July 31, 2005
It's not Really about Stem Cell Embryos
Oh sure, there is a relatively small percentage of true believers who see any fertilized human egg as the moral equivalent of an adult human being. They earnestly oppose not only Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESR), but also In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), the morning after pill, or any process in which a fertilized human egg is not allowed every chance to mature into a human. But most opponents of ESR fall into one or more of four categories.
They are ignorant of the facts; they fear the "slippery slope"; they fear that any worthy research use of fetal or embryonic matter legitimates abortion, or, if they are politicians, they are pandering to a certain constituency.
My first question to anyone decrying the immorality of ESR is "Are you working just as hard or harder to ban in vitro fertilization?"
In vitro fertilization was certainly not without controversy when it was first introduced 27 years ago. Not only was there concern about fertilized eggs that wouldn't make it, but real questions about the role of science and technology in procreation, where it would stop, and concerns about the health of children brought into the world in that way. That last concern has been largely allayed, as many children now have come into being through IVF who are perfectly healthy and happy. Worries about "playing God" persist, and no one disputes that some fertilized eggs become waste in the process of IVF. That ship has sailed, however, and even opponents realize they won't be stopping IVF anytime soon.
Those who claim that ESR is a dangerous extension of IVF are either misinformed or being dishonest. While it is true that the "lives" of the otherwise discarded eggs are kept alive for an additional four days, embryos at that stage have not developed a nervous system, so claims of pain and suffering are simply not valid. If there is a wrong in having produced the eggs, that was a result of IVF, while ESR only provides hope that those eggs will serve a benefit far nobler than providing an infertile couple with genetically related progeny.
And yet IVF gets mentioned in a minority of any media reports on the matter, and not at all, as far as I can tell, by the political opponents making sanctimonious statements about "creating commodities out of embryos". If these politicians were truly grieving for the discarded eggs, they would be focusing their attention on IVF instead. But politicians are little inclined to fight losing battles, and so they pander to their constituents outraged by a procedure few understand fully, by feigning outrage themselves. And the media dumbly relays the political posturing of the "latest" controversy, rarely connecting the scientific dots for the under-educated public.
In fact, I would argue, that it is precisely the nobler purpose of finding cures for disease which really threatens opponents of this technology. Once science establishes a popular moral underpinning for technologies which opponents believe to be immoral, then the moral upper hand is lost in the larger battle against abortion or against science "playing God". It is rather akin to something I noticed during the cold war with leftist governments around the world. There were many two-bit tyrannical states around the world, and especially in Africa, which called themselves communist or socialist, but the left leaning nations that the U.S. government took interest in undermining were precisely those which had the noblest beginnings, such as the democratically elected government of Allende in Chile. Now much of that also had to do with economic connections and the relative interests of big corporations, but I'll wager the threat of legitimacy being lent to a socialist state played a big factor. In similar fashion, abortion foes are most threatened by the likelihood that embryonic stem cell research puts a humanitarian face on a procedure which consumes fertilized eggs.
One may legitimately believe that it is always wrong to fertilize a human egg in the foreknowledge that some of them will be destroyed, but I'll have more respect for those who acknowledge that if that is going to happen, science should be allowed to make beneficiary use of that otherwise discarded material, rather than insisting on cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. As biological technology advances, ethical questions will remain front and center in the debate over what to pursue and what to disallow, but the more that all the facts are put out in the open the more likely we are to arrive at reasonable compromises which consider both ethics and scientific reality.
Posted by Walker Willingham at July 31, 2005 10:08 PMThe objections all boil down to the sperm imparting a soul into the egg. An event which cannot be observed, discerned, proven, or disproven. An event which one must accept or deny on the basis of belief. There is no factual basis for making such a determination. Therefore, there is no factual basis for the government to rule against all one way or the other.
If government cannot rule on the veracity of a soul at conception, the only logical and rational decision the government can come to is to leave citizens free to choose according to their beliefs, whether to engage in IVF or abortion, imposing no citizen’s beliefs on others and denying none their right to live and decide for themselves what procreative behaviors they wish to participate in or not.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2005 05:26 AMI’d like to see the funding increase for research into ADULT stem cells. There is growing evidence that adult stem cells work; in fact, there has been real success in working with adult stem cell research, while only theoretical success in working with embryonic stem cells.
In tests in pigs, stem cells taken from another pig’s bone marrow were injected into the animal’s damaged heart. After just two months, the stem cells had helped restore heart function and repaired damaged heart muscle by 50 percent to 75 percent. The work is an early indication that stem cells may have therapeutic value in treating heart attacks, but a lot of work remains to be done, said Dr. Sidney Smith, cardiology chief at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Adult stem cell research removes any of the moral/ethical controversies of embryonic stem cell research. It is a realistic and current possible cure for many of the same diseases that some say only ESR can cure.
Its time to move forward quickly on this front that has proven results already, rather than arguing over the moral/ethical issues for a theoretical solution.
As David suggested, there are legitimate claims on both sides of the fence regarding ESR. We should fight the argument, when a rational and proven alternative exists.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 1, 2005 08:28 AMPlease revise my last statement to say “We should NOT fight the argument, when a rational and proven alternative exists.
jbod,
There is proven evidence that ESR is valid. There is developing evidence that there are some valid uses for adult SR.
So, by your logic, we should be using embryonic stem cells until proven they are unnecssary. I could compromise and agree to that.
David,
Do you think it would be appropriate for the gov’t to rule on theologic issues such as “when is there a soul”? I thought you would support the position of a purely secular gov’t.
Posted by: Dave at August 1, 2005 08:37 AMDave, the establishment clause of the Constitution wisely prevents the government from making that kind of determination of when or if there is a soul within human beings.
Hence, and I repeat:
… the only logical and rational decision the government can come to is to leave citizens free to choose according to their beliefs, whether to engage in IVF or abortion, imposing no citizen’s beliefs on others and denying none their right to live and decide for themselves what procreative behaviors they wish to participate in or not.Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2005 08:44 AM
David,
I asked because you prefaced that paragraph with:
If government cannot rule on the veracity of a soul at conception…Perhaps “Since” instead of “If”? Anyway, a good Monday morning to you sir. Posted by: Dave at August 1, 2005 09:00 AM
Dave:
I think your logic is faulty. I don’t believe there is proof of any disease being cured by ESR—-if I’m wrong on that, perhaps you would give me examples as proof. ESR has huge theoretical potential, but that potential remains just that—-potential.
The logic I used was to say that ESR has moral/ethical concerns that are being argued. There is no such concern about Adult Stem Cells.
The conclusion I reached and you distorted is that we should utilize the research that has been proven to work with no moral/ethical concerns over the research that potentially will work that has those concerns.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 1, 2005 09:16 AMjbod, there is an article that appeared just in the last week in which mice with severed spinal cords recovered motor function after injections of ESR cells. Mind, you it didn’t say they ran marathons, but, regained leg movement. You’d have to google it, I didn’t save the link.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2005 09:31 AMJoe:
Adult stem cell research removes any of the moral/ethical controversies of embryonic stem cell research. It is a realistic and current possible cure for many of the same diseases that some say only ESR can cure.
The promise of embryonic stem cell research is quite different from that of adult stem cells. Because the cell is undifferentiated, there is potential for growing any type of tissue from them. ASR is easier to work with but less flexible. Your argument seems disingenuous at best - there are hundreds of labs across the country and sufficient scientists that both techniques can be pursued. There is a moral dimension to government denying its funding to a potential life-saving research effort when the moral objections to doing so are rendered moot by the fact that the source for material is being discarded anyway. I noticed you did not address the central point, that IVF is the source of the potential moral issue, not ESR.
And to those true believers who really do believe that the soul enters the egg upon fertilization and are therefore consistent about being opposed to IVF as well, ponder this:
Think of the profound grief that a family experiences upon the loss of a child. Compare the often still profound grief that is experienced when a miscarriage occurs. It is qualitatively different for a good reason. Now finally, consider the relative feelings of a couple trying to get pregnant, but it doesn’t happen this month. A failure to get pregnant does not mean that an egg was not fertilized. Many millions of such eggs every year simply never get implanted in the uterus. Is a soul lost every time? Isn’t this seemingly random success part of God’s plan? Perhaps those researchers who see the hope extant in the use of embryonic stem cells for the cure of disease are part of God’s plan too. Are you sure they are not? Leave ESR alone and start protesting fertility clinics who use IVF if you are so grieved for all of those lost souls.
I have little or no knowledge of the biological and/or scientific aspects of stem cell research and resulting potential benefits to present day diseases.
Also, I would not want to participate in arguing the religious and/or moral positions that can and have been taken.
It is my understanding that through this research it is being proven that people with certain diseases are showing the potential to be helped. This fact is also true of other kinds of research regarding new medications, treatments and so on that are projected to be available in 5 or 10 years.
My only question is, What is the timetable for this breakthrough(stem cell) to become available to the general public in mass application?
Posted by: steve smith at August 1, 2005 10:14 AMsteve,
There is no way to concretely answer your question. I takes a long time because of the clinical trials needed to validate that any “Good” outweighs any “Harm” from new treatments being applied for approval. Some treatments are approved rapidly from positive results in abbreviated trials. Others are not clearly approvable and require multiple rounds of evaluation. In the end, this is new ground but, per my MDPhD cousin who’s in the field (i.e. biased but truthful), we’re reaching a “critical mass”.
For the opponents of ESR, it was 8 years or so between the time JFK said we would be on the moon before the end of that decade and we were on the moon. Do you think we should not have tried then given the time frame? After all, there were religious icons who said man should not fly because god did not give us wings.
Posted by: Dave at August 1, 2005 10:37 AMWalker-
ESR and IVF are happening and are going to continue to happen. So is cloaning. The jeanie is out of the bottle on all of them.
The question, at least for me, is do we want to have federal funding involved in any of this research? It’s bad enough if the Raelians clone a few people, what if it is the U.S Government does it? Or what if federal dollars fund the research that leads to three headed sheep?
While I’m sure there are far more positive consequences, there enough negatives here that maybe our tax dollars should sit this one out.
Posted by: George in SC at August 1, 2005 10:48 AMWalker:
I dont claim to have the full range of scientific knowledge necessary to fully debate the usefulness of embryonic vs adult stem cells. From my limited research, there seems to be many who feel that adult stem cells (ASC) offer much of the same capacity as do embryonic stem cells (ESC).
True, ESC’s are undifferentiated, but unless I’m wrong, you can use differentiated cells anyway. For instance, use ASR’s that will work for hearts, or for spinal cords, or ….etc. These are available for use.
Walker, I didnt get into the IVF/ESR issue because it IS so complicated. You are absolutely correct that there is a moral dilemma in that embryos are discarded after in vitro. The problem is that that is an unwinnable fight. Should someone take up that fight, they would simply be laughed away. So even though the issue is there, it is not one open to debate.
Its an issue I’ll admit to struggling with. What OF those embryos (which many consider life) that are discarded? Should this be allowed to happen? Perhaps not, but as someone mentioned, the genie is out of the bag and wont go gently back in.
jbod,
ESR often comes from discarded cells uneeded from IVF, i.e. IVF enables ESR. What is complicated about using the “left overs”? How is IVF more complicated than ESR?
Besides, didn’t Bush ban this because he claimed it would increase abortion rates?
Posted by: Dave at August 1, 2005 11:54 AMI wrote:
If these politicians were truly grieving for the discarded eggs, they would be focusing their attention on IVF instead. But politicians are little inclined to fight losing battles, and so they pander to their constituents outraged by a procedure few understand fully, by feigning outrage themselves.jbod wrote:
there is a moral dilemma in that embryos are discarded after in vitro. The problem is that that is an unwinnable fight. Should someone take up that fight, they would simply be laughed away. So even though the issue is there, it is not one open to debate.
Thanks, jbod for proving my point. “We can’t win the argument to stop the thing we believe is wrong, so let’s start a new argument to curb the noble use of the byproducts of the thing we can’t stop.” The illogic is dumbfounding.
And to those who reply that the point is public funding, you should understand that the life blood of much cutting edge research is public funding - there is no product yet to sell. Personally I’m outraged aplenty at the corporate pockets this administration is filling with my tax dollars for purposes that I consider to be grossly immoral - fodder for an entirely different discussion. Public funding in this case does not create or destroy a single embryo - every one was created for another process and is slated for destruction anyway.
Posted by: Walker at August 1, 2005 12:37 PMWalker:
I’m sorry I wasn’t clear enough to help you understand my point better. Allow me to use a different issue to explain my point.
We know that George Bush is not in favor of abortion. Were it just his choice, he would most likely make abortion (or most abortion) illegal. But politically, he knows he wouldnt win this fight. He knows its a losing hand before he plays his first card on it. So he has chosen to not fight the losing fight.
Similarly, with IVR it would be a losing fight to try to stop IVR from happening. It simply wouldnt happen, and would most likely create a firestorm against those who brought the fight. So what’s the gain for someone fighting against IVR? Nothing.
Walker, I’m not interested in a chatfight with you or your position. It’s reasonable to show the moral conundrum of discarded embryos from IVR. I’d just as soon not have ANY discarded embryos. Will you support me in that, or will you then fight on THAT issue (i know the answer already—-its a rhetorical question).
What I want to avoid down the road is the possibility of embryos being created in order to provide stem cells. That’s the crux of the issue. And in my opinion, anyone who thinks that isnt just a few short steps down the road is not thinking very clearly.
jbod:
What I want to avoid down the road is the possibility of embryos being created in order to provide stem cells. That’s the crux of the issue. And in my opinion, anyone who thinks that isnt just a few short steps down the road is not thinking very clearly.What *I* want to avoid right now is the misunderstanding many people have that the current strictures on public funding of ESR has anything to do with saving a single embryo from destruction. It is easy enough to include language in a new bill (in fact I believe it is in the one the House has passed and which Frist now endorses) that prohibits the creation of newly fertilized embryos expressly for ESR. So why do you fight this one, rather than saving your energy for the next battle, which as you state is just a few short steps down the road? I believe you answered that in suggesting that by stopping this now you have deferred that battle. But “you” (or the opponents of this particular bill) have done so by promoting the misinformation that this is saving embryos from destruction. I’m ‘chatfighting’ here in an effort to expose that misinformation.
You say:
I’d just as soon not have ANY discarded embryos. Will you support me in that, or will you then fight on THAT issue (i know the answer already—-its a rhetorical question).Do you know the answer? I actually AM somewhat uncomfortable with the creation of fertilized eggs for the express purpose of doing research, precisely because it raises the issue of just where do we stop. It is an important question, and one we will be facing down the road regardless of what happens with this particular public funding. But IF it is OK to create embryos for IVF, then it is arguably at least as OK to create them for ESR, and yes, I would support that - but I would not give researchers carte blanche for instance to grow the embryo beyond the development of a nervous system, for instance, for another purpose. There are researchers out there who would be fine with pushing the envelope quite a bit further, and others opposed to creating embryos at all. Don’t think that these debates don’t rage within the scientific world as well.
But the current bill does not cross those lines, and I think it only fair to bring that fact to public attention.
Posted by: Walker at August 1, 2005 02:05 PMWalker-
And to those who reply that the point is public funding, you should understand that the life blood of much cutting edge research is public funding - there is no product yet to sell.
According to a 2003 survey there are between 950-1000 scientists and support staff working on the issue, and they are spending just under $200m on R&D each year.
According to the NIH site the federal government supported $24.8m for embryonic and $190m for adult in FY 2003 (same period). This mirrors a statement in the above report that says, “based on the number and impact of publications in the peer-reviewed literature, it would appear that publicly supported stem cell research equals or exceeds that of the private sector.”
Geron Corp, has a $500m market cap despite a -4k profit margin, so some people are putting there money where there hearts are, and not just using OPP.
Again, I’m not suggesting that the government get out of funding basic research (although some free market types probably would). But there is plenty of room to be careful here, and I’d much rather the government be in a position to say no to something in the future than have a vested interest to say “yes”.
Posted by: George in SC at August 1, 2005 02:26 PMWalker:
I appreciate your comments. Allow me to respond in kind.
I agree with your view of the misinformation on one side. I’d suggest it’s there on the other side as well, which makes it appear that embryonic stem cells are the only possible solution in curing certain diseases. By ignoring Adult stem cell research, as the media typically does for the most part, it makes it appear that someone opposed to ESR is opposed to providing cures for disease.
Based on what I’ve written in previous posts, I’m sure you can see that while I have concern about ESR, the issue is not a lack of desire to cure disease….its really to what lengths will we go to cure disease.
An extreme measure would be to “grow” humans for parts—-ie, we grow little Bobby to 5 years old and then harvest his organs. I dont know anyone who would consider that acceptable, but those opposed to it shouldnt be considered “unwilling to cure disease”.
I think we can share some commonality in our thoughts on this issue. From a political standpoint, its often easier to prevent a snowball from starting downhill than it is to stop it once it has started rolling. This is why the NRA fights so hard on seemingly innocuous measures, and why abortion proponents fight to maintain even things like partial birth abortion. Sometimes a fight can wait—other times, by waiting, you lose any ability to win any future fights as well. Just part of the political reality we live in.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 1, 2005 03:44 PMGeorge in SC, I have been recommending Geron stock as a long term investment to friends and family for a few years now. Key words - long term. At 8 to 12 dollars a share, I still think it is going to be one of the great buys of this century, like Microsoft was back in the early 90’s.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2005 03:52 PMDavid
The objections all boil down to the sperm imparting a soul into the egg.
Actually, as a conservative Christian I have never heard this argument. Can you link it? There is no implication in pro-life arguments that the entrance of the soul into the life has anything to do with protecting it. The majority view in the church, at least historically, is that the soul enters at quickening (first movement of the fetus). My objection is based on a secular argument linked just below in my comment; and has nothing to do with a “soul”. I have never heard a pro-life Christian make this as a religious argument either.
the only logical and rational decision the government can come to is to leave citizens free to choose according to their beliefs
Have we just separated the US government’s decisions from the beliefs of its citizens? If I believe abortion constitutes ending a life that it is seriously wrong to end, for secular or religious reasons, how can I separate that opinion from how I enter the public square (how I vote)? If this is what you mean, that I am free to choose how I act as a citizen based on my beliefs, then we agree.
imposing no citizen’s beliefs on others and denying none their right to live and decide for themselves what procreative behaviors they wish to participate in or not
All laws impose one set of citizen’s beliefs on other sets. With the numbers essentially 50/50 in the country on this issue, why should those that believe abortion is not killing impose their beliefs on me? After all, 55% of Americans believe that life begins at conception right now, and 51% of women are now pro-life. I actually do not want Roe v Wade reversed - I would rather law be made by the citizens of the country through their representatives rather than by the courts. However, what happens if the numbers move to 70% believing abortion is the ending of a life that it is seriously wrong to end? Should 30% impose their belief that they should have the right to end this life on the 70% that do not?
Walker
Think of the profound grief that a family experiences upon the loss of a child. Compare the often still profound grief that is experienced when a miscarriage occurs. It is qualitatively different for a good reason. Now finally, consider the relative feelings of a couple trying to get pregnant, but it doesn’t happen this month. A failure to get pregnant does not mean that an egg was not fertilized.
Comparitive grief is an pretty bad argument. Children died today of malnutrition, bombing, disease, etc all over the world. I do not believe you, and I know I haven’t, experienced the profound grief that would accompany the death of my 12 year old - especially thousands of times over. Does it mean those lives are not worthy? My wife had a tubal pregnancy. We both experience that as a loss of a child that had a future of worth cut short. Did I grieve as much as I would if my 12 year old died? No, of course not - but so what.
Many millions of such eggs every year simply never get implanted in the uterus. Is a soul lost every time?
First, I need these statistics for another discussion I am involved in - can you link it?
Souls aren’t lost - lives are. Souls go back to God (or if you’re a buddhist reincarnated).
Isn’t this seemingly random success part of God’s plan? Perhaps those researchers who see the hope extant in the use of embryonic stem cells for the cure of disease are part of God’s plan too. Are you sure they are not?
This is the best thing you have said, and Christians might be well-served to remember that God is in control; that He has a plan; and that all things work for the good - even the killing of innocents. This is of course what you meant; and you believe this I am sure.
Leave ESR alone and start protesting fertility clinics who use IVF if you are so grieved for all of those lost souls.
Again, the lost soul thang; but I agree the wastage of IVF is a problem. Of course, the bill Frist spoke on would not even be an issue if IVF didn’t have surplus embryos that are to be discarded (or die in the freezer). Should we follow the Italian model for IVF? Remove and fertilize 3 eggs (and 3 eggs only) and reimplant all three - regardless of viability. No excess and no freezing.
Do you believe abortion is OK? I ask because the only people who seem to challenge pro-life folks about embryo wastage and IVF are those trying to deflect discussion from 1,300,000 abortions a year (in the US alone). Those are implanted embryos/fetuses that are most likely going to enter 1st grade someday if nothing gets in the way.
All
I am NOT opposed actually to ESC research; but there are ethical questions nevertheless. Questions that seem to get lost in the some of the silly types of arguments that occur.
The South Koreans did not use sperm-fertilized embryos for their stem cells. They did theraputic cloning - somatic cell transfer; and this probably actually holds the greatest hope of cures - because the stem cells are a DNA match to the person being cured.
If these cures end up being tightly DNA defined so that the cure relys on your skin cells being placed in an unfertilized ovum of your own (if you’re a women) or have donated like blood - the slippery slope is not too bad to me
If mass usage type cures are devised, does anyone have a moral problem with women being paid to lay eggs like chickens? Of course, those will most likely be poverty stricken women; and primarily from the developing countries. A new cash crop for the Third World.
Posted by: jchfleetguy at August 1, 2005 03:53 PM
Italy took a position on this issue with a law that:
Bans fertile couples from IVF
Prohibits any embryonic testing (for example, to find genetic diseases)
Sets a maximum of three eggs that may be fertilized.
Requires that all three embryos must be implanted simultaneously, and none can be frozen for later use.
Bans widows from being impregnated with the frozen sperm of a dead husband.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100669_2.html)
There was an outcry against the law, and a referendum to revoke it was tried. The catholic church urged people not to vote in the referendum so that the necessary % of votes would not be cast for it to be valid. The referendum failed.
I wonder how the people here feel about these laws, since they are the kind of thing that would be necessary to prevent frozen embryos from being discarded.
Posted by: Brian Poole at August 1, 2005 03:55 PMBrian
Great minds think alike (or at least we do). Not sure what the widows thang is about; or why fertile couples would do IVF?
This is the only choice to prevent spare dead embryos. I really do not think liberals want this kind of law passed; but if they keep using IVF as a strawman for abortion and ESC arguments they may get it.
Somebody suggested this would be good because it this issue could be a wedge that could destroy the “religious right” and the pro-life movement. I think this is wishful thinking.
Posted by: jchfleetguy at August 1, 2005 04:19 PMjchfleetguy,
I think I’m one of the lesser minds around here, but thanks. I enjoyed your post as well.
The fertile couples wanted to do IVF so that they could screen out genetic diseases that caused their daughter to die horribly at age 4 (so they would now be violating 2 laws).
Apparently the widow thing is the reason the whole law got started—a widow gave birth at age 60 using her dead husband’s frozen sperm.
jcfleet,
I was respectful of your posts until that “I really do not think liberals want this kind of law passed; but if they keep using IVF as a strawman for abortion..” That is valueless rhetoric.
70% of Americans support Roe v Wade so your opinion numbers are way off. And, per your logic, there should be no change in law reducing women’s reproductive rights for that 30%.
Posted by: Dave at August 1, 2005 09:58 PMThere was an “if” in that sentence - future mind experiment wise. I will not link a wad of polls - the two numbers I cited are accurate; and neither had anything to do with Roe. It was women who considered themselves pro-life; and people who believe life begins at conception.
And, as I have said, the only people who call on me to oppose IVF are people who support abortion - a process that takes probably at least 30 to 40 times as many lives. However, I will apologize for the rhetoric.
Posted by: jchfleetguy at August 2, 2005 02:03 AMThere are many positions regarding stem cell research. Probably too many to identify. I think however that the more popular ones are :
[1] Favor or oppose for religious reasons.
[2] For or against from political standpoint.
[3] Claim to be in favor for the benefit of mankind.
[4] Favor because have a disease that is included in the present research and/or know someone who could benefit
[5] Pro or Con based on cost and/or ethics issues
[6] For or against because it is a “hot button” issue at present
What I have deduced based on the “non scientific” research that I have done is that stem cell research shows promise in a relatively limited number of diseases and, from what I can tell, not always the most life threatening. (I am not talking about quality of life, but life itself).
The common diseases that keep appearing in the articles, etc. that I have read are ; Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Diabetes (certainly a big one), Osteoarthritis, Spinal Cord Injury and Heart Disease (another big one).
I believe that there are other diseases that account for comparable numbers of death and disablement rates to the above. These would be Cancer, Aids, Liver and Kidney Disease and several Lung Diseases.
IMO if we are spending and/or advocating federal money (beyond what is already being spent) for stem cell research, we should consider the same type of expense for the latter group of diseases above.
Posted by: steve smith at August 2, 2005 11:09 AMSteve,
Cancer, AIDS, Heart disease, liver disease, etc, all are substantially funded already (although more would always be nice). The difference with stem cells is that there is a block on funding except for the cell lines that are already established, and which are practically worthless.
There may be more deaths due to heart disease or cancer, but quality of life is important, maybe more so than just death. We’re all going to die eventually. Really, the odds are that if heart disease doesn’t get you, cancer will. Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and Spinal cord injuries are all debilitating illnesses. I can’t imagine anyone who would rather die of alzhiemers than a heart attack. These kinds of long, slow, painful, self-destroying illnesses not only hurt the people afflicted with them, but families who have to see their loved ones lose their memories and slowly die.
More callously, chronic terminal diseases cost families, individuals and society a tremendous amount of money for long-term care and treatment. A cure, which although in the beginning would probably be extremely expensive, would eliminate these costs.
This issue is simple. Much more simple than people want to make it. It comes down to this.
“Is a fertilized embryo is a human being?
It doesn’t even require any specific religious belief beyond being opposed to killing humans. All the other stuff, the IVF talk, ESC talk, the discussions of a family’s grief, etc., is all beside the point. It is there simply to add confusion and to keep people from focusing on the point, which is,….
If a fertilized embryo is a human being, then it deserves to get the same protection of both its parents and the government as does any other human being.
And now we are back at the first question. Once we answer that question all the other questions about what to do fall in place. My grief, your grief, and any else’s grief is irrelevant. The diseases that you might be able to cure is irrelevant. Whether the embryo was conceived inside a womb or outside a womb is irrelevant. But somehow the Golden Rule is still relevant. You know, the one that says “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you”
Posted by: Mike at August 2, 2005 04:41 PMMike,
Your saying that “all the other stuff” (i.e. reasoning) is irrelevant doesn’t make it so. My answer to your simplistic question, “Is a fertilized embryo is a human being?” is “Not yet”. But regardless of the answer IVF is certainly not irrelevant.
Since you don’t seem to get why, I’m going to make a crass analogy. Suppose we lived in an insane society where it was legal to shoot and kill redheads for making wigs. For some bizarre reason it was politically impossible to stop this horror, so some other folks started harvesting the body parts of the murdered redheads for medical procedures to save the lives of others. A group of people justifiably horrified that people who were being killed were having their body parts harvested for medicine start a campaign to stop the government from paying the medical insurance of the recipients of the body parts who were on a government medical plan. An argument breaks out. Some of the outraged people say that the murder of redheads for wigs is irrelevant, and those pointing out that they are already dead are just trying “to add confusion and to keep people from focusing on the point.”
An absurd comparison? Of course it is! IVF is no where near comparable to murdering sentient redheads for making wigs. You may believe that a fertilized embryo is already a human being, and therefore science should not be creating fertilized embryos in excess of those which have a high likelihood of being born (or at all). That is a reasonable position, but unfortunately for you not one shared by a majority of those in our society, where IVF has become an accepted practice. But if you are arguing that the government should not be funding ESCR because it is destroying human life, and I say, “ahem, excuse me but it is IVF which created these particular embryos and they would have been destroyed anyway”, it is incorrect logic for you to tell me that fact is irrelevant to the discussion. It is central to the discussion.
Posted by: Walker at August 3, 2005 02:33 AMIt was reported last night that there has been great success in using a persons own (adult) stem cells to repair certain problems (heart related for one).
Posted by: steve smith at August 3, 2005 08:51 AMWalker,
Your post illustrates and adds weight to my point. In your example you overlooked the most important thing. You failed to consider whether redheads are human beings.
Since the redheads in your example represent fertilized embryos, you would answer “No, they are not human” Since in your mind they are not human, you can, with a clear conscience, deny them rights. It really doesn’t matter to you whether they were killed to make wigs, or to have their other body parts harvested. You don’t think of them as human so no wrong is done in your mind.
However, I say they are human. In my mind killing redheads for wigs is two violations. 1) Redheads have the right to live just as any other human. 2) No one other than God himself has the right to kill a redheads. Whether you want to kill him/her for wigs or to harvest body parts is beside the point.
By the way, your analogy is a little off because the embryos are not dead until they are experimented on or destroyed. There in the womb, in the petre dish, they have a right to live. That is the difference between my position and your position. Everything else is mis-direction.
Posted by: Mike at August 3, 2005 02:19 PMMike,
In your post the majority of citizens clearly don’t feel redheads are humans. Perhaps if one disagrees with that, that should move to a place that feels like they do?
Posted by: Dave at August 3, 2005 09:29 PMA one time the majority of people in the US didn’t ‘feel’ that black people were human.
That didn’t change the reality that they were human.
A wise man doesn’t try to make his opinions reality. He examines reality and changes his opinions to fit reality.
Posted by: Mike at August 4, 2005 11:46 AM
