Biomedical Ethics discussion about Stem Cell Research

Published

http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/news/midmorning/2006/07/21_midmorn2?ext=rm

This is a link to a radio discussion about embryonic stem cell research.

Specializes in NICU.
There is just one thing I don't get. Why do we THROW OUT thousands of units of stem-cell rich cord blood every day? Why can't the researchers use all of the stem cells from umbilical cords that are WASTED every day? If we could just find a way to harvest the umbilical cord blood like we save the placentas from the hundreds of thousands of deliveries we do every day, I am sure we would have enough stem cells for all this research. So why don't we do that and leave the poor little embryonic cells alone?

RIGHT! I don't understand why it's okay to throw out cord blood but NOT okay to do research on it. It's better to destroy it than to use it? At the very least I'm all for donating cord blood to transplant banks. Either way, research or transplant, it's being used for the greater good. Why is using it considered to be NOT ethical, but destroying it is the "right" thing to do?

:( :no: I am so confused. Why is it not acceptable to use the embryos that will otherwise be distroyed! Would it not be more acceptable to use them (with the parent's permission) than to just toss them out?

Using embryos is a bit more complex than using cord blood for research...

BUT...

If the embryos are being destroyed for whatever reason, then - AGAIN - I don't understand why it's better to throw them out than to use them for research.

Maybe I'm too scientific?

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Thanks for respectful and thoughtful posts!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in PACU, ED.

I agree with Gompers. Well said!

Up Vote Up Vote ×

from the sidney morning herald. (oz)

also, research on normal embryonic stem cells will not explain how diseases occur and develop and how they may best be treated. therapeutic cloning is needed to develop disease-specific stem cells and models of disease to study the cause, progression, diagnosis and treatment of disease.

it is true that embryonic stem-cell research has not yet led to new therapies or cures. major practical outcomes from embryonic stem-cell research will take time and considerable pre-clinical and clinical research and at this point adult somatic stem-cell research and embryonic stem-cell research should be regarded as complementary. therapeutic cloning has the potential to create new disease models for research and mechanisms for drug and toxin screening in the short term and novel therapies or regenerative process in the long term. if these provide benefits for patients with spinal injury or parkinson's disease, it is inconceivable that moral objections to therapeutic cloning would not be overridden.

public debate is ill-served by rapid responses to complex issues. the lockhart recommendations require considered debate beyond the coalition party room and the cabinet. the government should facilitate this debate by allowing a conscience vote in parliament.

text of the lockhart report here.

definitely a thoughtful discussion about the issues around stem cell research and therapeutic cloning.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Pain Management.

I read an article by a Episcopal priest that put forth an argument that I have heard many make - since the blastocysts are going to be destroyed anyway, why not try to get some good out of it.

I find this logic flawed for two reasons [if one believes that life begins at conception; if they don't, then all bets are off]. First off all, the creation of unused blastocysts is not a constant - it can be changed. If people believe that life begins at conception, then it would be immoral to have more blastocysts created than will be used as part of IVF. If it is wrong to have an abortion and wrong to use blastocysts for research, then it is also wrong to create blastocysts that will not be used [if one believes that life begins at conception].

The other problem I have with this line of reasoning is that is that it, if one believes that life begins at conception, is attempting to right a wrong by not directly dealing with the problem. You can't say that slavery is wrong but since there is slavery, at least we should get some work out of them. Either you object to slavery and seek to abolish it, or you think it is acceptable and act accordingly. Obviously, the parallel between exploiting blastocysts and those of an another race would only be legitimate if you believe that life begins at conception or something parallel to that. Personally, I do not believe in a soul or divine anything, but I do believe that a human person is created at conception [genetic / species definition] and they should not be used in research.

Outcomes can be discussed later.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I read an article by a Episcopal priest that put forth an argument that I have heard many make - since the blastocysts are going to be destroyed anyway, why not try to get some good out of it.

I find this logic flawed for two reasons [if one believes that life begins at conception; if they don't, then all bets are off]. First off all, the creation of unused blastocysts is not a constant - it can be changed. If people believe that life begins at conception, then it would be immoral to have more blastocysts created than will be used as part of IVF. If it is wrong to have an abortion and wrong to use blastocysts for research, then it is also wrong to create blastocysts that will not be used [if one believes that life begins at conception].

The other problem I have with this line of reasoning is that is that it, if one believes that life begins at conception, is attempting to right a wrong by not directly dealing with the problem. You can't say that slavery is wrong but since there is slavery, at least we should get some work out of them. Either you object to slavery and seek to abolish it, or you think it is acceptable and act accordingly. Obviously, the parallel between exploiting blastocysts and those of an another race would only be legitimate if you believe that life begins at conception or something parallel to that. Personally, I do not believe in a soul or divine anything, but I do believe that a human person is created at conception [genetic / species definition] and they should not be used in research.

Outcomes can be discussed later.

Look up the Lockhart report from Australia. The report has an interesting discussion about religious diversity and stem cell research. One of the recommendations of the report was informed consent. Patients must consent to creation of embryos for IVF. Patients can specify that excess embryos be used for research but they must also give consent for the specific research project. One of the interesting things about IVF and the law is that embryos are viewed as "property" of the patient by the courts. (No flames please I am uncomfortable with that definition.) I think that part of the compromise is that of allowing patients to make their decisions based on informed consent and their own belief structures.

I was thinking about your assertion that life begins at conception. One of the points that Congressman Rohrabaker made was about the embryo and its environment being appropriate for development. In his view the issues of life centered around placing of the embryo in the woman's body for development and growth. Until that time he did not view the embryo as being in process of personhood. I don't know what percentage of fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterus. According to the reading that I have been doing preembryo's/conceptus/bastocysts are not at the stage of development where implantation can occur. I think until they achieve that developmental stage that in many ways the fertilized egg is like seed corn. It has the genetic material to develop into a corn plant but it isn't corn yet. Preimplantation stage the egg has potential to become human while post implantation the egg is developing into a human. With 500,000 preembryos in cold storage and the number increases EVERY day a serious conversation needs to happen. Patients have indicated a desire to donate about 3% of these pre-embryos for research (15,000 more or less) which would result in an estimated 275 cell lines. THe question really is how do we respect the wishes of the patient's who have expressed a desire to donate their preembryos?

(I have no personal moral qualms about IVF and fertility treatments.)

Up Vote Up Vote ×

24stem190.1.jpg

The new technique would be performed on a two-day-old embryo, after the fertilized egg has divided into eight cells, known as blastomeres. In fertility clinics, where the embryo is available outside the woman in the normal course of in vitro fertilization, one of these blastomeres can be removed for diagnostic tests, like for Down syndrome.

The embryo, now with seven cells, can be implanted in the woman if no defect is found. Many such embryos have grown into apparently healthy babies over the 10 years or so the diagnostic tests have been used.

Nature Source.

Hopefully, this will lead to a compromise that all sides can live with......

Thanks Space!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion