by nicolaou 60 Replies latest watchtower medical
ness, I ask this sincerely - would you be more comfortable allowing elderly citizens to degenerate with Alzheimers?
about as comfortable as I am watching my father die of ALS. there are lines which in my opinion were not meant to be crossed. that is of course my opinion. only the future will tell if there will be any ramifications to our tinkering about.
about as comfortable as I am watching my father die of ALS.
so sorry to hear that ness. I hope your father is not suffering too much.
Hi All:
I find this quite troubling for a variety or reasons and the main one being that the only cures that are being performed in humans with stem cells are by using adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are extremely difficult to control and are not even near being available to cure anything. In addition, I think the main reason that embryonic stem cells are being pushed on us is because there is more money to be made by patenting embryonic stem cells for cures that using adult stem cells which would belong to the patient already and therefore the pharmaceutical companies would have a more difficult time patenting them.
The book at the following link does an extremely good job and discussing the economics and politics behind the stem cell debates and it really is quite scary in my opinion. Here is the link:
Also some of you may find the following website helpful as well:
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/
Jeff S.
UK MPs to vote on hybrid embryo laws
MPs are voting later today on whether to allow scientists to continue to carry out controversial stem cell research using hybrid human-animal embryos.
Gordon Brown has urged MPs to back the work, saying it is a "moral endeavour" that could save thousands of lives. Scientists say it could lead to disease treatments, but critics argue that mixing human and animal tissue tampers with nature and is immoral.
MPs are voting on a series of reforms to embryology laws that date from 1990. The measures, part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, are aimed at updating laws in line with scientific advances. They will be voted on in the House of Commons over the next two days.
MPs are being given a free vote on four controversial parts of the bill after warnings that some Catholic MPs and cabinet ministers were ready to rebel.
The four areas are:
The creation of hybrid embryos: These are mixes of animal and human tissue. Scientists say it would help tackle diseases such Parkinson's. Opponents say it is tampering with nature and is unethical. Debate from 1530 BST Monday, vote due at about 1830 BST.
Saviour siblings: These are babies born from embryos selected because they are a tissue match for a sick older brother or sister with a genetic condition. Supporters say it helps children who have exhausted all other hope of treatment. Opponents fear children are created as saviour siblings alone, not because they are a wanted child. Debate on Monday from about 1830 BST, with vote at about 2200 BST.
Role of fathers in fertility treatment: Would end the requirement for IVF clinics to consider the "welfare" of any child created in terms of need for a father. Those in favour say it would end bar to lesbian couples and single women. Opponents say it denigrates the role of fathers in a child's life. Debate from 1530 BST Tuesday, with vote at about 1830 BST.
The upper limit for abortion: Amendments have been put down to the bill to cut from 24 weeks the time limit for abortions. Supporters say babies born at 24 weeks are increasingly likely to survive. Opponents says studies do not support that. Debate on Tuesday from 1830 BST, with votes at about 2200 BST.
The Roman Catholic Church has branded the use of hybrid embryos as "monstrous" and says tinkering with life in this way is immoral.
jschwehm:
I find this quite troubling for a variety or reasons and the main one being that the only cures that are being performed in humans with stem cells are by using adult stem cells.
That's hard to believe. Are you sure that the main reason you find it troubling is not because your religion has condemned it? Seems like quite a coincidence that for scientific reasons you hold a minority opinion that just happens to be the same as the opinion a member of your religion "should" hold.
nic
If there is a good moral argument to prevent scientists from doing this I'd like to hear it.
Can we agree killing a human for any reason (except capital punishment) is wrong?
You don't have a problem with killing something or someone 99.9% human?
I hope that 00.1% soothes your conscience.
DD,
No more than biting your nails is killing a 'human' It's a collection of cells not a human.
Ceades
nic said:
"They are only allowed to develop for a few days so that stem cells can develop and be harvested for research."
What if we decide to stop Ceades from developing today? We just won't call it murder.
Please, define "a human".
DD,
What if we decide to stop Ceades from developing today? We just won't call it murder.
Sorry I don't get what point you are trying to make, these are collections of cells, they are not humans.
Ceades
Please, define "a human".
