Stem Cell Research and medicine vs belief in God

[_Mary]

You make a good point here TK. The embryos created 'in a dish' at the wish of an IVF couple are certainly sacred to the couple, who undoubtedly have a strong emotional connection with them.

I wonder however if The Dude had in mind not IVF embryos, but embryos created in a dish by a group of medical researchers in a clinic specifically for experimentation. In this case the creators of the embryos have absolutely zero emotional connection with them at all, and most likely view them as having no moral value whatever.

Well, maybe there should be no absolutes on this, but I doubt that people are generally aware of the risks of super ovulating and then extracting eggs from a woman's ovary (for the men it's a bit more simple obviously!) . For me, it nearly cost me my life, as my ovary became infected and blew up to the size of an orange, and then had to be extracted. Before it was extracted by major operative surgery with 3 consultant specialists in their field, it was all tender hooks, since the ovary was blocking a tube to the kidney. It really wasn't a very nice experience, (though when my body had sufficiently healed we did try one more time) and I am still having side effects now that are 'again' being investigated.

I'm not saying that some can't donate eggs and sperms dispassionately and with the no emotional involvment and no side effects, but is it right to disconnect parenting with this issue? As I say, no hard and fasts on this, but I think the church, Bush, etc are wise to tread very very carefully on this.

Mary

[_Fortigurn]

Well said MT.

[_The Dude]

Please excuse my cold heartedness MT. I should watch how I say things. In fact my best friends have been through IVF and still do not have a child, and if they heard me talk like this they might stop being my best friends. I can only imagine how attached they were to their in vitro created embryos. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of couples who succeeded in having children through IVF and are quite willing to donate the extras for research. Does this mean the human-identity of an in vitro embryo depends on an identity imparted by the couple who helped create it?

Then there are embryos created for the sole purpose of research, from donated eggs and donated sperm. Eggs are just special cells. So are sperm, despite their potential to create humans. Put them together and you still have cells, not people. The embryo in a dish has zero potential unless a woman accepts it into her body; it is therefore, sort of, the opposite of an abortion.

The greatest potential of ES cell research doesn't even depend on embryos created by IVF. It comes from cloned embryos, created by the same nuclear transfer trick that made Dolly. This requires an egg but uses no sperm. The artificial embryos are viable in vitro and can be turned into ES cells, but from what we know about animal studies, the vast majority of clone embryos cannot develop into actual baby animals. These embryos would have the greatest potential for research exploring the basis of disease, discovery new drugs, and possibly individualized therapy; they have virtually no potential to become human beings.

The biggest problem: although sheep, mice, dogs, cats, cows, horses, and a few other animals have been cloned, no cloned human embryos have ever been proven. Kooky cults like the Raelians claim to have done it -- and created babies from it LOL -- and frauds like Hwang the Korean have rocked the biomedical world. Researchers in the US (like Dr. Eggan) are limited to private money because of the president's ban.

[_Mary]

Thanks for the clarification Dude. Yikes, it such a tricky issue. I think that you can look dispassionately on all this because it is your field, much like the cancer specialist can detach himself emotionally from his patients, and so forth. A good survival guide I would think. I'm not saying that that's bad, it is pretty much neccessary I think. I'm just glad I'm not the one making the decisions on this.

Mary

[_asbestosman]

Finally, it think it is of limited usefulness to explore this issue in terms of God vs. science because so many religious people -- especially Mormons -- do not believe that ES cell research is incompatible with a pro-life stance on abortion.

First off, thanks for the link. I'll have to look at it later though.

You may be correct that the usefulness in God vs science is limited. The more I think about the issues, the more I agree that it is muddy thinking that links abortion to ES research. Now that's not to say people have not legitimate reason to feel an emotional attachment to ES cells--many clearly will have such an attachment and such is understandable. Rather I just think it's becoming clearer that few people truly believe that all cells with human DNA are equal. We already allow for using one cell from a group to perform testing to benefit the embryo. Also using the Dolly method to grow new cells seems quite different from creating something that can become human. Last I checked, nobody considers a human kidney so sacred that one cannot donate it either to another person or for medicine. I'm not sure that ES is much different than that if all that will be produced from is is organ tissue.

Again, granted there will be understandable emotional attachments for many people. I mean, I'm kinda attached to my kidneys. I can imagine many find a greater bond to their eggs even though some might not. And I think that's the key. If some do not, I see no obvious ethical problems with using an egg cell to grow kidney tissue.


The only link to abortion I know of is the use of frozen embryos from IVF. I don't think I can come up with a satisfactory answer to that. Which brings us back to my point--how to address those with political power. I agree that Mormons have demonstrated the ability to be pro-life and also pro ES research. However, Mormons are not in control (and Mitt is already acting like an evangelical anyhow). What one must do is find a way to convince Evangelicals and others. Perhaps Hatch and others can persuade others, but who knows. I'd love to think that just talking thought things as I have tried this last week would be sufficient, but I know that human emotions are not always logical. God, to me still plays a role in helping to determine what an evangelical would likely accept as an argument about God's will on the issue. Certainly they see things differently than Mormons, but hopefully they can be similar enough to see a clear distinction between ES research and abortion.

[_The Dude]

First off, thanks for the link. I'll have to look at it later though.

I hope you are able to download the full pdf. Sometimes I can download things for free (because of my institute) that other people have to pay for.

The only link to abortion I know of is the use of frozen embryos from IVF. I don't think I can come up with a satisfactory answer to that.

I still see this as quite different from abortion, mechanistically speaking. As long as the donors consider the frozen embryo as "surplus" I don't think it has any claim to being called human. It's just cells with human DNA. "Potential" simply is not enough. On the other hand, I've come to believe the ES cell proponents made a strategic blunder by allowing the debate to focus on frozen embryos that were originally made for reproductive purposes. Their opponents are certainly making the most out of the "reproductive intent" and are using it as a link to abortion.

As I've tried to point out, embryos made for research purposes from donated sperm and eggs, and especially cloned embryos, are more scientifically valuable and morally untainted than frozen IVF embryos.

[_Fortigurn]

I agree in principle with The Dude that a potential X is not an X. So when does it become an X? It becomes an X when society makes the decision to define it as an X. This decision is arbitrary, not absolute.

Peter Singer, for example, observes that a child does not become a human being until it has reached a certain level of self-awareness which typically takes at least a year (he notes 'No infant, defective or not, has as strong a claim to life as a person', pages 131-132 of 'Practical Ethics'). Since awareness of self is the conventional definition of 'person', Singer's argument is logically sound. Killing a child before it has reached this point is not the same as killing a person.