Every Stem Cell's Sacred?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid


I partly agree with you, I think it's better to add life to your years instead of adding years to your life. However, if it was up to me, I would get both

Isn't that more down the road of keeping people alive mechanically in an intensive care unit ?

Transplanting of organs is nothing near such - a new kidney, heart, liver etc isn't only about prolonging life but certainly also about improving of life quality. There is a heck of a difference between going to dialysis on regular basis due to a malfunctioning kidney and taking pills after a transplantation.

[DanS]

Research on stem cells is great, but using embryonic stem cells is a show-stopper for me. I dislike much of the political dialog revolving around this, because the other side seeks to run roughshod over this clear distinction (it's dishonest debate).

This method is being taken seriously by the ethicists, and we'll have to wait to see what opinions they have formed. I understand that the RC church is taking a serious look at it.

[Winston]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I don't mind that you choose to not use such treatments if you don't like them, but that should not affect other peoples wish to do such.

Which I haven't implied that it should, so I don't see why you bring that up.

I'm deeply touched by your having no objections to the way I would personally choose to seek treament, though.

What exactly are your reasons to think these treatments are unethical ?

Hmm, it doesn't quite work that way when you're talking about ethical reservations. You might as well ask, what are my reasons for considering it unethical to commit fraud? No, the difference is not whether there is any harm done or not. That would be a reason to feel sorry for the people who had the fraud committed against them. The reason I personally consider fraud to be unethical, and something I would never do? I don't know. It would go against my instincts. Which doesn't really cut the matter of why?

Even if there were a guarantee I wouldn't get found out, even if I were 100% sure that the people I did it against would never even notice. If I were in a position to fraud 1 million people out of 10 Cents each, "by accident", I couldn't. No reason for it that I could put forward, other than it would go against my instincts.

And the same with the transplants. Now I'm not saying people who favour organ transplants are to be likened to frauds, not at all. I'm just trying to give a parallel example of how personal ethics influence our way of looking at things, in a way that is not easily explained to others.

People will divide themselves along the lines of their personal ethical beliefs (provided they're even aware that there is cause to have ethical considerations in the matter. I get the feeling that for a lot of people, ethics don't even enter into the organ transplant example). With fraud, I would think that the vast majority of people would find it unethical. I could be wrong though. With organ transplants, some will find it ok, others won't. Either way, you can't convince people of something if it goes against their personal ethics.

[Terra Nullius]

Gotta admit. I still find organ transplants kinda creepy.

I don't think I could, in good conscience refuse the harvesting of my own organs, but I know it's a choice I'd prefer not to make.

[Winston]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What if you were both in a boat lost at sea and starving?

For argument's sake, can I have a loaded gun with me?

[BlackCat]

I really don't get the fraud comparison. You have to either volonteer to be an organ donor or have permission from relatives. Even if you are a volunteer, relatives can say no.

Ok, certain countries have practices that works otherwise, but I don't consider that a part of this discussion.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Isn't that more down the road of keeping people alive mechanically in an intensive care unit ?

Transplanting of organs is nothing near such - a new kidney, heart, liver etc isn't only about prolonging life but certainly also about improving of life quality. There is a heck of a difference between going to dialysis on regular basis due to a malfunctioning kidney and taking pills after a transplantation.

I'm not sure what your point is. Anything that improves your quality of life is good in my book. If it also prolongs your life then it's great. On the other hand, actions that just keeps you alive longer, but in a miserable state, are pretty worthless IMO.

[Winston]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I really don't get the fraud comparison. You have to either volonteer to be an organ donor or have permission from relatives. Even if you are a volunteer, relatives can say no.

So? Most frauds tend to volunteer too.

Anyway, as I said, it wasn't a direct comparison. It was meant as a parallel example of how individual ethics govern our personal choices for no apparent rational reason.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Terra Nullius
Gotta admit. I still find organ transplants kinda creepy.

I don't think I could, in good conscience refuse the harvesting of my own organs, but I know it's a choice I'd prefer not to make.

You are just a normal human being that doesn't like to think about your own mortality.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What if you were both in a boat lost at sea and starving?

http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/donumvitae.htm

The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings. ... Also, in the case of dead fetuses, as for the corpses of adult persons, all commercial trafficking must be considered illicit and should be prohibited.

Doesn't really answer the question, I know.

I would guess that the RCC would consider post-mortem cannibalism to be licit where it was necessary in the interests of survival, but I'm not certain.

If that were the case, then it should also be licit to use material from dead embryos to treat a life-threatening illness, which would kinda conflict with the above reference.

But then, none of that is actually a likely scenario - ie, proven therapeutic value in the re-use of embryo corpses.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Winston


So? Most frauds tend to volunteer too.

I really can't follow your thoughts - are you saying that victims of fraud are volounteering in getting swindled and actually knowing that they are ?

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I don't see anything wrong with using material from something that is going to die anyways

Interesting

So let's say, for argument's sake, there is a known chance of diminishing the viability of an embryo through using this technique (through epigenetic or other mechanisms). Would you still be OK with performing the procedure?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Research on stem cells is great, but using embryonic stem cells is a show-stopper for me. I dislike much of the political dialog revolving around this, because the other side seeks to run roughshod over this clear distinction (it's dishonest debate).

I don't understand what the freakin' problem is. Should real people die of diseases that might be curable because a blob of cells that has no chance of ever becoming a human being has some intangible quality according to a bunch of people's invisible friend?

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by BlackCat
You are just a normal human being.

So you mean I don't really agree with Winston??

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Terra Nullius
Would you still be OK with performing the procedure?

It's not something you'd do to an embryo in the womb, but a frozen embryo which is just going to be destroyed eventually has no chance at viability anyway.