Patterico's Pontifications

5/26/2005

Power Line on Stem Cells

Filed under: Abortion,Current Events — Patterico @ 6:45 am

Paul from Power Line has a post that encapsulates my (admittedly tentative) view of the stem-cell controversy.

Comments (64)

64 Responses to “Power Line on Stem Cells”

President Bush could avoid the entire killing-for-research question if he were to veto federally-funded stem cell research altogether.

Since the Constitution does not authorize medical research, a veto would support the right to life and also restore some fiscal sanity to the bloated budget. This course of action would respect the lives of pre-born children and, in the long run, the pocket books of present and future citizens as deficit interest obligations and taxes are reduced.
Eaglet (50c625) — 5/26/2005 @ 7:48 am
from PowerLine:

On the one hand, I agree that the human embryo in any form or context has intrinsic moral significance. On the other hand, to the extent that embryos at fertility clinics that are going to be discarded anyway can be used for potentially life-saving research, a pro-life argument arises for supporting the research.

So it’s morally OK to destroy many existing living embryos for the potential of life-saving research? I don’t think so.

They don’t have to be discarded. The research may not save anyone. And is it really a good idea to create a market for research embryos?
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 5/26/2005 @ 10:27 am
Eaglet, I can’t speak to the ethical issue, but the economic argument is weak. Many other technologically up-and-coming nations are investing heavily in stem-cell research, as are private foundations. This is in the hope, which I think is reasonable though of course not certain, that any discoveries will pay big dividends. If the research lives up to fraction of its promise and we are paying other countries or their corporations in order to partake in the benefits, any savings now will look paltry.

Question: If such research does lead to a cure for Parkinson’s or cancer, better organ replacements, or any other medical advance, will you be able to overcome your ethical qualms to utilize the technology? Will you then say, “it’s too late to save all those embryos, but I (or a loved one) could sure use that life-saving treatment”…?

I can accept that there is an ethical quandary here, but there is a head-in-the-sand whiff to these arguments.
biwah (f5ca22) — 5/26/2005 @ 11:11 am
There is a head-in-the sand whiff about people who deny that these embryos are alive. If they are not life, then what is?

Should we kill orphans if doing so may help prolong someone’s life? I think not.

Are we talking the same language? There is a difference between morality and practicality, between justice and the law of the jungle, between the protection of the innocent and the exploitation of the helpless.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 5/26/2005 @ 11:53 am
see this
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 5/26/2005 @ 11:59 am
I was purposely putting the direct ethical “merits” of the issue to address the economic detriment of not conducting this kind of biomedical research…and to ask a straightforward question about whether you would be willing to accept the eventual (hyporthetical) benefits that arise from such research.

Instead of answering the question, you reverted to the ethical argument, which I would concede for the moment. I am not interested in hair-splitting on this point. Yes, it is life.

If “life is life”, period, then innocence would not play into it, but we justify killing based on the immoral acts of the individual, i.e. capital punishment.

We also end the lives of innocents, e.g. widespread collateral damage in war. We justify this by one of two rationales: (a) we try to minimize such losses, and (b) it is for a greater purpose. It’s not as though we set out to kill “orphans” or other innocent people, although any argument that such deaths are accidental or unforseen is ludicrous. Likewise, it’s not as though the mission of medical researchers is to cut short the lives of individual embryos – their ultimate goal is a good one – right?

If there is an ethical calculus, maybe the use of stem cells in such cases does not pass. But your absolutist “life is life, any questions?” view is not one that is or has ever been practiced in our mostly judeo-christian society. Why pretend otherwise? Do we vow to let fifty 9/11’s occur before we ever launch an attack that will result in the deaths of innocents? Of course not. Yet disease claims more lives than terrorist attacks.

Yes, moral relativism can be distasteful. But we inevitably practice it. Our society is comprised of a few parts justice, and a few parts “law of the jungle.” Do you unconditionally reject “might makes right?”

And, to return to my question, would you use the technology derived from stem-cell research, or would you eschew it and all resulting benefits because of the lives that were ended in developing it?
biwah (f5ca22) — 5/26/2005 @ 12:24 pm
Yes, I have seen children before. I’m sorry but the sight of those children does not simply answer all these questions. Once again, medical advances can sustain life.

If children are the answer to all moral questions, why do we not declare peace on our enemies and eliminate the idea of “our” children versus “theirs”. They are all innocent and represent our greatest resource.

In the interest of full disclosure, I do have a heart. I do not want to kill children.
biwah (f5ca22) — 5/26/2005 @ 12:30 pm
I would certainly use the technology if available.

Our military works hard to avoid collateral killing, because their objective is not to kill villagers, it is to defeat the enemy. Killing an innocent bystander as you try to defend yourself is not the same thing as killing someone to use (or sell?) his body parts.

Why should we not farm embryos, or harvest body parts from other helpless unfortunate people?

I do unconditionally reject might makes right. That’s not moral relativism, that’s moral negation.

These are difficult issues. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. It just seems to me that the wholesale killing of these embryos to maybe prolong another person’s life is unjust and wrong.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 5/26/2005 @ 1:01 pm
Biwah: “Question: If such research does lead to a cure for Parkinson’s or cancer, better organ replacements, or any other medical advance, will you be able to overcome your ethical qualms to utilize the technology?”

For the purposes of discussion, my answer is no I would not be willing to accept treatment that was derived from the cells of embryos killed to make that treatment. However, I would be willing to accept a cure that was not based upon the killing of human embryos.

My question then for you then is:

If the “research” in your question used embryos that were allowed to grow for only a few more months or years before being killed and turned into treatment, then what is your answer to your own question?
F15C (3d1c2f) — 5/26/2005 @ 1:07 pm
Amphipolis, who denies that embryos are alive? Cells are killed to perform a pap test, do you object to that also?
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/26/2005 @ 1:30 pm
F15C, if your question is, would I condone killing fetuses or children for research, the answer is no. Sorry to disappoint.

If your question was about letting embryos progress to some lesser degree before using (most neutral verb – I think it beats “harvesting” or “carving up”) them, I don’t know. The question will certainly arise. My understanding is that some degree of development produces more specialized stem cells that are much more useful for certain kinds of research.

Amphipolis, the warfare and research scenarios certainly are different, but are they absolutely different? If so, what puts them on opposite sides of your absolute rule of reverence for all life?

It seems that you would permit killing as justice requires, but not as progress requires. I don’t know if that is an accurate summary of what you beleive of course, but…

Under this view, it seems that the only prerequisite for killing is a threat to one’s security. If you happen to be a nation, those criteria can be ever-present. And if your antagonist happens to be a faceless group, then practically any peripheral target is fair game. I believe the killing of innocents as collateral damage under such a loose justification is unacceptable and undercuts any “life is life” argument.

You would also accept the benefits of the research that you claim is immoral, which is hard to fathom – I don’t automatically call it hypocritical but do see a problem there. Anyway, you probably will have the opportunity to do so, someday…but it will be purchased from the U.S.’s economic competitors.
biwah (f5ca22) — 5/26/2005 @ 2:12 pm
Mr Shearer:

I would certainly object if they killed all of the cells in the woman’s body performing a pap smear. How is that equivalent?

biwah:

I certainly would allow killing as justice requires. Does progress require killing? Sounds like a justification for mass murder.

“I believe the killing of innocents as collateral damage under such a loose justification is unacceptable and undercuts any “life is life” argument”
I agree – I have no such loose justification. You brought up the scenario. All I acknowledge is that killing in self-defense could be justified, and that similar justifications could be used for nations. There is no such justification for killing an embryo – barring rare, tragic situations such as ectopic pregnancies, the embryo is not a threat to you.

Here is a possible equivalent scenario – the wholesale slaughter of a group of people so their resources can be exploited by a more powerful group, like Operation Barbarossa. That was supposed to be progress.

Also – I don’t think you are a monster!
Amphipolis (346a88) — 5/26/2005 @ 2:30 pm
Note the caption to the photo I linked to above:

President Bush appeared at the White House with babies and toddlers born of test-tube embryos, some wearing shirts that read “former embryo.”
Amphipolis (346a88) — 5/26/2005 @ 2:40 pm
I said I would use the technology. If the treatment I received had to involve the destruction of an embryo, I would NOT. I was assuming that the treatment would involve knowledge gained through the destruction of embryos.

I accept the benefits of being an American citizen even though I know my nation was built on slave labor, exploitation of Native Americans, a confiscatory war with Mexico, etc. I am not responsible for another person’s actions. I have plenty of my own guilt.

Hopefully other means will be discovered that provide the same benefit, such as using umbilical blood.
Amphipolis (346a88) — 5/26/2005 @ 3:01 pm
biwah: You would have disappointed only by indicating that the ‘older’ embryos would be ok to kill. The only sane answer was yours.

Your answer though, makes the point about the question you asked of Eaglet and closes the circle. As you would not be willing under my definition of ‘research’, others are not willing under yours (not yours per se, but that of the subject at hand).

You wrote later: “If children are the answer to all moral questions, why do we not declare peace on our enemies and eliminate the idea of “our” children versus “theirs”. They are all innocent and represent our greatest resource.”

I hate to keep doing this, but I would change one part of your statement to make it better reflect the reality of the world: ‘why do our enemies not declare peace with us and eliminate the idea of “our” children versus “theirs”’.

You and I both know that the radical Muslims who are our enemy would not respect our unilateral declaration of peace (by their own words) and would only exploit it and the action would become counter productive. On the other hand, an actual, and truthful declaration of peace from them would generate at worst measured reciprocity from the US.
F15C (3d1c2f) — 5/26/2005 @ 3:05 pm
Amphipolis, I didn’t say they were equivalent in all respects but in both cases you are killing cells that are human and alive. So you need another criteria to distinguish them if you find one but not both unacceptable.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/26/2005 @ 3:07 pm
James B. Shearer: “Amphipolis, who denies that embryos are alive? Cells are killed to perform a pap test, do you object to that also?”

It’s hard to see your point with this line of discussion. Clearly we can all agree there is a most significant difference between a few cells killed by a pap smear (or by scraping a knee, or one of a multitude of other ills that we are prey to that destroy a few of our cells but do not destroy *us*) and killing an embryo. Am I missing something? I do not see how equating – in any way – cells killed when I scraped my knee yesterday with killing an embryo furthers this discussion.

Obviously if cells from my skinned knee could be used to cure cancer, then the world is welcome to them and no one (including me) would object in the slightest. There simply is no moral equivalency between a pap smear and killing an embryo.
F15C (3d1c2f) — 5/26/2005 @ 3:22 pm
Michael Cook, editor of Bioethics, recently wrote an article on stem cell research pointing out that on the outside chance that science is able to actually develop cures using stem cells, because each individual has to have “custom made” cells for just him/her, the cost will be so prohibitive that only multi-millionaires will be able to afford it. Doesn’t sound all that viable for the common man to me.
Jackie Warner (95d9f3) — 5/26/2005 @ 3:27 pm
amphipolis,I agree that “progress” has eerie overtones.

But progress is precisely what has by now shown through as the real justification for the Iraq occupation, not self-defense, and justice only under such a loose application as I described. Justice says “it needed to be done to correct a specific wrong,” while progress says “it was an improvement on what preceded it.”

(also to F15C) What galls me is this: the “justice” basis for the occupation (self-defense based on 9/11 and necessity based on WMD) has been discredited. Those who originally relied on it are quite comfortable shifting to the “progress” basis (removing a dictator and spreading democracy, both of which sound good only in a vacuum). Meanwhile, those same individuals stridently oppose stem cell research, which could actually shine a light on the workings of life, arguing that without clear and present necessity, it is creepy and immoral.

It is hard to give credence to such a juxtaposition of values. And, F15C, you probably don’t agree with my analysis of the Iraq situation. My position is simply that we have neither executed justice nor defused a threat by what we have done, and we cannot undo the death we have visited upon the people there. Once we are out of the realm of righting specific wrongs, it does not matter what an SOB Saddam was.

In the context of current politics, the two issues seem inextricably linked. Ultimately, though, I suppose understanding them requires viewing them from a timeless perspective, disregarding the rhetoric of our times.

…and so, viewing it with greater detachment, I do see a problem with killing embryos. Like you amphipolis, I would accept the benefits of others who have done it before me. I also see a rush to this field as an indusry and think that we could benefit from pioneering some aspect of this research. Perhaps more reflection on this issue would qualify such enthusiasm.

Killing is a capacity that we will always have and a weight which we will carry for better or worse. The moral issue is not whether we do it, but the reverence for life with which it is done, and which preserves our morality when we must do it.

But to qualify that, I am not sure if such reverence is possible in our society, so I despair somewhat, and certainly cannot pretend to espouse the simplistic and hardline philosophy that I have been calling “life is life”. Reverence is due to human life, yet where is it? Reverence is due to animal life and all of nature, but where is that?

If we could take our defense of embryos and extend it to a defense of all things upon which our moral survival depend, then I would see the issue differently.
biwah (f5ca22) — 5/26/2005 @ 3:40 pm
F15C, people don’t all agree or abortion wouldn’t be such a divisive subject. I don’t see much difference between killing a single cell human embryo and any other single human cell.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/26/2005 @ 4:47 pm
I did not bring up Iraq, but if I must go there:

biwah: “(also to F15C) What galls me is this: the “justice” basis for the occupation (self-defense based on 9/11 and necessity based on WMD) has been discredited. Those who originally relied on it are quite comfortable shifting to the “progress” basis (removing a dictator and spreading democracy, both of which sound good only in a vacuum). Meanwhile, those same individuals stridently oppose stem cell research, which could actually shine a light on the workings of life, arguing that without clear and present necessity, it is creepy and immoral.”

Regarding Iraq, while we are certainly battling radical Muslims there, I was not referring to Iraq in my statement. But now that the Saddam is out of the pit so-to-speak, I’d like to address your point.

Who said this:
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”

Answer:
Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

Then there is this:
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

An honest person will acknowledge that essentially everyone believed Saddam was working toward, and may have already had, WMD at the time that Bush had to make the decision about Iraq. That was the prevailing belief according to the intelligence available at the time. Teddy and Hillary were right in there as was former president Clinton and even John Kerry. (Though interestingly enough, Bush himself did not in his speeches on the subject focus on WMD as primary rationale for war with Iraq.)

A key but often overlooked question is: Why was this belief so prevalent? The answer is simple: Bush/Rove made it up! (Kidding!) Actually, Saddam wanted the world – and especially his unfriendly neighbors – to *believe* he had WMD. It was politically advantageous for him to do so as it displayed strenght to his neighbors while thumbing his nose at the West and especially the US and UN. Had the US not invaded, Saddam would have pulled off one of the greatest political accomplishments of all time – he would have come out with his Middle Eastern neighbors (and many Europeans) in awe of his power in so totally humiliating the UN and the US in one flail swoop; would have manipulated the UN to his will by use of oil money; and would ensure himself working space to continue his quest for WMD should he desire to do so.

So, Saddam did a great job of convincing the world that he had WMD. As stupid as that may seem to you and I, he got what he wanted. And he faced the consequences that he believed would never come.

He gambled that the US would not invade and was stacking the deck in that gamble in the UN through his influence with some key Security Council members. He was comfortable that the Security Council would never approve of invasion and would only continue the useless time wasting resolution process that had been the status quo for years. Above all, he did not believe the US would create a coalition outside the UN and attack him. He was wrong.

When Bush addressed the nation before going to war and in his address to the UN he spoke clearly to anyone who was listening about freeing the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator and establishing a potential foothold of democracy in the ME.

To me at the time, given the number of Iraqi’s being killed by Hussein per month averaged about 3000, and his ostensible WMD capability, and the large number of UN resolutions flouted by him, removing him, though unpleasant was necessary and a good thing. I still feel that way.
F15C (3d1c2f) — 5/26/2005 @ 4:49 pm
James B. Shearer. Actually an embryo is not an embryo until it the fertilized egg has begun cell division. So you can’t technically kill a single cell embryo. And, at least one difference is that you can get permission to kill cells (in a pap smear for instance) from the person who *is* those cells, but has anyone asked the embryos permission?
F15C (3d1c2f) — 5/26/2005 @ 5:01 pm
Mr Shearer:
“I don’t see much difference between killing a single cell human embryo and any other single human cell.”

What about two cells? Or four? Or a million? At what point is there a difference, if ever?

Are there distinct human lives, and, if so, do they have any intrinsic value? At what point is that value acquired?
Amphipolis (346a88) — 5/26/2005 @ 5:14 pm
biwah: It obviously is important to account for the context of thought at the time we went to war against Iraq, so here is another memory jogger about what the world thought at the time:

“[W]e have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq.

Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam.”

Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)
In a Wall Street Journal editorial Lieberman authored titled:
“Why Democrats Should Support the President on Iraq”
October 7, 2002

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002391

Bear in mind, I’ve said nothing about absolute truth or absolute falsehoods. Diplomats, statesmen, and politicians are rarely if ever able to deal in absolutes especially about truth. That is reality whether you or I like it or not.
F15C (3d1c2f) — 5/26/2005 @ 5:22 pm
biwah:

I don’t reverence life. I reverence life’s creator.

There is no hope without faith.
Amphipolis (346a88) — 5/26/2005 @ 5:28 pm
F15C, it would be pointless to ask an embryo for permission as an embryo is incapable of granting it. In some other such cases (for example taking a child off life support and donating its organs) we ask the parents for permission.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/26/2005 @ 6:41 pm
Amphipolis, I believe the value is acquired gradually.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/26/2005 @ 6:47 pm
Does that mean that an embryo is only fractionally alive as a distinct human being? Every person I have ever come into contact with has been either alive or dead.

How many embryos, put together, have the value of a whole human life? At what point in their gradual livelihood should they be protected, and why?

Can a woman be just a little pregnant after all? 😉
Amphipolis (346a88) — 5/26/2005 @ 8:22 pm
James B. Shearer, you asked for a difference and I responded. Your point about a child on life support is specious and is not comparable to a perfectly healthy human embryo.

Look, I realize that none of us here are going to change the opinions of the others regarding when human life starts – that is the abortion black hole. I respect your position, but based on what I surmise here disagree with you.

I still though am looking for reason and moral justification to support embryonic stem cell research. I watched alzheimers take my mother over a period of five years, and less than two years later, a stroke take my father over a period of six months. I would like to see a cure for those and the other diseases that ravage us, but not at any price.

The moral equivalency that bothers me is that harvesting embryonic stem cells to reduce someone’s suffering and prolong their life is less than nine short months from harvesting the organs of an unborn child to reduce someone’s suffering and prolong their life.
F15C (3d1c2f) — 5/26/2005 @ 8:49 pm
The moral equivalency that bothers me is that harvesting embryonic stem cells to reduce someone’s suffering and prolong their life is less than nine short months from harvesting the organs of an unborn child to reduce someone’s suffering and prolong their life.

Currently BULK of 1/3 of the 400,000 embryos [ deemed healthy until proven otherwise] in fertility clinics would meet a fate of being discarded at request of persons who obtained their production [ i say more of that below] or being left neglected till it passes viability after 5-9 years storage in the freezer. If ONLY some of these that are to be discarded can be used for stem cell research than find their fate in dustbin, it would be MORE MORAL.

Elsewhere i have elaborated how 400,000 arises and exists. They are frozen in freezers and thawed when needed. The thawed ones can be used for plucking out stem cell for that line of research…
Yi-Ling (a9123f) — 5/26/2005 @ 10:40 pm
Yi-Ling, thanks for the helpful response. I need to research the ‘fertility clinic as source’ to raise my level of understanding before I can comment.
F15C (3d1c2f) — 5/26/2005 @ 10:55 pm
Looking past the obvious is what vision is about.
It took vision and commitment to say that slavery was wrong when everyone including the law said it was right. We have the same problem here. The simple way out is to say look what stem cell research can do for people. This is the argument of those who accept that science requires us to forgo everything in the name of science. The harder path to take is the more moral one. Legalizing a process to make human life nothing more than a part of the industrial science process. To be used as an aid to solve someone elses problems. Scientists will always want more. I disagree with this approach. WE have to draw the line somewhere and this should be it. I should say that I am wheelchair bound from a spinal injury. My wife disagrees with me on this issue and hopes that stem cell research will help me.
Davod (51e146) — 5/27/2005 @ 1:27 am
Amphipolis, I take that to mean, roughly, that you have to stick to your moral guns (faith) even in an imperfect world (w/ hope of change). I’m with you on those terms, and revere both the minutiae and the sum of all life.

That’s a lesson in pragmatism, in that absolutist attitudes must find expression in solutions. These have to be guided by experience.

For example, Davod, the opposition to slavery peaked only after the slave economy had peaked, i.e. it took slavery to give rise to anti-slavery. Perhaps similarly, it took Hiroshima & Nagasaki to really school us about the implications of nuclear war. Prior to that, nations were racing to develop and possess it, very much with the intention to use it.

Moral distinctions gain permanency only through experience. Only experience brings into play the kinds of contingencies that Yi-Ling brings up. For that reason I believe that cultural experience underlies our morality, and that therefore complexity should be embraced. Science is the most direct lens trained on that complexity, which those of faith fear loses the larger picture, but it is due to the presence of both that our learning curve in modern times is getting much steeper.

In that vein, we are destined to dabble in morally questionable activities as opportunities arise. There is no way to abstractly and a priori determine where the line must be drawn. That is why the pivotal question of abortion regarding the definition of life seems to be black hole. But it is not – we are learning the consequences of that, as we will with stem cells. And from there our previous moral projections will find their way into our moral and legal codes. You cannot get there with abstraction alone.

The instant issue of federal funding is of course a lesser one that will not ultimately matter. The power of the federal government is no more than a blip within such an irresistable trend. And, as I understand conservatism, that is all the federal gov’t should be.

F15C, I wasn’t basing my objections on the arguments of Democratic senators, but still admit that you’ve schooled me somewhat on the WMD issue. Which I appreciate.
biwah (f5ca22) — 5/27/2005 @ 8:37 am
Maintaining values will involve sacrifice. There are many ambiguities and compromises involved with life in an imperfect world, but it is all too easy to sell out for the sake of convenience. Selfish motivations are easily rationalized.

We are in this situation because couples were willing to endanger ten of their offspring for the sake of maybe having one – that is, if the facts were ever clearly presented to them in the first place. It was wrong.

But there are couples who are willing and able to adopt those children. They should have priority.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 5/27/2005 @ 8:53 am
I don’t think anyone would deny them priority.
biwah (f5ca22) — 5/27/2005 @ 9:00 am
Are embryos human beings, or aren’t they? Everything will flow from your premise.

If you are more pragmatically oriented, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose ESCR, including the presence of many current clinical trials and treatments using cord cells and adult stem cells–and not “just” concerning blood-related disorders, as some ESCR supporters claim.

Still, if you are someone who thinks it is even possible that an embryo is a human being, you really cannot risk killing them. One thing I don’t get is why everyone isn’t completely blown away by the Snowflakes kids, which are formerly frozen and likely-to-be-discarded embryos now born fully into the world. As I have said here.
Christopher Rake (f9677b) — 5/27/2005 @ 10:30 am
Some propositions should be universally and zealously espoused and promoted, if not because they are necessarily self-evident, then because of the horrors that arise if said propositions are not so espoused and promoted. That a human person’s life begins when it BEGINS (not when it emerges, acts or meets some other arbitrary criterion) is one such proposition. Today we are only starting down this path of horrors; it’s going to get a lot worse. Worse to the sensibilities, that is; morally we are already confronted with the worst.
Paula Ruth Robinson MD (d9326b) — 5/27/2005 @ 12:28 pm
Amphidos, in my opinion an embryo is only fractionally entitled to legal protection. And I do not consider a fertilized egg to be a “person”.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/27/2005 @ 1:18 pm
F15C, your difference is just an assertion that a woman can do whatever she wants with her unfertilized eggs but not with her fertilized eggs which assumes the conclusion. In any case even if there is a difference, it is not the difference of alive vrs dead which is what I was objecting to.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/27/2005 @ 1:24 pm
“only fractionally entitled to legal protection”
Just like in the days of Dredd Scott. It’s so much easier to give only fractional protection to helpless, inconvenient, yet financially valuable ~~people~~ objects.

Your answer begs the question: when does one become a person, and how is that time more reasonable than at fertilization? Note: I said reasonable, not convenient.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 5/27/2005 @ 1:36 pm
biwah:

I don’t really want to change the subject, but one thought on this:

“the opposition to slavery peaked only after the slave economy had peaked”

The British banned the slave trade long before the slave economy peaked. You may have your causes and effects mixed up. See this.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 5/27/2005 @ 1:44 pm
“In any case even if there is a difference, it is not the difference of alive vrs dead which is what I was objecting to”

OK – alive as a distinct human life. There, now it’s explicit.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 5/27/2005 @ 1:54 pm
Amphipolis, legally and traditionally you become a person when you are born and obtain (almost)full legal rights at age 21 (perhaps now 18).
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/27/2005 @ 2:02 pm
So – a moment before birth you are not a person. What are you?

Children do not have full legal rights but they do have full legal protection as human beings.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 5/27/2005 @ 2:08 pm
Which is the bigger difference:

An egg cell before and after fertilization
or
A baby before and after birth
Amphipolis (346a88) — 5/27/2005 @ 2:56 pm
biwah: Thanks for clarifying your perspective wrt to the senators. I did not get that initially so I appreciate being set straight. I also respect the calibre of the ongoing discussion with you, I’m better for it.

Overall, the fact that we have 45 comments on such a sensitive and divisive subject that have remained (IMHO) civilized (though contentious) is quite an achievement these days.
F15C (3d1c2f) — 5/27/2005 @ 6:51 pm
To clarify my comment (#46), the ‘we’ I referred to was all those commenting on this forum, not just biwah and myself. I was trying to imply that seems this comment thread is populated by quite a high calibre group of once and former embryos. 🙂
F15C (3d1c2f) — 5/27/2005 @ 7:12 pm
F15C:

I agree. A pleasant discussion this has been. Thank you all.

I’m away tomorrow to see the in-laws, so I probably won’t have the last word.
Amphipolis (346a88) — 5/27/2005 @ 7:15 pm
I said I would use the technology. If the treatment I received had to involve the destruction of an embryo, I would NOT. I was assuming that the treatment would involve knowledge gained through the destruction of embryos.

Still, if you are someone who thinks it is even possible that an embryo is a human being, you really cannot risk killing them. One thing I don’t get is why everyone isn’t completely blown away by the Snowflakes kids, which are formerly frozen and likely-to-be-discarded embryos now born fully into the world. As I have said here.

Why do those who have right over those 1/3 of 400,000 embryos frozen in fertility clinics, lean to asking and getting the fertility clinic to discard them, THAN, allow them to be used for EITHER research or embryo adoption?

If research, I wonder if they arer told, they might agree, to this kind act to help others, instead of discarding them to bin.

If embryo adoption, it is a bit more tricky, as few people can go beyond their ego to allow their genetic material to be adopted and used by another or another couple with view to implantation and pregnancy and birthing. What if the original couple’s child met the wonderful person who is unbeknown to her, is her genetic sibling. So we have to do genetic test before courting to ensure that the one who pulls our heart string is not our genetic sibling. This is anonymous embryo adoption.

If known embryo adoption, how does the child feel of his genetic sibling with another family? What of the genetic sibling’s feelings too?

All these questions associated with embryo adoption, anonymous or otherwise, bring these bag of issues and unless the donor of the embyro has a strong religious or spiritual conviction of life potential of embryos, it is a better bet to ask if they would donate embryo for stem cell research than for adoption.

Maybe federal laws can require donation for research than throwing away what is not needed.
Yi-Ling (369396) — 5/28/2005 @ 8:56 am
If you are more pragmatically oriented, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose ESCR, including the presence of many current clinical trials and treatments using cord cells and adult stem cells–and not “just” concerning blood-related disorders, as some ESCR supporters claim.

To what I understand, pls check, cord cells are from cord blood at time of birth, and thus are not like the unique stem cells which come from embryos. There are stem cells that come from skin etc and those type of stem cells could then be equated with cord cells.

The destruction of embryos [ healthy embryos] to remove stem cells for research, flows from
1. increased eggs produced by NUMEROUS hormone injections to female subject, so that instead of nature’s way of 1 egg, there could be 10-20 eggs.
2. high cost of fertility treatment running to thousands, 10-20 or more thousand as well as suffering that accompanies the treatment, makes sense to produce more eggs and then store and freeze them for extra tries as one try may not be successful.
3. once the result is obtained, there could be thus LEFT OVER embryos, with these numbering 1/3 of 400,000 in fertlity clinics.
4. these excess as well as planned for use embryos are stored in very cold freezers and at very low temperatures, so that these 3-5 days old embryos are FROZEN IN TIME, and do not age. Cells divide to 2, then 3, and then 4,8,16,32,64,…. the odd number is the 3, for some special reason, otherwise they follow, 2,4,8,16,32,64….
5. the embryos taken out from freezer are thus thawed and after thawing, maybe 1/3 do not survive are and discarded. the good heathly 2/3 that are successfully thawed are either for adoption and implantation to anon. or known people or sent for research or thrown into dustbin. Once thawed they cannot be refrozen, and if not sent for implantation or removal of stem cells, they are destroyed.
6. the embyros can be frozen to 5-9 years but usually to 5 years. eggs cannot be frozen. sperms can be frozen to more than 20 years and still usable for fertilisation successfully .

So the healthy embryos for research means 3-5 days old embryos taken from freezer , thawed and still viable .
Yi-Ling (369396) — 5/28/2005 @ 4:26 pm
We are in this situation because couples were willing to endanger ten of their offspring for the sake of maybe having one – that is, if the facts were ever clearly presented to them in the first place. It was wrong.

If you mean, that of ten embryos, one is successful and birthed, …….
1. age counts for women and younger women could produce more eggs and thus more embryos. However the translation of eggs to embryos is a drop down, meaning if there are 20 eggs there could be 15 embryos, as not all fertilisation become successful embryos. The success of fertilisation is seen 3-5 days later from fertilisation.
2. for each implantation, there could be 3 embryos introduced under some form of anaesthesia to women subject in operating theatre. these could be successful or not and if successul it could be one child or twins or triplets.
3. if not successful, the process repeats for another set of embryos now [ not fresh but frozen] taken out from freezer and thawed. after thawing survival rate could be all okay or 2/3 okay or otherwise. the second set is implanted.
4. it could be after all the embryos are used up , there is still no success. then the process of producing excess embyros begin. that means another set of cost , another round of suffering the hormone injections, ….

This leads to the moral issue of giving people the right to ask clinics to throw down the drain their embryos. Considering …
1. women suffers hormone injections and people close to them suffer their moods of that period
2. extraction eggs from stimulated women’s ovaries in operating theatres. loss of job time, productivity
3. high cost of fertility treatments running to thousands
4. implantation of embryos with loss of time for bed rest for some weeks as surgically implanted versus naturally implanted embryos need more rest and care.
5. ….

The point is that, while the patient pays $$$, the $$$ thus used, with loss of productive time, is also a national issue, and thus, women should be ‘legislated’ that if there are excess , after their sacrifice, they should donate the excess embryos for adoption or science research than throw away their sacrifice as well as that of their men.

I digress to come back, some women need egg donors, young women as donors. In UK it is unlawful to be a paid donor for the value of the eggs. It is a lawful act but without a fee. It is an unlawful act for a fee. Here it is not seen as immoral to be paid egg donor for a high fee of $ 5000 to 10000 and thus female college students offer their services for a fee to pay for college or holidays. It is lawful to be a paid egg donor. We are also using these resources of third parties though they are paid for their efforts, but it is more the reason, to require the collective efforts of all, not be thrown down the drain….
Yi-Ling (369396) — 5/28/2005 @ 5:48 pm
There are some few doctors who tell their patients, that, unless they agree to donate the excess embyros they will NOT treat these women. This leads to …

1. man or woman or male-male couple or female-female couple, or male-female couple own decision to donate embryos whether for adoption or research [ given that there are sperm banks and egg donors lawful here, any of the combination is thus possible]
2. doctors and their medical association require or rule that it is medical ethics to not treat patients unless they AGREE TO DONATE THEIR EXCESS EMBYROS for science or adoption.
3. Congress legislates as such also.
Yi-Ling (369396) — 5/28/2005 @ 5:58 pm
Hello all,

I have not read all of the preceeding comments in depth, but I think I have enough of a gist of things to contribute a thought or two.

When was the last time you heard a scientist (or a bioethicist, for that matter) say that it would be nice to research topic “X”, but it is immoral to do so, no matter how helpful the information may be? If you are like me, you would fall asleep before you could think of an example. The majority of voices in favor of embryonic stem cell research essentially reason that you can’t stand in the way of science. That is a stance which puts scientific knowledge and technological manipulation as the highest goods, beyond justice or mercy and certainly beyond humility. That is a perspective that will not recognize unethical behavior even if it bites them in the nose.

The claim that embryonic stem cells are vital for certain research from a scientific perspective is not without challenge. The original idea was that embryonic stem cells were much more adaptable or “plastic” (than stem cells from other sources) and hence would be more useful. This has been challenged on two fronts. First, other stem cells from adults or cord blood are much more plastic than thought in the past. Second, the high degree of plasticity of embryonic stem cells has seemed to be “too much of a good thing” with development of tumors. To date there have been many conditions and living people who have benefitted from stem cell research and treatment, but NONE of it from embryonic.

While some states have begun to push for embryonic stem cell research funded with public money, others would say that if the clinical benefits are so astounding and apparent then why is public money needed at all? Why are there not venture capitalists lined up to fund the research? Between George Soros and Bill Gates and a few others there would be plenty of money to fund the research if it is so promising of great breakthroughs within the next 4 years. Even John Edwards could through a few million in.

The announcement that scientists in South Korea had produced embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos was hailed as a great advance by some, including the editorial page of the Philadelphia Inquirer in my fair city. It seems that anyone who can “champion the advance of science” and get one up on President Bush and all those anti-science fanatics is to be applauded, never mind that they did something (Cloned Humans!!!) that is widely opposed in the US and abroad to get there.

There should have been a reason that we all read the story of “Pandora’s Box” in school. Even while some will protest nuclear energy and weaponry they promote a much more dangerous proposition, the idea that mankind is wise enough to claim the power to remake ourselves as we wish.

A note of caution before reading further. One can write and find it easy to be blunt and brutal, even while not harbouring any ill will to those who may be reading, but rather harbouring anger at the idea. The following is not meant to provoke to anger for the sake of being argumentative, but neither should a doctor call a cancer “a little growth”.

Abortion was made legal in the US years ago, with the voices talking about “just some tissue” and the need for sympathy for those who are in a difficult position. Now we have the Supreme Court defending the practice of killing a child even in the process of birth, inches away from what would be considered infanticide. And this can happen for no more of a monumental reason than the parents “aren’t ready” to raise a child, conceived when there wasn’t time to take some responsibility in using birth control. And we want to take responsibility to clone a human being so the developing infant can be sacrificed at some point along the way for stem cells? kidneys? a liver, a heart, developing spinal cord tissue? And it is supposed to be OK to clone a human being as long as you do not let that creation be born?? How ironic, the technology initially used to help infertile couples have a child now diverted to growing human spare parts, be it on the level of the genome, the cell, tissue, or organ.

Davod is not the only person with a disease or condition that some claim could be treated with embryonic stem cells who would prefer to remain as they are rather than benefit from the sacrifice of humankind who were too young to experience the caress of a loving mother. (They may have been old enough to have a beating heart, brain waves, and withdraw from pain, however).

It would be interesting to know how many people seeking infertility treatment had a good grasp of some of the issues involved such as “extra” frozen embryos. I am certain there is more than one couple who is distressed about the situation and may have wished they understood things better previously. As far as finding a “more moral use than discarding them” as reason to support using them in research…. (as inflammatory as this will be) one needs to ask how much bad is it OK to put up with and still participate in trying to do good? That certainly was the question at Nuremburg to those who reasoned that “since they were not fully human anyway and were going to die of starvation or worse eventually” it was reasonable to submit prisoners to “medical studies”.

Why are people not more affected by the “Snowflake” children? “Because a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”.*

No personal animosity intended to anyone of any view on this thread, but the topic at hand is really a watershed. As with slavery, we ask the question if human life is nothing more than a commodity to be bought and sold.

MD in Philly

*Paul Simon’s adaptation from the writings of Paul.
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 5/28/2005 @ 10:50 pm
Philly, i catch the drift of your thought that coincides with the Roman Catholic view that infertility treatment with test tube fertilisation of eggs is contrary to Christian teachings.

It seems like opening up infertility treatment, enters new moral issues- young college girls signing up with agencies for egg donor service so that they can earn $ 5,000 in 1-2 month’s work. That’s hell lot of money for a college kid and could come in handy. It opens up issue of what to do with extra or excess embyros. Discard them – donate them and for what purpose?

Unless medical science agrees with such strict Christian thoughts on infertility treatment, then, the next issue is what to do with the excess embryos?
Yi-Ling (9e736f) — 5/29/2005 @ 12:13 am
No personal animosity intended to anyone of any view on this thread, but the topic at hand is really a watershed. As with slavery, we ask the question if human life is nothing more than a commodity to be bought and sold.

It IS a watershed at least for Roman Catholicism, but where is the water shed for medical science, particularly the field of specialisation of obstetrician and gynaecology and sub specialisation in infertlity treatments?

I submit the water shed for medical science has to be at the very least, donation of excess or extra embryos for adoption or science research, whatever the current medical hold of fruitfulness of embryonic stem cell research.

Unless the medical community discusses this issue and hold to medical ethics of disallowing patients to ask them to throw the extra embryos, away, the issue is not adequately addressed.

On the issue of whether there should be even infertility treatments that results in extra embryos, maybe doctors sould tell us what the ethic is.
Yi-Ling (9e736f) — 5/29/2005 @ 12:24 am
Unless the medical community discusses this issue and hold to medical ethics of disallowing patients to ask them to throw the extra embryos, away, the issue is not adequately addressed.

If today or tomorrow, there is medical personnel consensus that it is medically unethical to concede to patients’ requests to throw away excess embryos, then, today or tomorrow, the discarding of excess embryos will cease.

The patient asks but the clinic takes them out and throws them away. If the doctors running the clinic say it cannot be done and that you have to either opt for donating to science research or embryo adoption, a big problem ceases, whatever the meta problem, of where and how far science should go on embryonic stem cell research, infertility treatments, egg donor, etc…
Yi-Ling (9e736f) — 5/29/2005 @ 12:30 am
Patterico, putting this thread incidentally also under abortion, suggests that it is women ALONE who are making these decisions to discard the embryos, and directing clinics to throw the embryos away. It is NOT.

1. It is the joint decision of the couple, often a male too.
2. It could be the sole decision of a man, if he wanted a child, of his genetic material and he obtained the services of a surrogate mother.
3. It could be the joint decision of 2 men, if they wanted a kid as between them, with the procurement of the services of an egg donor who could also double up as the surrogate or egg donor and surrogate as two different women.

It is as much a man’s issue as it is a woman’s issue, as the fertilised embryos are OUTSIDE the woman’s body and first in test tube or petri dishes and then in vials in freezers, where they hibernate …:-)
Yi-Ling (7f8b88) — 5/29/2005 @ 7:01 am
2. It could be the sole decision of a man, if he wanted a child, of his genetic material and he obtained the services of a surrogate mother.

To read : It could be the sole decision of a man, if he wanted a child, of his genetic material and he obtained the services of an egg donor and the further services of a surrogate mother. These are PAID SERVICES FOR HIGH FEES.
Yi-Ling (7f8b88) — 5/29/2005 @ 7:04 am
When was the last time you heard a scientist (or a bioethicist, for that matter) say that it would be nice to research topic “X”, but it is immoral to do so, no matter how helpful the information may be? If you are like me, you would fall asleep before you could think of an example. The majority of voices in favor of embryonic stem cell research essentially reason that you can’t stand in the way of science. That is a stance which puts scientific knowledge and technological manipulation as the highest goods, beyond justice or mercy and certainly beyond humility. That is a perspective that will not recognize unethical behavior even if it bites them in the nose.

Some issues to be teased out…
1. What does medical community say of their practice of discarding extra or excess embryos on request or directive of their patients [ used in a loose sense as it means too joint decision of the couple , etc] This issue is different from whether there should be federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. This issue is different from whether healthy embyros intended for implantation and pregnancy should be specially directed to science research for ‘greater good’. This issue deals with the reality as it IS, where there ARE excess embyros, short of a call to stop ALL infertility treatments.
2. 400,000 current frozen embryos, stock take, and going on a rough calculation of 10 embyros per patient, there would be at least 40,000 patients. The numbers could be higher as said earlier Brits come here to get paid egg donor services as the wait line for unpaid egg donor services is LONG, too long for them to wait and they fly across the Atlantic and pay $ 5,000 for the egg donor services, thus leaving behind the frozen embryos. Shipment of embryos is very difficult requiring big container, very cold freezer, and quick custom clearance, a task that kills shipment of embyros.
3. Repeating (1), Funding issue is different from use of the extra embyros already there from infertility treatment. To equate them, is to suggest that, infertility treatment with IVF or such other externally produced embyro process, should CEASE. Todate , apart from the Church, there seems no move by medical community or public for ceasing infertility IVF treatment. Thus one should realistically address the issues.
Yi-Ling (7f8b88) — 5/29/2005 @ 7:19 am
the dark bold comment are not intended, nor were keys pressed for them by me and could be maybe a possible systemic problem at the moment for unknown reason.
Yi-Ling (7f8b88) — 5/29/2005 @ 7:20 am
Your comment No. 5 Comment by Amphipolis — 5/26/2005 @ 11:59 am and link http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/05/24/national/25stem2.ready.html of FORMER EMBRYOS, puts you to the direction of persuading doctors and medical association to rule that fertility clinics should NOT entertain patients’ requests and directives to discard excess, extra embryos no longer needed for birthing purposes, whether the patients are men, women, or women-women, or men-men. It also puts you in the direction to persuade your senator to ask for a BILL to require all excess embryos to be donated to science or embryo adoption.

Congress [ and Bush] had earlier approved $ 1 million by way of grants to agencies that facilitate embryo adoption.
Yi-Ling (7f8b88) — 5/29/2005 @ 7:35 am
typo…….., whether the patients are men, women, or women-women, or men-men or man-woman.
Yi-Ling (7f8b88) — 5/29/2005 @ 7:37 am
3. Repeating (1), Funding issue is different from use of the extra embyros already there from infertility treatment. To equate them, is to suggest that, infertility treatment with IVF or such other externally produced embyro process, should CEASE. Todate , apart from the Church, there seems no move by medical community or public for ceasing infertility IVF treatment. Thus one should realistically address the issues.

It could also mean in addition to “To equate them, is to suggest that, infertility treatment with IVF or such other externally produced embyro process, should CEASE.” that, IF IVF is not to cease THEN all extra embryos of infertility treatment MUST be automatically directed to embryos adoption programs. The IMPLICATIONS of MANDATORY EMBRYO ADOPTION PROGRAMS FOR EXCESS EMBYROS…

1. With 100,000 genetic siblings unbeknown to us, IF the embryo adoption is done ANONYMOUSLY, then, our children’s courtship will entail their requiring genetic blue print checking BEFORE their hearts get enamoured and subsequent result of knowing that’s their genetic sibling, is unlikely to deter the amorous involvement. Just as once there was sprout of veneral diseases test before marriage licence, there could be possible genetic test for sibling identity of intended spouse.

2. Known embryo adoption, opens up complex issues of sibling relationship between the two families or parties.
Yi-Ling (7f8b88) — 5/29/2005 @ 8:16 am
Proposed Bill to mandate embryo donation for science or adoption

1. There are currently 400,000 frozen embryos in fertility clinics with the bulk of them intended for implantation of a woman subject whether as the patient or surrogate. It is estimated that one third of these 400,000 frozen embryos are no longer intended for uterine implantation.

2. It is recognized that, with the view that, the patient paid for the fertility treatment whether as subject for implantation whether of fertilized embryo from own egg or donor egg or for surrogate as subject for implantation, the monetary consideration has created the notion too that the embryos and subsequently frozen embryos are property of the patient, entailing the patient’s right to dispose of the property as the patient deems fit including but not limited to the patient directing the fertility clinic to discard the frozen embryos.

3. It is recognized that, the development of infertility studies to cater to infertility problems of men or women or both of them, or even practical impossibility of homosexual couples or lesbian couples, or single men or single women desiring children, to conceive in the natural way, there necessarily arises the issue of excess embryos, if any, from first cycle of infertility treatment, where, if the necessary number of successful implantation leading to successful pregnancy and successful birth, are met, and if there are left over frozen embryos, then, the issue arises as the destiny of these frozen embryos depending on whether we, the people conceive them as persons, thus requiring mandatory embryo adoption, whether on anonymous or non anonymous basis, or whether we conceive them as property, but for the moral good of society, and to facilitate science research that could save lifes or cure diseases, we the people require there is the mandatory option to either donate the extra excess left over frozen embryos for embryo adoption or for science research.

4. It is recognised that the medical profession in the particular the obstetrician and gynaecologist as well as embryologists specializing in infertility treatments that deals with IVF and the like process, are conduits for the discarding of frozen embryos at the request or directive of their patient, and on the premise that it is a contract for service, for professional medical infertility treatment service, doctors and embryologists have todate deemed it within their contractual duty to implement their patients’ request and directive to discard the frozen embryos leaving it to the moral persuasion of each patient as to the fate of the frozen embryos deemed their property.

5. For this reason, it is imperative that, the bill do cover the acts of the medical profession in the particular the obstetrician and gynaecologist as well as embryologists specializing in infertility treatments that deals with IVF, and criminalize the act of discarding the frozen embryos, as well as criminalize the directive of of their patient, to the extent that such directives are criminal attempts and punishable.

6. In so criminalizing the attempt and act to discard frozen embryos, it is the people’s attempt to recognize the potential of life or the potential of greater societal good to donate embryos to science research than delegate them to the waste bin. In so doing, the state has elevated the property of the individual to the property of the state for which criminal laws are called in. It thus by passes the issue of necessitating agreement on whether the excess embryos are persons or property at law.
Yi-Ling (7f8b88) — 5/29/2005 @ 8:54 am

5/26/2005

Power Line on Stem Cells

64 Responses to “Power Line on Stem Cells”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out