Stem Cell Research

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Is it possible that such a common topic has not yet been debated here?


I don't recall ever comming across any such debate, and my search of the forums wielded no results. Therefore, I assume this is a fresh subject.


Should the government fund stem cell research? Is it ethical to use unborn embryos as a cure for various human diseases?

[Chimp]

But if you're talking about a couple that specifically donated their egg and sperm, or maybe even an actual embryo growing in the wife's womb, for stem cell research, I'm not so sure. That seems incredibly callous, don't you think? I don't know any couple who would want such a thing. Maybe nobody would ever want to do this, so it's a non-issue. Maybe there should be a law against this sort of thing (or maybe there already is?). At this point, I don't think I would mind if this sort of thing were illegal.

There is no need to create laws for this...it's not how stem cells are collected.

I would argue that NOT donating organs in the event of non-viability of a
person is callous.

[Aximili23]

keltzkroz,

Before we get into any further discussion, let me clarify my position by quoting here an essay that I wrote a few years back for school. Sorry if it's long and has a lot of background info that you already know; the effect seems better (to me) if read in its complete form. I'll be happy to continue our discussion after this.

On the Justifiability of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Over the last few years, embryonic stem cell research has become an increasingly complex and controversial topic. Many scientists and medical researchers have confronted this issue in their very laboratories as the ethics of their investigations come into question. Victims of life-threatening ailments have agonized over the feasibility and morality of what this research has to offer. Church groups, legislators, human-rights organizations and many others all appear to have different opinions on the issue of embryonic stem cell research.

Stem cells are, after all, a very special type of cells. They are undifferentiated cells with the unique ability to both replicate themselves and develop into other specialized cell types, such as skin cells, blood cells, etc. This property means that they can be used to regenerate or replace a wide variety of damaged tissues, and hence can be applied in therapies for a vast range of medical disorders. The controversy lies in the fact that these cells are obtained, among other sources, from human embryos.

On the one hand, this research presents the opportunity to save and uplift the lives of many people, through cures for ailments such as Parkinsons disease, spinal cord injury, and cancer. But on the other hand, the research necessitates the destruction of human embryos, which many including myself believe to be human lives just as valuable as those people for whom cures are being sought. The issue is troubling and complex, and many ethical, legal, and scientific questions remain unanswered. Still, I hope through this essay to clear my views on a specific point: the availability of unwanted human embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics.

In vitro fertilization is a process by which doctors join sperm and egg from donors to create life outside of the womb, now a common alternative for couples who find it difficult to conceive a child. The process usually results in more embryos than are planted in the mother; hence "spare" embryos are created. These are usually frozen indefinitely in storage, during which most die or are forever forgotten; others are destroyed directly. Some have been donated, with informed consent of the donors, to science, and a number of these have been used to establish privately funded stem cell lines.

It is the view of proponents of this research, a view that I share, that if a ready supply of human embryos already exists, which are fated to die unnoticed and ignoble deaths, then the best course of action is to use these towards the more charitable end of medical research. Many argue that there is no such thing as excess life, and that the inevitable death of these embryos does not justify their use in experimentation. On the latter point I beg to differ, and believe that these embryos gain both a greater dignity and a form of immortality in their use for such a laudable cause. Are organ donors diminished when, upon their deaths, their body parts are implanted in other people? Similarly, I believe that by their use in stem cell research, their short and unborn lives achieve a worthy purpose that will never have been theirs had they been killed or left to die in cold-storage freezers.

I will admit that an important difference exists between these human embryos and organ donors: the former never have an opportunity to exercise free will over their fate. I will not rationalize that this lack of choice is fair, in fact I will admit it is an unjust consequence of the state of affairs. I will also say however; with the interests of all humans in mind, born and unborn, the better choice has been made for them.

[Aximili23]

Perhaps I should clarify my organ donation example. Lets say that someone (who's intentions regarding donating his organs were unknown) was involved in an accident and they suffer fatal injuries (or end up in a persistent vegetative state), but some of their organs are still viable as transplants. Compare that with the embryo. They are both going to be discarded anyway. They both can't actively choose. Choosing for both of them can save lives. If someone has to choose for the embryo, why not the full grown body from the accident? I may be willing to donate my organs in case something like that happens to me, but I would not make that decision for someone else, even if they are very close to me.

I don't think your comparison is fair, because as I understand it, organ donors can choose whether or not their organs will be donated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that in the US, people can register as organ donors when they apply for or renew their driver's licenses? And then they're given some sticker or ID card that identifies them as organ donors, so medical personnel will know that their organs should be preserved? And as I understand it, the absence of any such ID card identifies a person as having chosen not to donate his organs. And in the case if children, isn't it the parents who decide or give permission? I'm not an American so I'm not sure about the details.

Somehow, that sounds a little selfish to me because we are not the one losing an eye.

(Huh? What eye?) What's selfish to me is missing an opportunity to significantly enhance life-saving and life-uplifting medical technology.

[keltzkroz]

I will admit that an important difference exists between these human embryos and organ donors: the former never have an opportunity to exercise free will over their fate. I will not rationalize that this lack of choice is fair, in fact I will admit it is an unjust consequence of the state of affairs. I will also say however; with the interests of all humans in mind, born and unborn, the better choice has been made for them.

I disagree with the last sentence. In my opinion, while it is in the best interest of the recipient, its not in the best interest of the embryo which is going to be destroyed. What I think is in the best interest of the embryo is for it to become a full grown human. While I have nothing against IVF (and I might even resort to it if necessary), humans created a slippery slope with IVF. The current IVF technology produces spare embryos as 'byproducts', which are then viewed as a resource for embryonic stem cell research, giving proponents reasons such as 'they are going to be destroyed/discarded anyway'. I guess its tough luck for the unwanted embryos. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that there is something wrong with that.

I don't think your comparison is fair, because as I understand it, organ donors can choose whether or not their organs will be donated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that in the US, people can register as organ donors when they apply for or renew their driver's licenses? And then they're given some sticker or ID card that identifies them as organ donors, so medical personnel will know that their organs should be preserved? And as I understand it, the absence of any such ID card identifies a person as having chosen not to donate his organs. And in the case if children, isn't it the parents who decide or give permission? I'm not an American so I'm not sure about the details.

Thats my point. If the embryos can give their permission wether or not they can be destroyed, that would be great. But they cant. Using another example, lets say I have a kid who needs a heart transplant, and I'm the only one who can give him a transplant. I'm not sure about the laws in the US concerning this kind of situation, but I think that even if I beg my doctor, it will be illegal for him to comply and take my heart as a transplant, killing me in the process (although I think it would be a different case if, after expressing my wish to donate my heart to my kid, I conveniently die *cough* so my heart can be harvested). Hopefully someone with more knowledge on the laws in the US concerning transplants can give their input (I'm concerned about the laws in US because its the one that affects me directly, so please don't start with stuff like 'the law in [insert country other than US] is.....').

(Huh? What eye?) What's selfish to me is missing an opportunity to significantly enhance life-saving and life-uplifting medical technology.

The eye thing is symbolic for something important.
Hey, I'm all for life-saving technology, if only it did not involve life-destroying in the process.

[Aximili23]

I disagree with the last sentence. In my opinion, while it is in the best interest of the recipient, its not in the best interest of the embryo which is going to be destroyed. What I think is in the best interest of the embryo is for it to become a full grown human. While I have nothing against IVF (and I might even resort to it if necessary), humans created a slippery slope with IVF. The current IVF technology produces spare embryos as 'byproducts', which are then viewed as a resource for embryonic stem cell research, giving proponents reasons such as 'they are going to be destroyed/discarded anyway'. I guess its tough luck for the unwanted embryos. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that there is something wrong with that.

How is stem cell research not in the best interest of the embryo? The embryo faces two possible outcomes: abandonment and eventual death in a freezer, or destruction in the name of medical science. I don't see how the former is preferable to the latter. While I agree that ideally, the best thing for the embryo would be to become a fully grown human, that option is not in the foreseeable future of the embryo, practically speaking. I'm sorry but considering the specific circumstances in the US, alluding to such an option is little more than wishful thinking, in my opinion.

I agree with what you mean about the slippery slope of IVF. The fact that human lives are being created by in vitro fertilization that are just being abandoned in freezers seems morally problematic to me; and I'm a little surprised that opponents of abortion and stem cell research didn't give this any opposition (as far as I know). But I think it's important to view the issue in practical terms. As things stand now, we do have human embryos that are just going to waste. Destroying them to save the lives of others, while not morally ideal, seems to be the best and most moral thing to do given the current circumstances.

Thats my point. If the embryos can give their permission wether or not they can be destroyed, that would be great. But they cant. Using another example, lets say I have a kid who needs a heart transplant, and I'm the only one who can give him a transplant. I'm not sure about the laws in the US concerning this kind of situation, but I think that even if I beg my doctor, it will be illegal for him to comply and take my heart as a transplant, killing me in the process (although I think it would be a different case if, after expressing my wish to donate my heart to my kid, I conveniently die *cough* so my heart can be harvested).

I'm pretty sure you're right; it is illegal in the US for a doctor to take the life of a person to save another person, even if the first person desires it. But my opinion is that circumstances are different for an embryo. Whatever it's experiencing inside that freezer, it can't be considered a "life" by any stretch of the imagination.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Here's what I say: screw the embryo's "feelings". If I am an embryo locked away in a freezer staring death in the face, I would not be selfish enought to keep my vital resources to myself when there are others out there who need them more. "If I can't live, niether can you!"

Why is organ donation not mandatory? Does a dead person need organs?

My socialistic leaning concience tells me that no one reserves the liberty to outright neglect the needs of others when their own are not at stake. A rich person's civic requirement should be to help provide for the less fortunate amoung us. That is just common decency. A person with un-needed organs should be forced to share them with those who do. How is that unreasonable?

Can one have too much freedom? America grants it's citizens the freedom to be overtly greedy, inattentive to the needs of others, and unsympathetic to human suffering. That is too much freedom.

Let us examine the "must not destroy life to save life" mentality. The real question here is whose well being is most important: the unfeeling, irrational, random cell grouping, or the emotional, rationalizing, fully formed human being undergoing real physical and mental pain.

In other words, this:

Or this:


Anyone here having difficulty making this decision?

Some people do. Some people, in fact, would choose to save the primitive stem cell in the first picture, over the dieing Iraqi boy in the second.

It is such people that commonly tell me to "have sympathy", or "be reasonable" in regards to this issue. How ironic.



A doctor that neglects to give his patient ample treatment when the resources were readily available can be charged with murder. Is choosing not to use stem cells not the very same?

We have no right forcing more people in this world when we can't even care for the people all ready here.

[keltzkroz]

How is stem cell research not in the best interest of the embryo? The embryo faces two possible outcomes: abandonment and eventual death in a freezer, or destruction in the name of medical science. I don't see how the former is preferable to the latter. While I agree that ideally, the best thing for the embryo would be to become a fully grown human, that option is not in the foreseeable future of the embryo, practically speaking. I'm sorry but considering the specific circumstances in the US, alluding to such an option is little more than wishful thinking, in my opinion.

I agree with what you mean about the slippery slope of IVF. The fact that human lives are being created by in vitro fertilization that are just being abandoned in freezers seems morally problematic to me; and I'm a little surprised that opponents of abortion and stem cell research didn't give this any opposition (as far as I know). But I think it's important to view the issue in practical terms. As things stand now, we do have human embryos that are just going to waste. Destroying them to save the lives of others, while not morally ideal, seems to be the best and most moral thing to do given the current circumstances.

Whatever it's experiencing inside that freezer, it can't be considered a "life" by any stretch of the imagination.

The fact that humans are creating these embryos which will go to waste is the problem as I see it. That the embryo faces abandonment, eventual death in a freezer, or being used as commodities. That these surplus embryos are unwanted except for the purpose of being commodities for the more privileged and more able members of the human family. That they are being viewed as commodities, something lesser than full members of the human family. That 'those clump of cells don't look like us therefore they are more expendable' mentality is so pervasive. Those are the problems, as I see it.

And speaking of practicality, why not round up all the bums, mentally disabled, and other members of society who simply drain resources, then 'dispose' of them? Guess what, one reason is because its easier to have more compassion, or get attached to, or place more value on a human that looks like us, but not for a clump of cells.

With all the advances and gains humans are making, its easy to forget what we are losing.

[keltzkroz]

Nice pictures The Persnickety Platypus. Am I correct in assuming that both clump of cells shown in both pictures are that of homo sapiens (I have to admit that one of them had more time that the other)? I try my best to have equal compassion for both.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Indeed, both are that of the species homo sapien. The main difference is, one is will perish REGARDLESS of the outcome.

So to put it more bluntly, would you choose the real human with real feelings struggling with the possibility of death and the consequent misery it will place upon his/her family, or the apathetic clump of cells with the emotional capacity of a jellyfish, which is doomed to death regardless?

Personally, I am going with the suffering human.

The fact that humans are creating these embryos which will go to waste is the problem as I see it. That the embryo faces abandonment, eventual death in a freezer, or being used as commodities. That these surplus embryos are unwanted except for the purpose of being commodities for the more privileged and more able members of the human family. That they are being viewed as commodities, something lesser than full members of the human family. That 'those clump of cells don't look like us therefore they are more expendable' mentality is so pervasive. Those are the problems, as I see it.

By "farming" embryos, we are taking absolutely NOTHING away from them. In fact, we are giving them much more than what would be allowed under natures normal constraints.

Here are a few sperm cells who had absoletely no hope of ever reaching fertilization. Yet we take them, manually propagate them, and make them beneficial components of society.

Lets say I am a sperm cell (wow, this should be fun). After happily wriggling my way up the fallopian I reach the egg. But alas, it appears I cannot find a way in. I am doomed to eternal black non-existance, so it seems. How miserable. But wait! It appears some friendly scientists from the nearest stem cell lab have been nice enough to extract me and fertilize me themselves. I grow into a primitive embryo. Unfortunately, I don't have the opportunity to grow into a full fledged human being. HOWEVER, my stem cells may be immortilized as fully functional units in a needy human body.

Don't know about you other sperm cells, but I am taking that deal. Might as well be of some use to society, right?

Do underdeveloped embryos experience pain? I am no scientist, but I am willing to bet they don't. Anything that lacks fully formed cells (much less actual organs) probably does not exhibit any sort of sensation. We can be sure that they possess no emotion.

I think comparing the disposing of an embryo to that of murdering homeless people is very misleading.





To have equal compassion for humans and embryos is one thing. To blatantly FAVOR an embryo is another issue all together. Technology has progressed to the point where we are forced to make a decision: save living people, or the precious stem cells. As the population increases, and the quality of life goes down, we are left with a declaration of priorities. Quality, or quanity? Resources are very limited, and in a viciously competitive society such as our own, many people become left out. Half of Africa is starving, and we want to force more children into our overly privilidged country, further widening the wealth gap.

Lets take care of the people all ready here before we busy ourselves making more of them.

[keltzkroz]

Sorry, but we are looking at the same thing in different ways. You choose the suffering human over the clump of cells, and as I see it, you are blatantly favoring one over the other, the same as the person who blatantly favors the clump of cells. I can see that you seem to be more concerned in dealing with the symptoms of this disease that the world has, and I can respect that. But I'm more interested in understanding and dealing with the cause. Reaching for the stars while we keep sinking in the mud is not my kind of progress. I guess I'll just have to leave it at that.