General Medicine

» tinuviel - Stem cell research

The most recent poll question indicates that stem cell research once relied on the destruction of human embryos. Is that correct? How in the world could scientists have justified that kind of a procedure, if it was indeed practised in the past??

-- posted by tinuviel

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» P_Al - Stem cell research

In response to Stem cell research posted by tinuviel:

Yes, the traditional method of stem cell harvesting involves the destruction of the embryo. It requires the removal of cells from an embryonic stage called the blastocyst. This stage contains over 100 cells and occurs before implantation. As a result some scientists argue that it does not represent a human being.

On the contrary, many critics of this type of research believe that human life begins at conception. This would make any form of embryonic stem cell research immoral.

I think that this is the central issue. It revolves around the fundamental question of when exactly does life begin. This could be seen as a philosophical and theological matter and would be subject to all kinds of belief systems.

Interestingly, there were reports of a new method which removed one cell from an eight-cell stage called a blastomere. The remaining seven cells would then be reimplanted a go on to produce a normal individual.

However, even this was rejected by some on moral grounds. I have even read an objection to this method on the grounds that the one removed cell could theoretically have gone on to produce a human life!

-- posted by P_Al

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» tinuviel - Stem cell research

In response to Stem cell research posted by P_Al:

This is all very interesting. There are a lot of things in the world that can be consigned to philosophy, but I don't think the idea of "when exactly does life begin" is one of them. I believe it to be true that everyone with the most basic understanding of the reproductive system knows when life begins for a human being. Think about it. Everyone knows the critical moment.

-- posted by tinuviel

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» P_Al - Stem cell research

In response to Stem cell research posted by tinuviel:

You seem very certain about your position and that is fine. However, there may be other religious, ethical and other argumants that may lead others to differing conclusions.

I think that many disciplines will contribute to this issue. For example, there is a compelling biological argument that the product of conception is genetically distinct from either the sperm or the egg. But fertilization may be a process lasting hours or a couple of days thus muddling the waters further. http://7e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162 (Scroll to "genetic view" near middle of article)

Some may also define life as the acquisition of certain functions e.g. the ability to respond to stimuli, respiration and excretion of waste products. Much of these are carried out by the placenta.

In addition there are philosophical arguments on this issue. For example, it has been suggested that there is a difference between personhood and humanity and this has implications for the rights of an embryo.

If you are interested you could have a look at the following; http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/a... (Scroll to near the bottom)

You may not agree with their arguments and conclusions. However, defining the begining of life is an issue that many, including philosophers have gappled with.

-- posted by P_Al

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» tinuviel - Stem cell research

In response to Stem cell research posted by P_Al:

I hope you notice that I didn't actually state my position on the former issue. Nor did I point toward the moment that I think life does begin. I left it up to you to think of that moment on your own.

I am aware that people do grapple with that issue, especially as it concerns abortion. It is just my opinion that sometimes people invent complications in order to give themselves time and space to do what they want.

Of course I do realise that stem cell research is for a noble cause. I don't want you to think of my comments as evidence that I disagree with it. Even if scientists hadn't found a way to get these cells from the amniotic fluid (and not the zygote), I would still not really be against it--not because I don't consider a fertilised egg to be a life, because you can obviously tell that I do. Rather, it would be because I understand that the issue might come down to sacrificing the potential of that one life to save thousands or even millions of others who do have cancer. I would certainly chose the life of a mother over a foetus at such an early stage in her pregnancy if complications were to arise. And I think it is easier for people to choose the lives of the many others that such research will benefit over the life that that one zygote represents.

Of course, with the isolation of stem cells from amniotic fluid, thankfully we should no longer have to make that choice. And I can certainly understand why you would scoff at those who regard the one cell (taken from the eight in that blastomere procedure you mentioned) as having the potential to go on and create a new life. In such a case, I would be satisfied with the other seven cells that go on to create a perfectly normal human being.

Overall, I'm glad we humans are discovering new and less harmful ways of studying cancer. I can't think of a better way for us to use our minds.

-- posted by tinuviel

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» P_Al - Stem cell research

In response to Stem cell research posted by tinuviel:

I can appreciate your arguments. Just pointing out the myriad of positions that persons from various backgrounds and expertise, may hold.

-- posted by P_Al

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» tinuviel - Stem cell research

In response to Stem cell research posted by P_Al:

You know P_Al, when reading certain arguments being proposed by members of the scientific community whose breadth of knowledge is daunting, lay people (like me) might not always be able to pounce on precisely what is wrong in those arguments. But they can usually smell it. You read in my last post what my stance is on the stem cell research issue: I understand the need for it, but I am not about to deny the gravity of the situation by reducing the status of the foetus as a human and a life.

The reason I am here again arguing is that I detect a lack of honesty in the arguments of these proponents of stem cell research who base its acceptability on the idea that a zygote or embryo is not a life. All the arguments in the "genetic view" section of the article you linked to resemble desperate attempts at finding elusive justification for doing something that has already been decided on. I know because those are precisely the kinds of arguments I present to myself when I want the freedom to do things I probably shouldn't do. It's called rationalization. I get the feeling these scientists are trying to convince themselves. Sometimes the feeblest of arguments are enough to convince us of things that we already want to believe.

Here is the article again: http://7e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

(I should note that these are not necessarily the views of the author, Scott Gilbert)

Several of the points presented in Scott Gilbert's book chapter "When does human life begin?" rely on the fact that zygotes and embryos face challenges in their journey toward birth. We hear arguments that tell us there's a 50% chance that the foetus will be aborted or become a part of the placenta (I suppose this refers to the placenta of another developing embryo?). Yet all this really proves is that the foetus lives in a hostile environment. This just means that the female body possesses what the foetus needs to survive, but it also contains hazards. This can be compared to the situation of a fully grown human whose chances of making it from birth to old age are complicated by the many hazards present in our environment. I've never heard anybody argue that because people's chances of living till old age are less than 100%, it is acceptable to randomly select any one of them for lethal research procedures that will be of benefit to the race as a whole. This particular argument is therefore a very feeble one.

Another argument Gilbert presents is the possibility of the zygote's splitting into more than one individual of similar genetic makeup. What surprises me is that this argument is used to *decrease* the importance of the zygote. It is more sensible to me for such a possibility to make it *less* palatable to scientists to casually conduct this destructive type of research. It is almost as though they are arguing that because identical twins have identical genes, they are not to be considered as important as other people. They might not have thought of it (or even meant it) in that way, but that is the next logical extension of such an idea.

In my opinion, an individual is unique once no other identical body exists beside it. If and when the zygote does split, then the two become distinct, and are individuals for other reasons.

But, the feeblest argument of all is the one in which scientists say "there is no 'moment of fertilization' at all." Gilbert here cites the fact that fertilization takes 12-24 hours to complete. He cites all the time that it takes for sperm to get ready for fertilization, plus the time it takes for the sperm to penetrate the ovum, plus the further time it takes for the 'diploid-ization' to be complete. My question here is this: when exactly do scientists harvest these stem cells? Before or after the "the formation of a diploid individual."?

Virtually everyone who considers fertilization to be the beginning of life takes it to mean that life begins *once fertilization is complete.* The fact that fertilization is an extended process is no argument against the idea that fertilization, once complete, gives rise to a human life. This so-called argument is an interesting bauble meant to distract from the real question. The same is true of the possibility of a split zygote to recombine before being implanted into the uterus. It is an interesting and amazing fact, but it doesn't contradict the idea of the zygote as representing life (whether it be one or many).

We kill animals for food, and though we might disagree on whether or not it is wrong, no one denies that the act constitutes killing or that these animals once possessed life. This is an analogy, not an identity: I know that a full grown animal cannot be compared to a zygote. However, the point I am making here is one about honesty and integrity. All I want to see scientists do is, with integrity and maturity, acknowledge the gravity of the situation that exists when a zygote is used for stem cell research. A zygote represents one of the earliest stages in the development of a human being. Yet, it is also a very important stage. No grown person--no scientist--could have existed if they had been destroyed in the embryonic stage. What I'm saying to scientists is this: take responsibility for what the research represents, or let us all as humans share it, but don't deny its seriousness.

-- posted by tinuviel

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» P_Al - Stem cell research

In response to Stem cell research posted by tinuviel:

These are good points that you have made. To answer your question, the stage that is used to collect embryonic stem cells is called a blastocyst and it is about 5-6 days old. This stage is diploid. See http://www.iscr.ed.ac.uk/outreach/about-... (Scroll about 1/3 way down the page) However, as I pointed out, others may come to different conclusions based on their belief systems.

Many persons from a religious background, have alot of resources and teaching at their disposal, that will lead them naturally to apply particular premises and draw certain conclusions. There are others who may approach issues without these and easily come to other conclusions. It may not be simply to produce an excuse to do what they wish.

Take for example an issue that I find very interesting; the concepts of ensoulment and twinning. I believe that much of the moral objection to embryonic stem cell research is based on the premise that even the earliest embryo is a human life with a soul.

However, if an embryo can divide up to 12-14 days after fertilization, to become a twin or higher multiples, some may interpret this as an issue that needs further clarification with respect to when a human life is formed.

How would one explain the issue of ensoulment with respect to twins which develop say at day 12, from an initially singular mass of cells?

-- posted by P_Al

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» tinuviel - Stem cell research

In response to Stem cell research posted by P_Al:

I do remember reading that point, and I chose not to argue about souls for a reason. The existence of a soul is not something that people can prove. If souls exist, then only God can tell how and when he confers these--or if he even has to *confer* these at all.

It might be that personality is what people refer to as a "soul"--and we do know that at least some of that can be attributed to one's genes.

The argument against ensoulment might be better used in an attempt to disprove the existence of a soul. I don't think it works well in speaking against the embryo as a life (that is, as being alive and possessing life.) Having an argument about ensoulment as it regards twins would be fruitless, in my opinion, since the very subject (the soul) cannot be probed. This would be where philosophy comes into the picture.

But I don't want to evade the question. I think if you do argue that soul conference happens at conception, then you've got a problem when it comes to the issue of twinning. But I wouldn't argue that (on the side of those who believe in soul conference). I think such an argument is a little infantile. I mean, I am conservative (as you can tell)--but I do believe that some level of open-mindedness is warranted in this life.

Let me know if I've left anything out.

-- posted by tinuviel

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» P_Al - Stem cell research

In response to Stem cell research posted by tinuviel:

Just for clarification; I do not think that the argumant was against ensoulment. The article seems to imply an acceptance of the concept, but noted that such acceptance lent itself to further questions, for example the twinning issue.

Also, the very fact that ensoulment cannot be proven empirically, is the very reason why it will be debated. We tend not to argue issues that are conclusive. This I believe contributes to the vigorous debate on stem cell research. Because some aspects of the issue cannot be defended with absolute authority, allows others to put forth alternative positions.

-- posted by P_Al

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds