Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Injections Pioneering Step Forward?
sanspeak writes "Indian Doctors at All India Institute of Medical Sciences have performed a radical new operation of sorts by pioneering the method of stem cell injections. Ishika Gupta, a seven month old girl child who was suffering from cardiac myopathy, was treated by injecting stem cells into her heart from bone in her own leg. AIIMS has marked a global first in pioneering stem cell medicine by the "injection method''." From the article: "There will now be a national stem cell centre at AIIMS which will coordinate the research and its applications. The statistics speak for themselves. After six months, 56% of the affected (dead muscle) area injected with these cells had shown improvement." Additional details on this therapy available from the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel and Medical News Today.
Directly on-topic? Well, no, but I guarantee there will be several positively moderated messages in this thread that don't get it right.
- This article isn't talking about embryonic stem cells, so any references to the Bush administration embryonic stem cell policy are utterly irrelevant
But for those who still don't get it:
- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)
- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information.
- When is an embryo "life"? At some arbitrary time? When it's in a woman's womb? When it's "wanted" by someone as the product of actions to create a child? When and how does it become life? What's the magic cutoff? When and why is it ok to destroy it? When it can exist on its own? What does "exist on its own" mean? I'm not saying any of these things necessarily should preclude embryonic stem cell research, and indeed, federal funding for it. But doesn't it seem that those ethical questions should be addressed or at least considered? It may well be that society collectively decides that the benefit outweighs ethical concerns. But bear in mind, too, that farming more developed human life for research would no doubt yield untold answers to questions that might hold great benefit. Does that mean we should do it? If not, why is that any different? Scientifically, it would seem clear that it's a life the second the embryo comes into being...
(Note: No, I am not anti-abortion, but do think we should acknowledge that abortion isn't just a "woman's choice" or a "medical decision" (unless it is a decision in relation to the safety of the mother). It is, essentially, the state sanctioned ability to end a life when it is not wanted by the mother. Let's at least acknowledge what we're doing instead of hiding it under the blinders of "choice" or "scientific progress".)
Although the U.S. article identified the applicability of stem cells harvested from (adult) bone marrow and other sources, the Indian article discusses the successes achieved from utilizing umbilical cord stem cells...
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
- This article isn't talking about embryonic stem cells, so any references to the Bush administration embryonic stem cell policy are utterly irrelevant
But for those who still don't get it:
- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)
- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information.
- When is an embryo "life"? At some arbitrary time? When it's in a woman's womb? When it's "wanted" by someone as the product of actions to create a child? When and how does it become life? What's the magic cutoff? When and why is it ok to destroy it? When it can exist on its own? What does "exist on its own" mean? I'm not saying any of these things necessarily should preclude embryonic stem cell research, and indeed, federal funding for it. But doesn't it seem that those ethical questions should be addressed or at least considered? It may well be that society collectively decides that the benefit outweighs ethical concerns. But bear in mind, too, that farming more developed human life for research would no doubt yield untold answers to questions that might hold great benefit. Does that mean we should do it? If not, why is that any different? Scientifically, it would seem clear that it's a life the second the embryo comes into being...
if women laid eggs and then walked away from them, never to return, then the anti-abortion crowd would be 100% ethical and moral in their stance
however, mother nature has designed us mammals so that for a moment in time, 2 lives are interconnected biologically, and then, 2 lives are socially connected for years
what this means is that you can not consider either the rights of the fetus or the rights of the mother in a vacuum and consider yourself to be moral or ethical
therefore, to fall 100% on the side of fetal rights is to basically consider a woman to be nothing but a breeding pod chamber
and to fall 100% on the side of maternal rights is tantamount to considering infanticide reasonable
but, of course, exactly where you draw the line, exactly when you draw the line: 3 months old fetus... 3 day old fetus... whatever, that becomes the critical question
and the problem is that no outside panel of people, no matter how reasonable or passionate about the issue, can decide the issue to satisfaciton on each individual case
there is, however, one person who can make such a passionate, reasonable decision: the mother
it seems that the anti-abortion crowd thinks women are all out having one night stands at raves and then aborting a month later and going to another rave to have one night stands the same night
as if women don't have any feelings about the fetus?! why do anti-abortionists have such a dim view of women?
so let the mother decide, and the mother ALONE decide, and all of us hyperconcerned but UNINVOLVED third party members should learn to BUTT OUT
this is the ONLY moral and ethical stand you can take on abortion: the mom decides, no one else can possibly have a say
is it superior to force a woman to have a child she does not love with no father there to support it?
are we only in the business of punishing women for acts of sex outside of marriage? what about the man's responsibilty?
the more you examine the issue, the more you realize anti-abortion stances are simply anti-women
let the mother decide, it's her body, and you cannot assume she doesn't care about the fetus, unless you have some sort of psychological problem with women
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yeah, kind of funny (not ironic) that research which isn't being funded well can't produce a single cure, whereas the research that _is_ does. Duh.
Okay. I have mod points today. I have a personal, stated policy: Never mod *DOWN*, only mod *UP*. And especially never mod down a potentially legitimate discussion, no matter how inciteful or off-topic it might be.
I have come very close to breaking this rule in this threat, and modding as many root posts as I can 'off-topic'. Instead, I am going to post the following little diatribe:
We're witnessing a medical miracle here, guys - and all you asshats can do is argue politics! Bush this, bush that, fetus this, abortion that - sort it out on Usenet, or on some YRO thread. Can we please talk about the technology, here? This is an amazing triumph of technology over the limitations of nature; something that can potentially save millions of lives - and just as importantly, restore millions more to full capacity from severely disabled states! We're talking longevity, health, disease eradication, all the quality-of-life improvements that have allowed further progress in the past two centuries. We're talking about influences over the next MILLENIUM of human prograss, and all we're doing is squabbling about politics that are potentially irrelevant in 4 years, and almost certainly irrelevant in 20. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?
This is future-of-humanity stuff, here. This political whining is about minor details in the grand scheme of things, and we'll work them out sooner or later. Get a grip and get a little perspective.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]