BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research

17 Aug 05 - 08:02 PM (#1544425)
Subject: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Amos

From today's New Scientist newsletter, this news about an alternative approach to stem cell research:

Cord blood yields 'ethical' embryonic stem cells

Hopes for treating disease with stem cells from umbilical cord blood
have received a major boost, following the discovery of primitive
cells with clinical potential matching that of embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are derived from human fetuses, which are then
destroyed, and have become a major ethical issue, especially in the
US. But umbilical cord blood can be saved, stored and multiplied
without any of these ethical dilemmas.

Furthermore, the same team is applying new microgravity technology -
originally developed by NASA for the International Space Station -
to make large enough quantities of the stem cells to repair tissue
damage in patients.

---

This is very heartening.

A

---

17 Aug 05 - 08:19 PM (#1544447)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: bobad

Sounds good to me but is nothing terribly new there.I have no problem with the harvesting of stem cells from aborted fetuses either.

I'm willing to bet that the religious fanatics will voice some objection though.

---

17 Aug 05 - 08:29 PM (#1544454)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: artbrooks

From an article in todays Forbes.com:

Denner (one of the researchers involved) noted that these cells are very rare. "We take a third of a cup of cord blood, and we get 50,000 potential stem cells, and of these there may only be a couple that are embryonic-like stem cells," he said.

A lot more needs to be done yet before it can be said that there is a viable alternative.

---

17 Aug 05 - 10:21 PM (#1544482)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Rapparee

The problem here, as in other things, is the confusion between ethics and morals.

There is nothing ethically wrong with harvesting stem cells, abortion, or even cannibalism. Ethics deals with the "necessary ought" -- that which MUST be done. For example, if I were starving it would be ethical to kill and eat a pig.

Morals, on the other hand, are those things which our culture has said are "good" or "bad". To kill and eat the pig if I were Muslim or Jewish would be immoral ("sinful"), but not unethical.

The use of stem cells for medical purposes is both ethical AND moral -- both tell us that we have the duty to save life if we can. The problem only arises from where and how the cells are obtained.

If I were to force someone to have an abortion so that I could use the resultant stem cells to prolong my own life, that would be both unethical AND immoral.

If someone willingly has an abortion, I do nothing unethical to use the stem cells. Whether or not such use is immoral is totally dependent upon my own beliefs -- and then I must make the decision whether or not to prolong my life through a means which is, to me, immoral (or sinful).

---

18 Aug 05 - 12:50 AM (#1544556)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: mack/misophist

Rapaire:

Can you give a citation for your definition of ethics? I've always understood it to be the rules necessary for groups to live together. Removing the social element makes it pointless.

---

18 Aug 05 - 01:40 AM (#1544574)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: JohnInKansas

Stem cells from abortion are not a preferred source. Procedures necessary to induce abortion compromise the quality and viability of cells obtained by that method.

"Stem-like" cells, as described in the article on umbilical blood may be usable for some purposes, but often would be "too advanced" in their cellular development and thus not as versatile for the kinds of research that could be most promising.

The preferred source for stem cells is from fertilized ova prepared for artificial insemination, and "abandoned" because they're "in excess" of what's needed for that procedure. The only alternatives to using them for stem cell development are to keep them perpetually frozen with no possibility of ever being used for anything, or to toss them in the incinerator. While I fail to see the moral or ethical problem with using these cells for research that may benefit others, some people do seem to have a problem with it.

John

---

18 Aug 05 - 01:50 AM (#1544579)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Amos

Ethics has to do with contemplating rationally what the optimum ssolution may be; morals, more to do with cultural agreements. They may be rational or they may be long since obsolete or they may have never had any rational basis, but within a culture or sub-culture they are agreed upon.

The two sets may intersect.

The ability to comply with codes of morals is distinctly subordinate to the ability to view what is and is not ethical, in the long term.

A

---

18 Aug 05 - 01:53 AM (#1544581)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: John O'L

Keeping them perpetually frozen or tossing them in the incinerator may also be morally questionable to some.

Their very existance is the contentious issue as I understand it. As long as they are there, then obviously they should be used for something, but should they be there at all?

---

18 Aug 05 - 04:01 AM (#1544603)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Dave Masterson

Mmm... can't quite grasp how disagreeing with someone else's views makes one a fanatic, religious or otherwise. Rather smacks to me of 'We're all free to express our opinion, so long as it agrees with mine.' Or, as George Orwell wrote, 'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.'

---

18 Aug 05 - 04:21 AM (#1544613)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Paul Burke

I'm not quite sure if JO'L means aborted foeti or stem cells, so i'm assuming the first.

They have existed from time immoral, and will continue to exist even if you slap a fatwa on abortion. Just as a result of women becoming pregnant when they don't want to bear a child- for whatever reason. The only question is whether we acknowledge this fact or not.

If you want to remain in denial about it, I can't stop you. But if not, one of the questions remaining is whether any good can come out of the situation. Stem cell research seems to say it can.

Anti- abortionists should concentrate on changing conditions for women (and men) so that abortion becomes (as I think it should be)a rare remedy only needed in desperate cases.

---

18 Aug 05 - 09:28 AM (#1544797)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: wysiwyg

One of the objections to aborted fetal tissue being used is actually pragmatically realistic-- the recognition that some people will actually breed fetal tissue to abort and sell.

It's based on a recognition that as a species, too many of us (human beings) are often all too comfortable on slippery slopes. Would anyone we know here do that-- of course not. "Should" anyone legislate against your highest motives? Maybe-- none of us would do other atrocities that have been publicized and grieved among us in many a thread. But there are people who DO do these things-- sell babies.

Take kiddie porn as an example. Is it wrong to take a picture of my really cute toddler, naked, from the back, about to step into the bath? No. But-- if the picture can be sold to a kid porn dealer, is it wrong to post the picture online to share with friends and family? Maybe it is-- maybe my online album is too accessible to others, to post that picture. See what I mean?

This is one reason ehtics questions often wrestle with the lowest-common-denominator factor. It's the best of society trying to think about the good of the whole society, keeping in mind what can be known about the worst of society.

In our denomination (Episcopal), we think of ethics as a range of perspectives with moral theology ("morals") on one end and ethical theology on the other. We recognize that determining what is the right thing to do, in any situation, depends on looking at a moral imperative based in our faith tradition, but applied in the specific situation as ethically as the realities will permit, for the greatest good. It often involves balancing a number of tragic choices, and looking at them square on. It invloves recognizing that it might not be possible to determine, in a specific sitation, what is "right," and that the best one can do, sometimes, is determine the least tragic choice.

It's a complicated field. We use that way of thinking to tease out as many of the complexities as possible, and to think about them fully, to guide our own behavior, not to judge others. We use it to have conversation with others about their thinking, not to control them.

I have not personally finished thinking about the issues around stem cells, not organ transplant for that matter. I'm not in a hurry to rush through it. It's worth thinking about with great care, and taking all the time needed till I do know what my position is. Until I do-- neither side has my vote.

Sometimes, societally, it's too soon to make a decision, and the tragic choices remain tragic. A lot of life is like that, but we humans tend to try to force others to agree when we ourselves feel urgent about this or that particular "cause" because that happens to be the one that has captured our attention. For those who feel that way about stem cells, I would ask them what other tragic realities they are ignoring, that I might care about. I would ask them, does it really help anything for either of us to try to force agreement upon the other?

We delegate some of this decision-making about Big Issues, to people we have elected. (I didn't elect GWB.) I look forward to electing people who think about these issues on a larger moral compass than the present administration.

~Susan

---

18 Aug 05 - 09:40 AM (#1544810)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Rapparee

Geez, man! It's been damned near forty years since I took ethics and I find that my old book has hit that black hole where books are lost -- the bibliographical Saragasso, so to speak. While I have some Kant, it's not in his Introduction to a Metaphysics of Ethics, 'cause I looked. Might be a summarization of Berkeley's utilitarianism, though; I'll try to plow through it again. I'd email my old ethics teacher, but I think he died some years back. Too bad; he was one of the good ones.

You have heard that old saying, "If Kant can't, nobody can" haven't you?
Or what Descartes really said: "Cogito cogito cogito, ergo cogito cogito sum, cogito"?? (Ol' Rene wasn't always certain about things.)

Seems to me that the very best stem cells for use would be those derived from the person for whom they'd be used. Not because of rejection issues, but it just seems to me that this would be optimal.

---

18 Aug 05 - 10:23 AM (#1544841)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Amos

There was a time, way back when, when slimeballs would dig up recent graves and sell the bodies therefrom to medical schools for their anatomical research and training.

Clearly this violates all kinds of mores. But the wrong response would be to outlaw anatomical research, or forbid surgeons to invade the sanctum of a dead body, or some such oppressive, knee-jerk reaction.

Pre-emptive law -- crafted "because somebody might dream up a new crime and commit it" is an impossible goal married to an unworkable method. It's like trying to make stupidity illegal. ("When stupidity is outlawed, only outlaws will be stupid....")

Bush's attitude about stem cells seems to be that IF they come from an abortion, THEN they are immoral in research purposes or medical applications. He's trying to manage the wrong end of the stick, like steering an elephant by the tail.

Batting at symptoms this way is just dim, IMHO. If he wants to get abortion outlawed, because he thinks of it as sacriligious or immoral ( a position I can honor but cannot agree with) he should try to craft the law of the land accordingly. If he cannot do so, then trying to make end-runs around it is just being a dodger -- something he has much practice in.

Mucking and flailing about in areas about which he knows nothing -- the pursuit of knowledge, rationality, research, learning, and the application of intelligence -- is just (to me) another sign that he is one of the wrongest men for his job ever seen in America.

A

---

18 Aug 05 - 10:52 AM (#1544871)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Bill D

trouble is, too many of these issues are bleated over by those with only the shallowest concepts of what is at stake or why they believe the way they do. They take fuzzy, pre-conceived (no pun intended) notions of how things work and make pontifical statements about how others should live! A classic case of throwing the dart, then drawing the bullseye.

---

18 Aug 05 - 10:55 AM (#1544874)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: GUEST,G

Fishing trip interrupted sooo.....

Amos, I have a question. You opened this post with a somewhat misleading post.

1. To clariy, stem cell research from umbilical blood has been an ongoing procedure for quite some time.

2. Embroyonic stem cells do not have to come from aborted fetuses, the preferred method is growing them in Labs so there is less chance of contamination.

My question after this statement - the CEO of Ford Motor Co. does not have to know how to build trucks, cars, etc. He only has to gather and manage a staff that can.

The question - did you start this thread just to create another opportunity for you to bash GWB?

---

18 Aug 05 - 11:12 AM (#1544885)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Paul Burke

There was a time, way back when, when slimeballs would dig up recent graves and sell the bodies therefrom to medical schools for their anatomical research and training.


This was necessary, because the supply of legal corpses (executed criminals in the UK) was insufficient. You, and anyone else who has benefited from western medicine, have benefited indirectly from the work of the grave robbers. Yes, and I know about Burke (no relation) and Hare.

The solution was to increase the supply of corpses by using those of unclaimed paupers and allowing others to leave their bodies to science.

The solution to the possibility of a 'market' in foeti is to prohibit any payment for them, and to make it compulsory for aborted foeti to be donated.

Embroyonic stem cells do not have to come from aborted fetuses, the preferred method is growing them in Labs so there is less chance of contamination.

Lab cultures are more likely to be contaminated than freshly extracted tissue.

---

18 Aug 05 - 11:16 AM (#1544887)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Donuel

We joined a program to have both of our children's cord blood stem cells saved to have a viable treatment in case of leukemia etc.

What happened however is that our first son's cord blood was stolen by the obstetrician for use on his own daughter. (I watched it being drained and stored at his birth)

Our second son's cord blood stem cells were denied preservation on the day of delivery claiming that ethical and financial concerns of Holy Cross Hospital had terminated the program a week prior to our son's birth.

If we had been notified we could have had a private corporation preservation kit available. The only alternative was to chemically delay labor and wait for the test tube and chemical anti coagulation chemicals to arrive. These are things that were readily available at the hospital at the time.

If we had been physicians we may not have faced this problem of religious considerations jeopardizing modern standards of care at this Catholic hospital Holy Cross.

Although we did everything we could, our children will have to seek rare tissue matches in the eventuality of a need for bone marrow transplants etc. .


This problem forced me to write a book about medical ethics and pose the questions we need to confront.

---

18 Aug 05 - 11:22 AM (#1544894)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: John Hardly

I can't speak for him, but, no, I don't think that O'L was referring to the first option (aborted fetuses). I think he was referring to the existance of "test tube" embryos. And it is a questionable practice.

There is a certain rich irony in this controversy (that, as one intimately involved with many pro-lifers, I'm aware of). It was so many James Dobson-type pro-lifers who were so hell-bent on giving the ability to have children (the highest goal of man, by their reckoning), that overlooked the probability that something ..... anything ... other that birth was BOUND to be the fate of (and this is the rich part) MOST of the embryos produced by the process. (and here's the irony) While it was those very Dobson-like folk who were the most adamant about when life began (at conception).

I know that doesn't scan well. I'm too lazy to re-write it.

For the record, I think it's abominable to harvest babies for others well-being.

---

18 Aug 05 - 11:28 AM (#1544902)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Amos

I think suppressing human discovery is worth bashing anytime, pal, but it is not an opportunity I created.

"Harvesting babies", John? I think you are imputing aspersions. The two issues are totally separate questions. IF someone aborts, accidentally or intentionally, there is no harm in turning that sad fact into something positive.

That does not mean we should then encourage abortions; I am not interested in encouraging them. I think they should be legal, though. What should discourage them is individual assessment of ethics, since they are traumatic all around.

A

---

18 Aug 05 - 11:36 AM (#1544912)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Donuel

All of the spurious religious "abortion harvesting" arguments can apply to organ transplants as easily. Only the ages are different.

---

18 Aug 05 - 11:41 AM (#1544920)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Uncle_DaveO

WYSIWYG commented, among other things:

One of the objections to aborted fetal tissue being used is actually pragmatically realistic-- the recognition that some people will actually breed fetal tissue to abort and sell.

Recognizing, first, Susan, that you didn't actually espouse that view yourself, I can't forbear to point out that that is tantamount to saying that "Anything that can be misused is wrong."

Such as that guns are wrong because someone may misuse them to kill somebody.

Or that drinking alcoholic beverages is wrong because some people don't or can't control themselves.

Or that gambling is wrong because (ditto).

Or that automobiles are wrong because some people may engage in reckless driving and hurt or kill somebody.

Or that gas ovens are wrong because some people may use them as a means to suicide.

Or, as an even more ridiculous example, sex is wrong because a baby may be produced which, when grown, may murder someone.

In each case, the possible end-result evil (if it IS evil) can and should be dealt with in its own terms, not by trying to close off the whole universe of possible actions.

Dave Oesterreich

---

18 Aug 05 - 12:01 PM (#1544940)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: GUEST,G

Possible that Amos are in complete agreement on "suppressing human discovery is worth bashing anytime".

Upfront, I am sure there are non-beleivers, Agnostics or other types here. I am an Intelligent Designer, this morass did not happen by accident and there is still room for some 'evo;ution' People are bigger, more atheletic and more intelligent today.
I am a Church going person, NOT an Evangelical as they are begiining to take on the appearance of semi- radical beings.
My basic premise is 'if the good Lord, God ore however you perceive him to be or not to be, he gave the ability to do and create, on his behalf, cures, grow replacement parts and anything else that is deemed morally correct. Does life begin at conception?
Probably, but it takes a while to developed into a viable Fetus.
A cluster of 8 cells is not a child.

---

18 Aug 05 - 12:16 PM (#1544956)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: mooman

I work on the fringes of this area as some of the organizations I advise are involved in utilizing adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells (but not embryonic stem cells) in human tissue engineering. It is hugely complex field, both technically and ethically, and, in the European Union, different countries have adopted very different ethical approaches.

Stem cells may be derived from a number of sources:

Adult stem cells may be derived from bone marrow, blood, certain adipose tissues and some other tissues. Most countries and people have little problem with the use of adult stem cells but they are more limited in the types of tissues that can be differentiated from them as they are generally multipotent (or pluripotent at best).

Umbilical cord stem cells have a greater degree of potency and can be differentiated into a wider range of tissue types.

Embryonic stem cells are totipotent, i.e. they can differentiate into any kind of tissue, but raise the most ethical issues for reasons well explained above. Research on them is still banned in many countries, the UK being a notable exception in Europe.

Together with these issues, there are issues of accurately controlling what tissues, stems cells differentiate into. Using suitable growth factors, for example neural precursor stem cells can be made to grow into neural tissue, or other types of stem cell into myocardiocytes, opening up the possibility of very interesting new therapies for a number of serious diseases. One problem is controlling this growth so that unwanted tissues or tumour cells are not created, or that the tissue formed is properly vascularized.

Besides the ethical and moral issues already mentioned by others, there are many other ethical issues relating to the screening of donors, free or paid donation of cells and tissues, ownership of derived tissues, confidentiality, commercialization and the access of patients to such treatments. Technical issues include the traceability of tissues and safety issues such as the prevention of transmission of infectious agents and the management of numerous other risks relating to the use of derived cells or tissues, in tissue engineering, cell therapy or gene therapy. The last of these, gene therapy, also raises a further raft of scientific and ethical issues.

A complicated area and one where huge amounts of research, and ethical debate, have been and will continue to need to be done before a large number of envisaged new treatments reach the patient.

Peace

moo

---

18 Aug 05 - 12:19 PM (#1544960)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: John Hardly

Amos,

Your argument reverts back to "aborting", when, as far as I can tell in this discussion, it has been asserted, and not disproven, that abortion is not a viable means of harvesting usable stem cells.

That leaves us with (as regarding fetal stem cells) embryos that are the result of someone's wish to have a child and producing more embryos than necessary to fulfill that selfish wish.

One might contend that those embryos are not yet children, but...

1. the burden of proving that something is not a life should fall to those wishing to end the life -- not to those who wish nature to take its course.

2. if the premise that an embryo is not a human life is accepted without the proof of when it "becomes" a life, then it will equally follow that any fetus, at any stage of development, may be harvested for the benfit of others. After all, that is the premise behind abortion on demand -- that no fetus, no matter how developed, is a human life.

---

18 Aug 05 - 12:22 PM (#1544962)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Donuel

The Stem Cell

Alone with encoded memories
of millions of years,
the stem cell sits
in its frosty glass house.

Will it heal,
will it grow
Will it die,
will it know?

There is a genetic double standard
that is hard to understand
Engineered chickens and cows
versus the stem cell of man.

It makes fools of the devout
and fools the scientific.
The fight is religious.
Its not about clones.

Imagine a Hindu at a slaughter house,
or a stem cell scientist at Bob Jones.
The contrasts of beliefs are endless
even within our homes.

The stem cell sleeps while some ask
Is it Kosher?
Is it clean?
Is it a murderer
of human beings?

The little stem cell sleeps
while single issue politics
rage on and on with no room
for common sense or compromise.

It is merely alive to live
while we ponder if it
takes,
wastes
or saves a life.


Families may pray at dinner.
Food corp. may pray for profits.
But no one prays
for the poor stem cell.

Unless you have a loved one
who is paralyzed
on dialysis
or frozen by Parkinsons.


DH

---

18 Aug 05 - 12:34 PM (#1544974)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Donuel

People do traffic in private organs.
People might traffic in tissue and cells.

Let me remind everyone that certain corporations are patenting people's genes/blood products without the owner's knowledge. The practice does two things.

It either constructs a financial barrier for other researchers to pursue certain beneificial health procedures,

or profits from gene or drug therapies from the cells of unknowing people.

.........


PS
Recently
Monsanto patented a pig and have set criterion to collect money from
owners of pigs that may have certain genes that Monsanto now owns.

---

18 Aug 05 - 12:38 PM (#1544981)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Donuel

BTW the blastocyst that is ideal for stem cell research is normally a group of 64 cells, not 8.

---

18 Aug 05 - 12:43 PM (#1544986)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: mooman

Concur Donuel. By the time of implantation of the gastrula, there is already a differentiation into the three primary germ layers, i.e. endoderm, mesoderm and ectoderm, that give rise to all other tissues and cells, and neurulation starts very shortly thereafter.

Peace

moo

---

18 Aug 05 - 12:44 PM (#1544987)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: John Hardly

Fascinating angle of perspective, Donuel.

It would be interesting to see how many changed their minds if we were suddenly talking about the ability of (wait, here's the evil organ {pun intended} music) corporations to (wait, there's more evil organ music) profit from the harvesting of stem cells.

So comfortable, this insulation of "pure science".

---

18 Aug 05 - 01:32 PM (#1545016)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Donuel

Disputes should never (camera zooms in) be about "if profit for corporations, churches or individuals is evil", (extreme close up) but rather how those profits are obtained.

You may not agree that a cost benefit equation covers the issues close to your heart, but virtually everything in society has a cost benefit equation at its roots. (rapid succession of images of nuclear plants, gas, automobiles, alcohol, gambling, disposable diapers etc. - music swells to finale)

---

18 Aug 05 - 01:41 PM (#1545022)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: wysiwyg

True, Uncle Dave, and thanks for noticing that my post was descriptive, not advocacy.

I would say, though, that among those who hold that view, part of the issue for them is the concern about setting societal forces in motion that are much bigger than the narrow issue at which one might attempt to look in present time-- that putting such a valuable commodity on such a footing is to tempt what could amount to a lot of wrongdoing on a real major scale.

~Susan

---

18 Aug 05 - 04:28 PM (#1545118)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Donuel

Valuable commodities such as near immortality is anathma to the Military industrial Complex with the minor exceptions of themselves.

---

18 Aug 05 - 04:59 PM (#1545133)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Donuel

I should clarify that the medical ethics questions pertaining to stem cell research lead right into the ethical questions pertaining to immortality treatments that can add about 30 years to one's lifespan and potentially much more.

I have noticed that the exact same medical treatments which in fact help reverse the aging process in people (growth hormones, testesterone, steroids and others)
are the exact same treatments that Congress and the media machine are vilifying among baseball players and other athletes who are in wonderful condition.

There is no coincidence here.
Nor has the increased risk of cancer been proven.

One might think that such treatments will of course be reserved for people like Bill Gates and you know who.

---

18 Aug 05 - 07:06 PM (#1545232)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Rapparee

Goat glands are the answer!

A blastocyte is not a fetus. Nor is a fetus necessarily viable. Nor is a viable fetus necessarily...well, do a websearch for images using the term "acephalic" (I've seen these, in the flesh, along with what were then called "frog babies", and I cried along with the parents). WARNING: don't do this unless you have a very strong stomach.

---

18 Aug 05 - 07:46 PM (#1545251)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: John Hardly

good logic.

Because a fetus might be "acephalic" then give carte blanc to anyone who might have use for any fetus.

---

19 Aug 05 - 12:01 AM (#1545442)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Donuel

John H, Aren't you late for going down to harrass patients visting your local gynocologist?


Rapaire, where does one score goat glands and where do you put them?

It is truely traumatic to have shared the grief with unlucky parents.
A compassionate person would only weep and not search for a platitude or cliche for loss.

---

19 Aug 05 - 09:30 AM (#1545608)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: John Hardly

Sorry, Donuel, I don't get the humor.

---

19 Aug 05 - 12:10 PM (#1545740)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Rapparee

There isn't any humor, JH. Believe me, there isn't any humor.

Nor did I say ONE WORD about "carte blanche" for anything.

---

19 Aug 05 - 12:33 PM (#1545755)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: John Hardly

I could have worded my post more carefully. I assumed that the point you must have been trying to make (in order to make much sense with the posts that preceded it), that...

"A blastocyte is not a fetus. Nor is a fetus necessarily viable. Nor is a viable fetus necessarily...well, do a websearch for images using the term "acephalic"..."

The logical conclusion, relative to the rest of the thread was...

The only reason a fetus was brought up, and therefore the only reason to draw a distinction between it and a blastocyte, would be to make the case that the same ethics/morality would not necessarily apply to both.

Therefore, the only reason one might conclude that one would go further in their explanation that, "Nor is a fetus necessarily viable", (relative to the rest of the discussion) would be to further point out that it would be a like mistake to apply the ethics or morality to a fetus anyway as they may or may not be "viable".

Further, to assert into the same logical progression that, "...well, do a websearch for images using the term "acephalic"", one could easily be led to conclude a "for instance" to the viablity issue regarding fetuses.

So, it follows a logical progression that, because a fetus might not be viable, then these pesky questions of ethics and morality need not apply.

What else could one conclude from your post, considering where it fits in the entirety of the thread?

---

19 Aug 05 - 12:41 PM (#1545759)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Amos

JH:

The questions of ethics and morality -- well, ethics, anyway -- are not "pesky". You have your own views about them.

The problem is that there are OTHER views also based on a sense of ethics, trying to wrestle with the question "what is the "good" course of action in such a situation".

Rapaire was making a valid point that you cannot blanket widely various situations with one overwhelming prescriptive moral tenet and expect to acheive the optimum "goodness" of result.

Some folks simplify their thinking by accepting some moral tenet or dogma as the definition of goodness in all cases. This makes thinking easier, because you only have to think as far as that one stable answer. Some folks even go so far as to bend the facts so as to preserve the integrity of their stable answer regardless of the ground-truth of the situation.

But that is not an ethical use of the mind, in my opinion; I think it is the mission of thought to seek the most rational answer possible in each situation, menaing that answer which will bring about the greatest well-being for the greatest number of efforts.

Another important point is that not everyone happens to believe that an individual human being is identical with a given number of cells. While I don't expect you to give it much credence, I have known many individuals who lost their start-up bodies before birth and shrugged it off and went on about their business, and got another. IF you believre, conversely, that life is only the mechanism, and that the mechanism itself (rather than an independent component) contains the "sanctity" (an unknwon quality, to be sure) of life, then you are in a different logical loop altogether.

I raise all these points to answer your question about what one might conclude that Rapaire was saying.

A

---

19 Aug 05 - 12:55 PM (#1545769)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: John Hardly

"Rapaire was making a valid point that you cannot blanket widely various situations with one overwhelming prescriptive moral tenet and expect to acheive the optimum "goodness" of result."

But in so doing (given the benefit of the doubt), isn't it more logical to conclude, from the way he wrote it, that it was he who was making the blanket statement? After all, he was trying to make the case that, because some fetuses might be acephalic, then all fetuses might be, and, as such, should not be the concern of people who might be motivated to value fetuses as something more than "harvestable tissue". Seems to me that his point is that it is an extreme to be trying to protect blastocytes, furthermore, it is equal folly to seek to protect fetuses as well.

"Some folks simplify their thinking by accepting some moral tenet or dogma as the definition of goodness in all cases. This makes thinking easier, because you only have to think as far as that one stable answer. Some folks even go so far as to bend the facts so as to preserve the integrity of their stable answer regardless of the ground-truth of the situation."

Yup. I don't like that kind of reasoning either. It sure is easy to assume that those with whom you disagree participate in that kind of reasoning.

"But that is not an ethical use of the mind, in my opinion; I think it is the mission of thought to seek the most rational answer possible in each situation, menaing that answer which will bring about the greatest well-being for the greatest number of efforts."

Yup. Though I still believe in the rights of the individual -- even, sometimes, when it means that a whole lotta people don't get to have something they want.

" I have known many individuals who lost their start-up bodies before birth and shrugged it off and went on about their business, and got another. "

Sorry, I don't get what a "start-up" body is.

---

19 Aug 05 - 10:10 PM (#1546163)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Mary in Kentucky

There is a comprehensive article in the July 2005 issue of National Geographic Magazine - Stem Cells, How Far Will We Go.

I've only skimmed the article, but it appears to discuss many issues, and explains and defines various terms. I did notice the vocabulary of stem cells from cord, embryo, adult bone marrow, possibly from an eye biopsy - much is still not known or understood.

---

19 Aug 05 - 10:55 PM (#1546184)
Subject: RE: BS: On Ethics and Stem Cell Research
From: Amos

John:

They lost a body when it was just starting up -- pregnancy or even close anticipation of it. Never mind, though, it's too far out!! :D

I guess we have different ideas of what he meant still - I didn't think he was offering a blanket statement, but pointing out the factors that can make each case different and best not just pigeonholed.

A

---