Excellent Personal Story and PD recap [Archive]

paula_w

03-03-2007, 10:07 AM

Phyllis used to be the restaurant critic for the Washington Post for more than 30(?) years I think.

FROM: Washington Post
40 Years Later, Still No Cure

By Phyllis Richman
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page B03

Mamie Lieberman was a dynamo. Born just before the 20th century, she raised five children in Camden, N.J., scraping by while her husband bought and sold wholesalers' leftovers and disappeared for long stretches. It was Mamie who put the family on a stable financial footing, though not until her children were grown. She was past 50 when she started selling odd lots of shoes to her neighbors. Within a few years, she had opened a series of seven stores, in New Jersey and the Washington area -- employing both of her sons and two sons-in-law.'

I was Mamie's oldest granddaughter, so my perch was at her side. With her purse inevitably tucked under her arm like a baguette, Mamie could sweet-talk a customer into buying another pair, survey every corner of her store while never letting the cash register out of her sight and set aside the best shoes for her 15 grandchildren in just the right sizes -- or close enough that a wad of tissue or thinner socks would make them wearable.

But she wasn't a shoe mogul for long. By the time she was 70, she almost never left the house. She couldn't dress herself. She spent her days sitting on the sofa, her face expressionless and nothing moving but her hands, which trembled constantly. She had Parkinson's.

I have it, too. When the disease was diagnosed seven years ago, images of my immobilized grandmother filled my mind. But she had the illness 40 years ago, before polio was wiped out, when tuberculosis was still a common worry, and malaria was just yielding to DDT (which was still considered a great help to society). Medicine was far different in Grandma's day. I have an arsenal of medications to control my symptoms.

But one thing hasn't changed. Unlike polio, TB and malaria, Parkinson's still can't be prevented or cured. Forty years ago, patients were told that a cure was probably a decade away. I heard the same hopeful estimate seven years ago, and I hear it today. But unless something happens soon to speed up the search for new treatments -- more aggressive federal funding of stem-cell and other scientific research, for instance, and a more streamlined approval process for new drugs -- then my ultimate fate will be no different than it would have been in 1960.

My disease did not start like Mamie's. My astute internist first sent me to a neurologist because of my handwriting. It had always been small and tight, but what concerned him was that it was getting worse.
Micrographia, it turns out, is a common symptom of Parkinson's. I had almost no tremor -- the symptom that most people associate with the disease -- but as I read about the disease, I realized I had a lot of symptoms that I'd never considered more than unrelated quirks. I had trouble getting up from a chair, getting out of bed and even turning in bed. My voice had grown softer, and I was increasingly clumsy: I tended to trip and fall so often that my knees were perpetually scraped. Putting change in my wallet was awkward and slow; at supermarkets and pharmacies, I could feel the impatience of shoppers behind me.

Fortunately for my job as a restaurant critic, the disease hadn't robbed me of my sense of smell, as it does many people. But I was beginning to look less than respectable when I tried to eat spaghetti or use chopsticks. After taking notes during interviews, I had to rush home and immediately try to transcribe them, sometimes needing a magnifying glass. And then there were the days when I nearly fell asleep at lunch with my face in my mousse. Driving terrified me.

I devoured the Web sites of a dozen Parkinson's organizations and signed on to chat lines and e-mail group lists. First I sought an understanding of the disease and its treatments. Parkinson's primarily affects a part of the brain called the substantia nigra, and by the time it is diagnosed, the disease has killed about 80 percent of those cells. They supply the brain with dopamine, the chemical messenger responsible for directing and coordinating movement, including autonomic functions such as sweating and swallowing. In early Parkinson's, a person doesn't typically swing her arms when walking, at least on the affected side (eventually both sides become affected). Walking itself becomes erratic.

In advanced stages, Parkinson's causes freezing -- as if you're glued to the ground -- and slow and halting steps, or sometimes uncontrolled running as if you're going downhill with no brakes. Because I am at an early stage, I can walk well for half a block (on a good day), and farther with a cane, which also keeps me from falling. My situation is complicated by an intermittent back problem (Parkinson's doesn't prevent you from experiencing the other health challenges associated with growing older).

As my body has taught me, the really knotty part of this disease is its unpredictability. The day-to-day symptoms are as variable as Washington's weather, and the progress of the disease has no predictable pace. I've met people who've had it for 34 years and are still living independently. Others, who have had it for just a few years, need medication every couple of hours, and some already feel their minds becoming as undependable as their tremulous hands.

I take pills -- one to seven of them four times a day -- to the tune of $12,500 worth a year, not counting vitamins, blood-pressure medication and such. As I inevitably worsen, I'll be taking more pills and more kinds, more often, until I'm on what looks like a newborn's feeding schedule.
At some point, the medication will create its own problems. The dopamine pills that unlock my rigid body every day often cause dyskinesias (jerky, writhing and uncontrollable movements), and their effectiveness will wane as I desperately await the next dose. Parkinson's medications commonly cause sleeplessness or sleepiness, weight gain or loss, hallucinations and compulsive behaviors including, for some men (I know this one is hard to believe), uncontrollable gambling. Twenty to 40 percent of us can expect to become demented. As though this weren't depressing enough, among the typical early symptoms that lead to diagnosis is depression, a chemical effect of the disease that can manifest itself at any stage. More and more I realize that medical advances are making my early stages easier than Grandma's were, but without some quick breakthroughs my fate is going to wind up identical to hers.

More than 1 million Americans share this dismal future with me, and 40,000 to 60,000 more join us each year. Not all are senior citizens; though the average age of onset is 57, 15 percent of people with Parkinson's (PWPs, we call ourselves) receive the diagnosis before age 50, some as young as 18.

A million doesn't put Parkinson's at the top of the disease hit parade. Nevertheless, this is an expensive disease, partly because people live with it for so long. On an individual scale, nursing care costs can be astronomical, and the newest brain surgery, in which a kind of Parkinson's pacemaker is implanted, can cost $100,000. On a national scale, the disease has been estimated to cost $5.6 billion a year, including treatment, disability pay and lost income. That figure is expected to climb steeply as baby boomers reach prime Parkinson's age.

Why have there been so few Parkinson's advancements since my grandmother's day? That moves us from the world of medicine to the world of politics, with a detour into the realm of consumerism.

With a mere million sufferers, Parkinson's is not worth the risk for pharmaceutical companies to sink big money into unexplored territory. There's a surer profit in developing another variation of a successful drug than in creating a new kind of drug, for which the clinical trials are not only apt to be more expensive, but the chance of failure runs higher and the approval process is likely to take longer. Thus, among the newest Parkinson's drugs, I can choose Mirapex or Requip, which serve the same purpose. Presented as a major accomplishment are levodopa pills that dissolve under the tongue, in case the patient has no water on hand. Quick-acting injectable drugs, and delivery by patch rather than by pill-- those are today's breakthroughs. They are neat tricks, definitely useful, but I'd much rather be offered a wider range of treatments than a choice of brand names.

Of course, as a patient, I don't have much say in the matter. Or do I? If there is one person who will deserve credit when this disease is eventually cured, it will most likely be my fellow PWP Michael J. Fox. In seven years -- since just about when my Parkinson's was diagnosed -- he has raised so much money that, with matching grants and joint projects, he has directed $90 million worth of Parkinson's research. His public presence has brought Parkinson's great attention and a sympathetic response.

Fox also has been a charismatic representative of "patient power," a growing factor in this disease and the reason I am going public now. Parkinson's patients have developed Web sites, such as http://www.pdpipeline.org (http://www.pdpipeline.org/), that track clinical trials and drugs in the pipeline. Patients have been significant players in conferences, have spoken out about and to drug companies, and have rounded up subjects for clinical trials. They have been increasingly effective as lobbyists; during the annual legislative forum of the Parkinson's Action Network in early February, PWPs fanned out for 250 meetings with their states' Senate and congressional staffs in one day. At the evening reception it was announced that the Parkinson's caucus, which last year numbered about 80 members, had that day alone received more than 80 calls from legislators seeking to join, doubling its size.

The next frontier for Parkinson's is political. Private enterprise can't afford the expensive next steps, so promising drugs wait years to be tested. Nor can the public coordinate progress the way a government body can. Research is shooting off in myriad directions and someone should make sure that the branches are in communication. What is too costly for private enterprise can turn out to be action the government can't afford not to take.

Politics is particularly obvious in the issue of stem cells. By now, embryonic stem cells -- the thousands of leftovers from in vitro fertilization -- have become merely a symbol. It's not that they are so sacred that they are being cared for and protected; rather, they are defrosted and disposed of. Medical waste has more respect than sick people, for whom stem cell research could prove promising for many debilitating diseases if it had sufficient government funding. This is not a matter of preserving the life of cells, but of preferring to consign them to the dump rather than the test tube.

To limit federally funded research to adult stem cells is not a viable solution. The search for a cure requires both. Story Landis, director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, was unequivocal when questioned in a Senate hearing recently about how the federal policy on stem-cell research is affecting medical research. "We are missing out on possible breakthroughs," she said. The ability to work on newly derived stem-cell colonies, currently precluded from federal funding, "would be incredibly important."

On Jan. 11, which would have been the 95th birthday of Mamie's eldest daughter (my mother), the House voted 273 to 174 to expand embryonic stem-cell research. It wasn't enough to override a presidential veto, but it was 18 votes more than identical legislation won last year. The Senate vote on stem-cell research is expected in the next few weeks. Feb. 28 was Mamie Lieberman's birthday. She was a gentle, patient woman, but fiercely protective of her children and grandchildren. I know just the right present for her.
richmanp@bellatlantic.net (http://javascript<b></b>:parent.ComposeTo('richmanp@bellatlantic.net', '');)

Phyllis Richman, a freelance writer, is former restaurant critic for The Washington Post and the author of three culinary mysteries, including "The Butter Did It" (HarperCollins).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030202034.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030202034.html)

vlhperry

03-03-2007, 01:46 PM

Firstly, your article mentions that the author is a restaurant critic and her smell has not been affected. No effect on the olfactory system is common to those with genetic mutations. Since there is also a history in the family of Parkinson's disease, the author more than likely may have a genetic form of Parkinson's Disease. The Author might consider going to Athena Diagnostics and having a Parkin gene test completed. The author could be a helpful candidate in the area of genetic research. By having the test, if the author proves to have a mutation, he/she could be helpful by providing researchers more gene information to discover a cure for not only patients with a genetic cause, but also those with idiopathic Parkinson's. Parkinson's disease is not caused by genetics, but if researchers can discover a commonality between exposure of a toxin or commonality of stress, for those with genetic mutations, it will also present a strong piece of evidence of what causes idiopathic Parkinson's disease.

To date, evidence suggests the best treatment approach to helping those with genetic mutations is DBS surgery, which will help by decreasing the patient's need for meds.

The three diseases the author lists in her article, Tuberculocus, Polio and malaria are all caused by parasites. Either the author is stating that the the cure for Parkinson's is as simple as discovering a parasite, or she is comparing apples and oranges. The brain's blood barrier would be pretty tough to penetrate for a parasite. Today's scientific society is advanced enough to have picked up a parasite if the answer was that simple. It is precisely the complexity of the brain and the blood brain barrier that a cure has not yet been developed. Yes, I was told 15 years ago that a cure would be found in 5 years. I was told the cure would be found through stem cell research. How many years and how many billions of dollars do scientists need to continue to insist researching stem cells is the answer to curing Parkinson's disease?

Just curious, is there a relationship between the author's grandmother and Dr. Lieberman or is the same last name just coincidence?

The tissue used from couples who have chosen to use invitro fertilization is the responsibility of the parents. More and more couples are choosing to try this route because they want a family or the wife is a professional who wants to put off childbirth until her late 30's or 40's, after her career is established. If a couple is unable to bear their own children, the embryos are provided to give them an opportunity to fulfill their need to be parents.

The children born iare a gift from God to teach us how to nourish, love, and give fully of ourselves until we have taught the child to be self sufficient . In turn, the children, if properly nourished by their parents, will also have children and the skills learned to help their parents when they are elderly and need help. Children were never meant to be a right for every married couple and certainly not frozen as embryo's so the parent's may choose to have them implanted when it is convenient for the parent's to raise them, or to implant in a surrogate mother. Because the technology is available, does it mean it is correct to use it?

Children are left home alone after school while both parents go to work. Children are fatherless or motherless, forcing mothers or fathers to work with no energy to raise the children with the love they need. We were the me generation. The current generation are the rights generation. Fortunately, some of the current generation are more intelligent than our generation and see the problems that are a result of putting "me" first and are working to counteract our actions.

No one has the [B]right[B] to bear children, it is a gift. Children are not material objects that we have a right to own when it is convenient for us; Nor are they born to meet our needs. They are born for us to serve. They are human beings, who when born are totally helpless and dependent on their parents for nurturing. Young girls are having children in High School before they are prepared themselves to raise children not because they want the child: they want a child because they lack the love they never received themselves as children. Seems a heavy burdon to place on a helpless infant.

When society accepted the premise that children are a right, rather than a gift, and accepted the method of freezing embryo's they opened a Pandora's box. Only a human embryo can grow to be a human person. It is in the genes of the embryo. Now society is willing to go another step down the easy path and choose to demean what it means to be human by denying the human embryo the right to life, because the adult values his life more than the gift of life in the embryo.

If this is not evidence that the devil is a real entity at work in our society, I don't know what is. Man is fallible, and will rationalize what is immoral in society to be moral when he wants it bad enough. Is the answer to man's mistake to continue to meet out needs by benifiting from the mistake or to refuse to participate in the results of the immoral act?

I was repeatedly sexually abused by my father. Would it be right for me to use this fact to abuse my children and blame it on the fact that it was the only way I knew how to be a parent? No, I must hold myself to a higher standard of knowing what is right and what is wrong and change the behaivior. Society, however, would excuse any behaivior I engaged in, ie., had I chosen prostitution, drugs, etc. because I was driven to it by a bad childhood. Society would encourage me to make my father pay for his actions by sending him to jail or fining him in a court settlement.

The devil is hard at work tempting us to believe we are not responsible for either societies actions or our individual acts. Looks to me like he is winning.

Vicky

reverett123

03-03-2007, 02:42 PM

glad to see it
-rick

paula_w

03-03-2007, 02:59 PM

I didn't post it for the stem cell part - I liked her story and especially liked the fact that she "gets" the whole picture" about treatment development, including what a patient can contribute.....plus she mentioned us.....lol

It's a recap not an opinion of stem cells, or at least that was what I was thinking.

paula

jeanb

03-03-2007, 03:28 PM

Agree - it's the author's history with the disease, plus her grandmother's story that makes this riveting. Great post.

Radioguy

03-03-2007, 03:48 PM

This may not be a popular opinion --

If the "devil" is at work here, it's my opinion that "work" involves convincing otherwise well-meaning people that it's a "sin" to use the knowledge we've been given to pursue scientific solutions to the problems that face mankind.

The leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization are destroyed anyway.

Not a single baby has been "saved" by the government's refusal to increase funding for stem cell research.

I don't know if there's a cure to be found in embryonic stem cell research or not. I do know -- beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that if we don't look, we won't find it.

Ms. Richman's article was excellent, and I've written to her to thank her for it.

vlhperry

03-03-2007, 04:30 PM

I will have to assume you read my post Title and not the entire post. The only part of my post you chose to comment on was the stem cell issue. I also started my first post with discussion of suggestions the author could do to learn more about her illness and how she might be able to help the entire Parkinson's community.

I suggested in the next paragraph what most studies have stated about those with the genetic portion of PD and what is considered the most effective treatment today. I did not tell her she should do any of my suggestions, but only attempted to share some of the studies I have read.

I do not agree with the majority of Parkinson's patients that the one of the most important political issues is finding the cure for Parkinson's disease. I wouldn't even consider it one of the top ten. I watch the news at night and see the conditions that the cultures in Africa and the Middle East live in, hear stories of how many Americans are without healthcare, and the poor scores of our American students and how the American education system is suffering in comparison to the education received in other countries. I do not spend my time complaining about my Parkinson's disease and the quality of life I lead. I have educated myself to understand the nature of my disease and accept what today's scientific community is able to offer.

If you think Parkinson's Disease is the most important political issue, I would suggest you spend some time in the inner city schools of some of America's largest cities, where the majority of the students are immigrants who have come to America to escape a life of sub-human conditions. I am fighting a case of pinworm, from spending time at such a school, volunteering to help students learn music, an international language.

I do this on my good days which are getting farther and farther apart. But as long as I can contribute to society I will. And on the days I can't I will be grateful for those who return to me what I have tried to give to others.

Since many of you like poetry on this site, let me remind you of a poem you probably heard in elementary school. It has had a big impact on my life.

Robert Frost (1874–1963). Mountain Interval. 1920.

1. The Road Not Taken

TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth; 5

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same, 10

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back. 15

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Love,
Vicky

paula_w

03-03-2007, 04:45 PM

;) Vicky,

Why don't you write to Phyllis Richman and feel her out about how much she knows about genetics. She said it was because of patient involvement that she is "coming out."

Who better than you?

paula

Radioguy

03-03-2007, 07:03 PM

vlhperry

03-03-2007, 07:11 PM

Dear Paula,

As you said in your post, "plus she mentioned us," so I assume she will read the post, and no doubt, since she admits to reading them in the past, would be hard put to have missed the subject in the past.

Who better than me? Just about anyone on this forum. I am known and disregarded on this forum, because of my prolife beliefs. As one poster wrote, "If the "devil" is at work here, it's my opinion that "work" involves convincing otherwise well-meaning people that it's a "sin" to use the knowledge we've been given to pursue scientific solutions to the problems that face mankind." Radioguy. Therefore I must be considered a kook, and everything I am should be disregarded. I know you mean well, Paula, but I tend to be cursed by emotional potshots by persons like above.

How many of the people who posted on this site ever participated in a Parkinson's walkathon, even those with relatives who have Parkinson's disease (discluding caregivers, obviously they are involved because of their carepatient) before their diagnosis? The author admits to waiting 7 years to come out. Now that she is having difficulty working it has become a priority for her. Same for Michael J. Fox, God love him, who abused his subscription drugs, in an effort to keep his illness a secret. It has left him suffering now more than need be. I understand Parkinson's disease will eventually kill me. But I won't let it change me, including my spiritual beliefs.

When I work with the children, and they see me shaking, I explain why. They tend to assume I am afraid and I need to reassure them that I am not to get their full attention. I have the support of the teachers throughout the schools I volunteer at as well as the principals.

Were more of us to allow ourselves to be seen in public places, as volunteers, instead of attending congressional conferences and seeking power, like so many other lobbyists, the American people may be more aware and sympathatic to our problems.

Love,
Vicky

reverett123

03-03-2007, 07:43 PM

I had to think awhile before writing this and I'm still not sure what I will say. Your pain is so great that there is little I can do from here other than to care about you. It's not much and I wish I could do more. But it is sincere. Perhaps it will help. =Rick

Radioguy

03-03-2007, 09:47 PM

Vicky...

You said... "Radioguy. Therefore I must be considered a kook, and everything I am should be disregarded."

One more time -- point to anything I wrote that indicates that.

I'll say it one more time. I think that people who want to enforce THEIR religious beliefs on ME are standing in the way of research for a cure.

Are you one of those people? If you are, then you have to justify that in your OWN mind. If you think that the embryos left over from in vitro fertilization are BETTER scraped into the garbage than being used for research, I'd love to hear your rationale for that.

Your pain is no greater than anyone else on this forum. I'm merely stating my opinion. And, as you will see if you go back through my posts, my comments were not, were not, were NOT directed at you personally. When I posted my original comment on the subject, I had no idea what your stance on stem cells was. I do now, however, and I think you are wrong. And I think that because people who believe the same as you have the ear of the President, this important research is years behind where it SHOULD be. I get to think that. It's my opinion. This is America.

Be well, be happy. I know you've been abused as a child. I know you have issues. I know everything I know from reading your posts. Having been raised by loving parents, I can not begin to imagine your pain. But I also know this is a bastard of a disease and I am willing to do anything -- ANYTHING -- to help find a cure or at least better treatments. You have a right to believe whatever you want to believe. But when your beliefs get in the way of curing MY disease, I get a little cranky.

I'm sure you are a lovely person, and I hope you will accept my comments in the spirit of commonality in which they are offered.

Thelma

03-03-2007, 11:36 PM

I don't believe for one moment Vicky has not influenced my thoghts on stem cell research. It is one thing to have a belief in them and another to hear what the belief of the other side is. All of us have to decide what we feel is best for us and insure we make that decision known.

Disease is not a gift from a god it is a curse of man.

We need her to keep our morale up while I don't share her views on stem cell research I share many of her other views.

Respect her and we respect ourselves for the fight to regain control of our lives is out there somewhere for us to find.

vlhperry

03-04-2007, 01:29 AM

Dear Rick,

Please do not think I am in pain over past issues. My use of the childhood abuse example was to make a point, not to invite sympathy. That was a pain I dealt with years ago, and have put behind me. Just as I have also come to terms with living with Parkinson's disease and accept what current science has to offer rather than request the American people fund a cure for my disease.

The American people are already pounded by TV ads requesting funding for Lupus, MS, Breast Cancer, other cancers, Heart Disease, diabetes, cystic fybrosis and too many other diseases to mention. Americans have been so saturated by ads meant to pull at their sympathetic heartstrings, that they now turn off when the requests are made. They have families to feed, their own health crisis's to deal with, children to clothe and educate. They are not at fault anymore than I am.

I look at the disease as an opportunity to discover the strength of my beliefs. I believe if there was a way the American people could help people like ourselves they would do it at the drop of a hat.

Rick, your sensitivity is deeply appreciated as well as Thelma's, who seemed to be closer than any other response to my post; to understand my right to state my opinion as respectfully and thoughtfully as I am able. Thank you Thelma.

Radio Guy and Jean,

"I'm wondering where in my post you saw me suggesting that PD was the most important political issue" Please explain to me where in my post I addressed your remarks at all in my first responce. As I recall the article summarized by Paula, about which I was posting, mentioned the view of the author that the cure for Parkinson's disease lay in politics and that the private research industry does not have the money or desire to research for a cure.

If the "devil" is at work here, it's my opinion that "work" involves convincing otherwise well-meaning people that it's a "sin" to use the knowledge we've been given to pursue scientific solutions to the problems that face mankind."

Hitler, who considered himself a well meaning dictator, perceived the Jewish race as something to be exterminated for the good of the German people. He almost succeeded exterminating a race of people who have given great gifts to the world as a result of their culture. Hitler's justification is no different than that for using embryonic tissue. The Jewish people were treated like lab rats because the Hitler regime deemed that the Jewish people were not really human like the rest of white Europeon society. He did not succeed because the rest of the world saw the evil of Hitler's argument and chose not to accept it by conquering his regime. The knowledge learned from the research on Jewish victims of the holocaust was either destroyed or locked away and deemed not feasible to be used due to the methods that were used to get the scientific knowledge. One example was a research test which immersed Jewish holocaust victims in cold water and monitor them until death to discover how long Hitler submarine divers could survive in the cold waters. Even science can be expected to adhere to ethical standards, with or without Christianity intervention.

"I'll say it one more time. I think that people who want to enforce THEIR religious beliefs on ME are standing in the way of research for a cure.

Are you one of those people? If you are, then you have to justify that in your OWN mind."[B]Are you telling me to keep my views to myself? [B]" If you think that the embryos left over from in vitro fertilization are BETTER scraped into the garbage than being used for research, I'd love to hear your rationale for that. " Are you asking me to speak about my views?

Obviously, I cannot change your athiest beliefs, nor am I trying to. I am exercising my right of free speech to disagree with the majority of persons on this site. As Theresa stated, I am not trying to persuade anyone that my view is the right view, only that my view is different and equally has the right to be seen and discussed.

You tell me you never called me a kook, however, the dripping sarcastic tone in your post as quoted above is as disrespectful as if you had called me a kook. You are aware of the nastiness of your abusive post by trying to explain it away; "But when your beliefs get in the way of curing MY disease, I get a little cranky. Funny, I thought we all had the same"bastard of a disease". What isn't funny is that one Parkinson patient feels he has the right to belittle another Parkinson patient for having different beliefs. Not to mention another, supposedly more experienced patient, thanking him for his belittleing behaivior and encouraging it further.

Vicky

steffi 001

03-04-2007, 03:23 AM

Oh gosh...I hope my post doesn`t inflame this situation.I truly don`t wish it to and sincerely hope that it is received in the spirit with which it was written.I wish you could all hear my words rather than read them,for you would know my voice is gentle as I speak these lines.A fault of the written word is that they are unfortunately unaccompanied by facial expressions,physical gestures and sounds...so I know from personal experience how innocent remarks can be so easily misinterpreted.

Firstly,when I read the original post I found it to be a concise and beautifully written account of life with this condition...simply that...and personally didn`t feel any part of it leapt out at me enough to evoke any personal beliefs or issues. That is not to say that those amongst us,who are passionate about certain ethics are wrong in airing their views.They so rightly have the privelege to make a comment and put their opinion forwards.

But it saddens me so much when wrangles are publically aired.Perhaps private mail is the kinder alternative for discussing, and hopefully healing misconstrued phrases.I am just trying to be sensitive here to all involved,including those people who may be hanging around in the background,plucking up the courage to join us.

This site is my sanctuary...and whilst I accept there are bound to be confrontational issues,and human nature drives each and every one of us into a situation where ,if we feel "wronged" we need to put it right.. we so often behave rashly,forgivably so.

Vicky,I have to hold my hand up and say that I am guilty of not fighting the PD cause until it affected me.My family,too,whilst being compassionate to others,be it poverty,disease,loneliness...whatever,PD didn`t feature in their minds until I brought it into the home.This is not a reflection of selfishness.It is simply life and I so admire your depths of belief and your courage to stand up and fight for them.I too ,as a teacher was upfront with my children,they monitored my handwriting and gave me marks out of 10 after I had written the date on the chalkboard. Sadly I have since been forced to retire.I am sure we are all in the public eye at some point during the day/week/month but not all individuals are able to deal with this exposure as well as others.
Maybe it is something we can help each other with ,here on this forum.

But as a Christian,I need to say this.I so have the desire to make right all the wrongs in the world,the inner cities,the orphans,the homeless,the drug abusers.I too,wish that we could live a whiter than white life,where all our decisions were pristine,and squeaky clean.But we are not God.We can only do our own little bit as best we can to alter some small part of the world,and that is being realistic.And we are all going to keep on making mistakes,and be faced with unsavoury choices at times.That is life.REAL life.

Also ,I must add that at my church a few years ago,we had 2 speakers.They were condemning the use of stem cells.I looked over at my beautiful daughter,an ideal candidate for PD and I was blazing."How could these two healthy people stand up there and brainwash folk with their opinion" was my reaction and I left the meeting.
No...I don`t believe in life being taken simply as a means to help one sector of the public,but scientific progress made with a sensitive and as ethical approach as is possible,is surely not wrong providing there is no suffering.

After all...didn`t God make the biggest sacrice EVER? By allowing the untold suffering of His beloved Son...when I see the harrowing scenes of a crucifixion I really struggle with this issue.
Vicky...I still as a parent find it hard to get my head round that one.

Finally,and sorry..I didn`t mean to say as much as this,whilst I believe in life,all life...the best quality of life that one can have....I will also shock some folk by admitting this.
I will fight to the bitter end with this disease...but one thing is for sure.When the quality of my life is no longer evident,I have made up my mind that THAT is the time I will "go home."
This too is against the Christian grain...but I believe that actions ..any actions...committed with the most loving,best of intentions,are to be forgiven,accepted,respected.

Yes..I am proud to have a faith in God ,but I know too,that being a Christian does not make me able to fix it all,behave always in a saintly manner,be all things to all folk,make me whiter than white.And it scares me,that those who don`t have a belief,may perceive those who do in a bad light,if we project this image that our lives and thoughts are untainted.They are SO not.The bible is my blue print for my day to day life...but hell...it`s a struggle at times.And I fail so miserably...so often.

I am human.

x

paula_w

03-04-2007, 04:32 AM

There will not be agreement about this issue, and I think many are torn about it. I'm not convinced it's the answer, but it's coming - and needs to be regulated. I do have doubts about mixing our cells, and doing something that "invasive" to our bodies.

There will be many experiments (aka clinical trials) to attempt these novel treatments and I am focusing my energies not on the ethical issues of the materials used, but in the ethics of treating patients humanely, to recognize the human participant element vs the animal subject. I've stopped arguing the moral issue, and settled for "I don't know, but I'll stay educated." If someone is going to be brave enough to do something highly invasive to find a treatment for me, I want that person and the treatment to be regarded for the importance of what is learned, not how much profit can be made, although the race is on for future business interests.

If embryonic stem cell research is successful, then the real decision has to be made, and that is pretty far down the road. Because I do have faith in a higher being, I think that the answer will come in a biologically delivered manner. It will either work or it won't. It's just too hard of an issue for me to ever come up with an ethical answer that would apply to everyone.

Big pharma is not happy to be where it is...it always wants more and to get bigger....it's' greed. They are never financially satisfied; must always show growth. Many injustices take place because of too much emphasis on the business end and not enough on the human end.

Besides all that, we each have a vote. We don't know whether either view is right or wrong because we really don't know if cells are meant to help us or if destroying an embryo is "killing" in the eyes of whomever will "judge" us - as in a person's religious beliefs. I do know that both sides are entitled to their opinion and to vote. The vote will decide the issue, and the choice is ours - that applies to both Christianity and democracy.

It's hard for me to figure out why we are put in this position - of having to try to morally figure this one out. My conclusion is we can't - it will be a biological conclusion first, then a personal decision. Perhaps the real ethical judgement will result from how we arrived at our conclusion, and not so much the conclusion itself.

paula

Radioguy

03-04-2007, 06:43 AM

I posted a disagreement with your POV, and you saw it as "belittlement"?

ATHEIST??? I don't agree with you about stem cells and now I'm an ATHEIST???

Good lord!

You have no IDEA what I believe in the realm of religion, Vicky! You've never talked to me. You've never asked me a question. You don't have a clue what I believe about God.

I will continue to be an advocate for finding a cure for this disease. And you know what? In 2009 there will likely be a Democrat in the White House. There will likely still be Democrat majorities in both houses. Stem Cell research will EVENTUALLY get funded to an appropriate level. Poll after poll shows it's what the American people WANT!

And when and if the happy day comes that a CURE is found through stem cell research...

I will support you 100 percent if you decide to partake of it.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. You have the right to believe WHATEVER you want to believe. One can be Christian and believe in stem cell research. ME, for instance. You have the right to whatever treatment for your disease that you choose. But you do NOT have the right to stand in the way of MY getting the treatment I would choose... or keeping that treatment from being developed.

Chemar

03-04-2007, 08:20 AM

Hi there

This is an intelligent and thoughtful discussion on a subject that is controversial and where it is understandable that people will have very strong opinions one way or another.

We respect your right to have a discussion like this and dont in any way want to intervene, other than to ask that you disagree respectfully and PLEASE refrain from making negative personal comments about other members.

I am therefore going to request that such negative personal comments be edited out by those who have made them so that moderator intervention is not required.

This is a valuable discussion and so lets try to keep it on track please!

vlhperry

03-04-2007, 08:31 AM

Radioguy

03-04-2007, 08:34 AM

Battle over, Admit that I made a mistake assuming Radio Guy was an Athiest and my opinions and philosophies do not belong on this site. Gruess I will always march to the beat of a different drummer.

Vicky

Your opinions and philosophies DO belong on this site, Vicky. So do mine! That's what this site is for.

You might consider, however, not jumping to conclusions about people and their motives when they disagree with you.

Chemar

03-04-2007, 08:50 AM

You both have valuable opinions to add to a valuable discussion

I hope you will all benefit from this thread as you reflect on and share information and experience with others, whose opinions are equally valuable

This is the essential purpose of these forums....to exchange information and experience..... and we need more in depth discussions like this one, where everyone can feel comfortable about sharing their view, whether philosophical or experiential, without there being any concern at a negative response on a personal level. Debate is healthy and encouraged, and disagreement is an essential element in intelligent discourse, but you are all able to do so with civility and respect.

I look forward to seeing this conversation resume...it IS an important one

chasmo

03-04-2007, 09:43 AM

paula_w

03-04-2007, 10:09 AM

With an election just ahead, it's going to become a big issue again. There will likely be another vote in the senate sometime soon, and if vetoed again with no override, it will continue on to the 2008 elections.

I feel that the biggest problem with conversations like these (and they have come a long way - i can remember a time when a comment from the Christian perspective would have been booed off the forum) - is that we categorize people and have of course become polarized and hostile toward each other in our society.

In reality, there are many people who are in favor of stem cell research and still call themselves conservative and vice versa. There are many people of faith, who are either in favor of it, or face indecision and reservations. One can only be true to themselves and feel as they do.

Assuming people who are in favor of stem cell research are aetheists, which Vicky has clearly stated was a mistake to do and I don't use this for anything but an example. is not unusual because of how we feel we have to cast our lots for either one entire socio-political view or another - package style.

There are many independents out there, who do not and will not be categorized.

One thing that does worry me, tho, is the race for profits if the law changes on this research. As I have been for quite some time, I 'm very concerned that researchers will become engrossed in cell therapy research and come up with nothing less for people like us who need something now.... Like pump delivery systems to carry us over.

Paula

Radioguy

03-04-2007, 10:10 AM

they help the undecided make up their minds.

Vicki and Radioguy;

The important thing to me is you both would be at the front of the line to help the other one if they ever needed help.
We all have respect for each other's views. WE are ALL guilty of getting caught up in the discussion at times.

It is important to remember that we are all brothers and sisters here. That is the only cogent fact in the final analysis.

Charlie

Awwwwww, you guys!

I'm grillin' steaks this afternoon.

Who's comin' over?

Corn on the cob, too! :D Plenty for EVERYONE!!! :grouphug:

But back to the conversation --

I don't know if there IS a miracle to be found in embryonic stem cell research. I do agree, however, with Story Landis at NINDS that we will NEVER know what's behind the door if we're not allowed to OPEN the durn thing.

People of faith have every right to believe whatever they care to believe. And if folks who are against embryonic stem cell research are ALSO against in vitro fertilization, then I give their POV a lot more credibility. If the same folks who want to stymie the research were ALSO pushing for laws against the incineration of the unwanted blastocysts after a couple has a successful in vitro fertilization procedure, then I also give THAT person credit.

But to stand in the way of using these discarded cells -- and that's what they are, cells -- not cute, cuddly, bouncy little babies -- and NOT say anything against the fact that these cells are going to be destroyed ANYWAY strikes me as disingenuous.

The disposition of these cells should be entirely up to the family. And stem cell research SHOULD be one of the options available to them.

Of course, if your argument is that life begins at the moment sperm meets egg, then I suppose there really isn't room for discussion on this. But, if that's your opinion -- that's YOUR opinion.

The vast majority of Americans see the potential here. When we have leaders that aren't obliged to a right wing evangelical base of support, then hopefully we will see some progress.

jeanb

03-04-2007, 12:10 PM

I can only add that I feel the same way as Radioguy - and he writes much more eloquently than I would on the topic.

However, I must say that I don't understand how In-vitro fertilization can be supported - where many many excess cells are created - but the use of the unused cells for embryonic stem cell research is not supported.

Why is it ok to create excess embryos and then destroy the ones not used? Why is cell destruction ok but cell donation for research not ok? Just rhetorical questions.

(This is not directed at anyone on this board!) Just my thoughts in general.

Kathleen Ann

03-04-2007, 12:36 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7_IJyt4IiQ

I'm new to this site and will use it to seek information, examples of personal courage and resilence as others walk this path with me.

To those who have information, courage, resilence - my e-mail is open, please call me Kathleen.

Thelma

03-04-2007, 12:51 PM

Because we are a world filled with the thought that we are the best of all. You in the states and us in canada are no exception.

Hell it is not long ago we let go of the death penalty. Then we send troops to Afganistan. Not to be killers of course just to kill or be killed, see the difference, I don't.

A short time ago we watched Sadam being hung on television. Good show eh. Not many spoke of what this did to our kids who saw it.

All of our news especially CNN is occupied at showing the killings all over the world of anyone who is caught on film. Good shows eh. Up to the minute blood guts and gore all the better.

Try the other networks and then sit back in your living room and watch the faces of either your own or others kids and see what they express in their faces.

They don't even blink at whatever gross event unfolds before them. It's only makebellive and they know it but it is not the end of it.

It is only when the TV show becomes reality and then watch the kids. They run from all directions to kneel and lay flowers on any pole where there was an accident as a memorial and they visit and weep and get their pictures taken to remember by and then go where ever they were headed for in the first place.

They live in their make believe worlds now. Did they make television or did television make them.

Why do we believe all of the face to face lies that are being told to us today by our government officials. Is it because we are the ones who are face to face. they are on television screens. There not talking to anyone in person but to millions of people and especially to those who will either believe them or are already on their sides.

So then why should anyone care about the unused babies waiting for parents in the test tubes of the nation. Hell there not on tv. If it was imortant it would be on the best television news station of them all with the very best reporters of them all. You know of whom I talk.

Anyone under the age of say 35 to day really doesn't care. You can't get a conversation going no matter what the topic is and hold them unless of course it is a subject that they have formed opinions on and to try and change or even influence that opinion you have to quote those [names] that share your belief.

Even here we don't tell much about ourselves and when others take the time to try and understand where we are coming from they had better be right or else.

I am often missundestood as I hate to type but love to talk. I have had numerous emails asking me to explain and while I answer some most I don't and put it on site for where there is one there probably can be others who don't know me.

But that is my fault and mine alone. Not the fault of the other person. We are all getting too close and yet trying to remain aloof from the forum in order not to be one of those people who are constantly on writing about one thing or another. Not me lol

We need all of those who come here to read and then leave without as much as a hello to stay around and help fill in our blanks.

I guess if we are good enough to read we are good enough to talk to lol lol

What was thils rant all about I have lost the gist of it.

Must be getting old.............................................

paula_w

03-04-2007, 02:51 PM

I believe your rant was about the generation gap Thelma. I hope it felt good - that's what they are for. It felt like a vent just reading it. I won't argue with any of it.

Kathleen, after going to youtube and seeing you I realize I met you at PAN. I believe you checked your email on my computer and we talked some.

Welcome to Neuro Talk - best PD message board on the Internet. Not that others aren't outstanding too.

Kathleen, you didn't strike me as shy...I know you are sincere....nice to have you here.

paula

Kathleen Ann

03-04-2007, 03:21 PM

Ah, a fellow PAN person.

A quick follow-up to my Washington DC experience....and a personal reminder of how quickly one (I) can go from empowered to vulnerable.

The hotel had debited my account $1000, the person who tried to fix-it doubled the debit --- I was out $2000 that I didn't (and don't have).

My train was to leave at 4:05 PM --- it seemed that the hotel admins. thought that I would simply give in, take the train home, and try and fight the problem long distance.

While I did not feel particularily well, I wasn't ready to walk away. 3 1/2 hours .... several faxes from my bank, and a missed train.....the hotel reversed the charges correctly.

The hotel also provided a room for the extra night I had to stay in DC.

This experience has left me troubled and good and mad --- and also focused on the fact that we (the PD community) do not have the time to break-up into fractions .....for if we do (pro-life, pro-stem cell, pro/anti ...) we will be picked off one-by-one - in the profound issues of wealth/proverty; housing/homelessness, health insurance/uninsured, accessible transportation/isolation.

womb to tomb --- honor all of our lives

Our efforts for recognition of our lives and our right to be free and fully human are intimately connected with others who suffer injustice and who struggle for fairness and human dignity. Suzanne Pharr

paula_w

03-04-2007, 04:54 PM

Kathleen what a bad experience. No one was satisfied with the hotel this year; I don't think we will be going back there. It sounds like such a spoiled complaint now, but you had to be there...

I wouldn't have been able to cover that either. Outrageous. Between that and the weather, you must have had a very frustrating day. It was a long one for everyone, but yours in particular, was unacceptable.

You'll soon learn that we each have our "pet" activism issues - it's a nice mix, and lots of go 'forth and discover'.

The employees of the hotel were still learning I think, including English.

it'll get better,
paula

one n dona

03-04-2007, 05:41 PM

I've read read and reread this thread before thinking of posting, I'm pro life in a way as i dont beleive in abortion unless its for medical reasons or rape etc. but i'm also pro life in my husbands life, if these were aborted fetus we were talking about being aborted for the sake of science and to help people with diseases not just pd but many many others than no I would be out there screaming Stop It, but this is garbage that can save lives if utiiized properly,we had an article not to long ago in canada where they have made breakthroughs in the use of the cord the sac and the fluid ,they are all rich in stem cells and may be the way to look in another direction untapped so far. So MJF if you browse this place like you did braintalk1 listen up it's people like you who can make the differnce we need strong people in any country who can help in any way. I was dumbfounded when i found out one of our most prolific and popular (to some) Prime Minsiter suffered with and died with parkinsons with nobody but his own family and closest friends ever knowing, this man could also have raised millions and done a lot for parkinsons reasearch here in Canada I have sent an email to his son who is just now getting into politics that maybe just maybe he should think of this and how his father might have lived a better life if somebody will help fight for these disesase where we have be told for decades the cure is just around the corner.I beleive it is just around the corner but dammit somebody out there has the cure I know it and politics just get in the way its time for them to stop and let the scientist find the cure that I think most of us know could be found it they allowed them too anyway I'll be gone for a bit take care :grouphug:

vlhperry

03-04-2007, 05:45 PM

How about all of you in favor of stem cell research go to the labs that help women to conceive? Each of you stand in front of the freezer, and decide which of the cell gets to evolve into a baby and which of them will be implanted in a mother's nurturing womb. What shall you base your decisions on? Maybe because you like the color of one better than the other? Perhaps you have a talent for telling which of the cells will be boys and which will be girls? Or better yet, one of you has the talent to know which of the cells has healthy DNA and which has mutations? After all where is the logic of implanting damaged DNA to replace damaged DNA?

This forum was created for one thing and one thing only. For Parkinson patients who need a venue to make up for the fact that due to some unknown reason they were not allowed to acheive all they presumed they might achieve because of the disease. Sorry but life ain't fair. You can continue on with your life dispite your limitations and do the best you can. Or you can excuse immoral behaivior, by disobeying God's law , and destroy a life that science created for someone elses needs, not for the child.

Now I will not post anymore on this forum as suggested by my Reverend with whom I had a long discussion through tears after church. After all, he reminded me, the way of Christ is not easy. He is right when he says you have made up your minds already and be sure you are absolutely right. I receive no support of anykind and share nothing in common with any of you. Enjoy your bar-b-que.

Vicky

one n dona

03-04-2007, 05:58 PM

your very wrong dear we are all here to support each other not to agree with everything they say or think I have a lot of opions not all popular but they are mine and you have yours, your entitled to them as much as I;m entitled to mine not having people agree with you is not a show on nonsupport but eveyone has there own feelings on this topic, it has always been and will always be a very hard one for many Good luck and I hope you stay nobody wants to be in a place where you have to agree but should all be allowed to disagree if warranted thats called being human I also think that personal attacks are less than dignified and should be left out of here steff did nothing to you to warrant that attack on her and her children use the kiss method here it works better

paula_w

03-04-2007, 06:39 PM

vicky, I think we have been trying to understand you all day. Bullying won't work. People think differently, here's another example:

Bush can reconcile stem-cell research and religious beliefs

2007/3/4
By Michael D. Kerlin Special to Newsday

good grief..i got lost....here's the link...lol

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/detail.asp?ID=103797&GRP=i

paula

olsen

03-04-2007, 06:51 PM

okay, I for one will agree to stand in front of the freezer and decide which ones get implanted and which ones can serve purposes other than being poured down the drain. (my husband says it's easy to decide which ones --the ones in the front of the freezer)
and who is in charge of what the purpose of this forum happens to be? I thought I was here to learn from others who have walked this path and to share the new breaking science with one another, to support each other as best we are able, maybe make a few friends along the way--oh, and to whine sometime, too. thanks for enlightening me that I have it all wrong. those nefarious unconscious intents...

others who fervently believe in their religion do not share a universal belief of when life begins

the original author's use of infectious diseases to contrast with the non-advances in PD may be more correct than you think--there are many reserchers/scientists who think sporadic PD may be infectious in origin(remember Teresa? the episodes of infectious encephalopathy which left patients with parkinsonism?) or a latent infection could be triggered by environmental substances or toxins...(read Paul Ewald)

Okay, back to the original proposal--after I stand in front of the freezer to make these decisions (I really want this job!) must I prove I have damaged DNA to qualify ? I do not want to drink a beer and eat brats. Okay, maybe the brat, but I really do not like beer.okay, maybe carta blanca beer sometimes. Perhaps I could have a gin and tonic instead, except I do not like to drink Gin in cold weather--may I wait until the summer, or at least spring?
when did this thread morph into degoratory mischaracterizations of members who are posting? as my mother would say "stop it already".
madelyn

Chemar

03-04-2007, 07:23 PM

ok....self editing is needed again please or mods/admin will have to intervene

I am asking that this thread return to being an OPEN discussion, not a platform for negative venting about other members who dont agree

PLEASE let the conversation here return to a respectful one for the sake of all the members here who treasure the right to debate without personal attack

one n dona

03-04-2007, 07:38 PM

feel free to edit anything in my postings I dont think i said anything but I'm not impartial thank you

Thelma

03-04-2007, 08:03 PM

Chemar don't worry about this forum going too far it doesn't happen. Sometimes we get a bit tense and let our feelings out but not as a regular thing.

If you let it go it's natural route it will all blow over and get back to what it has become. the best forum on the web and not because of this site or Braintalk but because of the people who post here. They are the forum and it is not necessary to enforce any rules on them as they have over the years and long before this site was ever thought of governed themselves accordingly. Many of these members have been around since 1996 and are still here.

So don't worry about them talking about each other as it is done from caring and respect else we/them would have disappeared a long time ago.

Like the kids would say.......................were cool girl

Chemar

03-04-2007, 08:16 PM

I'm cool too Thelma :D

It is because I recognise that this Forum IS its members that I do want to ensure that members arent going to be offended or upset when posts are directed at them in a certain tone

Because we do respect this forum, we try not to intervene unless we get reports or are alerted to a potential problem. It is out of respect for the members here that I have not edited a single post on this thread, although some are bordering on breaking the guidelines.
~edited to add: correction.... an edit has been required to one post as per admin guidelines~

So, I am not talking of the disagreement and even some heatedness.....it is that kind of topic......but when members are named and things posted to them in a personal way that could cause upset....well, then I gotta keep my (cool) eye on the discourse:cool:

over and out for now
The Cool Chemar :D ;)

steffi 001

03-04-2007, 08:44 PM

I do hope there is nothing in my post that has caused personal injury.There certainly was no intention and I would be distraught if anything I have said,causes hurt to someone.I am sad to see that I have been personally brought to heel in one of the posts and that my words also have been misinterpreted. But out of sheer respect I do not wish to continue this persons pain.I so wish I had the words to comfort them.
However,in defence of my beliefs generally,can I be allowed a moment to make it clear that I have no strong opinions about stem cell research anyway...not at the minute.I am not at that stage yet to really allow it to govern my thoughts .My flight from church that day was immature and I admonished myself for behaving that way.And I have the greatest of respect for life.A few years ago,laden with drugs and in my 40`s I fell pregnant.
Abortion was never an option.Instead as a Christian I placed my faith in God and prayed that I would keep this much wanted baby.
Despite my health being in the balance,all I could do was plan for this child.
Sadly I lost the baby.
Yes...I have two miracles.And I do my best to show them the best route in life...but out of love,not God fearing.
May I also apologise if anything I have said has upset anyone and by the same token,I have enough love and compassion in my heart to forgive anyone who has taken a "pop" at me.

I guess I will think twice before posting in the future.

Chemar....thanks for your iintervention.
x

Thelma

03-05-2007, 12:16 AM

Vicky and Steffi do whatever is necessary to ease the hurt you are both feeling and stay here. We have lost so many over time and cannot afford to lose anymore.

Please

BEMM

03-05-2007, 12:17 AM

As long as I have known this forum, about five years now, more often than not, when someone talks of faith and Christianity, it is prefaced or followed by remarks about the forum's disdain for religion and for opinions based on faith and religion. I don't know where that feeling of resistance to faith and religion, that feeling of implied persecution has come from. In the past five years I have not once seen faith disparaged or religion belittled here.
Nor has anyone preached at me when I've said that I don't have faith, only hope. And no one will object when I say that you don't have to be a Christian to be a good person.

Pro life is an unfair name because it implies that we who are pro choice are pro death. Pro choice IS pro life. Abortion must be legal, or too many mothers' lives will be lost and too many unwanted children's lives will be blighted.
Artificial insemination is a slippery subject. I can't quite get my ethics to embrace the concept. I can accept a couple's use of their own egg and sperm to conceive in vitro if that is the only way they can conceive. But I don't like the idea of donor eggs or donor sperm. It just is not quite right - not because it goes against nature - but because it is, I think, "messy". It creates brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers in an unchecked profusion. That said, I have no wish to hit anyone over the head with my opinion.
But in all of the above, the horror is that the multitude of extra, unwanted, unneeded fetuses are thrown away, when they may hold potential for curing devastating illnesses. It is not just stupid, it is cruel to throw away what might save many more lives than the amount of trashed fetuses.
I am not at all sure that stem cell research will bring a cure to PD, but I am convinced that many other just as serious illnesses will benefit.

Thank you Paula, for sharing the article, it is a wonderful personal history of the illness we all share. I am very grateful to all you activists who do battle for the rest of us, who don't have the energy to fight.
And Olsen, thank you for volunteering!!!! I wish the job existed.

birte

paula_w

03-05-2007, 12:30 AM

This thread is meandering like a river so I'm going to toss in a friendly question that has had my attention and curiosity. Talking about Teresa prompted me to remember it, as she was the first to bring it up here on the forum.

Did anyone here ever really watch Bono closely and see signs of PD? I have a feeling he does have it after watching his hands, body posturing, fidgeting, arms crossed tightly. I also 'think it's a possibility because his father passed away from it.

I don't want to start a rumor about it; I'm only going on observations that Teresa mentioned and the few times I watched him on TV. Check it out the next time you spot 'him on television.

Let me know please if anyone learns anything.

thanks,
paula

stevem53

03-05-2007, 01:02 AM

My 2 cents for what its worth..I post on a political forum, and the religious debates are usually knock down drag out fights between the athiests, the agnostics and the Christians..Ive never given a whole lot of thought about the seperation of church and state except I thought it was a step in the direction of evil when as a result prayer was removed from the daily routine of school, and nativity scenes were banned on state and federal property..Then one day an athiest posted something that I had never given any thought to..He said.."Why should church property be tax exempt?..I dont believe in any God and the tax money exempt from those properties somehow, somewhere along the line comes out of my hide..Im an athiest and I have rights too"..Hence I finally understood the difference between the seperation of church and state..Thats what make this a democracy..Its got nothing to do with perceived right and wrong..It has to do with equal rights, and I think thats the crux of what Roe vs Wade is all about..When the church starts dictating policy, then its no longer a democracy anymore..Its a dictatorship because the unfaithful have no voice in the matter..Whether thats moral or immoral is not the question..It just is..It then is up to me to personally to make my own decisions and come to my own conclusions as to what I think is right for me, as to what my personal beliefs are, and not what is right or wrong for someone else

I think many of us have at one time or another struggled with the morality stem cell research..I have too..Sometimes I still do..But I also struggle with watching people suffer from this and other diseases, and I think that if someone wants stem cell research to move foward, then inspite of how I view the morallity or immorality of it, those that want it have the right to persue their goals, because stem cell resesrch is not illegal, and they should be afforded their constitutional rights..This is always where the debate gets ugly, because people have the right to not believe in a God if they so choose, and Ive come to respect that

steffi 001

03-05-2007, 01:35 AM

...because I would love to get back to posting as I feel I do best..[well that might not be everyones opinion....smiling here] but what I mean is in my usual dippy crazy style.Not for one minute did I envisage getting embroiled in what has ensued...serves me right for trying to keep the peace between two people,both of whom are equally important.I seem to have got caught up in it nonetheless.
Thelma...I have no intention of going anywhere.I love this site and its people too much.
And just for the record..my points about Christianity were not to ram it down anyones throat.I have equal respect for non believers alike and wouldn`t dream for one minute to push my views on anyone.That is sooooo not my way.I was simply pointing out that even though I have a faith,I do not regard myself whiter than white.I smoke like a chimney,swear like a trouper...and do all manner of other things that I ought to have been cast into hells flames for.
Instead I spend part of my day beating myself with a sack of wet newspapers and make my peace with God...and mankind.
Now...about Bono...yes I heard a rumour too.B ut truly...don`t quote me on it.Incidentally..he`s also a Christian...whoops...only kidding...well no I`m not ..he is one ...but hey...lets not go there. :eek:

To you all..I am about to start my day here in the UK.To all of you here on this site...I wish each and every one of you an equally wonderful,,relatively painfree day when you awake in your part of the world.
Now...I`m off to find my newspapers cos i`ve said S*** and B****r and ******h***S so time to beat myself.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

vlhperry

03-05-2007, 02:10 AM

Dear Chelma and S,

Please point out to me where I insulted S
Chelma, I think it was wrong of you to edit my post, because it makes it harder for me to defend it.

My advise was simply that: Advice. A different way to look .......S interpreted my responce as a personal attack. It was not a personal attack.

If we love Jesus, we should want to emulate him and to obey his commandment to love (respect and help) our neighbors. Jesus also defended the miracle of life. When his disciples attempted to turn the children away from Jesus, he responded that "suffer the children to come unto me." He also said, "Unless one comes as a child, he will not find his way to heaven." I was suggesting that imitating Christ is not easy, but in no way did I suggest to follow him out of fear. Christ offers forgiveness to anyone who believes he died for their sins. But he also asked that we love him enough to emulate him, to show that we truly trust him to make the world a better place.

When Christ asks us as Christians to "pick up our crosses and follow him," he is not implying that if we don't die for him or are not perfect and follow the ten commandments, he will judge us as evil. God gave us the ten commandments not because he knew we could obey them at all times. Quite the opposite. God stated his ten commandments to demonstrate that no matter how hard man tried he could not keep them. He wanted us to know we need his grace as given by the Holy Spirit (not evangelists.) He then came to earth part man and part divine, to offer grace to those who have faith in his ressurection, that he willingly died for our sins, that he raised from the dead defeating Satin, and ascended to heaven.

He does firmly ask that we do not murder our fellow man. Call human blastocysts what you want, but they are the only cells that can develop into a human. God commanded Adam and Eve to go and increase the population. God created sex to be a gift only to married couples so that children would be conceived to parents who would have the responsibility of providing what the child needs to grow and to educate him in the ways of the Lord. Parents learned how to love someone more than themselves. This is as close an analagy as God's love for us as it gets. Bear in mind that a parent is not their child's buddy, but takes responsibility to correct the childs behaivior until the child's brain is matured enough to understand the correct way to live his life.

Somewhere child bearing became a right rather than a responsibility. Infertility clinics grew into vogue as more couples realized they had not been offered the gift by God. They called God unfair and insisted science discover and rectify what they perceived as an oversite on God's part.

Remember how the serpant convinced Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge? He suggested to her that why should God be the only one to know the difference between Good and Evil. That knowledge is both a curse and a gift to mankind. A curse because mankind is unable to always make the correct decision without being firmly rooted in the present world and looking out for number one. No matter how hard we try, we cannot be the perfect beings we could have been had Adam and Eve not sinned.

The serpant is hard at work trying to convince us that we can be equals to God the trinity. He is there to bolster us up in our wrong thinking and laughing at us for getting tripped up. If you are at all interested in reading a book that shows the devil at work in our lives in a humorous way, I would strongly suggest you consider reading C.S. Lewis's book, " The Screwtape Letters."

Radio, I am not evil for suggesting that we accept what today's science offers us and make the best of what we have. I am also not a "girlie, or kook" because I have different beliefs than yours. You may state that you were stating your opinion, however, you did it in an insulting and combative way using sarcasm to belittle my arguments.

I do not believe this forum is as open to different opinions as it pretends to be. It is too political and will only get worse as the presidential election approaches. As I said before, I will no longer post on this forum. I have never changed my beliefs, and there is no doubt, as shown by the responces I have received on the thread, that my input is unwelcome.

Vicky

Radioguy

03-05-2007, 04:12 AM

Radioguy

03-05-2007, 04:13 AM

Dear Chelma and S,

Radio, I am not evil for suggesting that we accept what today's science offers us and make the best of what we have. I am also not a "girlie, or kook" because I have different beliefs than yours. You may state that you were stating your opinion, however, you did it in an insulting and combative way using sarcasm to belittle my arguments.

I do not believe this forum is as open to different opinions as it pretends to be. It is too political and will only get worse as the presidential election approaches. As I said before, I will no longer post on this forum. I have never changed my beliefs, and there is no doubt, as shown by the responces I have received on the thread, that my input is unwelcome.

Vicky

Sigh....

No one called you "evil."

No one "insulted" you. I just "disagreed" with you.

And I called you "Girlie" after you called me "atheist." Now, which of us got the worst of THAT exchange?

Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. But you continue to ignore the fact that these cells "that will grow into babies" will NOT "grow into babies" because they are destroyed ANYWAY. Talk to us about THAT fact, and tell us why those cells shouldn't be used to improve the lot of mankind. Frankly, to use your analogy, I'd be perfectly comfortable standing in front of that freezer making that choice, since I know the ones I didn't choose are goin' right to the medical waste incinerator. Those are the choices, Vicky! This is the real world! The fertilized embryonic remainders from in vitro fertilization currently have ONE destiny!

Medical Waste!

Most Americans in poll after poll after poll would like these cells to be put to good use.

I'd be interested in hearing from you what SHOULD be done with these cells, Vicky. What would you do with the left over cells from in vitro fertilization?

And see. I knew you weren't done posting. :winky:

aftermathman

03-05-2007, 07:23 AM

Chasmo's new avatar (lookin' good !!) :) and expressing only my personal view, are we really going to get anything more from this thread in its present form.

Nice story PaulaW you posted at the start of the thread and my vote goes to close it.

Aftermathman.

Chemar

03-05-2007, 07:32 AM

ENOUGH with the personal stuff now please!!

Vicky, your post was edited because you did not respond to two PMs from me, with the second one requesting firmly that you self edit or a mod edit would take place. I waited hours for a response and then did what admin instructed by editing on your behalf.
Your comments in that post to other members were flaming and that is against guidelines
Your last post has also been edited for a similar reason, plus for using someone's full name and not their user name....the member has not given permission for their name to be used here on a public forum

As much as I am willing to give a lot of leeway in this discussion and allow freedom of speech, personal attacks and posts reported as "flaming" are against the guidelines of NeuroTalk and will be edited

To the members who are conducting this discussion respectfully and without personal negative comments, thank you and my apologies for intruding. I hope it will not be necessary again.

still staying cool
Cheri

one n dona

03-05-2007, 08:10 AM

nice editing job nothing was lost of this thread that keeps it going something like this could go on for months its a very diverse topic with all kinds of points on both sides it's like everything else in life accept someone else's opionon as being different from yours and try to get your point across without attacking others its, life get over it

Radioguy

03-05-2007, 08:29 AM

Just to set the record straight, and because it got lost in all the blather...

This was my original comment on the subject...

This may not be a popular opinion --

If the "devil" is at work here, it's my opinion that "work" involves convincing otherwise well-meaning people that it's a "sin" to use the knowledge we've been given to pursue scientific solutions to the problems that face mankind.

The leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization are destroyed anyway.

Not a single baby has been "saved" by the government's refusal to increase funding for stem cell research.

I don't know if there's a cure to be found in embryonic stem cell research or not. I do know -- beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that if we don't look, we won't find it.

Ms. Richman's article was excellent, and I've written to her to thank her for it.

My comment was not directed at a person. It was directed at a comment by another poster who seemed to indicate that those of us who support this kind of research are supporting "the devil's work." I mentioned no one by name, I attacked no one... I stated an opinion with the clear preface that it might not be a popular one. :)

Then I got called an "atheist" -- and frankly, that got my hackles up. I responded to that slur, and I stand by my response.

But you're right that this issue is one in which we can go round and round and round and never change anyone's mind. I discuss the issue in my podcast today.

Like I said, I do believe that in 2009 there will be a more favorable climate for federal funding. And if there IS a cure to be found in this research, I would not hold it against any of its current opponents if they decide to take part in the cure.

Now... on to a more important issue... howcum nobody took up my offer for steaks and corn? They were DELICIOUS!!! :winky:

chasmo

03-05-2007, 09:26 AM

we're at the "agree to disagree" stage with this thread.
Everyone feels passionate about the subject. I think that even if you support it, everyone agrees that it needs close control.

ALso the medium does not lend itself to this discussion

So what do you say to a big group cyber-hug and moving on??? :grouphug:

Charlie

chasmo

03-05-2007, 09:35 AM

Now... on to a more important issue... howcum nobody took up my offer for steaks and corn? They were DELICIOUS!!! :winky:
because you did not give an address!!
after hitting 10 backyard BBQ's, I was quite full anyway!!!

You are not oriental are you?? this lady took exception to my eating the steak off her grill.Ever try to carry a hot steak with an irate oriental lady chasing you with a BBQ fork???.....probably not......:eek:

Chas :wink:

Radioguy

03-05-2007, 10:05 AM

because you did not give an address!!
after hitting 10 backyard BBQ's, I was quite full anyway!!!

You are not oriental are you?? this lady took exception to my eating the steak off her grill.Ever try to carry a hot steak with an irate oriental lady chasing you with a BBQ fork???.....probably not......:eek:

Chas :wink:

A little finesse is all it takes, Chas...

All ya gotta do is tell her that you saw a fly land on it, and you're just taking it off the grill before someone eats it and gets a disease. It's a public service. She'll THANK you! :)

paula_w

03-05-2007, 10:12 AM

I do not believe this forum is as open to different opinions as it pretends to be. It is too political and will only get worse as the presidential election approaches. As I said before, I will no longer post on this forum. I have never changed my beliefs, and there is no doubt, as shown by the responces I have received on the thread, that my input is unwelcome.

Vicky

I agree that it's tough to talk about Christianity on the forums. But one of the main reasons for this is resistance to being told what to do or how to live our lives.

I think this discussion should be allowed to continue, because that is the only way things get resolved. I have faith that we are ready for this.

I'm going to argue against one of the main reasons used for using ESCR, in spite of its obvious logic. Using the embryos because they are going to be thrown away anyway. A simple cliche will do here - "two wrongs don't make a right."

That argument is no longer cutting it with me, because it doesn't resolve anything ethically. Therefore, I am one who still struggles with ESCR and having Christian beliefs. I said in an earlier post, I have resolved to keep myself and others as informed as possible, but you won't see me waving a demonstration sign over ESCR - it's my vote that will count.

Also, it's important to know that this research is already going on, and it is only a matter of political change to see this become federally funded. Believe it or not, John Stewart made one of the most logical statements yet on this issue when he said, "I wonder how many embryos were destroyed trying to learn in vitro fertilization?"

Again, that doesn't resolve the issue, it only goes back to 'two wrongs don't make a right.' in many people's view.

There is no logical explanation. You either believe that life doesn't begin without a womb or you don't. It's not an abortion issue.....it's not an issue of throwing things away, it's a matter of when do you think life begins? This is the heart of the struggle.

People against ESCR are probably right about destroying life to save a life. That is a fact that ESCR supporters are going to have to accept. This is probably what is happening [I can't speak for sure about things unknown]

People against ESCR for religious beliefs should not be censored. However, preaching and condemning people is exactly what causes this censorship and disdain for it.

It's not a Christian's job to judge. [clearly stated in the Bible] It is the responsibility of all of us to be informed and to vote. It's not a Christian or any other person of faith's fault if this law passes against their will. It could possibiy be your fault if you don't vote.

Christianity has taken a beating and is oh so delicate to talk about. But I think that we must call a spade a spade. Christians believe that destroying an embryo is destroying a life. ESCR supporters need to stop dodging that issue by saying that they are going to be destroyed anyway. It doesn't address the heart of the issue.

Attempting to be fair and balanced.

paula

jeanb

03-05-2007, 10:59 AM

I do believe that if the embryos are doomed for destruction, the argument to let the parents donate them for research is a valid one. I truly believe this is akin to organ donation: let the parents sign donation forms to use the organs (or cells) to help others live. If I die suddenly, and there are any usable organs in my body, I want them donated to help someone else.

For people (religious or not) who are against embryonic stem cell research, where are the letters to the editor or protests about excess embryos being created for in-vitro fertilization? Some countries outside the US limit the number of embryos created during the in-vitro process (can’t remember which ones). Why not contact the president and members of congress about this important issue? In my opinion, being against the use of excess embryos for research and yet being in favor of the creation of excess embryos (or failing to protest the creation of excess embryos...) during the in-vitro fertilization process is hypocritical at best.

No one knows if embryonic stem cells will bring about breakthroughs in new treatments. I only ask that it be one avenue for research.

Respectfully,

stevem53

03-05-2007, 11:07 AM

Speaking of breakthroughs in new treatments..ESCR will I believe open the door for many new discoveries, and hopefully those discoveries will lead to treatments without the cloud of controversy surrounding them..As we know breakthroughs in alternative sources of stem cells have already been found in umbilical cord fluids and baby teeth..I believe that ESCR is but the tip of the iceberg

jeanb

03-05-2007, 11:16 AM

I agree with you!!

Plus initially there were protests & controversy & complaints about every new breakthrough in science. ...

- Small pox vaccinations
- organ donation
- heart transplants
... etc etc

something to keep in mind

paula_w

03-05-2007, 11:44 AM

Also, in this struggle, and that is what it is, not a fight, appears the inevitable "if the building was on fire which would you save - the embryo or the guy in the wheelchair?"

Of course you would save the guy in the wheelchair (I hope lol), but is it really the same argument as ESCR? Some would say yes. But once again, it is dodging the issue. You have to make a choice in a fire.

Science will find the answer to the question of how we are built by someone or something a whole lot smarter than we are. Right now we are fighting over the unknown.

Having in vitro fertilization and not ESCR is a mess to explain. There is no logical explanation.

paula

jeanb

03-05-2007, 11:47 AM

I think of it this way: there is life and the potential for life.

So yes, I'd save the guy in the wheelchair.

paula_w

03-05-2007, 12:01 PM

Jean,

I think that is a good differentiation. So then the question becomes "what value should we place on potential for life" vs people who are alive and already suffering? That sounds to me like a better, but still accurate argument.

paula

Thelma

03-05-2007, 12:07 PM

You either believe that life doesn't begin without a womb or you don't.

Life does not begin without a womb and there lies the major stumbling block in this conversation.

Those cells you are refering to will never see life without a womb. Fact

Clones will never be without a womb. Fact

The one thing that always befuddles my mind is the emphasis on the female egg and nothing about the sperm.

Without eggs there is no fertilization
Without sperm there is no fetilization.

Gosh maybe the abortion issue coud be solved if we got into a conversation on morals instead of church and religion.

I think we had morals of some sort before we developed religion else there is no reason for it to exist.

humh

I bought a wheelchair last week and as far as I am concened carry the guy out and he can have it.

Sick of going in circles and only seeing the faces jof kida and the crotches of adults lol lol lol Maybe that is where this post come from lol lol lol

I just have to loosen up a bit

paula_w

03-05-2007, 12:26 PM

All true Thelma and remember that we are just trying to understand each other here, I'm playing devil's advocate about some of what i am saying but really struggle with other aspects.

Embryos are fertilized - you can add that to your mental picture...lol

Therapeutic cloning (SCNT) is actually more ethical but it will never be accepted with the name cloning in it.

Paula

jeanb

03-05-2007, 05:03 PM

Thank you.

I agree: those cells require implantation in a womb for life.

Would I expect a firefighter to enter a burning building to save a woman in a wheelchair? YES.

Would I expect a firefighter to enter a burning building to save a container of cells? NO.

paula_w

03-05-2007, 07:08 PM

i feel that i must insert here that I posted in this thread about the embryos before listening to Radio Guy. ..and felt kinda....you know....DUMB.....when i listened to his second episode.

Just want you to know....and we will all never agree anyway...but there is my disclaimer. ... the report in the order of their appearance to me.:D

Paula

Perryc

03-05-2007, 07:50 PM

I have skimmed all the responses, and have just sent the url of this thread to the author, who is a friend of mine, and has attended a support group that I have led in Chevy Chase, MD. She very well may become active on this forum, and she will probably want to comment on this "very hot" thread, but in case she doesn't I want to say a few things and in case she does I want to introduce her.

First, she is quite famous in DC, mostly as restaurant critic at the Wash. Post for 25 years, but also as food editor. The current food editor (whose husband has PD and is also is a journalist with the LA Times) is an excellent journalist but not nearly as well known. To illustrate, in our support group everyone introduces themselves at the beginning since we have new people all the time, and after one meeting a new member came up to me saying "Is that THE Phyllis Richman?" and not mentioning that also in the room was the former editorial page editor of the Post. She hasn't really been in the closet these 7 years. She has attended PAN (this year) and I have seen her at other local PD events. She has participated in at least one clinical trial (I recruited her knowing they were looking for more women) and she has helped with the Pipeline project in the past and we hope she can do more. This coming out was to the wider public, especially Wash Post readers.

She told me today she has been getting emails from all over the world with many PD stories, and, she may decide to do something with this outpouring. It was an excellent story and made some important points.

Holy wars

The most obvious is the hot political issue debated vigorously here as it has been in the recent election. My observation is that Michael J. Fox single handedly with a big boost from Rush Limbaugh swung the balance of power in the Senate based entirely on the stem cell issue-- a major prize in US politics (i.e. committee chairs). Democrats won close votes in Virginia and Missouri, enough to make a real difference. To me the issue of stem cell research is important from the perspective 1) moral/ethical choices in a democracy where a fundamental premise is separation of church and state, and 2) the necessity of scientific freedom to advance knowledge. Both of these issues are important for the society to come to grips with and reach a consensus so that civilization can advance. Conflicts derived from moral/ethical beliefs for which there is no compromise such as illustrated in this thread, when taken to the extremes of Jihad, Crusades and the domination of one set of beliefs on everyone can lead to the downfall of civilization. The "dark ages" were a time when religious doctrine dominated science and knowledge development. This is why the founders of our country have kept church and state separate. The moral/ethical question of whether to save the person in a wheel chair or to save unused embryos from IVF is only a dilemma if you believe life begins at conception (joining of sperm and egg, regardless of the presence of a womb). Science and religious tradition inform beliefs about when human life begins, but as much as you know about viability and the process of becoming a life precisely where you place those benchmarks is and ethical choice of individuals/groups (e.g. religions) and in the absence of a consensus (law) is a free choice, protected by standards about freedom of religion. Almost all religions in this country place the beginning of life after the time of disposal of unused embryos so the majority have no ethical concerns about making medicine from waste products and in fact many cultures celebrate scientific advancement. To me the issue of stem cell research is important not only for the possible knowledge to be gained but primarily to protect essential freedoms.

Long Term vs Short Term

When it comes to cures I see the potential of stem cells as great but remote. So I want to raise a different issue also suggested in the article. My contention is that stem cells are not the most immediate and maybe not even the most important 'political' issue for PD. Shouldn't we devote as much or more effort to the more immediate political-economic issues concerning the vast divide between scientific discovery and therapies available to Today's PWP. Take for example, GDNF, which may not cure PD, but early clinical trials gave some hope for restoring functioning to near normal for at least some patients. Would any of you turn this down?

When I was diagnosed with PD in 1996 I went to a scientific presentation showing this benefit in primates. Now 11 years later, this treatment is not much closer to reality for patients than it was 1996. The politics of business and science have a lot to do with the travesty. (Details of this are presented on the Pipeline web site www.pdpipeline.org). PWP must get involved with advocacy at every stage in the 15+ year development pipeline for new therapies, to keep the patient perspective foremost. The Pipeline Project has identified roles that people can take, to harness the power if the internet and to incorporate the human element into the scientific model for evaluation of cures. So help us take charge of our fate and join.

Perry D Cohen

SherylJ

03-06-2007, 12:58 AM

First of all, I want to thank everyone who has posted to this controversial thread and managed to be respectful even to those with whom they disagree. We have come a long way from BrainTalk and moderators who would have padlocked this thread. Long live freedom of speech!

And now, to the topic at hand...
Arguing when human life begins is a no-win situation. There are two diametrically opposing viewpoints and never the twain shall meet. For me, the heart of the issue is how can it be ethical/moral to discard the excess embryos leftover from IVF rather than use them for research to save millions of lives? Paula's answer (and she is not alone) is that "two wrongs do not make a right."

In my mind, the "wrong" is inconsistency. How can people support IVF knowing it creates excess embryos that will be discarded and then claim the moral high ground when they seek to preserve these in cryogenic limbo rather than use them for research that could save millions of lives.

I suggest that this issue would go away if Congress outlaws IVF but we all know that this is not going to happen. Why not? Because those who opt for IVF generally are wealthier people, and legislators do not want to upset them. Second, too many people make too much money from this procedure to outlaw it. Everything is about $$$$.

In 1967, Dr. Christian Barnard was widely criticized for tampering with the “human spirit” when he performed the world’s first human heart transplant. The birth of the world's first “test-tube” baby in 1978 was met by opposition to scientists doing G-d's work and fears that success would create “a slippery slope.” Today, organ transplants and in vitro fertilization are routine.

Science and technology are neither inherently good nor bad. What they make possible and what people do with them are two different things. Genius is ahead of it’s time, so most advances don’t gain acceptance until future generations understand it.

Public policy decisions should be based on the best evidence available and the advice of experts, not on ideological beliefs and fear. We must enact legislation that promotes patient welfare and social good, scientific freedom and responsibililty, and public accountability of scientists and research institutions. The key is to put appropriate safeguards in place to support and realize the promise of ESCR, uphold the highest ethical standards, and avoid potential misuses.

Ok, enough of my POV for one night.

Sheryl

paula_w

03-06-2007, 04:38 AM

Radioguy

03-06-2007, 07:29 AM

For the sake of argument, and for me to try to explain my personal conflict with this argument, let's take IVF out of the picture. Would you create an embryo, knowing it would not go into a womb, and use it for research and if so, is that creating life solely for destroying it? I am not talking about the life it might save. No superficial justifications. I'm not even talking about religion, I'm talking about honesty and full disclosure.

You can say, "'this law forbids that"' - but it doesn't answer the question. If you have no problem with doing that then you are ok but have to understand what is being asked of everyone.

I didn't insult or blame anyone in this post. As it should be.

paula

I think I would draw the line there. I would also not want scientists to line up outside abortion clinics to collect the fetuses. Nor would there be any need for that!

The stem cells that are available from leftover IVF can be duplicated in the lab. And since these are cells that are going to be destroyed anyway, to me it's the same thing as tissue donation after death... and by gawrsh, I've made sure my advance directives include instructions that when I shuffle off this mortal coil, they are to harvest everything that can be of possible use to anyone -- then cremate the rest.

jeanb

03-06-2007, 07:30 AM

I couldn't agree with you more.

paula_w

03-06-2007, 09:29 AM

Just clarifying that I did not ask the last question with the idea of you physically doing the procedure. I meant if the procedure was offered to you with no IVF in the picture. In other words, the procedure is done for you, not first for someone to have a baby.

This may be an important distinction....who knows? Does that mean we are kind of using IVF as our rationalization?

Honestly, those of you that know me know this is how I think. [looking at both sides of the issue] I'm not trying to get anyone angry....maybe I am trying to resolve my own feelings. I've supported ESCR for the most part, but have never been completely resolved to do so.

I don't expect to have to make this decision but again, who knows?

paula

Thelma

03-06-2007, 10:10 AM

Please read it again.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020615072656/neuro-mancer.mgh.harvard.edu/ubb/Forum71/HTML/005173.html

paula_w

03-06-2007, 10:25 AM

That is an outstanding article and leaves us with nothing but hope that the whole issue will soon be resolved.

Thank you Thelma,
Paula

jeanb

03-06-2007, 10:38 AM

Watch What You Are Calling an Embryo

As the debate over the ethics of human embryonic stem cell research has caught fire over the last year, there's been enormous discussion about whether scientists should be allowed to destroy human embryos in the process of getting these cells. Language like that portrays scientists both as murderers who take life and as Frankenstein-like usurpers of God's authority to make new life.

But when it comes to biology, words like "destruction," "creation," "embryo" and even "life" and "death" are ambiguous. Scientists understand this ambiguity to be a reflection of the complexity of living things. Meanwhile, both advocates and opponents of stem cell research are using that ambiguity to their best advantage.

Take the term "embryonic stem cell," or ES cell. Scientists coined the term about 20 years ago -- ages before the current debate -- todescribe a cell that could grow into all the cells that make up a human being. Of course, embryos can do the same thing, so what's the difference? To make sense of that, it helps to understand exactly what happens during both the earliest phase of embryonic growth and the laboratory development of ES cells -- somethingscientists are able to describe with some precision.

When a human embryo is formed naturally through the fusion of an egg and a sperm, it goes through multiple rounds of division, and after a few days, the cells on the inside and outside begin to behave differently from each other. The cells on the inside are the ES cells. They -- and they alone -- will grow into the fetus and child. The "coat" of cells on the outside will develop into the placenta, the conduit for nourishment and waste removal that is discarded after birth.

In the natural course of development, ES cells don't last very long. They morph within two weeks into cells with a more restricted ability to produce a limited number of tissues or organs. In the laboratory, however, scientists have figured out how to remove an embryo's "coat" and get the ES cells to multiply indefinitely without morphing into anything else.

Because of their versatility, ES cells are the darlings of biomedical research. All scientists need to do is to identify the molecular signals and cellular environment required to generate any tissue or organ of choice. But if lab-grown ES cells can be coaxed to develop into any one tissue, might there be an environment in which they could be coaxed into making a whole human body? The answer is yes.

Eight years ago, a Canadian embryologist named Janet Rossant began turning mouse ES cells into live-born mice. She started with a small bunch of ES cells, provided them with a fresh pre-placental "coat" and then placed them into a mouse's womb, where they underwent normal development and eventually became a normal newborn mouse. Many more mice have been developed from ES cells since then, and there is no doubt that the same protocol could work with human ES cells (which is not to say that there is any reason or need to do such a thing).

There's a word biologists use to describe a cell, or group of cells, that by itself can develop into a whole animal or person: That word is "embryo." Each random bunch of eight to 10 human ES cells is nothing more or less than a "naked" human embryo -- that is, an embryo without its pre-placental "coat."

Stem cell scientists have been less than eager to discuss this tidbit of embryologicallore and its implications in public, because of the fear that equating ES cells with embryos could give ammunition to opponents of stem cell research. Their reluctance is likely to be even greater now that President Bush has drawn his own moral line between research on existing ES cells, which he deems acceptable, and direct research on embryos, which is deemed unacceptable. But it seems to me that the president's moral line has been drawn between a basket of unpeeled apples and a basket of peeled apples -- the difference between the two is in appearance only.With the political debate atfever pitch, I have no doubt that some scientists will challenge my interpretation here, but it will come down to an argument over words, not biology.

Ironically, the same interpretation of ES cell/embryo equivalence can be used just as readily by advocates of stem cell research to bolster the case for allowing federal funds tobe used for extracting ES cells from unwanted embryos sitting frozen in IVF clinic storage tanks. ES cell research won'tactually destroy these embryos, it will save them from an otherwise certain death. Not only can these embryos be preserved indefinitely (as living ES cells), but their use could lead to therapies down the road that will save the lives of many other people as well. Thus, lives will be saved without any lives being lost. As I write this, I'm fully aware that I, too, am using language in a way that best supports my position.

This brings me back to the question at the heart of the stem cell debate. Is a one-week-old human embryo -- a ball of cells smaller than a pinhead -- a form of human life that deserves our respect and protection? The problem with this question is that, of all the terms used in biology, "life" is the most ambiguous. And without a clear definition of "life," the question of respect is meaningless.

At this point you may be thinking, how hard can it be to distinguish between what's alive and what's dead? To which I say, consider what happens right after a man is shot to death with a bullet to the head. We can all agree that he is dead, but for at least a few hours, 99 percent of the cells below his neck are still very much alive. Indeed, his organs can continue to function for many years if they are transplanted into the bodies of other people, and some of his cells can survive forever in laboratory incubators.

When I say that the person is not alive, it is in the sense that he no longer exists as a sentient being. But when I say his body is still alive, I am using the same word "alive" in a general cellular sense. Aristotle recognized the difference between vegetative life and conscious life more than 2,000 years ago, and physicians today commonly use the term "vegetative state" to describe brain-dead bodies sustained on respirators.

Is a one-week-old human embryo alive? The answer is clearly "yes" if we use the cellular or vegetative definition. And it is just as clearly "no" if we use the definition of sentience. Normally, we don't give much respect to cellular human life -- we shed skin cells without a thought -- so why should we respect a microscopic human embryo?

According to the Catholic Church, every human embryo deserves as much respect as you or I because it contains a God-given human soul or spirit. Indeed, when people ask whether an embryo is alive, often what they really want to know is whether it has a soul. But how do you calculate the number of souls in a petri dish containing 10 million human ES cells? The problem is that cells can be grouped together in bunches ofeight, nine or 10 to form embryos, and depending on the size of the average bunch you make, the number of embryos in the dish at any moment can vary by hundreds of thousands. Counting embryonic souls is akin to counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Whatever the number, the idea that an embryo has a soul is a matter of religious faith, not science.

Until recently, the most persuasive secular argument for protecting embryos had been that embryonic cells are different in some fundamental way from all other cells in your body because they alone have the potential to form a sentient being. The assumption was that all other cells were irrevocably chained to the narrow task assigned to the particular tissue or organ in which they were placed.

But within the past three years, this view of cell biology has been proven false. Scientists have discovered the molecular keys required to unlock an amazing plasticity in cell identity. Brain cells have been turned into blood cells, fat cells have been turned into bone, muscle and cartilage, and other examples of cell conversions are flooding the scientific literature. Of course, none of this is referred to as cloning, although that's exactly what it is. It is only a matter of time before scientists uncover the mother of all molecular-conversion keys: the one that transforms an adult cell directly into an ES cell. In philosophical quarters, that discovery should be a lethal blow to the idea that potential alone is a sufficient criterion on which to base the granting of respect and protection: Even skin cells will have the potential to become babies. In political quarters, scientists will claim that by bypassing embryos in their production of ES cells, they will have eliminated all ethical objections to the research and its applications. And in the world of medicine, clinicians will eventually be able to provide replacement tissues and organs produced from a patient's own cells, which will not be rejected as foreign by thepatient's body.

Most scientists will continue to avoid the use of contentious terms like "embryos" and "cloning," and maybe opponents will as well. Instead, they will focus on more palatable terms like "cell therapy" and "tissue renewal." And it won't be the first time. The classic example of shifting terminology as a method of public appeasement was the substitution of "magnetic resonance imaging," or MRI, for the original scientific term -- "nuclear magnetic resonance," which was thought to be less than patient-friendly.

If taking the "nuclear" out of MRIs or saying "ES cell" instead of "embryo" results in a greater acceptance of the science, that will lead to a healthier population in years to come. And that's not such a bad thing.

Lee M. Silver, a professor of molecular biology and public affairs at Princeton University, is the author of "Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning will Transform the American Family"
============================

THANK you THELMA

SherylJ

03-06-2007, 11:19 AM

Paula, I can not take IVF out of the equation, because from my point of view, it is the lynch pin to the argument for ESCR. This explains why opponents of this research want to pretend IVF doesn't matter.

400,000 excess embryos are languishing in cryogenic limbo waiting to be discarded when they could be used to find cures for the most horrible diseases. In fact, until recently when scientists started asking to use these leftover embryos headed for the trash, few people if any gave a thought to the fate of the embryos they left behind.

You ask whether I would "create an embryo, knowing it would not go into a womb, and use it for research and if so, is that creating life solely for destroying it? I am not talking about the life it might save. No superficial justifications. I'm not even talking about religion, I'm talking about honesty and full disclosure."

I would not create a life solely for the purpose of destroying it, but there's still no agreement on when life begins. In either case, this is not what is happening here. An equally important question is when is saving a life a "superficial justification?"

Sheryl

paula_w

03-06-2007, 11:51 AM

Hi Sheryl, I referred to it as a justification, along with IVF, to create "life" for destroying. Trying to get to the heart of the matter from both sides of the issue. I can't think of any reason why I would take our lives and devalue them. ...it was not to be taken as a slant against the ill.

paula

Stitcher

03-06-2007, 12:26 PM

This is a rhetorical question/statement:

So, when perspective parents use fertility drugs,
which rarely create only one embryo, knowing that they plan reduction so that only one or two embryos are left in the womb...

that they are knowingly creating embryos with the intent to either,

1) destroy the the "excess" embryos...
goodness we don't want that many children to be born...
or
2) freeze the "excess" embryos until such time as they may then destroy them...okay we have enough children.

And, yes, I know they may also donate them to another couple.

Thelma

03-06-2007, 12:51 PM

Honesty is what yo want and honesty ils what you are getting.

How many women have created an embryo and given any thought to the pregnancy that will follow.

How many men give thought of pregnancy to the women they impregnate.

How many of us were wanted children.

On the other side how many of us are wanted children.

Which came first

If you want a child and you have IVF performed is it a go that you will try and ensure all of these embryos come to see the light of day.

Or do you only give concern to the ones you produce.

I think the latter or else the whole procedure would fall apart and not hae the popularity it has today.

So then when does life begin.

For me it is a matter between the fetus and the mother alone.

It begins with the first movement in the womb and builds from there.

Fathers in the old days never wanted to feel the baby move but today they too are bonding in much the same way.

So for me life begins with the advent of the birth and the breath it takes.

Till then it is a building process towards life.

End of story................but on the other hand maybe just maybe the beginnng of the story

If you can't prove all other theories are true then this has to be acceptable as well. It leads to all of these babies that are born having a happier healthier life span then how can anyone wish them any different.

If you believe babies are a gift from god then you have received that which you should cherish and make as good an existence as you are capable of providing. Thn what ever your religion you do your god honor

paula_w

03-06-2007, 02:06 PM

Thelma you are entitled to that opinion and I wouldn't criticize you for it. I just ran some errands because I am going out of town tomorrow. On the way back I had this thought......and I am all of a sudden confused and struck dumb about this, but are private companies and labs allowed to make their own embryonic cell lines? I should surely know the answer to that but it has escaped me.

So then, with private companies and labs, are we losing the IVF buttress ....no?

In which case we are back to the question. It is a matter of when you think a human life begins. You are creating life and destroying it, but you aren't defining it as human life. Human life is more of an individual belief.

I just think we should try to understand each other. Hostility is wasted energy.

pS Is it just me or is anyone else a little bothered by the thanks button being used to take sides? I get it I get it.

paula

EmptyNest68

03-06-2007, 02:09 PM

Wow...what a discussion. I have read each and every post to this thread. I am a Catholic-born, raised and practicing.

"Life" --1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction (the act or process of reproducing; specifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual).

If embryonic cells are produced in petrie dishes solely for the purpose of research, is that considered a life? Life starts with reproduction. Speaking from a Christian point of view, reproduction takes a MAN and a WOMAN. Not a scientist and petrie dish. God spoke to Adam and eve and told them to go forth and populate the world-by biblically reproducing. My own beliefs do not see the production of embryonic cells in a lab as reproduction. Not even where IVF is concerned. Yes beautiful and loved children are born from IVF, but they are not biblicallly reproduced. But that is beside the point.

Those who oppose ESCR argue about the potential for human life from these embryos, and that using them for research & cures is not moral. If that is true, then the potential for human life could arise in anything from a test tube to the chicken producing your eggs for breakfast, or the cow from which your steak comes. I know that sounds so silly, but every aspect of our world is constantly evolving. It is up to the people on this planet to "temper" the evolutionary process and to use our God given talents and intellect to make things better. Sometimes the good is diluted with bad...much like chemotherapy, which destroys not only cancer cells but the good cells, too. What about surgery, of any kind? Surgery is not an uncomplicated thing. A person is put to sleep with some pretty powerful drugs & gases and rendered helpless while someone-hopefully a well practiced surgeon-cuts away or adds foreign bodies to someone. Sometimes the surgery is life saving, sometimes it just makes life less painful. But either way, medications, gases, loss of organs or the addition of an organ, like a new heart...EVERY surgery has the potential to take life. Does this make surgery immoral?
I believe I have the potential to start REALLY rambling, which has gotten me into some good debates over the years.....anyhoo...just my thoughts. :)

paula_w

03-06-2007, 02:20 PM

Hi Empty Nest,

So are you saying that you are a Christian in favor of ESCR because the cells are artificially joined? I want to make sure I understood you. THANKS FOR POSTING.

Paula

EmptyNest68

03-06-2007, 03:15 PM

Hi Paula,
I am in favor of ESCR. Yes, partly because of the artificial joining of sperm and egg. Partly because it would be a sin to not follow a path that could save so many. Partly because embryonic stem cells are not yet embryos.
It's an honor, being able to participate in this discussion, thanks.
Steph

vlhperry

03-06-2007, 03:40 PM

Let me understand this. You state you are a practicing Catholic and beleive stem cell research is moral? Has the pope changed his view? It is was my understanding the only Catholics and Lutherans (Missouri) have banded together to protect human life.

Vick
y
PS
"Those who oppose ESCR argue about the potential for human life from these embryos, and that using them for research & cures is not moral. If that is true, then the potential for human life could arise in anything from a test tube to the chicken producing your eggs for breakfast, or the cow from which your steak comes. I know that sounds so silly, but every aspect of our world is constantly evolving. It is up to the people on this planet to "temper" the evolutionary process and to use our God given talents and intellect to make things better.

The bastocyst will become human life if given the chance. It requires, at the least, a woman's egg which makes it live human tissue. I am also against "petrie dish" babies and a woman's right to destroy human life. Man has the right to choose God's law over sience to keep God's law or overrule it by making it man's law. One way is truth and protecting the sanctity of life, one way is denial of God's command for the sake of man. God never gave man the right to choose. Man took it against his command. Man is stuck with it now because the sins of the fathers are borne by the children. Man can choose to protect human life or disrespect it and excuse it by pretending to know better than God what is good and what isn't good.

Even so, when Eve succumbed to the serpant's temptation, and man was sent from God's prescense, he never stopped loving us. He sent his only son, born of the divine and woman and devended his son to sacrifice himself to wipe our sins clean. Jesus said "go, and sin no more," knowing man was incapable of fulfilling his command. If we try, we show wa have accepted God's law as truth, if we don't we show we are still in the Devil's grip. {I refer to the Devil as a real entity and not to anyone who disobeys God's law as being the devil, only giving in to the temptation of the Devil.) Jesus, in his grace, will no doubt forgive you, but if you do it knowing it is against God's law he may not. I know God's word is the hard way but it is also the right way and I am sticking to it.
edited to Add more in as respectful a wording as I know how

paula_w

03-06-2007, 03:42 PM

Thanks for changing it Vicky

paula

Radioguy

03-06-2007, 03:56 PM

BrownEyedGirl

03-06-2007, 04:44 PM

Don't lurk for a couple of days and see what you miss!! I have very much enjoyed reading this thread. It's wonderful to see so many smart people thinking and rethinking an issue. Even if we don't all agree, It's great to see that Parkinson's doesn't have to take the "fire" out of you.

Cheers! :)

Thelma

03-06-2007, 04:48 PM

We all know here that when a person is fervent and totally committed to any belief it is not possible to argue the subject. So why do it. I think just allow what is said to be and if you don't like it then don't respond. There is no need to bait for you in all probability know what comes next.

We don't need arguements just information. Believe or don't just don't say all the facts weren't given out.

She has a side that is very large in this fight for the cure and while I know she wants it as bad as we all do there is a different way for her to go.

Remember to know all sides is half the fight.

Listen to all and be prepared for who ever you talk or write to next.

Listening to all of this and know from where you speak is a great weapon.

paula_w

03-06-2007, 05:03 PM

Ok, i believe you but there are guidelines we can't decide . We're such well behaved little pwp but you know there is no winning (meaning continuing) with some people. It's not my call is what i am saying i guess.

paula

Radioguy

03-06-2007, 05:28 PM

Part of having a "discussion" is the very real possibility that people are not going to agree with your opinion. The way to proceed in a "discussion" is to present your side and then respond when questioned. If you believe strongly about something, then you should be able to defend that POV. It is not "baiting" to ask a person who has expressed strong opinions to explain the reasoning for those opinions or to clarify why he or she feels that way.

I restate my question. Why do I never hear the people who oppose ESCR on religious or "moral" grounds explain what SHOULD be done with the leftover blastocysts? They're full of ideas about what should NOT be done with them. I think it's a legitimate question -- what SHOULD be done with them?

And I'll take it a step further, if I may.

To me, it's not "moral" to allow human suffering to continue when the Good Lord has given mankind the knowledge to DO something about it.

I don't recall which of you asked it, but it was very apt. "If you had a choice to save either a wheelchair bound person or a petrie dish of blastocysts in a burning room, which would you save?"

jeanb

03-06-2007, 05:29 PM

I guess my bottom line is that there are thoughtful people of conscience on all sides of this issue. It's important that we respect all opinions.

(And I am thankful for our thoughtful moderators, too!)

Jean B

EmptyNest68

03-06-2007, 05:41 PM

Thanks vicky for trying to word your response as respectfully as you know how..

I don't pretend to know better than God. I pray for God's grace and love and believe Christ is my savior and redeemer.
If believing ESCR should be pursued IS a sin, God will reveal that to me in His own time. I am not one to say, Oh, okay that's exactly right, because someone else believes differently or tells me so.

Faith unshaken-
Steph

Thelma

03-06-2007, 06:10 PM

Really interesting read

Ethical” Embryonic Stem Cell Research?
by Daniel McConchie

Daniel McConchie is Vice President & Chief of Staff at Americans United for Life, Chicago, Illinois.

Post Date:
June 10, 2005

Despite ongoing successes with adult stem cell research, recent months have seen the debate over embryonic stem cell research continue unabated.1 This is especially true in state legislatures across the country where dueling proposals to ban such research or to allow and fund it continue with fascinating political drama.

In an attempt to cool the debate, some researchers have offered imaginative new ways to obtain embryonic stem cells without the necessary step of destroying living human embryos. Four proposals have been floated in recent months.

The Parthenote Proposal2

One of the earliest of these new proposals is the idea to create a parthenote—an egg that develops into an embryo and creates embryonic stem cells. New research has shown that a chemical trigger can cause an egg to begin dividing and organizing—even eggs that have failed to be fertilized by a sperm. Reproductive clinics throw away thousands of eggs that have failed to be fertilized through multiple in vitro fertilization (IVF) attempts. Because mammalian parthenotes cannot develop very far due to the lack of paternal DNA, many researchers do not consider them embryos but “embryo-like” entities.

Method – Since eggs have only half of the requisite DNA, they would have to be obtained from women before the final maturation process (before ovulation) when the egg still has a full DNA compliment, or the eggs would have to copy their own 23 chromosomes to produce 46 chromosomes when exposed to a chemical trigger. Such a trigger or an electrical shock tricks the egg into believing that it has been fertilized. Upon reaching the blastocyst stage, the parthenote would be broken apart and its stem cells harvested.

Technical Challenges – Because of the faulty genetic structure of parthenotes, there are questions about whether stem cells derived from them could be used for treatments. The impact of seriously genetically flawed stem cells is unknown. Incidents of cancer could be higher than the 25% typical when using other embryonic cells. In addition, the available pool of genotypes for research would be limited since only fertile females can be used.

Ethical Issues – The largest ethical issue is the question over whether a parthenote is an embryo, and there is little consensus. Some argue that it is not an embryo because it can never develop, while others hold that it should be treated like an embryo unless it can be proven otherwise.

The Morula Proposal3

Reproductive Genetics Institute (RGI) in Chicago is one of the world's leading experts in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)—a procedure where a cell is removed from a developing embryo and analyzed. Some use this procedure to identify whether a developing embryo has a genetic disorder such as Tay-Saks or Huntington’s disease. Only those embryos passing the genetic test are implanted. The others are destroyed.

Scientists at RGI are claiming a new distinction—a way around of the current objection to pursuing human embryonic stem cell research. Instead of destroying living human embryos, RGI scientists think they can use the same principles of obtaining cells for PGD to develop embryonic stem cell lines.

Method – Scientists would take an early-embryo that has developed to about the 8-cell stage (called a morula), and remove a single cell. They would then attempt to coax that cell to replicate into an embryonic stem cell line. The embryo (less the one cell) could then be transferred to a womb.

Technical Challenges – The largest technical challenge to this proposal is getting a single stem cell to replicate sufficiently to turn into stem cell line. Currently, scientists wait until the blastocyst stage where the embryo has developed into several hundred cells, break the embryo apart to obtain the cells, and use all the available cells to create a line. Even with hundreds of cells, scientists have a difficult time creating cell lines. Doing so requires dozens if not hundreds of embryos. Robert Lanza at Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) in Massachusetts has said that he believes this single cell process can produce stem cell lines, but procedures do not yet exist.

Ethical Issues – There are two primary ethical issues with this proposal. First, it requires a method that is potentially harmful to the embryo. While hundreds of children have been born using PGD, we do not yet know the consequence of taking a cell from the very early embryo. Second, at the morula stage, twinning is still possible; that is to say, it is possible that the obtained cell could be an embryo itself—the single cell may be able to develop if implanted into a womb.

The Organ Transplant Proposal4

50 years after the first successful organ transplant, Donald Landry and Howard Zucker of Columbia University in New York think that the same principles used today to harvest organs from those at the edge of death can be used to find a way out of the current embryonic stem cell morass.

Modern organ transplant rules follow the following general principle: a person’s body does not have to be totally dead for it to be “dead enough” to ethically remove vital tissues for transplant. Because the line between life and death is not precise, this principle has been accepted and is used to allow a definition of death other than complete death of every cell in the body. This allows the transplantation of living tissue from an otherwise “dead” person.

In this proposal, scientists argue that embryos exist that are, in essence, dead just like those who are brain dead with functioning organs. The term “arrested development” is often used to denote embryos that are believed will never develop further. Landry and Zucker estimate that 60% of human embryos in cryopreservation are in a state of “arrested development.”

Method – Scientists hope to identify arrested development embryos whose stem cells are functional, obtain the stem cells (using the standard method of breaking embryos apart), and develop stem cell lines for research and possible future treatment.

Technical Challenges – No test currently exists to determine whether an embryo that is not developing is truly dead. Landry and Zucker are working to develop tools to measure the chemical and genetic signatures of embryos after 24 hours of non-development.

There is a question about whether the embryonic stem cells obtained from such embryos would be useful. It is possible that failure to create stem cell lines from “surplus” IVF embryos is due to the failure of the cell from “dead” embryos to replicate.

Ethical Issues – Is it possible to identify a “brain death” criterion for embryos? This is uncertain. There simply is no test similar to that which determines brain death. Chemical and genetic signatures would measure seemingly arbitrary criterion, particularly since we know so little about embryology (and especially compared to current understandings of a fully-developed nervous system that governs the brain death criterion).

The Alternate Nuclear Transfer (ANT) Proposal5

Suggested by Stanford physician and ethicist William Hurlbut, alternate nuclear transfer (ANT) is similar to cloning. Using the cloning method, scientists would create an embryo or “embryo-like entity” that lacks a developmental gene. The entity would be similar to those that generally develop into a cancerous tumor—an entity that most scientists and ethicists consider never to have been an embryo.

Method – A developmental gene is turned off in the nucleus about to be transferred. Using the normal cloning process, the changed nucleus is then inserted into an enucleated egg, stimulated to divide, and stem cells are harvested when the resulting embryo or entity reaches the blastocyst stage.

Technical Challenges – Currently, the proposed method would be both difficult and expensive; the difficulties of cloning are compounded by the difficulties of genetic alteration. It likely would be a number of years before this method was successful, and, due to the technical hurdles of genetic manipulation, cloning technology, and stem cell cultivation, even longer before reasonable.

Ethical Issues – The core question for most ethicists is whether the entity created is a non-embryo or a disabled embryo. Hurlbut suggests that because the entity lacks a developmental/organizational gene and could never develop, it is never an embryo, thus no embryo is destroyed. Others, such as Richard Doerflinger of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, argue that if the knocked out gene offers several days of development, the entity is an embryo for that period of time, and only later ceases to be such.

The answer to the question of whether an embryo-like entity that cannot develop is an embryo or not is likely the same for both parthenotes and ANT.

Conclusion

Currently, Christians oppose embryonic stem cell research for several interconnected reasons. Most importantly, it requires the destruction of human embryos. But also, using embryonic stem cells on human beings likely constitutes a violation of proper ethical considerations regarding experimentation on human subjects. This is in part due to the lack of proper animal modeling and experimentation. This is particularly important in light of current alternative methods of disease treatment for many of the ailments considered possible targets for future embryonic stem cell therapies.

Currently, too many unanswered questions remain about these proposals to be able to move ahead with determining whether any of them are ethical methods for obtaining embryonic stem cells. We must take the cautious route by not pursuing them in human research until it is clear from animal studies that the entity in question is in fact not an embryo.

The Morula Proposal is unique in that it does not require breaking apart an entity that might or might not be an embryo; the question is whether the early embryonic cell is itself totipotent—capable of further developing in the same way that you and I developed from a single cell. Even if we assume that this is not the case, given the possibility of possible unknown danger for the developing embryo (no treatment option currently provides an overriding ethical justification for exposing an embryo to such unknown risk) this method still cannot be justified at this time.

As a final note, all other objections aside, we do not yet have sufficient knowledge from animal models to justify the pursuit of any embryonic stem cell research in humans. While pursuing in animal studies the knowledgebase that might justify human trials, these methods of obtaining such cells should be used so that we might have as much knowledge as possible for determining potential ethical means of obtaining embryonic stem cells if or when it becomes necessary to do so. CBHD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

paula_w

03-06-2007, 06:15 PM

I've been thinking about your post EN and it is very convincing. Everything is always constantly moving even after death the cells just go back into the dirt but move on and are you saying you believe that the scientists have just learned how to "grab 2 and do something with them" - it would explain why they have been referred to as "silly putty.'

paula

steffi 001

03-06-2007, 06:19 PM

You know...this is such a wonderfully thought provoking thread when all the peripheries are cut through.
It has had me thinking back to the times I would sit in my car,late at night,and stare at the blue haze around the moon...and I would wonder...where does space end and where does it begin? Who decides?
At what stage does earth begin and end? Does someone have this magical ruler that marks such a thing?
Who decides where earth begins and ends.or how high is the sky?

At what stage do ingredients become recognised as a "dish" a "cake?"
When they are on the tree? As a seed? In the factory? On the supermarket shelf? After all a tub of butter has the potential to be a cake.At what stage does it become known as one?

This isn`t as daft as it seems.
How many of you,look at your children,and wonder at the odds of them being created,being here,developing,growing?
It is only by chance that the little wiggly thing hit its target.And created another human.What about all those who failed to hit the bulls eye? After all,they are all potential lifeforms.Where do they go when they realise they have run the race and lost? Why do our bodies produce so many "spares" when chances are only one or two are going to make it? Do we regard that as a waste.Do we mourn all the potential joinings,couplings of sperm and egg that never make it?
Do we admonish ourselves and feel immoral because for every one that makes it,thousands go to the "wiggle and egg " graveyard and accept their fate?
Has God messed up? Has science bombed?
The times I have thought about those that didn`t connect and what they would have looked like had they have done..All those lost children that we will never know,never see.The times I have gazed upon the beuatiful faces of my son and daughter,and shuddered at the thought that if the two vital components had not met,I wouldn`t have known them.
But we accept it as nature...this glut of spares..this loss.And we move on.
They are there for a reason..the losers.They are there to provide greater odds for the victorious.
And as sad as it is,for every life that is created,there are a million losses.
And we have to accept that.
When it comes to science,I imagine the decisions are equally as heartwrenching.
And I am neither condoning or dismissing the stem cell business.

I am simply saying this..that even in nature,regardless of whether you believe life is created by God,or the Big Bang,or whatever...there are sadnesses to equal the joys.
And all I can say is this.I choose to live my life respecting those who are fighting for a cure for all manner of diseases,I pray that their decisions will be wise,informed and just.My compassion is reserved for the agonising decisions that have to be made in the face of progress.
And in terms of my fellow men.I am but a tiny tiny speck in this huge cog that is life. And I choose to remain quietly respectful of the diversity of opinions here.I am at peace with myself and prefer to reserve my judgement with the knowledge that my way is not necessarily the way of another.
But to listen with respect,to respond with dignity and compassion,to have an understanding and an open mind,paves the way for learning and harmony within society.
It gives rise to each individual feeling worthy and precious,not condemned and damned.
We are all on a journey,which twists and turns,events and opinions may sway our thinking and allow us to change our minds on issues.Let gentleness,encouragement and humour be the beacons which light the way.

With my love
x

paula_w

03-06-2007, 06:30 PM

Looking at it this way I could almost take a deeeep breath...inhale...release guilt. And continue on.

That would be exhale....release....

paula

EmptyNest68

03-06-2007, 06:40 PM

hi paula-
scientists take their theory or the theory of others, and run with it. hence our medical world today! : )
Steph

EmptyNest68

03-06-2007, 06:46 PM

steff-
"And in terms of my fellow men.I am but a tiny tiny speck in this huge cog that is life."
We are all just a small part of this universe, but precious, precious to God.
Many blessings-Steph

steffi 001

03-06-2007, 06:59 PM

Thank you for that.Yes we are all precious,and you know...He gives us so much to be thank ful for...above all a warm and willing heart...no matter how many times we bomb or fall...a hand is there to brush us down and set us on our feet again.
You have a lovely manner..

X

SherylJ

03-06-2007, 07:00 PM

I've read all the posts on this thread and find myself exactly where I started, as is true for most everyone else. It's important to understand where each of us is coming from on this topic, but equally important to accept the fact that we're not likely to change any minds. It always comes back to the question of when human life begins, and this is very tied into people's religious beliefs. That is sensitive ground for any of us to be treading on.

My line in the sand, so to speak, is that religion should not dictate science. And certainly not in a pluralistic society like ours where separation of church and state is a Constitutional provision. Should ESCR reveal cures, those opposed to this research need not take advantage of these, but the rest of us will.

Many people say they don't want their tax dollars going to fund research they find morally objectionable. I'm with you all the way, but everyone must have this same option. Let's put check boxes at the bottom of the IRS form and allow people to assign percentages of their tax dollars to go to fund everything from the war in Iraq and building a wall on our southern border to education and healthcare. Who knows, we may have the first war that no one comes to... an added benefit.

Sheryl

Radioguy

03-06-2007, 07:39 PM

Heck, I don't want MY tax dollars paying to have our troops act as referees in a civil war. But nobody asked me... they just take my taxes every paycheck! :wink: The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows 61 percent of us support embryonic stem cell research, and 55 percent support loosening the restrictions. Every major poll shows support for this research. So, as far as I can tell, it's the religious right's hold on the Administration that is keeping it from happening.

One of the first things I learned in school was "majority rules." When did that stop applying -- other than the 2000 presidential election, I mean... :rolleyes:

olsen

03-06-2007, 07:42 PM

thanks for this. it is heart warming to read postings of so many articulate, compassionate people on this forum---madelyn

paula_w

03-06-2007, 07:52 PM

Sheryl, I guess you and most everyone else will have to be disappointed that you didn't learn anything - not sure how to respond to that burst of positive feedback..lol

paula

paula_w

03-06-2007, 07:57 PM

Radioguy,

So far exactly one person has disagreed with that...no...maybe none with the statistics.

paula

over and out hitting the road for a few days...thanks all

steffi 001

03-06-2007, 08:27 PM

Have a good rest.I for one feel you have done some good here,not least giving us all the opportunity to conduct ourselves on here with decorum and respect for each other. But no...you have done more than that ...you have achieved a great deal in tackling a sensitive issue.
Thank you
x

vlhperry

03-06-2007, 11:31 PM

Suggest you read the edit line, Paula. Chemar edited it.

Thelma

03-06-2007, 11:48 PM

Once again a waste of precious time and effort.

SherylJ

03-06-2007, 11:50 PM

Sheryl, I guess you and most everyone else will have to be disappointed that you didn't learn anything - not sure how to respond to that burst of positive feedback..lol

paula

How on earth do you get that from this:

I've read all the posts on this thread and find myself exactly where I started, as is true for most everyone else. It's important to understand where each of us is coming from on this topic, but equally important to accept the fact that we're not likely to change any minds. It always comes back to the question of when human life begins, and this is very tied into people's religious beliefs. That is sensitive ground for any of us to be treading on.

Words do matter. Saying I and others haven't changed our opinion is NOT the same as saying we haven't learned anything. You may see this as negative feedback, but I see it as pragmatic. I don't enjoy banging my head against a brick wall... I'd rather circle around and look for a door.

Sheryl

boann

03-07-2007, 01:06 AM

presented with the disclaimer that i didn't quite make it through all the posts, so my apologies if they are duplicative.

My first thought pertains to the focus on finding a cure.

I think that Paula’s concern that research runs the risk of becoming overly stem cell heavy at the expense of the exploring other avenues is valid – the priorities of the research community may come closer to the priorities of sick people than those of pharma do, but there are still key differences. I see evidence of those differences in the new excitement over the much-touted significance of non-motor symptoms as well as the growing emphasis on the search for disease modifying therapies – if the thought behind them pre-supposes that current symptomatic therapies are even remotely adequate as long-term solutions, and that therefore it is not necessary to fund research along those lines, then we have a problem.

Because, unlike tuberculosis and polio, researchers do not have a clue what causes PD. I don’t know whether it is even possible to cure something without knowing what causes it. We can also look around and see that – to my knowledge – no non-pathogen-related neurological disease has yet been cured.

So while it is possible that a cure will be discovered tomorrow, and I am all for engaging in its pursuit, it is entirely possible, dare I even say likely, that a cure will not be discovered tomorrow, or next year, in the next couple of decades - or even longer.

How much longer do you think you can last on current PD therapies?

Such a singular focus on a cure leapfrogs right over the woeful inadequacies of the therapies we have to carry us on, indefinitely.

Therefore, in my opinion, it is shortsighted of us to direct all of our hope, energy and money to the pursuit of a cure (or even a disease-modifying therapy) with such single-mindedness that the development of symptomatic therapies falls by the wayside.

We need to focus on both.

My second though was touched on by jeanb, I believe.

Those who argue against permitting the use of excess in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos in research would have zero effect on the quantity of IVF embryos destroyed in this country even if they were to outlaw ESCR completely – unless they also abolish IVF as it is currently undertaken.

In the course of the IVF process, usually more embryos are created than are used in the pursuit of implantation - and the right to determine the destinies of those embryos currently rests with couples who produced them. Ultimately, there are three destinies from which to choose: donate the embryos to another couple, donate them to research, or have them discarded by clinic personnel.

If one believes that it is wrong to destroy an embryo in the course of research, then one must believe that it is wrong to destroy an embryo, period - whether it is in the course of research, or in the course of a day at the IVF clinic. From that it follows that if IVF were to be allowed to continue in an acceptable form, of the current three destiny options available to couples - donate to another couple, donate to research, or simply destroy - the latter two would have to be eliminated, leaving only one option: donating to another couple.

However, that model, even if it were legally defensible, which it is not (forced parenthood has not been upheld in any court, according to what I have read) would only be acceptable if no other embryos were harmed in the IVF process - but other embryos are harmed. There is a baseline attrition rate of anywhere from 10-25% when embryos are frozen and thawed.

So putting a stop to ESCR in and of itself will have zero impact of the number of IVF embryos destroyed– as long as IVF continues, couples will continue to choose not to donate to other couples (read: choose to have their embryos destroyed) and embryos will continue to die in the course of IVF itself.

steffi 001

03-07-2007, 04:01 AM

Hi...just wanted to say that from my own experience,when a thread belts along at the pace that this one has,often a post is read "on the wing"as it were,and replied to in much the same way. When we go back and re-read ,DOH ! we realise that the words that we have responded to suddenly come across in a different light to when first viewed. The times that I have done that in my early days of posting,and I guess will do so again. What a complete PLONKER you feel I can tell you.The important thing is that if and when that happens,it can be sorted out amicably. You said nothing out of place.

Your post was a good one....you hit the target when you said that the beginnings of life were very much tied up in peoples religious beliefs. And in my opinion,there lies the danger.For even within the realms of religion...we are presented with varying degrees of morals and ethics.I guess there are those who would argue ...but the fact is you have the extremists,the fanatics,who take things to the limits,sometimes beyond all sense of rhyme and reason.Those who are hellbent in wiping out folk from another sector to themselves,and who hide behind the mask of "religion." You have those who for example,won`t allow a loved one to have a blood transfusion,all in the face of "religion.." How cool is THAT? Letting a loved one die because of their "belief." I have rubbed shoulders with people who call themselves Christian because they go to church every Sunday and can quote the bible word for word.At any given situation,they`ve got an "impressive" spiel which rolls off the tongue,delivered and spat out with conviction,yet for the rest of the week do sod all to help their fellow man.Believe me,some of my worst "let downs" and disappointments in people,have been from fellow so called "Christians."
And then you have some non believers,who would risk their own lives to help someone else...folk who on a regular basis,not just Sunday...live a good life,and who are a delight and a joy to be with.Who is living the right way here? Yes...as a Christian the bible is my blue print for life.But we have to be sensble and realistic and bring it into todays century.Not to make it fit and dance to our tune,but to keep a reality check.

This is what I was trying to get over in my last post...but probably wasn`t clear enough...the haziness of where stuff begins and ends.
Moral ethics should be inherent in all of us,regardless of individual beliefs.And the bottom line is,we should all follow the path of what "feels" right to us...and do what our own consciences tell us.
Keep posting your stuff Sheryl. Thank you for your valuable input.
x

michael7733

03-07-2007, 08:46 AM

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE FOLLOWING STORY IS VERY GRAPHIC AND HAS BEEN VERY DISTURBING TO SOME FORUM MEMBERS. IT WAS WRITTEN TO STIMULATE THE THOUGHT PROCESSES TO THE POINT THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL MIGHT RESEARCH THE ISSUE OF STEM CELL RESEARCH IN ORDER DISCOVER HOW HE/SHE FEELS ABOUT IT. IT WAS NEVER MY INTENTION TO CAUSE DEBATE, BUT DEBATE HAS BEGUN. IT WAS NEVER MY INTENTION TO CAUSE HURT, BUT FEELINGS HAVE BEEN HURT. ALL COMMENTS ARE WELCOME(PRO STEM CELL OR ANTI STEM CELL), BUT PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ATTACKING ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL. YOU ARE ALL VERY IMPORTANT. (edited to add the above at 4:32 est, Jan.31,2001)
michael

H.S. 1,208
(Pooper)

chapter 1

REPORTER: Hi. I�m Keith Porter from the Daily Times.

RECEPTIONIST: Yes, Mr. Porter, Dr. Stepholin is expecting you. Please, follow me, and I�ll take you to see him.
------------------
Porter follows the receptionist down a long corridor.
------------------
RECEPTIONIST: Dr. Stepholin, this is Mr. Keith Porter from the Daily Times. Mr. Porter, this is Dr. Stepholin, the chief administrator here at Ontogeny International.

DR. STEPHOLIN: Hello, Keith. Just call me Doc. I�ve been looking forward to this interview. I don�t know how you were selected for this exclusive, but you are one, lucky man. Thank you, Ms. Lorn. I�ll take it from here. Keith, let me show you around while you ask me any questions that you
have.

KEITH: Doc., I feel very privileged to be here. Do you mind if I use a
c.d. recorder during the interview so that I don�t have to take time out for
writing?

DR. STEPHOLIN: Of course you may, Keith. Now, ask away while we take a walk down to the lab section.

KEITH: I guess the first question is the obvious one. The name of this
company is Ontogeny International. For the record, what exactly is Ontogeny?

DR. STEPHOLIN: That is the perfect question to begin this interview, Keith.
I�ll give you a brief overview of what it is while we walk. It�s exact meaning will become more clear as we tour the labs. Ontogeny, the company, was birthed in the year 2002 after congress finally gave the go ahead for stem cell research. At first, the funding was skimpy, but we were able to tap into other government programs by establishing mock subsidiaries with various, appropriate names such as Hopeco, Ltd., F.A.C.T.,INC., which stands for Find a Cure Tomorrow, Inc., etceteras. We are a fully-government-funded, private company.

Our research involves studying all of the various aspects of cell development.
We start with a stem cell that we obtain from a discarded human fetus. Basically, a stem cell is a cell that has not yet been programmed to become a specialized cell, such as a skin cell or a bone cell. We isolate that stem cell and then we watch it and analyze it as it divides and differentiates. Unless we interrupt the differentiation, it usually follows a particular, predetermined pathway.

We watch as the cells are acted upon by gene expression which tells them to begin forming the mesoderm, the endoderm and the ectoderm. From these three cell types, all of the various cells, organs, tissues and systems of the human body are formed.

By observing and analyzing each step in the process, we have been able to understand all of the mechanisms involved in cell differentiation. As a result, we have been able to duplicate the processes. We can, at any given time during the process, insert the gene expression required for a particular cell type, and that cell type will then be produced. For example, we can now take any cell in the human body and cause it to differentiate into any cell we want. If we have a bone cell, we can coax it to produce a nerve cell. If we have a skin cell, we can persuade it to produce a bone cell.

Are you getting the picture here, Keith? Can you see how exciting this is? But, wait. That is only the beginning. By being able to direct gene expression at will, we have been able to create not only various cells, but we have also been able to create any tissue, organ or system that we choose. We have even been able to create an entire, intact spinal column with the spinal cord attached. Do you know what this means, Keith? It means that paraplegics and quadriplegics will now, instead of being confined to a wheelchair, be able to walk and function normally again.

KEITH: That is about the most exciting thing I have ever heard, Doc. How in the
world can you contain all of the excitement that you must feel?

But, Doc. I don�t understand something. When I arrived at the facility, there
were scores of people with signs, protesting. They were yelling things like, "Murderers,"" "Baby Killers," "God Wannabees," and "Their Blood Cries Out to God from the Earth." Don't they understand all of the good that is being done here? Don't they know how much suffering your work is going to eliminate from humanity? If you can do all that you say you can do, why, the potential is unlimited. What is their problem?

DR. STEPHOLIN: For the most part, they�re just a bunch of so-called Christians
who believe that there is a god somewhere out in space who put all of this together
intentionally. I guess they�re afraid that we and our work are going to kick their crutch out from under them and destroy their erroneous belief system. We just ignore them
and put up with the hassle. We�ve come too far to allow a bunch of cultists to ruin
our work.

Ah, here we are. This is the entrance to our pride and joy. Through these doors
lies the hope of tomorrow. We secretly call it the Gold Mine.(hahahahahaha)

End of Chapter 1

chapter 2

KEITH: I had no idea that this facility was this large. Why do you need all of this space, Doc.? I mean, cells are very small. They can't possibly take up this much space.

DR. STEPHOLIN: Oh, this is nothing. We have the same amount of space on the basement floor, and we have plans in the near future to add a second and a third floor.

Phase 1 of the project actually didn't take up that much space. Our facility consisted of one small room with a couple of tables, a computer, two microscopes, and various and sundry types of lab equipment. In Phase 1 we merely extracted a stem cell, gave it proper nutrition in a petri dish, and tried to keep it alive. When it died, we would just throw it away and begin again. Those were some very frustrating times.

KEITH: What happened to change all of that, Doc.? By the looks of things, you have obviously come a long way since the simple petri dish days. What do these doors lead to?

DR. STEPHOLIN: Oh, I�m glad you asked. Let�s go in, and I�ll take you on
the tour of your life. Are you ready?

KEITH: I�m ready if you are, Doc. Let the tour begin.
---------------
The doors open, and Keith Porter takes 2 steps into the huge, sterile looking
room. He stops. A cold chill runs down his spine as he stands frozen with
mouth open and eyes wide.
---------------

DR. STEPHOLIN: Well, Keith, what do you think? Is this impressive or what?
Let me show you around. Each of these clear vats represents one phase of cell
differentiation. Each vat has its own station with a controlled environment and a
full array of diagnostic instrumentation. The first station represents the beginning of
our latest endeavor. Each endeavor represent weeks or even months of trial and
error, and successes and failures. The station is not assembled here until the processes are completed and perfected. From each station, we monitor and analyze the
specimen. We presently have 1,208 stations established in this room. Are you impressed yet, Keith? Keith? Mr. Porter! Are you still with me?

KEITH: Huh? Oh, yeah, I'm still with you. I just didn't expect what I'm seeing here. It�s so big, so clinical, so cold.

I don't think I understand what I'm seeing. What about this first station?
All I see here is an empty vat.

DR. STEPHOLIN: Look more closely, Keith. Look toward the middle of
the vat. Do you see it?

KEITH: Oh, do you mean that small spot that looks like a ball? I guess I was expecting something else. How is this little ball going to be the hope of the future that you�ve been talking about?

DR.STEPHOLIN: hahahahaha. Just remember, the closest stations are just
beginning development. Let�s walk. The stations are arranged chronologically.
Some of them are not far enough along to analyze yet, so they are said to be in
the monitoring stage.

KEITH: Oh, wow, Doc., look at this one. It's really beginning to look like
something now. I think I'm beginning to see the picture.
-------------
Woah, Doc. What happened to number 583? I thought you said that they weren�t put out here until they were perfected? This one is missing a leg.

DR. STEPHOLIN: From this point on in the development, every tenth station is
used for analysis. The part that is being analyzed is removed from the specimen,
dissected, and scrutinized to make sure that everything is going as planned. Sometimes
that�s just the price we have to pay for perfection. Nothing worth having is obtained
without a price tag. Right, Keith?

KEITH: That�s what I've been told, Doc.
---------
Hey, Doc., did you see that one? It moved. It looked like it was trying to kick or something. I guess sometimes a nerve in these things gets stimulated, and a reflex action occurs. Is that right, Doc.? Biology was never my strong subject in school. hahahahaha.

DR. STEPHOLIN: Actually, Keith, that wasn't a reflex movement. That's just what
a fetus at this stage of development naturally does.

KEITH: What do you mean by fetus, Doc.? I thought that these were specimens.

DR. STEPHOLIN: Well, they are specimens, Keith, but what good would a dead
specimen be to us? We take great care to keep each specimen alive. That�s the only
way that we can actually see and analyze the ongoing development process. Remember,
I told you that every tenth specimen is designated to be analyzed, and this is achieved through the removal of the particular portion of the anatomy that is being studied.
-----------------
Keith Porter begins to feel ill as he gazes upon some of the most horrible sights his eyes have ever beheld. In every tenth vat exists a horror story in the process of being written. Each successive specimen
exhibits more signs of life than the previous one. He wants to run and find a place to throw up, but his feet seem to be frozen to the floor. They arrive in front of specimen 1,102.
-----------------
DR. STEPHOLIN: We're here, Keith. This is where the Gold Mine begins. Right here begins the harvesting phase.

KEITH: The what?

DR. STEPHOLIN: The harvesting phase. From the next 106 specimens we will harvest parts for use in repairing broken lives. We will end the suffering of so many people who would otherwise be destined to live a life of frustration and pain. We will give joy and fulfillment back to their lives. We will be able to provide, hearts, lungs, livers, arms, legs, spleens and any other part that you can name. Of course, we�ll be able to practically set any price we want; hence, "The Gold Mine."
-------------------
The playful, gurgling sound of a small infant interrupts their conversation.
-------------------
Ah, here is H.S. 1,208. This specimen is due to become the first donor. It is appropriate that the recipient will be one of our chief researchers, Dr. Redding.

KEITH: Dr. Redding?

DR. STEPHOLIN: Apparently he was trying to clean his pistol at home when he stopped
to jot down some notes on this very specimen. He had forgotten to unload the gun, and it went off. The bullet hit his heart. We found him in time to get him on life support. He was, I mean, he is, so dedicated. I would often hear him talking to the specimens in the same manner as someone who talks to their plants. He even gave them pet names. He was still clutching his notes when we found him The last note wasn�t quite finished. All it had on it was, " H.S. 1,208(Pooper) --eyes met--said dada." I guess we'll find out what he was trying to say tomorrow after he gets his new heart.

the end

The preceding story was entirely fictional. Any resemblance to actual facts, companies, people or situations is merely coincidental.

Moderators...If this is too graphic or if it does not pertain to this thread, please let me know, and I will remove it and provide a link to it instead. Thank you.

Here is the link Science or Science Fiction (http://web.archive.org/web/20021219122420/http://neuro-mancer.mgh.harvard.edu/ubb/Forum71/HTML/003372.html)

[This message has been edited by michael7733 (edited January 26, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by michael7733 (edited January 31, 2001).]

Radioguy

03-07-2007, 09:03 AM

Interesting bit of dystopian science fiction. But what does this have to do with the reality of embryonic stem cell research?

michael7733

03-07-2007, 09:19 AM

Radioguy

03-07-2007, 09:25 AM

I think the relevancy is quite clear...of ccourse I could be wrong...I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong many more times in my life. It gives basically the same information that several previous posts gave, but in a different manner. Perhaps I should go back and spend another 3 hours reading everything again to be sure.

michael b.

I'm still not clear... are you intimating that allowing federal funding for ESCR will lead to fetus labs where experimental humans are grown in jars???

If that's the case, I could just as easily write a shock story about the horrors of "electricity" or "computers" or "the internal combustion engine" or "penecillin" or "open heart surgery" or "deep brain stimulation" or any OTHER advance in human knowledge and science.

pegleg

03-07-2007, 09:53 AM

We can argue all we want - ANY chronic illness (whether it results in death - or we know the cause - or how disabling) is serious. It seriously deteriorates the quality of life that one should have.

If you want to pick this article apart for which disease is worse, whether or not to support stem cell research, or whatever, you can - but don't miss the point that was intended. It's the story of how Parkinson's has no socioeconomic, gender or race barriers. It's about knowing what's ahead if we don't find a cure or at least a way to slow this train down.

It's well written and ever so close too home.

Peggy

PS just for the record, I am a pro-life Bible belt evangelical who prayed and did lots of research, but I fully support the present propoosed legislation (S 3 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007). I'll gladly discuss my views via private message or offline.

michael7733

03-07-2007, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by michael7733:
The preceding story was entirely fictional. Any resemblance to actual facts, companies, people or situations is merely coincidental.

That means that it is up to the reader to differentiate the fact from the fiction. If any part of the story, though not true at the present, could in the future become a possibility, then perhaps, that possibility should be scrutinized as well as the present facts.

michael b.

Radioguy

03-07-2007, 10:31 AM

That means that it is up to the reader to differentiate the fact from the fiction. If any part of the story, though not true at the present, could in the future become a possibility, then perhaps, that possibility should be scrutinized as well as the present facts.

michael b.

Sure. We could nitpick and ponder and worry and freeze ourselves into a state of perpetual fear over all kinds of silly things, and then NO research gets done. But hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

Thank goodness the people who developed the country's electric grid weren't paralyzed by fear and superstition. Same goes for the scientists who came up with transplant technology. And practically every other great scientific advance.

michael7733

03-07-2007, 10:54 AM

"To begin, let me say that stem cell research covers a lot of territory, and many methods or techniques are incorporated in pursuing an understanding of ontogeny.
I am not against stem cell research. I find it fascinating. I am, however, against the use of fetal tissue as a methodology of obtaining the stem cells for research.
Satan is usually subtle in the approach he uses to kill, steal and destroy, and man has proven himself to be no match against satan's subtleties. There was only one rule or guideline issued to man in the garden, and he ignored all of God's wonderful gifts in order to have what was not yet given to him. He showed his greed and desire to make his own rules there, and in the thousands of years of his existence, he has not gotten any better.

Without the rule of God in our lives, we are no different. Man would have already ended his own existence if not for God's presence. Should we assume that man will obey the guidelines established by other men concerning stem cell research any better than he obeyed God's rules? I don't think so. Two old sayings apply here: 1)Give him an inch, and he'll take a mile, and 2) Give him enough rope, and he'll hang himself.

Eventually, stem cell research will lead to cloning. First it will be just human cells, tissues and then organs. What will come later will be "complete" replicas of humans. I put complete in quotation marks, because I do not believe that the human soul can be duplicated by man. If my assumption is correct, then what will be produced? I will leave that one to your imagination.

During all of this emerges the aspect of cloning for monetary gain. What has man withheld from himself when it comes to monetary gain. He has broken every law in the book. Let's just take speed limits as an example. Whether the speed limit is 10 mph or 100 mph, man will exceed it and justify his excess by saying, "Oh the law allows us 5 mph to play with."

So, what am I saying? Although I am not against stem cell research in itself, I am aware of what devastation it will eventually bring. It will become another tower of Babel. Man, in his arrogance will play god, and he will eventually make man in his own image, but what about the living soul that comes from the breath of God?

It is my opinion that the best thing that man can do for himself is to look at cell ontogeny and come to the conclusion that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. We are the design of One Creator, and we are not Him. The beginning of wisdom is to fear God. We would all be better off if, instead of spending so much time and money trying to fix mankind that we have broken, we should begin to spend more time and money seeking ways not to break any more. God designed our bodies to heal themselves. No, I'm not saying that we should not try to cure man's diseases. Of course we should, but I think that we should choose other alternatives.

So, even though I am not against using stem cell research to understand the awesomeness of God's creation, I am against what it will lead to. I am doubly against the use of fetal tissue to carry on this research. With all of that said, I simply cannot and will not endorse stem cell research. However, it will happen with or without my endorsement.

In this forum, I have now stated my opinion on this subject as much as I care to. I won't even offer my opinion any more concerning the issue. I know that I said that one other time, but this time I'll try my best to say no more concerning this subject. It would just be a waste of time. I'll continue to try to offer peace and hope and God's love instead. Laughter goes a long way, too."

michael

Radioguy

03-07-2007, 11:03 AM

I appreciate your comments, Michael. Sincerely.

You express your opinion very well. But it's opinion. Not fact.

For instance, your claim that mankind would have been destroyed long ago without God's presence. I submit that more people have been killed because of religion than any other reason.

But that's a different argument for a different forum on a different day.

However ... as do most who point to their interpretation of "God's word" in this argument ... you seem to think that your view of religion should be the law of the land as far as medical research is concerned.

I believe in a just and loving God. And I believe God imbues us with wisdom and knowledge.

And, like I told Vicky, in my ever-so-humble opinion, Satan dances with delight when we suffer, and would love nothing BETTER than for us to continue suffering this affliction when the cure might just be a couple years of research away.

Where we part company is here... you seem to believe blastocysts are "babies." I say they are not. Best medical evidence says they are not.

And again, the question remains...

If you're against ESCR, why are you not ALSO vigorously combatting IVF?

steffi 001

03-07-2007, 11:07 AM

A brave post. I haven`t to date said which way I would go.
HOWEVER...
this might be fiction...but if this is what it takes in order for me to be healthy,then no....emphatically no...I would rather cut my own leg off and experiment on that.A baby farm,for spares....uh uh....does not sit comfortably with me.

Having said that I still back scientific research performed within ethical ground rules. And still hold true to my belief that those ethics should be evident in all of us,regardless of colour or creed.

I guess we ALL need ALL the information.Every tiny little bit of information... No stone unturned.

Thank you again Michael,for this .

pegleg

03-07-2007, 11:13 AM

Michael wrote: If any part of the story, though not true at the present, could in the future become a possibility, then perhaps, that possibility should be scrutinized as well as the present facts.

I assume you are referring to the Sci-Fi story, Michael. There are unlimited possibilities with any scientific finding: Did you ever think that we would be able to transplalnt a heart? What about reattaching a severed finger? Or wiping out (essentially in the US) devastating illnesses like polio or smallpox?? And, as with any scientific finding, there are possibilities that can turn sour - even lethal to the human race.

I think this forum's purpose is to provide information and support for one another. That information may incllude harmful possibilities. But we should try to not provide one-sided stories without balancing them with the opposing facts.

I have written some very one-sided editorials for various media uses. I can show some of them to you if you like. Usually an editor wants an opinion; but I prefer to present questions and facts that make people at least consider or listen to a concept not in compliance with one's own thinking.

We are treading new waters. Some of the "potential" problems are mindboggling (as Michael's fictional story points out). I am going to post one of my "questioning" OpEd's. I am NOT directing it at anyone's comments or opinion - it's just to make us think. As my mom always said, "There are two sides to every story." Thanks for listening to mine.
Peg

ATTENTION: FYI Please note that this editorial was written and published just prior to President Bush's veto on last year's Stem Cell Research bill (HR810). The identical bill was passed by the House this year and awaits a Senate vote. The legislation, S-3 "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007" will likely be voted on in March. The vote is extremely close iin the Senate to make the bill veto-proof.

OpEd The Shape of Things to Come
By Peggy Willocks
August, 2005
TN Coordinator – Parkinson’s Action Network

Take a circular Petri dish, bring together egg and sperm cells, and the miraculous process of creating an embryo begins. But bring together a circle of acquaintances, ask for opinions on embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), and we will surely polarize into a multi-sided shape. Rather than be close-minded, we should listen to those teaching, then weigh all sides.

We listen to the media, adding their sensationalism, and reporting a plethora of political motives and opinions from extremists on both sides of the spectrum. We listen to the scientists, teaching that early studies indicate ESCR has the best potential success. Science claims hope for improved treatments and possible cures for millions from diseases like Parkinson’s, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and spinal cord injuries. And we listen to the pro-life conservatives, teaching their religious angle on this issue. And we listen to the politicians, some of whom don’t always have the interest of mankind at heart. But first, we must get the question right. Simply stated, the question is - Can we support research using science-created excess embryos and preserve the sanctity of human life?

A House passed bill (HR810) requests a relaxing of President’s Bush’s 2001 research moratorium on existing stem cell lines. Bush, who promises his first veto for the House passed bill, remains adamant in his decision. But in a surprise move during the President’s Council on Bioethics report, (former) Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), a heart transplant surgeon, denounced support of President Bush’s stand. And now the debate is on with a possible Senate vote in September.

Since the early 90’s, U.S. doctors at in vitro clinics have been creating and implanting embryos through a process known as in vitro fertilization (IVF), into the wombs of infertile women. But not every fertilized egg is viable; i.e. only the healthiest are “culled.” And not every implantation becomes a viable pregnancy; therefore, more eggs are fertilized than needed, with some trashed and excessive embryos stored frozen.

Some 400,000 unused frozen embryos are presently stored in fertility clinics throughout the U.S., destined to be discarded as medical waste, yet forbidden under present legislation to be used for stem cell research. The “Snowflake” program, organized by a Christian group, provides the option of donating embryos to recipient couples unable to produce their own. This program would not be precluded by HR810. Some Christian conservatives and pro-life supporters strongly believe these excess embryos are “life,” equating their use for research, in which the embryos must be destroyed, to “killing innocent lives.”

There are questions needing answers: Why is it allowable for “life” to be created, knowing that during the IVF process not all embryos will even survive the thaw, and the unhealthy will be culled, or “killed?” If several embryos are implanted – what becomes of those that don’t take? Some methods of birth control (such as IUD’s and certain birth control pills) “work” by causing an attached embryo to be “aborted.” Why is this not considered as killing a human? As ludicrous as it all of this seems, these are inconsistencies to be considered.

Concerning the science of ESCR, how far ethically can we proceed? Will there be clearly defined guidelines preventing embryos past a few days old from becoming “research” material? Will implantation of an embryo in order to “make a baby” via reproductive cloning be outlawed? Will legalization contribute to black-marketing embryos, organs, or body parts? If we don’t support this science, will we fall behind and lose our best scientists and doctors to other countries?

Finally, the ethics of such a science lead us to a closer examination of our own value system, and whether or not one’s religious beliefs should have precedence over another. Are we “playing God” with this science? Will ESC research lead us into never before tested situational ethics, such as genetic ownership or liability? Could we paint ourselves into a fatal corner in an attempt to create immortal bodies, only to eliminate the human race due a genetic vulnerability?

There are choices to be made, choices that could further polarize an already philosophically divided society. But there are also lives to be saved and scientific advancements to be made. President Bush calls this choice a “matter of conscious.” (former) Senator Frist (R-TN), calls it a “matter of science.” Conservatives call it a “matter of life,” while others call it a “matter of politics.” Or is it a “matter of moral, scientific, and political semantic inconsistencies.” The shape of things to come depends on “who’s teaching,” and “who’s listening.”

michael7733

03-07-2007, 11:24 AM

Here is a poem I wote, Bill. It petty much sums up how I feel about my ability to handle such major life issues. I appreciate your comments too, Bill. I don't get vigorous about anything these days. In fact, I don't think I have a vigorous bone left in my body after 17 1/2 years of Pd. lol

I am a friend...not an enemy.

http://www.braincrumbs.org/wereyouthere.html
michael b.

michael7733

03-07-2007, 11:38 AM

You must have been a school teacher in your former life...Great job...very well done, but not over cooked.

michael b.

EmptyNest68

03-07-2007, 11:59 AM

Your poem was very beautiful and eloquent. Thank you michael!
Steph

Radioguy

03-07-2007, 12:17 PM

michael7733

03-07-2007, 01:14 PM

It isn't difficult to make poetry from poetry. I think I used the Revise Standard version which I got from http://www.crosswalk.com

Here is chapter 38

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind: 2 "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? 3 Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.

4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, 7 when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 "Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth from the womb; 9 when I made clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band, 10 and prescribed bounds for it, and set bars and doors, 11 and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?

12 "Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place, 13 that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it? 14 It is changed like clay under the seal, and it is dyed like a garment. 15 From the wicked their light is withheld, and their uplifted arm is broken. 16 "Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep? 17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? 18 Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if you know all this. 19 "Where is the way to the dwelling of light, and where is the place of darkness, 20 that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home? 21 You know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great! 22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail, 23 which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war? 24 What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?

25 "Who has cleft a channel for the torrents of rain, and a way for the thunderbolt, 26 to bring rain on a land where no man is, on the desert in which there is no man; 27 to satisfy the waste and desolate land, and to make the ground put forth grass? 28 "Has the rain a father, or who has begotten the drops of dew? 29 From whose womb did the ice come forth, and who has given birth to the hoarfrost of heaven? 30 The waters become hard like stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. 31 "Can you bind the chains of the Plei'ades, or loose the cords of Orion? 32 Can you lead forth the Maz'zaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children? 33 Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth? 34 "Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, that a flood of waters may cover you? 35 Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, 'Here we are'? 36 Who has put wisdom in the clouds, or given understanding to the mists? 37 Who can number the clouds by wisdom? Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens, 38 when the dust runs into a mass and the clods cleave fast together? 39 "Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, 40 when they crouch in their dens, or lie in wait in their covert? 41 Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God, and wander about for lack of food?

The Revised Standard Version