Ok, so I watched Nightline today (5/24) and it was about stem cells. Obviously, there's a debate about the ethics (yada yada). But how about what's happening in the real world? Right now all the best minds in stem cells are moving to Europe and Asia. Obviously the United States will be behind technologically and miss out on huge opportunites to lead the bio-medical world, but that's a different debate altogether. So, this is what I'm thinking: Pro-life people win the debate. Stem cell research is greatly hindered in the United States. Research continues in Europe and Asia at a breakneck speed. Cures are being created every year. Every thing that doctors said stem cells can do has come true. It's twenty years later. You have grown up and started a family (assuming you haven't already). Your wife gives birth to a beautiful baby girl. Everything is right with the world. A few years later, your curious baby girl crawls around exploring the whole new world you call your hallway. She slowly stands up and takes a few steps but quickly falls back on her butt. She tries again and again until she starts to get the hang of it. She's finally got the hang of it. She's looking for her daddy. Where is he? Maybe he went down those stair she has always seen him go. She tries to climb down the stairs like her daddy. She trips and falls down. A horrible incident. Her spinal nerve has been torn. She's paralyzed now. What do you do? Do you use the stem cell research to give her a full life? Or do you stick to your beliefs and leave her paralyzed? What do you do?
The U.S. is already losing some of its edge in medical research. The Brits have done incredible work with how to fight breast cancer, Norway is stepping up against diabetes, and I believe it was an Asia country that got a rat that was paralyzed to walk again using stem cells. We are falling behind, and will do so, unless we don't make some changes again.
Just cause the medical research doesn't originate in the US, does not mean U.S. physicians will be unable to use the technology.
i think its deplorable that people want to use stem cells to try and save lives and cure diseases and maladies. working on cures for diseases goes against the culture of life that christianity teaches. anybody want to go visit the new creationism museum w/me?
That depends on how the law ends up being written. Some of the bills working their way through would ban the use of embryonic stem cells not only in research but also in treatment including against US citizens who get treatment using embryonic stemcells outside the country.
Actually I believe the rat experiment was done in the US using one of the government sanctioned stem cell lines but I agree with your point.
Isn't there embryonic stem cell research already going on in the US? Wasn't Bush's "ban" just a ban on Federal funding? Would Federal funding essentially become just a corporate subsidy? I'm not sure how it works.. Any scientists out there - how much does public money figure into research in general? That is, are privately-funded scientific projects feasible in this day and age? Thx!
I wasn't totally sure about that one. I do think it is good news that the research shows promise in this area. Similar experiemnts have been successful with diabetes. I think there are people right now suffering from these ailments, and promising research that needs to be seen through.
They addressed this in the Nightline segment and I also read a New Yorker article about it that wen't into greater detail. Yes the ban is only on Federal funding but the problem with that is that for basic research government, particularly NIH, funding is vital and often the only source of funding. Private corporate money generally goes to applied research so while Merck will pump a lot of money into research on developing new drugs its unlikely they will into understanding the mechanisms of cell differentation. The other problem is that the ban on funding goes further than just not funding research but actually hampers agencies like the NIH from getting involved at all in embryonic stem cell research. So we have a situation where without the NIH infrastructure its difficult for researchers to collaborate and benefit from whats been built up at NIH. Another problem is that federal funding imposes some level of government control on research and without it the government can't really put ethical guidelines since researchers aren't getting government money.
So no pro-life/anti-stem cell individual is brave enough to answer my question? I know you are all out there. I'm wondering what you would really do.
The question I ask is one that you will inevitably face as either your parents, yourself, or loved ones become stricken with one of the many diseases that stem cell research can cure or at least alleviate. You WILL face this decision. You do yourself a disservice if you ignore your own feelings. You can't avoid the choice forever. You might as well answer now, when you don't have to deal with a true possibility of a loved one dying.
I oppose abortion as a means of contraception in most cases (not sure if that qualifies me as pro-life?) and I am absolutely for stem cell research, so I don't think I meet your criteria to answer the question, but I will play the devil's advocate somewhat. To think that anyone would oppose a potentially curable therapy for a loved one is absolutely mind boggling. This question has been posed to Jehovah's witnesses for years, and continues to pop up in emergency rooms daily. As you know, Jehovah's witness do not believe in blood transfusions (or many other types of organ transplantations). When a transfusion is necessary, even if withholding means certain death, many a Jehovah witness will refuse. Although this is not the exact situation that you describe, I think it illustrates the mindset of many individuals. The research and/or cure represent a morally reprehensible action. Therefore, I believe that many that oppose this type of research based on religious ideologies would oppose it even if it provided cures to many medical conditions.
So you really think people would oppose cures? That's an interesting take. Of course, I assume you are not a Jehovah's Witness and have never personally seen them refusing blood transfusions and such.
I against late-term and partial birth abortions so I guess some people would brand me pro-life. I voted against the California proposition so I suppose some would say that I'm against embryonic stem cell research. No - I have no problems at all with embryonic stem cell research. Just because someone may think that public funds may be better used elsewhere (like the debt), doesn't really make them opposed to scientific research in general. If publicly funded research netted some results that would benefit my child - then I'll have no problems being a hypocrite.
I think you know my position is clear but I will be happy to have an at bat for the other side. If human life begins at conception there is absolutely no way ethically embryonic stem cells can be used for anything other than to be allowed to develop and be born. We don't allow someone to give up their life to save someone else. You can't consent to donate your heart while you are still alive even if you mother is dying of heart failure and you're a perfect match. The Hippocratic oath says to do no harm so killing one person to cure another does more harm since a healthy person has been killed to save an injured. All of this is dependent on whether you believe undifferentiated embryos are human life.
No I'm not a Jehovah's witness, but I'm in the medical field. Yes, I have heard of cases where blood transfusions were refused and would have saved the life of the patient. One in particular was of a women with a slow GI bleed. She was symptomatic in the emergency room and a blood transfusion would have prevented her death, and would have allowed more time for a possible cure (via surgery or colonoscopy). However, she adamantly refused a blood transfusion and passed from a very curable condition. I just wanted to highlight that, although this may seem irrational to you and I, it is very rational to the patient (and the people that oppose stem cells). Therefore, the mindset of an individual with strong religious convictions is immune to the "rational" type of thought and answers that questions like yours raise.
I'm sure those occurances are not the norm. That is why you have heard about it, because it is rare for it to occur (compared to people allowing blood transfusions). Obviously, there would be some occurances.
Thank you "liberals" or "moderates" for answering my question and playing devil's advocate even though your position does not fit what I'm looking for. No answer still? Obviously, I'll assume your reaction went like this: A). If I choose to save my child, I'll be a hypocrite. I'll be using the very research that I oppose on moral grounds. I'll be admitting that I'm wrong, or at the very least, not as moral as I think I am. B). If I choose to let my child stay paralyzed, I'll be considered a heartless b*stard. I'll be condemning my own child with my beliefs. SO INSTEAD I'll choose: C). Stay quiet about the subject. Pretend you never read this thread. This is the best and worst response. The best because you can remain content not making a choice and remain "moral" in your own eyes. Unfortunately, this is also the worst response because YOU WON'T HAVE THIS OPTION LATER. You WILL be forced to make a decision. That's the problem when you apply theological beliefs to REAL LIFE. It's not as simple as you wish it to be. You guys remain content with your lofty beliefs, while the rest of us live in the REAL WORLD, dealing with REAL PROBLEMS.
If your question is whether they would refuse the treatment that was available because it came from research they opposed, then I think it's a silly question. If you oppose some of the more brutal animal research of the past, would you refuse treatment that was derived from that research if it would save the life of a loved one? If you wouldn't, should you then fully support the continuation of that type of research, unhindered by the 'ethical' guidlelines that have been adopted since. Would that be an admission, on your part, that the research was perfectly fine? That the guidelines later agreed upon were wrong? Using available treatments, while supporting guidelines on research are not necessarily incompatable.
