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

"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

"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

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.

"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

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.

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.

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

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

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