 |
 |
Dear K. F. Etzold Regarding your query to Bob Fink: > Can you provide material to back up your statement on "creation of > fetuses for a source of cells", ie. creation which is *not* a > byproduct of their creation for infertile couples, ie. the creation > for the express purpose of creating [stem] cells. I think this was on one of the nightime news magazines like Dateline. A woman in her fifties had a child to save another daughter in her twenties that had some rare genetic defect. I think few of us parents would object to this womans decision but it does raise concern about where is the limit. I think Bob has articulated his point well and in a very respectful manner. There is potential for abuse. The question Bob is raising is when do we cross the line. This decision will be different for everyone. As Bob indicated, he has to look at himself in the mirror every morning I tried to make the same point in my rant posted here on 23 August. Today we have no restrictions on the use of human embryos for medical experimentation. The Bush position just limits federal funding beyond existing cell lines. It's still free enterprize for the bio-tech industry. So in a sense he has ducked the issue too. How far do we let embryos gestate for medical research purposes and still ethically and yes even morally justify terminating the gestation process? Three months? Six months? Nine months? As the fetus is exiting the birth canal? We still prosecute those that wrap a newborn in a plastic trash bag and toss it in a dumpster. So as you move from conception to birth in the gestation process more and more people will have difficulty justifying terminating the gestation process. When do you cross the cost versus benefit line? I can't answer that. It has to be answered by each individual looking into the mirror. And some of you are saying, Phil you idiot, we're not talking about growing fetuses. We're harvesting cells shortly after conception. But the point I also tried to make in my 23 August rant was that PD is a complicated disease. We don't really know what the basil ganglia do. We don't know why a dopamine deficiency in the basil ganglia cause PD symptoms. However, we do know that as the disease progresses it is more than a dopamine deficiency. Implanting stem cells into the substantia nigra to produce more dopamine was a failure producing the same side effects as too much levodopa. In effect, it's the same approach tried 15 years ago with fetal cell implants. Replacing the dopamine producing cells doesn't cure the disease. So when one hears grandiose quotes from a stem cell researcher in the funny papers (news media) one should question how much he really know about PD. Also keep in mind that he is hyping his research to get money. So if we don't know how the basil ganglia develop and what they do, we need to take time slices in the development from conception to birth. So it brings us back to the point of how far in the gestation process are we comfortable with letting a human fetus develop for the purpose of sacrifice and study? Now a lot of work is being done in animal models to study these developmental questions. The bulk of stem cell research can be performed better and faster using animal models. In my opinion, PD should be cured in non-human primates before we put humans at risk. Ironically, use of apes in medical research has been banned in many countries. Also, research animals are very expensive to procure, expensive to maintain and bring the wrath of animal rights groups. So where does that leave us? If we lift restrictions on federally funded human embryonic stem cell research, more cell lines and money will be available to implant stem cells in human subjects. We can skip the animal model work and jump to the cure in humans even though we don't understand what we are curing. So where do the human embryonic stem cell researchers plan to get their primates for research? When one looks into the mirror tomorrow examining their conscience for how far into the gestation process human embryos should be allowed to develop for medical research, say hello to Bo Bo the babooon. So another question I have is the ethics of trying an experiment on humans when you really don't know what you are doing. As John indicated in his post on 9 Sep.: "Fetal Cell Transplantation, a procedure several PIEN members had, was very controversial because of moral grounds. The abortion foes lost that fight because the right to an abortion was the law of the land. The cells of 10 to 12 aborted fetal brains was implanted into each side of the Parkinsonian brains of the subjects in the study." The net is that the precedence has been set. Abortion law essentially says that the owner of the embryo and the owner of the incubator has the right to determine the destiny of the product. As I also mentioned in my 23 Aug rant, we have the technology to implant a human embryo into the womb of a non-human primate for gestation. As Bob put it. We certainly have the potential for mischief. Phil Gesotti ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn