 |
 |
Using your own example: " One of the things one cannot do is to argue about zygotes, when life begins etc. The reason is, as we have seen amply here that it cannot be done, opinions vary over a wide range and nobody has the truth. The concept is fuzzy and thus does not lead it itself for a clear cut decision. What can be done however, is to make a definition, a rule. This is what the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade. Nobody says they are right or wrong (because one cannot)." What President Bush has done is to make a definition, a rule. No one can say if he is right or wrong (one cannot). In my opinion, he made a compromise between what the two sides want. I do not necessarily agree with his compromise - I would see it slightly differently. But I will not criticize the man for trying his best (I believe) to reach a compromise rather than catering strictly to one side or the other. How one feels about Bush's decision has everything to do with perspective. Now, in reply to another post, I have heard about the ginseng connection to PD before, but has anyone heard of what amount was used in the research? Wendy -----Original Message----- From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of KF Etzold Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 8:17 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: The rules for the Ethical Use of Human Embryos Phil: You said: "How far do we let embryos gestate for medical research purposes and still ethically and yes even morally justify terminating the gestation process?" The discussion has been exclusively about the use of IVF embryos, not about abortions, gestation/abortion for the purpose of medical research. The example you and Bob cite is really not relevant to the discussion of stemcell research. That said, this still leaves a gaping hole about exactly how to proceed with this kind of research. One of the things one cannot do is to argue about zygotes, when life begins etc. The reason is, as we have seen amply here that it cannot be done, opinions vary over a wide range and nobody has the truth. The concept is fuzzy and thus does not lead it itself for a clear cut decision. What can be done however, is to make a definition, a rule. This is what the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade. Nobody says they are right or wrong (because one cannot). The same thing needs to be done with stemcell research and more broadly the ethical disposition of IVF embryos. It is clear that a rule (law) may not satisfy everybody (just as Roe v. Wade does not) but it allows the work to proceed in a proscribed manner. President Bush has neatly avoided the dilemma of deciding how to proceed with the research by supporting preexisting lines, no embryos used here. But where do we go from here and how does this fit vis-a- vis the rest of the world. This is really a global question not one the US, Britain or Indonesia. I agree with Bob that a strong, enforceable code of ethics needs to be developed, but the work will not stop even if it did in the US. K. F. Etzold cg Carline ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn