# What are the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research?



## JamesM

What, if any, are the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research?  

If there are ethical issues, are they exclusively the result of religious points of view or are there ethical issues involved irrespective of a person's belief in a god?


----------



## Joca

JamesM said:


> What, if any, are the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research?
> 
> If there are ethical issues, are they exclusively the result of religious points of view or are there ethical issues involved irrespective of a person's belief in a god?


 
I suppose this thread is about ethics rather than stem cell research per se?
Anyway, I think I would need to get more information on the subject before giving a response. For instance: Is the therapy totally safe? Is it the definitive solution or simply palliative? 

Moreover I think it is easy to say "No, I am against it" when neither you nor anyone in your family is involved, that is, in need of the therapy.


----------



## cuchuflete

Joca said:


> I suppose this thread is about ethics rather than *stem cell research* per se?
> Anyway, I think I would need to get more information on the subject before giving a response. For instance: Is the *therapy* totally safe? Is it the definitive solution or simply palliative?
> 
> Moreover I think it is easy to say "No, I am against it" when neither you nor anyone in your family is involved, that is, in need of the *therapy*.



Whatever the question is about, it is not about therapy.  It is about stem cell research, and possible ethical questions that such research may raise.  Therapy cannot occur with the results of stem cell research unless and until such research is conducted.  You are addressing a consequence of the research, rather than the research itself.  That not only presupposes that such research will have occured, but also that the results will be put to use.  Of course there are ethical questions surround the use of research results, but unless you give a specific example, this will lead to speculation about possibilities, which may range from the likely to the absurd.


I wonder if the thread starter might help us all by giving us a single definition of ethics to work with.

Here are some choices:



> *ethical* *A
> *_adjective_
> *1 **ethical*
> 
> _conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior; "an ethical lawyer"; "ethical medical practice"; "an ethical problem"; "had no ethical objection to drinking"; "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants"- Omar N. Bradley _
> 
> 
> 
> *2 **ethical*, honorable, honourable, moral
> 
> _adhering to ethical and moral principles; "it seems ethical and right"; "followed the only honorable course of action"; "had the moral courage to stand alone"_


Source: WordNet/WordReference Eng. Dict. 





> –adjective  1.pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.   2.being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession: It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.


dictionary.com- Random House


----------



## cuchuflete

JamesM said:


> What, if any, are the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research?
> 
> If there are ethical issues, are they exclusively the result of religious points of view or are there ethical issues involved irrespective of a person's belief in a god?



Please clarify if you wish to discuss embryonic stem cell research or all stem cell research.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> I wonder if the thread starter might help us all by giving us a single definition of *ethics *to work with.
> 
> Here are some choices:
> *ethical*



You don't define ethics there, you define ethical. Let's not start with confusion and misuse of worms.


----------



## cuchuflete

JamesM said:


> What, if any, are the *ethical* issues surrounding stem cell research?
> 
> If there are *ethical* issues, are they exclusively the result of religious points of view or are there ethical issues involved irrespective of a person's belief in a god?





maxiogee said:


> You don't define ethics there, you define *ethical*. Let's not start with confusion and misuse of worms.



Just to help you align the worms 

~~~~~~~​


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> I wonder if the thread starter might help us all by giving us a single definition of *ethics* to work with.
> 
> * Here are some choices*:


----------



## ernest_

I don't have no problem with any type of research. If you've got a problem with it, it seems to me that you're afraid of knowing the truth, as that's what research does: pursuing the truth. I mean, as long as they don't kill or torture or harm anybody, why would anyone object?


----------



## maxiogee

ernest_ said:


> I don't have no problem with any type of research. If you've got a problem with it, it seems to me that you're afraid of knowing the truth, as that's what research does: pursuing the truth. I mean, as long as they don't kill or torture or harm anybody, why would anyone object?



Some would argue that in harvesting stem cells from 'unwanted' foetuses the scientists do indeed kill somebody.


----------



## JamesM

For purposes of this discussion, let's go with:


*2 **ethical*, honorable, honourable, moral

_adhering to ethical and moral principles; "it seems ethical and right"; "followed the only honorable course of action"; "had the moral courage to stand alone"_ 

And, to help narrow the field of discussion, let's go with embryonic stem cell research only.

Here are a couple of articles discussing ethical issues surrounding stem cell research in general and embryonic stem cell research in particular:

http://www.ethicsweb.ca/papers/BioScan-cm.pdf

http://www.ketv.com/stemcells/6681496/detail.html

The second one is shorter and broader, but it does lay out several of the issues that have arisen surrounding stem cell research.


----------



## cuchuflete

One issue that is debated is the use of human embryos.

These may be (in theory) from two sources:

1. Embryos fertilized within a human body, but which do not implant in the uterus.  Such embryos
would normally be expelled by the body.  The tissue, if still living at that time, would die.
2. Embryos fertilized in a laboratory container, usually in a fertility clinic, but not used for subsequent
implantation in a human body.  These embryos are discarded and the living tissue, frozen at this point, dies.

The ethical arguments I have seen used against the use of such tissue are based on the theoretical possibility 
of implanting such naturally or intentionally discarded embryos into a willing human host, where they could grow into a viable foetus.  The argument is moot unless that specific alternative is available for a specific embryo at the time a decision is taken to use the tissue for research or not.  If the choice is between destruction of the embryo by putting it in the biomedical waste container, or by extracting cells for research, then the theoretical potential for implantation is not in play, having been previously excluded from consideration.

Here's the logic I use.  If there are some number of embryos in a laboratory that are not wanted or needed by potential parents, yet these do offer the potential for creation of a human life, then those with custodial power and control over those embryos would be guilty of murder if they did not implant them, but let them expire, unused, through biological degradation over time.  That raises the companion ethical problem of forcing unwilling host mothers to accept such embryos into their bodies.  I don't see the laboratory workers as guilty of
anything.  If an embryo exists, in vitro, and is not to be implanted, for whatever reasons, it will be destroyed.
Given that certain destruction, I find putting some cells to use in research to be preferable, ethically, to discarding them as useless trash.  

Whether or not one perceives the in vitro creation of the embryo to be ethically right or not is a predecessor question, and distinct from the stem cell research debate. Once the embryo exists, it will either be implanted in a human or destroyed.  If if is to be destroyed, I cannot find a better ethical solution than to do the destruction in a way that is potentially beneficial to living people.  

To date the fertility clinic supply of excess embryos exists without stimulus of any demand from stem cell research, so the possible argument that such embryos are created to support such research has no validity.


I believe the discussion above does not depend on religion or lack of same as the basis for seeing an embryo as potentially viable if implanted.


----------



## CrazyArcher

Stem sells' research can be  amajor breakthrough in medicine, comparable with discovery of antibiotics. As long as it doesn't hurt living creatures, I don't see any reason to limit it.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> 2. Embryos fertilized in a laboratory container, usually in a fertility clinic, but not used for subsequent
> implantation in a human body.  These embryos are discarded and the living tissue, frozen at this point, dies.


"These embryos are discarded"
You state that as a certain and immutable action.

In a case I remember highlighting here previously an Irish couple underwent such treatment and later divorced. The unused embryos were not destroyed, but had been kept by the clinic for possible future use.

==========

On a related topic:-
It worries some people that such clinics may deliberately over-produce embryos beyond what are necessary for the fertility purpose of the clinic and its clients, to supply medical experimenters with cells harvested from the 'surplus'.


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> "These embryos are discarded"
> You state that as a certain and immutable action.
> 
> In a case I remember highlighting here previously an Irish couple underwent such treatment and later divorced. The unused embryos were not destroyed, but had been kept by the clinic for possible future use.   Do you suggest that fertility clinic embryos are kept in perpetuity?  If so, what proof do you have to support this supposition, beyond the single unusual anecdote cited?
> 
> Do you really believe that all embryos created in fertility clinics are kept for an indefinite time, or are you presenting the possibility, however unlikely, just to drag the conversation off into a corner?
> Yes we know you are fond of off-topic corners.  You needn't provide additional proof.
> 
> ==========
> 
> On a related topic:-
> It worries some people that such clinics may deliberately over-produce embryos beyond what are necessary for the fertility purpose of the clinic and its clients, to supply medical experimenters with cells harvested from the 'surplus'.
> 
> It worries some people?  What people are these?  Where is there a hint of proof of this wild supposition?   How many embryos are produced by such clinics?  What % of these are needed to start a single stem cell line?  What are the economics of producing and storing 'surplus' embryos?  What does a stem cell research line pay for an embryo, if anything?
> 
> This is either an economically and legally viable and commercially attractive proposition for fertility labs and/or their clients—highly dubious at best— or it is alarmist nonsense unsupported by fact.
> 
> It worries some people that Martians may invade the Earth some day, but the evidence in support of such worries is as yet rather scant.


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> What, if any, are the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research?


Weather it will save lives.
Whether it will ease existing human pain.
Whether it will ease existing human suffering.
Whether it will reduce future human pain. 
Whether it will reduce future human suffering.
Whether it will improve existing quality of human life.
Whether it will ease future quality of human life.



JamesM said:


> If there are ethical issues, are they exclusively the result of religious points of view or are there ethical issues involved irrespective of a person's belief in a god?


This has nothing to do with the supernatural.

I feel compelled to declare my hand.
I would not be alive were it not for virtually immediate surgical intervention as a baby nor would my baby.
I required a low abdomina hernia repair and she required an anorectoplasty.
We would have both 'survived' to about our mid teens where we would have withered and died.
I 'should' have an other brother different to the one that I have. Mum got pregnant straight after I popped out, she was as fertile as a turtle, but he wasn't cooked right and the doctor just layed him gently down and then got engrossed in some minor thing on mum and the little fella never drew a breath. Sometimes we just have to be able to see the wood for the trees.
Mum and dad went out and cooked me another little brother and he came out perfect, except that he loves to beat me at stuff, and the little fella was recycled.
A spermatozoa pitching woo to an ovum does not a baby make.
It is thought that a large percentage of inseminations result in spontaneous abortion.

Life is only potential until the lump of protoplasm is able to breath repeatedly and even then it is tenuous for many years.
I will go with real life rather than potential stuff.

.,,


----------



## Joca

JamesM said:


> What, if any, are the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research?
> 
> If there are ethical issues, are they exclusively the result of religious points of view or are there ethical issues involved irrespective of a person's belief in a god?


 
These are really very complex questions, full of "ifs", but I don't think they have necessarily to do with religion. Whatever you choose to support, you must be aware that you are also compromising at some point. If you choose to be against research in general and this research in particular, you are wearing the cloak of obscurantism. If you choose to go with it, you are endorsing technology and our increasing dependency on it, and strengthening all the dilemmas and problems it brings along with its "solutions". I'd rather not have to choose at all, but *if* the embryos are to discarded, then why not give them an apparently nobler destination? 
JC


----------



## maxiogee

If helps to respond if you don't insert your comments inside a quote box.



> Do you suggest that fertility clinic embryos are kept in perpetuity? If so, what proof do you have to support this supposition, beyond the single unusual anecdote cited?


No - I have no idea what the keeping arrangements are, but then I'm not the person who made an unproven assertion. Where is *your* proof that they are discarded? You seem eager to challenge anyone who raises points you wish to cast doubt on to produce their proof. Your turn to furnish us with the proof this time. Some of the embryos die in their frozen state and do not require 'disposal' as you put it as, being dead, they cease to be embryos.





> Yes we know you are fond of off-topic corners. You needn't provide additional proof.


How very kind and condescending of the estimable cuchuflete.

The whole issue of over-production and retention of embryos is one of the core ethical issues at the heart of stem cell research.

You will get proof whether you want it or not - with comments such as yours I feel a need to defend myself against such an influential member of the WordRef community.....



			
				Canadian Hansard said:
			
		

> I support the protection of the uniqueness of all individuals, their right to life and human dignity. We come into this world with little enough dignity. We come in naked and penniless and will go out that way unless someone dresses us, cleans us up, and puts us in a fancy box. Human dignity is something that must be maintained and valued. To materialize or commercialize the making of embryos, whether it be for research or whether it be an overproduction of embryos, even for assisted human reproduction in a legitimate sense, goes beyond what I would like to see happening. I know that it is being done already.
> 
> We hear of multiple births. We hear of quintuplets, sextuplets and numbers of children being born and then without fail it is discovered that these are people who have been working with some fertility drug or some assisted human reproduction process of some kind. What we are not told is how many embryos were created that were left over and/or frozen, and/or disposed of in some way. This bill opens the door to that and, therefore, we lose the respect for human life and dignity when we commercialize these products.


Source: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublica...?DocId=794730&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=2​


			
				The United Methodist Church said:
			
		

> Given the reality that most, if not all, of these excess embryos will be discarded—we believe that it is morally tolerable to use existing embryos for stem cell research purposes. This position is a matter of weighing the danger of further eroding the respect due to potential life against the possible, therapeutic benefits that are hoped for from such research. The same judgment of moral tolerability would apply to the use of embryos left from future reproductive efforts if a decision has been made not to introduce them into the womb. We articulate this position with an attitude of caution, not license. We reiterate our opposition to the creation of embryos for the sake of research. (See Book of Resolutions 2000, p. 254)


source: http://www.interpretermagazine.org/interior_print.asp?ptid=4&mid=6560&pagemode=print​I note the concern inherent in the use of the expression 'morally tolerable'. I can only guess at the arguments which led to such a word being used when 'morally acceptable' was obviously rejected.



			
				The Daily Kos said:
			
		

> What does emerge from this analysis is, for me, a better understanding of what may be on the minds of stem cell research opponents. The sanctity of life may mean, for them, not only the call to preserve life itself -- something which is, for an unimplanted blastocyst, impossible -- but the demand to treat the elements of human life with respect and dignity. Some opponents may be appalled not by the demise of a ball of cells, but by what they see as an undignified death, in the polished steel of a tissue culture hood with a lab-coated graduate student bearing a pipetteman in place of a funeral Mass.


Source: http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/11/the_creepy_side.html​



> It worries some people? What people are these?


See above.



> Where is there a hint of proof of this wild supposition? How many embryos are produced by such clinics?


Again with the demands for proof, from the person who wrote:
"To date the fertility clinic supply of excess embryos exists without stimulus of any demand from stem cell research, so the possible argument that such embryos are created to support such research has no validity" without supplying a shred of evidence. As we tell our close friends in Ireland "Catch yourself on!" Your requests for proof grow tiresome.




> What % of these are needed to start a single stem cell line? What are the economics of producing and storing 'surplus' embryos? What does a stem cell research line pay for an embryo, if anything?


What have those questions to do with anything I wrote?


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> If helps to respond if you don't insert your comments inside a quote box. So very unsorry to have inconvenienced you.   You seem to have had no trouble responding to my previous post.
> 
> No - I have no idea what the keeping arrangements are, yet you implied that you did, and cited a single case in which the 'keeping' period was extended:
> 
> 
> 
> In a case I remember highlighting here previously an Irish couple underwent such treatment and later divorced. The unused embryos were not destroyed, but had been kept by the clinic for possible future use. Do you suggest that fertility clinic embryos are kept in perpetuity?
> 
> 
> 
> So there is your statement again, pointing at a single noteworthy instance, as if this were in some way representative of the way things are done, and now you tell us that you have no idea what the normal state of affairs is.  Thank you for demonstrating what I was pointing out:  a single exception is a single exception, and gives little or no insight into the usual state of things. It's another diversion into an odd nook and cranny, and proves nothing but the existence of exceptions to whatever common practice may be.   If it were not so unusual, it would not have received any attention in the first place.  But then, why miss a chance to ignore the essence of the thread topic by tossing red herrings around?
> 
> 
> 
> but then I'm not the person who made an unproven assertion. Where is *your* proof that they are discarded?    Did you even bother to read the articles JamesM gave links for in the first post?  Apparently not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the national soul-searching stirred up by stem cell research,  human embryos are discarded all the time in *fertility clinics* - and hardly  anyone seems to mind.
> At one Bay Area clinic, they are flushed down the drain in a metal sink. At  another, a technician drops them into a medical waste bin, to be picked up and  incinerated by hospital staff.
> 
> source:
> 
> 
> 
> *The forgotten embryo*
> 
> *Fertility clinics must store or destroy the surplus that is part of the process*
> 
> Carl T. Hall, Chronicle Science Writer
> Monday, August 20, 2001
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human pluripotent embryonic stem (ES) cells have important potential in regenerative medicine and as models for human preimplantation development; however, debate continues over whether embryos should be destroyed to produce human ES cells. We have derived four ES cell lines on mouse embryonic fibroblast cells in medium supplemented with basic fibroblast growth factor, human recombinant leukemia inhibitory factor, and fetal bovine serum. *The source of these cell lines was poor-quality embryos that in the course of routine clinical practice would have been discarded.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> source: Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Discarded Embryos
> Maisam Mitalipovaa, John Calhounb, Soojung Shinc, David Winingerd, Thomas Schulzc, Scott Nogglee,f, Alison Venableb, Ian Lyonsa, Allan Robinsa, Steven Sticec  http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/full/21/5/521?ck=nck
> 
> 
> You seem eager to challenge anyone who raises points you wish to cast doubt on to produce their proof.   I have challenged *one* and only one person who made some significantly bold statements without any backup.  I now challange you to show that I have challanged anyone else.  You are welcome to exaggerate all you please, but if you do so in regard to my postings, I will point out that you are exaggerating grossly.
> Fair enough?
> I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that your exaggerations are a function of passion, rather than a conscious effort to mislead anyone.
> 
> Your turn to furnish us with the proof this time. Some of the embryos die in their frozen state and do not require 'disposal' as you put it as, being dead, they cease to be embryos.  I've provided a couple of sources above, but if you would like many more, just ask nicely.  I'll be glad to comply with your request.  You may also look here for a few hundred citations, if you are in a rush:
> 
> click>
> Results *1* - *10* of about *639* for *"fertility clinics" "discarded embryos"*.
> 
> The whole issue of over-production and retention of embryos is one of the core ethical issues at the heart of stem cell research.  Fertility clins and over-production and disposal and retention of embryos existed before stem cell research began.  Unless the existence of a causal relationship between stem cell research and such over-production can be demonstrated, it is perhaps an ethical issue, but one which exists apart from stem cell research.
> 
> You will get proof whether you want it or not - with comments such as yours I feel a need to defend myself Please stop being such a crybaby.  Nobody attacked you personally. You wrote some things that needed to be substantiated or ignored.  What is the big deal?  Did some big bad bully take away your lollypop?   If you want to engage in a debate of facts and opinions, you shouldn't take offense at being asked for the factual basis, if any, of the opinions you offer, especially when you present them as if they were factually based.
> 
> 
> Again with the demands for proof, from the person who wrote:
> "To date the fertility clinic supply of excess embryos exists without stimulus of any demand from stem cell research, so the possible argument that such embryos are created to support such research has no validity" without supplying a shred of evidence. As we tell our close friends in Ireland "Catch yourself on!" Your requests for proof grow tiresome.  It is far easier to present any whim or notion with no facts to support one's assertions.  Sorry it is tiresome to have to present more than personal viewpoints from on high.  Do you know how many fertility clinics there are, or how many embryonic stem cell research lines?  You are happy to write as if fertility clinics would close up shop if they didn't have a supply of funds from the embryonic stem cell researchers to prop them up.
> 
> Here are some "shred(s) of evidence" for you to masticate.
> 
> "
> Although the National Institutes of Health (NIH) registry of human embryonic stem (hES) cell lines lists 78 lines isolated in five countries, it seems likely that more will need to be isolated. Of the 78 NIH registered lines, only 11 have been significantly characterized and are currently available to researchers (http://stemcells.nih.gov/registry/). "   That is not the most current data, but gives a general idea of the number.
> 
> Here is a commercial referral page that lists 100 fertility clinics in the US alone:
> 
> http://www.integramed.com/inmdweb/content/cons/clinicbase/clinicsbystate.jsp
> 
> 
> What have those questions to do with anything I wrote?  Read and think and it may become clear.
> 
> You previously stated, " It worries some people that such clinics may deliberately over-produce embryos beyond what are necessary..."  The Canadian Hansard quotation talks of disposal of embryos, but does not speak to any causal relationship between fertilized embryo creation quantities and potential consumption by researchers.  The United Methodist Church quotation speaks of potential use of _left over_ embryos, but again does not suggest that any embryo has been or would be created to supply research needs.  The Daily Kos quotation is silent on the subject.
> 
> Clearly all three authors have concerns about the use of excess embryonic tissue for research.
> That is a different matter from supporting the assertion that people are worried about deliberate over-production.
Click to expand...


----------



## cuchuflete

For the US, the law that was passed by the Congress, and vetoed by the President, included the following:




> (b) Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
> (1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been *donated* from in vitro fertilization clinics, were *created for the purposes of fertility treatment*, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
> (2) Prior to the consideration of embryo *donation *and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the *embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.*
> (3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment *donated* the embryos with written informed consent and *without receiving any financial or other inducements* to make the donation.


 more here


----------



## tvdxer

Stem cell research, in of and itself, is not unethical, but can be very ethical.  It depends where the stem cells are extracted from.  If they're from the umbilical cord or adults, then it's fine, but if they are from an embryo, then it is immoral, since the destruction of an unborn child is required to obtain them.  What would pose an interesting moral case would be stem cells obtained from a blastocyst / embryo that died on its own (not as the result of lab processes).  I've never heard any talk of this.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:


> Stem cell research, in of and itself, is not unethical, but can be very ethical.  It depends where the stem cells are extracted from.  If they're from the umbilical cord or adults, then it's fine, but *if they are from an embryo, then it is immoral,* since the destruction of an unborn child is required to obtain them.  What would pose an interesting moral case would be stem cells obtained from a blastocyst / embryo that died on its own (not as the result of lab processes).  I've never heard any talk of this.



That may be true from your personal viewpoint, or from that of some, but not all, of those who
share your religion.

Others obviously are not in agreement with you.

Here are some varying Christian viewpoints, linked at the ISSCR web site:



> Protestant theologian Ronald Cole-Turner, M. Div., Ph.D., has offered a Christian moral defense of humanitarian embryo use.





> Edmund D. Pellegrino, M.D., of Georgetown University states a Catholic case against embryo use.





> Margaret Farley, Ph.D., of Yale University explains that in history and in present theological discussion, there is more than one Catholic line of reasoning, including a strong Catholic moral defense of humanitarian embryo use.


----------



## cuchuflete

JamesM said:


> What, if any, are the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research?
> 
> If there are ethical issues, are they exclusively the result of religious points of view or are there ethical issues involved irrespective of a person's belief in a god?



JamesM asked us to identify the ethical issues, not to debate them.

The major issue I have found so far, seem to be concentrated on a single point:
The necessary destruction of an embryo that is between 5 days and 2 weeks old to
extract embryonic stem cells seems to be at the core of the ethical dispute.
This is not a foetus, but has the biological potential, if created _in vitro_ and implanted in
a human uterus, to become one. 

There is much misinformation and confusion about embryonic stem cell research and cloning of
humans.  These are two quite distinct topics.  Cloning techniques applied to individual cells for research and attempts to clone an entire organism are vastly different matters.
See this site for some clearly worded explanations of the differences:  http://www.isscr.org/science/faq.htm#14a


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> Stem cell research, in of and itself, is not unethical, but can be very ethical. It depends where the stem cells are extracted from. If they're from the umbilical cord or adults, then it's fine, but if they are from an embryo, then it is immoral, since the destruction of an unborn child is required to obtain them.


Whoa, slow down there speedy.
That was a fast slide from an embryo to an unborn child. There's many a slip twixt fornication and baptism.
At the time of the process the subject of the discussion *is* not an unborn child.
I suspect that at the best stem cells would be harvested at the pre embryonic stage but I could be wrong.
In any event stem cells are harvested from a little blob that, if it looks like anything at all other than a blob of cells, looks more reptillian than primate.




tvdxer said:


> What would pose an interesting moral case would be stem cells obtained from a blastocyst / embryo that died on its own (not as the result of lab processes). I've never heard any talk of this.


This would be a rather pointless line as the blastocyst is obviously flawed. This would be starting research on something that is not even potentially human.
Imagine that the blastocyst was spontaneously aborted because the potential individual was going to be born inside out or was cancerous or had been damaged by atomic radiation or chemical pesticides or because the female fornicator had abused alcohol or other drugs or the male fornicator had abused steroids or performance enhancing hormones or the female fornicator had been the 'roid rager and the male fornicator had been the drugged out warb.

Any cells would be potentially heavily flawed with scattered DNA and god knows what other flaws.

See, here's the thing.
We, as a society, already flush millions of these 'potential babies' away from public hospitals and research institutions and fertility clinics every year so the ethical question could be turned to the bitter moral waste involved in just dumping all of those 'potential babies'.
Our society is just going to continue dumping these 'potential' individuals with no regard to stem cell research.

I could, just possibly if I squint real hard and words my mangle and say nucular, maybe see an opposition to producing 'potential embryos' just for stem cell research.
I am damned If I can see any possible opposition to the use of 'potential babies' who have utterly no other potential other than to definitely occupy space in a rubbish dump.


Which babies die as a result of harvesting excess embryos that will be dead if they are not harvested?

.,,


----------



## tvdxer

This is an emotionally difficult case, especially considering how most of the "snowflake children" will be thrown away, but I still must stick to my guns: however hard it is to identify a blastocyst or zygote as a human being, they still are human, and their life must be respected; and intentionally destroying a human life (even if it will still be destroyed if no action is taken), no matter how noble the cause is, is not morally acceptable.  That's what I believe.  Do I expect to convince others here of my case?  Probably not.  

I feel more strongly that it's unfortunate that such fertility clinics exist in the first place.


----------



## modus.irrealis

tvdxer said:


> however hard it is to identify a blastocyst or zygote as a human being, they still are human, and their life must be respected; and intentionally destroying a human life (even if it will still be destroyed if no action is taken), no matter how noble the cause is, is not morally acceptable.



This is for me one of the main ethical issues with embryonic stem cell research -- whether embryos should be considered to be persons and what sort of rights should they be entitled to. I'd think that somebody's views on this kind of research are pretty much dependent on how they answer those questions (although maybe I'm wrong here). And these questions seem to me to be ethical questions, and if a certain religion answers them a certain way, that's just because many, if not all, religions have an ethical component to them.


----------



## Fernando

As it has been said, the "only" problem with stem cells research is the use of embryos as stem cells. Little (if any) problem arise when you use multi-potential or all-potential ADULT stem cells.

If you consider embryos (since fecundation) as (wholly or partially) people, you will have a problem. If you consider them as disposable rubbish, you will not.

Most religions have a problem, on the basis of "You shall not kill" principle. I think this is not a (exclusively) religious principle, but it can be (and it is) shared by many atheist or non-afiliated religious people.


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> JamesM asked us to identify the ethical issues, not to debate them.
> 
> The major issue I have found so far, seem to be concentrated on a single point:
> The necessary destruction of an embryo that is between 5 days and 2 weeks old to
> extract embryonic stem cells seems to be at the core of the ethical dispute.
> This is not a foetus, but has the biological potential, if created _in vitro_ and implanted in
> a human uterus, to become one.
> 
> There is much misinformation and confusion about embryonic stem cell research and cloning of humans.




This is true (or at least I agree with it).



cuchuflete said:


> These are two quite distinct topics.  Cloning techniques applied to individual cells for research and attempts to clone an entire organism are vastly different matters.



This is less true or I don't quite agree.

First, I should say that I have no problem with stem cell research of any kind nor am I concerned about human cloning.  I may change my mind on this if we ever learn how to convert an embryo into a person outside the body of a woman, but until then I trust women to do the right thing.  I also realize that it is troubling to many people for reasons which are their own, so I'm also not interested in seeing something forced on people which is contrary to their basic principles as long as it doesn't affect me.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is the process by which an embryo is created for the purpose of cloning another organism.  The stem cells from an SCNT embryo are indistinguishable from an embryo created by conventional fertilization so any ethical issues are the same for each.   Cloning  is an important part of  stem cell research because  it produces  cells that will be compatible with the cloned organism and if the intent is to place the cells into the body of the cloned individual, then having cells with the exact same genetic makeup is quite important.  The idea of creating a human embryo and harvesting the cells at some point for the purpose of effecting a cure in another person is the main ethical issue regarding stem cell research, IMO.  It is a step along the process of using fetal tissue to cure a disease in another person.  There is an ethical problem for most people if the fetus is destroyed in the process.


----------



## Kajjo

JamesM said:


> What, if any, are the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research?


Personally, I do not see any ethical issues in the context of stem cell research, neither regarding embryonic nor other stem cells. To the contrary, medical research employing stem cells can be very rewarding and save many human lifes, reduces human suffering and offer new insights into nature.

During our abortion discussion we already exchanged most arguments surrounding the postulation that a single cell might be considered a person or child. I don't think so. Besides religious points of view I do not see any argument in favor of certain cell types being more worthy to be protected than other.

Kajjo


----------



## .   1

Kajjo said:


> Personally, I do not see any ethical issues in the context of stem cell research, neither regarding embryonic nor other stem cells. To the contrary, medical research employing stem cells can be very rewarding and save many human lifes, reduces human suffering and offer new insights into nature.


These are the only questions to be answered.
Cells harvested from my leg can be transplanted to my back.  Corneas and entire organs are harvested daily by the thousands.  Billions of liters of blood is harvested yearly.  No problem.



Kajjo said:


> During our abortion discussion we already exchanged most arguments surrounding the postulation that a single cell might be considered a person or child. I don't think so. Besides religious points of view I do not see any argument in favor of certain cell types being more worthy to be protected than other.


A few cells from an internal organ become the focus of fundamental rage  and all pretend that is not religious but are then fuzzy on the details of this lack of religiosity.

I have never heard one opponent to stem cell research base their opposition on anything other than the potential life of the potential individual in a potential future that can not even potentially exist.

.,,


----------



## TRG

At some point, we were all an embryo. If your embryo had been used for research, then you would not be here. Someone makes a decision that this person is not going to exist, ever, when the embryo is destroyed. I believe this situation has ethical considerations that have nothing to do with religion. You may unwittingly destroy the embryo of the person that is going to save humanity from some horrible fate. It maybe just a blob of cells or even one cell, but it's still a potential human life. It wants to live.


----------



## .   1

And if my aunt had been a bloke she would have been my uncle.

If is the most incredibly enormous two letter word in the entire known and unknown universe and multiverses and seldom adds to many such discussions.

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

TRG said:


> At some point, we were all an embryo. If your embryo had been used for research, then you would not be here. Someone makes a decision that this person is not going to exist, ever, when the embryo is destroyed.


Someone made the decision to create a life where probably _no_ life at all had developed. Fertility medicine is not applied to people easily reproducing. The are thousands of eggs in a woman that will never develop to embryos. Some of them are taken and one life is helped that otherwise would have never been. The rest is pure technicality. Very many healthy, normal women loose fertilised eggs in a lot of cycles without anyone knowing and anyone lamenting. It's _nature_ that not every fertilised egg developes to an embryo.

We have had this all in the abortion thread. Anyway, to repeat it shortly: There is no significant biological difference between egg cells, sperm cells, any other cell and a fertilised egg. It is not a person.

Outside mother's womb a fertilised egg cell is not even a potential person without very much of the technique and science you are against in the first place! You cannot select part of the science which was developed by methods you despise and prohibit fervently, and than actually force people to use this "enemy technology" to make eggs turn into potential life. 

Kajjo


----------



## Fernando

Kajjo said:


> We have had this all in the abortion thread. Anyway, to repeat it shortly: There is no significant biological difference between egg cells, sperm cells, any other cell and a fertilised egg. It is not a person.



That is your opinion. Since I am grown from a fertilized egg and not from any of my mother's uterus cells, I beg to disagree.



Kajjo said:


> Outside mother's womb a fertilised egg cell is not even a potential person without very much of the technique and science you are against in the first place! You cannot select part of the science which was developed by methods you despise and prohibit fervently, and than actually force people to use this "enemy technology" to make eggs turn into potential life.



Outside mother's womb any foetus (even 8 months foetus) is not a child without care.

I select the part of the science that allows discarded embryos to be REAL people.


----------



## Kajjo

Fernando said:


> That is your opinion. Since I am grown from a fertilized egg and not from any of my mother's uterus cells, I beg to disagree.


We are _all_ grown from an fertilised egg. Whether under natural or _in vitro_ conditions does not matter, does it?

Kajjo


----------



## JamesM

Kajjo said:


> You cannot select part of the science which was developed by methods you despise and prohibit fervently, and than actually force people to use this "enemy technology" to make eggs turn into potential life.
> 
> Kajjo


 
I disagree with this reasoning.  The application of a technology is very different from the technology itself, and promoting one application of a technology does not mean you must promote all applications of that technology.

There are sound reasons for encouraging the development of fusion-based nuclear power plants while discouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  Same technology, different application.


----------



## TRG

Kajjo said:


> Someone made the decision to create a life where probably _no_ life at all had developed. Fertility medicine is not applied to people easily reproducing. The are thousands of eggs in a woman that will never develop to embryos. Some of them are taken and one life is helped that otherwise would have never been. The rest is pure technicality. Very many healthy, normal women loose fertilised eggs in a lot of cycles without anyone knowing and anyone lamenting. It's _nature_ that not every fertilised egg developes to an embryo.
> 
> We have had this all in the abortion thread. Anyway, to repeat it shortly: There is no significant biological difference between egg cells, sperm cells, any other cell and a fertilised egg. It is not a person.
> 
> Outside mother's womb a fertilised egg cell is not even a potential person without very much of the technique and science you are against in the first place! You cannot select part of the science which was developed by methods you despise and prohibit fervently, and than actually force people to use this "enemy technology" to make eggs turn into potential life.
> 
> Kajjo



I was previously trying to state what I thought would be the ethical argument for not destroying human embryos.  This is not a position I hold, but I realize that others do.   I gave you no reason to use the phrase "despise and prohibit fervently" so I think you may be jumping to some unwarranted conclusions.  As it is, I'm relatively indifferent to the entire question, but it is interesting to talk about.


----------

