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.
My wife is pregnant right now and we are going to have to make the choice if we want the 'stem cells' harvested from the cord after birth. I realize that there are costs involved, but is it worth it? Gut feeling says that if I don't I could regret it later. Any thoughts?
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
"- 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)"
No, no institute which recieves federal funding FOR ANYTHING can conduct such research. There are not many research facilities that aren't recieving federal funding for at least ONE project. This is effectively a ban.
"- 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."
It is called a Red Herring, it is a rhetorical device along similar lines to the subject at hand (that Bush has banned embryonic stem cell research in any facility that receives federal funding for ANY type of research) designed to distract you from the actual topic and lend pseudo-logical strength to an argument.
"- 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..."
Scientifically the cells are alive before they ever join to become a fertilized egg. Scientifically each of the millions of skin cells each of us has die everyday are life. We kill living cells when we mow our lawns or take anti-biotics.
Scientifically moral and ethical issues do not exist, it is people who create these artifical constructs. Humans attribute a uniqueness or addional value to their own lifeform.
However, since this ignorance is not likely to change soon we can consider natures answer. Nature has created a reference point for us, it exists in all complex lifeforms. It is at this point that multiple simple lifeforms can be considered a complex lifeform. It is called birth. Of course if something is raised entirely artifically (which we can't do now with humans) we can roughly call it at a full development term (9months for humans).
Iraq invading Kuwait had *nothing* to do with ancient ties, or ancient fueds, or any of that.
Those lines are simple sophistry and revisionism.
Fact #1. Pre-Invasion, Iraq was $13-14B in debt to Kuwait.
Fact #2. Pre-Invasion, Iraq was heavily in debt to other OPEC nations, including Saudia Arabia.
Fact #3. Iraq wanted to pay off its debt by raising oil prices through OPEC. Kuwait thwarted this attempt, and fought for increaed production and thus lower prices.
Fact #4. Most of Iraqs useful ports had been damaged or destroyed during the Iran-Iraq war. Much of Iraq's ability to ship oil was reduced. Kuwait held valuable undamaged ports away from hostile Iran along the valuable Persian Gulf coast.
Fact #5. Hussein publically called his move an attempt to re-assembly the Bablyonian empire. It was imperialism by his own definition.
Regardless of what you think about anything else, the Kuwait invasion was not justified in any sense whatsoever. It also appears likely now that Hussein was high on narcotics during the run up to the invasion of Kuwait.
Regarding your claim about the US killing more Iraqis than Hussein, it's virtually utter tripe.
For one thing, his pure neglect of his people in the fact of vast wealth is astounding. Beyond that though, his virtual single-handed instigation of the Iran-Iraq war cost no less than 1.5 million lives directly and perhaps millions more indirectly.