General Medicine

» redback - foci

"As far as wasting funds on reassuring the public goes..."

I really try to be very precise with all the terms I use. I can be booted off the internet a cuppla times by the time I finish checking for errors and intent.
Wasting funds does not auto equate to spending funds.

I've been aware of many instances of money thrown at things in a knee jerk response. I call this the 'something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done' type of thinking.

The other issue is I've been placed between a rock and a hard place many times where by law, I was required to make a decision with only conflicting, self serving, unqualified etc evidence in front of me. To help or hinder a person in need.

When you talk of "all shifting focus" it's the kind of expectation I rarely hold my breath for.

""What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night. It is the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime. It is the little shadow which runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset."

Crowfoot on his deathbed, 1890

-- posted by redback

» tinuviel - foci

It took me a while to figure out what you meant in your last post, but I think I detect evidence of a minor misunderstanding. I only used the term "wasting" in response to your previous post that implied that such money used to alleviate the fears of those who are concerned with ethics was "maybe wasted". I certainly don't consider it a waste at all. I think it amounts to transparency and accountability--which are necessary when dealing with fallible humans.

So, perhaps we agree.

-- posted by tinuviel

» redback - foci

I reckon we fully agree.

The context of: "re-directed towards alleviating ethical concerns and re-assuring people due to entrenched distrust. Maybe wasted. relates to scarce funding and unattainable reassurances.

Today's paper reveals a young policewoman, Natalie Newman, on IVF who finds she has cervical cancer, undergoes radical hysterectomy instead of realising her dream of another baby...and from that operation, also discovers she has a rare ovarian cancer...both primaries.

The paper also declared a commitment to the (Frank) Lowy Cancer Research Institute to be built by 2009. This will be the largest in the Southern Hemisphere and will be built in my State. (I love that boast coz OZ doesn't really have great competition)

This will combine all child and adult cancer research bringing up to 400 researchers together under the one roof...the only one of its kind in Australia. Economies of scale.

I then mischievously reflected: I only hope animal liberationists don't kick up a stink about laboratory mice given the new area to explore. And Natalie's story...among many thousands, highlights the conflicting imperatives of stopping or accelerating cancer research.

-- posted by redback

» redback - ethics

Just to clarify an earlier post: I referred to our Ethical Committees. In the specific example of embryonic stem cell usage and research, the matter had to be covered by law. That involved much debate.
Here's a discussion on it:
http://www.vic.greens.org.au/elected-gre...

Medical ethics interests me and I'd almost forgot that just because an infrastructure exists, doesn't mean problem solved.
The Medical Ethics Committees, like other areas in life, are faced with friction between theory and practice. There is a lot of trust that due process is followed. One of the checks and balances is our whistle blower laws and the selfish needs of researchers to publish results for peer review.

-- posted by redback

» P_Al - ethics

It appears that Australia has made some significant changes to their laws on this issue. It will be very interesting to see what kind of impact somatic cell nuclear transfer research will have. I like the idea of producing more precise models of disease. Sounds like a step in the right direction.

The link you sent was from the Australian Greens. What is the political debate like? "A Bill implementing almost all of those recommendations was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament in 2006." Is their any division along party lines?

-- posted by P_Al

» redback - ethics

No party lines...a conscience vote was allowed. I selected the Greens sumary because it seemed balanced enough and any errors would not have passed scrutiny by their political opposition. My State's parliament (New South Wales) passed similar law last night, following Victoria in May, Commonwealth as you noted, in December 2006. All by healthy majorities.

"...significant changes to their laws on this issue..."

The new law explicitly bars scientists from merging a sperm and an egg to create an embryo. The existing law as previously mentioned, only covered using "left over" embryos in IVF. It extends now with donor consent, into those listed in the linked article.

IVF went through religious dogma and conflicting ethical issues before it became available. Here's one 'horror' example:
"In the area of infertility treatment, it was initially decided to begin testing the procedure of IVF on humans rather than apes because women as a resource were considerably cheaper."
http://web.aanet.com.au/cmcdonald/Articl...

I'm sure many people go into stem cell etc etc debates finding certain statements more compelling in determining their view, than reading all points for and against. All points don't have equal weight.

-- posted by redback

» P_Al - ethics

You said that 'The new law explicitly bars scientists from merging a sperm and an egg'. I had gotten a different impression - "In no circumstances is a research embryo allowed to develop for longer than 14 days, or to be implanted into the body of a woman."

This leads me again to an issue that was previously discussed, but I find intriguing. This debate to my mind is extremely complex, so much so that the more you learn, perhaps the harder it is to come to a consensus. Take for example the issue of when a human being is formed. The differences of opinion on this "small matter" are quite diverse. It is interesting that 14 days was chosen in this case because an embryo has not yet developed a 'primitive streak'. Of course this is a purely scientific parameter and one might argue that it excludes the kinds of guidelines that a religion-based opponent might desire.

Herein lies one of the weaknesses in my opinion of religious positions. They are often based on belief/faith and not on emperically demonstrable facts. That's not to say that they inherently lack merit. Just that the world operates on the basis on the tangible and this is not always possible in matters of faith. I would love to hear your opinion.

-- posted by P_Al

» redback - ethics

I agree. The more I read too, the more questions arise.

My understanding is the new law breaks down an existing barrier that prevented not just disease-specific research using embryonic cells, but person-specific so that research results and treatment can be tailored to an individual. Crikey...even regrowing an arm by implanting engineered cells was fancifully mentioned by some (obscure) politician as some futuristic advance.

But I'll re-check. At present, I understand from the quote you cited, research embryos need to be removed from research 14 days. This would prevent say, cloning to an age where "spare parts" become viable, let alone another (unwanted) George Bush.

The 'OR' is an extra condition ie research embryos cannot be used for IVF. Given that currently all research embryos derive from those not needed within IVF, it would mean they can't be returned for IVF use AFTER "tampering" with them. That kinda makes sense.

I haven't read all the article re ethics of IVF above to identify the top 3 compelling arguments of either side. BUT the IVF process selects the most viable as I understand it, Not those with say my ready made-to-order characteristics.

"This debate to my mind is extremely complex..."

Tis why I quoted a stand-alone 'horror' statement. I believe informed Christians et al can grasp the facts. I don't believe uninformed atheists views should carry more weight. I prefer to analyse all sides...incl my own counsel...to be INFORMED.

BUT a didactic view dependent on religious dogma such as those directed by a Pope in a far-off land, does not routinely carry more weight for me. Tis possible the Pope's technical knowledge in this area far exceeds the common man but he appears to rely on selective interpretation of ancient 'laws' that cannot change...so by default, carry bias.

There are no extra brownie points handed out by me by virtue of a person's religious faith nor their political status or leanings. Morality is part of the mix in stem cell debates after all the facts are known. But ask me if Christianity retains the high moral ground on the sanctiity of life and that is a topic for another day.

-- posted by redback

» redback - legislation

Contrary to my best practice I have used lazy language such as 'embryonic stem cell' not connecting the dots as good as I could...for any technician reading my posts. Basically because I aint a technician.

So, talking technical from a medico-legal background:

The 'The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Act 2006' is the result of a review of the 'Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002' and the 'Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002'.

Here's the Amendment Act which requires a bit of cut & paste for coherence:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislat...

as it updates the above two pieces of legislation.

There are prohibited activities and those requiring licence.

Offences punishable by 15-year jail sentences include:

Placing a human embryo clone in the human body or the body of an animal.
Importing or exporting a human embryo clone.
Creating a human embryo for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in a woman.
Creating or developing a human embryo by fertilisation that contains genetic material provided by more than 2 persons.
Developing a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days.
Heritable alterations to genome.
Collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman
Creating a chimeric embryo.
Developing a hybrid embryo.
Placing of an embryo (other than in a woman)
Importing, exporting or placing a prohibited embryo.

I ponder that life may begin with the smile on the man's face as he climbs into bed to his woman and the embryo's independent status once s/he can feed themselves or leave home. ABC

-- posted by redback

» tinuviel - legislation

And I would add--what about the smile on the woman's face!! Now how chauvinist is that?? You are too funny

I'm also wondering if human embryos could be developed outside the female body for about nine months. That would take a lot of the pressure off...

Reading that first article you sent--that was some futuristic, twilight zone stuff! Scary. I copied this part of it... not too sure I remember why now. Very very tired from a 30-hour trip, in which I ironically only spent about 5 hours traveling and 25 hours waiting at airports. Here's the passage:

"This technique involves taking the nucleus (which contains genetic material) from a cell (usually a skin cell) from a patient, and inserting it into an egg whose nucleus has been removed. With the right triggers, this new cell will develop into a clump of cells from which stem cells can be extracted."

So, no fertilization necessary? Very interesting. And is IVF in vitro fertilisation? I'm not sure--I just found that term somewhere in my head. All this talk you've been doing the past two or three days is very overwhelming to me.

It's funny that George Bush is conservative, inarticulate and unwanted. The funny part is that those adjectives describe me so perfectly.

Must get rest...

-- posted by tinuviel