Jump to content

Menu

Do you support stem-cell research?


Do you support stem-cell research?  

  1. 1. Do you support stem-cell research?

    • Yes.
      86
    • No.
      77
    • Other/Maybe/Caveats/Etc.
      105


Recommended Posts

I don't support *fetal* stem cell research. Adult scr has proven to be quite effective in various areas.

 

I certainly don't support government funded stem cell research. If there is a chance of scr curing anything, private companies would be all over it for the profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't support *fetal* stem cell research. Adult scr has proven to be quite effective in various areas.

 

I certainly don't support government funded stem cell research. If there is a chance of scr curing anything, private companies would be all over it for the profit.

 

:iagree:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't support *fetal* stem cell research. Adult scr has proven to be quite effective in various areas.

 

I certainly don't support government funded stem cell research. If there is a chance of scr curing anything, private companies would be all over it for the profit.

 

Yes to all your points here. The results with adult stem cells so far have been very promising, without all the tissue rejection complications (when a patient's own cells are used as in the case of the trachea/esoph. implant).

 

I'm very disappointed that this funding moratorium was reversed, as if all these other avenues didn't exist. Research is being done, embryonic research is being done, private research is being done. It's dishonest to represent it as otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only with adult stem cells, which can be collected without damage to the donor and can even be harvested, treated, and returned to the donor for person-specific therapies (well, someday). Seems there is a way to have all the benefits without the ethical dilemmas, but the scientific community is so fixated on freedom to research anything they see fit, regardless of "ideology" (aka moral concerns) that they are unwilling to give this therapy center stage. Furthermore, they insist on government funding that ethically heedless research with tax monies that could well be used elsewhere, since there is private money available to fund this promising area of research.

 

:iagree: What she said! I voted other as well. There has been quite a bit of success in adult stem call research. it is too bad that it isn't concentrated on.

I think all that about fetal stem cells curing everything from parkinson's to the common cold is just hooey. and I do have a dog in this fight...7 people in my family and Dh's family have parkinson's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only with adult stem cells, which can be collected without damage to the donor and can even be harvested, treated, and returned to the donor for person-specific therapies (well, someday). Seems there is a way to have all the benefits without the ethical dilemmas, but the scientific community is so fixated on freedom to research anything they see fit, regardless of "ideology" (aka moral concerns) that they are unwilling to give this therapy center stage. Furthermore, they insist on government funding that ethically heedless research with tax monies that could well be used elsewhere, since there is private money available to fund this promising area of research.

 

 

OH, just soooo totally AMEN!!!!!!!!!:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against embryonic stem cell research of any sort.

 

Other stem cell research- placental, epithelial, etc.- I'm all for. We should be pouring research money into what works without destroying life. And I believe an embryo is life. The results have so far proven more promising in non-embryonic research anyways.

 

As an added issue. Embryonic stem cell research will put a dollar value on embryos that will make the "business" of acquiring and/or creating embryos. That is unsupportable in my world.

 

Jo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against embryonic stem cell research of any sort.

 

Other stem cell research- placental, epithelial, etc.- I'm all for. We should be pouring research money into what works without destroying life. And I believe an embryo is life. The results have so far proven more promising in non-embryonic research anyways.

 

As an added issue. Embryonic stem cell research will put a dollar value on embryos that will make the "business" of acquiring and/or creating embryos. That is unsupportable in my world.

 

Jo

 

I can't see the harvesting of embryonic stem cells not becoming a business for financial gain and I have a hard time with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I ask because I respect you and want to know if I am missing the other side of the coin on this issue???

 

Is it more ethical to dispose of (other other-wise discard) embryos left-over from IVF measures? Because this is (or was) the situation. Embryos have been destroyed for many years, when the alternative existed to create new stem cell lines with those embryos that other-wise would have been slated for destruction.

 

If stem cells can deliver on the hope being offered on many fronts (a condition not yet fully proven) the ethics from my perspective is clear. It's better to use them in an attempt to cure disease and other terrible medical conditions rather than simply throwing them away.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't support *fetal* stem cell research. Adult scr has proven to be quite effective in various areas.

 

I certainly don't support government funded stem cell research. If there is a chance of scr curing anything, private companies would be all over it for the profit.

 

:iagree:

What she said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't support *fetal* stem cell research. Adult scr has proven to be quite effective in various areas.

 

I certainly don't support government funded stem cell research. If there is a chance of scr curing anything, private companies would be all over it for the profit.

 

Well said. I totally agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against embryonic stem cell research.

 

Every time a baby is born, they are born with an umbilical cord. I've had 3 babies, and each time I was offered the opportunity to save their cord blood IF I payed a whole lot of $$$ to those cord blood banks.

 

I would gladly give the cord blood from my babies birth's for research or to donate to a specific individual who needed it. BUT I'M KEEPING THE BABY!!!!!!!!!! (sorry for the cyber scream:tongue_smilie:)

 

Sadly, donating cord blood freely is not an option for most mothers.:glare:

 

btw - I have been personally touched by parkinsons and MS through family members. Neither of them would want to live a moment in a body healed by the destruction of another human being, no matter how small that embryo may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it more ethical to dispose of (other other-wise discard) embryos left-over from IVF measures? Because this is (or was) the situation. Embryos have been destroyed for many years, when the alternative existed to create new stem cell lines with those embryos that other-wise would have been slated for destruction.

 

If stem cells can deliver on the hope being offered on many fronts (a condition not yet fully proven) the ethics from my perspective is clear. It's better to use them in an attempt to cure disease and other terrible medical conditions rather than simply throwing them away.

 

Bill

 

I don't think the question in this instance is which is more ethical. As I believe embryos are human life, both are unethical from my world view. No moral braking points seem to have been put in place with the development of IVF, allowing couples and Doctors to create more embryos than needed. There should have been some provision made on how "extra" embryos would be handled. Perhaps a couple could have to offer the embryos a chance at continued life through more implantations (Not all at once like the woman in CA, though!) or offer them out for adoption. There are organizations like Snowflake Children which advocate for adoption of abandoned embryos. To hold embryos frozen indefinitely, to discard them like trash, to experiment on them are all unethical.

 

To use them to save lives sounds noble, but it is without the consent of the developing person. It pits the fully developed humans against the weak, without voices. Should comatose people be used for medical experiments because there's a promising new potential cure that can be extracted from the comatose brain? We could argue that those people will probably never wake up again, their lives are going to waste. But the end justifies the means is not a good argument.

 

I hopefully am coming across in a discussion tone, maybe a little passionate, but not angry or upset. I do feel strongly about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the question in this instance is which is more ethical. As I believe embryos are human life, both are unethical from my world view. No moral braking points seem to have been put in place with the development of IVF, allowing couples and Doctors to create more embryos than needed. There should have been some provision made on how "extra" embryos would be handled. Perhaps a couple could have to offer the embryos a chance at continued life through more implantations (Not all at once like the woman in CA, though!) or offer them out for adoption. There are organizations like Snowflake Children which advocate for adoption of abandoned embryos. To hold embryos frozen indefinitely, to discard them like trash, to experiment on them are all unethical.

 

To use them to save lives sounds noble, but it is without the consent of the developing person. It pits the fully developed humans against the weak, without voices. Should comatose people be used for medical experiments because there's a promising new potential cure that can be extracted from the comatose brain? We could argue that those people will probably never wake up again, their lives are going to waste. But the end justifies the means is not a good argument.

 

I hopefully am coming across in a discussion tone, maybe a little passionate, but not angry or upset. I do feel strongly about this.

 

 

I agree with you. I believe that IVF should be unlawful. But what to do about all of the forzen embryos? I think they should be given a proper and dignified burial. Perhaps a monument to respecting life and medical morality would be a nice way to honor them, instead of just disposing them or incinerating them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read any of the other posts, so this may be redundant.

 

Last night on the news there was a story of 2 women who had neck injuries and were paralyzed as a result. They went to Russia for an experimental stem cell treatment for those injuries. Both received injections of THEIR OWN STEM CELLS - not embryonic cells. These women won't benefit at all from embryonic cells, but their own cells have proven useful.

 

When I had my babies, I tried to donate the cord blood for the stem cells. That is a ready supply of cells. They want me to pay to keep it because it is proven to be useful - but I can't give it away.

 

If embryonic cells are so useful, let private industry research it like it has been. If there are other sources of stem cells available (which there are) use them first. I don't think it's the place of the government to fund somehting that is morally questionable when there are other viable options available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against embryonic stem cell research.

 

Every time a baby is born, they are born with an umbilical cord. I've had 3 babies, and each time I was offered the opportunity to save their cord blood IF I payed a whole lot of $$$ to those cord blood banks.

 

I would gladly give the cord blood from my babies birth's for research or to donate to a specific individual who needed it. BUT I'M KEEPING THE BABY!!!!!!!!!! (sorry for the cyber scream:tongue_smilie:)

 

Sadly, donating cord blood freely is not an option for most mothers.:glare:

 

 

 

I am very blessed to live in an area with a cord blood bank. I donated cord blood from both of my children. They keep it tagged so that, if I ever needed it, I'd be able to get (if it's still available). This makes more sense to me than storing it at an exorbitant cost for my own use.

 

I do not support embryonic stem-cell research. Even if I did, I CERTAINLY don't support government money spent on it for a multitude of reasons.

 

My best friend has MS, my mom has cancer. Neither are interested in prolonging their lives or curing themselves if it means a voiceless, weak person must, without volunteering, die to bring that about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by farmgirlinwv viewpost.gif

I voted "other". I do not in any way support embryonic stem cell research. Other stem cell research I support in theory, but not w/ gov't $$.

 

lisa

Yep, me too. The gov't doesn't need to be involved in medical research.
:iagree: My feelings exactly!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I ask because I respect you and want to know if I am missing the other side of the coin on this issue???

 

The embryos from which the stem cells are taken are frozen "remnants" of IVF procedures. The cells divide to the blastula stage and are harvested. The other option is that the cells remain in the freezer forever. In both cases, no human life is formed, but in one case, some good can result from the creation of a stem cell line that might, someday, help scientists discover how cells differentiate, discover how to prevent or cure certain disorders, etc. Use of these cell lines could someday drastically decrease animal testing, and give better results as to what will or will not harm humans.

 

It's a tough situation. In a perfect world, there would not be freezers full of little balls of human cells. The fact is, however, that those little balls of cells are there, and will remain unused. My guess is that at some point they will be destroyed anyway, because the cost of keeping them frozen indefinately (especially as more and more become stored) will become prohibitive.

 

So, given the current situation, I support using them to create cell lines that could potentially help people.

 

Ria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it more ethical to dispose of (other other-wise discard) embryos left-over from IVF measures? Because this is (or was) the situation. Embryos have been destroyed for many years, when the alternative existed to create new stem cell lines with those embryos that other-wise would have been slated for destruction.

 

If stem cells can deliver on the hope being offered on many fronts (a condition not yet fully proven) the ethics from my perspective is clear. It's better to use them in an attempt to cure disease and other terrible medical conditions rather than simply throwing them away.

 

Bill

 

The embryos from which the stem cells are taken are frozen "remnants" of IVF procedures. The cells divide to the blastula stage and are harvested. The other option is that the cells remain in the freezer forever. In both cases, no human life is formed, but in one case, some good can result from the creation of a stem cell line that might, someday, help scientists discover how cells differentiate, discover how to prevent or cure certain disorders, etc. Use of these cell lines could someday drastically decrease animal testing, and give better results as to what will or will not harm humans.

 

It's a tough situation. In a perfect world, there would not be freezers full of little balls of human cells. The fact is, however, that those little balls of cells are there, and will remain unused. My guess is that at some point they will be destroyed anyway, because the cost of keeping them frozen indefinately (especially as more and more become stored) will become prohibitive.

 

So, given the current situation, I support using them to create cell lines that could potentially help people.

 

Ria

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

And forgive me if I'm naive, but couldn't regulations be put in place much like the ones surrounding organ transplant, so selling unused embryos wouldn't become big business?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support non-embryonic stem cell research. :)

:iagree:

I am very thankful that I was once an embryo and look at me now...I can post on this board. I bet some of us here are young enough to have even been products of IVF. Aren't you glad you were not the one left in the freezer? All embryos are little tiny people. All the information (DNA) making them into big people is already there. How cool is that. How terrible to destroy one life to improve another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The embryos from which the stem cells are taken are frozen "remnants" of IVF procedures. The cells divide to the blastula stage and are harvested. The other option is that the cells remain in the freezer forever. In both cases, no human life is formed, but in one case, some good can result from the creation of a stem cell line that might, someday, help scientists discover how cells differentiate, discover how to prevent or cure certain disorders, etc. Use of these cell lines could someday drastically decrease animal testing, and give better results as to what will or will not harm humans.

 

It's a tough situation. In a perfect world, there would not be freezers full of little balls of human cells. The fact is, however, that those little balls of cells are there, and will remain unused. My guess is that at some point they will be destroyed anyway, because the cost of keeping them frozen indefinately (especially as more and more become stored) will become prohibitive.

 

So, given the current situation, I support using them to create cell lines that could potentially help people.

 

Ria

 

I believe this reflects the ethics behind keeping the embryos frozen, or worse to destroy them. I don't think they should be destroyed either. I agree it is a problem to have freezers full of embryos. But the answer isn't to destroy them. The problem is in the indiscriminate creation in the first place.

 

In my medical ethics course in college we discussed the ending of life support. The rule in most cases of life support withdrawal is whether or not the person has the potential to survive on their own in time. In other words, do they have the potential of life? You can not withdrawal life support if the person has the potential of recovery. The same rule should apply to embryos. They all have the potential for life. Even when they are in the blastula phase. The *potential* is still there.

 

To do research on these "cells" is truly objectionable to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't support *fetal* stem cell research. Adult scr has proven to be quite effective in various areas.

 

I certainly don't support government funded stem cell research. If there is a chance of scr curing anything, private companies would be all over it for the profit.

 

Absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you. I believe that IVF should be unlawful. But what to do about all of the forzen embryos? I think they should be given a proper and dignified burial. Perhaps a monument to respecting life and medical morality would be a nice way to honor them, instead of just disposing them or incinerating them.

 

I wouldn't say that IVF should be unlawful! You do NOTNOTNOT have to create more embryos than you are willing to bring to term for IVF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...