Stem cell research?

[towjyt]

Congress is poised to pass legislation to allow government money to be spent of stem cell research with embryos provided from furtility clinics. These embryos would have to be expressly donated by their owners (parents) and would otherwise be distroyed as medical waste.

 

The religious right is opposed to this and President Bush has said that he would veto such a bill.

 

Is the potential for medical breakthroughs in diseases and birth defects great enough to override the concerns of the religious people in this country who oppose it? Or do we already have enough stem cell lines to work with.

[revprez]

Is the potential for medical breakthroughs in diseases and birth defects great enough to override the concerns of the religious people in this country who oppose it? Or do we already have enough stem cell lines to work with.

 

Most biologists believe there are insufficient totipotent stem cells to meet their research objectives.

 

On a political aside, HR 810 may pass the House, but it will ultimately end up in conference and it will either die there or die by presidential veto. There are not enough votes to override the President, and in the end we will probably do one or two things; increase funding for multipotent stem cell research and for techniques that preserve that blastocyst.

 

Rev Prez

[Mokele]

Banning stem cell research (or restricting it to the point of it being banned for all practical purposes) is not only stupid from the medical POV, it's outright unethical and immoral.

 

For instance, say I have a disease, and stem cells offer the only potential hope of curing me. Then the Religious Reich bans (or kneecaps) research. In doing so, they have imposed *their* moral values onto me, without any consent on my part.

 

If they're opposed to stem cells, then they're free to refuse treatments based on them. But they do *not* have the right to impose their morals on me, possibly to the detriment of my health and life.

 

Mokele

[revprez]

Banning stem cell research (or restricting it to the point of it being banned for all practical purposes) is not only stupid from the medical POV, it's outright unethical and immoral.

 

First, since all stem cell research is entirely legal, what is your point? Second, you confuse science with ethics. If we had rock solid evidence that hunting down, slaughtering and harvesting African Americans for their penis tissue today would save hundreds of millions of lives tomorrow, I sincerely doubt someone as sincerely progressive as yourself would be here shouting "castrate the niggers!" With embryonic stem cell research, you have little more than the hope that pluripotent stem cells that are biologically foreign to the patient will yield medical treatments. So regardless of where you stand let's not pretend there's a general ethic maintaining anything done in the name of science is ethical. Instead, why don't you be honest about how you value embryonic life?

 

Rev Prez

[Mokele]

First, since all stem cell research is entirely legal, what is your point?

 

That you should read, not skim, my post, so that you notice I explicitly denoted that stem-cell research is technically legal, but has been "kneecapped" to the point of being nearly impossible.

 

Furthermore, do you really doubt that a full-out ban is what the Religious Reich wants?

 

Second, you confuse science with ethics. If we had rock solid evidence that hunting down, slaughtering and harvesting African Americans for their penis tissue today would save hundreds of millions of lives tomorrow, I sincerely doubt someone as sincerely progressive as yourself would be here shouting "castrate the niggers!" With embryonic stem cell research, you have little more than the hope that pluripotent stem cells that are biologically foreign to the patient will yield medical treatments. So regardless of where you stand let's not pretend there's a general ethic maintaining anything done in the name of science is ethical.

 

When did I state that anything in the name of science is ethical? In fact, I never once even implied that. Again, *read* the post, don't skim.

 

Furthermore, the potential that something will work is better than no potential at all. And we'll never know if we don't try, will we?

 

I highly doubt that *any* ethical system can actually give the OK to forcing people give up a potential treatment based on values they do not share.

 

Instead, why don't you be honest about how you value embryonic life?

 

Why does it even matter? My views are my own. Your views are your own. If I think an embryo is a person, I can refuse treatments using stem cells, or accept them if I don't hold that belief. Notice that I am not forcing my beliefs on others. *That* is the issue.

 

Mokele

[revprez]

That you should read, not skim, my post, so that you notice I explicitly denoted that stem-cell research is technically legal, but has been "kneecapped" to the point of being nearly impossible.

 

In what way?

 

Furthermore, do you really doubt that a full-out ban is what the Religious Reich wants?

 

I don't even care what you think the "Religious Reich" wants. There are entire boards dedicated to conspiracy mongering, I didn't come here for that sort of nonsense.

 

When did I state that anything in the name of science is ethical?

 

When you said "banning stem cell research...is stupid...from a medical POV."

 

In fact, I never once even implied that. Again, *read* the post, don't skim.

 

I did. I just think you haven't clearly thought through what you were about to post.

 

Furthermore, the potential that something will work is better than no potential at all. And we'll never know if we don't try, will we?

 

Like I said, if you don't accept that hunting down, slaughtering and castrating African Americans is acceptable even when there is rock-solid evidence that doing so will save lives, then you clearly don't carry the principle that aspirations justify the means to its logical conclusion.

 

I highly doubt that *any* ethical system can actually give the OK to forcing people give up a potential treatment based on values they do not share.

 

It helps if you honestly present what's going on here. The debate over HR 810 is over whether American taxpayers have an obligation to support the research, not whether the research should be banned.

 

Why does it even matter? My views are my own. Your views are your own.

 

You don't seem to believe the same about my hard earned dollars. Neither do I, but then I'm not hiding behind euphemisms like choice.

 

If I think an embryo is a person, I can refuse treatments using stem cells, or accept them if I don't hold that belief.

 

But I still have to pay for the research to develop those treatments. What an incredible compromise.

 

Notice that I am not forcing my beliefs on others. *That* is the issue.

 

But you are, through a most venal form of coercion--taxation. You are using the threat of force to require millions of faithful Americans to support actions they consider to be murderous. Let me guess. You support the Iraq war, right?

 

Rev Prez

[towjyt]

Actually I am in favor of allowing government funds to be spent on stem cell research in this case.

 

Admittedly, I don't know enough about the research to make an informed judgement about the potential for finding a cure for--let us say _______ (you fill in the blank) disease, but the fact is that we won't know unless we try and I think we owe it to people who are stricken with horrible diseases, some of them children, to do what we can to find a cure.

 

The tipping point in this particular piece of legislation is that it deals with embryos that are going to be distroyed anyway. Also, the owners of these embryos must specifically donate them to the cause.

 

Considering those factors, I think it would be unethical not to proceed with the research. And I think that President Bush should sign the bill.

 

But I don't think he will.

[Pangloss]

The House passed the bill today, but short of the majority needed to override a veto.

 

Meanwhile the President did a photo-op with families with children adopted from frozen embryos. I guess that's supposed to imply that we need to introduce another 400,000 people into the population for no apparent reason.

 

In my opinion, the only valid moral question here is whether we are capable of drawing the line at the level researchers say that we can draw it at. Which is to say that we cannot allow the production of embryos specifically for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. This strikes me as a reasonable compromise, because it leaves plenty of study material and weeds out those only interested in commercial exploitation.

[Dak]

this isnt aimed at anyone in particular; but man, this issue always pisses me off.

 

1/ cloning: cloning is something that stem cells NATURALLY DO within the body with absolutely no artificial interventions; furthermore, the cloning that stem-cells undergo in the lab is in absolutely no way even approaching being comparable to the cloning of an entire human.

 

2/ foetus use: unborn-babys are NOT, repeat NOT killed for their stem-cells. they are aborted for a variety of reasons, none of which are ever to harvist their stem-cells. also, the foetus is legally deemed a non-human at the point at which it is terminated. if you believe that abortion is murder then by all acounts try and have abortion outlawed, but leave stem-cell research out of it.

 

come to think about it, murdered adults still have their organs used for medical transplants (assuming they were donars), so even if abortion is murder, theres still no reason why, having been 'murdered', the foetus's stem-cells shouldn't be used.

 

[/rant]

[ecoli]

so even if abortion is[/i'] murder, theres still no reason why, having been 'murdered', the foetus's stem-cells shouldn't be used.

 

I hear you... it all stems from ignorance, politicians and the people making decisions without even attempting to understand the science behind it

[revprez]

In my opinion, the only valid moral question here is whether we are capable of drawing the line at the level researchers say that we can draw it at.

 

So you would cede ethical authority to the researchers?

[Pangloss]

No, I'm stating my personal opinion on what the valid moral question(s) is(are), having considered various moral aspects of the issue.

 

I believe the moral question is important, and not something that can be dismissed.

[revprez]

No, I'm stating my personal opinion on what the valid moral question(s) is(are), having considered various moral aspects of the issue.

 

You said the moral question is whether or not we can draw the line where the researchers draw it. You then said they draw the line at conceiving embryos for the express purpose of harvesting stem cells. You then go on to say that this is a reasonable line because it "weeds out" any commercial interest in the enterprise.

 

I'm not going to even touch the last point. I want to know why you feel researchers should hold ethical authority on this question.

[Pangloss]

I want to know why you feel researchers should hold ethical authority on this question.

 

As I indicated above, I don't. I meant not that researchers give us moral authority, but rather that they've demonstrated a place where the technology provides a clear deliniation. In other words, the needs of research can be satisfied without a straying into the moral territory that I believe most Americans are concerned with. If you feel I'm wrong in that belief, then I invite you to state your opinion, which I will read with interest.

 

In the end it doesn't really amount to a hill of beans to me what a "researcher" believes are the correct morals (or ethics, if you prefer) for a given situation. What matters to me is whether or not a clear moral difference exists between the use of an embryo which was grown for the purposes of artificial insemination, which would normally be discarded, and the use of an embryo which was grown for the purpose of profit.

 

Obviously what I wrote could be interpreted a number of ways, so I don't mind you asking for clarification, but I've given you that now. Twice. Let's move on.

[revprez]

As I indicated above, I don't. I meant not that researchers give us moral authority, but rather[/i'] that they've demonstrated a place where the technology provides a clear deliniation. In other words, the needs of research can be satisfied without a straying into the moral territory that I believe most Americans are concerned with. If you feel I'm wrong in that belief, then I invite you to state your opinion, which I will read with interest.

 

We don't know where American moral opinion on this subject lies. The vast majority of polling does not ask whether the federal government should be funding activity that deliberately kills embryos in the interest of medical research. We know that all significant parties support stem cell research of some form or another, and most would support embryonic stem cell research if the process wasn't fatal to the blastocyst. The one poll we do have measuring American public opinion when it is made clear that harvested stem cells come from living, not dead, embryos and that the process kills them, shows majority opposition. If you were to ask me if we could acquire useful pluripotent stem cells from living embryos without killing them or from embryos that have already died, then I'd back federal funding embryonic stem cell research.

 

We're straying into an area that is potentially far more offensive than abortion. We're not longer talking about embryos inside the womb and reproductive rights. We're talking about embryos no one is burdened to carry, and that can be adopted years later and mature into children. That embryos are discarded is irrelevant; you can easily legislate otherwise. Put another way, not a single ethical or legal argument for abortion save one, that embryos are not worthy of personhood status, is even remotely applicable here. If those embryos are worthy, we wouldn't even be talking about throwing them away or murdering them for medical research.

 

In the end it doesn't really amount to a hill of beans to me what a "researcher" believes are the correct morals (or ethics, if you prefer) for a given situation. What matters to me is whether or not a clear moral difference exists between the use of an embryo which was grown for the purposes of artificial insemination, which would normally be discarded, and the use of an embryo which was grown for the purpose of profit.

 

Why do you care? If the embryo doesn't deserve the respect and dignity of personhood, then it's pretty late in the day to treat it or anything harvested from it as anything more than mere commodity. Then this discussion is entirely over whether or not there's any pragmatic or ethical value to your anti-commercialism.

 

Rev Prez

[towjyt]

That embryos are discarded is irrelevant; you can easily legislate otherwise

 

Would you support legislation that protected not only unborn children in the womb, but embryos in deep freeze storage in a furtility clinic?

[Pangloss]

(shrug) You could well be right, both about popular opinion and about the morality of the situation. On the other hand, you could just as easily be wrong. The polls go both ways.

 

Here's one that says 57% support ESCR.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=24197

 

Here's another one that suggests the same.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010626.html

 

I bet if I look hard enough, I can find one that backs my decision to purchase new running shoes.

 

I share some of your concerns, but in the end I don't believe this situation is as complex as you make it out to be. And polling or not, I suspect that the majority of people in this country are going to lose interest the moment you drag out a word like "pluripotent". My guess (and my opinion) is that people are willing to compromise in the manner I described above.

 

It's all moot anyway. We're not the masters of the universe. As the South Koreans demonstrated last week, this research is going to happen whether we like it or not. You can lead (and thereby have influence on how the moral choices are made), follow (and have no say in the matter), or get out of the way (not benefitting from the technology OR having a say in the morality of it).

 

Choose wisely.

[revprez]

(shrug) You could well be right' date=' both about popular opinion and about the morality of the situation. On the other hand, you could just as easily be wrong. The polls go both ways.

 

Here's one that says 57% support ESCR.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=24197

 

Here's another one that suggests the same.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010626.html[/quote']

 

Neither of which explains that harvesting the blastocyst for stem cells kills it, and the ABC/Beliefnet poll is already summarized in the link I provided.

 

I bet if I look hard enough, I can find one that backs my decision to purchase new running shoes.

 

You can try, but it would be surprising if both religioustolerance.org and pollingreport.com missed it.

 

I share some of your concerns, but in the end I don't believe this situation is as complex as you make it out to be. And polling or not, I suspect that the majority of people in this country are going to lose interest the moment you drag out a word like "pluripotent".

 

In which case the significant parties are the true believers, and that's the population that's closely divided and ultimately decides these issues. My point is that polling doesn't give us a useful sense of where American moral sense lies on this issue.

 

My guess (and my opinion) is that people are willing to compromise in the manner I described above.

 

And my guess (and my opinion) is that people would be willing to support legislation that would prevent excess embryos from being discarded and only used after any medical hope of using them has evaporated. Neither of these restrictions are included in HR 810.

 

It's all moot anyway. We're not the masters of the universe. As the South Koreans demonstrated last week, this research is going to happen whether we like it or not.

 

That's another question. The issue here is whether American taxpayers should have to support such research. This isn't about women choosing to do what they will with their bodies, but Americans being forced to spend their hard earned dollars to kill embryos in deep freeze.

 

You can lead (and thereby have influence on how the moral choices are made), follow (and have no say in the matter), or get out of the way (not benefitting from the technology OR having a say in the morality of it).

 

This principle, taken to its logical conclusion, would've demanded we take the lead in slaughtering Jews during WWII to weigh in morally on the fate of their gold teeth. The point is we can't divorce this discussion from the personhood and competing interests question anymore than we could in the abortion debate.

 

Rev Prez

[atinymonkey]

This principle' date=' taken to its logical conclusion, would've demanded we take the lead in slaughtering Jews during WWII to weigh in morally on the fate of their gold teeth.

[/quote']

 

Luckily, I think by this stage you must have run out of straw. I invoke Godwins Law, then close my mouth rapidly to avoid having a variety of connotations and assertions forcibly crammed into it.

[Pangloss]

This principle, taken to its logical conclusion, would've demanded we take the lead in slaughtering Jews during WWII to weigh in morally on the fate of their gold teeth. The point is we can't divorce this discussion from the personhood and competing interests question anymore than we could in the abortion debate.

 

Well that's one interpretation. But, to follow your principle to its logical conclusion, I don't think you're going to find much support for invading South Korea because of unethical research practices. Nor are we likely to, say, shut down US access to the Internet because it leads to exploitation of child labor in third world countries.

 

And given the global nature of scientific research (and the domestic demand that will clearly arise from its results), there's also a grave danger in your position. By taking that impossible stand you force a disengaged, superficial public into making an either-or decision. The result of that could be a complete lack of interest in any moral and ethical examination or caution. We'd end up proceeding without any moral guidance whatsoever, since none has been suggested or discussed because opponents refused to even consider the possibility that they might lose the debate.

 

So you may want to consider a more realistic (and perhaps less debate-discouragingly inflamatory) interpretation.

 

I agree with you on one thing: The moral/ethical side of this decision need to be fully heard and considered. It is not at present. But in the end, it's not going to be possible to ignore these developments.

 

As I said before, choose wisely.

[revprez]

Well that's one interpretation. But, to follow your[/i'] principle to its logical conclusion...

 

What is my principle? My point is that you obviously don't believe the USshould harvest Jews for their gold teeth just because Germany was doing it in the 1940s, which means "lead, follow, reject" is otherwise qualified. That ethical qualification revolves around the personhood of the embryo and competing interests, and that is the crux of the debate.

 

And given the global nature of scientific research (and the domestic demand that will clearly arise from its results), there's also a grave danger in your position. By taking that impossible stand you force a disengaged, superficial public into making an either-or decision.

 

Which is clearly not the case. The "disengaged, superficial [American] public" is clearly backing a choice to refuse to fund, although not ban, embryonic stem cell research with reservation, regardless of whether or not they've thought through the implications, addressed the underlying question, or heard the principled argument against.

 

The result of that could be a complete lack of interest in any moral and ethical examination or caution. We'd end up proceeding without any moral guidance whatsoever, since none has been suggested or discussed because opponents refused to even consider the possibility that they might lose the debate.

 

Nonsense. There's always a moral or ethical position taken in a decision to fund or refuse funds for this research. Your own position--that trading embryonic tissue as commodity is wrong--is already addressed in international law; it is illegal in much of the world to commercially deal in human tissue. And of course the opponents of embryonic stem cell research have considered the possibility they would lose the debate; everybody expected HR 810 to pass the House and its not too hard to imagine a Republican President after this one signing it into law.

 

So you may want to consider a more realistic (and perhaps less debate-discouragingly inflamatory) interpretation.

 

If by "realistic interpretation" you mean "plausibly implementable policy prescription" falling from principle, then I would say the principle pro-life movement stands as much chance at succeeding as the abolitionist and civil rights movements; that is I don't expect to win the debate in the short term.

[Pangloss]

What is my principle? My point is that you obviously don't believe the USshould harvest Jews for their gold teeth just because Germany was doing it in the 1940s, which means "lead, follow, reject" is otherwise qualified. That ethical qualification revolves around the personhood of the embryo and competing interests, and that is the crux of the debate.

 

Maybe it's just me, but this does not appear to refute my response. You're advocating burying our collective heads in the sand, and I've pointed out why (a) that's not the same thing as your example, and (b) why it won't work. Restating your case does not constitute a refutation.

 

 

Which is clearly not the case. The "disengaged, superficial [American] public" is clearly backing a choice to refuse to fund, although not ban, embryonic stem cell research with reservation, regardless of whether or not they've thought through the implications, addressed the underlying question, or heard the principled argument against.

 

Actually you stated above that we don't know the public's position at all. Let me quote you:

 

My point is that polling doesn't give us a useful sense of where American moral sense lies on this issue.

 

We agree, it's not clear what the public is backing.

 

 

The result of that could be a complete lack of interest in any moral and ethical examination or caution. We'd end up proceeding without any moral guidance whatsoever, since none has been suggested or discussed because opponents refused to even consider the possibility that they might lose the debate.

 

Nonsense. There's always a moral or ethical position taken in a decision to fund or refuse funds for this research. Your own position--that trading embryonic tissue as commodity is wrong--is already addressed in international law; it is illegal in much of the world to commercially deal in human tissue. And of course the opponents of embryonic stem cell research have considered the possibility they would lose the debate; everybody expected HR 810 to pass the House and its not too hard to imagine a Republican President after this one signing it into law.

 

Perhaps that was a bit of an exaggeration on my part. As you say, you can always take up the issue of how the embryos are harvested if you lose the primary debate. I certainly hope that happens.

 

 

 

So you may want to consider a more realistic (and perhaps less debate-discouragingly inflamatory) interpretation.

 

 

If by "realistic interpretation" you mean "plausibly implementable policy prescription" falling from principle, then I would say the principle pro-life movement stands as much chance at succeeding as the abolitionist and civil rights movements; that is I don't expect to win the debate in the short term.

 

A valid comparison, IMO, and I do feel that uncompromising positions play an important role in our society.

 

Just as compromises do.

[revprez]

Maybe it's just me, but this does not appear to refute my response. You're advocating burying our collective heads in the sand...

 

I'm most certainly not. I'm advocating the freedom of Americans to refuse lending their tax dollars to research that kill embryos.

 

...and I've pointed out why (a) that's not the same thing as your example, and (b) why it won't work. Restating your case does not constitute a refutation.

 

I did refute your point, that is I denied I held the principle you attributed to me.

 

Actually you stated above that we don't know the public's position at all.

 

I stated we do not know if the public's moral position is duly informed. We do know, from the polls I linked, that they support the measure.

 

We agree, it's not clear what the public is backing.

 

It's abundantly clear what the public is backing, it's simply not clear whether the public understands what they're backing. And that's no indictment of them; the issue is difficult and obscure.

 

Perhaps that was a bit of an exaggeration on my part. As you say, you can always take up the issue of how the embryos are harvested if you lose the primary debate. I certainly hope that happens.

 

What do you think the primary debate is? No one worth discussing has argued that harvesting stem cells from embryos is immoral in principle, but that few if any interest in medicine is worth deliberately terminating innocent, healthy life. Given a generous (to the pro-lifer) interpretation of the polling data, the vast majority of Americans would be behind a technique that either preserves embryonic life or a system that gives that embryo every opportunity to survive before being commended to the researchers.

 

A valid comparison, IMO, and I do feel that uncompromising positions play an important role in our society.

 

Just as compromises do.

 

And that's where the really interesting debate is. You either look at it with clinical dispassion or you don't, so the real crux of the debate isn't interesting. But I would love to know which position will prove more appealing to Americans in the long run.

[Pangloss]

I'm most certainly not. I'm advocating the freedom of Americans to refuse lending their tax dollars to research that kill embryos.

 

(shrug) Ok. I'm all for the public debate.

 

But I think we're going in circles here. At this point I'm feeling the urge to restate my "lead, follow or get out of the way" mantra, which seems pointless. And you feel your polls show something and I feel that I've successfully disputed that, and it's the same thing with your comparison on scientific investigation. There doesn't seem to be any room to continue. But I will continue to follow the discussion with interest.

 

(BTW, I don't feel that was an unfair comparison or an invoking of Godwin's Law; I just happen to disagree with the comparison. On the contrary, I respect your opinion on this subject and admire your tenacity.)

[Dak]

I'm advocating the freedom of Americans to refuse lending their tax dollars to research that kill embryos

i dont believe that any research currently kills embryos for their stem-cells; rather, the embryos are 'killed' to avoid the pregnancy carrying through to result in a baby, and then the embryos' stem-cells are harvested.