I think permission should be received and education given to the individual who authorizes it. that wasn't the case with Henrietta Lacks.
schmendeler said:
are credentials required to discuss things on texags, now?
he was laying out information about the topic, I didn't see him say that he was an expert.Automated Chatbot said:schmendeler said:
are credentials required to discuss things on texags, now?
When you set yourself up as an authority to explain a process to the less enlightened, it's good to know. I am sure the numerous physicians, clinicians, and bioscienttific engineers would appreciate it. The very same OP once questioned the expertise of a Duke educated physician on this forum, after he simply provided a dissenting opinion on a topic. Funny, you didn't seem too bothered that time.
I was just going off of what I was reading earlier. I thought someone mentioned umbilical cords replacing aborted fetuses.AstroAg17 said:
I can't find anything about using cord stem cells for this type of thing. If they can be used for this, can someone link something that talks about it?
Imagine a woman getting counseling at an abortion clinic, and part of that counseling includes a statement that her aborted fetus will be used to generate a cell lines for medical research, and that the embryonic stem cells could be used to help treat medical conditions. Regardless of left or right, most people agree that abortion is a bad thing.Quote:
why prevent good from coming out of something bad?
I disagree. way too simplistic.ramblin_ag02 said:Imagine a woman getting counseling at an abortion clinic, and part of that counseling includes a statement that her aborted fetus will be used to generate a cell lines for medical research, and that the embryonic stem cells could be used to help treat medical conditions. Regardless of left or right, most people agree that abortion is a bad thing.Quote:
why prevent good from coming out of something bad?
However, when you start using a bad thing to do good things, suddenly that bad thing doesn't look so bad anymore. Instead of "do I abort my pregnancy because of a terrible situation" or "do I complete the pregnancy and keep the infant or give the infant up for adoption", the question becomes "do I abort my pregnancy to further medical research and help all these people" or "do I complete the pregnancy...". The second sounds like choosing between two good options, while the first sounds like a good option and a bad option. You could even push it further and say that the woman who is completing her pregnancy is doing so selfishly, because just think how much good those fetal stem cells and cell lines could do for others and humanity in general if she decided to abort?
Or lets say the Tuskeegee experiments eventually led to the diagnosis and cure of many more people than would otherwise have received appropriate and timely syphilis treatment due to better understanding of the disease. Lets say 10 million people over a few centuries. Only a few hundred were part of the experiment. So in the end the Tuskeegee experiments would be a net good? Going forward people would be much more likely to perform similar unethical experiments if they thought the balance would eventually absolve them.
So there is a very strong argument to be made that we should destroy unethical research as both a punishment to the researchers and as an affirmation to human dignity
And you say I'm being simplistic? I intentionally avoided further reference to Nazi's because there is no meaningful conversation to be had about them. However, both the abortion and Tuskeegee scenarios track close to current facts. If something good is coming out of something bad, at some point the merits of the good versus the bad becomes subjective.Quote:
is hitler validated because wernher von braun was the father of space flight? is the moon mission tainted by the experience of a man who worked for the Nazis?
Chinese scientists torture thousands of people to death, but come up with the cure to cancer from their results.ramblin_ag02 said:And you say I'm being simplistic? I intentionally avoided further reference to Nazi's because there is no meaningful conversation to be had about them. However, both the abortion and Tuskeegee scenarios track close to current facts. If something good is coming out of something bad, at some point the merits of the good versus the bad becomes subjective.Quote:
is hitler validated because wernher von braun was the father of space flight? is the moon mission tainted by the experience of a man who worked for the Nazis?
What if China starts doing heinous medical experiments on their death row inmates and publishes the results? I think most would agree we should boycott that research, regardless of how groundbreaking or lifesaving it could be.
1. Acceptable and moral are two different things People accept and commit immoral acts all of the time.Quote:
So what do y'all think? Is the continued use of these cell lines acceptable? Is the production of new fetal cell lines acceptable if the person who elects to abort isn't incentivized? Is it just acceptable in all cases?
what about the next step? --> 5) what to do with the cure for cancer?ramblin_ag02 said:
Lets look at the situation this way:
1) Theoretical Chinese scientists torture children as part of research
2) This research ends up curing cancer
3) These scientists get punished
4) This type of research is prohibited
If you are willing to accept 1,2,and 3 without issue then 4 becomes meaningless. African researchers see this example and torture thousands of black HIV patients in order to cure HIV. They get punished but HIV gets cured. Then Indians torture thousands to cure malaria. Then Venezuela tortures thousands to cure tuberculosis. The greater good is always a great justification for any number of atrocities. Most in the medical field refuse to build a better world on the bodies of innocent victims in this one.