Robert A. Fink, M. D. wrote:

>On 19 Mar 2004 at 10:09, FrankandTeri wrote:
>
>
>
>>I for one don't know the answer and I am still searching.  Now just
>>for me and no one else, I would try to error on the side of my
>>conscious.  I would also not impose my conscious on anyone else.  This
>>is a difficult subject and should be treated with respect for all
>>peoples opinions.  They should all be valued and then perhaps we will
>>find the answer in the collective consciousness of man.  As influenced
>>by God of course or whomever or whatever you believe guides mans quest
>>for truth.
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>
>
>I think that the major problem with the stem-cell issue (and abortion issues as
>well) lies with the fact that, thusfar, modern medicine has yet to determine the
>time that a living embryo/fetus "becomes a human being".  For whatever it is
>worth, we have decided that killing a non-human being is licit, while killing a
>human (except under very stringent circumstances) is not.
>
>My general philosophy (that a human embryo/fetus is fully a human being)
>dates back to an incident when I was an intern and we had a young woman, 5
>months pregnant with her first child, who was found to have uterine cancer.
>The treatment at that time was insertion of radium implants (and this was
>generally quite effective in cure of the cancer), but such insertion would kill
>the fetus.  The fetus would then be aborted spontaneously (miscarriage)
>several weeks after the radium treatment.
>
>It was considered that passage of this dead fetus through the cancerous cervix
>might be detrimental to the treatment of the cancer; and so, the accepted
>treatment (then) was to perform a "mini-C-section" (the fetus was too large to
>be evacuated by D & C), remove the fetus, and then proceed with the radium
>implant.  I "scrubbed in" on that procedure as an assistant, and when the fetus
>was removed (it was about 6 inches long and was clearly a human baby in
>form), it was placed in a tray next to the operating table.  It "kicked" for about
>15 minutes before it finally died.
>
>After that experience, there was no question in my mind that a fetus was a
>human being and that it wanted to live just as much as a full-term baby (or
>already born child).  Nowadays, that fetus could possibly have been saved,
>using modern neonatology techniques.
>
>Physicians, using electroencephalograms and other modern techniques, have
>arrived at a consensus as to when "death" occurs.  So-called "brain death is
>whan you have irreversible cessation of all brain function.  Once this is
>declared, the human being is dead and organs, tissues, etc. can be
>"harvested".  A 2-month fetus, if attached to an electroencephalograph, has a
>documentable EEG tracing, thus not "brain dead".
>
>Thus, what is needed, is a consensus as to when one is "alive" (as a human
>being), and once this state is reached, it is my opinion that such a human
>being has all of the rights that any other human being has.  This consensus
>needs to be reached in discussions between scientific, religious, ethical, and
>legal scholars.
>
>
>Best,
>
>Bob
>
>

Dear doctor,

Some babies are born without brain  after being "living" in the uterus
of the mother for many months. So I wonder if one should consider in
these cases that we are dealing with "human beings" or just an aggregate
of  human cells.
Best,
Joao Carvalho
Salvador,Bahia,Brazil

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn