Stem cells for research

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

Stem cells are a controversial subject; at one time the precursors of human life, but also an invaluable tool in medical research stemming hope that cures will eventually be found to diseases and conditions such as parkinsonism, Alzheimer's disease and spinal cord injury etc.

However, in obtaining the stem cells for research human, embryos that could otherwise have developed in human beings have to be "sacrificed". Because of this, it is not allowed to "manufacture" embryos solely for the purpose of research. Only surplus embryos from IVF (in vitro fertilisation) can be used.
The rationale for this oddity (that some embroys can be used while others can't) is the so-called discarded/created-distinction (DCD), which points at the difference between embryos, in the case of IVF, is created for their own purposes (possibility of developing into a human being) and research embroys, which are created with their own meticulous destruction in intent. The latter being unacceptable to proponents of DCD because of the disrespectful attitude toward human life it represents.
Critics of DCD deny that this initial disrepect can lead to a slippery slope toward a society in which more and more transgressions against human life are allowed, as DCD-supporters fear.


What are your opinions of this?
Is DCD sensible?
Should researchers be allowed to "fabricate" stem cells for their research?
Does using the precursors of human life as tools erode our moral attitudes toward human life in general?

[Chroelle]

Does using the precursors of human life as tools erode our moral attitudes toward human life in general?

Only have a comment for this one. Yes. It does. You can't say that it doesn't. The real question lies therefor in a further thought of this: Will we allow this to happen as a neccesary evil? That is a personal matter.

I think the big problem lies in the very same thing that is portrayed in your signature:

Man's fault lies in his propensity towards willingly doing what feels good and his procrastinating reluctance to doing what is immediately uncomfortable but good.

I need only quote your sig, and you have my current answer to this. Is it good? Is it needed? Am I willing to be the one standing here telling people that it is ok to toy with embryos?
But then again: What is fertility clinics where they help couples getting pregnant if they are not a place to toy with embryos? And I don't find them to be evil.... I find them to be a gift to people who have trouble conciving...
So as you can see I have a hard time making up my mind about this, but I think the answer lies somewhere within the last couple of lines...

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

Does using the precursors of human life as tools erode our moral attitudes toward human life in general?

Only have a comment for this one. Yes. It does. You can't say that it doesn't.

Actually I can. I can claim that the embryo has no intrinsic worth as a human, because it possesses no consciousness, no feelings etc. making it not even remotely comparable to a human. The only difference between the embryo and some skin cells, is that the embryo has the potential to become a person. (Then again, the skin cells could be used to clone a person).

Besides. Hundreds of thousands of surplus embroys from IVF have been discarded - disposed of like any other dead tissue is. And that disrespect has not eroded our morality the slightest.

Proponents of DCD fail to assess the hypocrisy in situation of IVF, where multible embroys are created to increase the chance of pregnancy. If people really thought of embroys as real persons-to-be they wouldn't tolerate the creation of multible embryos just for the sake of the woman, because each embryo would then have to be treated as a person.

[Chroelle]

I find them to be a gift to people who have trouble conciving

And therefore I say that you are right. I cannot get myself to say that these treatments are evil. And not only pregnancy "helping" but also studies done on diseases and thereby getting cures...
If an embryo is "killed" during testing but this sacrifice gives 20.000 people a better life or even A LIFE, then who am I to say that this is not worth it. But don't expect me to give you a number on when enough is enough. If 19.999 embryos lost their lifes so that 20.000 people could feel better, would that still be ok. Because if I say yes, then what about democracy...
If then again these embryos is just tossed if not used, then I say... why not use them... And then again: Lots of people in Denmark fx is childless and needs fertility treatments, and Denmark in general is underpopulated. So if there ever could be a use for embryos on that matter I say use them for that first... ( A little idealistic I know).
But what you are asking here is actually that people should tell when an embryo becomes human and when it is just tissue. I have no such answer, and think it is a personal viewpoint of the situation of religion, ethics and such. If we knew an embryo had a soul would we do it...?
When would you say an embryo becomes "human"?

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

I think that controversy concerning the moral status of the embryo is almost exclusively the result of Christian influence, because otherwise it's pretty clear that the embryo obviously isn't human and thus shouldn't be treated as such. Not surprisingly, people don't seem to have these (irrational) objections to embryonic cloning in Asia and the Middle East.

When would you say an embryo becomes "human"?

There is no sharp transition from foetus to human (those are merely concepts that we use). Similarly, there's no sudden transition from child to adult; those are merely nominal categories society has invented to distinguish two stages in human development which are distinct. The concepts make up a formidable proportion of language and since we understand the world within the boundaries of language, we end up obeying the concepts. But while you in language could define a precise time for transition, it would be an illusion, since language does not necessarily represent the "real" world as it exist outside our brains.

In other words I'm saying that the question is meaningless. But of course that's not a satisfactory answer, because you're going to need a defined transition upon which to make decision - let's say about abortion, because while it is clear that abortion in the third trimester is too late, it is not clear if it is in the 14. week or the 10. week, and since you need legislation addressing this matter (to avoid the chaos of personal decisions), you are forced to draw a line: end of first trimester - not later. Why did you choose this? Because of a real transition between something not-human to something human? No, you did it because it was practical.


(in quibbling technical terms the embryo never becomes a human, because the embryonic stage lasts only from the 3. to the 8. week, then the foetal period commences).


(feeling evil, Chroelle? As of this moment your post count is 666... )

[Chroelle]

I was thinking of keeping my postcount there for a second but then decided to respond.

But what makes the embryo go into the foetal stage. What marks the transition. How could you tell if an embryo didn't make the transition. If we make this development/transition our breakline, then we got something to work with.

Would you use foetals to make experiments?
Since you said that our concepts define our thoughts but not "the real world" (Which I VERY much agree on) I have to ask the question.
How come we think it is ok to do it on embryos and not on foetals. (I'm guessing that you are with me on this one). What makes the difference. A couple of weeks?

I can follow you on the fact that the question was meaningless (and apreciate that you don't think that would be a fulfilling answer). I was aware that I might as well have asked when are we no longer kids and start to be grown-ups. As this is also a question pondered by many throughout the ages. I myself have had 4 celebrations in my life, where they ended up with my dad saying: Now you are really grown-up.

So the question is actually: "When do we bestow upon the embryo developed organism that it is a person in the making and thus have special personal rights?" And what do we base this on?

[mistergreen77]

The destructive/creative distinction is illogical. Zandrav is right when he says "the embryo has no intrinsic worth as a human, because it possesses no consciousness, no feelings etc. making it not even remotely comparable to a human. The only difference between the embryo and some skin cells".

There is still the question Chroelle asked "When do we bestow upon the embryo developed organism that it is a person in the making and thus have special personal rights? And what do we base this on?" The answer is 'on a scientific basis'. It cannot be on any religious or moral basis so it will have to be on scientific basis. Zandrav will be able to answer this better than me and explain it scientifically. The idea of using a foetus for research or treatment is even more distasteful then using embryo - but that doesn't mean it is immoral.

[Chroelle]

That is exactly my point. Where do we draw the line and WHY? Not on a religious or moral basis, but on a fysiological basis. That is actually what I am after since religious and moral can be a personal matter which differentiates from person to person. THe fysiological basis should be common for all. One can read the ethical basis into my post too, but please beware that that is (so far) not what I am after.

[mistergreen77]

I don't think the developing embyo is classed scientifically as a foetus until the eigth week. Even at this stage, I doubt there would be consciousness, but at this point all the organ systems are established. Although by this stage the foetus can react to painful stimuli, I don't think you could say that it is aware of the stimuli. As to exactly when a foetus has 'awareness' - perhaps Zandrav can help us here. If the exact time when it happens is a little blurry, then I think we must draw the line where it is still clear that it has not.

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

But what makes the embryo go into the foetal stage. What marks the transition.

The transition into the foetal stage by the end of the 8th week is marked by an accelerating rate of growth and by the fact, that at this point, the foetus look more human than before. There's no reason to use this as a deadline, because it's just an arbitrary boundary, which happened to get its own name because that was practical. - These events are no more significant than say neurulation or the first heartbeat.

When does the foetus become self aware? There's no way to tell, but I think that the cognitive processes mature only through an interaction between the outer environment and the agent itself. - How can you be aware of yourself if you're not aware that anything else exists?

How come we think it is ok to do it on embryos and not on foetals. (I'm guessing that you are with me on this one). What makes the difference. A couple of weeks?

It's not a moral decision, it's about what practical. What you need is the pluripotent (or multipotent) stem cells from the embryo, and those you want to harvest as soon as you can, that means that there need to be enough of them, but also that it must be done before they differentiate into the various tissues of the body.

Would you use foetals to make experiments?

I'd need a reason, but fundamentally I don't consider it much different than experimentation upon people.
It also depends on what you consider an experiment. Let's say we have a premature birth (a very early one), which is bad because the infant has not matured enough to withstand life outside the uterus, and, even in an incubator, is likely to end up with (severe) handicaps. Let's say new incubation techniques have been developed - putting them to the test would be experimentation, and if successful, we would have pushed back the survivability boundary for premature births - and then there's room for more improvement to save even more prematurely born children, and so on until the artifical uterus.

So the question is actually: "When do we bestow upon the embryo developed organism that it is a person in the making and thus have special personal rights?" And what do we base this on?

That's up to society to decide, not religion, but don't look to science either, because it'll only address the what, when and how questions.

Personally, I consider embryos only as tissues and thus they shouldn't have any rights. An appropriate limit for abortion I think is the first trimester - not later.

[Chroelle]

But when experimenting on people (grown-ups) you have a clearance from them (otherwise it is illegal). How would you get clearance except for asking the mother of the child, and when does the doctor (experimentor) have the right to ask that question?

So actually we have to think about this through the eyes of science, and not through the eyes of moral (since moral is indeterminate and individual. Science on the other hand is not.)

Oh I would never make this a question of religion, since religion has a tendency to part people. Look at the abortion rights for example.

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

I think we should depart from the legal questions, lest we diverge too far from the original question.

No, science cannot tell us whether or not this is right or not (it never can) - it's quintessentially a moral question. And morals are not "indeterminate and individual", that's an opinion.

I have already explained my own view. Let's see if divergent understandings surface.

[mistergreen77]

"Does using the precursors of human life as tools erode our moral attitudes toward human life in general?"

It also raises the question as to what value our moral attitude to human life has? Thinking extra-morally about this - what makes human life different from any other sort of life? Aside from the moral interpretation, it seems to me that it is of no consequence. Consequently, we would be justified in whatever our peers will let us get away with. Haven't our morals also evolved, and while we are questioning whether or not the brain is still suited to the modern world (another thread) - can we not ask whether our morals are still suited to the modern world? We hold on to the morals after we have given up the religion which sanctioned them.

And is the illogical opposition to creating stem cells for scientific use, despite the obvious value of such research, the result of superstition? In which case I would say the same thing I said in the zodiac thread.