NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7735696.stm

Needless to say, this is a major breakthrough - stem cells have actually been used to grow a organ for transplant, and paves the way for widespread use of the process.

However I'm interested in NSG's opinion of the Morality of Stem cell research, and it's wider implications and use - what do you all think?




(I'd like to contribute more but I need sleep. Enjoy)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7735696.stm

Needless to say, this is a major breakthrough - stem cells have actually been used to grow a organ for transplant, and paves the way for widespread use of the process.

However I'm interested in NSG's opinion of the Morality of Stem cell research, and it's wider implications and use - what do you all think?




(I'd like to contribute more but I need sleep. Enjoy)
Now what about me?

With all seriousness, I'm not informed enough about stem-cell research to have an opinion onit.

definitely a good thing and a major break through, in this case stem cells from the patients own body were used so how can there be an ethical issue

the lives that could be saved by this research and the ability that we could develop to improve quality of life for others,

stem cells are probably going to lead to an ability to farm individual organs and thus render organ donation an unnecessary thing and seen as there is a shortage of downers ..........

It's a very exiting break through.

I back stem cell research because once a human is dead, even a baby, while it is most definitely tragic (especially when its a baby) all that persons body is really is a lump of dead tissue like any other corpse and if we can take this lump of dead tissue and use it to expand our knowledge in such a way that we may be able to save lives in the future then it should be done!

*makes a South Park / Christopher Reeve joke in poor taste*

Hell yeah.

I want to regenerate my nervous tissue so I can live 150 years, minimum.

And yes, I am 100% serious.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7735696.stm

Needless to say, this is a major breakthrough - stem cells have actually been used to grow a organ for transplant, and paves the way for widespread use of the process.

However I'm interested in NSG's opinion of the Morality of Stem cell research, and it's wider implications and use - what do you all think?

I fail to see the moral conundrum. Typically the embryos used are ones scheduled to be discarded because they are no longer needed for fertility treatments. Would the people objecting to the use of these embryos rather we just toss them in the incinerator?

excellent stuff. more stuff like this is good. my sleepy opinion

edit: where has the talk of embryos come from? the article only talks about adult stem cells from the patient's own bone marrow. certainly in this case, with adult stem cells, there really can be no moral dillema?

There is nothing at all inherently immoral or unethical about stem cell science. The only possible ethical problem that I can see even potentially being attached to it would be the production of people solely for the purpose of harvesting stem cells -- a scenario so unlikely as to be easily discounted. Absent that, I think it would actually be unethical NOT to pursue this breakthrough.

I fail to see the moral conundrum. Typically the embryos used are ones scheduled to be discarded because they are no longer needed for fertility treatments. Would the people objecting to the use of these embryos rather we just toss them in the incinerator?

Unfortunately, yes, they would. Pragmatism is not their strong suit.

There is nothing at all inherently immoral or unethical about stem cell science. The only possible ethical problem that I can see even potentially being attached to it would be the production of people solely for the purpose of harvesting stem cells -- a scenario so unlikely as to be easily discounted. Absent that, I think it would actually be unethical NOT to pursue this breakthrough.

I concur.

However I'm interested in NSG's opinion of the Morality of Stem cell research, and it's wider implications and use - what do you all think?

If any religious representative comes out and complain about it, it's not stem cell research, but themselves, that is the problem.

But really, the only arguments I have heard that's against stem cell research all starts with "If God". Yet I find no religious book on the face of the earth that has any passage on stem cell. So the only thing it comes down to is their own opinions, while disregarding the real lives that can be saved.

this is an astounding advance in medical science.

what a wonderful thing to have a transplant without needing anti-rejection drugs.

theres one problem:

To make the new airway, the doctors took a donor windpipe, or trachea, from a patient who had recently died.

Then they used strong chemicals and enzymes to wash away all of the cells from the donor trachea, leaving only a tissue scaffold made of the fibrous protein collagen.

Although it may just be an issue of cost or some such, if you need a dead part to make the mold, you still need something that isn't exactly available on-demand.

also,

US scientists have already successfully implanted bladder patches grown in the laboratory from patients' own cells into people with bladder disease.

USA, USA!! whoo :p

Interesting, so once again non-embryonic stem cells provide the answer. While Embryonic Stem Cell research causes Cytokine Storms.

I would say this would be the last conclusive bit of evidence to abandon Embryonic Stem Cell Research for Adult and Umbilical Cord Stem Cells. There are 44 other medical treatments that use them, while Embryonic Stem Cells have caused very few problems of their own.

Yes.

I fail to see the moral conundrum. Typically the embryos used are ones scheduled to be discarded because they are no longer needed for fertility treatments. Would the people objecting to the use of these embryos rather we just toss them in the incinerator?

No, see, moralists who decry contraception or abortion and who claim that life begins at conception are oddly silent when it comes to fertility treatment and embryos left over from said treatment.

Interesting, so once again non-embryonic stem cells provide the answer. While Embryonic Stem Cell research causes Cytokine Storms.

I would say this would be the last conclusive bit of evidence to abandon Embryonic Stem Cell Research for Adult and Umbilical Cord Stem Cells. There are 44 other medical treatments that use them, while Embryonic Stem Cells have caused very few problems of their own.

Sort of like how once we found penicillin we should have stopped researching any other antibiotics?

We have been researching and using stem cells from bone marrow for decades. We've had access to human embryonic stem cells for just over a single decade - and we've been heavily restricted in their derivation and use throughout that period.

Meanwhile, it is not correct to say that there are 44 medical treatments that use adult stem cells. There have been trials in various areas in recent years, but the only established medical use of adult stem cells is transplantation of hematopoeitic stem cells.

I got a reason other than morality, we already have a bunch of people here on Earth, and there are more and more everyday. People living longer certainly isn't going to help that problem....

I got a reason other than morality, we already have a bunch of people here on Earth, and there are more and more everyday. People living longer certainly isn't going to help that problem....

How noble you are.

I say yes, go for it. They get stem cells form things that don't need them, just like they do organs for transplant.

I got a reason other than morality, we already have a bunch of people here on Earth, and there are more and more everyday. People living longer certainly isn't going to help that problem....

Sure it will. ...Eventually. :)

Gah, so many straw men, so little time.

1) Religious people do not object to the use of all stem cells in the use of research. We only object to the use of those that come from fertilized embryos because we believe these are human persons. Most of us base this belief on philosophical grounds. Revelation merely supports these conclusions

2) The cure found in this article came from the man's own stem cells, not from embryonic stem cells. No religious people would have an objection to this, unless they have an objection to medical treatment in general.

3) "But we'd never do that!" as an example of producing human embryos solely for use in medical experimentation or to harvest for cures is an example of a reverse slippery slope, and is just as fallacious. I trust your knowledge of history to come up with examples where people have said "But that can never happen!" and, sure enough, it did.

Meh, we're already aborting babies we might as well put the dead babies to use.

I mean sure we have the dead babies jokes, but I mean jokes that'll benefit mankind...

I mean work that'll make the lame walk...yea....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7735696.stm

Needless to say, this is a major breakthrough - stem cells have actually been used to grow a organ for transplant, and paves the way for widespread use of the process.

However I'm interested in NSG's opinion of the Morality of Stem cell research, and it's wider implications and use - what do you all think?




(I'd like to contribute more but I need sleep. Enjoy)


There is no real morlaity involved. Not if all newborn babies have some umbilical blood drawn from the cord.

The other way of course to get stem cells from adults is via bone marrow, so again no morality involved.

1) Religious people do not object to the use of all stem cells in the use of research. We only object to the use of those that come from fertilized embryos because we believe these are human persons. Most of us base this belief on philosophical grounds. Revelation merely supports these conclusions

Not all religious people believe that.

2) The cure found in this article came from the man's own stem cells, not from embryonic stem cells. No religious people would have an objection to this, unless they have an objection to medical treatment in general.

Woman. The patient was a woman.

3) "But we'd never do that!" as an example of producing human embryos solely for use in medical experimentation or to harvest for cures is an example of a reverse slippery slope, and is just as fallacious. I trust your knowledge of history to come up with examples where people have said "But that can never happen!" and, sure enough, it did.

I'm not even sure how this is relevant to the conversation.

from the WOman's

Fixed.

Gah, so many straw men, so little time.

1) Religious people do not object to the use of all stem cells in the use of research. We only object to the use of those that come from fertilized embryos because we believe these are human persons. Most of us base this belief on philosophical grounds. Revelation merely supports these conclusions.

And again, here we have someone objecting on religious grounds who is curiously silent about left-over embryos from fertilization treatments. What will become of them? Also, what's your take on mankind subverting God's Will by using alternative fertilization techniques in the first place? God made that couple sterile, didn't He?

2) The cure found in this article came from the man's own stem cells, not from embryonic stem cells. No religious people would have an objection to this, unless they have an objection to medical treatment in general.

Well said, and a legitimate point. I applaud this.

3) "But we'd never do that!" as an example of producing human embryos solely for use in medical experimentation or to harvest for cures is an example of a reverse slippery slope, and is just as fallacious. I trust your knowledge of history to come up with examples where people have said "But that can never happen!" and, sure enough, it did.

But not this. You bemoan strawmen and erect in their place a giant slippery slope fallacy. Oh well. One of three is better than none.

1) Religious people do not object to the use of all stem cells in the use of research. We only object to the use of those that come from fertilized embryos because we believe these are human persons. Most of us base this belief on philosophical grounds. Revelation merely supports these conclusions

would you care to go on a little mental trip to the fertility clinic with me?

suppose you are in a fertility clinic. in the room with you is a sleeping toddler and a cooler labeled "2 human blastocysts, ready for implantation" which contains a petri dish with said blastocysts on it. oh, and the fertility clinic is on fire. you only have time to save either the cooler or the toddler but not both on your way out before the flames and smoke overwhelm the joint and the roof collapses and everybody dies. which do you save?

And again, here we have someone objecting on religious grounds who is curiously silent about left-over embryos from fertilization treatments. What will become of them? Also, what's your take on mankind subverting God's Will by using alternative fertilization techniques in the first place? God made that couple sterile, didn't He?



Well said, and a legitimate point. I applaud this.



But not this. You bemoan strawmen and erect in their place a giant slippery slope fallacy. Oh well. One of three is better than none.

That's why we need the strawmen, to put at the bottom of the slippery slope to cushion the fall of everybody sliding down.

I'm not really informed outside of propaganda. If Dempublicents says it's not immoral I'll believe her, she knows what goes on.

i see nothing wrong with it. its just cells. We wouldnt be having this debate if you could get a cure from hair cells. That being said if you do consider these cells alive then obviously you will see a problem with it

i see nothing wrong with it. its just cells. We wouldnt be having this debate if you could get a cure from hair cells. That being said if you do consider these cells alive then obviously you will see a problem with it

All stem cells are alive. They have to be in order to work. A dead transplant won't help anyone.