Perhaps I am behind the curve but is it really a problem getting enough eggs for those women that wants to bear a child but cannot produce them themselves?
For me this looks like creating a demand not present.
Well, 5K $ for a white, caucasian woman only to sell her eggs. Doesn't sound so bad for me if or when i'll need some cash (As long as there is no rish that anyone could come to ring my doorbell in 20 years claiming to have anything to do with me).
But of course you don't have pay 5K $ to an aborted tissue (i have no idea how much to do an abort costs either, pure income for doctors). So that'll be cheaper.\
Perhaps I am behind the curve but is it really a problem getting enough eggs for those women that wants to bear a child but cannot produce them themselves?
Yes.
There's such a lack of supply that infertile couples regualrly offer to compensate donors tens of thousands of dollars (above medical expenses) for their trouble. When I was in college there was an ad in our student newspaper for months offering $50,000 for the chance to harvest eggs from a young, fair-skinned, intelligent, athletic woman. It became a sad running joke. Sad because egg harvesting is a complicated, invasive, dangerous procedure. It usually involves treating the donor with homones to stimulate the release of multiple eggs from the ovaries, followed a week or two later by surgery to capture and remove the eggs from the fallopian tubes - usually in the vagina, up through the uterus, into the tubes and back out. A bit more complicated than jerking off into a plastic cup. Even if done properly it could lead to permanent infertility for the donor (isn't that a sad irony?).
Living tissue donation is generally a bad idea because of the risks it exposes the donors to. Why is this issue any different from cadavar organ donations? There can be no risk to the donor, and it offers a chance to give meaning to an otherwise difficult event (death of a loved on, or an abortion).
There's such a lack of supply that infertile couples regualrly offer to compensate donors tens of thousands of dollars (above medical expenses) for their trouble. When I was in college there was an ad in our student newspaper for months offering $50,000 for the chance to harvest eggs from a young, fair-skinned, intelligent, athletic woman. It became a sad running joke. Sad because egg harvesting is a complicated, invasive, dangerous procedure. It usually involves treating the donor with homones to stimulate the release of multiple eggs from the ovaries, followed a week or two later by surgery to capture and remove the eggs from the fallopian tubes - usually in the vagina, up through the uterus, into the tubes and back out. A bit more complicated than jerking off into a plastic cup. Even if done properly it could lead to permanent infertility for the donor (isn't that a sad irony?).
Living tissue donation is generally a bad idea because of the risks it exposes the donors to. Why is this issue any different from cadavar organ donations? There can be no risk to the donor, and it offers a chance to give meaning to an otherwise difficult event (death of a loved on, or an abortion).
reconsidering it - do you think they would *BUY* the intere ovaries? i'm not going to use them anyway, at least for reproductional purposes. so i could as well sell them. no way i'd let anyone (even a doctor) apart from my bf to see or touch those parts of my body so that eliminates the other alternatives than selling them all. any idea how much would they pay for ovaries or the uterus? should i start in ebay?
reconsidering it - do you think they would *BUY* the intere ovaries? i'm not going to use them anyway, at least for reproductional purposes. so i could as well sell them. no way i'd let anyone (even a doctor) apart from my bf to see or touch those parts of my body so that eliminates the other alternatives than selling them all. any idea how much would they pay for ovaries or the uterus? should i start in ebay?
I know you're joking, but...
There's an ethical line drawn between donation of organs and of "replaceable" bits. The latter you can be compensated for (sperm, blood, eggs), the former you cannot - at least in the US and most developed countries. The medical profession generally frowns on selling body parts form living people. So, you could donate your ovaries for the eggs in them, but not sell them. Actually, right now it's unlikely anyone would take them. Eggs in the ovaries need to develop before they can become able to be fertilized. We don't really know how to do that outside an ovary right now. We don't even entirely understand how it happens within the ovary. That's why egg donors get the hormones, so a bunch of eggs will develop and be released for "easy" collection and use. That's also why harvesting eggs from fetuses isn't going to be big business tomorrow.
I am not surprised that the people against that research say that there is "NO REASON" for this kind of "HUMAN MANIPULATION" when the scientists begin by stating that the reasearch "could lead to better treatments or cures for single gene disorders." Willful ignorance from the anti-science front, as usual.
It is possible for people to be "pro science " but for reasons of ethics chose not to support or encourage particular paths of research.
Some more old fashioned scientists might still like to think they live in cocoons, but the reality is otherwise.
Scientists and ( sciences ) are part of our society whether they like it or not, and consequently, every society has the right, to question the "ethics" behind various forms of scientific research.
Science in its purest form is the greatest gift, but it lacks any moral or ethical measuring stick.
Case in point,
The Nazi's sponsored scientists in Dachau prison camp to conduct experiments into the effects of hypothermia. The results were perfectly legitimate in terms of pure scientific research, but they were bought at the cost of many murdered individual prisoners.
This same regime also placed great emphasis on various forms of " eugenics ". At the time, very few scientists had the courage to speak up against this type of pure racially motivated psuedo " science ".
So, just because some scientists or governments say that
" you'll thank us for this research later "
it doesn't follow that we should blindly accept any such research without cosidering its ethical or moral dimensions.
It is possible for people to be "pro science " but for reasons of ethics chose not to support or encourage particular paths of research.
Some more old fashioned scientists might still like to think they live in cocoons, but the reality is otherwise.
Scientists and ( sciences ) are part of our society whether they like it or not, and consequently, every society has the right, to question the "ethics" behind various forms of scientific research.
Science in its purest form is the greatest gift, but it lacks any moral or ethical measuring stick.
Case in point,
The Nazi's sponsored scientists in Dachau prison camp to conduct experiments into the effects of hypothermia. The results were perfectly legitimate in terms of pure scientific research, but they were bought at the cost of many murdered individual prisoners.
This same regime also placed great emphasis on various forms of " eugenics ". At the time, very few scientists had the courage to speak up against this type of pure racially motivated psuedo " science ".
So, just because some scientists or governments say that
" you'll thank us for this research later "
it doesn't follow that we should blindly accept any such research without cosidering its ethical or moral dimensions.
Comparing what these scientists are doing to the Nazi mutilations is wholly unfair.
that she-male is a bit ... weird. i don't see a big demand for she-male babies.
sticking back to the title: the aborted baby would NOT be the mother if only the eggs came from her. if the aborted baby somehow managed to grow the parass.. uh, baby, in her womb, and then raise the kid, THEN she would be the mother. so "she" is only a 'donating' piece of tissue.
i don't see why there is so huge demand anyway. they always specify they want WHITE, CAUCASIAN donators. is it only because white people are too racist to adopt a non-white kid? there are MILLIONS of kids that never were wanted and that just don't have a very good chance to live at all in the poorer countries. is the fact most of them have a bit darker skin so disturbing? or you won't be able to love a kid that does not have YOUR obesity, asthma, stroke genes?
I have not heard of this as a problem (and I work in this exact area of medicine) so you should read it as a rhetorical question. So unless anyone can produce (not in the Bush way) some evidence supporting the need for this technique I regard it as what I wrote.
This is a well known problem. What area of medicine are you in (not an offensive question - I do want to know)?
Pick up a student newspaper at an Ivy League (or similar caliber) university, flip to the back for classified ad section - heck, here is an article discussing it: http://www.cornelldailysun.com/articles/7646/ .
This is a well known problem. What area of medicine are you in (not an offensive question - I do want to know)?
Pick up a student newspaper at an Ivy League (or similar caliber) university, flip to the back for classified ad section - heck, here is an article discussing it: http://www.cornelldailysun.com/articles/7646/ .
There may be a demand for certain types of donors (Ivy League, as in your article), but that doesn't mean there's a "problem." I'd bet it's a uniquely American "problem."
This is a well known problem. What area of medicine are you in (not an offensive question - I do want to know)?
Pick up a student newspaper at an Ivy League (or similar caliber) university, flip to the back for classified ad section - heck, here is an article discussing it: http://www.cornelldailysun.com/articles/7646/ .
an interesting article by the way. i would not qualify because they sure cannot verify my genetical background for 3 generations - i have no idea of my grandparent. besides the heigh, degrees, skin color etc won't compensate otherwise shitty genes.
Comparing what these scientists are doing to the Nazi mutilations is wholly unfair.
It may seem fair or not fair, but that is the sort of comparison that can and has been made to other areas of research.
The point is that scientists have to work within a social framework. Political agendas, cultural biases, shift and change. Consequently what is considered to be " good science " today, may not be thought so tommorow. And it is never cut and dry.
The Dachau research into hypothermia is a case in point, in that many countries continued utilising those findings for their own benefit, decades after the war was over.
Research particularly when it touches upon human reproduction is fraught with many dangers particularly when it comes to its societal application. That is why medical research units attatched to most major hospitals and universities have boi-ethics committees.
I am pro science, but I also acknowledge that any area that recieves funding, whether public or private, is ultimately accountable to the society within which it works.
Some scientists might see it as interference, but that is reality.
It may seem fair or not fair, but that is the sort of comparison that can and has been made to other areas of research.
The point is that scientists have to work within a social framework. Political agendas, cultural biases, shift and change. Consequently what is considered to be " good science " today, may not be thought so tommorow. And it is never cut and dry.
The Dachau research into hypothermia is a case in point, in that many countries continued utilising those findings for their own benefit, decades after the war was over.
Research particularly when it touches upon human reproduction is fraught with many dangers particularly when it comes to its societal application. That is why medical research units attatched to most major hospitals and universities have boi-ethics committees.
I am pro science, but I also acknowledge that any area that recieves funding, whether public or private, is ultimately accountable to the society within which it works.
Some scientists might see it as interference, but that is reality.
No, you are just trying to attach the stigma of Nazi mutilations to this new research in an attempt to further your own agenda.
Comparing performing hideous experiments on people in concentration camps to what these scientists are doing is irresponsible, sick, overwhelmingly stupid, and insulting to anyone who had to endure the Nazi mutilations.
In experiments using donated embryos, scientists from the Centers for Human Reproduction in New York and Chicago investigated whether healthy cells from one embryo could be implanted into a second defective embryo.
They found that, in some cases, the introduced cells do proliferate and spread throughout the chimaeric embryo.
Their hope is that having even a small proportion of cells from a healthy embryo might prevent certain genetic diseases from arising.
The "merged" embryos were never intended to develop into children, and were destroyed after a few days.
Quote:
The theory behind Gliecher's work is that some studies have suggested that in certain diseases caused by a single genetic defect, having even as few as 15% of the body's cells free from the defect might be enough to stop the development of the disease.
He said his experiment showed that just a couple of cells injected into the embryo produced an embryo with, in many cases, an even distribution of cells carrying these new genes.
He deliberately injected a male cell into a female embryo - which created an "intersex" embryo, but allowed him to use chemical tests to check the process of the chromosome unique to male cells.
Bah. I'm tired of all you reactionary anti-science dickwads.
Comparing performing hideous experiments on people in concentration camps to what these scientists are doing is irresponsible, sick, overwhelmingly stupid, and insulting to anyone who had to endure the Nazi mutilations.
Again you miss the point, my use of the nazi example is a clear example of the political and ehtical issues at stake.
For the record, I mean no insult to anyone who suffered these attrocities, either directly or indirectly.
The nazi question forms the basis of many ehtical studies in universities and as much as you may feel outraged, there are other groups in the community who would consider what is being done in regards to these aborted fetuses as no less questionable.
"The claiming of a link between two scenarios to the disadvantage of the one under attack, eg the attempt to label the push to legalise voluntary euthanasia as part of a "culture of death" akin to the excesses of the totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany."
Comments
Originally posted by Anders
Perhaps I am behind the curve but is it really a problem getting enough eggs for those women that wants to bear a child but cannot produce them themselves?
For me this looks like creating a demand not present.
Well, 5K $ for a white, caucasian woman only to sell her eggs. Doesn't sound so bad for me if or when i'll need some cash (As long as there is no rish that anyone could come to ring my doorbell in 20 years claiming to have anything to do with me).
But of course you don't have pay 5K $ to an aborted tissue (i have no idea how much to do an abort costs either, pure income for doctors). So that'll be cheaper.
Originally posted by Anders
Perhaps I am behind the curve but is it really a problem getting enough eggs for those women that wants to bear a child but cannot produce them themselves?
Yes.
There's such a lack of supply that infertile couples regualrly offer to compensate donors tens of thousands of dollars (above medical expenses) for their trouble. When I was in college there was an ad in our student newspaper for months offering $50,000 for the chance to harvest eggs from a young, fair-skinned, intelligent, athletic woman. It became a sad running joke. Sad because egg harvesting is a complicated, invasive, dangerous procedure. It usually involves treating the donor with homones to stimulate the release of multiple eggs from the ovaries, followed a week or two later by surgery to capture and remove the eggs from the fallopian tubes - usually in the vagina, up through the uterus, into the tubes and back out. A bit more complicated than jerking off into a plastic cup. Even if done properly it could lead to permanent infertility for the donor (isn't that a sad irony?).
Living tissue donation is generally a bad idea because of the risks it exposes the donors to. Why is this issue any different from cadavar organ donations? There can be no risk to the donor, and it offers a chance to give meaning to an otherwise difficult event (death of a loved on, or an abortion).
Originally posted by Towel
Yes.
There's such a lack of supply that infertile couples regualrly offer to compensate donors tens of thousands of dollars (above medical expenses) for their trouble. When I was in college there was an ad in our student newspaper for months offering $50,000 for the chance to harvest eggs from a young, fair-skinned, intelligent, athletic woman. It became a sad running joke. Sad because egg harvesting is a complicated, invasive, dangerous procedure. It usually involves treating the donor with homones to stimulate the release of multiple eggs from the ovaries, followed a week or two later by surgery to capture and remove the eggs from the fallopian tubes - usually in the vagina, up through the uterus, into the tubes and back out. A bit more complicated than jerking off into a plastic cup. Even if done properly it could lead to permanent infertility for the donor (isn't that a sad irony?).
Living tissue donation is generally a bad idea because of the risks it exposes the donors to. Why is this issue any different from cadavar organ donations? There can be no risk to the donor, and it offers a chance to give meaning to an otherwise difficult event (death of a loved on, or an abortion).
reconsidering it - do you think they would *BUY* the intere ovaries? i'm not going to use them anyway, at least for reproductional purposes. so i could as well sell them. no way i'd let anyone (even a doctor) apart from my bf to see or touch those parts of my body so that eliminates the other alternatives than selling them all. any idea how much would they pay for ovaries or the uterus? should i start in ebay?
Originally posted by Giaguara
reconsidering it - do you think they would *BUY* the intere ovaries? i'm not going to use them anyway, at least for reproductional purposes. so i could as well sell them. no way i'd let anyone (even a doctor) apart from my bf to see or touch those parts of my body so that eliminates the other alternatives than selling them all. any idea how much would they pay for ovaries or the uterus? should i start in ebay?
I know you're joking, but...
There's an ethical line drawn between donation of organs and of "replaceable" bits. The latter you can be compensated for (sperm, blood, eggs), the former you cannot - at least in the US and most developed countries. The medical profession generally frowns on selling body parts form living people. So, you could donate your ovaries for the eggs in them, but not sell them. Actually, right now it's unlikely anyone would take them. Eggs in the ovaries need to develop before they can become able to be fertilized. We don't really know how to do that outside an ovary right now. We don't even entirely understand how it happens within the ovary. That's why egg donors get the hormones, so a bunch of eggs will develop and be released for "easy" collection and use. That's also why harvesting eggs from fetuses isn't going to be big business tomorrow.
Here in the UK, there is one egg for every 300 women on the waiting list.
Personally I don't agree with this "procedure"
woo hoo, life goes on.
Originally posted by alcimedes
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/07/02...eut/index.html
woo hoo, life goes on.
I am not surprised that the people against that research say that there is "NO REASON" for this kind of "HUMAN MANIPULATION" when the scientists begin by stating that the reasearch "could lead to better treatments or cures for single gene disorders." Willful ignorance from the anti-science front, as usual.
Some more old fashioned scientists might still like to think they live in cocoons, but the reality is otherwise.
Scientists and ( sciences ) are part of our society whether they like it or not, and consequently, every society has the right, to question the "ethics" behind various forms of scientific research.
Science in its purest form is the greatest gift, but it lacks any moral or ethical measuring stick.
Case in point,
The Nazi's sponsored scientists in Dachau prison camp to conduct experiments into the effects of hypothermia. The results were perfectly legitimate in terms of pure scientific research, but they were bought at the cost of many murdered individual prisoners.
This same regime also placed great emphasis on various forms of " eugenics ". At the time, very few scientists had the courage to speak up against this type of pure racially motivated psuedo " science ".
So, just because some scientists or governments say that
" you'll thank us for this research later "
it doesn't follow that we should blindly accept any such research without cosidering its ethical or moral dimensions.
Originally posted by aquafire
It is possible for people to be "pro science " but for reasons of ethics chose not to support or encourage particular paths of research.
Some more old fashioned scientists might still like to think they live in cocoons, but the reality is otherwise.
Scientists and ( sciences ) are part of our society whether they like it or not, and consequently, every society has the right, to question the "ethics" behind various forms of scientific research.
Science in its purest form is the greatest gift, but it lacks any moral or ethical measuring stick.
Case in point,
The Nazi's sponsored scientists in Dachau prison camp to conduct experiments into the effects of hypothermia. The results were perfectly legitimate in terms of pure scientific research, but they were bought at the cost of many murdered individual prisoners.
This same regime also placed great emphasis on various forms of " eugenics ". At the time, very few scientists had the courage to speak up against this type of pure racially motivated psuedo " science ".
So, just because some scientists or governments say that
" you'll thank us for this research later "
it doesn't follow that we should blindly accept any such research without cosidering its ethical or moral dimensions.
Comparing what these scientists are doing to the Nazi mutilations is wholly unfair.
sticking back to the title: the aborted baby would NOT be the mother if only the eggs came from her. if the aborted baby somehow managed to grow the parass.. uh, baby, in her womb, and then raise the kid, THEN she would be the mother. so "she" is only a 'donating' piece of tissue.
i don't see why there is so huge demand anyway. they always specify they want WHITE, CAUCASIAN donators. is it only because white people are too racist to adopt a non-white kid? there are MILLIONS of kids that never were wanted and that just don't have a very good chance to live at all in the poorer countries. is the fact most of them have a bit darker skin so disturbing? or you won't be able to love a kid that does not have YOUR obesity, asthma, stroke genes?
Originally posted by Anders
I have not heard of this as a problem (and I work in this exact area of medicine) so you should read it as a rhetorical question. So unless anyone can produce (not in the Bush way) some evidence supporting the need for this technique I regard it as what I wrote.
This is a well known problem. What area of medicine are you in (not an offensive question - I do want to know)?
Pick up a student newspaper at an Ivy League (or similar caliber) university, flip to the back for classified ad section - heck, here is an article discussing it: http://www.cornelldailysun.com/articles/7646/ .
Originally posted by klinux
This is a well known problem. What area of medicine are you in (not an offensive question - I do want to know)?
Pick up a student newspaper at an Ivy League (or similar caliber) university, flip to the back for classified ad section - heck, here is an article discussing it: http://www.cornelldailysun.com/articles/7646/ .
There may be a demand for certain types of donors (Ivy League, as in your article), but that doesn't mean there's a "problem." I'd bet it's a uniquely American "problem."
Originally posted by klinux
This is a well known problem. What area of medicine are you in (not an offensive question - I do want to know)?
Pick up a student newspaper at an Ivy League (or similar caliber) university, flip to the back for classified ad section - heck, here is an article discussing it: http://www.cornelldailysun.com/articles/7646/ .
an interesting article by the way. i would not qualify because they sure cannot verify my genetical background for 3 generations - i have no idea of my grandparent. besides the heigh, degrees, skin color etc won't compensate otherwise shitty genes.
Originally posted by BR
Comparing what these scientists are doing to the Nazi mutilations is wholly unfair.
It may seem fair or not fair, but that is the sort of comparison that can and has been made to other areas of research.
The point is that scientists have to work within a social framework. Political agendas, cultural biases, shift and change. Consequently what is considered to be " good science " today, may not be thought so tommorow. And it is never cut and dry.
The Dachau research into hypothermia is a case in point, in that many countries continued utilising those findings for their own benefit, decades after the war was over.
Research particularly when it touches upon human reproduction is fraught with many dangers particularly when it comes to its societal application. That is why medical research units attatched to most major hospitals and universities have boi-ethics committees.
I am pro science, but I also acknowledge that any area that recieves funding, whether public or private, is ultimately accountable to the society within which it works.
Some scientists might see it as interference, but that is reality.
Originally posted by aquafire
It may seem fair or not fair, but that is the sort of comparison that can and has been made to other areas of research.
The point is that scientists have to work within a social framework. Political agendas, cultural biases, shift and change. Consequently what is considered to be " good science " today, may not be thought so tommorow. And it is never cut and dry.
The Dachau research into hypothermia is a case in point, in that many countries continued utilising those findings for their own benefit, decades after the war was over.
Research particularly when it touches upon human reproduction is fraught with many dangers particularly when it comes to its societal application. That is why medical research units attatched to most major hospitals and universities have boi-ethics committees.
I am pro science, but I also acknowledge that any area that recieves funding, whether public or private, is ultimately accountable to the society within which it works.
Some scientists might see it as interference, but that is reality.
No, you are just trying to attach the stigma of Nazi mutilations to this new research in an attempt to further your own agenda.
Originally posted by BR
No, you are just trying to attach the stigma of Nazi mutilations to this new research in an attempt to further your own agenda.
You mean pro science within ethical boundaries ?
Originally posted by aquafire
You mean pro science within ethical boundaries ?
Comparing performing hideous experiments on people in concentration camps to what these scientists are doing is irresponsible, sick, overwhelmingly stupid, and insulting to anyone who had to endure the Nazi mutilations.
In experiments using donated embryos, scientists from the Centers for Human Reproduction in New York and Chicago investigated whether healthy cells from one embryo could be implanted into a second defective embryo.
They found that, in some cases, the introduced cells do proliferate and spread throughout the chimaeric embryo.
Their hope is that having even a small proportion of cells from a healthy embryo might prevent certain genetic diseases from arising.
The "merged" embryos were never intended to develop into children, and were destroyed after a few days.
The theory behind Gliecher's work is that some studies have suggested that in certain diseases caused by a single genetic defect, having even as few as 15% of the body's cells free from the defect might be enough to stop the development of the disease.
He said his experiment showed that just a couple of cells injected into the embryo produced an embryo with, in many cases, an even distribution of cells carrying these new genes.
He deliberately injected a male cell into a female embryo - which created an "intersex" embryo, but allowed him to use chemical tests to check the process of the chromosome unique to male cells.
Bah. I'm tired of all you reactionary anti-science dickwads.
Originally posted by BR
Comparing performing hideous experiments on people in concentration camps to what these scientists are doing is irresponsible, sick, overwhelmingly stupid, and insulting to anyone who had to endure the Nazi mutilations.
Again you miss the point, my use of the nazi example is a clear example of the political and ehtical issues at stake.
For the record, I mean no insult to anyone who suffered these attrocities, either directly or indirectly.
The nazi question forms the basis of many ehtical studies in universities and as much as you may feel outraged, there are other groups in the community who would consider what is being done in regards to these aborted fetuses as no less questionable.
...
"The claiming of a link between two scenarios to the disadvantage of the one under attack, eg the attempt to label the push to legalise voluntary euthanasia as part of a "culture of death" akin to the excesses of the totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany."