General Medicine

» redback - A wee winner

"Do they do these things in hiding..."

An unkind question dontcha think? But I aint mad at ya. Medical research here must adhere to guidelines set by the National Health & Medical Research Council and subject to Ethics Committees. The research was conducted within existing law and funded within the Health Minister's portfolio.

I don't believe in absolutes here. Of course, in this instance, there is a medical ethical dilemna compounded by the entry of a religious dilemna. Australia is not a Catholic country.

I don't know the substance of your difference of opinion nor you mine. I accept the embryonic stem cell issue can be divisive. Both medical and religious ethical dilemnas have a chequered past. So, I'm not persuaded by any claims to the higher moral ground. But that's for another day. We have just passed the winter soltstice here and the aircon beckons.

-- posted by redback

» tinuviel - A wee winner

I suppose I can't deny that for me there's a certain charm in the romantic Absolute. However, you are right when you say that neither of us knows but little of each other's persuasions when it comes to the stem cell debate. I don't know if you've noticed--but my absence from this stem cell question for the past few weeks has been deliberate. I *have* been reading all the posts.

If you are interested at all in my views on stem cell issues, I´ll send you a link to the previous discussion Paul and I had back in January. (One of the posts is rather long.) I think you'll find that my conservatism isn't as great as you, perhaps, have thought. Still, once a conservative...

http://cancer.suite101.com/discussion.cf...

http://cancer.suite101.com/discussion.cf...

Perhaps my question was unkind, but it was sincere. I do know that such research has to adhere to certain ethical guidelines. However, you were the one who brought up the fact that the Australian Health Minister is Catholic, and you seemed to think it was a significant point. So, I was just wondering whether his Catholicism wouldn't or shouldn't have factored into the research as well. I mean, if he let this research slide, then why would you be worried about the implementation of medical practices based on the research? Since you were obviously concerned about it, it naturally made me wonder if the Catholic guy knew about it?

However, I don't know Australia and didn't mean to insult you or your country with my snide comment.

-- posted by tinuviel

» redback - more questions than answers

In one of your 2 helpful linked posts, you offer: "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."

Your posts fairly describe the dilemnas facing us so don't need challenge from me. Your cited challenge above, is 'challenging' for the decisions it sanctions.

Despite legitimate issues, argument on either side include doubting the integrity of the other side. I say "other side" as if there are only two sides to the stem cell debate but I hold the belief there are at least three sides to every coin. Is it possible the opposing side can hardly be serious because they would change their views if they were?!

Is it tougher to be a decision-maker for example: to turn off life support; to separate conjoined twins where only one has any chance to live...or tougher sitting on the beach watching the lifesavers risk their lives in treacherous waters. There will always be friction between 'process & program', theory and practice, procrastination and action, between belief and hypocrisy.

Who hopes beyond the thought that most decision-makers will get it right most of the time for most of the people. And who to blame when they invariably don't.

What do we do instead of? Is there majority approval to go back to the 'good old days'? Maybe in 2007 we should ponder if we dare, unravelling advances already gained by 'sleazy' means. Afterall, unethical advances in anything (not just medicine) may not be worth the physical and/or spiritual price. 7th Day Adventists deny blood transfusions despite the life saving option. Cancer research agencies will knock back much desperately needed funding if they come from...terrorist groups?

What was the precurser scientific discovery that stem cell research would have been lost without? Then there's the mechanics, the scalpel. Not to mention the human cloning of another George Bush. The thin edge of the wedge is at both ends of the spectrum.

I hate generalising and don't speak on behalf of my street, let alone the world. Many generalisations feed assumptions that feed inertia. (And I believe most of the world resides outside the USA)

What is life and what permissable methodology do clumsy humans have or need, to interfere in it? Do we interfere at the embryonic stage, do we intefere to prolong life, do we interfere via IVF (to have more choices for childless singles, gays or only 'deserving' couples under 70 years old)? Do we not interfere at all?

What skills started the slippery slope and who allowed them to be gained...then used...unchecked? Do humans decide their moral compass or not. If not, what spiritual version is the universally accepted one?

Rest assured, when I think of consequence, I think deeply.

-- posted by redback

» redback - Catholicism

Under Australia's current law, my understanding is the only way to effectively stop embryonic stem cell research, is to close down the IVF program. These stem cells cannot be created for any other purpose than pregnancy. So what is the religious ethical issue for the "excess" from IVF. Enforced ongoing pregnancies???

"...The focus should probably be shifted..."

I'm of the view not set in concrete that research should not be artificially constrained as some of our discoveries come about by accident and most don't translate to better health for decades.

But briefly about the Catholic input. Our Health Minister just happens to be Catholic so tis not a requirement of his portfolio. His beliefs don't cause me any concern suffice to say there seems to me to be adequate religious input into politics in Australia that should provide fair checks & balances in ethical debates.

I'm told there are Anglican Catholics, Catholic Anglicans, Roman Catholics, under different names and probably differing strengths of faith. "On the street" they look no different. Catholics and other Christians don't hold a monopoly on good values. Combined and all respect intended, I definitely go to the greengrocer for vegies, the doctor for treatment, possibly the pastor for spiritual care if needed.

Neither our Prime Minister nor the Pope are role models for me.

-- posted by redback

» P_Al - ?Alternative Sources

With respect to my statement that the focus should probably be shifted - this was not in reference to scientists/researchers. My wording gave the wrong impression. Rather, it was directed at politicians, policy makers and religious bodies/leaders. My understanding is that much of the debate surrounds disagreement on the ethical, moral views on the source of stem cells. George Bush vetoed/thereatened to veto new stem cell bills even though new information was available that alternative sources may be viable.

If a new source is found, that needs to be addressed. Shift the focus to include this new knowledge. Consensus may not be possible based on the old parameters - perhaps it may be found based on the new. To reject stem cell research without including this new information may be counterproductive or worse.

-- posted by P_Al

» tinuviel - ?Alternative Sources

I still don't see what is so wrong with scientists also shifting their focus. If, "George Bush vetoed/thereatened to veto new stem cell bills even though new information was available that alternative sources may be viable," it is probably because he knows it is possible that scientists might not be shifting their focus to these alternative options.

If religious persons and all others who have problems with the ethical implications of doing research on zygotes are the only ones shifting their focus, then all they end up doing is ignoring the problem since almost nothing would have changed.

I thought you said that the stem cells obtained from the skin of mice were indistinguishable from those obtained from fertilized ova (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, then what is so wrong with shifting the focus?

-- posted by tinuviel

» P_Al - ?Alternative Sources

Scientists will in effect shift their focus as new knowledge is discovered. However, I do not think that this should be forced on them nor is it neccessary. If research takes one down a certain pathway, the natural tendency is to follow.

If I were working in a stem cell lab, I would be squambling to get up to spead and involved in these new findings. To do otherwise would be to continually pound my head against the wall. My words were therefore not really for scientists - shouldn't be necessary.

However, if those who determine policies and allocate funds, do not stop fixating on what's wrong with the old approach and start evaluating the potential of a new approach, then we're all stuck. What's the point of figuring out a way to move around or eliminate a problem if the solution is not considered in subsequent discussions. Not that it will never be, but perhap I have not seen promising signs as yet.

-- posted by P_Al

» redback - ?Alternative Sources

"shifting the focus" implies a different meaning to me. I prefer "broaden the focus" like forensic scientists and detectives do, to make sure they ARE capturing all relevant facts before they jump to conclusions.

Further to Paul's comments, research is a collaborative effort. Another team somewhere else has been funded to "shift the focus" as they have for many years. (Stop/start research denies the 'basic research model' approach) Discoveries in countries like Australia are added to related research worldwide. Today's Sunday papers reported research whereby cells taken from an embryo leave the embryo undamaged. But online search reveals it was reported nearly 12 months ago!!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200...

Stem cell issues aside, I believe a hell of a lot of effort and money is re-directed towards alleviating ethical concerns and re-assuring people due to entrenched distrust. Maybe wasted. Scientists are like sparrows. Not all sparrows are birds. Ergo not all scientists are as fair dinkum or as diligent as their detractors believe they themselves are.
Maybe both scientists (well meaning and reckless included) and the naysayers stay on a hiding to nothing. The USA President will simply give a 'NO' for a different reason...because he can. Maybe Presidential ego and sanction also muddies the waters.

I kept this short given my earlier post probably got you sleeping real quick.

-- posted by redback

» redback - OOPS

for those who read my posts...I'm sure my "Not all sparrows are birds." was read in reverse as intended ie not all birds are sparrows.

-- posted by redback

» tinuviel - foci

As long as we're all shifting our focus, then I'm fine. As far as wasting funds on reassuring the public goes, I'm sure we all can agree that transparency and accountability are necessary in such matters. Scientists are humans too. Though I'm with you on the sparrow simile too, redback

-- posted by tinuviel