Stem Cell Research

[Skippy 82]

What does everyone here think about embryonic or other stem cell research.

I'll wait a bit to give my views, I'd like to see what comes up.

Ready. Go.

Edited 30 Apr 2009 by skippy (see edit history)

[Arcane 12]

I'm not entirely sure if I know all the details, but given my knowledge I say yes.

[Young Link Addict 67]

No. It's just not right to take unborn fetus's just to make people feel better. Sure it could save lives, but still you should not kill babies who have not even been born yet to take care of someone who was hurt and is bound to die.

[Aethix 129]

Adult stem cell research is fine, but no to embryonic. Aside from killing human beings, it doesn't freaking work.

[Arcane 12]

Oh, I didn't know it killed babies... So yes, but definately not embryonic.

[Skippy 82]

Okay.

Stem cell research is the use of non-specialized cells, otherwise known as stem cells, and using them to replicate damaged cells in the human body.

There are many possible practical applications of this, among them, a possible effective treatment for MS and down's syndrome. As with any procedure, there are certain social stigmas that go along with it.

There are two main ways of obtaining stem cells, cord blood and embryonic. Cord blood comes from blood in a babies umbilical cord at birth, it contains a limited amount of usable stem cells, and has been used to replicate, for a short period, 46 types of cells, non of which have been successfully used in the human body. Embryonic, as implied in the name, comes from embryonic cells, and are the main controversy.

The use of Embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of an embryo to obtain them. This is where the controversy is. Many people believe that, if legal, scientists will create embryos simply to destroy yhem, this is not the case. To understand where these embryos would come from, we must first understand the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF).

IVF is the process of injecting a mans sperm into a woman's egg artificially, in a lab. In one round of IVF a healthy woman may have up to 20 eggs injected (think Octomom here), but GENERALLY only four to eight are truly viable for transplant into the woman, and in most cases, no more than two are transferred. The rest of the 12-18 embryos will sit in a cryo tank for years upon end. The standard for storing of these embryos is to hold them until the lab has had no contact from the client for 10 years. At this benchmark, the embryos are, by law, discarded in medical waste.

That's right, hundreds of embryos a day, in the trash, it is illegal to give them to someone else for transfer, so they get thrown out.

There is an unlimited number of specialties that can be obtained from embryonic stem cells, but law forbids it. And to whoever said it doesn't work, it only didn't work because scientists were cut off from their research before they could make any headway, cord blood hasn't worked because the cells are already a type of specialized cell, and it's very limited.

So now the question is, is it better to use these embryos already being destroyed for research, or just throw them in the trash?

[Arcane 12]

Well, throwing stuff away is rather wasteful....

[ZuZu 10]

im for it. I think of it more like recycling than anything else, which is a good way for others to use what you no longer have use for, "one mans trash is another mans treasure"

[Du5t1n 57]

skippy and zuzu said everything I wanted to.

Embryonic? No problem for me. I have nothing against taking something that's headed to the TRASH and curing diseases, paralysis, me, etc with it.

Edited 1 May 2009 by Dustin (see edit history)

[Aethix 129]

Yeah, and why bury perfectly edible dead human bodies? People are dying of starvation all over the world, why are we throwing away viable nutritious meat?

[Skippy 82]

Heh, are you aware of what ten+ years of being frozen in liquid nitrogen does to embryos? It pretty well destroys them. Even if a client were to pick them up, they probably wouldn't be viable, the cellular damage is just to great.

And giving the embryos away requires a surrogacy license for the woman who would carry it, and consent from the patient, who the lab at this point has been out of contact/unable to contact for ten years, for adoption of their child.

And Humans who die of natural causes are generally inedible unless you immediately got it on ice, which almost never happens. We create toxins upon death, and would just make other people sick, soylent green is a horrible idea.

[Shadowknight 54]

I must say, I am conflicted on this subject. I'm all for scientific progress and medical advances, but for me, someone who regards the human life as such a sacred thing, something still seems off about using embryos for this.

Then there's the fact that they are frozen, and that they are thrown out. But really, that doesn't make this any more moral in my eyes. In fact, it presents a whole new problem. Wastefulness and the utter disregard for human life.

That's my problem with this and with abortion, though abortion is much more set in stone for me. This is still something which I am on the fence about, so to speak.

[Aethix 129]

Also, Skippy, you were wrong when you said there are only two main ways of using stem cells. They can also be extracted from certain areas from the patient and re-implanted in the area needing treatment. This has been the most successful form of stem cell treatment. Embryonic stem cells just cause monster tumors in the rats they've been tested on.

So on the one hand, we have a form of treatment that works, and hardly anyone finds morally objectionable. On the other hand, we've got a carcinogen that about half the people in America believe is equivalent to cannibalism.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

If people are going to abort their children, at least use their sacrifice to help people instead of disposing of them like so much garbage.

Sahaqiel

[Skippy 82]

Also, Skippy, you were wrong when you said there are only two main ways of using stem cells. They can also be extracted from certain areas from the patient and re-implanted in the area needing treatment. This has been the most successful form of stem cell treatment. Embryonic stem cells just cause monster tumors in the rats they've been tested on.

So on the one hand, we have a form of treatment that works, and hardly anyone finds morally objectionable. On the other hand, we've got a carcinogen that about half the people in America believe is equivalent to cannibalism.

You misunderstand, I was talking about for research. Adult stem cells can be used for an exceptionally limited amount, and still has a low success rate.

We haven't had time to perfect embryonic to not cause cancer, even in rats. And it has been stated that the stem cell research performed on rats is irrelevant, as human to rat stem cells are incompatible, and we don't know if a rats stem cells would react the same way as human cells, the only way would be to actually use a human embryonic stem cell to try and replicate human tissue. I talked personally with someone who performed one of these studies in my area and the law is just too restrictive for them to do what they need to to find out if it is a truly viable option.

Adult stem cells have had a very low success rate, and are dangerous to extract. The process used to get them may very well cause paralysis, and to do what, maybe help regenerate some skin for a burn? Because that's about all it's been shown to be good for. And is using embryos that are already being destroyed such a bad thing?