Stem Cell Research...what if it was your 2 year old?

[pnewton]

From the EWTN library

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/COOPRTN.htm

The only one that could be called into question here was

—d) The good effect that is sought must not be obtained as a >consequence> of the evil effect, i.e., the good effect must be the direct result of the action of the cooperator and not the effect of the sinner’s sinful action.

SInce we are talking about adult stem cells, I do not see a direct consequence.

I guess I do not see that when one is balancing saving life with a remote connection to a past evil that one would not be permitted to do so.

There are so many variables. If the company was still active in embryonic research and this type of transfer of information was their constant modus operandi, then I would agree that it would be wrong. Otherwise, I guess we would have to weigh the moral choices and see what the Church would say.

 

[edwest2]

Nothing immoral? Ever, thus joining Jesus and Mary in perfect?

Just kidding.

I know there are exceptions and things discovered outside science. Much of our basic anatomy was learned using bodies that were robbed from graves. Much of our testing, as was said involves embryos. When a doctor goes through his education process, he learns from the moral and immoral alike. Is his knowledge tainted? If not, then why would the use of adult stem cells be tainted because of knowledge gained in a similar fashion.

Anatomy … robbed from graves? Where are you getting this from? Pardon me, but it appears you are making things up here. Elaborate anatomy books were around in the 1800s. I worked with doctors. I worked with one promininent research doctor. Doctors have to take the Hippocratic Oath. “First, do no harm.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[pnewton]

Anatomy … robbed from graves? Where are you getting this from?

I don’t know. A quick search.

In medieval and renaissance Europe, students of medicine and of art were reported to have stolen corpses from morgues, private houses, and cemeteries to assist in their study of anatomy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_robbing

---

I guess I thought this was common knowledge that such practices occurred during the early dawn of modern medicine.

 

[edwest2]

Thanks for the links. You still seem to be skewing in favor of by hook or by crook, even grave robbing, you gotta do what ya gotta do.

A dear friend of mine donated his body to science. Grave robbing is wrong.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I agree, but I think stem cell reesrach has the same moral greyness and difficulties as snowflake babies. Currently embryos are not created for stem cell research (that would be wrong), but embryos that were unused in IVF would otherwise simply be flushed down the sink are being used. As with snowflake babies, the clock cannot be turned back - so can some good come out of a bad situation? On the one hand the answer is “yes” (for both snowflake babies and for stem cell reserach). On the other hand the answer is “no” because there is a real danger that use of the embryos legitimises the continued creation of surplus embyros.

As with many things science is racing ahead of ethics - the mere question of when does a stem cell line “die” is very difficult (the stem cell line is likely to derive from a single cell of the embryo with the rest rapidly dying). If I take one cell from an embryo that was about to be destroyed am I continuing the person’s life in a very artifical way? If so I would agree it is an abuse of a person’s dignity. In an ideal world we would prevent science from racing ahead of ethics, but that is not likely to happen.

One may of course argue that when in doubt take the conservative approach. And I don’t have a problem with that. But I think presenting complex ethical situations as black and white oversimplfies the situation and won’t win over people who are on the fence on these issues.

It is necessary to confront scientists and ask, What are you doing? And it is very black and white. At one time, you and I were both human embryos. Human embryos are human beings.

Science racing ahead of ethics? What race? Science and the scientists who are involved in this research know precisely what they’re doing. They believe they are on a noble quest for cures and treatments to end human suffering but the cost is too great. Human beings are being killed. By dehumanizing them, like any enemy in war, they hope they can win public approval. There is nothing complex about this.

This is not about winning or losing a debate. This is about showing people – Yes, you were, in fact, a human embryo, just like everyone alive today.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I don’t know. A quick search.

In medieval and renaissance Europe, students of medicine and of art were reported to have stolen corpses from morgues, private houses, and cemeteries to assist in their study of anatomy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_robbing

---

I guess I thought this was common knowledge that such practices occurred during the early dawn of modern medicine.

It was going on in Scotland & England even in the 1800’s. Check out “Burke & Hare.” They actually “helped” folks into becoming cadavers to ease the shortage.

 

[Michael96]

Human organs were being stolen by hospital research units right up until about 10 years ago in the UK. The relatives had no idea that organs were being removed for research. One man, Professor Van Velzen from Alder Hay hospital in Liverpool was found to have removed organs from 850 children without consent of the parents.

 

[chris_molter]

That’s stretching things a bit. Both World Wars were just and moral—are you weighing in on the side of ‘pragmatism?’

Not at all, I’m weighing in on the side of double effect. It is not morally permissable to experiment on human embryos. Catholics should resist this abhorrent practice with all their ability. It can be morally permissable to use a ‘cure’ for something that resulted from ESCR.

Also, not to get off track, but while I agree that WWII was certainly a just war for the Allies (WWI is debatable), not everything in WWI and II were just or moral. Development and use of the A-bomb, use of chemical weapons and incindiaries on civilian populations, internment of ethnic populations… and that’s just the bad things the good guys did.

 

[edwest2]

War is never a good thing. World War I introduced the machine gun and poison gas. There was a race to develop the atomic bomb and, of course, the perverse desire to use it in ‘combat conditions.’ Very sad. War is always a last resort after all other possibilities are exhausted. Civilians are always killed in war. Always.

It would not be moral to use a cure derived from human embryonic stem cells. It just wouldn’t.

I have to wonder about the motivations of scientists who clearly believe the ends justify the means. They have a way out here, but only a few are using it. Reprogramming adult cells and using adult stem cells. Certain things about reprogramming adult cells to become stem cells are still not clear. Also, some of the devices and techniques used to change adult cells back into a type of stem cell appear to involve using parts of embryonic stem cells. Other technologies are being developed to target cancers using microscopic drug delivery systems, but too many are hell-bent on using ESC. This is wrong.

If any scientists are reading this, I encourage you to find ethical and humane ways to ease human suffering and cure diseases.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Not at all, I’m weighing in on the side of double effect. It is not morally permissable to experiment on human embryos. Catholics should resist this abhorrent practice with all their ability. It can be morally permissable to use a ‘cure’ for something that resulted from ESCR.

Also, not to get off track, but while I agree that WWII was certainly a just war for the Allies (WWI is debatable), not everything in WWI and II were just or moral. Development and use of the A-bomb, use of chemical weapons and incindiaries on civilian populations, internment of ethnic populations… and that’s just the bad things the good guys did.

The use of the atomic bomb saved lives. Collateral damage (unintended) is an unfortunate part of war.

This is a topic for another thread, but I’m not a pacifist and the church does not require this.

 

[pnewton]

War is never a good thing. World War I introduced the machine gun and poison gas. There was a race to develop the atomic bomb and, of course, the perverse desire to use it in ‘combat conditions.’ Very sad.

Maybe this can be used to explain what I am saying. Yes, war can be just. The development and use of the atomic bombs have been condemned but the Church. Yet from that we have nuclear power plants. These are not seen as evil even though the science used to run them was developed to make weapons that leveled two cities. The connection is remote.

If someone were able to replicate a life-saving procedure using adult stem cells, that had begun as an embryonic stem cell procedure, I do not see the immorality in such a procedure. If anything, it undermines the exclusiveness of embryonic stem cell research.

edit - For Sailer Kenshin - I am assuming that nuclear weapon use is gravely wrong, not to start this debate over but to fit the analogy.

 

[mmm1]

They are not just lacking fingers and toes. As i understand it, they are 8 cells. All of which are uniformly the same.

They are not lacking fingers & toes. They are just really, really tiny. You & I were just 8 cells once, too. I’m glad no one suctioned out our inner cell masses for OUR stem cells…

 

[mmm1]

What if a building were on fire. Indside were 100 frozen embryos and a group of kids. You cannot save all of them. Which gets your top priority and why?

I ask because if you are going to give equal weight to a blastocyst and a 5 year old, then you really should have no preference on the above choice.

Someone has suggested that such hypothecial situations depend on an emotional instead of a logical response and suggested that chosing the 5 year old was simply an emotional choice, not a logical one. I think the reverse is true. The logical thing to do would be, IMO, to save the 5 year old, the one with feelings, sentiency, loved ones, etc. - for what I think are obvious reasons. And that is why the “anyone who would kill an embryo would also kill a 5 year old for organs” argument falls flat with folks who don’t equate an embryo with a born person. We see the clear dividing line. We don’t see them as “equal” beings, so, no, we would not advocate harvesting organs or anything else from born folks of any age.

This is a tired, emotional argument that advocates of the culture of death use all the time. Personally, I’d gingerly place as many of the humans in test tubes as I possibly could into my pockets, have the other older kids do the same & usher ALL the people out of there.

I was given this scenario by someone who wouldn’t take the above answer & MADE me choose one. Like that means anything. I finally said I might choose the embryo because he or she is protected by a test tube. The fact that many might save adorable puppies instead of a sickly old dog doesn’t mean the dog is less canine. An EMT might need to perform triage at the scene of an accident & choose to transport a patient with moderate injuries instead of the patient who is near death. That doesn’t somehow mean that the other patient is not worthy of protection.

 

[mmm1]

When do they become equal? I will give you that not everyone who would kill an embryo would kill a 5 year old for their organs, but that doesn’t make it right. Just because some want to see a clear dividing line doesn’t mean it’s there. I’m sensing now that you are stating your thought process here & how you approach this. I appreciate & respect that, but I just totally disagree. Really, when do they become equal?

 

[elts1956]

Agreed. Mark, I would really appreciate it if under your quotation in Latin you would translate to English so that I could reap the benefit of the quotation. Thank you.

Sancta Maria, Holy Mary Mater Dei, Mother of God Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus! Pray for us sinners. Might not be exact, but I think it is close.

 

[mmm1]

My 2 ½ year old son has type 1 diabetes, and in light of Obama lifting the bans on embryonic stem cell research, I have a few moral questions…

1. If your child had an incurable disease and a cure could be found through embryonic stem cell research, would you use that cure on your child?
2. If the organization that is in the forefront with adult stem cell research and has come so close to a cure will now be doing research with the ESC (embryonic stem cell) would you still support this org (please note: they are just as likely to find a cure with the adult stem cells verses the ESC) or would you stop supporting them all together?
3. If they first found a cure using ESC but then were able to copy it using adult stem cells…would you use it then?

Thanks and I am interested in what everyone thinks on this topic.

saintbtg, I’m sorry I got caught up in the debate last night without responding to you or your original question. The comment about embryos lacking fingers & toes & being 8 cells that are all uniform just blew me away.

My answers would be: 1. No. No one knows what they would do in a situation like yours unless they have gone through it, but I like to think that I am strongly enough pro-life & informed about ESR that I would resist the temptation. It is natural to want to do all you can, but I could not cross the line of destroying another human life.
2. No. I couldn’t support an organization that also performed ESR.
3. I 'm not sure. The posters who mention that using an actual treatment that uses embryonic stem cell therapies is unethical, but using a treatment that only benefitted from the knowledge gained might not be unethical makes sense to me. I think the problem becomes that these things can become so widespread that you don’t know something stemmed from ESR (like parents unknowingly getting vaccines for their babies that are derived from aborted fetuses…)

Anyway stbtg, I’m so sorry for the suffering & hardships that I can only imagine your child & family endure & will endure until a cure arrives. I respectfully submit that you might want to check out www.ncbcenter.org, the National Catholic Bioethics Center. The whole site is amazing, especially Making Sense of Bioethics & NCBC Resources on Stem Cell Research. It can help combat the myths about stem cells & help you understand the reasons for the Church’s position. Do No Harm: the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics is founded by doctors & scientists who are clearly biased, but they give you the other side of the story that you won’t get in the main stream media. They are at www.stemcellresearch.org. Anyway, please know that many of us will be praying for you & your little one.

 

[pnewton]

FYI - I have found this to be one of the more interesting, unique and thought-provoking threads in a while. My hats off to the OP. Bioethics is a tough field due to the rapid progress of research. Hopefully, if any treatment was questionable, we would be able to consult the Church, or an organization like we have in the previous post and seek guidance.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I agree, but I think stem cell reesrach has the same moral greyness and difficulties as snowflake babies. Currently embryos are not created for stem cell research (that would be wrong), but embryos that were unused in IVF would otherwise simply be flushed down the sink are being used. As with snowflake babies, the clock cannot be turned back - so can some good come out of a bad situation? On the one hand the answer is “yes” (for both snowflake babies and for stem cell reserach). On the other hand the answer is “no” because there is a real danger that use of the embryos legitimises the continued creation of surplus embyros.

As with many things science is racing ahead of ethics - the mere question of when does a stem cell line “die” is very difficult (the stem cell line is likely to derive from a single cell of the embryo with the rest rapidly dying). If I take one cell from an embryo that was about to be destroyed am I continuing the person’s life in a very artifical way? If so I would agree it is an abuse of a person’s dignity. In an ideal world we would prevent science from racing ahead of ethics, but that is not likely to happen.

One may of course argue that when in doubt take the conservative approach. And I don’t have a problem with that. But I think presenting complex ethical situations as black and white oversimplfies the situation and won’t win over people who are on the fence on these issues.

Although I see your dilemma, the problem is easy to solve. The question of absolute moral right and wrongs is not contingent on popularity. It matters not one iota what anyone, or even everyone, thinks or agrees with. Jesus Himself said that if there were no humans to praise Him, the very rocks of the earth would raise up to praise Him. God makes the Laws…not man. And God is the Judge. Why should I care if Tom, Ruth, or Harry thinks I am right or wrong? It is God Who I need to worry about obeying. It is God Who is the TRUTH. It is God I want to spend eternity with.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

sancta maria, holy mary mater dei, mother of god ora pro nobis peccatoribus! Pray for us sinners. Might not be exact, but i think it is close.

thanks!!!

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

saintbtg, I’m sorry I got caught up in the debate last night without responding to you or your original question. The comment about embryos lacking fingers & toes & being 8 cells that are all uniform just blew me away.

My answers would be: 1. No. No one knows what they would do in a situation like yours unless they have gone through it, but I like to think that I am strongly enough pro-life & informed about ESR that I would resist the temptation. It is natural to want to do all you can, but I could not cross the line of destroying another human life.
2. No. I couldn’t support an organization that also performed ESR.
3. I 'm not sure. The posters who mention that using an actual treatment that uses embryonic stem cell therapies is unethical, but using a treatment that only benefitted from the knowledge gained might not be unethical makes sense to me. I think the problem becomes that these things can become so widespread that you don’t know something stemmed from ESR (like parents unknowingly getting vaccines for their babies that are derived from aborted fetuses…)

Anyway stbtg, I’m so sorry for the suffering & hardships that I can only imagine your child & family endure & will endure until a cure arrives. I respectfully submit that you might want to check out www.ncbcenter.org, the National Catholic Bioethics Center. The whole site is amazing, especially Making Sense of Bioethics & NCBC Resources on Stem Cell Research. It can help combat the myths about stem cells & help you understand the reasons for the Church’s position. Do No Harm: the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics is founded by doctors & scientists who are clearly biased, but they give you the other side of the story that you won’t get in the main stream media. They are at www.stemcellresearch.org. Anyway, please know that many of us will be praying for you & your little one.

AMEN.