The Mass Production of Living Tissue

An anonymous reader sends in this moderately disturbing quote from Gizmodo: "I'm touching a wet slab of protein, what feels like a paper-thin slice of bologna. It's supple, slimy, but unlike meat, if you were to slice it down the center today, tomorrow the wound would heal. It's factory-grown living tissue. The company behind the living, petri-dish-grown substance known as Apligraf hates my new name for it: meat band-aid. 'It's living,' Dr. Damien Bates, Chief Medical Officer at Organogenesis, corrects me. 'Meat isn't living.' But no one argues with me that this substance is really just a band-aid. A living, $1500 band-aid, I should say. Apligraf is a matrix of cow collagen, human fibroblasts and keratinocyte stem cells (from discarded circumcisions), that, when applied to chronic wounds (particularly nasty problems like diabetic sores), can seed healing and regeneration. But Organogenesis is not interested in creating boutique organs for proof of concept scientific advancement. They're a business in the business of mass tissue manufacturing — and the first of its kind."

Comments

If ever I heard an argument

[twoears]

against circumcision this is it.

Re:If ever I heard an argument

[Eravnrekaree]

The notion of using *healthy* tissue harvested from *unconsenting*, helpless children for sale to manufacture products raises serious ethical concerns and questions. It is treating children and their bodies like objects, like agricultural products to be harvested and exploited for the benefit of others. This is nothing less than organ trafficking, no different than the harvesting of other body parts from a child for sale on the market. This technology is already illegal (as organ trafficking) in many countries.

Circumcision itself is unethical (destruction of a healthy part of a childs body, without the proper justification that is required for amputation, a serious or life threatening disease requiring immediate treatment which is present and current and cannot be treated by lesser invasive means), and this just adds to the unethical nature of it. Children are not livestock for their bodies to be treated like objects, to be cut up or harvested at a whim, they are human beings with independant rights of their own, one of the most basic is a right to a whole body and to not have their bodies cut up and mutilated by others. It is already technically classified as a battery under general legal principles applying to the rights of the person. The boys and their bodies deserve equal protection as girls already enjoy from such unnecessary genital mutilations. Male circumcision can be compared to female circumcision. In fact, common male circumcision is more invasive than many types of common female circumcision such as removal of the clitoral hood which removes less tissue than male circumcision. Obviously, if female circumcision were done in sterile conditions by doctors, even out of fears of diseases the child does not have, or that it is lesser invasive than other types of circumcision, does not make it acceptable, and the same standard should apply to boys.

Re:If ever I heard an argument

[Eravnrekaree]

It is a slippery slope. The fact that circumcision has been now been monetised as a organ harvesting adds financial reasons to continue what is essentially an unethical practice that destroys a healthy part of a little boys body, that has nothing wrong with it, a part they are born with, not to treat a current medical condition. We have ended up in a position where indeed this corporation is involved with the extraction of healthy body parts from a child's body. The fact that genital mutilation of boys began some time before does not change the fact of what is happening right now. The fact that, for instance, lets say a chinese organ recipient recieves a heart that was taken from a child, and were aware of it, the fact that they did not encourage the child to give up his heart does not absolve them of guilt for being complicit in this transaction. The fact that the corporation pays doctors to take the amputated genital organ is itself an encouragement of the practice. Even if donated, the recieving party is still involved in a crime of organ trafficking.

Trafficking amputation of genitals of children is basically one crime on top of another, genital mutilation of the child. The principle of equal protection requires that boys be given equal protection from amputation of medically normal parts of their genitals, as females are already given such protection from even the piercing of a girls genitals.

Re:Science Fiction Reality

[donaggie03]

Replying for bad moderation

Serious ethical concerns

[Eravnrekaree]

I am very concerned about the ethical issues surrounding this. If you have any education in or respect for human rights this should raise all kinds of red flags. The notion of using *healthy* tissue harvested from *unconsenting*, helpless children for sale to manufacture products raises serious ethical concerns and questions. It is treating children and their bodies like objects, like agricultural products to be harvested and exploited for the benefit of others. This is nothing less than organ trafficking, no different than the harvesting of other body parts from a child for sale on the market. This technology is already illegal (as organ trafficking) in many countries. The whole notion is pretty inhumane.

Circumcision itself is unethical (destruction of a healthy part of a childs body, without the proper justification that is required for amputation, a serious or life threatening disease requiring immediate treatment which is present and current and cannot be treated by lesser invasive means), and this just adds to the unethical nature of it. Children are not livestock for their bodies to be treated like objects, to be cut up or harvested at a whim, they are human beings with independant rights of their own, one of the most basic is a right to a whole body and to not have their bodies cut up and mutilated by others. It is already technically classified as a battery under general legal principles applying to the rights of the person. The boys and their bodies deserve equal protection as girls already enjoy from such unnecessary genital mutilations. Male circumcision can be compared to female circumcision. In fact, common male circumcision is more invasive than many types of common female circumcision such as removal of the clitoral hood which removes less tissue than male circumcision. Obviously, if female circumcision were done in sterile conditions by doctors, even out of fears of diseases the child does not have, or that it is lesser invasive than other types of circumcision, does not make it acceptable, and the same standard should apply to boys.

The ends do not justify the means as we always say in ethics, and you cannot justify crimes no matter what your excuse is. You cannot justify fondling a child or cutting off a healthy part of their body based on some claimed benefit.

Streisand Effect

[SeNtM]

Duh...

Streisand Effect