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.
I hear that the world is moving towards stem cell what?
And yet federal money can't go to stem cell research? I'd rather my tax money go to that than a stupid war....
- 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...
I'm not sure the point you're trying to make, but the only restrictions in the US are on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Not adult or umbilical. And even embryonic research is still allowed without federal funding.
Yes...but thankfully he is less of a moron than you are....ignorant buffoon. You do realize:
a) Bush Administration is the first administration to Federally fund stem cell research, just not fetal stem cell research.
b) This is further proof that the Bush Administration's stance was correct, fetal stem cell research is not necessary. In fact, every success I have read about in the past year has been non-fetal stem cells.
c) Please go educate yourself....thank you.
Okay...you're an utter idiot with no brain and poorly educated and not well read. Therefore, I deem you not worthy of living. We will come and harvest ALL your stem cells tomorrow and bury the rest of you in the ground.
There is no ban on stem cell research. In fact Bush funded such research. The ban is in harvesting fetal stem cells only. Which is of questionable ethics and unnecessary.
a) Bush Administration is the first administration to Federally fund stem cell research, just not fetal stem cell research.
b) This is further proof that the Bush Administration's stance was correct, fetal stem cell research is not necessary. In fact, every success I have read about in the past year has been non-fetal stem cells.
c) Please go educate yourself....thank you.
This is why there should be no ban on jew gassing research. People's own personal beliefs getting in the way of science.
You know, even some atheists like myself tend to think human life is important, and more than a commodity. Assuming that some abortions might be killing actual human beings, then using their tissue might compound the immorality of it. Has nothing to do with god, rather, it's the same reason I don't murder you in the night to harvest your transplantable organs.
But it's more complicated than that, even. Some people who feel very strongly about having children, but have trouble doing so naturally, often turn to IVF. And the most successful IVF methods have the lab technicians creating many such embryo's, so that the strongest can be chosen, and so that there's a fallback if the first isn't successful. The little buggers can be kept on ice for years, it would seem. And after you've had (one of the most expensive) children this method, you often have several left over embryos.
What do you do with them, if you don't plan on having extra children? Are they still tissue, or are they babies? It's not like some crackho is having an abortion after 8 months. No one intended to create them just to see them die. But yet I feel bad about using them this way. Maybe they deserve more dignity. My own beliefs are that it only deserves protection after implantation on the wall of the uterus... using a morning after pill therefor, is potentially not equivalent to abortion (and not immoral because of that). These things are still in a petri dish though! So I dunno. But even if they deserve no protection, I would be horrified to think that people might start creating them just for this purpose.
And add to that, that it's only useful as a research tool, and not the end product. You don't want stem cells from some crackho's embryo, ideally, you want those genetically identical to your own. But those are harder to come by, harder to work with. And there are many areas of medicine where it would be easier to test on humans, if immoral. You think this latest AIDS vaccine would work? Kidnap 20 people, inject them, and then repeatedly expose them to HIV. Would prove it once and for all in a matter of months.. and hey, if it works, they're not even harmed! Why not do this?