Morality of Using Stem-Cell Cure

[puzzleannie]

I have searched the forum and I did not find a thread that was what I was looking for.

I am against Embyronic Stem-Cell Research, and I’m a Type 1 Diabetic. So, how do I answer people when they ask would I use a cure that was developed from embryonic stem-cell research? This question has bothered me for some time, and I just don’t know the answer to it. I pray that a cure is found from other means so I don’t ever have to face this reality.

I apologize if this question has been asked. If so, please point me to the right thread.

I am diabetic and I have a couple of other chronic conditions which have been mentioned in connection with fetal stem cell research, and I have been asked that question. my response is what if in the future researchers discovered that stem cells do indeed hold the key to cures for every disease known to medicine, but the catch is they must be taken from 3 year old children, and the children must be killed to extract the cells. would it be moral to kill, say 100 children from which to extract stem cell lines, in order that thousands might live?

since there is not a whisper of proof that fetal stem cells promise any cure whatever for any disease whatever, yet there are dozens of successful therapies drawn from adult stem cells extracted without harm to the subject, this debate is ludicrous and it is shame and a crime for public or private resources to be directed away from successful lines toward unpromising lines of research based on fetal cells extracted through immoral means

 

[KathleenElsie]

God created the universe, the laws of nature, and science. Stem cell therapy is a miracle that God has given us, but religion is getting in the way of developing treatment. In the mean time, people’s lives are being cut short.

I agree with the two things in red. God created the universe. Thousands of babies are being killed every day and their lives are cut short.

 

[larsegarots]

Thousands of babies are being killed every day and their lives are cut short.

That is tragic, but it is not due to stem cell research.

 

[TableServant]

I, too, am a diabetic, so this issue is close to my heart (pancreas, liver, etc.)!

The original hypothetical produces more than one moral dilemma. The first is regarding the morality of the research itself. We know the arguments against embryonic stem cell research. This line of research is objectively immoral, as it kills a human being in its pursuit. So, even if a treatment or cure were ever going to come from this line of research, it must be opposed.

The second dilemma is this: given that we have been unsuccessful in stopping embryonic stem cell research, though we have tried, if, sometime in the future, a treatment or a cure is produced from it, is it morally acceptable to receive that treatment? I would say that, as long as the treatment itself does not require the death of another human being (including the ‘destruction’ of an embryo or fetus), and is obtainable by means that are morally acceptable, then yes, we may receive the treatment. Batteddy (?) gives good reasoning for this in saying that the treatment is morally removed from the objectionable act. As long as the production of the treatment is morally neutral, we may receive it. We do not have to. We may protest the means of discovery by refusing the treatment, but the treatment itself ***may ***be received.

Again, though, that is not a justification for laxity in working against the line of research today. Even if we knew that a cure for any and all illness would be produced, research that kills another human being, especially the most innocent among us, is evil.

 

[rwoehmke]

God created the universe, the laws of nature, and science. Stem cell therapy is a miracle that God has given us, but religion is getting in the way of developing treatment. In the mean time, people’s lives are being cut short.

I’ll tell you what. Embryonic Stem Cell work is being supported by a number of states, in a number of major universities, and also being done by some commercial enterprises. Commercial investment is relatively low because smart money recognizes that the work with embryonic stem cells has shown very little if any promise. The work already done in the world’s universities bears this out. So despite lack of federal funding, there is plenty of funding with so far no promise of payback.

Meanwhile sucessful cures and money is being made by using cord blood and adult stem cells. More than forty medical problems have been sucessfully treated. Maybe God is telling us something.

 

[larsegarots]

It should be mentioned that while adult stem cells can treat some diseases, their application is limited. This is because adult stem cells are limited to cell types of their tissue of origin, while embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body.

There are also high risks of using adult stem cells, which die easily, and have killed people. This makes researching embryonic stem cells more urgent than ever. wired.com/medtech/stemcells/commentary/spinalcolumn/2007/04/spinalcolumn_0411

The embryonic stem cells used for this research come from fertility clinics where they are to be destroyed, or stored for long periods of time, long past their viable storage life. There is probably at least 400,000 such embryos in the U.S alone. This is why there are opponents of abortion that support human embryonic stem cell research.

Human embryos are ready 4-5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50-150 cells. There is not the slightest form of human - no orgrans, brain, heart, etc. Remember, this embryo would have never been a child to begin with.

Here is a picture of a stem cell colony: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Humanstemcell.JPG

 

[rwoehmke]

Despite your very hopeful post on the advantages of embryonic stem cells there has yet to be a single cure in a human being using them in any direct fashion. In animal subjects they have proven to be so un-controllable as to cause tumours or cancer. Meanwhile literally thousands of people have been cured using adult cells, my own daughter being one of them.

Yes, God did give us a Universe with such order that it is possible to have science and all its fruits. However, he did not give us science with no boundaries. The experiments carried out under the Nazis in WW II were indeed science, but would you have justified that work as a gift from God?

 

[Pete_1]

How can something with less than 100 cells, have no brain, no heart, no blood, no organs, etc. be a living being?

God gave us this technology so we can cure things that might not be possible without it.

But when God, who had set me apart** even from my mother’s womb **and (A)called me through His grace, was pleased( Galatians 1:15) from the NASB

God recognises those in the womb as valuble.

This is also interesting it discusses the soul

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43287&highlight=ensoulment

 

[buffalo]

Guess where a great source of stem cells is found? The rib - Hmmmmm - Adam and Eve anyone?

 

[larsegarots]

Despite your very hopeful post on the advantages of embryonic stem cells there has yet to be a single cure in a human being using them in any direct fashion.

The research is relatively young. Shall we also give up the research to finding a cure for Aids or Cancer just because we can’t do it overnight?

 

[rwoehmke]

The research is relatively young. Shall we also give up the research to finding a cure for Aids or Cancer just because we can’t do it overnight?

The research is no younger than that on adult stem cells. When I first met white lab mice 50 some years ago. I found them to be very cute, but had no qualms about sacrificing either them or the rats.

 

[buffalo]

The research is relatively young. Shall we also give up the research to finding a cure for Aids or Cancer just because we can’t do it overnight?

If there is a simpler lower cost more effective alternative - yes.

 

[Newbie2]

How can something with less than 100 cells, have no brain, no heart, no blood, no organs, etc. be a living being?

God gave us this technology so we can cure things that might not be possible without it.

Well, is it a dead being? Same moral argument that the Nazis could have given for experimenting on Jews; God gave us Jews to advance science…and, BTW, many usefull things were learned from these experiments; they weren’t all just for the “fun” of torture. Nonetheless, the end doesn’t justify the means.

When sperm meets egg, the DNA for a complete, mature human being is created. If it is wrong to kill an incompletely developed human (like a teenager), it is wrong to kill an incompletely developed human being like a blastocele. Even if it’s “just” a spare from a fertility clinic.

I, too, will refuse any treatment, no matter how distant from its origin, that was developed from a murdered baby.

Ruthie

Well put

God created the universe, the laws of nature, and science. Stem cell therapy is a miracle that God has given us, but religion is getting in the way of developing treatment. In the mean time, people’s lives are being cut short.

Name one treatement that uses embryonic stem cells…waiting…waiting…oh, there are none?

Morally, that’s the same argument as saying that there are lots of people who are i8n a vegetative state that are “going to die anyway”, who’s organs we should be able to harvest and use for another person who needs them, no?

 

[wanner47]

It should be mentioned that while adult stem cells can treat some diseases, their application is limited. This is because adult stem cells are limited to cell types of their tissue of origin, while embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body.

This is not true of adult stem cells from umbilical cord blood, and there’s also promising research being done on stem cells from fat cells.

I have twice tried to donate my children’s umbilical cord blood for research purposes, but both times was unable to (the first time, we accidentally left the collection kit in the car overnight in -40 weather; the second time, my son came a month early and we hadn’t yet gotten the kit).

I will GLADLY donate my fat cells to the world’s medical experts if it will help save lives.

Child sacrifice is a different story. I don’t think it’s moral to do evil so that good may come of it.

 

[YADA]

How can something with less than 100 cells, have no brain, no heart, no blood, no organs, etc. be a living being?

How can you even ask this question, don’t you have any common sense?

What are these 100 cells if not a unigue human being? Do these cells have the aility to become something un-human [except in the lab by those with no sense of the sanctity of life] like a cat, dog, pine tree? No, this cluster of human cells is a person, though not fully developed - fully HUMAN …

Is this cluster of cells viable … yes until its life is ended …

Thjs 100 cells grow, reproduce and regenerate themselves - in much the same manner as the young infant grows becoming the toddler, the youngchild, the teen ager, the young adult …

These 100 cells are human life … they are not unhuman, subhuman … they are fully human … at conception … there is no alternative truth …

 

[po18guy]

I have searched the forum and I did not find a thread that was what I was looking for.

I am against Embyronic Stem-Cell Research, and I’m a Type 1 Diabetic. So, how do I answer people when they ask would I use a cure that was developed from embryonic stem-cell research? This question has bothered me for some time, and I just don’t know the answer to it. I pray that a cure is found from other means so I don’t ever have to face this reality.

I apologize if this question has been asked. If so, please point me to the right thread.

Since each of us, even Christ, was an embryo at one point, the embryo is clearly human, with it’s own DNA. The question is how to justify taking of that innocent life - not for a cure, but only for the potential for a cure. Suppose the cure rate was 100%. How can you kill another living, although completely dependent, human being for your own benefit? Were you not also completely dependent until you left your parents? Embryo or 18 year old, what’s the difference? Kill one, kill the other, since both are loved by God.

Do we believe in the resurrection or not? Do we live in hope of a perfect, resurrected body? Is living with bodily imperfections not a part of denying ourselves? Is not suffering to be desired, since we find a higher purpose in it? This life is incredibly short, compared to eternity. We live, not for this life, but for the next, which never ends. It is only when we fail to see the Kingdom, when our ego forces us to focus in only on temporal difficulties, that we see anything resembling goodness in such procedures.

It is said that our Heavenly Father is a “big picture” kind of God. He sees all, but waits. We see the carrot dangling, and strike at it, not noticing that the abyss lies one step ahead.

Christ’s peace.

 

[larsegarots]

How can you even ask this question, don’t you have any common sense?

What are these 100 cells if not a unique human being?

My common sense tells me that, No, this is not yet a human. I do not believe the 100 cell colony on a petri dish has a soul.

Let’s also not forget that this colony cells never was going to be a human. The cells come from fertility clinics where they are about to be destroyed.

It is very logical to me that God would rather have us use these cells to improve the lives of his creation than to simply throw the cells away. Not using them, in my mind, is immoral and wasteful.

 

[buffalo]

My common sense tells me that, No, this is not yet a human. I do not believe the 100 cell colony on a petri dish has a soul.

Let’s also not forget that this colony cells never was going to be a human. The cells come from fertility clinics where they are about to be destroyed.

It is very logical to me that God would rather have us use these cells to improve the lives of his creation than to simply throw the cells away. Not using them, in my mind, is immoral and wasteful.

In this case science trumps your common sense.

 

[po18guy]

But when God, who had set me apart** even from my mother’s womb **and (A)called me through His grace, was pleased( Galatians 1:15) from the NASB

God recognises those in the womb as valuble.

This is also interesting it discusses the soul

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43287&highlight=ensoulment

Keep in mind that larsegarots gives practically no profile info. Thus, this poster’s world view could potentially be atheist, occultist, or ???

Our position is that of the church founded by Christ, with all that it implies. We see the promise of eternal life in a perfected, resurrected body. Thus, our temporal sufferings count only for giving glory to God. Our hope lies not in this world, which ends.

Every human that has even lived has died of some cause. Life in this world is finite. For larsegarots, is the conception of, and subsequent destruction of human life in its embryonic form ethically justifiable, given that it might lead to a cure of your illness, only to be followed by your natural death?

The creation and destruction of life to save life is attractive only to those who cannot see beyond, or do not believe in life beyond this earth.

 

[larsegarots]

For larsegarots, is the conception of, and subsequent destruction of human life in its embryonic form ethically justifiable, given that it might lead to a cure of your illness, only to be followed by your natural death?

I don’t see the colony of 100 cells as a creation and destruction of life. A human is around the order of 50,000,000,000,000 - 75,000,000,000,000 cells. Any medical or scientific definition used to describe if a human is alive or dead would fail to conclude that the colony is an alive human. There is no heartbeat - how could there be when there’s no heart or blood? There is no conscious - how could there be when there is no brain? There is no functioning organs - how could there be when are no organs?