Our latest child, by the way, was diagnosed with a fatal defect that was supposed to cause death within minutes after delivery. She is now six months and fat, fat, fat! Not a thing wrong with her. Not her laughs, not her dirty diapers, her screams. Nothing wrong. Had we gone with our highly-intelligent, modern doctor's suggestion of abortion, I would have gotten a little more sleep at night, and missed one more important fixture in my life.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm glad to hear things turned out good. What was the name of the defect if I might ask? I take it from your answers that you wouldn't even use the chimp embryos even if the technique never resulted in a viable human embryo and your daughter (the very same one that you love right now) would definately die. (Here I'm presuming that you believe there might actually be some condition for which hope alone might not prevail).
Human reproductive cells have only one purpose: to create a new and unique human life?not to create isolated tissues, organs, chemicals or anything else. You can make this argument outside the bounds of religion. Empirically, it is self-evident. Just as red blood cells have a specific and limited number of natural functions, so too do reproductive cells.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm afraid your making an implicit religious perspecitve in divining "purpose." I could just as well assert that my blood's "purpose" is to keep ME alive and, therefore, object to donating blood. I can say the same thing about interfering with the purpose of a virus. Who am I to use a vaccine?
[quote]<strong>
To take it upon ourselves to re-define the purpose of such cells ? so that biotech and pharmaceutical companies can make a mint ? is what irks me. They act as if they're crusaders for health, when what they are first and foremst is crusaders for cash. </strong><hr></blockquote>
And despite their greedy motives they still generate life saving treatments. But fine, let's assume all biotech companies are evil. What's to hold them back from their evil pursuits? The law, or more specifically U.S. Law? Push too hard and they'll move research off shore as they should.
On question #3:
[quote]<strong>
No.
And your implication of only one solution makes no sense. Why would an organ taken from a healthy donor of the same age and blood type (say someone who died in a car accident) be any less viable a solution than your ?manufactured? organ?
Further, your scenario is questionable at best (designed to support your point of view, rather than being a realistic example). If a person has been exposed to a toxic agent, to the extent that he/she needs a new liver or kidney (for example), it is quite likely they will need far more treatment (and perhaps transplants) than just one to live a normal life. Hence using your idea, multiple embryos must be created and destroyed (and who knows how many times) simply to create the organs and tissues needed (which by themselves don?t guarantee success).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moral dilemas don't have workarounds you have to face them on their intent. And yes there are real world scenarios for why someone would need the exact genetic match in a transplant. Say they had three previous transplants and in each case their body rejected it, or they have an allergy to the immunosuppressent medication.
If you want you can take another shot at this question (as it would seem you are hesitant to accept that you would have to let your daughter die). As for D- to clarify this scenario is meant to specifically avoid the objection that human embryos are destroyed. Since the DNA would be altered to specifically become the required organ BEFORE it was implanted in the chimp egg, it could never become a human.
As for question #4, I added a postscript in the original post to clarify that the cloned daughter would be a unique person. You seem to be objecting to what you perceive is the intent of the parents to bring back their daughter. What if there intent is simply to have another heriditary child and in this scenario their only option is to take one of the remaining embryos to term? If the parents are totally aware that the new child would be no less unique than if they had twins in the first place then what's the harm? Hell, what if they did have twins in the first place (implanting two instead of one of the split embryos)- you have a problem with that?
As for your question about how I would feel if I where the dead twelve year old who was cloned it would again depend on my parents intent. I certainly wouldn't deny them their right to reproduce.
I'm glad to hear things turned out good. What was the name of the defect if I might ask? I take it from your answers that you wouldn't even use the chimp embryos even if the technique never resulted in a viable human embryo and your daughter (the very same one that you love right now) would definately die. (Here I'm presuming that you believe there might actually be some condition for which hope alone might not prevail).</strong><hr></blockquote>
We personally wouldn't use anything that is out of the ordinary. I feel immensely lucky that we batted 1000, because I know that others cannot. It also kind of scares me that we are so fertile, since we don't use pills/condoms and such. I forget off the top of my head what that diagnosed/predicted genetic malady was. I tried not to dwell on it at the time. My sister is the assistant that works with our OBGYN and they all thought it was pretty serious. But, we decided to go on even if the child only had 'minutes'. And, there was indeed some complications. But everything is fine now. The genetic marker was a reading that was in effect the opposite to down's syndrome, and is always fatal they said. I'll have to look it up again.
<strong>If you agree that no community (religious, political, scientific, or otherwise) is more adept than another at handling the ethics of a new technology such as cloning then why is the default position political (to legislate against) or religious (and in particular which religion)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you misunderstand...I don't think *any* governing body (scientific, religious, political or otherwise) can be trusted to always make the right choices and do the ethical thing where cloning is concerned. Hence it shouldn't be enacted as a standard medical practice for the purposes we've discussed. Someone will find a way to abuse it badly, so long as there is big money to be made (and there clearly is).
[quote]<strong> Furthermore, if your primary concern is that the technology is developed responsibly ,[s it [a] prudent move to force the technology to be developed without government oversight in off-shore locations?</strong><hr></blockquote>
People act of their own free will. We wouldn't be "forcing" anyone to do *anything*. All we can do, as a nation, is ensure that we do the right thing. If we ban something like cloning and some greedy off-shore bastards start their own lab, that is something they (and not we) are responsible for.
People are responsible for their own actions and decisions; we often forget that in America. It's always someone else's fault when something goes wrong. Just like we can't mandate laws across teh globe, we won't be able to mandate this either. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have a little ethical conviction and nip things in the bud (at least IMO) here in the U.S. Call it, "leading by example."
[quote]<strong>As for your contention that we as a people are to greedy for a healthy, longer life...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never said anything like that, please be careful when quoting me. As a common courtesy, you can see plainly I do the same for you. I doubt you misquote me intentionally, but this is a sensitive topic. It's hard enough for me to accurately put into words how I feel, without being misquoted....
[quote]<strong>The pace of science is unpredictable and it is entirely possible that more simple applications (cloned blood lines instead of organs) could be only a year away....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have three letters for you: F D A
Think ten years, not one. Example: they've had something as simple in concept as a male contraceptive pill for years in the lab. The only reason we don't have it in the pharmacy is because of the F D A bureaucracy and politics (not health reasons).
[quote]<strong>
One of the reasons you hear the word "promise" being used with regards to cloning is that provided we can make genetically identical cells and convert them into different tissue types (this part has already been demonstrated) there are most definately life savings applications. Their is absolutely no research that suggests that this cannot be a viable life saving technology. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The burden of proof is for you and your peers (to produce), not for me and mine. If you want to convince people like me cloning is the right thing to do, you have to prove (somehow) that the medical applications will be on par with all the "promises." Until then, forget it.
[quote]<strong>
There have been many demonstrations of repairing damage to spinal cords and alleviating hereditary diseases in mice. I'm not sure what your threshold is, but I believe it most likely has been met.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps, but even then only in part. Either way this issue is young enough in its roots that I doubt enough research and comparitive analysis has been done...such that we can say "if we can cure mice, we cancure people."
<strong>The only reason we don't have it in the pharmacy is because of the F D A bureaucracy and politics (not health reasons).</strong><hr></blockquote>Sorry to jump in, but there are two things you said that I wanted to take issue with.
First, the FDA doesn't take a long time because of bureaucracy. They take a long time because the studies take a long time, and the studies are necessary for, yes, health reasons. They have to prove the effectiveness of the drugs, and they have to prove that the drugs are not harmful.
As it is, the FDA is critcized all the time for allowing drugs to be sold that people say shouldn't have been because they didn't do enough studies on (children, women, people with x disease) and so they may be dangerous.
I never understand it when people criticize the FDA like this. ?? Especially because later you say: [quote]The burden of proof is for you and your peers (to produce), not for me and mine. If you want to convince people like me cloning is the right thing to do, you have to prove (somehow) that the medical applications will be on par with all the "promises."<hr></blockquote>Well, usually Congress doesn't pre-emptively outlaw procedures, which seems likely to happen now. Usually the research would be done in order to meet the burden of proof you want. If it's outlawed, that burden of proof can't be met.
Maybe I should've been a little more specific with regards to the male contraceptive thing. Basically . I've had numerous discussions with people (on the pharmacuetical side, and doctors as well) as to why something that should be so simple to evaluate and certify, is still years away from the marketplace. The answer, in short, was politics.
So while i agree the FDA must absolutely, on every clinical trial do a thorough job of evaluating a drug or treatment and its side-effects, etc...a lot of the time required for NDA's and such is because of red tape. Now you could argue that red tape is just a manifestation of how careful the FDA has to be during the drug review process...but some of it is just big government - plain and simple.
Sorry if what I said was confusing. I was merely trying to point out that there is no way in hell a [cutting-edge] medical procedure like cloning human tissues and organs would only take a year or two to clear through the FDA. It would take likely take 5-10 years, if not more...and that's after the years of R&D that would likely preceed such a clearance.
I'm sorry if I misqouted you, I was only trying to sum up your responses as the interlaced qouting is bloating the size of these posts and, for some reason, when I hit reply it only qoutes the last paragraph automatically (witness my failed attempts at marking up qoutes).
Forgive me if I make a mistake in summing up again, but I take it that you default into legislating against cloning because you do not think it can be developed responsibly by anyone and should, therefore, not be ventured into? Furthermore, even faced with the reality that the technology will be developed offshores (I happen to know of a few biotechs who have already had the foresight to establish foreign labs for this very reason) you feel the U.S. would be taking a moral stance, however ineffective, in halting such research here. Am I right?
As for my misrepresentation of your attitude about the pursuit for life extending technologies can you clarify on the simple point as to whether you or anyone else has the right to limit one's pursuit of additional life in the case of cloning and not in the case of antibiotics?
[quote]<strong>
I have three letters for you: F D A
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The delay argument still applies. More people die the longer the research is delayed even if it must (upon completion) go through even more delays. The net effect no matter how you slice it is delay = death. And no, I'm not talking about skipping important controls and safety protocols, but just uneccessary limitations on research. Also, given the nature of cloning there are a lot of applications for which it would be fastracked. If the only question is whether a genetically identical cell type has been produced, but all the subsequent techniques are already approved then their is only one question to be addressed.
As for the last thing about burden of proof, what do you require?
[quote]As for my misrepresentation of your attitude about the pursuit for life extending technologies can you clarify on the simple point as to whether you or anyone else has the right to limit one's pursuit of additional life in the case of cloning and not in the case of antibiotics?<hr></blockquote>
I fail to see the similarities between the two (cloning and use of anti-biotics) - either in how they were developed or how they are used. Not being sarcastic; can you elaborate on what is behind your question?
We personally wouldn't use anything that is out of the ordinary.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So in answer to question #3 you would let your daughter die even if you could cure her with cloning and not destroying any human embryos? I'm a little thrown by the ordinary comment since at one time every medical technique was new.
You sound like someone who truly appreciates the joys of having a baby. If you don't mind could you tell me if you would object to less fortunate, inftertile couples using IVF (i.e. would you make it illegal if you could). And for that matter, to make this a little more personal, would you forbid me from doing any of the things in question #3 to save my own daughter?
I fail to see the similarities between the two (cloning and use of anti-biotics) - either in how they were developed or how they are used. Not being sarcastic; can you elaborate on what is behind your question?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Take question #3- say you have two daughters. One is sick from an infection and needs antibiotics to live. The other 's situtation is as stated in the original question. You have the same options available including the one that doesn't require an human embryos to be used.
Presuming you will object as before because the monkey egg has a "purpose" let me ask if you would do the procedure if it involved a cow egg (ACT is actually using cow eggs for cloning experiments)? Make no difference, you say? Cow egg still has a purpose? Do you eat beef? Would you make it illegal to eat beef?
Ok, I had to edit in just to apologize for a hint of sarcasm there. But please consider the questions anyway.
So in answer to question #3 you would let your daughter die even if you could cure her with cloning and not destroying any human embryos? I'm a little thrown by the ordinary comment since at one time every medical technique was new.
You sound like someone who truly appreciates the joys of having a baby. If you don't mind could you tell me if you would object to less fortunate, inftertile couples using IVF (i.e. would you make it illegal if you could). And for that matter, to make this a little more personal, would you forbid me from doing any of the things in question #3 to save my own daughter?
I'm no expert on the question you posit. But anything destroying viable human life/tissue I would not use to help my daughter. I am, however, not up on all the particulars of cloning. I had read somewhere that a lot of medical knowledge was gained from Nazi butchers. That's unfortunate, and none of us here lent a hand in that. However, I would NOT throw away that knowledge gained, or other advances made from that knowledge. I'm sure this will fall out similarly. Advances will be made on things that I particularly would not do myself or condone, but if KNOWLEDGE (not tissue, etc) were advanced, I'd be hard pressed to toss it aside.
I do not voice any opinions to people doing things like IVF just because I don't need to do that. I do feel, however, that is a different ethical question altogether.
Free will is important. I would have no power in your decisions at all. But, depending upon the circumstances, I'm sure there are things I'd condone and things I would not.
I focus mainly on what I need to do to help my family, friends. Not what to prevent others from doing. How long have we had laws outlawing murder? Does that prevent someone from willingly killing? No. So, in the end, it's up to the individual. I make my choices and others make theirs. I'm mostly proud of my current state of decision making. However, like many, I have gone from one influence to another to get here. Everyone is at different stages in their progression in life, and I recognize that. Many people eventually flip 180 degress and perhaps even back again on topics. That's what life's all about. I make bad decisions everyday, but I try to learn from them and improve them.
But this area is so fledgling I think many of the assumptions have yet to be proven and won't be for quite some time. But it won't be me exploring this frontier, it WILL be someone else. I cringe at the thought of dozens of kids getting polio FROM the polio vaccine every year. But, knowing that it benefits many more helps even it out. There's always a balance to these things. The trick is in finding them, while respecting everyone else's right to oppose it.
I'm no expert on the question you posit. But anything destroying viable human life/tissue I would not use to help my daughter. I am, however, not up on all the particulars of cloning. I had read somewhere that a lot of medical knowledge was gained from Nazi butchers. That's unfortunate, and none of us here lent a hand in that. However, I would NOT throw away that knowledge gained, or other advances made from that knowledge. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You hilight an interesting aspect of the way our "leaders" are approaching the issue of cloning. Every politician I see against cloning seems to agree that the technology will go forward elsewhere and that it most likely will result in life saving treatments. At the same time, few doubt that if true life saving treatments emerge that we will pass on them when that time comes. To me this is the very epitome of abdicating responsibility and a failure of leadership.
But seeing even further, it is most likely that using the information derived from embryo research we will one day be able to bypass the use of human embryos altogether (along the lines of the proposition I offer in #3C & D). From the perspective of people who think embryos should enjoy the same status as thinking human beings this would be morally equivalent to utilizing the Nazi data. We've seen such reasoning in effect already with Bush's cowardly solution to the stem cell dilema.
[quote]<strong>
Free will is important. I would have no power in your decisions at all. But, depending upon the circumstances, I'm sure there are things I'd condone and things I would not. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's all I ask. So long as you respect my right to determine if my daughter's life is worth more than a speck of cells I will respect your right to do the same (even if you conclude your daughter's life isn't). I would debate whether you are making a moral decision, but I would not presume the right to hold the force of law over you. Nor would I limit your reproductive options provided cloning had been carefully regulated to ensure it was as safe as traditional conception.
Presuming you will object as before because the monkey egg has a "purpose" let me ask if you would do the procedure if it involved a cow egg (ACT is actually using cow eggs for cloning experiments)? Make no difference, you say? Cow egg still has a purpose? Do you eat beef? Would you make it illegal to eat beef?
Ok, I had to edit in just to apologize for a hint of sarcasm there. But please consider the questions anyway.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm. Are you perhaps trying to bring unrelated factors into the argument to cast doubt on my opinion about reproductive cells having one specific purpose? What does eating beef have to do with anything -- since the dawn of man, we have gathered plants and hunted other animals as a source of nourishment. I don't want to get into semantic arguments about vegetarianism here. Do you?
Just say what you mean and ask what you mean; don't give me all these convoluted examples. Is there something we don't know about antibiotics? Are they made with the assistance of cloning technology? Is that what you're getting at -- that we've been using a cloning-based medical treatment (antibiotics) for years but never knew it? If so, explain the relevant similarities to the treatments you are proposing. I honestly don't see any.
That is, I fail to see any real correlation between the use of cloning as we've described it -- creating human embryos for the express purpose of destroying it to create something else (tissues, organs, chemicals) -- and the use of traditional antibiotics.
Sorry for the delay...I forgot to come back here and post for whatever reason. No need to apologize for the sarcasm, I do it all the time.
Hmm. Are you perhaps trying to bring unrelated factors into the argument to cast doubt on my opinion about reproductive cells having one specific purpose? What does eating beef have to do with anything?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now, your probably right that a few different issues have gotten mixed in here so let me see if I can "say what I mean" and separate them out.
To refresh- the scenario I presented was that your daughter was going to die without a transplant with an organ of an exact genetic match (as required because she was allergic to immunosuppresent drugs and had already rejected previous transplants). One option was to take your daughter's DNA, clone it into an embryo from another species (monkey or cow) and then add the appropriate growth factors to produce the required organ directly in culture.
The first issue is quite simple- under this scenario would you let your daughter die or would you clone the organ?
The second issue relates to this concept of "purpose" you evoke. To be blunt I think you are unintentionally making a theological argument. Purpose implies intent of design (by who?) and we are agreed (I assume) that one's subjective beliefs cannot be forced onto another. You may object to this characterization and instead suggest that even looking at the role of the embryo through a Darwinistic perspective one would conclude that the embryo's function is to grow into an adult. You'd be right in this observation, but you would be left with a whole new set of problems because the very role of technology is to make new (sometimes called unnatural) uses of things.
The scenario about using a cow embryo is really just to illustrate how difficult this course of reasoning is to justify. If you suggest that it is immoral to use a cow egg to save your daughter's life because it has a purpose then all other uses of the cow come into question. We use cows for food, for clothing, for decorating car bumpers (the bull's horns that is), for making glue, ice-cream, for teaching med students, and a bunch more uses I'm sure. I think you would have a hard time convincingly arguing why you would kill a cow to have tasty burger, but not kill one to save your daughter's life.
Lastly- I think I see where we are seeing cross-eyed on the issue about comparing anti-biotic use to applications of cloning. From your perspective you see a big difference between co-opting the defense mechanism of some slime molds and likewise manipulating for our benefit a specific subclass of human (and possibly even cow) cell types. I see no difference because I do not presume purpose for either. I propose a better question to get to the point of the matter. What if the technology became available to convert blood cells into neural cells and your daughter required a neural cell transplant to live? If your going to argue the "purpose" of things you cannot suggest that blood cells have a purpose to become neural cells. If you do, then the same applies for embryos.
[quote]<strong>
Sorry for the delay...I forgot to come back here and post for whatever reason. No need to apologize for the sarcasm, I do it all the time.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, take your time. I think we are the only ones kicking this thread around right now so there's no rush. That your willing to discuss it this long at least demonstrates that you are giving the issue a lot more thought than the knee-jerk "Your Playing God!" crowd.
<strong>I am not going to say anyhting about cloning but I do want to say somthing else to JRC. I applaud your descion on your baby. I look up to you now.
Strider</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know the exact nature of JRC's situation as he was unable to name the defect his daughter was at risk for so I am not able to speak as to the wisdom of his decision to go forward with the pregnacy. I'm glad, certainly, that things turned out well for him, but I would like to temper some of the irrationality regarding such matters. I think it is a dangerous message to always celebrate those who just hope for the best and go against reason (again, without more info, I can't comment on whether this is the case for JRC).
I know that when odds of 1 chance in 100 are given that means we will see the 1 in a 100 that beat the odds on the evening news and not see the other 99. For some conditions, this doesn't mean just the emotional suffering of the parents, but some defects assure that a child's only existing moments are excruciatingly painful. Some might think it more heroic to spare someone suffering, but that is the topic of a separate thread.
<strong>I am not going to say anyhting about cloning but I do want to say somthing else to JRC. I applaud your descion on your baby. I look up to you now.
Strider</strong><hr></blockquote>
I appreciate your reply. When we received the first word about that, it was really like a huge punch in the stomach. It just took our breath away. But, it only took, literally, a few seconds to know what we were going to do. It just reinforced in me that no man or scientific principle is infallible. And, that's all a distant memory now.
[quote]I am not able to speak as to the wisdom of his decision to go forward with the pregnacy.<hr></blockquote>
What a jackass.
"First do no harm." People die. This is something that you really have to accept - not just gloss over, before you understand why some can't justify cloning. People die. It's as natural a part of life as eating, yet it's sometimes regarded as something we should prevent. Certainly, I'd like to live a long life. But I'd never want another life to be ended or jeapordized (especially without consent) just to prolong my own. That's what my objection boils down to: I could never justify the destruction of a human for my personal gain.
Your all over the place with this post so let me see if I can pick out anything worthy of addressing.
[quote]<strong>
"First do no harm." People die. This is something that you really have to accept - not just gloss over, before you understand why some can't justify cloning. People die. It's as natural a part of life as eating, yet it's sometimes regarded as something we should prevent. Certainly, I'd like to live a long life. But I'd never want another life to be ended or jeapordized (especially without consent) just to prolong my own. That's what my objection boils down to: I could never justify the destruction of a human for my personal gain. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's amazing how many people employ this "circle of life" mantra without bothering to address exactly how they know when it's proper for people to just accept death. Why is it, for instance, any more moral for someone to have an $150K heart transplant late in life which could otherwise go to saving hundreds from starvation in some third world country than it is to use a microscopic cell? What about someone in their 50's, 40's, 30's? Who the hell are you to judge when someone "should" accept death. And along those lines, who are you to decide that a single cell is worth more than a living, thinking human being?
Wait a minute, that was the whole purpose of the quiz! Answer the questions, justify your answers, and try using more convincing arguments than "What a jackass." Imagine yourself as the doctor explaining to a father why a life saving cloning technique can't be employed to save his daughter, picture yourself using the "circle of life" reasoning and then geuss who's the jackass in that scenario.
Comments
<strong>
Would not use embryos for anything at all.
Our latest child, by the way, was diagnosed with a fatal defect that was supposed to cause death within minutes after delivery. She is now six months and fat, fat, fat! Not a thing wrong with her. Not her laughs, not her dirty diapers, her screams. Nothing wrong. Had we gone with our highly-intelligent, modern doctor's suggestion of abortion, I would have gotten a little more sleep at night, and missed one more important fixture in my life.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm glad to hear things turned out good. What was the name of the defect if I might ask? I take it from your answers that you wouldn't even use the chimp embryos even if the technique never resulted in a viable human embryo and your daughter (the very same one that you love right now) would definately die. (Here I'm presuming that you believe there might actually be some condition for which hope alone might not prevail).
<strong>
Human reproductive cells have only one purpose: to create a new and unique human life?not to create isolated tissues, organs, chemicals or anything else. You can make this argument outside the bounds of religion. Empirically, it is self-evident. Just as red blood cells have a specific and limited number of natural functions, so too do reproductive cells.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm afraid your making an implicit religious perspecitve in divining "purpose." I could just as well assert that my blood's "purpose" is to keep ME alive and, therefore, object to donating blood. I can say the same thing about interfering with the purpose of a virus. Who am I to use a vaccine?
[quote]<strong>
To take it upon ourselves to re-define the purpose of such cells ? so that biotech and pharmaceutical companies can make a mint ? is what irks me. They act as if they're crusaders for health, when what they are first and foremst is crusaders for cash. </strong><hr></blockquote>
And despite their greedy motives they still generate life saving treatments. But fine, let's assume all biotech companies are evil. What's to hold them back from their evil pursuits? The law, or more specifically U.S. Law? Push too hard and they'll move research off shore as they should.
On question #3:
[quote]<strong>
No.
And your implication of only one solution makes no sense. Why would an organ taken from a healthy donor of the same age and blood type (say someone who died in a car accident) be any less viable a solution than your ?manufactured? organ?
Further, your scenario is questionable at best (designed to support your point of view, rather than being a realistic example). If a person has been exposed to a toxic agent, to the extent that he/she needs a new liver or kidney (for example), it is quite likely they will need far more treatment (and perhaps transplants) than just one to live a normal life. Hence using your idea, multiple embryos must be created and destroyed (and who knows how many times) simply to create the organs and tissues needed (which by themselves don?t guarantee success).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moral dilemas don't have workarounds you have to face them on their intent. And yes there are real world scenarios for why someone would need the exact genetic match in a transplant. Say they had three previous transplants and in each case their body rejected it, or they have an allergy to the immunosuppressent medication.
If you want you can take another shot at this question (as it would seem you are hesitant to accept that you would have to let your daughter die). As for D- to clarify this scenario is meant to specifically avoid the objection that human embryos are destroyed. Since the DNA would be altered to specifically become the required organ BEFORE it was implanted in the chimp egg, it could never become a human.
As for question #4, I added a postscript in the original post to clarify that the cloned daughter would be a unique person. You seem to be objecting to what you perceive is the intent of the parents to bring back their daughter. What if there intent is simply to have another heriditary child and in this scenario their only option is to take one of the remaining embryos to term? If the parents are totally aware that the new child would be no less unique than if they had twins in the first place then what's the harm? Hell, what if they did have twins in the first place (implanting two instead of one of the split embryos)- you have a problem with that?
As for your question about how I would feel if I where the dead twelve year old who was cloned it would again depend on my parents intent. I certainly wouldn't deny them their right to reproduce.
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
<strong>
I'm glad to hear things turned out good. What was the name of the defect if I might ask? I take it from your answers that you wouldn't even use the chimp embryos even if the technique never resulted in a viable human embryo and your daughter (the very same one that you love right now) would definately die. (Here I'm presuming that you believe there might actually be some condition for which hope alone might not prevail).</strong><hr></blockquote>
We personally wouldn't use anything that is out of the ordinary. I feel immensely lucky that we batted 1000, because I know that others cannot. It also kind of scares me that we are so fertile, since we don't use pills/condoms and such. I forget off the top of my head what that diagnosed/predicted genetic malady was. I tried not to dwell on it at the time. My sister is the assistant that works with our OBGYN and they all thought it was pretty serious. But, we decided to go on even if the child only had 'minutes'. And, there was indeed some complications. But everything is fine now. The genetic marker was a reading that was in effect the opposite to down's syndrome, and is always fatal they said. I'll have to look it up again.
<strong>If you agree that no community (religious, political, scientific, or otherwise) is more adept than another at handling the ethics of a new technology such as cloning then why is the default position political (to legislate against) or religious (and in particular which religion)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you misunderstand...I don't think *any* governing body (scientific, religious, political or otherwise) can be trusted to always make the right choices and do the ethical thing where cloning is concerned. Hence it shouldn't be enacted as a standard medical practice for the purposes we've discussed. Someone will find a way to abuse it badly, so long as there is big money to be made (and there clearly is).
[quote]<strong> Furthermore, if your primary concern is that the technology is developed responsibly ,[s it [a] prudent move to force the technology to be developed without government oversight in off-shore locations?</strong><hr></blockquote>
People act of their own free will. We wouldn't be "forcing" anyone to do *anything*. All we can do, as a nation, is ensure that we do the right thing. If we ban something like cloning and some greedy off-shore bastards start their own lab, that is something they (and not we) are responsible for.
People are responsible for their own actions and decisions; we often forget that in America. It's always someone else's fault when something goes wrong. Just like we can't mandate laws across teh globe, we won't be able to mandate this either. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have a little ethical conviction and nip things in the bud (at least IMO) here in the U.S. Call it, "leading by example."
[quote]<strong>As for your contention that we as a people are to greedy for a healthy, longer life...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never said anything like that, please be careful when quoting me. As a common courtesy, you can see plainly I do the same for you. I doubt you misquote me intentionally, but this is a sensitive topic. It's hard enough for me to accurately put into words how I feel, without being misquoted....
[quote]<strong>The pace of science is unpredictable and it is entirely possible that more simple applications (cloned blood lines instead of organs) could be only a year away....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have three letters for you: F D A
Think ten years, not one. Example: they've had something as simple in concept as a male contraceptive pill for years in the lab. The only reason we don't have it in the pharmacy is because of the F D A bureaucracy and politics (not health reasons).
[quote]<strong>
One of the reasons you hear the word "promise" being used with regards to cloning is that provided we can make genetically identical cells and convert them into different tissue types (this part has already been demonstrated) there are most definately life savings applications. Their is absolutely no research that suggests that this cannot be a viable life saving technology. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The burden of proof is for you and your peers (to produce), not for me and mine. If you want to convince people like me cloning is the right thing to do, you have to prove (somehow) that the medical applications will be on par with all the "promises." Until then, forget it.
[quote]<strong>
There have been many demonstrations of repairing damage to spinal cords and alleviating hereditary diseases in mice. I'm not sure what your threshold is, but I believe it most likely has been met.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps, but even then only in part. Either way this issue is young enough in its roots that I doubt enough research and comparitive analysis has been done...such that we can say "if we can cure mice, we cancure people."
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
<strong>The only reason we don't have it in the pharmacy is because of the F D A bureaucracy and politics (not health reasons).</strong><hr></blockquote>Sorry to jump in, but there are two things you said that I wanted to take issue with.
First, the FDA doesn't take a long time because of bureaucracy. They take a long time because the studies take a long time, and the studies are necessary for, yes, health reasons. They have to prove the effectiveness of the drugs, and they have to prove that the drugs are not harmful.
As it is, the FDA is critcized all the time for allowing drugs to be sold that people say shouldn't have been because they didn't do enough studies on (children, women, people with x disease) and so they may be dangerous.
I never understand it when people criticize the FDA like this. ?? Especially because later you say: [quote]The burden of proof is for you and your peers (to produce), not for me and mine. If you want to convince people like me cloning is the right thing to do, you have to prove (somehow) that the medical applications will be on par with all the "promises."<hr></blockquote>Well, usually Congress doesn't pre-emptively outlaw procedures, which seems likely to happen now. Usually the research would be done in order to meet the burden of proof you want. If it's outlawed, that burden of proof can't be met.
Maybe I should've been a little more specific with regards to the male contraceptive thing. Basically . I've had numerous discussions with people (on the pharmacuetical side, and doctors as well) as to why something that should be so simple to evaluate and certify, is still years away from the marketplace. The answer, in short, was politics.
So while i agree the FDA must absolutely, on every clinical trial do a thorough job of evaluating a drug or treatment and its side-effects, etc...a lot of the time required for NDA's and such is because of red tape. Now you could argue that red tape is just a manifestation of how careful the FDA has to be during the drug review process...but some of it is just big government - plain and simple.
Sorry if what I said was confusing. I was merely trying to point out that there is no way in hell a [cutting-edge] medical procedure like cloning human tissues and organs would only take a year or two to clear through the FDA. It would take likely take 5-10 years, if not more...and that's after the years of R&D that would likely preceed such a clearance.
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
Forgive me if I make a mistake in summing up again, but I take it that you default into legislating against cloning because you do not think it can be developed responsibly by anyone and should, therefore, not be ventured into? Furthermore, even faced with the reality that the technology will be developed offshores (I happen to know of a few biotechs who have already had the foresight to establish foreign labs for this very reason) you feel the U.S. would be taking a moral stance, however ineffective, in halting such research here. Am I right?
As for my misrepresentation of your attitude about the pursuit for life extending technologies can you clarify on the simple point as to whether you or anyone else has the right to limit one's pursuit of additional life in the case of cloning and not in the case of antibiotics?
[quote]<strong>
I have three letters for you: F D A
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The delay argument still applies. More people die the longer the research is delayed even if it must (upon completion) go through even more delays. The net effect no matter how you slice it is delay = death. And no, I'm not talking about skipping important controls and safety protocols, but just uneccessary limitations on research. Also, given the nature of cloning there are a lot of applications for which it would be fastracked. If the only question is whether a genetically identical cell type has been produced, but all the subsequent techniques are already approved then their is only one question to be addressed.
As for the last thing about burden of proof, what do you require?
I fail to see the similarities between the two (cloning and use of anti-biotics) - either in how they were developed or how they are used. Not being sarcastic; can you elaborate on what is behind your question?
<strong>
We personally wouldn't use anything that is out of the ordinary.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So in answer to question #3 you would let your daughter die even if you could cure her with cloning and not destroying any human embryos? I'm a little thrown by the ordinary comment since at one time every medical technique was new.
You sound like someone who truly appreciates the joys of having a baby. If you don't mind could you tell me if you would object to less fortunate, inftertile couples using IVF (i.e. would you make it illegal if you could). And for that matter, to make this a little more personal, would you forbid me from doing any of the things in question #3 to save my own daughter?
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
<strong>
I fail to see the similarities between the two (cloning and use of anti-biotics) - either in how they were developed or how they are used. Not being sarcastic; can you elaborate on what is behind your question?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Take question #3- say you have two daughters. One is sick from an infection and needs antibiotics to live. The other 's situtation is as stated in the original question. You have the same options available including the one that doesn't require an human embryos to be used.
Presuming you will object as before because the monkey egg has a "purpose" let me ask if you would do the procedure if it involved a cow egg (ACT is actually using cow eggs for cloning experiments)? Make no difference, you say? Cow egg still has a purpose? Do you eat beef? Would you make it illegal to eat beef?
Ok, I had to edit in just to apologize for a hint of sarcasm there. But please consider the questions anyway.
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
<strong>
So in answer to question #3 you would let your daughter die even if you could cure her with cloning and not destroying any human embryos? I'm a little thrown by the ordinary comment since at one time every medical technique was new.
You sound like someone who truly appreciates the joys of having a baby. If you don't mind could you tell me if you would object to less fortunate, inftertile couples using IVF (i.e. would you make it illegal if you could). And for that matter, to make this a little more personal, would you forbid me from doing any of the things in question #3 to save my own daughter?
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm no expert on the question you posit. But anything destroying viable human life/tissue I would not use to help my daughter. I am, however, not up on all the particulars of cloning. I had read somewhere that a lot of medical knowledge was gained from Nazi butchers. That's unfortunate, and none of us here lent a hand in that. However, I would NOT throw away that knowledge gained, or other advances made from that knowledge. I'm sure this will fall out similarly. Advances will be made on things that I particularly would not do myself or condone, but if KNOWLEDGE (not tissue, etc) were advanced, I'd be hard pressed to toss it aside.
I do not voice any opinions to people doing things like IVF just because I don't need to do that. I do feel, however, that is a different ethical question altogether.
Free will is important. I would have no power in your decisions at all. But, depending upon the circumstances, I'm sure there are things I'd condone and things I would not.
I focus mainly on what I need to do to help my family, friends. Not what to prevent others from doing. How long have we had laws outlawing murder? Does that prevent someone from willingly killing? No. So, in the end, it's up to the individual. I make my choices and others make theirs. I'm mostly proud of my current state of decision making. However, like many, I have gone from one influence to another to get here. Everyone is at different stages in their progression in life, and I recognize that. Many people eventually flip 180 degress and perhaps even back again on topics. That's what life's all about. I make bad decisions everyday, but I try to learn from them and improve them.
But this area is so fledgling I think many of the assumptions have yet to be proven and won't be for quite some time. But it won't be me exploring this frontier, it WILL be someone else. I cringe at the thought of dozens of kids getting polio FROM the polio vaccine every year. But, knowing that it benefits many more helps even it out. There's always a balance to these things. The trick is in finding them, while respecting everyone else's right to oppose it.
JRC
<strong>
I'm no expert on the question you posit. But anything destroying viable human life/tissue I would not use to help my daughter. I am, however, not up on all the particulars of cloning. I had read somewhere that a lot of medical knowledge was gained from Nazi butchers. That's unfortunate, and none of us here lent a hand in that. However, I would NOT throw away that knowledge gained, or other advances made from that knowledge. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You hilight an interesting aspect of the way our "leaders" are approaching the issue of cloning. Every politician I see against cloning seems to agree that the technology will go forward elsewhere and that it most likely will result in life saving treatments. At the same time, few doubt that if true life saving treatments emerge that we will pass on them when that time comes. To me this is the very epitome of abdicating responsibility and a failure of leadership.
But seeing even further, it is most likely that using the information derived from embryo research we will one day be able to bypass the use of human embryos altogether (along the lines of the proposition I offer in #3C & D). From the perspective of people who think embryos should enjoy the same status as thinking human beings this would be morally equivalent to utilizing the Nazi data. We've seen such reasoning in effect already with Bush's cowardly solution to the stem cell dilema.
[quote]<strong>
Free will is important. I would have no power in your decisions at all. But, depending upon the circumstances, I'm sure there are things I'd condone and things I would not. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's all I ask. So long as you respect my right to determine if my daughter's life is worth more than a speck of cells I will respect your right to do the same (even if you conclude your daughter's life isn't). I would debate whether you are making a moral decision, but I would not presume the right to hold the force of law over you. Nor would I limit your reproductive options provided cloning had been carefully regulated to ensure it was as safe as traditional conception.
<strong>
....
Presuming you will object as before because the monkey egg has a "purpose" let me ask if you would do the procedure if it involved a cow egg (ACT is actually using cow eggs for cloning experiments)? Make no difference, you say? Cow egg still has a purpose? Do you eat beef? Would you make it illegal to eat beef?
Ok, I had to edit in just to apologize for a hint of sarcasm there. But please consider the questions anyway.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm. Are you perhaps trying to bring unrelated factors into the argument to cast doubt on my opinion about reproductive cells having one specific purpose? What does eating beef have to do with anything -- since the dawn of man, we have gathered plants and hunted other animals as a source of nourishment. I don't want to get into semantic arguments about vegetarianism here. Do you?
Just say what you mean and ask what you mean; don't give me all these convoluted examples. Is there something we don't know about antibiotics? Are they made with the assistance of cloning technology? Is that what you're getting at -- that we've been using a cloning-based medical treatment (antibiotics) for years but never knew it? If so, explain the relevant similarities to the treatments you are proposing. I honestly don't see any.
That is, I fail to see any real correlation between the use of cloning as we've described it -- creating human embryos for the express purpose of destroying it to create something else (tissues, organs, chemicals) -- and the use of traditional antibiotics.
Sorry for the delay...I forgot to come back here and post for whatever reason. No need to apologize for the sarcasm, I do it all the time.
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
Strider
<strong>
Hmm. Are you perhaps trying to bring unrelated factors into the argument to cast doubt on my opinion about reproductive cells having one specific purpose? What does eating beef have to do with anything?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now, your probably right that a few different issues have gotten mixed in here so let me see if I can "say what I mean" and separate them out.
To refresh- the scenario I presented was that your daughter was going to die without a transplant with an organ of an exact genetic match (as required because she was allergic to immunosuppresent drugs and had already rejected previous transplants). One option was to take your daughter's DNA, clone it into an embryo from another species (monkey or cow) and then add the appropriate growth factors to produce the required organ directly in culture.
The first issue is quite simple- under this scenario would you let your daughter die or would you clone the organ?
The second issue relates to this concept of "purpose" you evoke. To be blunt I think you are unintentionally making a theological argument. Purpose implies intent of design (by who?) and we are agreed (I assume) that one's subjective beliefs cannot be forced onto another. You may object to this characterization and instead suggest that even looking at the role of the embryo through a Darwinistic perspective one would conclude that the embryo's function is to grow into an adult. You'd be right in this observation, but you would be left with a whole new set of problems because the very role of technology is to make new (sometimes called unnatural) uses of things.
The scenario about using a cow embryo is really just to illustrate how difficult this course of reasoning is to justify. If you suggest that it is immoral to use a cow egg to save your daughter's life because it has a purpose then all other uses of the cow come into question. We use cows for food, for clothing, for decorating car bumpers (the bull's horns that is), for making glue, ice-cream, for teaching med students, and a bunch more uses I'm sure. I think you would have a hard time convincingly arguing why you would kill a cow to have tasty burger, but not kill one to save your daughter's life.
Lastly- I think I see where we are seeing cross-eyed on the issue about comparing anti-biotic use to applications of cloning. From your perspective you see a big difference between co-opting the defense mechanism of some slime molds and likewise manipulating for our benefit a specific subclass of human (and possibly even cow) cell types. I see no difference because I do not presume purpose for either. I propose a better question to get to the point of the matter. What if the technology became available to convert blood cells into neural cells and your daughter required a neural cell transplant to live? If your going to argue the "purpose" of things you cannot suggest that blood cells have a purpose to become neural cells. If you do, then the same applies for embryos.
[quote]<strong>
Sorry for the delay...I forgot to come back here and post for whatever reason. No need to apologize for the sarcasm, I do it all the time.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, take your time. I think we are the only ones kicking this thread around right now so there's no rush. That your willing to discuss it this long at least demonstrates that you are giving the issue a lot more thought than the knee-jerk "Your Playing God!" crowd.
<strong>I am not going to say anyhting about cloning but I do want to say somthing else to JRC. I applaud your descion on your baby. I look up to you now.
Strider</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know the exact nature of JRC's situation as he was unable to name the defect his daughter was at risk for so I am not able to speak as to the wisdom of his decision to go forward with the pregnacy. I'm glad, certainly, that things turned out well for him, but I would like to temper some of the irrationality regarding such matters. I think it is a dangerous message to always celebrate those who just hope for the best and go against reason (again, without more info, I can't comment on whether this is the case for JRC).
I know that when odds of 1 chance in 100 are given that means we will see the 1 in a 100 that beat the odds on the evening news and not see the other 99. For some conditions, this doesn't mean just the emotional suffering of the parents, but some defects assure that a child's only existing moments are excruciatingly painful. Some might think it more heroic to spare someone suffering, but that is the topic of a separate thread.
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
<strong>I am not going to say anyhting about cloning but I do want to say somthing else to JRC. I applaud your descion on your baby. I look up to you now.
Strider</strong><hr></blockquote>
I appreciate your reply. When we received the first word about that, it was really like a huge punch in the stomach. It just took our breath away. But, it only took, literally, a few seconds to know what we were going to do. It just reinforced in me that no man or scientific principle is infallible. And, that's all a distant memory now.
What a jackass.
"First do no harm." People die. This is something that you really have to accept - not just gloss over, before you understand why some can't justify cloning. People die. It's as natural a part of life as eating, yet it's sometimes regarded as something we should prevent. Certainly, I'd like to live a long life. But I'd never want another life to be ended or jeapordized (especially without consent) just to prolong my own. That's what my objection boils down to: I could never justify the destruction of a human for my personal gain.
<strong>
What a jackass.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your all over the place with this post so let me see if I can pick out anything worthy of addressing.
[quote]<strong>
"First do no harm." People die. This is something that you really have to accept - not just gloss over, before you understand why some can't justify cloning. People die. It's as natural a part of life as eating, yet it's sometimes regarded as something we should prevent. Certainly, I'd like to live a long life. But I'd never want another life to be ended or jeapordized (especially without consent) just to prolong my own. That's what my objection boils down to: I could never justify the destruction of a human for my personal gain. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's amazing how many people employ this "circle of life" mantra without bothering to address exactly how they know when it's proper for people to just accept death. Why is it, for instance, any more moral for someone to have an $150K heart transplant late in life which could otherwise go to saving hundreds from starvation in some third world country than it is to use a microscopic cell? What about someone in their 50's, 40's, 30's? Who the hell are you to judge when someone "should" accept death. And along those lines, who are you to decide that a single cell is worth more than a living, thinking human being?
Wait a minute, that was the whole purpose of the quiz! Answer the questions, justify your answers, and try using more convincing arguments than "What a jackass." Imagine yourself as the doctor explaining to a father why a life saving cloning technique can't be employed to save his daughter, picture yourself using the "circle of life" reasoning and then geuss who's the jackass in that scenario.
[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>