Last week the South Korean stem cell pioneer Hwang Woo-Suk publicly apologized after an official investigation found two female scientists in his laboratory donated their own eggs for his research on cloning. Woo-Suk was not in violation of any legal or ethical guidelines in his own country but violated a international consensus against using eggs bought or donated from women who might be “coerced.” The scientific community was shocked to find that one of their own would resort to unethical means in order to conduce unethical research. As Ronald Bailey writes, “Ultimately, Hwang's ethical offense is not using purchased eggs for his research. Hwang's real scientific crime is that he lied about it.” Apparently, international bioethics has adopted the Watergate Standard – the cover-up is always worse than the crime.
Bailey worries that this scandal could derail the creation of the World Stem Cell Hub that was announced just last month. But such fears are unfounded. Biotech researchers are not about to let ethics stand in the way of their research and as long as they can convince governments to fund their projects they will find ways to circumvent the ethical concerns raised by their work.
I work for a bioethics think-tank whose mission is to provide a Christian perspective on the murky questions about healthcare, stem cells, cloning, and the other issues that we must fact as we move into the 21st century. Unfortunately, our task is mostly in vain for even Christians are willing to reject Biblical-based moral reasoning in favor of a bottom-line utilitarianism. “Sure, we’re destroying embryos and yes they are human beings but what if cloning can lead to cures for diseases?” No moral argument is likely to change the opinion of someone who clings to such hypothetical pragmatism.
If ethical arguments aren’t persuasive, what else is left to do? How do we convince people to change their beliefs about such issues? Economist David Cox may have the answer. “Economics provides a simple, almost trivial sounding, answer,” says Cox. “Believe something when the benefits of believing outweigh the costs, otherwise don't.”
Believing a falsehood is not necessarily a dumb or crazy thing to do. It may well be the smart choice. After all, the truth is costly to unearth, so having more of it means having less widgetry and everything else; if we spent all our time checking facts there'd be no time left to earn a living, go to the beach, sleep. People don't live by truth alone, they need money and fun too, and sometimes they can't have more of everything.
The idea that holding a false belief could be more beneficial than believing the truth appears somewhat counterintuitive. But consider the case of therapeutic cloning, an issue where a great number of Americans (including evangelicals) have chosen to remain ignorant of the truth. It might appear that their belief costs them very little. In fact, if there is a potential for diseases to be cured from the discoveries using the cells harvested from embryos, then their ignorance may even be beneficial.
But what is the real cost of therapeutic cloning? Like Dr. Woo-Suk's peers, most people would be surprised to find that the people advocating the unethical research aren’t above resorting to unethical means – particularly lying – in order to get what they want. But let's examine the true cost per cure if cloning is sucessful.
Cloning is achieved by a technique referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). The process involves introducing the nuclear material of a human somatic cell (donor) into an oocyte (egg cell) whose own nucleus has been removed or inactivated, and then stimulating this new entity to begin dividing and growing, yielding a cloned embryo; from this embryo stem cells could be harvested.
Creating the embryos needed for individualized treatment requires obtaining a sufficient number of human eggs. Cloning efficiency with animals has been in the range of 20 to 30 percent, requiring about fifty eggs per animal treatment. Whether this number can be reduced even lower remains to be seen but we’ll use an even dozen for our example. Normally women only release one egg per cycle but with the use of ovarian hyperstimulating drugs such as Pergonal, the number can be increased to around ten. In other words, to obtain one dozen human eggs we would need 1.2 women to undergo one cycle of fertility treatment.
In our search for cures, let’s limit our focus to a disease like diabetes, which affects approximately 16 million Americans. At the rate of one "carton of eggs" per person we would need 192 million eggs -- 19.2 million donations -- just to cure this one disease throughout the population. The 2000 census reports that there are approximately 60 million American women of reproductive age so we will need 1 out of every 3 capable women to agree to undergo an uncomfortable, painful, and potentially dangerous procedure in order to provide cures for this one disease.
But let’s assume that we can find enough women willing to risk ovarian cysts and cancers, severe pelvic pain, rupture of the ovaries, and possible negative effects on future fertility in order to undergo the treatment required to harvest the eggs. Currently, Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS) occurs in about 1 of 100 women who are given ovarian hyperstimulating drugs. Based on this number we can assume that 1.9 million will suffer from OHSS, a condition that causes rapid accumulation of fluid in the abdominal cavity, chest cavity, and heart and produces symptoms and outcomes such as severe pelvic pain, nausea, vomiting, weight gain, ovarian enlargement, respiratory problems, blocking of blood vessels by blood clots, and liver dysfunction. A generous estimate is that only 19,000 of them will die in the process.
This type of risk will naturally keep the cost of a carton of eggs relatively high. If we use the going rate of $5,000-15,000 per cycle, we can estimate that the cost will be between $96-288 billion dollars just to provide treatment for those who suffer from diabetes. Are we likely to pay such a high cost in lives and money in order to treat one disease?
"The so-called therapeutic cloning to my mind is a non-event," said Alan Trounson, a world expert on embryonic stem cells, in the journal Nature Medicine. As a way of creating cures, he observed, "it's just not realistic." Jose Cibelli of Michigan State University concurs: "I can predict that therapeutic cloning is going to be obsolete.”
Currently, believing that therapeutic cloning will lead to medical treatments is a relatively "low stakes" (unless, of course, you happen to be an embryo -- or are a taxpayer in California). But the price of remaining ignorant will increase exponentially as Congress and state legislatures begin shaking us down in order to line the pockets of biotech firms with risk-free venture capital. Choosing to believe that human embryos are not worthy of moral status comes at a low personal cost. Believing that creating and then destroying embryos for research will lead to cures for diseases, however, will cost you plenty.
(Source: Dr. Pia Francesca de Solenni, Ph. D., In Search of Treatments Through The Cloning Process: How the Hunt for Eggs Exploits Women)
Related posts: The Bioethics of Therapeutic Cloning: A Brief Primer on the Issues
1
That's a fairly effective approach for talking to folks who aren't spooked by the methodology itself.
The problem comes when the technology of coming up with the cells needs less eggs per try; then, the pro-cloning folks have an easier sell.
posted on 11.29.2005 5:53 AM2
“Sure, we’re destroying embryos and yes they are human beings but what if cloning can lead to cures for diseases?”
I've never actually heard anyone make this argument. Can you provide links? Typically, the pro-cloning argument seems to be:
"Sure, we're destroying embryos, but they aren't human beings, and what if cloning can lead to cures for diseases?"
Then the anti-cloning side argues that they are human beings. The pro-cloning side disputes the critique, and the neverending debate ramps up again.
posted on 11.29.2005 8:46 AM3
But what is the real cost of therapeutic cloning? Like Dr. Woo-Suk's peers, most people would be surprised to find that the people advocating the unethical research aren’t above resorting to unethical means – particularly lying – in order to get what they want. But let's examine the true cost per cure if cloning is sucessful.
As you cited, though, the rest of the community called him out on lying despite the fact that they are generally supportive of the research.
Cloning is achieved by a technique referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). The process involves introducing the nuclear material of a human somatic cell (donor) into an oocyte (egg cell) whose own nucleus has been removed or inactivated, and then stimulating this new entity to begin dividing and growing, yielding a cloned embryo; from this embryo stem cells could be harvested.
Notice what didn't happen there, no sperm and egg joining. No fertilization, which the orthodox pro-life community has been drumming into our heads since 1973 is the defining moment when a new human beign is created. Why should we get upset at the above? You make it sound like it is obvious what is going on is unethical despite the fact that no real argument has been presented either way. I'm not ignorant of the fact that the above may (since no one has tried it yet there's no way to be sure it can really be done) create an embryo that could be carried fully to term and be born as human as you or I. Yet at the same time the above does not meet the definition of new life that pro-lifers have been expousing on this list (that includes fertilization, the creation of a distinct DNA code and so on). Needless to say your assertion about 'Biblical based' views of the above is a stretch. The Bible says nothing directly about this. To derive any 'Biblically based' views would require a great deal of interpretation and it's hardly fair to expect everyone to give you a blank check to do that as you please without any disagreement.
In our search for cures, let’s limit our focus to a disease like diabetes, which affects approximately 16 million Americans. At the rate of one "carton of eggs" per person we would need 192 million eggs -- 19.2 million donations -- just to cure this one disease throughout the population. The 2000 census reports that there are approximately 60 million American women of reproductive age so we will need 1 out of every 3 capable women to agree to undergo an uncomfortable, painful, and potentially dangerous procedure in order to provide cures for this one disease.
1. Pretty shoddy science. You assume that a cure would require individual donations from each patient. There's no reason to assume that the process couldn't be greatly accelerated and substitutes found if its worthwhile. Any engineer knows that 'proof of concept' or demo versions of a product are more expensive and difficult to produce than a mass produced product.
This type of risk will naturally keep the cost of a carton of eggs relatively high. If we use the going rate of $5,000-15,000 per cycle, we can estimate that the cost will be between $96-288 billion dollars just to provide treatment for those who suffer from diabetes. Are we likely to pay such a high cost in lives and money in order to treat one disease?
2. If I'm reading your fantasy land version of economics correctly, you're estimating $15K per cure of diabetes? Considering the long run cost of the disease that's probably more economical than you imagine. There are quite a few drugs today (called biologics) that cost in that range because of how difficult they are to produce and many of them only treat, not cure!
3. If this was the case what would probably happen is that the 'clone therapy' treatment would become a botouquie medical procedure. Not unlike laser surgery to correct bad vision rather than contacts or glasses. A few insurance companies would cover it & it would be paid for by those willing to bear the cost. Would some demand taxpayers to cover the cost for some? Of course but as you pointed out such a policy would have to be measured against its benefits. Diabetes can be effectively treated today with insulin & drugs & lifestyle management. As pharma companies are pumping more drugs into the pipeline (and current ones fall off patent into generics) they would be competiting with a super expensive 'clone therapy' option.
4. Of course that would provide all the more incentive for clone therapy to find ways to reduce its costs. Today the emphasis is on simply trying to see if it can be made to work.
Currently, believing that therapeutic cloning will lead to medical treatments is a relatively "low stakes" (unless, of course, you happen to be an embryo -- or are a taxpayer in California). But the price of remaining ignorant will increase exponentially as Congress and state legislatures begin shaking us down in order to line the pockets of biotech firms with risk-free venture capital. Choosing to believe that human embryos are not worthy of moral status comes at a low personal cost. Believing that creating and then destroying embryos for research will lead to cures for diseases, however, will cost you plenty.
Is this really the type of ethical reasoning a Bible think tank produces? Basically your argument boils down to "if the cure to cancer is really expensive we shouldn't do it". IMO you should develop your ethical argument which is pretty shaky and poorly developed before you go off trying to make an economic argument that is even more nonsensical.
posted on 11.29.2005 8:56 AM4
This is a pretty good argument against therapeutic cloning right now, and if nothing changes, then it suggests that bioethics think tanks may be a waste of money and effort -- the market will prevent widespread cloning no matter what happens.
However, it occurs to me that the first draft of the human genome cost something like 150 million dollars and took 15 years. The technology has improved dramatically, and many genome scientists expect that in a few years, resequencing individual genomes will cost only a few thousand dollars and take a couple of weeks. If cloning technology improves in a similar fashion (cultured eggs? meiosis in a petri dish?), then ethical arguments will be more important than utilitarian ones, and bioethics think tanks will still have a raison d’être.
posted on 11.29.2005 9:14 AM5
BTW, today's WSJ states that the annual spend on diabetes products is $7B. If you consider that only captures products (drugs, test strips, monitors etc.) and not doctor visits, operations, lost wages, etc. the annual spend on diabetes is probably closer to $14B-$20B per year.
Using Joe's numbers, being able to cure diabetes for $96-$288B looks pretty cost effective. Without using any sophisticated computations, the low end of Joe's estimate would be recovered in less than half a decade and the high end in only 20 years. Less than the term of a typical mortgage.
The moral remains if you can barely do ethical analysis well stay away from economic analysis!
posted on 11.29.2005 10:11 AM6
Mark The problem comes when the technology of coming up with the cells needs less eggs per try; then, the pro-cloning folks have an easier sell.
The example I used sort of jumped ahead to when cures were already available. Just to get to that point would require millions of eggs and would take years. Even with a one-to-one ratio, though, there will never be enough human donors. The only possible solution would be for them to be able to clone embryos without the need for eggs but that is almost too creepy to think about.
Nick I've never actually heard anyone make this argument. Can you provide links?
Admittedly, it is an extrapolation from polling data. A 2004 Harris Poll asked the question: “"Stem cells come from embryos left over from invitro fertilization, which are not used and normally destroyed. Many medical researchers want to use them to develop treatments, or to prevent diseases, such as diabetes, Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease. On balance, do you think this research should or should not be allowed?"
A majority (58%) of “born-again” Christians and Catholics (67%) thought it “Should be allowed.” These groups are historically “pro-life” but seem willing to set that aside when it’s convenient.
Boonton Notice what didn't happen there, no sperm and egg joining. No fertilization, which the orthodox pro-life community has been drumming into our heads since 1973 is the defining moment when a new human beign is created.
While sperm and egg are the most common way of creating human life, it is not the only way. No one claims that the embryo that is created by cloning isn’t a human embryo; they just claim it is not a person.
Why should we get upset at the above? You make it sound like it is obvious what is going on is unethical despite the fact that no real argument has been presented either way.
I don’t think a new argument needs to be presented every time we discuss destroying human embryos.
Yet at the same time the above does not meet the definition of new life that pro-lifers have been expousing on this list (that includes fertilization, the creation of a distinct DNA code and so on).
Yeah, actually it does. The process of cloning mimics fertilization. The only difference is that normal conception occurs by sexual means while cloning is asexual. What pro-lifers find significant about fertilization is not that it is special in itself but that it is the initial stage of human life. Also, a cloned embryo has a distinct DNA code just like all human embryos.
Needless to say your assertion about 'Biblical based' views of the above is a stretch. The Bible says nothing directly about this. To derive any 'Biblically based' views would require a great deal of interpretation and it's hardly fair to expect everyone to give you a blank check to do that as you please without any disagreement.
I don’t expect them too. But I do expect people to be consistent. If a pro-life Christian believes that an embryo should not be aborted then they should also be against embryos being created for destruction.
1. Pretty shoddy science. You assume that a cure would require individual donations from each patient.
Um, that’s kind of the whole point of using individual stem cell lines. Why would we need cloning if we could create one-size-fits all cures?
2. If I'm reading your fantasy land version of economics correctly, you're estimating $15K per cure of diabetes?
Sure, if it were a straight-line cost of 15K then it would be a deal. But that is not how the process works. It will cost billions of dollars just to get it down to that range per person.
Is this really the type of ethical reasoning a Bible think tank produces? Basically your argument boils down to "if the cure to cancer is really expensive we shouldn't do it".
My argument is not that it will be expensive but that it is logistically impossible. Remember we are talking about needing 1/3 of all woman of reproductive age to undergo a dangerous procedure merely to find a cure for this one disease.
7
Joe,
Thanks for the excellent post. I'm on the local board of a sister organization, the Center for Bioethics and Culture. I've linked to your post at my blog. I think the financial argument is helpful, but not primary.
Those who are fixed on the particular numbers Joe has suggested are missing the larger point - this is only one disease that would require inordinate sums of money and a prohibitively large number of eggs to cure. Don't forget to factor in human suffering and death among the female donors, as well as moral concerns about creating and destroying human life for research purposes.
Embroynic stem cell research has cured nothing to date, while adult stem cells have provided successful treatment for dozens of diseases. Why the rush to pour billions into unproven and morally questionable science when the same resources could be expanding the successes of adult stem cell research?
And Boonton, Christians have until recently focused on fertilization as the beginning of life because there was no technology to create life otherwise. You conveniently miss the point - what we're talking about is human life. That's why people in favor of stem cell cloning support "Clone and Kill" bills requiring that the life created be destroyed - because if left alone, that embryonic life will grow to become a mature human being.
8
While sperm and egg are the most common way of creating human life, it is not the only way. No one claims that the embryo that is created by cloning isn’t a human embryo; they just claim it is not a person.
From a Christian perspective the key issue would seem to be that pro-lifers have argued that fertilization by sperm & egg is when a new soul is created. To destory or damage those cells before that happens is not destroying or damaging a human beign, afterwards it is. From there isn't it a stretch of faith to say a new soul must be created when a skin cell nuclus is put into an unfertilized egg? How about when only some of the DNA in the donar cell is put in? I've also read that an alternative form of research involves 'regressing' cells backwards to the stem cell point but it appears that if you keep pushing the 'reverse button' you can end up regressing a normal cell all the way back to the point where it can be implanted as an embryo!
Also, a cloned embryo has a distinct DNA code just like all human embryos.
Err are you sure about that? From what I've read from you it would sound like the cloned embryo would have the DNA code of the donar cell that was used to make it. In fact it would be the exact same DNA rather than a combination of two different sets of DNA that happens in fertilization. What type of clone would it be if it had a different DNA code?
Um, that’s kind of the whole point of using individual stem cell lines. Why would we need cloning if we could create one-size-fits all cures?
That assumes the cells necessary to cure diabetes are so personalized that they would require each patient to essentially produce a few clones of themselves. One the other hand it may turn out being more like blood types. A blood bank doesn't need to keep individual blood units for each unique patient but maybe a half dozen or dozen different types are sufficient for just about all patients. Likewise it may be that a few hundred different lines are more than sufficient to treat nearly all diabetics.
Sure, if it were a straight-line cost of 15K then it would be a deal. But that is not how the process works. It will cost billions of dollars just to get it down to that range per person.
OK, so then the cost of curing all diabetics would double from the $96-$288B range you cited? The payback range would go from 5-20 years to 10-40 years. Still pretty good from an economic point of view.
My argument is not that it will be expensive but that it is logistically impossible. Remember we are talking about needing 1/3 of all woman of reproductive age to undergo a dangerous procedure merely to find a cure for this one disease.
An irrelevant point. Donating bone marrow or a kidney is a potentially dangerous procedure & not very easy for the donar...yet that has hardly made the development of such transplants economically unviable.
If it really comes down to it that the only way to make this work for everyone is to get 1/3 of all women to donate eggs then the economics of the situation will find the right balance.
9
And Boonton, Christians have until recently focused on fertilization as the beginning of life because there was no technology to create life otherwise. You conveniently miss the point - what we're talking about is human life. That's why people in favor of stem cell cloning support "Clone and Kill" bills requiring that the life created be destroyed - because if left alone, that embryonic life will grow to become a mature human being.
What we're talking about is the habit of assuming the conclusion rather than making an argument. You're telling me that putting a full set of human DNA into an unfertilized egg cell will create a new human being yet you're not really telling me why. When this issue comes up with abortion one of the main arguments used is that fertilization creates a unique set of DNA different from the mother and father. Yet here that is not the case. So a major element of the argument is different here yet not only your but a person working for a 'bioethical think tank' is telling us to just gloss over the issue here and assume the conclusion.
If you read the updates on the Presidents bioethical committee over on Slate.com you'd know that one of the ideas being tossed around is putting an incomplete set of DNA into eggs. This would be sufficient to induce the egg to divide a few times but not enough for it to grow into a full grown babie even in theory. Is this solving the ethical problem or purposefully creating humans with horrible deformaties that won't even let them grow past 8 or so cells?
10
Joe:
Admittedly, it is an extrapolation from polling data.
Interesting results. An alternative explanation might be that the stem cell polling data accurately reflects the view of "pro-life" Christians on the nature of early embryos, while their stance on abortion is also influenced by disapproval of the perceived immorality of women who have unwanted pregancies.
Or perhaps, the polling data reflects honest confusion rather than utilitarianism. Perhaps people really are unsure whether a blastocyst is a human being.
posted on 11.29.2005 11:37 AM11
Interesting. But short sighted. Arguments like these may be compelling, but they will never provide the healing which our poor culture and the persons within it really need; here, we need to refer to a comprehensive statement on the dignity of the human person in light of a Christian anthropology. This is where we Evangelicals need to be referring to RC bishop's statements, and be grateful for them.
God calls to the human person from conception to natural death; therefore, the human person has an inviolable right to life at each and every stage of his development...
posted on 11.29.2005 12:26 PM12
It's sad that at the core the problem is an inability for the two sides to try to understand each other. I think, though, that this failure is exhibited more on the 'pro-life side' than the research one.
Isn't it interesting how medical research devoted to finding cures and treatments to life destroying diseases are casually lumped into the moniker of 'the culture of death'...as if scientists want to engage in this research just as some type of exotic hobby.
Strictly speaking a 'right to life' can mean nothing more than a right not to be killed by the government without due process. Traditionally the government can only guarantee not to infringe upon your rights, it can't guarantee you a 'right to food', a 'right to a living wage', a 'right to a home' etc. Of course as a society becomes wealthier a gov't may be able to provide these things since it has the power to tax and spend but the 'expanded rights' cannot be as binding as fundamental rights.
If you accept a place for 'expanded rights' then any sensible definition of a right to life also must carry with it a moral duty to try to find ways to cure or at least treat threats to life.
Therefore if Joe & others are wrong and set the restrictions on this type of research too high they will be enacting an immoral policy because it will interfere with the moral duty to persue life saving research. Trying to pretend this isn't a problem by a trumped up 'proof' that such research couldn't produce an economically viable cure anyway is simply not sufficient.
I see here a lot of people who want to pat themselves on the back for having the 'correct' moral position but very little concern for morality. I see very little in terms of a serious attempt to ensure that it isn't Joe's policy that is really the immoral one.
posted on 11.29.2005 1:07 PM13
You're telling me that putting a full set of human DNA into an unfertilized egg cell will create a new human being yet you're not really telling me why. When this issue comes up with abortion one of the main arguments used is that fertilization creates a unique set of DNA different from the mother and father. Yet here that is not the case...
The argument against abortion and ESC research is not based on the mother and child having different DNA. In the case of abortion, that is evidence demosntrating that the fetus is not the "woman's body." I think most pro-lifers are concerned because of the intentional creation and destruction of human life. The process used in SCNT is exactly the same to create a living clone - the only difference is killing the embryonic life before it can develop.
Isn't it interesting how medical research devoted to finding cures and treatments to life destroying diseases are casually lumped into the moniker of 'the culture of death'...
Who's said that here? Nice straw man.
Strictly speaking a 'right to life' can mean nothing more than a right not to be killed by the government without due process...
Fair enough. So you're opposed to destroying embryonic human life, then?
If you accept a place for 'expanded rights' then any sensible definition of a right to life also must carry with it a moral duty to try to find ways to cure or at least treat threats to life.
Whoa. How did "right to life" become an ethical mandate to find cures? You accuse pro-lifers of setting too many restrictions on research and thus being uncaring. What cost are you willing to pay? If it's a moral duty to find cures, why not confiscate everyone's property and income to fund research? Why not make everyone become scientists?
And if you're going to defend ESC research on the basis of "right to life," what about the human life you are destroying in your search for cures? Why not build off the multiple successes of adult stem cell research? Why funnel billions into unproven and morally questionble research? Or are you just an open-minded risk-taker? I'll bet you're less sanguine about the explantory power of intelligent design, which I hear has explained as much as ESC has cured.
I see here a lot of people who want to pat themselves on the back for having the 'correct' moral position but very little concern for morality. I see very little in terms of a serious attempt to ensure that it isn't Joe's policy that is really the immoral one.
I don't see anyone patting themselves on the back except you, Boonton. Of course if you define "morality" as an absolute duty to find cures, I suppose you win. But traditionally, Christians have argues that we may not do evil that good may result. Many people are concerned that creating and destroying human life falls into that category. Is it possible that you could give pro-lifers the benefit of the doubt that we don't hold our positions out of some supposed moral superiority or out of callousness to human suffering, but because we care deeply about the most vulnerable members of the human species?
It's sad that at the core the problem is an inability for the two sides to try to understand each other. I think, though, that this failure is exhibited more on the 'pro-life side' than the research one.
For someone who complains about others not wanting to understand the opposing views, you're doing a pretty good job of it yourself. You might begin by not portraying yourself as the only person with compassion or ethics.
posted on 11.29.2005 2:31 PM14
Medical cures for diseases achieved by science do not advance the spread of religious belief.
Unexplained recoveries from disease, on the other hand, do advance the spread of religious belief.
Like it or not, these incontrovertible facts leave their impression on these sorts of debates.
posted on 11.29.2005 2:43 PM15
Pastor Jeff
But traditionally, Christians have argues that we may not do evil that good may result.
Really? Huh. It doesn't seem that way to me.
Please try to remember that the discussion is about whether any activity that prevents a capable human cell from becoming a human being is "evil".
If cloning embryonic stem cells is not "evil," then your Christian tradition is not relevant.
What does the Bible say about cloning embryonic stem cells?
If it's a moral duty to find cures, why not confiscate everyone's property and income to fund research?
It's really funny to hear self-identifying Christian types make these kind of arguments. Some folks really do live in a vacuum.
Ever heard of the National Institute of Health, Pastor Jeff?
Has the NIH accomplished anything worthwhile in your opinion, Pastor Jeff?
Where does the NIH get its money, Pastor Jeff?
The greatest irony is that Christian opinions on these issues might actually be given some credence if other prominent self-identifying Christians hadn't proven themselves to be pathetic ungracious liars willing to kill innocent human beings by the thousands to achieve some ill-defined "good".
So much for the "right to life."
posted on 11.29.2005 2:57 PM16
Whoa. How did "right to life" become an ethical mandate to find cures? You accuse pro-lifers of setting too many restrictions on research and thus being uncaring. What cost are you willing to pay? If it's a moral duty to find cures, why not confiscate everyone's property and income to fund research? Why not make everyone become scientists?
1. A 'right to life' would imply a duty not to stand in the way of people finding cures. If, for example, I stand in the door of a pharmacy and refuse to let a diabetic fill her insulin prescription am I not violating her right to life (assuming this results in a life threatening situation before anyone can intervene)? Or are the only ways you can violate a right to life is by going to an abortion clinic or siding against Terri Schiavo's parents?
2. I didn't say an ethical mandate to find cures but a moral duty to try to find them. As with all 'expanded rights' these have to be balanced against other rights plus the fact that we have limited resources. Nonetheless at a minimum it would require one to oppose the gov't from preventing private research. I think I was very clear about the difference between fundamental rights which in theory can be unlimited and 'expanded rights' which by definition are limited by the resources of society.
3. My position stands and I don't think you've really articulated any real disagreement other than to try to distort my position or roll out strawmen. Setting the bar too high and forbidding research that could save lives can be just as immoral as setting the bar too low.
I don't see anyone patting themselves on the back except you, Boonton. Of course if you define "morality" as an absolute duty to find cures, I suppose you win. But traditionally, Christians have argues that we may not do evil that good may result.
That basically blows Joe's post out of the water. A shoddy economic argument designed to appeal to the most base of people's financial motives (think of what your taxes would be if we found a cure to diebetes that cost $15K per person!) isn't, according to your statement, a way to try to get good results (which I assume you mean convincing people to support an ethical research policy). As for patting themselves on the back, most of the posts here have been the same thing over and over. 'We define human life as this, no questions need be entertained'.
The argument against abortion and ESC research is not based on the mother and child having different DNA. In the case of abortion, that is evidence demosntrating that the fetus is not the "woman's body." I think most pro-lifers are concerned because of the intentional creation and destruction of human life. The process used in SCNT is exactly the same to create a living clone - the only difference is killing the embryonic life before it can develop.
1. Perhaps you're new here, whenever abortion comes up the unique DNA argument is almost always trotted out as an argument for considering fertilization the moment that full human life begins. If that's not a valid argument then can we dispense with it when abortion comes up or is it only a valid argument when it is useful to support an ideologically based position?
2. Obviously here the unique DNA argument strongly implies that the clone is the woman's body (or the body of the donar or both).
3. That the 'process' is the same does not show that the result is the same. I've pointed out how proposed modifications to the process meant to satisfy pro-lifers (such as only inserting a portion of the donar's DNA) leave very large gapping questions open.
And if you're going to defend ESC research on the basis of "right to life," what about the human life you are destroying in your search for cures? Why not build off the multiple successes of adult stem cell research? Why funnel billions into unproven and morally questionble research? Or are you just an open-minded risk-taker? I'll bet you're less sanguine about the explantory power of intelligent design, which I hear has explained as much as ESC has cured.
1. Again you assume your conclusion.
2. You missed the part where I meantioned that 'regressing' human stem cells can bring them to a point where they will grow as an embryo. Simply turning to adult stem cells does not resolve the moral questions.
3. Who ever said we shouldn't build off the successes of adult stem cells? Who ever said we should funnel billions of tax dollars into this research? The question of how much (if any) funding this type of research should merit in comparision to all the other types of research out there is totally off topic. AS for private dollars I presume to let the market decide how much money to funnel into all the various types of R&D.
4. Needless to say intelligent design is nonsense but I never said anything about the prospects of ESC to produce results. I only pointed out that Joe's assumptions & estimates were nonsense.
For someone who complains about others not wanting to understand the opposing views, you're doing a pretty good job of it yourself. You might begin by not portraying yourself as the only person with compassion or ethics.
I don't recall writing that I was a person with compassion or ethics but I thank you for the compliment. While I don't consider myself exceptionally lacking in compassion or ethics I'm not going to be so arrogant as to claim I'm exceptionally compassionate or ethical compared to everyone else. I think you're doing a pretty good job at revealing the lack of communication and respect exhibited in too much of the discourse on this subject. Why the intense need to make this personal by trying to rank me in light of what you think my personal qualities of ethics and compassion are?
posted on 11.29.2005 3:25 PM17
Larry,
Your response is so convoluted, illogical and irrelevant one doesn't know where to begin. All the same, kudos on your masterpiece of non sequiturs, straw men, ad hominems and reudctio ad absurdum.
No, I've never heard of the NIH. What is it? All Christians are opposed to all medical research because it undermines faith and all we care about is saving souls and inculcating blind, unreasonable faith.
I'm not sure who the pathetic, ungracious Christian liars are, willing to kill thousands of innocents in the name of of some "good," but that's an ironic comment in a thread about destroying human life in order to find cures for disease.
posted on 11.29.2005 3:38 PM18
Pastor Jeff
Way to go! You managed to avoid addressing any of the straightforward questions I posed to you.
So it seems to be that the case that you're not here for discussion, but merely to blow hot air and "pat yourself on the back."
What a surprise.
I'm not sure who the pathetic, ungracious Christian liars are, willing to kill thousands of innocents in the name of of some "good,"
Really? You have no idea who I might be referring to?
that's an ironic comment
You got one thing right.
If it's a moral duty to find cures, why not confiscate everyone's property and income to fund research?
Wow, look, you're strange statement is still up there in the comments even though you pretend to have never made it.
Funny how that works, Pastor Jeff.
Welcome to the real world where interested people ask hard questions and expect thoughtful answers.
posted on 11.29.2005 4:01 PM19
There is a sort of Christian think tank on bioethics already: The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity in Bannockburn Illinois. Trinity International University also has educational programs in Bioethics at its Deerfield Illinois campus, and by extension at its California campus. The California campus also has a California bar accredited law school that offers many bioethics related electives. So there are Christians working up these issues.
posted on 11.29.2005 4:25 PM20
Boonton,
Sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusions regarding your argument. You seemed to be saying that Christians are being immoral and unsupportive of "right to life" because we stand in the way of research. That portrays your position as the "moral" one and makes any mutual understanding or discussion difficult. And it seems that you were in fact patting yourself on the back for being more caring and understanding.
Of course it's possible to cause harm by setting the bar too high. Christians are hardly unaware of human suffering. Simply saying that we have a moral duty to find cures is inarguable, despite Larry's sarcasm. Pro-lifers are unwilling to sacrifice unconsenting human life to help others. Size or level of development is not what makes us human.
It seems that you were talking about some of the more recent developments such as ANT. If you are using only part of an embryo and not destroying it, that certainly makes it less problematic. If you're intentionally modifying an embryo to make it non-viable, I think that raises other concerns. We are in very difficult territory here, and as you point out, the more science advances, the more complicated the issues become. I would say that anytime you have an embryonic cluster that left to itself could develop into a fully-formed human, then that is human life deserving protection.
So if you "regress" adult stem cells to the point of creating embryos which could develop into fully-formed human beings, at that point you've created human life which should not be intentionally destroyed for the sake of another.
As far as DNA goes, that the mother and child have different DNA is significant supporting evidence that the embryo is not the mother's body. That the SCNT embryo has the same DNA as the donor doesn't make it the donor's property any more than identical twins belong to each other. If the embryo develops into a fully-grown human, will you still maintain it is property?
And we are talking about limited resources. Joe raised an economic argument which I think is a good secondary point. If we had unlimited time and money, we could do everything. I think it's fair to raise the issue of successful, morally neutral adult stem cell research. People are calling for additional billions in tax revenue to be spent on embryonic stem cell research which has cured nothing to date. And Joe raised valid economic and ethical concerns about the feasibility of expanding embryonic stem cell treatments even if we could get them to work.
posted on 11.29.2005 5:17 PM21
Larry,
I would answer your "straightforward" questions if I could figure out what they were or find them in the midst of all the bitter invective and sarcasm. Which questions were straightforward? The ones about the NIH? I answered those as they deserved. The one about the Bible? I don't remember mentioning the Bible. Why are you bringing it up? Do you trust it as a source of wisdom or for its moral authority? Would you give biblical arguments any serious consideration?
How exactly have I pretended not to have made a comment? Boonton argued that we have a moral duty to find cures. A moral duty implies that not doing all in our power to fulfill our duty is immoral. Saying "moral duty" allows Boonton to sound caring and moral, while anyone who stands in the way or suggests limits is immoral. Or was Boonton's point simply a throw-away line? The context clearly suggests that Christians aren't willing to do enough to find cures. I simply took his point to a silly extreme to demonstrate that there are always limits, and setting limits is not uncaring or immoral. The disagreement is over what the limits should be. What's your point?
posted on 11.29.2005 5:37 PM22
Pastor Jeff
I simply took his point to a silly extreme
Yeah, you sure did. It's amusing that you seem to think only you are allowed to do so. When others do the same, you attack their "bitter invective and sarcasm."
Let's be clear: I'm not bitter. I am sarcastic. But so what?
I don't remember mentioning the Bible. Why are you bringing it up?
Um, perhaps you've forgotten already your wishful-thinking that:
traditionally, Christians have argues that we may not do evil that good may result.
Pardon me for linking Christianity and Bible!!!
I thought that was a reasonable connection to make, Pastor Jeff.
If the Bible doesn't tell you what is "evil," then how do you know what is evil and what is not, Pastor Jeff?
If the Bible does tell you what is evil, then my question about the Bible's position on embryonic stem cells is very relevant.
Perhaps you attack me because you do not know the answer to my question, or perhaps you do know the answer but the answer displeases you.
People are calling for additional billions in tax revenue to be spent on embryonic stem cell research which has cured nothing to date.
Or, you might say that "people are calling for additional billions in tax revenue to be spent on scientific research which has led to cures and treatments of untold number of human diseases and disorders in the past century."
Right, Pastor Jeff? You could say that and I would take you seriously because you and I both know that the National Institute of Health and the grants it provides to scientists in this country have saved or improved the lives of millions of men, women, children and -- yes -- unborn children in this country.
It's called "honesty" Pastor Jeff. It's called facing reality. It's called acknowledging indisputed facts.
At the end of the day, such facts are all that matters. Whether the deity worshipped by "Christians" will be angered by embryonic stem cell cloning is not particularly relevant to rational debates on the subject.
I would say that anytime you have an embryonic cluster that left to itself could develop into a fully-formed human, then that is human life deserving protection.
There are no "embryonic clusters" that develop into fully-formed humans if "left to themselves."
Never were. Never will be.
But go ahead and re-define the phrase "left to themselves."
You won't be the first one to engage in that sort of sophistry.
posted on 11.29.2005 7:16 PM23
And we are talking about limited resources. Joe raised an economic argument which I think is a good secondary point.
How much money are we spending every day to kill people in Iraq?
posted on 11.29.2005 7:18 PM24
Sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusions regarding your argument. You seemed to be saying that Christians are being immoral and unsupportive of "right to life" because we stand in the way of research. That portrays your position as the "moral" one and makes any mutual understanding or discussion difficult. And it seems that you were in fact patting yourself on the back for being more caring and understanding.
I'm not sure why this is so difficult. I'm saying that standing in the way of research without a good reason to is immoral. I think on this we both agree. My point is that what gets lost here is that only one side of the moral question is receiving attention; what types of research are immoral. You can't adopt a cover your ass type position by just drawing the line far to the side restricting research.
It seems that you were talking about some of the more recent developments such as ANT. If you are using only part of an embryo and not destroying it, that certainly makes it less problematic. If you're intentionally modifying an embryo to make it non-viable, I think that raises other concerns. We are in very difficult territory here, and as you point out, the more science advances, the more complicated the issues become. I would say that anytime you have an embryonic cluster that left to itself could develop into a fully-formed human, then that is human life deserving protection.
What seems to be happening here is that any cell in either an embryo or (with great help) in the human body can create a full blown human beign if 'left to itself'. In this context I'm not sure what left to itself really means since any attempt to 'salvage' a cloned embryo and bring it to full term would require a lot of technological help.
As far as DNA goes, that the mother and child have different DNA is significant supporting evidence that the embryo is not the mother's body. That the SCNT embryo has the same DNA as the donor doesn't make it the donor's property any more than identical twins belong to each other. If the embryo develops into a fully-grown human, will you still maintain it is property?
The irony is that it is literally the donar's DNA. Not a copy of it but the exact DNA that not a second before it was plucked from the donar fully belonged to the donar. It's as if you took a CD out of my CD player, put it in yours and declared it not longer my property!
And we are talking about limited resources. Joe raised an economic argument which I think is a good secondary point. If we had unlimited time and money, we could do everything. I think it's fair to raise the issue of successful, morally neutral adult stem cell research. People are calling for additional billions in tax revenue to be spent on embryonic stem cell research which has cured nothing to date.
True but this is a different topic. Even if we could somehow agree that stem cell research was 100% ethical that doesn't mean the checkbook pops open and we start writing. There's lots of ethical research competiting for funding and it would have to justify itself against those. Unfortunately, that debate I suspect is beyond both of our levels of scientific knowledge to really conduct here.
posted on 11.29.2005 8:34 PM25
Just when the conversation gets interesting the asshole Larry pops up and derails the whole thing with his disjointed rants. Its bloody tiresome to scan past his crap everytime. Isn't there some filter the host can attach to save us the trouble?
26
Ivan
Just when the conversation gets interesting the asshole Larry pops up and derails the whole thing with his disjointed rants.
I didn't derail anything.
Fyi, please see the Christian Critique of Swearing Thread immediately below this one.
posted on 11.30.2005 1:00 PM27
It's a very nice website you're having here. when Round Expect Stake Hedge: http://www.macromedia.com/ , Astonishing Chair Loose or not when Chips Destroy Circle Anticipate , Beautiful Mistery Destroy or not Good, Industrious, Greedy nothing comparative to Bad
posted on 12.07.2005 12:36 AM