what's the problem with stem cell research?

[annieo]

Go the idea for this from another thread, so thanks sb129.

The vatican, in their finite wisdom, have now included participating in stem cell research as a sin. And I know that George W has also made it difficult for publicly funded medical research in this area.

I am amazed, as it is an area which holds such promise, and at the very least, stem cells give people who have depleted bone marrow reserves (due to chemo or leukemia) a fighting chance. Not too mention all of the other possible uses for these flexible cells (MS, cancers, etc.).

I suspect it is because some people erroneously think that the only source of stem cells are aborted fetuses. This is NOT the case!

Right after my son was born, they harvested stem cells from the umbilical cord, after it was cut (they used a syringe directly into the part of the cord that was still attached to me, before the placenta detached). Nobody was hurt, it was quick and painless, and these same cells are on dry ice in a lab (rent paid by me) so that if, god forbid, he needs marrow, there is a match. And possibly for me, his sister, his dad. More likely to work than looking for a donor. And less invasive.

So why do certain religious groups have a problem with this?

[Trialbyfire]

Stem cell research has incredible possibilities. Why any organized religious entity would have difficulty with using to the maximum, the "God given ability of intelligence", truly defeats me. I'm 100% certain, that God did not bring forth a babbling prophet, so the Church could deem it a sin....

[LucreziaBorgia]

My cousin was paralyzed by a road side bomb in Iraq, and the very government he served will not allow the research that could lead to him regaining his ability to walk. Its frustrating. I'm hoping to see some changes in the next few years.

[annieo]

I'm starting to wonder when getting a blood transfusion will be against the law! As it is with the jehovahs. Another thing I can't get my head around.

And sorry about your cousin LB. Horrible. I hope it changes sooner than in a few years.

[Pyro]

I suspect it is because some people erroneously think that the only source of stem cells are aborted fetuses.

 

This is my guess why some people are against stem cell research.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I am proud to say that last week I signed a petition to help try and make SCR legal in my state.

[annieo]

This is my guess why some people are against stem cell research.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I am proud to say that last week I signed a petition to help try and make SCR legal in my state.

 

Very good for you! I hope it makes a difference.

So why are so many people misinformed? Ignorance, or should I smell a rat?

[Pyro]

Very good for you! I hope it makes a difference.

So why are so many people misinformed? Ignorance, or should I smell a rat?

 

I think that once the words "aborted baby" are mentioned that those who are opposed to abortion automatically refuse to consider SCR as anything beneficial and refuse to listen to the alternatives.

[Citizen Erased]

I neither support nor oppose. I am Catholic, yet I also sympathise with the people who it will benefit from it. Like LB's cousin for instance. I would be incredibly heartless to say he should accept he can no longer walk because it is against what God wishes, just because the Pope says so I really hope it happens for him LB.

[annieo]

I neither support nor oppose. I am Catholic, yet I also sympathise with the people who it will benefit from it. Like LB's cousin for instance. I would be incredibly heartless to say he should accept he can no longer walk because it is against what God wishes, just because the Pope says so I really hope it happens for him LB.

 

Your response troubles me. WHY would you not support?

I'm Catholic as well, but I don't leave my brain at the door when I go to mass. How does SCR hurt anyone, or contravene the belief in right to life? Do I not have the right to question the decisions of the Pope/vatican? Aye, there's the rub ... no I don't. They supposedly have the ear of god, and therefore his wisdom. I wish I could believe it.

As I have already said, from personal, physical experience, you can harvest stem cells without harming life. Why have the leaders of our church decided that this is a sin? It makes NO sense.

[Citizen Erased]

Your response troubles me. WHY would you not support?

I'm Catholic as well, but I don't leave my brain at the door when I go to mass. How does SCR hurt anyone, or contravene the belief in right to life? Do I not have the right to question the decisions of the Pope/vatican? Aye, there's the rub ... no I don't. They supposedly have the ear of god, and therefore his wisdom. I wish I could believe it.

As I have already said, from personal, physical experience, you can harvest stem cells without harming life. Why have the leaders of our church decided that this is a sin? It makes NO sense.

 

You have every right to question the decisions of the Pope. As I do to follow them. Other than that I have nothing further to give to the discussion other than what I already posted.

[DutchGuy]

My cousin was paralyzed by a road side bomb in Iraq, and the very government he served will not allow the research that could lead to him regaining his ability to walk. Its frustrating. I'm hoping to see some changes in the next few years.

 

The very government that ignored "Thou shall not kill" while acclaiming to be a 'nation under god'. How do you people put up with this hypocrisy?

[Moose]

I don't think the Church is against stem cell research at all. As long as it's not harming any other life.

 

What the Church is worried about is SCR becoming justification for one to abort their child's life.....that's all, that's it....end of thread....

[FleshNBones]

The best source on the opinion of the Catholic Church is the vatican.

How many people here actually know what it is?

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2004/documents/rc_seg-st_20040927_cloning_en.html

2) There are two potential sources of stem cells for human research, firstly "adult" stem cells, which are derived from the umbilical cord blood, the bone marrow and other tissues and secondly "embryonic" stem cells, which are obtained by the disaggregation of human embryos. The Holy See opposes the cloning of human embryos for the purpose of destroying them in order to harvest their stem cells, even for a noble purpose, because it is inconsistent with the ground and motive of human biomedical research, that is, respect for the dignity of human beings. However, the Holy See applauds and encourages research using adult stem cells, because it is completely compatible with respect for the dignity of human beings. The unexpected plasticity of adult stem cells has made it possible to use this type of undifferentiated, self-renewing cell successfully for the healing of various human tissues and organs, (1) particularly in hearts damaged after myocardial infarction. (2) The multiple therapeutic achievements that have been demonstrated using adult stem cells, and the promise they hold for other diseases, such as neurodegenerative disorders or diabetes, make efforts to support this fruitful avenue of investigation an urgent matter (3). Above all, it is universally agreed that the use of adult stem cells does not entail any ethical problems.

 

3) By contrast, research using human embryonic stem cells has been hampered by important technical difficulties (4). Embryonic stem cell experiments have not yet produced a single unqualified therapeutic success, not even in animal models (5). Moreover, embryonic stem cells have caused tumor in animal models (6) and might seed cancer if administered to human patients (7). Unless these grave hazards are removed, embryonic stem cell experiments would not have any clinical application (8). Technical problems aside, the need to extract these cells from living human embryos raises ethical questions of the highest order.

[FleshNBones]

Here is a better article on the subject.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20000824_cellule-staminali_en.html

 

The authors are very well informed.

[Enema]

Here's an article about how they grew this guy a new jaw using his own stem cells.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL012172320080201?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

 

Researchers have recently found that fat contains stem cells which can be directed to form a variety of different tissues.

 

They isolated stem cells from the patient's fat and grew them for two weeks in a specially formulated nutritious soup that included the patient's own blood serum.

 

I can't find it, but I also read another article the other day that mentioned they had the ability to turn any old cell into a stem cell by treating them with a solution of proteins.

 

Cool times to be living in.

[FleshNBones]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2004/documents/rc_seg-st_20041021_migliore-cloning_en.html

If adult stem cell research has already demonstrated conditions for success and raises no ethical questions, it is only reasonable that it should be pursued before science embarks on cloning embryos as a source for stem cells, something which remains problematic both scientifically and ethically.

 

Does this mean we are opposed to scientific progress? Rather, we would say that the choice is not between science and ethics, but between science that is ethically responsible and science that is not. Thousands of lives have been saved by adult stem cells, most often in the treatment of leukemia and other cancers. Solid scientific evidence has now established that adult stem cell transplants are safe, and preliminary results suggest they will be able to help people with Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, heart damage and dozens of other conditions. The danger is that this progress toward cures will be halted or slowed down by the diversion of attention and resources towards the cloning of human beings as a potential source of stem cells.

I like this argument because nobody here has ever made it, or at least none that I'm aware of.

Should we risk slowing down or even halting the progress being made with adult stem cells for the pursuit of cloning or some form of fetal stem cell usage? It never worked, and there is no proof that fetal stem cells will ever, or could ever work. Shouldn't we focus our resources on what works, and what has been proven to work? I would say so.

[Enema]

None of us are in the field of stem cell research, or know anything about it apart from a few quoted articles.

 

I don't think we're in any position to say what the experts "should" focus resources on.

[FleshNBones]

None of us are in the field of stem cell research, or know anything about it apart from a few quoted articles.

 

I don't think we're in any position to say what the experts "should" focus resources on.

Politics aside, do you think we should pour our tax dollars into something that doesn't work?

 

The experts have agendas of their own. They want money from grants, and they also want to distinguish themselves. The cloning efforts have been a failure so there is room for poineers.

[disgracian]

Nothing works until somebody makes it work. Surely you can grasp this entry level observation.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

Nothing works until somebody makes it work. Surely you can grasp this entry level observation.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

What an astute observation of your own!

 

So, my car won't start unless I start it?

 

I think what was being said is that since we have no clue if killing babies for stem cells will even produce any "cures," why should we do it when we know that adult stem cells will work, and we do not have to end any lives.

 

Can you imagine the stink if we decided to terminate the lives of the elderly and the prisoners on death row so that those who have illnesses that could be cured (theoretically yet never proven) by stem cell research could at least have the opportunity?

 

Why don't we? The old have had a good life and will die anyway. The death row inmates will be put to death soon and at least their lives could have some benefit for others. And hey, we could harvest their organs for transplant, too.

 

I assume to most of us this sounds absurd yet we have no difficulty ending the lives of babies in the womb who have the possibility of a long and prosperous life.

 

So it goes only in a world will some lives are considered valuable while others are given no rights.

 

Sorry, Moose, this thread won't end that easily.

[blind_otter]

 

I think what was being said is that since we have no clue if killing babies for stem cells will even produce any "cures," why should we do it when we know that adult stem cells will work, and we do not have to end any lives.

 

You don't have to kill babies to get stem cells. Their stem cells are readily available in the placenta.

 

I assume to most of us this sounds absurd yet we have no difficulty ending the lives of babies in the womb who have the possibility of a long and prosperous life.

 

While I am personally opposed to abortion, I support the right of other women to get abortions - mainly as a harm reduction tactic. Women have been terminating pregnancies since time out of mind - since they knew that they could. Some used herbs, others used self-induced physical injury....there are a lot of non medical options, and women who have unwanted pregnancies will resort to that if abortion is made illegal, resulting in more tragic deaths, IMHO.

 

That said - if fetuses are being aborted, why not use their stem cells?

[OpenBook]

You don't have to kill babies to get stem cells. Their stem cells are readily available in the placenta.

 

BO, do you know if you can donate your placenta to medical science after you give birth? Has the doctor (or anyone else - the hospital, a nurse, etc.) brought this up at all? I'm curious...

[FleshNBones]

BO, do you know if you can donate your placenta to medical science after you give birth? Has the doctor (or anyone else - the hospital, a nurse, etc.) brought this up at all? I'm curious...

I think you can save the placenta, and umbilical chord for your child. He can use it if he ever gets really sick.

[disgracian]

I think what was being said is that since we have no clue if killing babies for stem cells will even produce any "cures," why should we do it when we know that adult stem cells will work, and we do not have to end any lives.

I was going to correct this absurdity, but I have already been beaten to the punch.

 

Are valid pro-life arguments really so thin on the ground that their proponents need to resort to such ridiculous hyperbole and myth to make a point?

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

I was going to correct this absurdity, but I have already been beaten to the punch.

 

Are valid pro-life arguments really so thin on the ground that their proponents need to resort to such ridiculous hyperbole and myth to make a point?

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Then I will challenge the so-called absurdity, and point out that it is not an absurdity. I am not certain where your rant regarding this being "ridiculous hyperbole and myth" originates. However, embryonic stem cells come from embryos last I knew.

 

Where do embryonic stem cells originate? In an embryo. The dispute is regarding the fact that human embryos need to be destroyed to obtain them. Read the following....

 

What are stem cells?

 

Stem cells are the master cells of the human body. They can divide to produce copies of themselves and many other types of cell. They are found in various parts of the human body at every stage of development from embryo to adult. Stem cells taken from embryos that are just a few days old, can turn into any of the 300 different types of cell that make up the adult body.

 

Where do the embryos come from?

 

Embryonic stem cells can be taken from spare human embryos left over from fertility treatments, or from cloned human embryos developed in the laboratory. This can only occur if fully informed consent has been obtained from the donors. One method for making cloned embryos is called nuclear transfer. During this process, genetic material or DNA from a donor is inserted into an empty egg cell. After the resulting hybrid cell has been 'activated' (normally using an electrical pulse), it begins to divide, creating new cells and forming a cloned embryo.

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=1203

 

So, when we refer to embryonic stem cells, then we refer to those taken from embryos which IMO are human lives that are being destroyed for use by other adult humans.

 

So take back the punch and research your post before posting.

 

Blind Otter.....

 

That said - if fetuses are being aborted, why not use their stem cells?

 

As is probably well known, I do oppose abortion. Hence, ending their lives so that we can do research using their bodies is not an option IMO. Based on this logic, then my scenarios regarding old people and prisoners is equally valid. And then I am greatly concerned for the value we place on human lives.

 

You don't have to kill babies to get stem cells. Their stem cells are readily available in the placenta.

 

That is correct. But this was discovered after the realization that simply destroying human lives would not be acceptable by all. The controversy is not regarding placenta stem cells nor is it regarding adult stem cells. NO LIVES NEED TO BE DESTROYED WHEN USING PLACENTAS. The controversy is regarding (as said before) the destruction of embryonic human lives for research. (Where are those who are opposed to research on animals? Do we value animals more than humans?)

 

Here is an article regarding the use of placenta for stem cells.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/04/12/placenta.stemcells/index.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1431987.htm

 

While these are stem cells that are "embryonic" or rather primitive, they can be utilized without destroying any embryos.

 

Very good point, BO, and what is so striking is that if embryonic stem cell research had bee approved, then this method may never have been pursued as a better alternative. This method should end all controversy while still allowing research into potential cures for all mankind.