Treatment from stem cells?

Alpha Male

Embryonic stem cell research has got some debate in this country since the government supported the EU regulations on stem-cell research ( http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2003/1125/2066414542HM1STEM.html ).

For those not in the know, here is quick intro to stem cells:
Stem cells are the building blocks for all the tissues in the body. They develop into bone, brain, muscle, skin and all the other organs.
It is believed that stem cells can be used to treat many illnesses from brain disease to diabetes to heart failure. Experts believe they can learn to direct the development of stem cells into various types of new cells that can rejuvenate or even replace ailing organs. For instance, some believe it may be possible to grow insulin-producing cells to cure some forms of diabetes, or nerve cells to restore function for patients paralyzed by spinal injury.
But some groups oppose using stem cells taken from embryos because this results in the death of the embryo.[1]

Therefore do you support research into embryonic stem cells and also, if you or someone close to you suffered from a disease such as alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes or paralyzed or blind would you accept treatment using embryonic stem cells or resulting from research on them?

[1] http://www.islet.org/forum021/messages/18924.htm

For more information
http://www.abpischools.org.uk/resources/poster-series/stemcell/whatisscr.asp
http://www.dti.gov.uk/ibioatlas/textg2_1.html

Alpha Male

Personally, I support research into stem cells and I would also support government funding of research. So typically I would also accept treatment arising from embryonic stem cells and its research, because even though embryos have the potential to develop in human beings they are not sentient and therefore should not be given the same rights as human beings.

Silent Bob

What I always wonder is how developed is the embryo? If it's just a couple of (hundred) cells then how is it any different to a slime mold or a group of amoebae, things we have no qualms about doing weird research on...

Syth

I personally I'm in favour of stem cell research.

Most of the arguments against it stem from the (mistaken) belief that life begins at conception. Thus most of the anti-stem cell people are mostly anti-abortionists.

It's all a bit hypocritical (in a way). If a disease could be cured using stem cells they would probably denonce it as inhumane and barbaric, but I'll bet if they got the disease, or their child, or their brother or sister, or their husband or wife, their views would change very very quickly.

simu

I'm in favour. A two week old embryo is not a human being, just has the potential to develop into one.

So funny how the Catholic Church gets so worked up about the "suffering" of a bunch of cells whilst paying no attention to, say, kids dying of AIDS in Africa.

Syth

kids dying of AIDS in Africa.

Especially since they discourage the use of condoms.

So funny how the Catholic Church gets so worked up about the "suffering" of a bunch of cells

It's the principal of it, I suppose. And the Church believes that the cells have souls and they are being killed. It's silly to just throw somone's argument out just because there is a bigger problem that they aren't agreeing with.

This could easily turn into an abortion debate. The whole crux of the arguemnt rests on the life (or non-existance of) the stem cells. If the stem cells aren't alive, aren't humans, then there is absolutly no reason to not develop the technology. If they are people then it's murder to use them.

So it's not really an argument about stem cells, per se. It all depends on when life starts.

(rant)
And here's why life doesn't begin at conception:
(Right my understanding of conception is when the sperm fertilises the egg, if i'm wrong then i'll edit this and just replace words.)
Proof by contradiction/reducto ad absudium: Assume life begins at conception. Thus there is one cell, so there must be only one person. But what about identical or conjoined twins? They 'grow' out of one cell. So either one person can become two people (one cell (ie person) splitting and becomming 2 people), or identical twins are really 2 people. Since twins are two people, in order for life to begin at conception it must be possible for one person to become two people.

Right, so if one person can become 2 (or more) people, how do we know when one person become 2 people? Conjoined twins show that 2 people can share the same body. So there seems to be no way of telling if we have 2 or more people. This can lead to all kinds of crazy stuff. Thus since assumption that life begins at conception leads to crazy stuff, so it must be false. Thus life doesn't begin at conception.
(/rant)

My 2c....

simu

---

So funny how the Catholic Church gets so worked up about the "suffering" of a bunch of cells

---

It's the principal of it, I suppose. And the Church believes that the cells have souls and they are being killed. It's silly to just throw somone's argument out just because there is a bigger problem that they aren't agreeing with.

Just pointing out how the Church is mostly a dangerous influence in the world today due to its unwillingness to keep in touch with changes in society.

Besides, it is the same problem - kids dying of AIDS also have souls (though i don't believe in the existence of souls myself) and it's a lot easier for the clergy to make speeches about the "evils" of contraception and IVF etc than spend some of the Church's riches on research to cure AIDS.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Syth
Thus life doesn't begin at conception.

Are you saying that an embryo isn't alive? Because that's just silly. How could it grow into a foetus (or two!) if it wasn't alive?

If your argument is that it's not human, then you should say so. Mind you, even that's kinda silly, because how could something non-human become human?

Ah, I get it: it's not a person. Is that it? If you're going to take a dogmatic position in a debate, it helps to be clear what you're being dogmatic about.

chill

Originally posted by oscarBravo Are you saying that an embryo isn't alive? Because that's just silly. How could it grow into a foetus (or two!) if it wasn't alive?

Depends on what you term 'alive'. It has no independent existence, but technically I suppose you could call it 'alive'.

If your argument is that it's not human, then you should say so. Mind you, even that's kinda silly, because how could something non-human become human?

Like every skin cell that you shed every night in bed or walking around during the day is 'human' because it comes from a human ? .... but you can hardly call each cell that drops off your body 'A Human'. You need to be a bit more precide yourself whan you throw smartasses accusations around.

Ah, I get it: it's not a person. Is that it? If you're going to take a dogmatic position in a debate, it helps to be clear what you're being dogmatic about.

Something you could clearly try yourself instead of spending so much time trying to be smartassed.

.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by chill
Depends on what you term 'alive'. It has no independent existence, but technically I suppose you could call it 'alive'.

Neither does my liver, but I'm pretty sure it's alive.

Like every skin cell that you shed every night in bed or walking around during the day is 'human' because it comes from a human ?

Yes. Mind you, those aren't alive.

.... but you can hardly call each cell that drops off your body 'A Human'.

I wouldn't, and I didn't, and you obviously have no idea of the point I was making. Hint: nowhere in my post was the phrase 'A Human' used.

You need to be a bit more precide yourself whan you throw smartasses accusations around.

Accusations? Who did I accuse, and of what? And what, precisely, in my post did you find imprecise?

Something you could clearly try yourself instead of spending so much time trying to be smartassed.

I will, if and when I decide to get dogmatic about something.

Silent Bob

Surely sentience is of importance for this debate? If the organism as a whole is not considered sentient then is there a problem?

Syth

Are you saying that an embryo isn't alive? Because that's just silly.

Not exactly. Animals can be alive, but an animal is not a person. The way I see it, if a thing is a person, then that thing is entitled to all the rights we normally give to people, such as the right to live, to find work, etc.

What I was saying is that a foetus doesn't become a person when it's fetilised/at conception. Many people believe that 'life' (ie personhood) begins at conception and thus abortion, stem cell research, morning after pill etc are killing people with the same rights as you or me. I was showing that personhood doesn't begin when a egg is fertilised, it begins sometime after that. (Don't ask me when personhood begins, because I don't know exactly.)

chill

Aplogies for what may appear to be an off topic interruption but this is really interesting and may affect the need to use such stem cells in the future.

Click Here

Zombrex

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Are you saying that an embryo isn't alive? Because that's just silly. How could it grow into a foetus (or two!) if it wasn't alive?

If your argument is that it's not human, then you should say so. Mind you, even that's kinda silly, because how could something non-human become human?

Ah, I get it: it's not a person. Is that it? If you're going to take a dogmatic position in a debate, it helps to be clear what you're being dogmatic about.

He said "life" does not begin at conception ... life as in a persons life, which is protected by human rights, god, jesus the easter bunny or what ever higher order people believe in ...

no where did he talk about the definition of what is "alive" ... every cell in your body is "alive", do you have a funeral everytime you craze your knee or shead some hair. no because it is not a "life"

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Wicknight
He said "life" does not begin at conception ... life as in a persons life, which is protected by human rights, god, jesus the easter bunny or what ever higher order people believe in ...

That's what I was getting at: the distinction between "life" as in the fact of "aliveness" (e.g. "life on Mars" could be bacteria; it doesn't have to be sentient), and "a [person's] life." As I said, if you're going to be dogmatic, it pays to be precise - which for all its faults, the Roman Catholic church at least is. It claims that a life (note the indefinite article) begins at the moment of conception. Right or wrong, it's certainly precise. Those who disagree with this view tend to be more vague. I'd ask those who believe dogmatically that an embryo is not "a life" - when precisely does it become one? No hand-waving, please.

no where did he talk about the definition of what is "alive" ... every cell in your body is "alive", do you have a funeral everytime you craze your knee or shead some hair. no because it is not a "life"

Of course it's not, and that wasn't my point (see above).

Syth

Aplogies for what may appear to be an off topic interruption but this is really interesting and may affect the need to use such stem cells in the future.

That's really interesting, hopefully it'll work out.

life as in a persons life, which is protected by human rights

Exactly what I was saying. I use say "life" becasue when you talk to anti-abortionists they say life begins at conception (as in human life).

What I was saying is thatwhile there is only one cell there cann't be a human life. I don't know much about how identical twins 'develop' in the womb, but from my logic, while it's popssible for a foetus to split into 2 babies, then there can't be a human life. When it's impossible to get a set of twins, then it's possible to have human life.

Zombrex

personally I would focus attention on the development of the brain .. it is after all the organ that is responsible for conscience and intelligence. If a collection of cells has no brain, is it a "life?" I don't think so.

I don't know enough about biology to pin point when the brain starts to be active, when the neural network of cells starts to build, but I am pretty sure it isn't happening when a embryo is just a collection of dividing cells.

Syth

Consciencousness really is a very tricky thing to try to pin down. It's very hard to show that a grown adult actually is conscience. First you'd have to define what consciencness is. That's no easy feat. The discussion must then move into metaphysics and so forth. It's a very grey area.

If you were to try to have a non-sensational (sensational="You're killing little babies") discussion on it, then you will quickly get into a very grey area and not be able to proceed rationally/logically.

The best thing to do is throw up your arms and say that we don't know exactly what consciousness is, don't know if unborn thinges are alive/sentient/persons, but there is great possibility from stem cells, so we must continue research. If stem cells can help then we will use them, even though we don't really know if they are deserving of personhood.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Syth
Consciencousness really is a very tricky thing to try to pin down. It's very hard to show that a grown adult actually is conscience. First you'd have to define what consciencness is. That's no easy feat. The discussion must then move into metaphysics and so forth. It's a very grey area.

The best thing to do is throw up your arms and say that we don't know exactly what consciousness is, don't know if unborn thinges are alive/sentient/persons,

I agree but I think it is possible to say that a collection of cells, with no form of brain or nevous system (yet) is not conscience, not matter how lose the term is used.

oscarBravo

Syth, I see where you're coming from, and I broadly agree, but:

Originally posted by Syth
... there is great possibility from stem cells, so we must continue research. If stem cells can help then we will use them, even though we don't really know if they are deserving of personhood.

...does this line of reasoning scare the sh*t out of anyone else?

Syth

I can see what that might be scary, but when I say that we don't really know if stem cells have personhood, I mean not that there is a black-and-white definition of conscienceousness/personhood and we don't know if the stem cells are conscienceous. I just mean that conscienceness/personhood is such a hard thing to pin down, that it's not black-and-white, it's shades of consciencousness. So we really should find out if stem cells could help thousands of people. When you think of the huge possible benifits, we really can't leave it alone.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Syth
I can see what that might be scary, but when I say that we don't really know if stem cells have personhood, ...

So we really should find out if stem cells could help thousands of people. When you think of the huge possible benifits, we really can't leave it alone.

But if you don't know something is conscienceous then you must surely air on the side of caution .. i don't believe stem cells could possibly have any form of brain activity or any form of intelligence/conscienceous, but if I did believe there was a chance that they did, I would have to be against research on them until it was made clear they didn't

Syth

But if you don't know something is conscienceous then you must surely air on the side of caution

True, but I'm not saying that it's possible to kow if something is consciencous, but stem cells are so tiny that we can't know, I'm saynig that it's phyically impossible to know if anything is conscieceous. I could try to write down what I think consciencousness is and try to devise some tests and preform them on you, but i'd probably come to the conclusion that you weren't conscience and thus I could preform experiments on you.

I don't think we can really know what consciencousness is, and so we sort of have to play it by ear, and use our best judgments, we can't ask "Is this thing consciencous?" and find the answer with a test, and then preform the experiements when the test says 'Not consciencous', because the vast majority of people will turn out not to be consciencous. So we kind of can't use any test, we just must do what seems right.

dr_manhattan

...that I feel needs to be pointed out, began a while back when someone commented to the effect that "if stem cells are conscious, then it's murder"...

But a human brain is conscious. yet many are donated to and used by science every day - because their owner is dead. The issue of stem cell research (as someone already pointed out) so often becomes an abortion debate because people seem to think that the research means people will be getting pregnant willy nilly (pun intended) and terminating the pregnancy for the purpose of a quick sale to science.

Fact is, stem cells are taken from aborted foetuses. I've never heard, even in the furthest depths of urban myth, of abortion for the purpose of research: so murder NEVER comes into it. Even if you think abortion is murder, STILL stem cell research just isn't in question. The stem cells could come from a car crash, anywhere that a pregnant woman dies.

And as regards the attitude that we MUST research, posted earlier, I am in full agreement. It's very easy for healthy, able bodied people with no life threatening diseases or generation skipping genetic defects to say 'stop that, it's wrong' - stem cells hold a lot of information for us.

If we should stop at stem cells, why not consider all life sacred, and not just stop at animal research but also cease the enslavement of bacteria such as penicillin, the wrongful pursuit of diseases and the pure evil of DNA research? Why not say that the blood cells that die during surgery are too much of a rpice to pay for the benefit of that surgery?

only 200 years ago, a basic knowledge of anatomy and an ability to perform basic surgery could get you burned at the stake: we are here, now because this changed. There is a huge imperative for medical research to continue, and by ignoring it, we become the villagers with the torches and pitchforks, whether we consider ourselves righteous or not.

Good thread though. Nice to see this discussed in Ireland without the usual descent into 'you're a murdering southside heathen' etc. etc.

Syth

that "if stem cells are conscious, then it's murder"...

That's what it all come down to. Are stem cells deserving of personhood.

But a human brain is conscious. yet many are donated to and used by science every day - because their owner is dead

But the person decideds that their brain is to be used. Also the 'owner' of stem cells, the actually ball of cells isn't dead, and it doesn't signa slip of paper saying it can donate itself. It's not really an apt analogy.

Fact is, stem cells are taken from aborted foetuses.

It's hoped that in future doctors could take a cell from you, clone it and harvest the stem cells to make a new spinal cord for when you're in a bad car accident. That way the cells would be genetically identical to your own and hopefully there'd be no rejection issues.

dr_manhattan

okay, sorry I'm new here, but I must ask, what exactly is 'personhood' and why is everyone here using the adjective 'concienceness' whent he word 'conscious' will do...?

By saying 'that's what is comes down to', and refusing to discuss this, you're saying basically that you're right and I'm wrong, am I reading correctly?

I do get a slight idea that you're more interested in debating the rectitude of abortion (AKA the 'personhood' of a clump of cells) here, rather than discuss the ethics of using stem cells. Whether or not 'the idea' is that stem cells in the future will come from cloning or not, fact is, they DON'T come from clones and it'll be a while before they will. People seem so anxious to discuss Science Fiction in debates about scientific research, I mean, even if you like GATTACA, it's a fiction. Deal with the reality.

Fact is, whether or not a person permits their brain to be used for science or not, it's still not 'murder' as was originally said - 'personhood' does not matter, as long as the 'person' was not harvested especially for the research. And that was my main point.

To be honest, continuing from that point, I don't think people should have the right to say "no my body must remain intact after I die and nobody can touch it" - I believe that this simply panders to the comfort zones of self important people: tissues and organs are needed by many people, to deny them by virtue of your corpse being your 'personal property' and you not being comfortable with being cut up when you're dead is, IMHO, incredibly lame and selfish.

And my point remains, whether or not stem cells have 'personhood' or not, whether or not a clump of cells constitutes a conscious person, does not affect whether research on the little buggers is 'right' or 'wrong', it's simply unconnected.

Now, those who argue against stem cell research on the basis that only cosmetics companies register permits for research have MUCH more of a point as regards why the **** should human tissues be wasted in research into creams that make wrinkly californian women look 28: I think this is disgraceful, but it's all part and parcel of the way capitalism has a grip on where science looks.

Not only does the above waste cells that could be used for cancer research and any number of applications, but it also gives ammunition to those who say 'they promised us miracle cures but they just wanna make money' - usually fundamentalists I might add - and generally ****s the whole thing up for everybody...

Syth

OK, sorry, I should have been more clear on what I mean, I'm not good a putting things into words. If a thing is a person, then they deserve rights, like the right to life and so forth. So if an unborn foetus is a person, then you can't really experiment on it.

By saying 'that's what is comes down to', and refusing to discuss this

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm just saying that that's the whole crux of the argument. That's what we should discuss.

The reason I was bringing up abortion is because the issues are closly linked. They both hinge on the same issue of the 'rights' of the unborn.

And my point remains, whether or not stem cells have 'personhood' or not, whether or not a clump of cells constitutes a conscious person, does not affect whether research on the little buggers is 'right' or 'wrong', it's simply unconnected.

Not really, If they are deserving of life, then it's monstrerous to experiment on them.

dr_manhattan

Naw, I don't think you get my point:

Everything is deserving of life that has it. However if that thing dies for reasons unconnected to experimentation, then it is not 'monstrous' to experiment on it. Any question of 'monstrous' behaviour is related to who kills the thing in the first place.

If a new species is discovered tomorrow, yet our only specimen dies, it is not monstrous to dissect it. It is simply something we are compelled to do because dissecting it has scientific value: and whatever we find adds to our knowledge. If we don't kill it, then it's not our fault it's dead.

If the pope or the dalai lama or fidel castro die tomorrow, is it 'monstrous' to experiment on them?

As I say above, nobody aborts foetuses so that they can be used. The idea that abortion and stem cell research is connected is a fallacy, a knee jerk reaction because miscarriages and abortions are where our current supply of stem cells come from. People know about autopsies too, but nobody wants to 'stop autopsy now' because it's wrong, because human life is sacred: this is all hysteria because someone is 'slicing up a baby' in some people's heads.

But by the time these cells are available to science, the deed is done. Science does not kill the organism, science merely uses its remains: but as usual, people are blaming science for something that they themselves do.

I mean, which came first, abortion or stem cell research? I'd imagine abortion did, by a few million years, no? Therefore stem cell research is simply using what could be callously termed a by product of society.

please explain how using stem cells for research instead of flushing them down the toilet is 'monstrous', when it can help so many people?

As I say above, I find it disgusting that the majority of stem cell research winds up being cosmetic related, but if you look at the private sector's effect on science generally, you'll see that 80% of cash devoted to science supports vanity projects with no medicinal value.

That's the free market for ya, laissez faire capitalism... once again, we blame science for what's actually society's fault because they're the guys in the white suits and we think they need taking down a peg or two.

Silent Bob

Originally posted by Syth
Not really, If they are deserving of life, then it's monstrerous to experiment on them.

It's interesting that very few people care about, say, the hundreds of chimps who were infected with HIV in the 70's to see if they could be used to research AIDS, unfortunately their physiology meant that none of them actually developed AIDS and the entire experiment was a waste of life.

Yet almost everybody gets het up when the subject of issue is a collection of cells that are completely undeveloped. Apparently the best source is foetus' under a week old http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/facts.html

I'm not accusing anyone here of anything, Syth's comment just triggered this thought...

dr_manhattan

I concur silent bob - give my love to jay by the way - snoochies.

Now basically vivisection is a whole other kettle of fish, but the parallels with my viewpoint are there - what I'm saying is, if you didn't kill it (i.e. remove it from its parent, whatever) or arrange for it to be killed, then what you're doing can never be monstrous: you are simply dissecting a dead thing to find out about it.

(I also think that most people, if they had cancer which might be treated using stem cell based info, they would give far less of s **** about the issue ;-))

But those monkeys? Pendajo, somebody keeeled those monkeys.

Syth

I know it makes very little sense to be against stem cells when you know what the full story is, but most of the anti-stem cell people aren't very knowedgeable. Most only know how to listen/obey the church.

But you're right, if something dies naturally then there is nothing wrong with experimenting on it. True that the unimplanted foetus/ball of cells would be flushed down the toilet. The problem I think people have with it is that they think those little balls of cells could be implanted and grow into babies, so flushing them down the toilet is murder in their eyes.

Also when you harvest the stem cells you destroy the foetus, and then it can't become a baby. So they think it's murder. The analogy of a dead alien isn't that apt. It'd be better to think of the scientists saying: "This thing is going to die anyway, so we might as well experiment on it." Again these people think it's murder.

Also if this technology takes off, then they probably will need a greater supply than can come from IVF treatment, so when you use stem cell medicine, they'll probably just clone you and use those cells.

The best way to sort this out is if every anti-stem cell person's son, daughter, sistere or brother was to be struck down with a desease that could be cured by stem cells. Then ask them if they are willing to let their loved one die to not kill a ball of cells.

dr_manhattan

I get your point:

But ya see, this is my huge problem with oppsition to the research: it's largely emotive, and I think that if people hadn't been prepared to cross ethical boundaries (like by graverobbing, for instance, to dissect for anatomy) modern medicine would not exist.

People who owe their health and very existence to this medicine shout and scream about 'playing god' every time a procedure is carried out which makes them squeamish or makes them anxious about how their world fits together.

I personally am very glad that there are people out there doing this ****, whatever my reservations about its applications (e.g. the cosmetics thing - I firmly believe that the idea of pureeing babies and using them to make yourself young looking has a biblical ring to it. Like countess Bathory or something, it's macabre) - i don't think of scientists and doctors as heroes, but i do have a lot of respect for them and what they do (again, glaxosmithkline and monsanto employees perhaps not so much, you thieving ****ers ;-))

I found the same thing when i was involved with GM activism. Whereas I wanted transparency in the trials, and public access and greater security about processes which I see as inevitable, many people just wanted to rip up crops and shout slogans about messing with nature.

I think generally speaking, roy scheider's role in jaws has has a subconscious impact on the world of activists, who see themselves as perpetually warning a sleepy, corrupt town about a big shark. Cassandra complex, anyone?

So that we have a situation where people assume that if you're not with them, you're misinformed...

..anyways, I'll shut up now. later folks ;-)

Syth

The stem cell issue is quite an emotive area for some, along with some other issues you mentioned. What we really need is more education about science. Too many people just don't understand it all.