Switzerland endorses stem cell research.

swiss

From BBC news.

Voters in Switzerland have strongly backed a new law permitting research on the stem cells of human embryos.

Two-thirds of voters said "yes" to the government's proposals, opposed by religious and left-wing groups.

Nationwide referendums are common in Switzerland, but this vote makes it the first country in the world to put the controversial issue to a popular vote.

Scientists believe stem cells may hold the key to treatments for illnesses including Parkinson's and diabetes.

Switzerland, which is a world leader in medical and pharmaceutical research, has so far not permitted research on human embryos.

Personally, I think this could be the impetus to prompt other European states to legalise stem cell research. The US is unlikely to follow suit due to their highly conservative administration (so sad, so sad). Stem cell research has undoubtedly created a great deal of controversy between pro-life and research groups, but it looks like there has been an opinion shift towards research in Switzerland. I hope this is replicated across Europe.

OfflerCrocGod

I fail to see the problem in this research. I really can't see why it's such a big deal. If a doctor wants to mess around with aborted fetuses "go ahead!" I say, of course I will admit a certain lack of knowledge on the subject because of a certain lack of interest on my part but that's mainly because - like the GM food debate - I really am not seeing the horror of this research. Does anyone know why this should not go ahead?

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

TomF

There is a story in the news today about stem-cells derived from umbilical cord blood or tissue being successfully used to treat a woman who had been paralysed by spinal injury. The story comes out of South Korea, and I am not going to get too excited until I read more detail and see medical reaction. However, if true, this is an indication that stem-cells other than embryonic can be used to do great things.

I personally think that much of the clamor for allowing embryonic stem-cell research is based on two agendas: one that supports in-vitro fertilisation and the creation of "perfect babies" or selected-sex babies or embryos made to supply stem-cells; and the other agenda which supports anything, and I mean anything, that keeps abortion as a tool for avoiding the responsibilities attached to pregnancy and also as a tool aimed at reducing births among the "lower orders of humanity" in the slums of a country, or in the Third World.

If this South Korean story turns out to be correct in its details, there is going to be a very bright spotlight turned on these agendas.

Sparks

I personally think that much of the clamor for allowing embryonic stem-cell research is based on two agendas: one that supports in-vitro fertilisation and the creation of "perfect babies" or selected-sex babies or embryos made to supply stem-cells; and the other agenda which supports anything, and I mean anything, that keeps abortion as a tool for avoiding the responsibilities attached to pregnancy and also as a tool aimed at reducing births among the "lower orders of humanity" in the slums of a country, or in the Third World.

Then perhaps you need to do some actual research so that your personal opinion isn't either science fiction the likes of which we're about a century away from or a fantasy that would give psychologists researching persecution complexes a lot of material to work with.

bonkey

BBC Article wrote:

The proposals are strict. Research would be permitted only on cells from embryos less than seven days old which were left over from fertilisation treatment and due for destruction anyway.

From what my girlfriend was reading out to me when she was filling in her own vote, the proposals are far stricter than even this makes them out to be. One additional condition is, I believe, that the "parents" (if this is technically the correct term) of the embryo must also grant permission in writing for it to be used.

jc

TomF

Sparks wrote:

Then perhaps you need to do some actual research so that your personal opinion isn't either science fiction the likes of which we're about a century away from or a fantasy that would give psychologists researching persecution complexes a lot of material to work with.

What in the world do you mean by that?

Gurgle

Sparks wrote:

Then perhaps you need to do some actual research so that your personal opinion isn't either science fiction the likes of which we're about a century away from or a fantasy that would give psychologists researching persecution complexes a lot of material to work with.

So which of the below, in your thoroughly informed personal opinion is a century away from possible ?
- in-vitro fertilisation
- the creation of "perfect babies"
- selected-sex babies
- embryos made to supply stem-cells

Or was your objection aimed at this bit:

TomF wrote:

the other agenda which supports anything, and I mean anything, that keeps abortion as a tool for avoiding the responsibilities attached to pregnancy

, which IMHO is an excellent point and well stated.

Sparks

I was referring to the concept that we could "create perfect babies" Tom - we can't do that yet. We barely know how to add features from one species to another (a technique which has had very positive benefits for humanity, thank you very much - frostproof tomatoes for an example, which mean we can grow more food); the very concept of fine-tuning things like morphological features of an individual or their intelligence level or those kind of changes are light-years past where we are right now. For example, the Human Genome Project has managed to transcribe the entire human genome - but that doesn't mean we've translated it, just that we've copied it down onto paper. There aren't enough genes in the genome for our previous theories of how genes control development to be correct - now geneticists are thinking it's a far more complex picture with genes interacting to bring about features in the individual. All of which means that while you might be able to increase the odds of producing a baby with blue eyes, you can't deliberately do so for an individual child. It's beyond our level of understanding at present. And not by a small amount - we're like pre-einstein physicists looking at the discrepencies in Mercury's orbit and suddenly finding out that they aren't the result of observational error or another unknown planet.

As to "the other agenda which supports anything, and I mean anything, that keeps abortion as a tool for avoiding the responsibilities attached to pregnancy", that's not only a moral judgement on a group of wholly unrelated people who have abortions for as many reasons as there are people in that group, it's also an attempt to smear all their names simultaenously.

And "a tool aimed at reducing births among the "lower orders of humanity" in the slums of a country, or in the Third World" is a phrase that's best reserved for some late-night rerun of the X-files than a discussion about the most promising avenue of medical research this century, if not ever.

SkepticOne

So was there much media debate in Switzerland over this? What were the pros and cons of the issues that were highlighted? (addressing this to anyone posting from that country).

bonkey

SkepticOne wrote:

So was there much media debate in Switzerland over this?

Not an exceptional amount that I recall....but I don't really listen to many current affairs programs over here - my comprehension of Schweezer-Dootsch (pronounciation-oriented spelling) isn't up to that.

What were the pros and cons of the issues that were highlighted? (addressing this to anyone posting from that country).

Pro: medical research potential.
Con: its against the catholic church's teachings, and is another step along the path of further devaluing human life.

That more or less sums it up from what I heard.

jc

TomF

Well, when it comes to urging any and all kinds of stem-cell research, as did "Superman" Christopher Reeves and Mrs. Ronald Reagan, I think those people assume that biological research coupled with super computers is on the verge of producing a cure for every disease and disorder. I am also pretty sure that plenty of people think that in-vitro fertilisation coupled with stem-cell research and super computers can produce the perfect baby having: dark skin that won't sunburn, blue eyes more resistant to cataracts, an immunity to alcoholism, the ablility to digest gluten, curly or kinky hair resistant to getting cowlicks and so-on.

I think people who live with biochemical science students (I fall into that fortunate class), and have nightly lectures on the ins and outs of the subject, are not so likely to assume that stem-cells are the be-all and end-all.

However, opinion-makers who dominate the news media seem (to me, at least) to be found in the former class - those who think Science (note the capital letter) has found the blueprint and directions to perfecting humanity, and that anyone who counsels a moral, cautious approach to harvesting stem-cells is anti-intellectual and anti-Science. Many who swallow everything these opinion-makers say and write probably believe way too much of what the adventure and science-fiction movie scriptwriters and directors put on the silver screen.

Sparks

Well, when it comes to urging any and all kinds of stem-cell research, as did "Superman" Christopher Reeves

Who ironically dies only a few weeks before the announcement that started this thread off, that of a treatment for paralysis victims...

Which to me, at least, points out that he was correct in what he was calling for - which was not fully unregulated research, by the way TomF. If you do live with a biochem student, ask him/her about Ethics Committees and discover that they do not, in fact, get to play at being minor deities in the lab. It's not a case of "Hey Jimbob, I know what we'll do this week - let's grow an ear on the back of a mouse! It'll be cool!".

Oddly enough, the very people that are being assumed to be those who want to plough ahead with unrestricted research are the ones who thought through this issue a long time ago and in great detail and as a result set up the restraints everyone is now saying should be in place...

Magnolia_Fan

swiss wrote:

From BBC news.


Personally, I think this could be the impetus to prompt other European states to legalise stem cell research. The US is unlikely to follow suit due to their highly conservative administration (so sad, so sad). Stem cell research has undoubtedly created a great deal of controversy between pro-life and research groups, but it looks like there has been an opinion shift towards research in Switzerland. I hope this is replicated across Europe.

Didn't the U.S rule that stem cells can be used for science but only in certain events..I forget now but something to do with Embryo lol

OfflerCrocGod

TomF wrote:

If this South Korean story turns out to be correct in its details, there is going to be a very bright spotlight turned on these agendas.

As far as I'm aware not all stem-cells are created equally, by that I mean adult and cordal stem-cells are useful and can be used for developing new medicines but embryo stem-cells are far more versatile and powerful in that they are capable of a lot more then other type of stem-cells. Also I think embryo research has had something like a decade less research put into it then adult stem-cell research, so to compare the fruits of the two branches of stem-cell research is unfair - more time is needed.

TomF

Well, I seem to have missed our youngest's last evening lecture on biomedical science, but this morning I caught a glimpse of a very interesting article on stem-cell research. Here's a starting quote:

"When the [U.S. federal government's research] funding restriction breaks down, as I predict it will, reports of stem-cell miracles will rapidly fade. 'Breakthroughs' will be reported on schedule, as always, but actual cures are unlikely to ensue. That's what happened with the Human Genome Project. (Remember that?) It was wholly hyped, fully funded, and given its own employment center at the National Institutes of Health. Once that was accomplished, little more was heard of the disease-curing potential of the genome sequence. The reason is clear enough. That potential has turned out to be little more than zero. A similar scenario will probably unfold with embryonic stem cells."

"Mengele Medicine", by Tom Bethell
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7443

swiss

That article merely points out that stem cell research is not guaranteed to produce tangible benefits, which is hardly surprising. I'm not a medical doctor, so I can't say with any authority whether stem cell research is beneficial or not. However, I imagine medical experts currently involved in stem cell research are better positioned to debate whether or not their work has potential as opposed to a partisan article making broad, flawed assessments.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

but this morning I caught a glimpse of a very interesting article on stem-cell research.

I'm not sure "interesting" is the word I'd use. "Misleading" might be more appropriate.

The author of this article would seem to be like someone proclaiming that 6 months after the Wright Brothers flew, the lack of transcontinental mass-transit aircraft proved that this whole flight lark was just an elaborate scam.

IF you want to discuss media distortion of a situation, I'd say he's an excellent study case, rather than a good source to show how others have been doing the same.

A similar scenario will probably unfold with embryonic stem cells.

A similar scenario?

So they'll be carefully studied, after which the information gained will be carefully studied so that we can understand what it is we're messing with, and responsible scientists will treat it as responsible science taken at a responsible pace, with plenty of ethics comittees etc overseeing everything to make sure that nothing "Frankensteinian" gets done???

That sounds excellent.

jc

sliabh

Sparks wrote:

I was referring to the concept that we could "create perfect babies" Tom - we can't do that yet. We barely know how to add features from one species to another (a technique which has had very positive benefits for humanity, thank you very much - frostproof tomatoes for an example, which mean we can grow more food);

Frost proof humans would be nice too!

And can I have the gene from bears that prevends their muscles from atrophying even when they get no exercise while hibernating. That one would be pretty cool for staying fit after doing the work once

Gurgle

sliabh wrote:

And can I have the gene from bears that prevends their muscles from atrophying even when they get no exercise while hibernating. That one would be pretty cool for staying fit after doing the work once

Oh, I want the hibernating gene, please please please.

I don't care about the atrophied muscles and stuff, I just want to sleep through this miserable cold dark wet season.

Wake me up on the 1st of march.

TomF

swiss wrote:

That article...[is] a partisan article making broad, flawed assessments.

Please, how is the article partisan, and which are the flawed assessments, and what are their flaws?

bonkey

Considering that the first hit google produced against his name was from beliefnet, and that many of his articles linked to from there have a very, very clear and strong Christian slant........I think its safe to say that the author (if not the article) is partisan.

Flaws? Where to start...

That's what happened with the Human Genome Project. (Remember that?)

As I've already pointed out, this is not what happened with the HGP.

Going a bit further down...after telling us how we get misled by biotech, this, that and the other....he says :

We get miracles in the headlines, but the fine print tells a different story.

So which is it then Mr. Bethell? We're misled, or we choose to read sensationalist copy-selling headlines and then forget about reading the rest of the information thats offered to us, thinking that a soundbite is sufficient education?

In fact, they don't even know where in the embryo to look for a plausible candidate cell.

Err...hold on Mr. Bethell. You've just spent several paragraphs telling us how all of the claims are overhyped, but now you tell us that the people making these claims also admit that they don't actually know enough about how to acheive their goals to be able to say when they'll get there?

Genetic engineering is turning out to be as hard to achieve in our day as social engineering was in the Communist era.

Here's more of it. Apparently Mr. Bethell can conclude this from what the geneticists are telling us and still claim that they're telling us something else entirely!!!

Indeed, I note there isn't a single anecdote of where we were misled. There's lots of appeals to "remember the hype", which conveniently gets blamed on the scientists....but not a single reference to any instances of it. Nope...the instancing is saved for the stuff that only partially seems to back up his assertions...which is that scientists are saying "its a long, long road, and we're realistically at the beginning of it, not the end".

Bethell's anecdotes show that research takes time. They show that research is often undertaken to fill gaps is knowledge. He shows that sometimes, when we fill those gaps, we discover we still have too many gaps remaining to sow everything up.

From this, and his anecdotally-and-evidentially-lacking pleas to "remember the hype" he concludes that we were misled on the last big new issue that pitted Christians against sience, and are being misled again.

So I would say that Swiss' assessment is bang on. Broad, Flawed, and partisan....although the last of those three more stems than the others, then being evident in and of itself I guess.

Sparks

how is the article partisan

Are you kidding me? It's title is partisan for crying out loud, it's invoking the most damned name in medical history since Jack the Ripper!

TomF

"Tom Bethell is the Washington correspondent of The American Spectator. He was born and raised in England, attended Downside School, a Benedictine foundation, and graduated from Oxford University in 1962."

That's his brief biography, and I suppose what it contains may be enough to make some dismiss whatever he writes as partisan. If he is a Catholic, he seems to be the G.K. Chesterton/Hilaire Belloc/Ronald Knox type of English Catholic who can write a rousing critique when he wants to.

I don't think Bethell has any gripe against a partisan for presenting the argument for unrestrained harvesting of stem-cells obtained from wherever, but I think he properly criticises the tactic of courting public opinion by sensationalist or misleading news releases, or at least the failure of administrators and researchers not to disassociate themselves and their institutions from such tactics.

He also does not fall for the argument that embryo stem-cells might be the answer to cancer, heart disease, spinal injury, all genetic disorders and aging with its accompanying wrinkles and receding hairlines, and that it is therefore right to harvest those cells, and in fact is is positively wrong not to harvest them. I think he is a very clear thinker about a very murky subject.

I recognise that the media get a lot of copy out of the claim of potential miracle cures from embryonic stem-cells, and that a public roused by the overheated stories are not going to want to hear researchers and their administrators saying that things aren't at all certain to turn-out rosy if such cells are free to be created and then used. (Not that career researchers are likely to spoil the fun and the funding by being outspokenly skeptical about the future of embryonic stem-cell research!)

Sparks

TomF wrote:

That's his brief biography, and I suppose what it contains may be enough to make some dismiss whatever he writes as partisan.

It contains insufficent data to make any rational judgement on what he writes; and so saying that it does can only be a disingenous attempt to discredit whomever you're saying have made judgements based on it. Pretty amateur in the dirty tricks handbook Tom.

I don't think Bethell has any gripe against a partisan for presenting the argument for unrestrained harvesting of stem-cells obtained from wherever

Exactly whom has advocated unrestrained harvesting of anything from anywhere? These claims you keep insinuating are the Iraqi WMD of the field of genetics research, Tom.

I think he properly criticises the tactic of courting public opinion by sensationalist or misleading news releases

By using titles that invoke the infamous name of Mengele, who orchestrated unethical medical experiments on jewish concentration camp victims in WW2? Does that not strike you as being somewhat... daft?

He also does not fall for the argument that embryo stem-cells might be the answer to cancer, heart disease, spinal injury, all genetic disorders and aging with its accompanying wrinkles and receding hairlines, and that it is therefore right to harvest those cells, and in fact is is positively wrong not to harvest them. I think he is a very clear thinker about a very murky subject.

Again, who's making the argument for unrestrained harvesting?
You're making as much sense as those people who protested at the launch of the Cassini space probe, Tom.

I recognise that the media get a lot of copy out of the claim of potential miracle cures from embryonic stem-cells, and that a public roused by the overheated stories are not going to want to hear researchers and their administrators saying that things aren't at all certain to turn-out rosy if such cells are free to be created and then used. (Not that career researchers are likely to spoil the fun and the funding by being outspokenly skeptical about the future of embryonic stem-cell research!)

So basicly, you're slandering the media, slandering the reputations of honest professional scientists (for engaging in the scientific process of peer review and critical analysis of hypotheses), and slandering the public by saying they are willingly choosing to remain ignorant.
Well, that's just about everyone covered then, isn't it?

TomF

This is beginning to resemble a game of Ping-Pong.

Yes, there are people and organisations out there who think embryonic stem-cells are going to be The Answer. I Googled "stem cell research funding" and what came up first but something called CAMR:

"The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR) is comprised of nationally-recognized patient organizations, universities, scientific societies, foundations, and individuals with life-threatening illnesses and disorders, advocating for the advancement of breakthrough research and technologies in regenerative medicine - including stem cell research and somatic cell nuclear transfer - in order to cure disease and alleviate suffering."

"CAMR has focused its advocacy in three related areas:

1. Protecting and preserving continued federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research

Why? Embryonic stem cells show tremendous promise, federal funding of the research protects the public interest, and the majority of Americans support stem cell research."

To which I respond, maybe a majority of people support stem cell research, but let's be very careful that we don't try to leap across the void and say that it is not debatable where those cells come from. Next, why do a majority of people support stem cell research? Well, it is because of the publicity (hype, really) coming from the media and the flacks of research organisations who want funding and from special interest groups.

Who are these special interests? I think people who are dealing with presently-incurable conditions are one group, and I can certainly sympathise with them. However you don't seek those cures by allying with another group who have an entirely different agenda of making a radical change in the thinking of the public about the human embryo so that one kind of human life can be henceforth thought of as a factory for cells for the improvement of other human lives. This other group are the ones who Bethell is correctly identifying as advocating "Mengele Medicine".

I don't see Bethell as smearing anyone, he is just lifting a few attractive rocks and exposing what is under them.

sliabh

TomF wrote:

This is beginning to resemble a game of Ping-Pong.

Yeah, but you have yet to put up something other than heresay for your claims.

TomF wrote:

However you don't seek those cures by allying with another group who have an entirely different agenda

What rubbish! Are you saying that you shouldn't push for something you think is good just because someone else with distasteful opinions happens to agree with you on this subject?

Well then I should not support environmental issues because the Greens have policies I disagree with on Europe. Or to take this to it's logical conclusion the Allies should not have fought in WWII against the Nazis because Stalin's equally distasteful regime thought that was a good idea as well?

TomF wrote:

making a radical change in the thinking of the public about the human embryo so that one kind human life can be henceforth thought of as a factory for cells for the improvement of other human lives.

Again rubbish. For two reasons, the first being that you have yet to identify a "Mengele Medicine" group that is suggesting this. And secondly because, bringing this argument back to facts where it should be, the stem cell collection is to occur from embryos that are:
a) little more than a group of barely distinguished cells
b) going to be destroyed anyway as part of other IVF processes

What is being regulated is the secondary use of these cells, and not the creation of embryos with the sole intent of harvesting stem cells prior to their destruction. Which seems to be what you are suggesting is going to happen.

TomF

There are groups out there who support abortion at any and all stages of life for any and all reasons. That is certainly beyond challenge today.

If it is ceded to those groups that human embryos can be destroyed ("harvested") for the purpose of medical treatment of other human beings, then why not go into mass production of human embryos just for that purpose?

How much farther can it go? Suppose we say that the human fetus is the next to be ceded, and said groups will next ask that they be allowed to harvest fetuses in any stage of life, say for the purpose of removing eyes, livers, kidneys, hearts and any other parts that can be used by some poor person who is blind or suffering from organ failure. Most certainly that is going to be the next stage. It is the classic slippery-slope.

sliabh

TomF wrote:

If it is ceded to those groups that human embryos can be destroyed ("harvested") for the purpose of medical treatment of other human beings, then why not go into mass production of human embryos just for that purpose?

These are embryos that have been created anyway as part of standard IVF treatments. And they are all to be destroyed anyway. If anything it is a good idea that a further benefical use can be found for them.

The concept of making embryos purely for stem cells is a different argument. And if/when someone starts looking for permission for that then a new argument will start. You will find many people that support stem cell research based on surplus IVF embryos would not support "manufactured" embryos.

To suggest an agreement to one therefore leads to the other is a fallacy. It's no more true than suggesting that legalising alcohol is going to make everyone an alcoholic.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

There are groups out there who support abortion at any and all stages of life for any and all reasons. That is certainly beyond challenge today.

Agreed.

If it is ceded to those groups that human embryos can be destroyed ("harvested") for the purpose of medical treatment of other human beings, then why not go into mass production of human embryos just for that purpose?

Because that is - again - a complete misrepresentation of the state of affairs - both current and proposed. What is being suggested (and has been accepted in Switzerland) is that embryos stored for a very specific purpose, but which are no longer suitable for that purpose and will be destroyed anyway may be used under strict supervision, in tightly-controlled areas. And - in the case of Switzerland - this can only happen with the permission of the donors.

Now...I fail to see how this is opening the floodgates for anything. There is no suggestion that people be able to use anything else for research. At best, all I can see is an arguable need (if its not already been covered) to ensure that you can't have "arranged donations" for IVF who's purpose is purely and solely to sit on ice for however many years it takes to become non-viable, and then to be transferred to embryonic research labs.

How much farther can it go?

Well, if you started from where it is before asking that question, rather than posing some Frankensteinian picture of where it might be....it would be easier to take the question seriously.

Suppose we say that the human fetus is the next to be ceded,

Then we'd be talking about something entirely different, wouldn't we. We wouldn't be discussing what we're discussing now, but rather an entirely different scenario.

The only connection between the two is that allowing stem-cell-research would be a pre-cursor to the ensuing scenarios.

Then again, breeding (and indeed breathing) is a pre-cursor to those scenarios as well. Should we outlaw procreation and inhalation to ensure that we don't end up at your terrifying destination as well????

It is the classic slippery-slope.

Its the classic slippery-slope fallacy, you mean.

jc

Sparks

bonkey wrote:

Agreed.

Indeed - if you happen to include the completely extremist tinfoil-hat brigade as a legitimate group...
If, however, you're speaking of legitimate medical practitioners or rational people, then most definitely not. Third-trimester abortions are exceptionally rare, and despite the crap that TomF is probably going to sling in our direction regarding "partial birth abortions", those simply don't count, because they're done (in the third trimester) in cases where not to do them would kill the mother and where the fetus is already dead or not viable anyway. Heck, even the Catholic Church supports abortion in those circumstances!

TomF wrote:

why do a majority of people support stem cell research? Well, it is because of the publicity (hype, really) coming from the media and the flacks of research organisations who want funding and from special interest groups.

Slander again? Are you really saying that there's no legitimate reason in pursuing a line of medical research? Pfft. This is rapidly approaching the level of debate you'd expect between a concentration camp survivor and a holocaust denier. And you're not the one with the numerical tattoo, Tom.

This other group are the ones who Bethell is correctly identifying as advocating "Mengele Medicine".

Who are "they", Tom?

TomF

Well, when people say that using human fetuses for spare parts is not going to happen, I harken back to the 1980s when a big pharmaceutical company (Eli Lilly), doing research on the common cold and needing media to support rhinoviruses, began collecting nasal passages of "freshly-aborted human fetuses" for that media. At the time, the head of research of the company could see nothing wrong with the practice, because the fetuses were going to be discarded anyway, and at least some good might come out of his department's research, and weren't the objections only coming from those who would deny relief to people who suffer from the agony of the common cold?

Twenty years later, it seems prospects haven't been looking good for stopping the practice of in-vitro fertilisation of multiple human eggs and then picking and choosing the best of them to be put back into the egg-producer to give her a baby. (And, naturally, donating the surplus human embryos to local researchers.) The disappointment of not being able to conceive a baby seems to weigh much more in the balance than the peculiarity of having perfectly healthy babies being aborted by their mothers rather than bringing them to term and letting these disappointed couples adopt one of those surviving babies. It is madcap in the extreme.

Whose would be the loudest voices objecting to a ban on in-vitro fertilisation of multiple human eggs? Infertile couples might complain, but you know that their voices would be mightily amplified for maximum emotional effect in the cooperative media, accompanied by much financial support and public relations savvy from the abortion, the feminist and the new embryonic stem-cell research lobbies

I really find it hard to believe at this stage of the debate on abortion that anyone thinks late term abortions are only done to protect the mother's life or to prevent the birth of an unfit baby. Here is a quote, and I leave it to the reader to guess who said this: "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."

If you have a strong stomach, you can read a description of the procedure by a practitioner at http://www.house.gov/burton/RSC/haskellinstructional.pdf

Sparks

At the time, the head of research of the company could see nothing wrong with the practice, because the fetuses were going to be discarded anyway, and at least some good might come out of his department's research, and weren't the objections only coming from those who would deny relief to people who suffer from the agony of the common cold?

In other words, he advocated the harvesting of dead tissue from dead fetuses who were on their way to the incinerator, presumably (since you've not mentioned it and I'd be surprised if the ethics boards allowed it otherwise) with the appropriate permissions obtained, all to try to produce a cure to a very common disease in humans? Why, the absolute monster. Let's burn him.

Whose would be the loudest voices objecting to a ban on in-vitro fertilisation of multiple human eggs?

Doctors and infertile couples, one would imagine. Of course, those pesky civil liberties groups would also get involved on the premise that it's between the mother and father and their doctor and not the rest of society, but they're just bleeding heart liberals, so let's ignore them, shall we?

The disappointment of not being able to conceive a baby seems to weigh much more in the balance than the peculiarity of having perfectly healthy babies being aborted by their mothers rather than bringing them to term and letting these disappointed couples adopt one of those surviving babies. It is madcap in the extreme.

So what you're saying is that it's wrong for a couple to want to produce their own offspring, and it's a far better solution to force them to adopt a child produced by a mother who was forced to bring the child to term? Tom, your knack of totally overlooking the rights of people for an ideological ideal that isn't held by the majority of people is breathtaking.

If you have a strong stomach, you can read a description of the procedure by a practitioner

Or Tom, you could go to a site that actually tells you about D&X procedures instead of trying to convince you to think about them the way the author does.
I'd suggest http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba.htm

Why Are D&X Procedures Performed?
This is a topic that is rarely discussed during public debates:

1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.

2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:
- She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.
- There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
- vThe fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
- The fetus is dead.
- The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
- The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
- The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

And by the way, you've not yet answered the question of who is advocating unrestricted harvesting of embryonic stem cells. A name Tom, if you please.

bonkey

Sparks wrote:

Indeed - if you happen to include the completely extremist tinfoil-hat brigade as a legitimate group...[/size]

Well, I would seperate the completely extremists from the tinfol hatters...but basically, yes - taking the word legitimate in the sense of "established and legal"

jc

bonkey

TomF wrote:

Well, when people say that using human fetuses for spare parts is not going to happen, I harken back to the 1980s when a big pharmaceutical company (Eli Lilly), doing research on the common cold and needing media to support rhinoviruses, began collecting nasal passages of "freshly-aborted human fetuses" for that media. At the time, the head of research of the company could see nothing wrong with the practice, because the fetuses were going to be discarded anyway, and at least some good might come out of his department's research, and weren't the objections only coming from those who would deny relief to people who suffer from the agony of the common cold?

Was the objection not that they were performing this "harvesting" without the consent of the mothers? And...tieing back into the proposal which was accepted here in Switzerland...is that not what is being done here - requiring consent?

Twenty years later, it seems prospects haven't been looking good for stopping the practice of in-vitro fertilisation of multiple human eggs and then picking and choosing the best of them to be put back into the egg-producer to give her a baby.

And? You're still showing how we got here....not how this means we'll go from here to Frankenworld.

The disappointment of not being able to conceive a baby seems to weigh much more in the balance than the peculiarity of having perfectly healthy babies being aborted by their mothers rather than bringing them to term and letting these disappointed couples adopt one of those surviving babies. It is madcap in the extreme.

And how is there any sort of correlation between supporting this form of research and people having abortions which they could conceivably carry to term???

You're beginning to make it sound like there's some sort of human-parts conveyer-belt system created to fund science, through the manipulation of the ethics and mindsets of the public. Come on TomF...this isn't the X-Files.

Whose would be the loudest voices objecting to a ban on in-vitro fertilisation of multiple human eggs?

I'm sorry...I've mistaken you. Should we take it that your objection isn't to the use of these embryos, but rather to their creation in the first place? Surely thats a seperate question and a seperate issue?

Infertile couples might complain, but you know that their voices would be mightily amplified for maximum emotional effect in the cooperative media, accompanied by much financial support and public relations savvy from the abortion, the feminist and the new embryonic stem-cell research lobbies

I see. And who's shouting out loudest on the other side, I wonder? That wouldn't be the religious fundamentalists, would it?

If you're going to pick-and-choose which voices you'll typify my side of the argument with, I don't see why I shouldn't return the favour...

I really find it hard to believe at this stage of the debate on abortion that anyone thinks late term abortions are only done to protect the mother's life or to prevent the birth of an unfit baby.

Woah. Where did this come from? What has this to do with stem-cell research? Or are you still trying to show that because we got here, we must be on a slippery slope to Mengeleville, rather than explaining what will cause us to abandon our remaining standards?

We're discussng stem-cell research. Not convenience abortions.

jc

TomF

I really think the advocation of using dead tissue of killed human fetuses (translation: "little ones") for experimentation because it is better than consigning it to the incinerator is getting uncomfortably close to justifying the killing to do the research. Isn't that also getting to be an asymptote of Mengelian Medicine?

Do people have a right to become pregnant by any means at all, even those means which involve medical doctors, hospitals, laboratories, public funds, or insurance companies' funds (other people's money), even negating the right to life of some other forms of human life in the process? I think that is a whole other question that is going to have to wait the writing of another shelf of books to examine.

The site I recommended for a description of late term abortion was written by a happy practitioner of the technique for presentation to a symposium on late term abortion. It is disturbingly frank, to say the least.

As for advocates of unrestricted harvesting of embryonic stem-cells, I didn't say anyone advocated that, did I? I searched this thread and the nearest thing I can find to me saying such a thing is when I said that Bethell didn't have [meaning "express"] a gripe against any partisan for such harvesting.

I don't see the honesty of arguing in favor of a statement that someone says I made when I didn't make it!

Sparks

TomF wrote:

I really think the advocation of using dead tissue of killed human fetuses (translation: "little ones") for experimentation because it is better than consigning it to the incinerator is getting uncomfortably close to justifying the killing to do the research.

You might think so. That doesn't mean that you'd be correct. In fact, you'd be incorrect, because your logic would mean that organ donation was the first step on the road to murdering someone for their kidneys.

Isn't that also getting to be an asymptote of Mengelian Medicine?

No, because firstly that term isn't defined (ie. it's meaningless noise) and secondly because were we to give it a defined meaning, logic would demand that it refer to the unethical and illegal use of unwilling humans as subjects in medical experimentation. Which is a thousand miles from where even your worried mind is trying to get to.

Do people have a right to become pregnant by any means at all

Yes.

even negating the right to life of some other forms of human life in the process?

Firstly, if you've found some other form of human life, congratulations and I look forward to the peer-reviewed articles in the New England Journal or Nature or whereever you publish.
Secondly, where exactly do they kill anything in IVF? I must have missed the bit in the pamphlet explaining the ritual killing of chickens...

The site I recommended for a description of late term abortion was written by a happy practitioner of the technique for presentation to a symposium on late term abortion. It is disturbingly frank, to say the least.

You mean it's a procedural manual for those who have to carry out the procedure? Well, that's shocking. I vote for banning all such texts. I mean, things like heart transplants are shockingly graphic (they actually remove a man's heart!) and we shouldn't allow these procedures because non-medical personnel are shocked by them.

As for advocates of unrestricted harvesting of embryonic stem-cells, I didn't say anyone advocated that, did I?[/quote[
You implied it heavily.

I searched this thread and the nearest thing I can find to me saying such a thing is when I said that Bethell didn't have [meaning "express"] a gripe against any partisan for such harvesting.

Which implies that such harvesting takes place. Which it doesn't.

I don't see the honesty of arguing in favor of a statement that someone says I made when I didn't make it!

And I don't see honesty in making the implications and committing the acts of slander that you've been merrily doing throughout this thread.

GuanYin

God, not this again *sigh*.......

TomF wrote:

I really think the advocation of using dead tissue of killed human fetuses (translation: "little ones") for experimentation because it is better than consigning it to the incinerator is getting uncomfortably close to justifying the killing to do the research. Isn't that also getting to be an asymptote of Mengelian Medicine?

Its nowhere near close. If you want to make an analogy with anything, consider making it to relatives consenting to transplant organ harvesting.

Do people have a right to become pregnant by any means at all, even those means which involve medical doctors, hospitals, laboratories, public funds, or insurance companies' funds (other people's money), even negating the right to life of some other forms of human life in the process? I think that is a whole other question that is going to have to wait the writing of another shelf of books to examine.

Who/How/Why is this being suggested? I'm unclear as to what you mean by this (perhaps my poor english). Is it that people may become pregnant to cell their foetuses? If so, that is a ridiculous scenario put forward by pro-life extremists to scare the more ignorant members of the public. No ethics committee is going to allow that in the EU. Its akin to offering a woman money for the lungs of her dead adolescent child. Can you imagine the government passing this?


As for the issue of science fiction. My god, what do you people think happens in science labs?

The type of work that stem cells are used for do not and will not result in "designer babies", "super humans" or "The Wrath of Khan". Research grants run on strict budgetary confinements and through a governing ethics board. The cells will be used within the realms described in the application. In this case its the use chemical/biological agents to nudge the stem cell in the direction of changing to another type of cell (a process called differentation). Any other suggestion is scaremongering.

swiss wrote:

I'm not a medical doctor, so I can't say with any authority whether stem cell research is beneficial or not.

9/10 medical doctors couldn't say anything with any authority either. The people you're looking for are medical researchers.

TomF

You know, it's hard-enough to debate someone whose native language is English, yet still manages to mangle my opinions, but I think it may be asking a little too much to have to reply through the filter of another language.

Still, I'll try.

I think I have a fairly good acquaintance with what happens in science labs and I don't feel particularly intimidated by people who can tell a pipette from a tin whistle.

First there is the bald claim: "Research grants [are] run on strict budgetary confinements and through a governing ethics board." This may or may not be true in publically-funded labs, but it is certainly wide-open for debate whether similar controls (other than the profit motive) exist in investor-owned or privately-owned organisations. That is, we don't all work for the government, or under government contract.

And then we have the dismissive: "Is it that people may become pregnant to cell their foetuses? If so, that is a ridiculous scenario put forward by pro-life extremists to scare the more ignorant members of the public. No ethics committee is going to allow that in the EU."

It has already happened that a child was conceived and allowed to be born to provide cells for a sibling, and it was in June 2003 in the U.S. (admittedly, not in the EU) that the conception(s) and screening took place, while it seems the birth took place in the U.K. All that was necessary to defeat the decision of the relevant EU ethics committee was to catch a plane. Read all about it:
http://www.betterhumans.com/Errors/index.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/Born_to_Save_Sibling_Designer_Baby_Stirs_Controversy.Article.2003-06-23-3.aspx

TomF

Sparks wrote:

You might think so. That doesn't mean that you'd be correct. In fact, you'd be incorrect, because your logic would mean that organ donation was the first step on the road to murdering someone for their kidneys.

Sorry, Sparks, but when I read this all I could think of was the Simpsons episode where Marge is on trial for shoplifting at Apu's Quickie Mart and her attorney, the ever-brilliant Lionel Hutz, tries to discredit Apu's reliability as a witness by turning around and asking Apu what colour is his tie, then removing his tie while his back is turned to Apu.

GuanYin

TomF wrote:

This may or may not be true in publically-funded labs, but it is certainly wide-open for debate whether similar controls (other than the profit motive) exist in investor-owned or privately-owned organisations. That is, we don't all work for the government, or under government contract.

No but they are still subject to the law and auditing. Unless they get specific legal approval such work cannot take place. If the do get approval, they cannot deviate from what they have approval for. Whats the issue?

It has already happened that a child was conceived and allowed to be born to provide cells for a sibling, and it was in June 2003 in the U.S. (admittedly, not in the EU) that the conception(s) and screening took place, while it seems the birth took place in the U.K. All that was necessary to defeat the decision of the relevant EU ethics committee was to catch a plane. Read all about it:
http://www.betterhumans.com/Errors/index.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/Born_to_Save_Sibling_Designer_Baby_Stirs_Controversy.Article.2003-06-23-3.aspx

Yes I notice how you ignored all the parts of that article that focused on the strict ethics laws in place and focused on how one couple went to great lengths to get around a legal loophole. You also are citing a case where the issue was humanitarian and not monetary and the baby donated stem cells and lived, not foetus harvesting. All in all a pretty lame example and not even close the an analogous of what we were talking about. But by all means, keep scaremongering....

TomF

Well, my wrist is tired, and I am putting down my paddle.