Stem Cells and Ethics

The owners have spoken.A surprising survey of infertility patients finds that 60 percent are willing to donate their frozen embryos for stem-cell research. Science favored over adoption. (link no longer works). Fertility Patients Favor Donating Unused Embryos for Research(added) the Science article: Willingness to Donate Frozen Embryos for Stem Cell Research (/added)These are the owners of the genetic material. Ethically they can do with it what they want to do. It is their decision. Not congress, not schwubbia.That is all the argument that is necessary.Enjoy.social issues forumEdited by RAZD, : forumEdited by RAZD, : changed links

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

There is a real simple answer to this: have the cells declared legally dead. From Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion:

quote:

---

The first legal standard of death is very clear -- from
the Legal Definition of Death (click):

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustained either
(1) irreversible cessation of circulator and respiratory functions, or
(2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead.
A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

---

(Note link is updated, original no longer works)As there is no circulatory system and no brain stem they are de facto legally dead. If removed from life support systems the cells will die. Once legal death is declared then the owners of the cell material can either have it disposed of (buried, cremated, whatever) OR they can donate all or parts to medical research or to transplant into living humans as they wish.This should also get around any restriction on using living cell material in research. Dead humans do not have the rights that living humans have. The families of the dead humans then decide whether they want to dispose of the body (buried, cremated, whatever) OR they can donate all or parts to medical research or to transplant into living humans as they wish. They have the right to be involved in the decisions of their families with regard to dead bodies and cells. They do not have the right to interfere in those decisions made by other families.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And the counter argument to that is IF the functions necessary for the definition of death are not being exhibited, then the cells are not legally alive to begin with. This would be the same as cell material taken from donors for transplants: blood, kidneys, lungs, etc: where the donor is still a living human being the parts are not.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Personhood is a less inclusive definition than human life, at least in the terms of medical practice for termination of life support. In the Terry Schiavo case there was no person left, but the brain stem was functional. Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion again:

quote:

---

Personhood

​

The second standard is a little more difficult to establish on a broad cultural and social basis except by taking into considerations the beliefs of the family involved and the diversity of levels acceptable to individuals. This includes the concept of personhood.

It is firmly established, both in case law and in medical ethics, that competent adult patients have the right to refuse life-supporting medical treatments, even artificial nutrition and hydration. By the same token, an appropriate surrogate can refuse life-supports on behalf of the legally incompetent if there is sufficient reason to believe the patient would have refused treatment in the present circumstances. Because of this broad legal and moral right to refuse treatment, life-supports that are unwanted or are considered unhelpful -- including life-supports for permanently unconscious patients -- can be terminated without first declaring the patient dead.

This last paragraph is the key to my thinking. Until the fetus has achieved the status of "personhood" discussed above, the "appropriate surrogate" -- in this case the family -- can decide to terminate life support, and if the patient naturally expires due to failure of the {circulator and respiratory functions} to maintain life on their own, then the legal issue is settled.

---

Different families will make different choices. What we see from the survey is that 60% of the patients would donate the extra cell material to science. It is their right to make that decision.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That is why the definition of death says that we are a clump of cells with an operating brain stem and functioning circulation system -- something a cancerous growth on your arm does not have -- to keep from dehumanizing people on life support systems.Beyond that the concept of personhood includes the function of the whole brain to allow families to disconnect life support under extreme circumstances where there is no person but the clump of cells can be kept alive by artificial means.Once the upper brain goes -- like Terri Schiavo -- then all that is left is a clump of cells, and Elvis has left the building.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : stem\upper

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Exactly: passing laws to outlaw abortion based on religious conviction does that. Passing laws to outlaw stem cell research based on religious conviction does that. You presume to speak for your god. Stem cells can SAVE lives. You have scientific literature that supports this assertion?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : added religious conviction

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I don't see either of your links -- neither of which is a journal study -- saying what you claimed. To repeat, you claimed Nothing on either link mentioned metastasizing.Note that one of the biggest problems with current stem cell research is that the number of lineages\sources is severely limited, and a number of those were abnormal to begin with. This is a result of our president playing god on deciding what can be done in scientific research based on his religious feeling and absolutely NO scientific standard (believe me he has none -- he's too busy playing god).What we don't know is how much stem cell research has suffered during the last 6 years of this narrow-minded bigoted elitist anti-science backward policy, what we DO know is that stem cells DO work. I've just had a stem cell transplant because it is a relatively successful procedure, unfortunately the choices were more limited than necessary -- because of people trying to play (pretend they are) god.Now see if you can dig up that specific reference for what you claimed.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

When they come from your own body - nothing. BUT that is not always possible.When they come from another body then you need to take immuno-supressant drugs the rest of your life or you will get host-donor or graft-host disease:

quote:

---

Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a common side effect of an allogeneic bone marrow or cord blood transplant (also called a BMT). An allogeneic transplant uses blood-forming cells donated by a family member, unrelated donor or cord blood unit. In GVHD, the immune cells from the donated marrow or cord blood (the graft) attack the body of the transplant patient (the host). GVHD can affect many different parts of the body. The skin, eyes, stomach and intestines are affected most often. GVHD can range from mild to life-threatening.

---

Fetal stem cells on the other hand do not have this problem and would be recognized as your own (or would recognize you as their own).That means you would have another option to live.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I see you still fail to provide your source for your previous argument -- I guess that means it was an invalid assertion. Another quote from a site that is not in the medical study of fetal stem cells and instead make argument after argument from incredulity and ignorance. Please try to stick to reality and not wild claims.Your argument depends entirely on all embryos being always destined for development into human beings, and this just is not the case: most of them are destined to be discarded. Thus the real question is whether it is more ethical to throw embryos away or to use them for life saving medical technology.You seem to prefer throwing them in the dustbin (or forcing fertility clinics to keep an ever increasing bank of never to be used frozen embryos, really another dustbin under a different name), and letting people that could use them die instead of lead normal lives. That would be you trying to play god again.Personally I think it is up to the owners of the genetic material to decide if they want to keep the embryos, throw them away or donate them to medical research.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And we are talking about stem cell research which is done on stem cells in embryos created in a lab and that are left over after the needs of the fertility clinic are met. The probability of such a left over embryo surviving is zero unless you perform nazi medical experiments to force them into women's wombs against their wishes, and even then they are small (the reason fertility clinics make so many to use). There is no self in a petri dish, just cells. The owners of the genetic material are the people the genetic material came from. These also happen to be the only people that can answer the question if any one of them is going to ever be used and then what to do with the rest. At the time of birth those are no longer fetal stem cells but similar to adult ones in that they identify with the fetus.Perhaps you have never heard of Rh Disease between mother and child? Check out
Parents (for Parents) - Nemours KidsHealthGosh do you have a lot to learn about this situation.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And we are talking about stem cell research which is done on stem cells in embryos created in a lab and that are left over after the needs of the fertility clinic are met. The probability of such a left over embryo surviving is zero unless you perform nazi medical experiments to force them into women's wombs against their wishes, and even then they are small (the reason fertility clinics make so many to use). There is no self in a petri dish, just cells. The owners of the genetic material are the people the genetic material came from. These also happen to be the only people that can answer the question if any one of them is going to ever be used and then what to do with the rest. At the time of birth those are no longer fetal stem cells but similar to adult ones in that they identify with the fetus.Perhaps you have never heard of Rh Disease between mother and child? Check out
Parents (for Parents) - Nemours KidsHealthGosh do you have a lot to learn about this situation.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Uniting two living cells into one living cell makes a "new" life ... sorry doesn't add up -- the material was just as alive before being united. There is no magic "something new" added at that point. First off your president is making policy based on religious tenets -- he is playing god.Second stem cells can be cultured -- why do you think they are still around after your foolish presidents foolish edict? Magic newness?Third you STILL have stem cells continually added to that storage in fertility clinics that will NEVER be placed in a uterus, stem cells where 60% of the owners say they would donate them to science: what right do you have to interfere with their decision? They are the ones that KNOW that the cells will never be placed in a uterus because they OWN them.Stop trying to create artificial circumstances to bolster your position when it is indefensible in the REAL situation. Correct. The OWNERS have decided they don't need the cells for that purpose, which as OWNERS is their RIGHT. Now you want to do some nazi experiments on living babies to remove cell material? What kind of ghoul are you that you would prefer this to using extra unwanted never to be used cell material from fertility clinics?AND you have not established that these are as good for medical treatments as fetal stem cells.And you still are failing utterly to deal with the issue of all those piles of cells left over from fertility clinics that will NEVER be put in a uterus.What is more ethical -- donate the cells to science or donate them to the trash heap? Hint: one saves lives.That is the ONLY question for this thread.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

with links updated in the OP (including link to the actual Science report on the survey).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

welcome to the fray, helenavm.Please note the two different reply formats, the general reply that you used and the message reply that creates a link to the message referenced (as this one is to your message). For details on this and other tips see posting tips. There are several sources of precursor cells, cells that are not fully differentiated, but they generally do not have the versatility of actual embryonic stem cells (EMCs) and need to be "jiggled" into thinking they are EMCs. There was a recent article about skin cells being jiggled to do this, which would open up true cloning (unlike what has been done so far).However, the issue of this thread is concerned with the question of using embryonic cells that will not become people, and the choice is whether to use them in research or discard them.To me there is no question but that the donors of the cell material should be able to decide this question, and that this is ethically in keeping with the choice that family members make for donations of organs.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •