More Ethical Questions About Stem Cells

Ethics will change rapidly when useful treatment are developed.

Look at our (as a society) changing attitudes to contraception, abortion, homosexuality, high level bombing of civilian cities, video/game violence, bank bailouts, wiki-leaks, million dollar salaries for executives or even the use of semi-slave labour for much of our shoe manufacture.

Many of our current ethics would horrify our ancestors from a few centuries ago.

Absolutely true ..! I think that the main thrust regarding stem cells is of course to provide solutions for devastating diseases, which presently cost society billions not to mention the emotional cost these diseases bring to the sufferers and their families. I underwent stem cell implantation, garnered from my own bone marrow, just over 12 months ago, for the treatment of Emphysema. I would have to say whilst a cure hasn,t been forthcoming, I do feel that the progression of the condition, has been slowed down somewhat, indeed at the minute I feel quite well, compared to how I felt prior to the treatment. Norm.

Be careful. To equate a change in attitude with a change in ethics is logically a false equivalent. Changing attitudes do not make things more ethical or less ethical; they just make behaviors more common or less common. A few examples should illustrate the idea. Human sacrifice used to be more widely accepted and practiced, but it was no more ethical (i.e. more right) in the past than it is in the present. Untouchables in India were treated even worse in the past than they are in the present, but after the actions of people like Gandhi and Mother Theresa, attitudes changed and treatment improved. The atrocious treatment of untouchables was not more ethical in the past; it was just more widely accepted. Likewise, in past decades, bankers avoided "investing" in bad debt. Attitudes and legislation changed, and numerous bad loans were made. The fact that attitudes and behaviors in the banking industry changed does not mean that ethical standards changed.

The ethical dilemma of what to do with growing embryos is nothing new. When couples need in vitro fertilization work done, more eggs are harvested and fertilized than the number of children the couple wants to have. The "extras" are frozen. That way, if early attempts fail (a common occurrence), or if the couple wants to have more than one child, a second invasive harvesting procedure is not required. But after the couple decides that they do not want to try having any more children, what is to be done with the "leftover" embryos? I have known couples who chose to implant all of the embryos that were harvested; I've known couples who allowed others to have the "extras" implanted when they were not able to have in vitro work done with their own genes. In both of these instances, the couples were motivated by an ethic of life. I've seen other couples who chose to have the "extras" destroyed. In the small sample of which I am aware, this latter choice is becoming more common. These couples often give the decision no thought, but sometimes they do make it clear that they support life, but do not believe the embryos to be living people. Attitudes and behaviors in this area may change, but the ethical standard will still be the same.

P.S. You mention Wiki-leaks. If this blogger is trustworthy, the founder of Wiki-leaks was upset at his own sensitive information being leaked to the press. With his change in attitude, is there a change of ethical standards?

You mention human sacrifice as being bad and of course I agree.

But we still do it in a way, look at soldiers - it's understood some will die for the greater good, look at worker safety standards - some will die because it's just too expensive to remove all risk, look at car use - thousands die each year because they're are so convenient, look at the US health system - TB and other diseases kill people because there was no public health system.

Even something like child abuse, which has a simple ethical position, isn't simple, especially when it's mixed up with religion (and large religious institutions).

Thanks for the discussion.

That last post from Guest is from me Ffej.

There is a difference between ethics and societal standards of practice. Abortion, homosexuality are different from an executive being paid well for the services he/she provides or bank bailouts. A salary or economic policies aren't necessarily moral issues.

"Ethics will change rapidly when useful treatment are developed."

The ends don't justify the means, regardless of the benefit! Just because there is a highly valued benefit to a process, it doesn't justify the trampling of a moral principle. If fetal stem cells could be used to cure Parkinson's Disease or cancer or some other terrible disease, it doesn't justify the killing of a child, born or unborn. When we start making these judgments on our own, with our limited understanding of science, we are treading on thin ice, with dire consequences coming. Pretty soon we start making judgments about what a quality standard of life is and whether someone is contributing enough to society so warrant a particular kind of medical care a person will receive. That is part of the debate on this awful government healthcare bill, called Obamacare, here in the United States. There is a provision for a group of people (referred to by some as a "Death Panel") who will decide when it is time for a citizen of this free country to vacate the premises because we don't want to expend the resources for their care.

You're right when you say that "many of our current ethics would horrify our ancestors from a few centuries ago." That is to our detriment. We as a society of people, whether here in the US or elsewhere in the world, are generally moving in a negative direction of moral standards and our view of absolute principles. What we tolerate anymore; like divorce, abortion, homosexuality, dishonesty in business, politics and relationships, respect for individual rights, etc. would certainly be disheartening to previous generations of 60 or more years ago.

Lowering standards or morality and ethics is never beneficial to a society. The result is always the same. The country breaks down and it's ability to lead and influence the world are lost.

Respectfully, the decision about who should get what treatment exist today. It is decided by inurance companies that are focused on profit. Obamacare may or may not be good, I have no way of knowing. If you dont like the criteria used by the goverment, you can vote for change. How exaclty do you influence the insurance companies?

As far as influencing the insurance companies; that is best done in a true free enterprise system where businesses operate within legal, accepted guidelines and provide a product at a cost and value the consumer is willing to purchase. The consumer then influences the businesses by "voting" with their pocket book.

That is now difficult to do because this government of ours has over the years so encroached into private enterprise with regulation, as to be a huge impediment to companies operating as they see fit, for the benefit of their customers that they have had to work hard to get (it's called competition).

The insurance industry is a business and the purpose of business is to make money, for itself and it's shareholders, if it is publicly traded. That is where character and integrity come in. The consumer has to be able to place their trust and well being in the company that will provide the best product and value for them

"Obamacare may or may not be good, I have no way of knowing."

That is a very easy call to make. It would be terrible for our country, on a whole host of reasons: it isn't Constitutional, the government can't afford it, the government doesn't know how to operate anything effectively and efficiently, it is not the governments place to demand anyone to conduct business or purchase a product under the threat of being penalized by taxation or prosecution, it would generate even more people with an entitlement mentality that someone else will make up for the bad lifestyle choices they make, you have a few people (not elected, but appointed) making life and death decisions based upon their possibly skewed worldview and value of the individuals life, health care isn't a "right" that is to be supplied by the government (not any more than we should be provided with 3 meals a day, or a place to live, a car to drive, a TV to watch or a cell phone to use), the list can go on ad infinitum ....

That probably sounds like I'm poor, cold-hearted bas@#*>, but I'm not. I just want to see us operating the way our Founding Fathers envisioned for us and stated so in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I think it was Thomas Paine who stated that "the government that governs best, is the government that governs least."

I'm actually inclined to agree that ethics do change over time. Let's agree on one thing first before we go into the topic of the stem cells research.

"To equate a change in attitude with a change in ethics is logically a false equivalent"

"There is a difference between ethics and societal standards of practice"

It seems that it is suggested that 'Ethics' has a definitive definition, a list moral/immoral things. But it isn't. After all, if you are already convinced think that the end is immoral, there isn't anything to debate about, is there?

Think about it, who/what has the final say in what is right or wrong? One could say it's the law, but again, who defines law? IMHO, I would say that ultimately, it is the society that defines 'ethics'. Thus, while

"a change in an individual's attitude does not equate to a change in ethics", a change in the society's attitude does cause a change in the perception of what is right/wrong (i.e. ethics), and while

"there might be a difference between ethics and societal standards of practice", there is definitely a relation.

So (finally), the real touchy ethical dilemma should be (as GKC has pointed out):

"Do we treat embryos to be 'living people'?"

How do we define 'living people'? Once the sperm fuses with the egg? Once they have souls? Or once they have a mind of their own, a concious, or feeling?

Point to ponder: While I was reading this sentence in the topic "... eventually be used to create new life from even dead tissue", it got me thinking about the existance of 'souls'...

I think the key issue here, is the right of the individual donor to decide what the fate of his/her cells used in research or iPS procedures should be.

There is a point where ethics debate is not enough, and the law should take over. It should be illegal to exploit human research subjects or donors of cells, tissues, or organs, for any purpose to which they have not been fully informed and freely consented in writing. Those who violate the donor consent should be prosecuted.

The Declaration of Helsinki 2004 made an explicit requirement, that the design of all research involving human subjects should be made public. This requirement is an excellent strategy to prevent ethics violations and criminal acts in the guise of research, and to ensure the highest standard of fully informed consent, by putting the information out there in public view to be read, discussed and understood. Unfortunately this requirement is not at all practiced, afaik.

Without public scrutiny, the interested parties are found making their own "ethical approval" decisions behind closed doors. A recipe for disaster.

There is not a single argument that can provide basis for the stem cell use as unethical in R&D and Therapies that lead to repair of disease state. There is nothing inhuman in reparing the disease state of human! Period!

You're right, there isn't anything unethical about stem cell research. It is great to be able to research and look for cures to some diseases which are dreadful. And if the source of those stem cells don't come from embroys, there isn't a problem with stem cell research. There is much research that shows great benefit from stem cells other than embroys. There are other sources of stems cells that don't call for the killing of one human being for the potential saving of another human being. If you look at someone's worldview and their view of the sanctity of life, you can determine how far that person is willing to go in trampling someone else's rights to accomplish their particular agenda.

Like I said in an earlier post, "the ends don't justify the means". And just because there could possibly be great benefit doesn't mean we should tread over the God-given rights of another life to save someone else. If we start choosing who is going to live and die, born or unborn, old or young, (other than capital punishment, where the law/government, has the duty to exact retribution for the taking of an innocent life), then we are on a very slippery slope of moral degradation that will always be taken to the end by those who wish to lord their authority and power over others, either for personal gain or to forward a particular agenda.

I really don't see anymore ethical questions than what we already know. It is extremely silly and annoying----When no body talks/cares about death penalty, killing animals for food, and torture--then we don't need to worry about STEM CELL