A bid from some scientists in Newcastle is being considered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, to allow them to investigate using stem cells to treat diabetes.

 

Basically what they propose to do is by using DNA from the patient, they will make an embryo, which is essentially a clone of the patient, take the stem cells from the embryo and insert them into the Pancreas in the hope that it will kick the pancreas into producing insulin.

 

The embryos are destoyed before they reach 14 days old and wont be allowed to develop beyond the size of a pinhead.

 

I dont particularly agree with the idea, it is still a life that they are creating and destroying even in that early stage of development

 

Any thoughts?

Edited June 16, 200420 yr by Aaron

I have no objections.

I dont agree with this at all, bringing a life into the world, and then destroying it, is ludicrous!!!!!!!!!!

I suppose it comes down to, at what point do people deem life to have begun.

 

When it's a sperm and egg, collection of cells or when it begins to resemble a human.

I class it as a life as soon as the Sperm and Egg join together...

I'm of the belief that when the embryo is at a stage of development where it begins to resemble the human form and is developing towards the sex it will be, is the point at which human life is begining.

The thing is though, noone actually knows when a life begins, so with that in mind is it right for us to be "playing god" in this way?

I'm not really going in for the religious "playing god" slant on the debate.

 

I do believe we have a great opportunity here to start to eradicate or treat certain genetic disorders and to do so we need to allow the experts the opportunity to expand upon their knowledge with these kinds of experiments upon a collection of cells, albeit human cells.

 

A sticky subject, but one I think should be given greater thought.

QUOTE (Aaron @ Jun 16 2004, 14:09)

I class it as a life as soon as the Sperm and Egg join together...

In that case, given you have such a 'trivial' definition of life, what is your objection to taking life?

 

There are two inter-related questions.

1. What is life?

2. Is life sacred?

 

It's all very well making an arbitrary definition of life to suit your ethos on its sanctity, or vice versa.

QUOTE (snowqueen @ Jun 16 2004, 13:58)

I dont agree with this at all, bringing a life into the world, and then destroying it, is ludicrous!!!!!!!!!!

1. Why is it ludicrous?

2. Do you really think a bundle of cells constitutes life?

3. If so, do you really think that bundle of cells has feelings? Or a soul?

Haven't they actually been granted permission to do it?

 

I think it's a good idea. The research and the possibilities for advancement in medicine are astounding.

 

Would you mind being cured of cancer/cystic fibrosis etc if the cost were a collection of cells?

 

I don't think so, so shut your religious whining mouths and let the scientists get on with their jobs.

We create thousands of transgenic animals to help us in the neverending fight against disease. Surely this is 'playing God' (how I hate that phrase) as much as cloning human embryonic stem cells.

 

I have no objection to it and I think it is essential to develop the technique

Basically, when people get the gut feeling (typically for religious reasons) that something is 'wrong', they invent a definition of wrong (e.g. an absolute rule such as 'all life is sacred') then twist the 'facts' of the matter to contravene the rule (e.g. defining even the most primitive arrangement of cells as 'life').

 

IMHO - backward thinking!

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jun 16 2004, 15:31)

backward thinking!

Synonymous with religion, no?

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jun 16 2004, 15:09)

QUOTE (Aaron @ Jun 16 2004, 14:09) I class it as a life as soon as the Sperm and Egg join together... In that case, given you have such a 'trivial' definition of life, what is your objection to taking life?   There are two inter-related questions. 1. What is life? 2. Is life sacred?   It's all very well making an arbitrary definition of life to suit your ethos on its sanctity, or vice versa. LE: Well i dont class the sperm and egg thing as definition of life, but i do class it as the start of life. i.e the beginning of the creation of an organism.   Why should it be classed as life at say 6 to 8 weeks from conception but not as an embryo? Surely its the same thing, just at different stages of its development. Embryo -> Foetus, Child -> Adult etc.   As organisms, we are still just a "bundle of cells", whether its 2 or 3, or several billion or however many the average adult human has, doesnt mean it shouldnt be classified as life, after all there are such things as single celled organisms, are they not classed as alive? I'm sure if they found these on Mars, they would class it as life?!   Is that trivial?   Kether: I cant fault the reasons why they want to do this, obviously finding cures for these conditions is a very good thing, I just dont think that creating (what i consider) a life and then destroying it, is a good way to go.   I dont follow a religion as such, so maybe using the term "playing god" was bad idea, but i do believe in a soul, although whether an organism has one at that stage of its life, i cant decide.