More Stem Cell Ethical Quandries

MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
The latest ethical morass surrounding stem-cell research and the source for stem cells is coming to the forefront again.

Imagine that you have a child with Leukemia...he or she is only 8 years old, and chemotherapy isn't cutting it anymore...the replacement donor cells aren't strong enough to serve as transplants or worst yet, you can't find a suitable donor. So...what do you do? Why not grow yourself a new donor?

In this case, the parents went through IVF (in vitro fertilization) to garner viable ova, which were allowed to grow and then were tested for compatibility. The one that was viable was then implanted in the mother and allowed to come to term. Then, after birth, the stem cells could be harvested without harming the child, and used to help his or her older sibling. Those ova that were not compatible, were frozen for future use by the parents. If they find no use, they will be destroyed, as is the comman practice with frozen embryos.

So...how do you feel about making a new baby ONLY to help your ailing child?


In related news: Things that can be done with stem-cell research in practice.

Use Stem cells to grow yourself some new teeth
Stem cells to help heart patients

Stem cell information site
Bush on stem cell research
 
So...what do you do? Why not grow yourself a new donor?
Click to expand...

Those ova that were not compatible, were frozen for future use by the parents. If they find no use, they will be destroyed, as is the comman practice with frozen embryos.
Click to expand...

So...how do you feel about making a new baby ONLY to help your ailing child?
Click to expand...

If you want to get feedback on this topic without skewing the replies due to the phrasing of the question, you may want to refrain from making the types of statements I quoted from you about, which are obviously inflammatory and may cause biased responses.

'Course they may also have been purposefully made to just get people's dander up for a good debate, and if that's the case, ignore the blond chick and carry on :D
 
The one that was viable was then implanted in the mother and allowed to come to term. Then, after birth, the stem cells could be harvested without harming the child, and used to help his or her older sibling.
Click to expand...
The little bother/sister is ok, no? I don't see a problem with it.
 
Camelyn said:
If you want to get feedback on this topic without skewing the replies due to the phrasing of the question, you may want to refrain from making the types of statements I quoted from you about, which are obviously inflammatory and may cause biased responses.

'Course they may also have been purposefully made to just get people's dander up for a good debate, and if that's the case, ignore the blond chick and carry on :D
Click to expand...


It's not a new issue though...people have been having kids for organ donation purposes for a long time. It just seems to me that in this case(s) the parents were not planning on having another child anyway, and went through the process just to get stem-cells. It's an issue of speed.

You can go the traditional route of baby-making, which can take from 10 months to 5 years+ and cannot guarantee that the child is a viable donor or you can go through IVF looking specifically for a donor and implant that one.

The latter case makes it seem as is the child is not being created out of a desire for another child, but principally as a source for donor cells. If the new child will come into a loving home and feel a whole part of the family...then, so be it. It just seems to me that having another child in this way is no better than trying to have another child merely to help save a marraige, or to keep comeone busy, or just because all of their friends have kids.

The desire for children should be the primary reason for having them...not a close second.

As for the phrasing...it does get people's danders up...and that's good on here...but it was more an example on my own sentiments leaking thorugh than bad phrasing.

Allow me to rephrase:
So...what do you do? Why not grow yourself a new donor? --> So...Why not try to have another child, picked from several ova, to be a future donor for your sick child..and love the new one equally?

So...how do you feel about making a new baby ONLY to help your ailing child? --> How do you feel about the practice of selective IVF and the harvesting of stem cells if this effort goes towards saving an ailing child?

better blondie :) ?
 
MrBishop said:
Allow me to rephrase:
So...what do you do? Why not grow yourself a new donor? --> So...Why not try to have another child, picked from several ova, to be a future donor for your sick child..and love the new one equally?

So...how do you feel about making a new baby ONLY to help your ailing child? --> How do you feel about the practice of selective IVF and the harvesting of stem cells if this effort goes towards saving an ailing child?

better blondie :) ?
Click to expand...

Much :D

Many many people who have children have them completely unplanned (a case in point would be me). I did not choose to have, nor did I plan for my first child. Does this make her conception somehow less "pure" in your mind? Does this mean that I must love her less than a parent who had the baby furniture picked out before the horses even left the gate?

Seems to me that not only is this child in question planned for and very much wanted, but also has a gift to give his family that I don't think any sibling, son or daughter would begrudge.

This child will not be discarded after use. The circumstances of his conception and birth will not alter that fact that he is their child, and will be love as much as any planned child, and perhaps more than some of the unplanned children that have the misfortune of being born into this world unwanted.
 
Camelyn said:
Much :D

Many many people who have children have them completely unplanned (a case in point would be me). I did not choose to have, nor did I plan for my first child. Does this make her conception somehow less "pure" in your mind? Does this mean that by your definition, I must love her less than a parent who had the baby furniture picked out before the horses even left the gate?

Seems to me that not only is this child in question planned for and very much wanted, but also has a gift to give his family that I don't think any sibling, son or daughter would begrudge.

This child will not be discarded after use, which is the tone I am getting from you. The circumstances of his conception and birth will not alter that fact that he is their child, and will be love as much as any planned child, and perhaps more than some of the unplanned children that have the misfortune of being born into this world unwanted.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of planned vs. unplanned. It's a matter of 'do the ends justify the means'? Is the reasoning for the planning of the child sound and morally ethical?

I never mentioned that the child would be discarted...nor do I have any doubt that a person's potential for love is any less for an unplanned or specifically-planned child...but I have issues with the morals of going through the process specifically for that one purpose. I also have issue with the frozen embryos that didn't cut it as potential donors.
 
MrBishop said:
It's not a matter of planned vs. unplanned. It's a matter of 'do the ends justify the means'? Is the reasoning for the planning of the child sound and morally ethical?

I never mentioned that the child would be discarted...nor do I have any doubt that a person's potential for love is any less for an unplanned or specifically-planned child...but I have issues with the morals of going through the process specifically for that one purpose. I also have issue with the frozen embryos that didn't cut it as potential donors.
Click to expand...

See? It's all a matter of tone and implication, baybee. Not so much what you said, but what you implied. :D

Anywho, as for "the morals of going through the process specifically for that one purpose", a) whose morals would that be? and b) what makes you think it's specifically for that one purpose? *That* is where i get your unintentioned implication that the child is no longer needed after it has served its purpose. It's *still* a child, that will be loved, grow-up and die, like any other human. Of what possible relavence to that are the circumstances of its conception and birth??

As for the frozen embryos. That my dear, is a whole nother topic. Do you really want to overshadow this issue with that particular flammable one?
 
Camelyn said:
See? It's all a matter of tone and implication, baybee. Not so much what you said, but what you implied. :D

Anywho, as for "the morals of going through the process specifically for that one purpose", a) whose morals would that be? and b) what makes you think it's specifically for that one purpose? *That* is where i get your unintentioned implication that the child is no longer needed after it has served its purpose. It's *still* a child, that will be loved, grow-up and die, like any other human. Of what possible relavence to that are the circumstances of its conception and birth??

As for the frozen embryos. That my dear, is a whole nother topic. Do you really want to overshadow this issue with that particular flammable one?
Click to expand...

I can always start a new thread on it...but I think that I've beaten that one to death already. The morals of stem-cell research and the laws that wish to stop it. It went well.

This one is about the morals of having children to use them as spare parts. A potentially volatile subject in and of itself. It's tied in to stem cell research and chemotherapy only accidentally. I should've rephrased the thread title.

a) The generally accepted morals of the society as a large...the same people who outlawed child-labour, child-porn, and sex with minors. Three forms of the exploitation of children.
Is this exploitation? That's a whole pile of gasoline on that fire for you. Are these kids being born to be used as tools to save another child's life? I'm sure that the parents of kiddie-porn stars love them very much.

b) Not specifically, or only for that matter...but primarily. Some people try to have kids because they feel financially able to do so now, some for emotional reasons, some to appease their biological clocks, or worst..their inlaws. When you begin trying to have kids...you have, even subconsciously, a primary reason for it. When you go out of your way to assist the process (regardless of wether you can or cannot do so in the 'old fashioned way'), and make a point of choosing out of several viable ova, only the one that can be used for transplants...the reasoning for your choice becomes painfully obvious...it is primarily for use as a transplant donor.

I didn't mean to say that the kid will be all but useless after the transplant...or unloved for that matter, but if they wanted a child to love...why didn't they jsut go have sex for a while (they are fertile) and once the child was born, find out if it was a donor?

How is this any different from someone who goes to a fertility clinic and asks to only have a male child? or someone who finds out that they're having a girl and aborts it to try again? It's choosing your future child with very specific criteria, and NOT accepting any alternatives. The cause (saving your child) is good...but the methodology sucks.
 
oy veh!

This is the trickiest of subjects, you are talking about medical miricles...and human lives, stem cells do great things, but to create a child to save another child? it is walking into the lions mouth.

Because no matter how much you love that child, they were still created to be a donor. Like how a cow is created to be steak. From doing this how far off are we from creating humans just for the purpose of harvesting their organs.
 
I am for stem cell research to be used. if it means saving a life or information then why not. my only thought on this may seem a bit odd but I would say the child should be an act of love and the need to be a family not just stem cell research
 
freako104 said:
I am for stem cell research to be used. if it means saving a life or information then why not. my only thought on this may seem a bit odd but I would say the child should be an act of love and the need to be a family not just stem cell research
Click to expand...


I agree with you, I think research should be done into cloning so we can have more stem cells to work with, (and if we can grow and ear on a rat, we can create stem cells without having the baby attached)

Just the Idea of a child creating a baby to harvest it's cells stirs up something in me, they never say they will keep the child.
 
That's just it, in this case at least, I believe they are just using the stem cells from the placenta, not from the child itself as they say there will be no harm done to the child. If this is the case, I think it's wonderful. Now, if a couple were to have a child only for the childs heart, that's wrong. Let the child with the heart condition die and have another child if you will, but don't steal one life for another.
 
PuterTutor said:
That's just it, in this case at least, I believe they are just using the stem cells from the placenta, not from the child itself as they say there will be no harm done to the child. If this is the case, I think it's wonderful. Now, if a couple were to have a child only for the childs heart, that's wrong. Let the child with the heart condition die and have another child if you will, but don't steal one life for another.
Click to expand...

Yeah...but would they have had this child if their son/daughter wasn't sick? Even if they were using the stem cells from the spinal column, there is no permanent damage to the baby. It's painful, in the same way that a bone marrow transplant is painful, or a spinal tap is painful...but the chances of killing the child accidentally are minimal. Taking the heart..well...that'd be 100% fatal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top