Stem Cells

[VEGETA990]

Ok, brief background in one sentence. Stem cells are generic cells that have the ability to BECOME any cell. The controversy: They are present mostly in fetus's. Science wants to use the cells from aborted fetus's to help people with problems.

The possibilities are endless. I'm talking about cures for parkinsins, lukemia, schizophrenia, spinal cord damage, stroke damage, you name it.

Scientists have already implanted stem cells in a rat that had 0% use in its back legs. After the cells generated, the right leg looked normal and the left leg was weak, but moving.

What's your take?

[Canes4Ever]

After watching my father suffer for 20 years (the last 6 in a wheelchair) from Multiple Scleroisis, I am all in favor of medical research for the benefit of ALL mankind.

[Billy Boy]

If it can help heal I,m all for it.We spend millions a year developing new techniques to kill one another that no-one ever hears about and everyone ignores it but say something like this and everyone plays God(Sorry Mike hope I did'nt cause any offence lol)If it only saves 10 lives it has to be worth it

[TNT]

In light of the choices in Vegeta's survey, I think we can summarize everything in one key question: Is stem cell research good?

For the answer, I think we can best look to the debate over situation ethics, the school of thinking developed by Joseph Fletcher and discussed extensively in a classic debate between Fletcher and John Warwick Montgomery, the Lutheran apologist who, when last heard from, was lecturing at Luton University in London.

Let's use abortion as an example, simply because it's an older issue and it's convenient. We'll assume, for the argument, that abortion is an evil. Incidentally, this is something on which most people agree, regardless of whether they consider themselves pro-life or pro-choice. (Yes, even feminists agree with this. Remember, they do not philosophically support abortion per se, they support the right to abortion, and there is a distinction.)

We now take a hypothetical patient: Mary Doe. Mary has become pregnant. She want to have a child, so the issue of inconvenient pregnancy is irrelavant. But she develops an ectopic pregnancy, in which the fertilized egg cell lodges in the fallopian tube instead of completing its journey to the uterine wall. If an abortion - truly a therapeutic abortion - is not performed, Mary will quite likely die. That's the choice: the embryo goes, or Mary goes.

(Am I getting too advanced for the college students here? No sweat - now you have an idea of what courses to take next semester, because you may have to deal with issues like this in real life. )

In the Fletcher-Montgomery debate, Fletcher's position was, "Yes, abortion is evil. But in this circumstance, where it is necessary to save the life of the mother, abortion is good." (A similar example would be a SWAT officer who observes an armed hostage situation. Killing someone is evil, but by killing the hostage taker, the officer will save the lives of the hostages. Obviously, another example would be the nuking of Hiroshima - destroying upwards of 70,000 people to potentially save millions down the road. But rather than debating pacifism versus the just war theory, we'll leave that one alone.)

That's the meaning of situation ethics: Something may be evil, but it becomes good through necessity.

Montgomery's position was far more realistic from a moral and theological perspective. In our abortion scenario, Montgomery would also opt for the therapeutic abortion. However, he said, "Abortion is still an evil, but it becomes the lesser of two evils. Therefore, we must opt for that, repent of it, and then go on."

I submit that we are facing the same argument with regard to stem cell research. It could be construed as a moral evil to play with dead babies . . .

(Okay, I'll digress. How do you make a dead baby float? Two scoops of dead baby and some 7-Up.)

. . . but many people would say that the moral evil is outweighed by the potential of curing persons with debilitating diseases and disorders.

"Well, yeah," you might say, "but Parkinson's only affects X-percent of X-percent of the population. Does that justify endorsing stem cell research?"

That depends on which side of the scale you're on. For example, if you happen to be one of the few people that has a condition that only affects 1% of 1% of 1% of the population, then the incidence rate of that condition for you is 100%.

The position I take is the same position I take with regard to needle exchange programs, which operate in several major American cities. It can be construed that by providing a means for drug addicts to bring in their used needles and trade them for new, sterile needles, we are endorsing drug abuse and addiction.

Nonsense. What we are doing is recognizing that there will always be drug addicts, whether we like it or not, and regardless of how many times we teach our kids, "Just say no." So we're taking a positive step to help addicts avoid infection, HIV, and spreading conditions to other addicts (keeping in mind that addicts often share needles).

(Obviously, distributing condoms in the schools is the same scenario. Are we saying to teenagers, "Go boink each other?" Nope, we're saying, "We recognize that despite all the pro-chasity tap-dancing we do, you are goingto boink each other. So we will provide condoms that will help you prevent unwanted pregnancy, STD's, and HIV transmission."

The situation ethicist would say that all these things are good. The realist will say that they're not necessarily good - in fact, they may or may not be evil - but they are necessary.

Whether we like it or not, hospitals and abortion clinics will suck up (literally - ba da bum! ) fetuses every day. And we now have a choice on where those fetuses will end up - in a medical waste dumpster, where they will help no one - or in a lab, where they may help many people.

Keep in mind that all this does is address the very basic issue of stem cell research. It doesn't even begin to address perhpheral questions such as intentionally harvesting or creating embryos for future research or treatment. (You may remember the firestorm created about a year ago when a woman intentionally became pregannt for the sole purpose of providing cells to treat an older child.)

Yes, most of us would opt for stem cell research based on the potential of finding a treatment, or even a cure, for many diseases. At the same time, you have to consider the position of someone who believes that human life begins at fertilization (as opposed to implantation, fetal development, or birth). Morally, it is perfectly consistent for such persons (such as many Roman Catholics and born-again Christians, as well as some Orthodox Jews) to be against stem cell research. The important thing, if you are a thinking person, is to develop an informed position. To say, "I'm against it because the Pope says so," or, "I'm for it because my brother has Parkinson's," is not enough.

Finally, the answers to these questions are not dependent upon one's religious presuppositions. The same moral and ethical issues are presented whether one is Christian or other (to put it simply from a majoritarian perspective), religious or non- religious, conservative or liberal, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. They are important questions, since everyone today is likely to face them at some point in their lifetime, if not in regard to themselves then in regard to a relative, friend, or acquaintance.

B u z z z z z z z z! ! !

Ah, I see our time is up. Class is dismissed.

[TNT now returns to his alter ego as a dumb weight jock . . .]

[VEGETA990]

Originally posted by TNT
In light of the choices in Vegeta's survey

I'm hurt TNT, you don't like my survey choices? I was trying to get 4 possible, different reasons in a few words.

what do you think they should be?

[TNT]

Originally posted by VEGETA990
I'm hurt TNT, you don't like my survey choices? I was trying to get 4 possible, different reasons in a few words.
what do you think they should be?

No, I didn't say that I didn'ty like the choices. The choices were not bad, it's just that there were not enough choices.

But don't take that personally, Vegeta; I have never seen a poll on A.R. (or any other board) that included all the choices that were possible, which is why these polls are always skewed (although they're also fun). Besides, they serve to open up dialogues and discussions, exposing everyone to issues we might not have otherwise considered.

I wouldn't sweat it - we're not social scientists, and I wouldn't wish a course in social science research methods on my worst enemy.

Actually, that's not true . . . I would wish a course in social science research methods on my worst enemy.

[Billy Boy]

TNT you fascinate me with your opinons as always

[six10ken]

Originally posted by Billy Boy
If it can help heal I,m all for it.We spend millions a year developing new techniques to kill one another that no-one ever hears about and everyone ignores it but say something like this and everyone plays God(Sorry Mike hope I did'nt cause any offence lol)If it only saves 10 lives it has to be worth it

Well said Billy Boy, my sentiments excatly.

[gixxerboy1]

I agree we should do testing. I dont think it matters what the Pope says. Thats his belief ands thats fine. But i don't think other peoples values or morals should be pushed on other people. This testing could help so many. I dont think its the lesser or the 2 evils but for the greater good