alzheimer’s.

Parkinson’s is a different kind of disease, and stem cell research holds out some promise. However, it is adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.

 

[Lilyofthevalley]

Vern and Nan, stem cells that are not from embryos are not innocent lives.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Lilyofthevalley:

Vern and Nan, stem cells that are not from embryos are not innocent lives.

We know that.

But my point above was that Alzheimer’s is not a disease that will be cured by any stell cells, embryonic or adult.

 

[Dr_Paul]

As a scientist who has had frequent discussions with colleagues who support embryonic stem cell research, I am convinced that most (though perhaps not all) of the scientists interested in this research are motivated by a genuine interest in curing human disease. They are not acting in order to promote/justify abortion, attack the Church, or become rich.

The problem I have with most of these scientists is that is difficult to get them to even consider the moral status of the cloned embryo. Most operate under a utilitarian mentality focusing on how many lives can potentially be saved, believing that this justifies the use of this technology regardless of the status of the embryo.

With this in mind, any discovery of ways to obtain pluripotent stem cells from adult tissues, like the placenta, has the potential to lessen the strength of their purported justification. My hope is that they will then stop long enough to truly consider the moral status of the embryo.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Certainly many researchers are sincere. But as I understand it:

1. Unlike adult stem cells, there are no cures existant with embryonic stem cells
2. Embryoinc stem cells are proving remarkably difficult to control.

We are therefore a long way from actually addressing their value in curing diseases. The hoopla about not having enough strains is therefore not justified.

 

[Dr_Paul]

While you are correct that there have been no cures from embryonic stem cells and this tissue is problematic precisely because of its plasticity (the anticipated benefit), this does not dampen research optimism. Placental stem cells, if they can be found to truely act as stem cells, provide a step in the right direction since they presumably are more pluripotent without being truly totipotent. In other words, the hope is that they will behave better as potential stem cells without either moral objections or the inherent problems with these cells (such as malignant potential). The problem with this initial report is that there is no confirmation that the harvested placental cells truely act as stem cells (they just express some of the same genes normally found in true stem cells).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Dr Paul:

While you are correct that there have been no cures from embryonic stem cells and this tissue is problematic precisely because of its plasticity (the anticipated benefit), this does not dampen research optimism. Placental stem cells, if they can be found to truely act as stem cells, provide a step in the right direction since they presumably are more pluripotent without being truly totipotent. In other words, the hope is that they will behave better as potential stem cells without either moral objections or the inherent problems with these cells (such as malignant potential). The problem with this initial report is that there is no confirmation that the harvested placental cells truely act as stem cells (they just express some of the same genes normally found in true stem cells).

My point is that the research necessary to see if embryonic stem cells CAN be controlled will be long and painstaking. Not until we are much farther along than we are now can we tell if we will need more strains. The last time I checked, we have far more samples available than we have qualified researchers.

The controversy is therefore a manufactured one.

 

[Dr_Paul]

Regardless of whether or not embryonic stem cells CAN be successfully used for treatment of disease, the generation of new embryonic stem cell lines is wrong. The deliberate destruction of an innocent human life can never be justified (I am presuming that this assertion is not the topic being debated here). Thus, I believe the discussion of whether or not to engage in this research based upon the likelihood of success is not the issue at hand.

Does this new placental cell line add to the potential to acheive the goal of those involved in fetal stem cell research without generating the moral objections?

My opinion is that the answer is Yes, as long as one realizes that the initial press report is very premature and that this new stem cell line (obtained from adult tissue) has many hurdles to cross before one gets too excited.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Dr Paul:

Regardless of whether or not embryonic stem cells CAN be successfully used for treatment of disease, the generation of new embryonic stem cell lines is wrong. The deliberate destruction of an innocent human life can never be justified (I am presuming that this assertion is not the topic being debated here). Thus, I believe the discussion of whether or not to engage in this research based upon the likelihood of success is not the issue at hand.

One issue, and a valid one I think, is the motivation of those who demand public funding for embryonic stem cells with NEW strains. They are advancing an argument that – regardless of the morality – is simply bogus. Which is why I say the motivation is to provide cover and “justification” for abortion.

 

[Nan_S]

Lilyofthevalley:

Vern and Nan, stem cells that are not from embryos are not innocent lives.

Please scroll back to my post #11. I’m the daughter of a devout Catholic research scientist who was one of the pioneers in stem cell research.

When I said, “The ones opposing the Church are the scientists who want to play God, by trying to create life themselves and by declaring that innocent human life is no different from laboratory mice,” I was talking about the scientists who insist on pursuing embryonic stem cell research.

Scientists who pursue research on placental and adult stem cells are not (solely for that reason) in opposition to the church.

 

[Dr_Paul]

vern humphrey:

One issue, and a valid one I think, is the motivation of those who demand public funding for embryonic stem cells with NEW strains. They are advancing an argument that – regardless of the morality – is simply bogus. Which is why I say the motivation is to provide cover and “justification” for abortion.

While I respect your opinion, I clearly disagree with your speculation about the motives of these well-intentioned yet misdirected scientists. I can only speak from my own experience, but I do not see any conscious intention of these investigators to further the abortion industry even though pursuit of such studies clearly does weaken the respect for the dignity of all human life.

If you read the peer reviewed scientific literature, there are valid reasons for the inadequacy of current embryonic stem cell lines. While this does not morally justify the creation of NEW embryonic stem cell lines, it does provide an understandable (albeit morally problematic) motivation.