Stem cell research? (moral, blood, abortion, catholic, moral)

[Sunstone]

What do you think of stem cell research? Is it moral? Immoral?

[CaptainXeroid]

I think it holds a great deal of promise for treating many diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons as well as spinal cord and brain injuries. Hopefully, scientists can find a way to obtain them without destroying an embryo. I've heard some people who support abortion oppose stem cell research for this reason, and the people who oppose abortion seem to completely oppose any kind of stem cell research. It's not an easy ethical question to answer.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

What do you think of stem cell research? Is it moral? Immoral?

The research is certianly a benefit to medicine - I don't think there ias question about that. And that would seem to be amoral.

There is a discussion of morality in providing the resources to do the research and, under current proposals, it is illogical.

[Melody]

<<I guess I don't have enough knowledge of the subject. Where exactly do the stem cells come from and when you say embryo, I'm assuming it's a fertiziled egg? Is this embryo destroyed to get the cells? >>

I'm editing this because the above questions were answered by my husband, who happened to walk through the room at the right time.

Based on his answers, I do have a problem with it because once that egg is fertilized, I believe it is a human being.

[CaptainXeroid]

Originally Posted by pah

....There is a discussion of morality in providing the resources to do the research and, under current proposals, it is illogical.

A great many people who have a real problem with destroying an embryo to obtain the stem cells. Calling their moral and ethical concerns 'illogical' is a rather callous and unfair characterization.

If you're saying the 'current proposals' include a way to extract them without compromising the embryo's development, I think a link to an article would be helpful.

[Sunstone]

Some stem cells are now being taken from sources other than a fertilized egg. For instance: umbilbical cords.

[michel]

The moral question Mark of the appropriation of stem cells is actually over-exagerated.
From the following article, it seems that there is actually no need to use stem cells from fetuses; as Sunstone has said, even if using babie's stem cells is not 'immoral' (as far as I can see) since they are obtainable from the umbilical cord.

The article in question was recently written by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D (former career-appointed research biochemist/biologist (NIH), as well as a Ph.D. philosopher specializing in the history of philosophy, and medical ethics). She is representing the Catholic Medical Association and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations this October at the Guadalupan Appeal Conference in Mexico City on "The dignity and status of the human embryo", where she will present, "The role of correct science in the formation of conscience and the moral decision making.
The report was written at the request of Fr. Thomas King, S.J., Ph.D., Department of Theology, Georgetown University; President, University Faculty For Life, for their newsletter, "UFL Pro-Vita".

Most commentators agree that the use of stem cells derived from adult human beings are ethically acceptable (assuming other ethical parameters are met). The major point of disagreement involves the use of stem cells derived from early human embryos and aborted fetuses.
Most of those "pro" human embryonic and fetal stem cell research use utilitarian ethical arguments as justification: it is ethically acceptable - even morally required - to destroy a few human beings in order to possibly benefit millions of patients. Besides, these cells do not cause the same immuno-incompatibility problems after transplantation as do adult stem cells from different patients. Further, these early cells from human embryos and fetuses are MORE "totipotent" and "pluripotent" than adult stem cells, and therefore they can be "coaxed" to become more different kinds of tissues, and can last longer in culture awaiting use. Besides, these fetuses and left-over IVF-produced human embryos are going to die anyway, so "we might as well get some good use out of them".

In response, opponents of human embryonic stem cell research identify the major ethical problem as the source of those cells. Living human embryos, who are the most vulnerable of human beings, must be destroyed in the process of taking their stem cells out of their bodies for this research, and it is never ethically acceptable to intentionally kill any innocent human being - no matter how small, even if the "possible benefit" is to the "many". Nor is it ever permissible to do evil that good may come of it. Given that the goals cited by the proponents are laudable and good, the means to those goals must also be ethically good - and here the "means" used in these experiments are the death and destruction of living innocent human beings. It is to reduce them to mere objects for the use of others, rather than subjects with inherent ethical rights deserving of equal protection. Our own slavery laws, Nazi medicine, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments and recent government-sponsored radiation experiments also operated on such a two-tier caste of "humanity". And if impending death were the criteria for being allowed to kill human beings, then we could also kill terminally ill patients, death-row inmates and military service personnel facing combat for their organs and stem cells too -for the "greater good". They also note that fetal cord blood cells have already proven successful, and the use of adult stem cells from the same ill patient would by-pass the medical crisis of immuno-incompatibility. Even foreign adult stem cells can be treated with drugs to "hide" the guilty antigens. New drugs like telomerase can keep these cells growing in culture indefinitely, and new hormones like growth factors are being successfully used to encourage cell specialization. Most critically, even adult stem cells can be "coaxed" to become less specialized (less differentiated), and can even provide cell types distinct from their own usual fate (as already mentioned). Finally, adult stem cells are already closer to the kinds of cells that patients already need. So there is really no need to use human embryonic stem cells at all. This has been acknowledged by major researchers, companies, and massive numbers of medical research journal articles recently published in this field.
Source :- http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/ir...ellprocon.html

[CaptainXeroid]

Originally Posted by michel

...From the following article, it seems that there is actually no need to use stem cells from fetuses...
...it is never ethically acceptable to intentionally kill any innocent human being - no matter how small, even if the "possible benefit" is to the "many". Nor is it ever permissible to do evil that good may come of it...
...So there is really no need to use human embryonic stem cells at all. This has been acknowledged by major researchers, companies, and massive numbers of medical research journal articles recently published in this field.
Source :- http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/ir...ellprocon.html

Thank you for this article which addresses many of the thoughtful questions people have about stem-cell research.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by CaptainXeroid

A great many people who have a real problem with destroying an embryo to obtain the stem cells. Calling their moral and ethical concerns 'illogical' is a rather callous and unfair characterization.

If you're saying the 'current proposals' include a way to extract them without compromising the embryo's development, I think a link to an article would be helpful.

<