 |
 |
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