I would not wish this on anyone truly but hasn’t anyone had the thought that this is very ironic?
The possibility that this and several other debilitating diseases might have come close to a cure by now without His adamant opposition to stem cell research is in fact the first thing I thought of when I heard about it.
I can admire his courage of his convictions but also cannot help but think this could very well of been a preventable tragedy.
I hope this is the right place for this thread…I hope this won’t become a Pit OP neither for people saying tough darts for him or for the others to say I am picking on the Pope for my comments.
I am not religeous but I do wish him well…Parkinson’s disease is one of the cruelest diseases.
It’s a terrible shame that the Pope has Parkinson’s, and he has my sympathy. He’s been showing the symptoms for a long time, and I remember people pointing out the strength of his convictions at the time of the stem-cell controversy, as he knew he had one of these potentially-curable diseases and still believed so strongly that this research was wrong that he urged against it. Whether he was right or wrong, he definitely stands by his convictions.
But I doubt, even with Very Intense Research, that we’d have a usable-on-humans cure for Parkinson’s after just a year or two of research. Wasn’t there a story a few months ago that said that the stem-cell research they are doing is not going as well as had been hoped?
You don’t think if there hadn’t been such opposition against stem cell research from not ONLY the Pope but many others while we might not have found a cure we might have gotten ALOT farther along towards finding one?
If we had been able to put the resourses full blown like we have towards other less controversial research who knows how far along we’d be now.
I suspect there are many scientists would like to work in this area but do not have the stem cells to even begin.
Tommyturtle, he’s entitled to his opinions, and to express them.
Since he holds them because of his religious convictions, and is a religious leader his opinions are influential.
To him, and many people like him SCR is not a viable method of curing disease. Unless the scientific community can find some way to make it acceptable to these people, it wouldn’t be right to trample over their beliefs and opinions, even in the search for a greater good.
For some people, the ends will simply never justify the means.
Wow, I didn’t know that about the Pope. I’m terribly sorry to hear that…my grandpa’s living with Parkinson’s right now, and it’s going to be awful to see him go through what the Pope is experiencing now.
As far as stem-cell research, I am an undergrad eventually going into medical research, and the opportunity to work with stem cells would fascinate me. I don’t really want to argue my case for supporting research (not the time nor place), but I do want to point out the many areas of research that were once considered unethical. At one time, the thought of cutting up corpses for study was an abomination. Some day, the thought of using embryos for stem cells may not seem unethical. However, the Pope is a very strong man to have such conviction, and I honestly don’t think he has a problem with becoming a martyr to his own beliefs. For that reason I support him in making that decision, even if I disagree with the decision itself.
Besides, the possibility of manipulating stem cells into neural tissue, specifically basal nuclei, is way, way off, though - decades, IMO. First we have to understand the role of individual cells in the brain, which is currently being researched. You’ve also got stem cells in your body right now, in your bone marrow, and their limited capacity is also being researched - but don’t you think we should exhaust the possibilities of those first? Just because we’re not currently working with embryonic stem cells doesn’t mean there’s no headway in that area.
My wife was just diagnosed with Parkinson’s last October. It is still in the early stages, although recently complications from other health problems have complicated her therapy and possibly accelerated its effects. Seeing what she is going through now, and from what I have read about what she may have to face in the future, I would accept almost any form of medical research which could lead to a cure or stabilizing treatment for her condition. (As I have occasionally said, only half in jest, I would sacrifice a virgin goat on our front lawn at high noon if I thought it would do any good.) I have frequently expressed annoyance at those who oppose any avenue of research based on their personal beliefs.
That having been said, I must state that if the Pope has been aware of his condition and the possibility that stem cell research could lead to a cure or treatment, and still opposed that research based on his religious beliefs, he has my respect. The fact that I do not share that belief (FTR, I am a lapsed Catholic) does not lessen that respect. Anyone who puts their beliefs above their own self-interest has my respect. If he were to suddenly reverse his opposition to SCR solely because of his health, my opinion of him would lessen.
Of all the Popes in recent history John Paul had so much promise. A short list of his abilities achievements:
1.) Exceptionally multilingual, I deeply respect this.
2.) Successful political intervention in Poland.
3.) Initiated reconciliation with the Jewish faith.
4.) Permitted investigation (howevermuch) into the RCC’s WWII record.
All this was excellent.
What I could not take was to see him in Brazil telling millions of people to “multiply and be fruitful” while orphan children are being murdered on the streets. In a land where HIV is spreading, he prohibits the use of condoms, if only to block transmission between homosexuals. I have seen little if any progress concerning the role of women in the church either.
For this I cannot truly admire the man. He represents a form of repression that should have gone extinct long ago.
PS: Stem cell research has made huge strides.They recently created a human zygote (IIRC) from a single stem cell. The church’s opposition to this vital new medical avenue is more flat earth policy. We do not need aborted fetuses for the research to continue.
But Zenster, the Catholic Church would argue that the “zygote” was a baby, with a right to life, and that to create such children, with the sole purpose of harvesting their cells is immoral.
(Not FTR that this is my opinion, just why that argument doesn’t hold water vis a vis Catholic perceptions of “life”, “death”, “foetus” and “abortion”.)
Which are rather indirectly related, at best. Huge numbers of orphans being murdered on the streets can probably be traced back to a few causes other than the lack of condoms.
And if you are going to engage in premarital or homosexual sex you are going to follow the Church’s teachings on condoms… why?
Anyway, its not stem-cells research that is the Church’s problem, but rather the cavalier way scientists have of killing unborn children to promote their own research. You may not agree with me, but you cannot argue in anything other than axioms. As far as I am concerned, it is of no more superior a morality than killing you for your organs.
First, “The Pope Has Parkinson’s Disease”. Big newsflash:rolleyes:
I feel sorry for anyone who has to endure a horrible disease. But I agree with almost nothing the Catholic church does. The pope is standing in the way of the potential health and well-being of a hugh portion of the world. This is not the way the top spiritual leader should conduct business.:dubious:
Remember the hemming and hawing that occurred after it was announced that Reagan has Alzheimer’s? Changed the Republican position to a certain degree - too bad that won’t happen here.
This is TOO stupid, but the point he was getting at was that it’s irresponsible for the Pope or anyone else to go into a country with such large poor and homeless populations and say “be fruitful and multiply, and don’t use condoms or birth control.” Mother Theresa did this in India, too, I understand. Utterly stupid behavior. And while having premarital or gay sex violates the Church’s teachings, there are plenty of people who are doing either or both and consider themselves Catholics. But I’m not going to stand here and suggest that religious authority figures act in a reasonable, intelligent manner and concern themselves with the health of their followers.
Well, to his eyes, much of the problems that threaten the health and well-being of a huge portion of the world wouldn’t be there if everyone followed his teachings, so it’s a draw, isn’t it?
In my opinion, a top spiritual leader has no business in changing the philosophies of his faith to accomodate the views of those who disagree with him. To the Pope, stem-cell research is immoral because it destroys (or could destroy) innocent lives (embryos are living humans, in the Catholic belief) to save lives, and the Church does not believe that ends justify means. Here is an article explaining the Church’s position on stem-cell research in more depth.
The Church has no objection to stem cells obtained from umbilical chords. Cite. It’s not the research or the medical advancement the Church has a problem with, it’s the destruction of embryos/life. No destruction = no problem.
Also, lest we forget, Rome can issue all the decrees, bulls and encyclicals it wants, but ultimately it’s the civil governments and the man-in-the-street who decide if they pay any attention to it. In the USA, for instance, opposition to SCR, abortion, etc. is driven by political pandering to Fundamentalists.
And in the particular case of fetal SCR, I don’t believe what time may have been gained by dropping specifically Catholic oposition would have been enough to make a difference to Karel Wojtyla’s condition. But even so, to be consistent he is duty bound to not change his position even if it saves his own life, unless and until a way of performing the research without embryos is figured out.