| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
supeman was my favorite -
Peter Charles wrote in
: I sincerely respect anyone who rejects the benefits or refuses to take part in research that they feel is morally and religiously repugnant. That is admirable. But they have no right to impose that view on others who do not share it. Again, that is religious tyranny. Do you exist in a democracy or a theocracy? If a majority, who hold similar religious views, impose laws on the minority to bring that minority into religious conformity, then that country has transformed itself into a theocracy. That is why most Western democracies do their utmost to separate church and state. Millions have died over the centuries because of this bigotry. It should never again be allowed to see the light of day. Again, let's keep remembering that I am clearly pro stem-cell research, and playing the devil's advocate here to point out that there are moral issues that can be recognized on both sides of this argument. When the US government chooses not to fund stem cell research on new cell lines, one can hardly call that religious tyranny. In fact, the government has not made such research illegal, and there's nothing in the constitution or US code that says the government is required to fund research at all. We're not talking about law here, only policy. The next logical step is that the government can continue to fund valuable research so long as the NIH gets funded-- this isn't a mandated program like Social Security, where Congress will work hard to make sure the funds are in place, its a budgetary line item whose size gets argued about constantly (at least based on the number of letters scientific organizations ask me to write to try to get larger appropriations). You **** off enough voters, science-freindly Senators get the boot, appropriations go down. This happens regardless of the motives of the constituency, religious or secular. There are benefits to the NIH staying off the radar screen of the Kooks. It may be wrong, but its the way things work. We don't live in a theocracy, but the masses do have their influence, and some of the masses are religious. Certainly, Institutional Review Boards that put a seal of approval on projects involving human studies are required by law to have community representation, and sometimes have clergy representation. Picture going in front of such a review board and explaining that their morals, formed in part because of their religious doctrines, have no place in a scientific discussion. Lead balloon city. There are slippery slopes on both sides-- the whole right to life thing is dangerous, IMO, but I also wouldn't want to see fetus farms for harvesting stem cells, or fetuses conceived for this specific purpose. It's ethical discussions like this that keep us nicely in the center-- sometimes we momentarily teeter too far in one direction, but usually we find our way back. Debates like this are best served by trying your best to understand the counter position. Dismissing that position as untenable might get your views across quickly and accurately, but rarely advance the debate. I can tell you that the instructor of our Tissue Engineering course, clearly on the pro side, makes his best case in front of the students, but also discusses the points on the con side. He then polls the students--intelligent kids coming from a variety of backgrounds, but mostly from the northeast- and every few years the con wins the count, and every year they're well represented. These are fairly intelligent kids, and dismissing their position as untenable would seem shortsighted. Here's another example that I've pondered over myself. Jews tend to place a high regard on sending a dead body back to its maker in the same condition it was given to them. That's why, after a suicide bombing, some of the first on the scene are canvassing the sites for pieces of flesh, to make sure they're buried with the right body, or waiting for the survivors in the ground when they get buried. In any case, because of the way the dead are treated, orthodox Jews are not organ donors. Now, people die, and fairly often, waiting on the list for a transplant donor. Is the witholding of organs by these people "religious tyranny"? Well, others are certainly free to donate organs, nobody is stopping them. Nobody is trying to put an end to transplantation either. Yet, the fact remains, for every orthodox Jew that would make a good organ donor that dies, that's a few organs that won't ever make it to the transplant list. Medical ethics can be quite debatable, and they also change over time. Many hospitals, at least the smart ones, keep an ethicist on staff to help committees wrestle over these issues and to make sure all sides are covered. Scott Scott |
supeman was my favorite -
"Scott Seidman" wrote in message . 1.4... Peter Charles wrote in Here's another example that I've pondered over myself. Jews tend to place a high regard on sending a dead body back to its maker in the same condition it was given to them. That's why, after a suicide bombing, some of the first on the scene are canvassing the sites for pieces of flesh, to make sure they're buried with the right body, or waiting for the survivors in the ground when they get buried. In any case, because of the way the dead are treated, orthodox Jews are not organ donors. Now, people die, and fairly often, waiting on the list for a transplant donor. Is the witholding of organs by these people "religious tyranny"? Well, others are certainly free to donate organs, nobody is stopping them. Nobody is trying to put an end to transplantation either. Yet, the fact remains, for every orthodox Jew that would make a good organ donor that dies, that's a few organs that won't ever make it to the transplant list. This is an apples and oranges example compared to the stem-cell research topic. While Jews are not organ donors, they do not active fight others from being organ donors, or try to quench research into how to make organs more acceptable to the recipient. They let others do research, and the public benefits from the research. I can support someone who does not go into stem cell research because they feel its religiously immoral, but not people who block the benefits of others doing that research. I agree that its hypocritical for someone who actively opposed stem cell research to express their sympathies for the death of Chris Reeve (not for them to say what a valiant fighter or true hero he was, that's different). But to have actively resisted the research that might have cured him, and then bemoan the sadness of his ailment is like seeing someone fall overboard, pulling the safety ring away from them each time they reached for it until they drown, then claiming it is so sad that they drowned. BTW: I heard that Bush waivered on his anti-stem cell stance when it came out that Ronnie might benefit from it (or else right after he died), but he couldn't just open the floodgates because of the religious right. So he found the middle ground. --riverman |
supeman was my favorite -
"riverman" wrote in
: They let others do research, and the public benefits from the research. I can support someone who does not go into stem cell research because they feel its religiously immoral, but not people who block the benefits of others doing that research. The government doesn't block anyone from doing research on or developing any stem cell line they want-- they just won't pay for it. Any researcher, even those who get NIH money, can do this, so long as they can demonstrate entirely different funding lines for the research. Again, I think that the current policy is not as consistent as refusing to pay for line development, but allowing researchers to use all lines developed through other means. My own values are that I believe the government should end these restrictions, but I understand why some people would not want government money going in to this research. I also feel the current policy is the height of wishy-washyness, and should satisfy noone Scott |
supeman was my favorite -
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:09:30 -0400, Peter Charles
wrote: We currently use cadaver tissue in medical research and have done so for a long time. It is ethically, morally, and for many religions, spiritually, plus legally permissable. Aborted fetus tissue is also cadaver tissue -- why isn't it acceptable? If the fetus tissue is cadvar tissue, then the aborted fetus, by defintion, is an aborted human being. I'm on the fence in some ways mainly because I do not know as much as I should or could about the issue(s).. I have this sinking feeling that many are being led to believe that this line of reseach, good or bad, is leading to rapid profound cures that are just within our grasp if only we had more money From all that I have read I just don't think that this is the case and there seems to be a bit of dishonsesty involved. |
supeman was my favorite -
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... riverman wrote: I agree that its hypocritical for someone who actively opposed stem cell research to express their sympathies for the death of Chris Reeve (not for Hypocritical to express sympathy? You've got to be kidding... Not at all. Read my entire statement: "I agree that its hypocritical for someone who actively opposed stem cell research to express their sympathies for the death of Chris Reeve (not for them to say what a valiant fighter or true hero he was, that's different)." Expressing sympathies FOR his death is crying crocodile tears. To tone it down, I will add a caveat: expressing sympathies for his death, while contribiting to the lack of medical reief for spinal cord injuries, is hypocritical. Better? Yeah, so it's just as hypocritical to express sympathy while opposing human cloning, since that research is just as likely, maybe even more so, to produce a "cure". I wouldn't know: I support both stem cell research and cloning, and I believe our insecurities about science are keeping us away from important knowledge that could have benefitted people like Reeve. Most of us view human cloning as producing people, real living people identical to ourselves, with personalities, who look like us and are somehow related to us, but who are robbed of their individuality because they are produced outside the lottery of life. However, the Brits are already being granted permits to clone human embryos to produce embryonic stem cells; they produce a microscopic mass of cells with identical DNA. No organs, no higher functions, not much different than what you scrape off your face every morning when you shave. Calling that mass of cells 'a human life' because of its potential to grow into something with personality is like calling the grin you give the waitress 'a human life.' Having empathy for and giving legal rights to a microscopic cluster of cells is bizarre. Hell, you kill that many human cells each time you drink a few glasses of single malt. So, yeah, anyone who opposes cloning is not far out of the camp of the people who oppose embryonic stem cell research. I ask them: should we extend our restrictions on medical research to transplanting organs, too? Its only a small step from taking organs from someone who has died, to someone who is about to die, to someone whose organs would be better off "if" they were allowed to die.......to killing people for their organs, to raising people to produce organs. And you know, there are people in that camp also! --riverman |
supeman was my favorite -
Jonathan Cook wrote:
riverman wrote: I agree that its hypocritical for someone who actively opposed stem cell research to express their sympathies for the death of Chris Reeve (not for Hypocritical to express sympathy? You've got to be kidding... What is hypocritical is to oppose stem cell research on the grounds that the stem cells come from "aborted" fetuses (which isn't true), while at the same time not opposing fertility treatments, which is the actual source of stem cells (from excess blastocysts that would be discarded anyway). -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
supeman was my favorite -
bones wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:09:30 -0400, Peter Charles wrote: We currently use cadaver tissue in medical research and have done so for a long time. It is ethically, morally, and for many religions, spiritually, plus legally permissable. Aborted fetus tissue is also cadaver tissue -- why isn't it acceptable? If the fetus tissue is cadvar tissue, then the aborted fetus, by defintion, is an aborted human being. I'm on the fence in some ways mainly because I do not know as much as I should or could about the issue(s).. I have this sinking feeling that many are being led to believe that this line of reseach, good or bad, is leading to rapid profound cures that are just within our grasp if only we had more money From all that I have read I just don't think that this is the case and there seems to be a bit of dishonsesty involved. So just what do you think is the motivation behind the people who are misleading the public? Is it a plot to cause more abortions? Sheesh. BTW, stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses. The least promising ones (for research) come from adults, somewhat more promising ones come from umbilical cords, and the most promising ones (and the ones that are causing the controversy) come from excess blastocysts which are produced in fertility treatments, and that would be otherwise discarded. In fact, if you actually LISTEN to the responsible and knowledgeable people who call for more stem cell research, they state up front that treatments are years away. You recently had successful treatment for cancer, which was wonderful. You looked GREAT at the Western Clave, Harry. What if, say 30 years ago, we decided not to spend money for cancer research because treatments were many years away? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
supeman was my favorite -
On 12 Oct 2004 18:27:35 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: "riverman" wrote in : They let others do research, and the public benefits from the research. I can support someone who does not go into stem cell research because they feel its religiously immoral, but not people who block the benefits of others doing that research. The government doesn't block anyone from doing research on or developing any stem cell line they want-- they just won't pay for it. Any researcher, even those who get NIH money, can do this, so long as they can demonstrate entirely different funding lines for the research. And stem-cell research is only one of the things the Fed, States, etc., refuse to pay for, regardless of who is President. Even, for example, travel. Ever seen travel expense guidelines? And IMO, this is like voluntary abortion (I choose to differentiate between "voluntary" and "medically-necessary"): until it can be shown that "life" begins at conception, it isn't a legal issue in the purview of the Fed, and it ought to stay out of such areas - COMPLETELY out of them - no banning, no funding, no pro or con opinionating, etc. And the argument that it REALLY important or _might_ lead to a/the miracle cure for whatever is not material as someone would say the same about _any_ research in which they might have a vested interest. TC, R |
supeman was my favorite -
On 12 Oct 2004 18:27:35 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: "riverman" wrote in : They let others do research, and the public benefits from the research. I can support someone who does not go into stem cell research because they feel its religiously immoral, but not people who block the benefits of others doing that research. The government doesn't block anyone from doing research on or developing any stem cell line they want-- they just won't pay for it. Any researcher, even those who get NIH money, can do this, so long as they can demonstrate entirely different funding lines for the research. And stem-cell research is only one of the things the Fed, States, etc., refuse to pay for, regardless of who is President. Even, for example, travel. Ever seen travel expense guidelines? And IMO, this is like voluntary abortion (I choose to differentiate between "voluntary" and "medically-necessary"): until it can be shown that "life" begins at conception, it isn't a legal issue in the purview of the Fed, and it ought to stay out of such areas - COMPLETELY out of them - no banning, no funding, no pro or con opinionating, etc. And the argument that it REALLY important or _might_ lead to a/the miracle cure for whatever is not material as someone would say the same about _any_ research in which they might have a vested interest. TC, R |
supeman was my favorite -
From: Peter Charles
First off, I'm following media reports on stem cell research that suggests, directly or implied, that opposition to stem cell research is rooted in the anti-abortion crusade of the religious right. I realize there are other sects and religions opposed to abortion but the political power rests with evangelic wing of the Republican Party and that is who I am addressing. If I have that wrong, please correct me. I don't believe you're wrong. That said, since the administration refuses to fund new lines of stem cells, (they do fund research on 70+ existing lines), why don't the major drug companies like Phizer, etc, step up to the plate and put the r&d money they get from the inflated prices they charge for drugs, and provide the funding for new lines and further research? Also, stem cells are likely not the holy grail of medicine that many people seem to think they are. For instance, consider Ronald Reagan. After his death, there was a great hue and cry regarding how stem cell research would lead to a cure for Alzhiemer's Disease. However, according to the top Alzhiemer doctors, the nature of the disease makes it a poor candidate for a stem cell cure, and this was widely broadcast on the major U.S. networks, hardly bastions of the religious right. George Adams "All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of youth that doth not grow stale with age." ---- J.W Muller |
supeman was my favorite -
From: Peter Charles
First off, I'm following media reports on stem cell research that suggests, directly or implied, that opposition to stem cell research is rooted in the anti-abortion crusade of the religious right. I realize there are other sects and religions opposed to abortion but the political power rests with evangelic wing of the Republican Party and that is who I am addressing. If I have that wrong, please correct me. I don't believe you're wrong. That said, since the administration refuses to fund new lines of stem cells, (they do fund research on 70+ existing lines), why don't the major drug companies like Phizer, etc, step up to the plate and put the r&d money they get from the inflated prices they charge for drugs, and provide the funding for new lines and further research? Also, stem cells are likely not the holy grail of medicine that many people seem to think they are. For instance, consider Ronald Reagan. After his death, there was a great hue and cry regarding how stem cell research would lead to a cure for Alzhiemer's Disease. However, according to the top Alzhiemer doctors, the nature of the disease makes it a poor candidate for a stem cell cure, and this was widely broadcast on the major U.S. networks, hardly bastions of the religious right. George Adams "All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of youth that doth not grow stale with age." ---- J.W Muller |
supeman was my favorite -
|
supeman was my favorite -
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:17:46 -0600, rw
wrote: So just what do you think is the motivation behind the people who are misleading the public? Is it a plot to cause more abortions? Sheesh. Ask Senator Edwards.... BTW, stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses. Well there seems to be a difference of opinon here, Peter says this is a source. The least promising ones (for research) come from adults, somewhat more promising ones come from umbilical cords, and the most promising ones (and the ones that are causing the controversy) come from excess blastocysts which are produced in fertility treatments, and that would be otherwise discarded. I admit to not being up to speed and this thread has presented at least three explanations of the cell's themselves. I read that a blastocyst is a fertilized ovum ....so it becomes an issue ones definitions and here I do not have a clear view. In fact, if you actually LISTEN to the responsible and knowledgeable people who call for more stem cell research, they state up front that treatments are years away. You recently had successful treatment for cancer, which was wonderful. You looked GREAT at the Western Clave, Harry. What if, say 30 years ago, we decided not to spend money for cancer research because treatments were many years away? speaking as one who has been up close and personal to the terror of these maladies I am for just about any type of research and stem cell is included. I just have some issues about the source and how they are gotten. This is not to say I'm against it, I just think we should be careful. But , I'm learning more and more and unlike some here I'm at least willing it change. - |
supeman was my favorite -
Alzheimers might not be the best target, but it is a reasonable target.
Any place central nervous tissue could use replacing, stem cell treatments might apply. We can keep going--Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, diabetes (well, that's not nervous tissue, but there's still applications), retinitis pigmentosa, .... You also need these cell lines to gain an understanding of how an undifferentiated cell becomes differentiated. That simple understanding will open up a whole world of treatments. Gene therapy. There are a lot of folks who's systems are compromised, either from birth or afterwards that would benefit from gene therapy. My daughter has what could be called "genetic scurvy." The only treatment for this would be gene therapy. Without the stem cell research, her chances of a long life are very slim. This problem, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) is one of a large group of problems that are termed "orphan diseases." They are orphaned, because the researchers put their time in for the most bang for the buck, i.e. cancer, HIV... One breakthrough in say, collagen gene therapy, could save thousands with EDS, Marphans, etc. When a politician makes life or death policy decisions for your family (specifically death) based upon getting a strong voter turnout in his favor from some factions, he/she doesn't get my vote. -- Frank Reid Reverse Email to reply |
supeman was my favorite -
Alzheimers might not be the best target, but it is a reasonable target.
Any place central nervous tissue could use replacing, stem cell treatments might apply. We can keep going--Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, diabetes (well, that's not nervous tissue, but there's still applications), retinitis pigmentosa, .... You also need these cell lines to gain an understanding of how an undifferentiated cell becomes differentiated. That simple understanding will open up a whole world of treatments. Gene therapy. There are a lot of folks who's systems are compromised, either from birth or afterwards that would benefit from gene therapy. My daughter has what could be called "genetic scurvy." The only treatment for this would be gene therapy. Without the stem cell research, her chances of a long life are very slim. This problem, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) is one of a large group of problems that are termed "orphan diseases." They are orphaned, because the researchers put their time in for the most bang for the buck, i.e. cancer, HIV... One breakthrough in say, collagen gene therapy, could save thousands with EDS, Marphans, etc. When a politician makes life or death policy decisions for your family (specifically death) based upon getting a strong voter turnout in his favor from some factions, he/she doesn't get my vote. -- Frank Reid Reverse Email to reply |
supeman was my favorite -
Alzheimers might not be the best target, but it is a reasonable target.
Any place central nervous tissue could use replacing, stem cell treatments might apply. We can keep going--Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, diabetes (well, that's not nervous tissue, but there's still applications), retinitis pigmentosa, .... You also need these cell lines to gain an understanding of how an undifferentiated cell becomes differentiated. That simple understanding will open up a whole world of treatments. Gene therapy. There are a lot of folks who's systems are compromised, either from birth or afterwards that would benefit from gene therapy. My daughter has what could be called "genetic scurvy." The only treatment for this would be gene therapy. Without the stem cell research, her chances of a long life are very slim. This problem, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) is one of a large group of problems that are termed "orphan diseases." They are orphaned, because the researchers put their time in for the most bang for the buck, i.e. cancer, HIV... One breakthrough in say, collagen gene therapy, could save thousands with EDS, Marphans, etc. When a politician makes life or death policy decisions for your family (specifically death) based upon getting a strong voter turnout in his favor from some factions, he/she doesn't get my vote. -- Frank Reid Reverse Email to reply |
supeman was my favorite -
"Frank Reid" wrote in message ... My daughter has what could be called "genetic scurvy." The only treatment for this would be gene therapy. Without the stem cell research, her chances of a long life are very slim. This problem, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) is one of a large group of problems that are termed "orphan diseases." Your daughter has EDS? I once had a student in a summer program who had type 4...I was the resident medic. What an incredibly sweet girl, nicest sense of humor and loveliest soul I ever met. But she was wrapped in tissue paper and strung together with thread. She would dislocate her shoulder and/or elbow just carrying books, and her wrist would go out if she held hands with someone and they weren't careful. Even the slightest bump of her shin would open up the most gawdawful gash. She couldn't even wear socks with tight bands. I had to treat her several times in the course of the summer: she would wig out at the injury, hold the edges shut until I came, catch her breath and calm down, and then we'd go to work taping her back shut again. She had scars like you wouldn't believe (well, YOU might) all over her legs and arms. I've always wondered what happened to her....knowing her and working with her really enlightened my life. I don't think she is still with us, which is sad. --riverman |
supeman was my favorite -
"Frank Reid" wrote in message ... My daughter has what could be called "genetic scurvy." The only treatment for this would be gene therapy. Without the stem cell research, her chances of a long life are very slim. This problem, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) is one of a large group of problems that are termed "orphan diseases." Your daughter has EDS? I once had a student in a summer program who had type 4...I was the resident medic. What an incredibly sweet girl, nicest sense of humor and loveliest soul I ever met. But she was wrapped in tissue paper and strung together with thread. She would dislocate her shoulder and/or elbow just carrying books, and her wrist would go out if she held hands with someone and they weren't careful. Even the slightest bump of her shin would open up the most gawdawful gash. She couldn't even wear socks with tight bands. I had to treat her several times in the course of the summer: she would wig out at the injury, hold the edges shut until I came, catch her breath and calm down, and then we'd go to work taping her back shut again. She had scars like you wouldn't believe (well, YOU might) all over her legs and arms. I've always wondered what happened to her....knowing her and working with her really enlightened my life. I don't think she is still with us, which is sad. --riverman |
supeman was my favorite -
Your daughter has EDS? I once had a student in a summer program who had type
4...I was the resident medic. snipped I've always wondered what happened to her....knowing her and working with her really enlightened my life. I don't think she is still with us, which is sad. --riverman Yes, type 4, the same as my daughter. It killed her mother. Type IV is the deadliest form. Most don't live past their twenties. Its also very rare in females as it is male dominant (only 1 in 10 are female). -- Frank Reid Reverse Email to reply |
supeman was my favorite -
Frank Reid wrote:
Your daughter has EDS? I once had a student in a summer program who had type 4...I was the resident medic. snipped I've always wondered what happened to her....knowing her and working with her really enlightened my life. I don't think she is still with us, which is sad. Yes, type 4, the same as my daughter. Wow, Frank. The things you learn on Usenet. Watching a situation such as this as the "protector parent" is the worst. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family. I hope a cure is in her future. -- TL, Tim ------------------------ http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
supeman was my favorite -
Frank Reid wrote:
Your daughter has EDS? I once had a student in a summer program who had type 4...I was the resident medic. snipped I've always wondered what happened to her....knowing her and working with her really enlightened my life. I don't think she is still with us, which is sad. Yes, type 4, the same as my daughter. Wow, Frank. The things you learn on Usenet. Watching a situation such as this as the "protector parent" is the worst. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family. I hope a cure is in her future. -- TL, Tim ------------------------ http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
supeman was my favorite -
Your daughter has EDS? I once had a student in a summer program who
had type 4...I was the resident medic. snipped I've always wondered what happened to her....knowing her and working with her really enlightened my life. I don't think she is still with us, which is sad. Yes, type 4, the same as my daughter. Wow, Frank. The things you learn on Usenet. Watching a situation such as this as the "protector parent" is the worst. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family. I hope a cure is in her future. Anyone wishing to know more, please go to http://www.ehlers-danlos.org/ They're trying to find a cure. -- Frank Reid Reverse Email to reply |
supeman was my favorite -
would you have an issue if this read:
If the fetus tissue is cadvar tissue, then the cloned fetus, by defintion, is an cloned human being. On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:24:19 -0400, Peter Charles wrote: If the fetus tissue is cadvar tissue, then the aborted fetus, by defintion, is an aborted human being. I don't have a problem with that definition. |
supeman was my favorite -
Anyone wishing to know more, please go to http://www.ehlers-danlos.org/
They're trying to find a cure. Also, http://www.ednf.org/ Dr. Byers (in the grants section), the one at UW, diagnosed my daughter over 20 years ago. At the time, he was the only person in the world doing research on EDS. At the time, there were less than 50 recognized cases in the US. -- Frank Reid Reverse Email to reply |
supeman was my favorite -
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:46:32 GMT, bones wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:17:46 -0600, rw wrote: So just what do you think is the motivation behind the people who are misleading the public? Is it a plot to cause more abortions? Sheesh. Ask Senator Edwards.... BTW, stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses. Well there seems to be a difference of opinon here, Peter says this is a source. I thought that the source didn't matter, as long the stem cells were "harvested" quickly after the embryo formation - a few days? If that is the case, it would seem that "normal" abortions wouldn't be a very good source. But, I guess, it _could_ encourage "embryo factory" abortions, but that doesn't seem to be a big potential problem, IMO. That aside, I thought the main objection to embryonic stem cells was not related to abortions, but the fact that it HAD to be a planned thing - create the embryo knowing you're going to destroy it - that destroyed the embryo, and in doing so, a (potential) life. Hence, at least for me, there is no hypocrisy in allowing research on current stocks of already-not-viable embryos. And if anyone cares about Bush's address on it back in 2001, here is the text: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010809-2.html TC, R |
supeman was my favorite -
|
supeman was my favorite -
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:14:11 -0600, rw
wrote: wrote: That aside, I thought the main objection to embryonic stem cells was not related to abortions, but the fact that it HAD to be a planned thing - create the embryo knowing you're going to destroy it - that destroyed the embryo, and in doing so, a (potential) life. The "planning" is done by couples being treated for infertility. Women are treated with hormones to induce the production of eggs, which are then fertilized in vitro and grown into blastocysts, some of which are implanted in either the "mother's" uterus or the uterus of a surrogate. The excess blastocysts are, as of now, discarded or kept frozen indefinitely. So it would seem that even allowing that these would be the only ones used, the fact remains that these were created for the sole purpose of a couple having a baby, and therefore, a (potential) life, and if they are still viable, but unwanted by the couple, they are, at the end of the debate, still viable. It would seem to me that using these are even more arguable as they were created for the sole purpose of becoming a baby/life/human/whatever one chooses to term it. While I understand (and for speaking only for me, generally agree with) the argument allowing for the use of the excess, I also can see the argument_S_ against. While I respect the subjective "religious/moral/ethics" argument against it, I think the argument against based on it being a slippery slope is not only rational and objective, but more importantly, a real danger. In the end, knowing what is known today, I think it is an area with no clear answers, and as such, there is no "right" or "wrong," only positions and to belittle another's honest position is foolish. Hence, at least for me, there is no hypocrisy in allowing research on current stocks of already-not-viable embryos. The currently available cell lines are corrupted with mouse cells, among other things. I thought that was only the ones that the Fed is currently providing funds for research in/on. It seems the discussion has gotten away from the real question: "Should the Fed fund it?" Banning it is not at current issue, AFAIK. TC, R |
supeman was my favorite -
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:14:11 -0600, rw
wrote: wrote: That aside, I thought the main objection to embryonic stem cells was not related to abortions, but the fact that it HAD to be a planned thing - create the embryo knowing you're going to destroy it - that destroyed the embryo, and in doing so, a (potential) life. The "planning" is done by couples being treated for infertility. Women are treated with hormones to induce the production of eggs, which are then fertilized in vitro and grown into blastocysts, some of which are implanted in either the "mother's" uterus or the uterus of a surrogate. The excess blastocysts are, as of now, discarded or kept frozen indefinitely. So it would seem that even allowing that these would be the only ones used, the fact remains that these were created for the sole purpose of a couple having a baby, and therefore, a (potential) life, and if they are still viable, but unwanted by the couple, they are, at the end of the debate, still viable. It would seem to me that using these are even more arguable as they were created for the sole purpose of becoming a baby/life/human/whatever one chooses to term it. While I understand (and for speaking only for me, generally agree with) the argument allowing for the use of the excess, I also can see the argument_S_ against. While I respect the subjective "religious/moral/ethics" argument against it, I think the argument against based on it being a slippery slope is not only rational and objective, but more importantly, a real danger. In the end, knowing what is known today, I think it is an area with no clear answers, and as such, there is no "right" or "wrong," only positions and to belittle another's honest position is foolish. Hence, at least for me, there is no hypocrisy in allowing research on current stocks of already-not-viable embryos. The currently available cell lines are corrupted with mouse cells, among other things. I thought that was only the ones that the Fed is currently providing funds for research in/on. It seems the discussion has gotten away from the real question: "Should the Fed fund it?" Banning it is not at current issue, AFAIK. TC, R |
supeman was my favorite -
From: Scott Seidman
Alzheimers might not be the best target, but it is a reasonable target. Apparently you know more than the doctors. According to the one I saw interviewed by Tom Brokaw on NBC, Alzhiemers would not benefit in any way from stem cell therapy. The other conditions you mention, afaik, are viable candidates for stem cell therapy. FWIW, the whole stem cell issue is one of the areas where I disagree with Bush. In the absence of federal funding, however, I still don't see why the drug companies won't kick in some of their "r&d" money to fund the program. There is a misconception that the current administration has banned stem cell research. This is not true...they have simply refused to fund new research. George Adams "All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of youth that doth not grow stale with age." ---- J.W Muller |
supeman was my favorite -
From: Scott Seidman
Alzheimers might not be the best target, but it is a reasonable target. Apparently you know more than the doctors. According to the one I saw interviewed by Tom Brokaw on NBC, Alzhiemers would not benefit in any way from stem cell therapy. The other conditions you mention, afaik, are viable candidates for stem cell therapy. FWIW, the whole stem cell issue is one of the areas where I disagree with Bush. In the absence of federal funding, however, I still don't see why the drug companies won't kick in some of their "r&d" money to fund the program. There is a misconception that the current administration has banned stem cell research. This is not true...they have simply refused to fund new research. George Adams "All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of youth that doth not grow stale with age." ---- J.W Muller |
supeman was my favorite -
From: Frank Reid
Gene therapy. There are a lot of folks who's systems are compromised, either from birth or afterwards that would benefit from gene therapy. My daughter has what could be called "genetic scurvy." The only treatment for this would be gene therapy. Without the stem cell research, her chances of a long life are very slim. This problem, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) is one of a large group of problems that are termed "orphan diseases." They are orphaned, because the researchers put their time in for the most bang for the buck, i.e. cancer, HIV... One breakthrough in say, collagen gene therapy, could save thousands with EDS, Marphans, etc. Wow. That's a tough one. My hunting partner and sometimes fishing buddy lost two children to Gaucher's Disease, another 'orphan disease'. At the time they died there was no cure, but several years later, a cure was found, but it cost around $100,000 a year for several years, not an option for many people. When a politician makes life or death policy decisions for your family (specifically death) based upon getting a strong voter turnout in his favor from some factions, he/she doesn't get my vote. As I said before, I disagree with Bush on the stem cell issue, but even if the research was funded, the work would still go toward the "bang for the buck" diseases, the decision then being made by the executives in the drug companies. I think Bush will lose more votes than he gains on this issue. Hopefully a breakthrough will be made in time to help your daughter. George Adams "All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of youth that doth not grow stale with age." ---- J.W Muller |
supeman was my favorite -
|
supeman was my favorite -
|
supeman was my favorite -
|
supeman was my favorite -
RDean notes:
It seems the discussion has gotten away from the real question: "Should the Fed fund it?" Banning it is not at current issue, AFAIK. correct, you are. The crux of the problem is that, unless funded by the Feds, most of these research projects will languish for want of substantial, and relatively quick financial reward. Current academic research has been shaped, in many cases, by the need for private sector funding, leading to the "orphan disease" issue noted earlier. For us idealistic types who remember the nature of scientific research before Reagan started the process of cutting back Federal Funding, it can be sad having to read certain journal articles, and wondering if the sponsorship colored the science. Tom |
supeman was my favorite -
RDean notes:
It seems the discussion has gotten away from the real question: "Should the Fed fund it?" Banning it is not at current issue, AFAIK. correct, you are. The crux of the problem is that, unless funded by the Feds, most of these research projects will languish for want of substantial, and relatively quick financial reward. Current academic research has been shaped, in many cases, by the need for private sector funding, leading to the "orphan disease" issue noted earlier. For us idealistic types who remember the nature of scientific research before Reagan started the process of cutting back Federal Funding, it can be sad having to read certain journal articles, and wondering if the sponsorship colored the science. Tom |
supeman was my favorite -
RDean notes:
It seems the discussion has gotten away from the real question: "Should the Fed fund it?" Banning it is not at current issue, AFAIK. correct, you are. The crux of the problem is that, unless funded by the Feds, most of these research projects will languish for want of substantial, and relatively quick financial reward. Current academic research has been shaped, in many cases, by the need for private sector funding, leading to the "orphan disease" issue noted earlier. For us idealistic types who remember the nature of scientific research before Reagan started the process of cutting back Federal Funding, it can be sad having to read certain journal articles, and wondering if the sponsorship colored the science. Tom |
supeman was my favorite -
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:27:45 -0400, Frank Reid
wrote: Your daughter has EDS? I once had a student in a summer program who had type 4...I was the resident medic. snipped I've always wondered what happened to her....knowing her and working with her really enlightened my life. I don't think she is still with us, which is sad. --riverman Yes, type 4, the same as my daughter. It killed her mother. Type IV is the deadliest form. Most don't live past their twenties. Its also very rare in females as it is male dominant (only 1 in 10 are female). Sorry, Frank. It's hell enough having kids with ordinary problems or problems that can at least be watched and pretty much taken care of by present day doctors. Cyli r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels. Often taunted by trout. http://www.visi.com/~cyli |
supeman was my favorite -
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:27:45 -0400, Frank Reid
wrote: Your daughter has EDS? I once had a student in a summer program who had type 4...I was the resident medic. snipped I've always wondered what happened to her....knowing her and working with her really enlightened my life. I don't think she is still with us, which is sad. --riverman Yes, type 4, the same as my daughter. It killed her mother. Type IV is the deadliest form. Most don't live past their twenties. Its also very rare in females as it is male dominant (only 1 in 10 are female). Sorry, Frank. It's hell enough having kids with ordinary problems or problems that can at least be watched and pretty much taken care of by present day doctors. Cyli r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels. Often taunted by trout. http://www.visi.com/~cyli |
supeman was my favorite -
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:27:45 -0400, Frank Reid
wrote: Your daughter has EDS? I once had a student in a summer program who had type 4...I was the resident medic. snipped I've always wondered what happened to her....knowing her and working with her really enlightened my life. I don't think she is still with us, which is sad. --riverman Yes, type 4, the same as my daughter. It killed her mother. Type IV is the deadliest form. Most don't live past their twenties. Its also very rare in females as it is male dominant (only 1 in 10 are female). Sorry, Frank. It's hell enough having kids with ordinary problems or problems that can at least be watched and pretty much taken care of by present day doctors. Cyli r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels. Often taunted by trout. http://www.visi.com/~cyli |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:50 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter