Stem cell medical advances, moral implications -- would you accept them?

Great Debates
1

I’d swear I’ve seen a thread like this somewhere on here before, but I can’t find it. I also can’t decide whether to put it in IMHO or GD but it seems fairly GD-worthy.

Imagine that stem-cell research was legal and thriving… somewhere. England, let’s say, though the ‘where’ is for these purposes unimportant. Breakthroughs are made that cure everything from cancer to the common cold. Organ transplants become easier – heck, you can regrow your own heart, stronger and better than it ever was.

Imagine that at least in the research and early stages of these treatments, human embryonic cells were used.

Would it be wrong to use this new technology? You could not prevent the progress of science, and now that the technology exists, it can save and improve countless lives. Would you allow this technology to be used on you? On your child?

I’m not trying to pick on pro-life people or call them inconsistent and backward. I’m honestly interested in what people would do, what they’d think. I’m most interested in what a pro-life person would say, someone who believes firmly that scientists should not undertake this research.

Personally? I’m pro-choice but anti-abortion. I don’t think I could bear to get one, but I wouldn’t feel right making that choice for another human being. If I could keep from dying – or better yet, keep a loved one from dying – with these imaginary new techniques, I’d jump at the chance.

(and of course if there’s another thread addressing this, by all means mods please close this little bugger :smiley: )

2

I’d have no problem with it. I may not be sure exactly how advanced an embryo/fetus needs to be before it should be considered a human life that shouldn’t be aborted, but I’m very confortable with a ball of undifferentiated cells being way under that line.

3

I’d be first in line for a brand new spankin’ ticker once mine gets a little worn out.

4

My issue is if lets say you need a retina transplant to see again, so you grow this ‘clone’ and harvest the retina for yourself. You now have a blind clone who can develop, but is now blind because of you.

5

Um…you realize that stem cell research isn’t interested in creating a whole second person…just the cornea, right?

6

I mean, Retina…

7

I knew this was a goal, but I though we were much further away from creating specialized parts then a whole unit.

8

[grumpy cynical hat on] Considering that many (but not all) anti-abortion folks suport abortion to save the life of the mother, and many (but not all) anti-abortion folks have themselves been discovered getting an abortion, or facilitating one for their wife or daughter, I think it fair to say that there’s little ideological consistency among some of them, and the second they can benefit from such technology while convienently forgetting their prior ideological stance, they will.

Others, I’m sure, will remain steadfast and refuse such advances - for as long as they remember them. People have awfully short memories. How many vegetarians do you know who refuse childhood vaccines because many of them are grown in animal cells, or contain eggs? How many observant Jews get elective surgery requiring IV’s, when the IV flush is made from pig intestines? People prefer to be ignorant when it means they get what they want. [grumpy cynical hat off)

9

I think that’s probably true, but as I understand it (and I could be wrong) these are two completely different sciences. I think we’re talking apples and oranges here. I’m sure someone will be along who knows more about this.

10

I’ll give it a shot.

Both reproductive and therapuetic cloning start with essentially the same step: Take a human egg, remove the nucleus, and replace it with a diploid nucleus taken from a donor cell. The embryo will then start to divide, and will have the same nuclear DNA as the genetic donor.

In reproductive cloning, that embryo is then implanted in a woman, and (in theory) will develop into a normal baby, be born, and grow at a normal rate. Such a clone would be a near perfect match for organ donation, but you’d have to wait for it to grow up at a normal rate (unless you want a baby’s heart), and it would be perfectly human in every way, so you wouldn’t have the right to harvest it anyway. Harvesting organs from full clones would be both immoral and impractical.

In therapuetic cloning, that embryo is allowed to divide a few times, and then the stem cells are taken from the blastocyst, and could be used for a variety of medical purposes. In theory, they could be used to grow new tissues, even organs, in vitro, but that’s still very far away if it’s at all possible. However, there are more direct applications of stem cells, such as treating damaged nerve tissue, that are potentially much closer to fruition. The rest of the embryo could be destroyed, saved for future use, or possibly even implanted into a woman and grown to a full, perfectly healthy, human being (which destroys the pro-life argument, you’d get your medical stem cells, and create a new life).

I agree with Revtim regarding the moral implications of using stem cells.

However, I am concerned about where all these eggs we need would be coming from. Collecting human eggs is an invasive process, and I’m concerned that a full-fledged stem cell industry would create an entirely new way to exploit women to provide raw materials. However, I think the risk of thsi possiblity is worth the potential gains, we just need to be aware of it as it comes.

11

How is supporting abortion to save the life of the mother hypocritical? If continuing the pregnancy will kill the mother, the unborn baby will die too. If the unborn baby was developed enough to survive the death of its mother then it’s a full term baby, and there’s no need to kill it to save the mother.

Even if one considers a fertillized egg to be a human being with human rights from the moment of conception, why would you imagine that means the unborn baby’s right to life outweighs the mother’s right to life? I honestly don’t understand this objection.

And observant Jews CAN get transplants from pig intestines, if that’s the only way to save their life. In fact, they are religiously REQUIRED to do so. Observant Jews believe it would be sinful to starve to death if eating treyf would save your life. They are obligated to eat treyf rather than die. Of course an observant Jew would first try to get the doctors to use alternatives, but a lifesaving treatment is still a lifesaving treatment, even if it comes from a pig.

Of course, protesting abortion while quietly getting an abortion yourself is hypocritical. But the other positions are completely different and non-hypocritical, and I can’t understand what would lead you to call them hypocritical. Hmmm, there’s a word for accusing people of faults that are actually possessed by the accuser himself…

12

Sorry, clumsy comparison on my part. I should have spelled out: “so therefore, getting a morally reprehensible (in their view, not mine) procedure as outlined in the OP would be OK if it saved a life.”

That’s why I stipulated elective surgery. No one needs elective surgery to save a life. I know that observant Jews are required to break Kosher to save a life. They’re not required to do so for a nose job or a breast implant.

Where did I use the word hypocritical? I said ideologically inconsistent, willfully ignorant of medical techniques and convienently forgetful, which I don’t think are the same thing.

[honestly curious, and unsnarky in every way] Really? What is it? I can’t think of one. I assume, rather than a statement of fact, this was meant to accuse me of being hypocritical. In what way was my post hypocritical?

13

Thanks for the $3 tour. Very informative!

Why couldn’t they take eggs from brain-dead women of child bearing age? It would seem there would be plenty of eggs to meet the demand.

14

I have no moral qualms, as long as the clone doesn’t develop a sentient brain. Tissue, fine, organs, fine; I’d even accept a brain transplant into a brainless clone with no qualms.

15

Eggs aren’t “ripe” inside women. They’re sort of half formed. Each month, one (or sometimes two, in the case of fraternal twins) develops in the presence of female hormones into a fully ripe ovum, and is released from the ovary. In the case of some fertility treatments, egg harvesting for donation, and presumable egg harvesting for other reasons, the woman is given extra hormones by injection, which forces extra eggs to ripen and release in one cycle.

So a dead woman has lots of half-ready eggs, but at most a few mature ova. If you could find a way to mature the ova outside the body, you’d be onto something New and Exciting.

Otherwise, you’re looking at keeping a brain-dead woman on machines as an egg-producing machine, which is sort of gruesome. Given that she can only produce a few ova a month anyway, it’s probably not cost effective while there are willing live donors.

16

But as a one-time harvest (give the injection as part of harvesting other organs), I don’t think that would be gruesome. Maybe not as productive as they’d like, but…take what you can get kinda thing.

17

The injections are multiple, and have to be given over the course of a month, then you have a limited window (I think it’s 18 hours, but I’m not sure) after ovulation to harvest the eggs. I’m not saying you couldn’t go in and harvest the one or two naturally ovulated eggs if a woman happens to die within 18 hours of ovulating - you probably could. But how many women A) know exactly when they ovulate B) communicate that to someone and C) conveniently drop dead with a few hours?

I’m not saying your idea is entirely without merit, but there are nightmare logistics involved. I think it might be more useful to work on ripening eggs outside the human body - then women could donate whole ovaries full of thousands of immature eggs which could be ripened at your leisure. I would donate, even before my death.

18

Can you elaborate on your concern here a bit? How might this lead to exploitation, as opposed to simple commerce?

19

I do know at least one vegan who refuses flu vaccine for this reason. This vegan also won’t eat honey, because occasionally when harvesting the honey the bees’ legs will get ripped off if the harvester isn’t careful.

This individual doesn’t have any kids, though, so I’m not sure how they’d react to childhood vaccines. I seem to remember that the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t allow vaccinations – or is that just blood transfusions and organ donation?