News today of a watershed decision in allowing the use of (artificially) re-created human life to help cure, thus far, incurable diseases: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_881000/881940.stm
The relevant official UK body, with the endorsement of Ministers, has recommended this step be taken. It will go to a free vote in Parliament but given the endorsement, it is likely to become law.
As I understand it, this development allows for a human clone to begin life and the tissue from that embryo human be used to produce a perfect match of any tissue type (nerves, muscles, blood, etc) for that same patient. That ‘life’ will then be terminated. The key, I believe, is to catch the embryonic stem in the first few days and direct it to produce the required tissue.
It seems to amount to beginning a Dolly the sheep type, exact human embryonic clone but then stopping its development once the job (reproduction of tissue) has been accomplished. Hence, it being termed ‘Therapeutic Cloning’
My mind boggles at the range of scientific, legal, theological and philosophical area’s this touches on. I’d be interested in views on anything from the sanctity of life, through is this manufactured abortion ?, realigning the ‘natural’ course of human evolution (although I’m not sure what I mean by that), the relationship between this and the DNA mapping, jees anything and everything.
The ultimate Jeenie seems about to be uncorked – is this the end of life as we know it, Jim.
I dont think that these can be classed as life. It isnt the reproduction intended by nature. I dont see a problem with it. My opinion of it is that it is little more than growing an advanced bacteria to be used as an antibiotic, if you get what I mean. Its uses will be a huge step forward for medical science, but there will always be someone opposed.
For one, I cant see the church having any basis against it.
Its not abortion as it is not life in the first place.
“It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.”
So, the Catholic Church has a view (hold the front page) but is it “exploitation” to have ones own DNA reproduced in embryonic form in order to cure an otherwise incurable disease ?
Also, doesn’t this stance put the Pope in bed with Jehovah Witnesses and blood transfusions ?
This link details the history and thoughts behind JW’s and Blood. Interesting, for me. But it’s also part of a fight to reverse the deaths of thousands of young kids, among others, who’ve died because of their parent’s beliefs. Seems the Watchtower might be coming close to letting JW’s
make up their own minds.
Creating a human being in order to harvest cells from it could be construed as exploitation since it is the creation of a life just to use it and dispose of it; a new life should be created only as part of natural reproduction, with the intention of protecting that life.
Blood transfusion and even organ donation is different:
From the Catechism, passage 2296:
“Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good
sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity.”
It isnt the creation of a life!!! you will not be destroying its “immortal soul” because it will not have one. These will not be foetuses. it is simply growing an organ.
The church argues against contraception, saying (and I’m paraphrasing here) “It prevents the natural method of conception”.
These will not be lives. they will not be abortion. they will be providingt a huge service, and if the church isnt open minded enough to see the possibilities then they are just as bad as the JW for their stance against medical practices (i.e. blood transfusions)
“Creating a human being in order to harvest cells from it could be construed as exploitation since it is the creation of a life just to use it and dispose of it; a new life should be created only as part of natural reproduction, with the intention of protecting that life.”
Could ? - Call me old fashioned but that doesn’t seem an overly defined position.
What’s happening is that someone consents to the beginning of having themselves reproduced in order to harvest the tissue that would save their own lives: That’s your own consent to use your own artificially created tissue to save your own life. In many respects this seems, to me, to be more acceptable than using another person’s organs or blood because it’s your own decision about your own ‘self’. I agree, in a sense it is, of course, the beginning of a ‘life’ but it’s your own life. (This is weird stuff…)
Isn’t the Catholic Church careering toward a ‘sactity of life’ debate based on: Which is more important, the ‘death’ of ones own reproduced embryo or the real, living but dying person. Very tricky territory, IMHO.
gigi -
{b]Blood transfusion and even organ donation is different {/b}
I do understand that the Church wants to prevent reproduction from happening in the first place but in so doing it does put itself in the same position as JW’s insofar as it’s denying a dying individual the (potential) chance to live. It might well be different in many senses from the refusal to allow blood transfusions but the ultimate effect of the ‘policy’ is identical.
I also think it’s sobering to think this isn’t just about Parkinson’s Disease and one or two other terminal illness’s, there’s a whole DNA map waiting to be applied to this.
(Thanks for the Ref, Saint Zero. Lets welcome the JW’s to the nineteenth century)
There is no “conception” in the standard sense of the word here. There is no sperm/egg fusion, no fertilization. What we are talking about is taking a nucleus from one cell (cheek, mammary gland, bone marrow, etc.) and sticking it into another cell (oocyte). Sure, this makes a new cell line, and if given the chance, if implanted in a womb, may develop into a human. But, it is not conception as God intended it.
If we start talking about “life begins at conception” we run into all types of problems. 4/5 pregnancies are naturally aborted. This includes a sizable chunk (I’ll see if I can find some data tomorrow) that never implant in the uterus. See bold face above. If start considering this 4/5 bit life, we tread on really thin ice. 80% of pregnancies end in murder. Ectopic pregnancies, where a preimplanted conceptus implants in the Fallopian tube, are now given the full “right to life” as the mother. Of course, the conceptus has a 0% survival rate there, and the mother has a low survival rate if the conceptus is not removed. And, I should have gotten 9 extra months of car insurance savings since I turned 25 on July 31, but I was conceived sometime at the beginning of November (probably).
This can have real, positive benefits for humanity. Stem cell research can lead to cures not treatments for things like Alzheimer and Parkinson disease. We will be able to regrow organs, without a lifetime of harsh immunosuppressive therapy. This is the first step to regrowing limbs for amputees, regrowing hearts for congestive heart failure, regrowing lungs for COPD, regrowing livers for chronic hepatitis.
I wonder whether the church will agree with that reasoning though. If this embryo is implanted within the womb it will turn out to be a human being eventually will it not? The absence of sperm does mean it isn’t conception as we define it, but does that mean it isn’t to be considered human? Hmmm. Considering we have the ability to implant a cloned embryo into a woman and have a viable human being turn out, perhaps the church is worried about losing their monopoly on virgin birth?
Who will get benefits of this artificial fetus research to potenially prolong life? Only the rich?
And what is wrong the the JW’s stand in regards to blood transfusions? If you visited Britain recently for six months, your blood is rejected for fear of mad cow disease. Blood and blood products are banned in Britain for the same reason. The JW position is looking better and better all of the time.
It never gets out of the Zygote stage (it barely has time to enter it) before the they draw the stem cells to grow the organ cells. They never grow a full organ, just generate new cells to inject.
I guess my answer to that depends on which health care system you live with.
I’ve never been insured so I don’t exactly know the intricacies of the US system but I believe the question of whether (or not) someone would be entitled to this kind of life saving treatment is dependent on their health care policy terms. If that’s correct then you must be right (that only those who could afford extensive cover would benefit). However, it’s also true to say that, over time, methods are improved in the process which make new developments an economically viable proposition for the humble masses. Isn’t that how progress works ?
We work with a different system here but let not get into that.
The JW’s historic position on blood transfusions appears to have less to do with (what were – thanks to Thatcher) unregulated British slaughterhouse practices and rather more to do with tenet’s of their faith. It seems (following the link posted above) that that is changing.
I don’t understand this – blood is banned in Britain ?. Things are more serious than I thought.
On another tangent, there (obviously) isn’t here an issue that involves the naturally evolutionary process as I initially thought. It seemed to me that the pace of (further) evolution of the species was likely to be usurped by the pace of medical developments. Natural selection, in its wider sense, would still play it’s role but if everyone would be equally ‘fit’ and equally capable of ‘survival’.
Just seemed to me that the ‘natural weeding out’ of weak elements in the genetic pool that occurred prior to modern medicine was now likely to be overridden to a much more significant extent. Seemed an interesting idea.
