Stem cell research
The Duke has not followed the stem cell research debate in any level of detail. Apart from passing interest that the traditional abortion rights lines have been blurred (e.g., Orrin Hatch's support), the nuances of the debate never provoked further inquiry.
But a recent luncheon with a friend who is close to a Cardinal opened up an interesting area of debate. Apparently Catholic teaching does not require "unnatural" or "extraordinary" means to prolong life. Catholics also encourage organ donation, though there is some debate over when such a transplant is permissible. If it is not a sin to let a loved one die naturally, without the aid of advanced medical technology, then it must hold that it is not wrong to let a frozen embryo expire on its own.
The Duke understands and even shares concerns that unfettered embryonic stem cell research could create perverse incentives to create new "unwanted" embryos. But it is a fact that thousands of those embryos already exist. It is also a fact that most will eventually be destroyed. Why can't people of good faith on both sides of the debate agree that embryos created before any research rules are implemented are perfectly acceptable sources of new stem cell lines?
posted by The Duke @ 11:39 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Why the obsession with sucking the stem cells out of embryos, when all embryonic stem-cell research has produced is tumors and tremors? Cord blood and adult stem cells have been producing medical miracles in the here and now. Why pursue pie-in-the-sky, when we're already restoring sight to the blind, helping the paralyzed to walk, curing terminally ill children, treating leukemia, and so forth?
No "obsession" here, just an observation about an area of potential agreement. That's the indigo philosophy. The Duke is not a scientist, so he can't comment on whether or not these opportunities are "pie-in-the-sky". As an ethical debate, what's your specific argument against the potential common ground the Duke identified?
An offer to kill only those embryos in the freezer at the moment, embryos that can still be adopted and birthed, isn't an offer of common ground. It's asking for a major concession.
Bush made the only common ground concession that was possible -- to allow research to continue on cell lines from embryos that had already been killed.
Fair enough. But it sounds like your position differs from some conservative Catholics, particularly when it comes to the morality of such adoptions. See this article article for more.
Would you then support prohibiting anyone from permitting an embryo to perish? A prohibition on any proactive means to destroy/discard those embryos? Should there be an affirmative obligation to implant every embryo?
These are not simple questions, and the Duke does not pretend to have all of the answers. Thanks for your input.
Sorry, here's the link.
My visit to your site, The Duke, was the results of the Klamath Lake blue green algae search for information regarding the subject Stem cell research. Even though some of the articles on the site may not support the Klamath Lake blue green algae project, I must say, it’s an informational and very interesting site and its content will benefit many. Thank you for reading my comment.
adult stem cells was the subject I was researching when I came across your site, The Duke. General interest and popularity of the subject Stem cell research has lead me to your site as well as to adult stem cells. Yours is a fine site providing a real service and exceptional content. Thanks for reading my comment
The Duke, This site came up when I was doing my research on Klamath Lake blue green algae. Even though my search for Klamath Lake blue green algae information to support Stem cell research may not end here, your site provides valuable content will certainly will perpetuate. Thanks for the read.
Post a Comment
<< Home