Ethics of Stem Cell Research

[_asbestosman]

You would be against dogfighting, but not cockroach fighting or slimemold tournaments, right? There must be a reason for drawing the line below dogs, I would think....

I'm not trying to ignore your question. I even started typing a reply, but realized how confused it was. I've been reading the book you recommended and am about 1/4 through. I think my position is similar even to Dawkins' in that we can grant rights not according to what is human or has human DNA (or a soal as twins make that really tricky even assuming a soul exists--which I do), but according to an organism's ability to comprehend itself and pain.

So what should you be in control of? What should scientists not be allowed to manipulate for research, or used by doctors for transplants?

When it's my body, I think scientists shoud be able to use anything without my consent unless there is some criminal investigation underway. I feel I have stewardship over whether I donate my kidneys, hair, or anything else so long as my brain is operational enough for me to feel pain, etc. If scientists wish to examine their own organs or grow something from their own tissues I don't have any problem unless the thing they grow can experience conscious pain.

I'm still a bit uncomfortable with experimentation on fertilized eggs, but then again I relize that many surplus exist from IVF and will be discarded anyhow. Since I don't have anything against IVF, I feel those would find a greater purpose being used for research than simply being discarded. I don't feel that they are conscious or have souls at that point. Despite that I fear there is something of treating the gift of life too lightly. I wish I knew how to reconcile a respect for procreative powers with the respect for hard-working scientists who will probably make many great discoveries. I don't think stem-cell research is equivalent to abortion and I think the majority of biologists have a deep respect and an admiration for life. There just seems to be a natural reaction within me to be somewhat worried about creating fertilized human eggs for something other than to create a human being. Why doesn't IVF disturb me in a similar way? Perhaps it's the intention, but then I think it as noble an intention to learn to cure human diseases. I mean as long as I'm willing to sacrifice some fertilized human embryos in the one case, why not the other? Culture perhaps? I certainly feel more comfortable with the new trick of coaxing cells to behave of ES cells. I hope the politicians are at least comfortable with that as well. Still, I am fine with testing surpluss from IVF, so who knows.

[_asbestosman]

Also of importance is the extrinsic value of things. Intrinsicvalue can be defined according to their capacity to feel and understand pain. Extrinsic value can be defined according to a loved one's (or society's collective) feelings toward something. I think that's one reason why I'm against dogfighting. I suppose it's also why I feel somewhat uncomfortable with some aspects of stem-cell research. But to be fair, I do not feel pity for cows, chickens, and the like which are slaughtered to feed me, nor do I care much for PETA. So it does look to be more influenced by not only how I was raised, but who I hang around (I know nobody who likes PETA). None of that is a good enough reason to force views on others in my opinion. And yet I will remain adamant about the rights of all viable, conscious homo-sapiens.

Likewise I feel that brain-dead patients don't need to be kept alive per-se (in fact I'd prefer resources be spent on other dying children). It's just that if a family feels better about keeping grandma alive despite the fact that she's not there mentally, I would never dream of denying that right. I think all agree with that. Somehow though, I wonder whether a stranger's valueing of grandma would be sufficient to keep her hooked up as a vegetable despite none of her kin thinking she's really conscious and despite compitent medical opinions that she is not ever likely to regain consciousness. Add to that no clause in grandma's will that she wishes to remain on life support for if she gave such directions then I imagine they should be respected.

[_Nephi]

I think if those in power had family members or themselves who's life would benefit from research of stem cells (adult or embryonic), they would not stand in the way. The whole reason that any politician stands in the way of it (I believe) is to give some illusion that they have ethics, possibly feeling guilty for all the lack of ethics they posses in other parts of their life.

I am sorry if this sounds harsh coming from me, but I had two (now one) family members who would have benefited greatly from stem cell research. One was diabetic (she is now dead), and the other is a retired police officer who is paraplegic. The fact that we allow abortions to happen, and yet instead of allowing these aborted fetuses the ability to bring life to others, we flat out ignore them just adds insult to injury. Why must others be made to suffer longer because some politician thinks stem cell research is immoral, but allow couples to have abortions (by the way, I am pro choice, and believe abortion should be left up to the individual).

[_asbestosman]

Why must others be made to suffer longer because some politician thinks stem cell research is immoral, but allow couples to have abortions (by the way, I am pro choice, and believe abortion should be left up to the individual).

I think most of those who oppose tem cell research would also love to overturn Roe v Wade. They're just fighting for any victory they can get. The book I'm reading, Challenging Nature by Lee M. Silver makes an interesting case about how the politics behind it is being driven by religion more than seccular ethics. I find this thought troubling as I'm all in favor of allowing people the right to sin without seccular punishment. It almost sounds like if these people have their way that they will go further and criminalize sexual intercourse that was not intended for reproduction--if they could anyhow. I find this to be very troubling. I want to respect life when there is a good reason for it, but I hate getting the law involved in enforcing what can more or less only be religious, or at least spiritual, concerns instead of genuine concern for pain, suffering, and the like of humans and possibly other sentent beings. Much as I dislike PETA, I can at least sympathize with giving sentient life rights and not causing them undue pain.

[_The Dude]

News flash: now they've turned human skin cells in to iPS cells.

[_JAK]

News flash: now they've turned human skin cells in to iPS cells.

And medical science will continue to advance.

JAK

[_asbestosman]

Article on Skin cells mimicing stem cells

A back door to cloning?
Yamanaka also said the reprogramming technique could allow for the creation of egg cells as well as sperm cells from the same person, male or female.

"Making sperm from a male who has some kind of infertility problem, that may be very helpful," he said. "But making sperm from a female iPS cell, and eggs from a male — I think both those procedures should be banned, because the only purpose of that is to make clones."

I can think of at least one other reason someone might want to make sperm from a female or eggs from a male . . .