TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- U.S. falling behind in stem cell research
U.S. falling behind in stem cell research
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...e/cloning_lag_1
To be brutally honest....I'M PRETTY FUCKING PISSED ABOUT THIS!
And namely at this administration for using the morality card to politicize this issue and limit gov't funding for this potentially breakthrough research. i don't wanna come off to be radically nationalist here, but we're usually the ones that come up with this shit first!
Then again I guess this is what happens when you elect a religious zealot into office!
Hmmm. I'm not that bothered by it solely because I don't think it's wise to fuck with nature too much. Bad things can happen. Very bad things.
It's cool science, but I think there are limits to what we should be fucking around with.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Hmmm. I'm not that bothered by it solely because I don't think it's wise to fuck with nature too much. Bad things can happen. Very bad things. It's cool science, but I think there are limits to what we should be fucking around with. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Hmmm. I'm not that bothered by it solely because I don't think it's wise to fuck with nature too much. Bad things can happen. Very bad things. It's cool science, but I think there are limits to what we should be fucking around with. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Hmmm. I'm not that bothered by it solely because I don't think it's wise to fuck with nature too much. Bad things can happen. Very bad things. It's cool science, but I think there are limits to what we should be fucking around with. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I suppose then that you are against genetically modified crops of which most of the US's agriculture are? Isn't harnessing the power of the atom also "fucking with nature"? So what exactly are you against with stem celled research? It's merely one tool to understand genes and our bodies with the hopes of curing diseases. If you don't want to "fuck" with nature we might as well abandon most modern medical technologies and treatments as they all go against nature. This story truly fucking pisses me off. I don't mind religion but for fucks sake keep it out of science. |
| quote: |
Published on Thursday, February 12, 2004 by the New York Times Justice Dept. Seeks Hospitals' Records of Some Abortions by Eric Lichtblau WASHINGTON � The Justice Department is demanding that at least six hospitals in New York City, Philadelphia and elsewhere turn over hundreds of patient medical records on certain abortions performed there. This notion of John Ashcroft poring over medical records in a fairly unprecedented type of fishing expedition is exactly the type of privacy invasion that worries people. David Seldin Naral Pro-Choice America Lawyers for the department say they need the records to defend a new law that prohibits what opponents call partial-birth abortions. A group of doctors at hospitals nationwide have challenged the law, enacted last November, arguing that it bars them from performing medically needed abortions. The department wants to examine the medical histories for what could amount to dozens of the doctors' patients in the last three years to determine, in part, whether the procedure, known medically as intact dilation and extraction, was in fact medically necessary, government lawyers said. But hospital administrators are balking because they say the highly unusual demand would violate the privacy rights of their patients, and the standoff has resulted in clashing interpretations from federal judges in recent days about whether the Justice Department has a right to see the files. A federal judge in Manhattan last week allowed the subpoenas to go forward and threatened to impose penalties, and perhaps even lift a temporary ban he had imposed on the government's new abortion restrictions, if the records were not turned over. But, also last week, the chief federal judge in Chicago threw out the subpoena against the Northwestern University Medical Center because he said it was a "significant intrusion" on the patients' privacy. A woman's relationship with her doctor and her decision on whether to get an abortion "are issues indisputably of the most sensitive stripe," and they should remain confidential "without the fear of public disclosure," the judge, Charles P. Kocoras, wrote in a decision first reported by Crain's business journal in Chicago. The Justice Department is considering an appeal. The department's demands for the records are still pending against Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, Weill Cornell Medical Center and St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, all in New York City; the University of Michigan medical center in Ann Arbor; and Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia. At least one undisclosed hospital also appears to have been served with a subpoena, officials said. Judge Richard Conway Casey of Federal District Court in Manhattan, who issued an order in December enforcing the government subpoenas, said at a hearing last week that the department had good reason to want the records, and he threatened to sanction the opposing lawyers in the case unless the hospitals turned them over. "I will not let the doctors hide behind the shield of the hospital," Judge Casey said, according to a transcript of the hearing. "Is that clear? I am fed up with stalls and delays." Judge Casey issued a temporary injunction in November preventing the government from enforcing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. He said last week that he was prepared to lift that injunction and possibly clear the way for the government to enforce the law if the records were not produced. Sheila M. Gowan, a Justice Department lawyer, told Judge Casey that the demand for the records was intended in part to find out whether the doctors now suing the government had actually performed procedures prohibited under the new law, and whether the procedures were medically necessary "or if it was just the doctor's preference to perform the procedure." The department said in its unsuccessful effort to enforce the Northwestern subpoena that the demand for records did not "intrude on any significant privacy interest of the hospital's patients" because the names and other identifiable information would be deleted. Citing federal case law, the department said in a brief that "there is no federal common law" protecting physician-patient privilege. In light of "modern medical practice" and the growth of third-party insurers, it said, "individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." It is still unclear exactly how many patients would be affected by the subpoenas � if they are enforced � because the affected hospitals are still reviewing their case files. Officials said several dozen women who have obtained abortions could be affected. A lawyer for the National Abortion Federation, a plaintiff in the lawsuit before Judge Casey, told him that, over all, "many hundreds" of medical documents would be covered. The federation is a trade organization that represents abortion providers. The University of Michigan, which initially refused to turn over the subpoenaed records because of privacy concerns, said it was discussing ways of deleting enough identifying information to comply with the subpoena. Other hospitals said they remained concerned. Under the department's subpoena, "there still is enough identifiable information in these records to identify these people," said Kelly Sullivan, a spokeswoman for Northwestern. Advocates for abortion rights said they were particularly troubled by the subpoenas because of Attorney General John Ashcroft's history as an outspoken opponent of abortion in his days in the Senate. "This notion of John Ashcroft poring over medical records in a fairly unprecedented type of fishing expedition is exactly the type of privacy invasion that worries people," said David Seldin, a spokesman for Naral Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights organization. "The government just shouldn't be involving itself in private medical decisions and second-guessing doctors' ability to advise their patients properly." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider The US has a vastly competitive advantage over the rest of the world in medical breakthroughs and I'd like to keep it that way. |
, than we may indeed we be at a point where it would be very hard to catch up with the rest of the world in the bio-tech industry.
Read about this yesterday from NYTimes
http://nytimes.com/2004/02/12/science/12CELL.html?hp
I need a patriotic SK smilie 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider This story truly fucking pisses me off. I don't mind religion but for fucks sake keep it out of science. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Did you say "religion" and "science"? *****gets the boxing gloves****** *****puts in "Rocky" Theme music in tape deck****** Lemme at 'em, lemme at 'em!!!!! |
. Well I think it's a welcome repreive. It'll tied us over until the next suicide bombing.
hmm I wish you guys could have seen the Charile Rose show yesterday he had two stem cell scientist on and talked exactly about this. They both feared that the US is losing its competitive advantage in this field.
From my understanding however the government just refused to give Federal Funding to stem cell research - there is no real ban on it. There are several philanthripist however that are contributing substantial ammounts to this pursuit, I would encourage any who are eager about this cause to donate to those foundations.
The USA government isn't doing anything 'wrong' however, it simply doesn't want to fund stem cell resarch. This would be akin to saying the Federal government shouldn't fund condoms in school and that the government is wrong about that decision.
The argument that the USA government is doing something stupid is another matter, and I would agree with most sentiment that they are stupid in this regard (even though for instance I am against funding condoms) .. of course each has their own opinion on this matter.
....
as for Dave's post regarding Aschroft, I don't think the investigation he is conducting is a violation of privacy for the folliwng reason. He will not be aware who the patients are, or be able to prosecute the patients. What he is trying to find out is if their Doctors are violating the law. And I encourage any Attorney General to enforce all our laws. If we don't like the laws then we should change them, I don't think we should not enforce them however.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ *Several words, most of which I agree with* PLUS Even Nancy Reagan supports stem cell research. |
I'm going to pay devil's advocate here.
Here's the "moral" issue behind stem cell research. In legal cases, except in the matter of abortion, a fetus is considered a human being. If I kill a pregnant woman, or willfully cause her to miscarriage, I will be charged with murder or double murder, respectfully. Seeing as stem cells for research (at least the bulk) come from fetuses discarded from fertility clinics, many consider that to be the killing a human in the hopes of helping another.
A common analogy is human organ transplants. Organ transplants help many people. So what if we found people and used them soley to donate their organs. We killed them, and then distributed the organs out to those who needed them. We have now helped, maybe saved, tens of lives with donated kidneys, a liver, lungs, a heart, etc., but we still killed someone to do it. Is that killing justified?
Now, you may say the fetuses from those fertility clinics, or existing cell lines should be used, because they're going to be killed anyway...might as well put them to good use. However, killing someone to benefit yourself cannot be excused by the fact that you were going to kill them anyway. If I murdered my dad to get my inheritance sooner, would I be able to say, "if I killed him for no good reason it would be bad, but if I did it for money to help myself, it's justifiable.
Here's another common analogy. Suppose that some militant racist group went around lynching black people. Hundreds of innocent blacks are killed. Public outrage grows. Then one day this group announces a new program: Whenever they lynch a black person, they will promptly deliver the body to the nearest hospital, where organs can be removed for transplant. Even if you don't approve of lynching or racism, they say, surely you must applaud us for this. Think of all that good that can be done. Maybe a lynching is a tragedy, but at least this way some good will come of it.
Now with all that said, you can shoot it down by saying a fetus isn't a human, etc. But to some it is, and that's where the problem comes in. Hell, as I said before, the law even considers a fetus to be a human most of the time. I think its easy to get caught up with what *could* happen with stem cell research. But do the ends justify the means? I really don't know where I stand on this issue. Stem cells are also found in fatty tissue and ambilical cords. If they want to take them from there I have no problem. But with current methods, I'm just not so sure.
NeoPhono would you say that if you lived your life in a wheel chair? :/
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Hmmm. I'm not that bothered by it solely because I don't think it's wise to fuck with nature too much. Bad things can happen. Very bad things. |
| quote: |
| NeoPhono would you say that if you lived your life in a wheel chair? :/ |
I just don't understand how someone can classify the early stages of an unborn baby as something precious. I realise that throughout history infant mortality rates were so high that a child may not even be named before their 5th birthday for fear of attachment, but i think this is different, unborn baby's arn't cognitively aware, to me it just reminds me of dogmatic christian values, "every sperm every egg is sacred and shouldn't be killed"
This may sound harsh but you would get the same reaction out of me from deleting an AI script from a computer as you would from carrying out an abortion, neither are consciously cognitive, whats the difference? (but our cultures are very different, abortion is held in a very different light in Australia)
Sorry if this sounds like a flame neo thats not my intention :/
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono I'm going to pay devil's advocate here. Here's the "moral" issue behind stem cell research. In legal cases, except in the matter of abortion, a fetus is considered a human being. If I kill a pregnant woman, or willfully cause her to miscarriage, I will be charged with murder or double murder, respectfully. Seeing as stem cells for research (at least the bulk) come from fetuses discarded from fertility clinics, many consider that to be the killing a human in the hopes of helping another. A common analogy is human organ transplants. Organ transplants help many people. So what if we found people and used them soley to donate their organs. We killed them, and then distributed the organs out to those who needed them. We have now helped, maybe saved, tens of lives with donated kidneys, a liver, lungs, a heart, etc., but we still killed someone to do it. Is that killing justified? Now, you may say the fetuses from those fertility clinics, or existing cell lines should be used, because they're going to be killed anyway...might as well put them to good use. However, killing someone to benefit yourself cannot be excused by the fact that you were going to kill them anyway. If I murdered my dad to get my inheritance sooner, would I be able to say, "if I killed him for no good reason it would be bad, but if I did it for money to help myself, it's justifiable. Here's another common analogy. Suppose that some militant racist group went around lynching black people. Hundreds of innocent blacks are killed. Public outrage grows. Then one day this group announces a new program: Whenever they lynch a black person, they will promptly deliver the body to the nearest hospital, where organs can be removed for transplant. Even if you don't approve of lynching or racism, they say, surely you must applaud us for this. Think of all that good that can be done. Maybe a lynching is a tragedy, but at least this way some good will come of it. Now with all that said, you can shoot it down by saying a fetus isn't a human, etc. But to some it is, and that's where the problem comes in. Hell, as I said before, the law even considers a fetus to be a human most of the time. I think its easy to get caught up with what *could* happen with stem cell research. But do the ends justify the means? I really don't know where I stand on this issue. Stem cells are also found in fatty tissue and ambilical cords. If they want to take them from there I have no problem. But with current methods, I'm just not so sure. |
| quote: |
The Bush Administration has stepped up its campaign against a woman's right to choose, with a new and deeply troubling assault on personal privacy. Help stop the Bush Administration and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Pro-choice Americans must stand up to these challenges to our privacy rights and say, "Enough is enough!" First, John Ashcroft's Justice Department has subpoenaed the private medical records of women across the country who've had abortion care. The Ashcroft Justice Department actually argued in court that the law shouldn't honor the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship. And today we learned that Bush's hand-picked head of the Food and Drug Administration may reject the recommendation of his own advisory committee and deny an application allowing emergency contraception to be sold over-the-counter. FDA observers say that such recommendations are rarely ignored. But political pressure from the White House and Congress could trump sound science. Already the pressure has led the FDA to delay its decision, further holding women's access to this important option hostage. As the political arm of the pro-choice movement, NARAL Pro-Choice America is prepared to fight these outrageous actions. We are the strongest voice for women's privacy rights and a woman's right to choose, and we will use every tool at our disposal to make sure the American people know how George W. Bush, John Ashcroft and their anti-choice cronies are dismantling medical privacy and a woman's right to choose. Now more than ever, we need your financial support to help stop the Bush Administration and Attorney General John Ashcroft from trampling our rights. Pro-choice Americans must stand up to these challenges to our privacy rights and say, "Enough is enough!" The idea of John Ashcroft rifling through our medical records is exactly what NARAL Pro-Choice America fears most. This is a man who opposes oral contraceptives, the IUD, and Depo-Provera - the very tools needed to make abortion less necessary - because he believes contraception is the same as abortion. That view is obviously spreading throughout the Bush Administration. The FDA's looming decision can only be explained as an act of far-right politics. Emergency contraception has an excellent safety record, and it's the best way to make abortion less necessary by preventing unintended pregnancy. But far-right ideologues oppose it, and the White House has made clear that politics, not science, should rule. |
| quote: |
| Sorry if this seems like a flame neo thats not my intention :/ |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono you can unequivicoally say "human." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I suppose then that you are against genetically modified crops of which most of the US's agriculture are? Isn't harnessing the power of the atom also "fucking with nature"? So what exactly are you against with stem celled research? It's merely one tool to understand genes and our bodies with the hopes of curing diseases. If you don't want to "fuck" with nature we might as well abandon most modern medical technologies and treatments as they all go against nature. This story truly fucking pisses me off. I don't mind religion but for fucks sake keep it out of science. The US has a vastly competitive advantage over the rest of the world in medical breakthroughs and I'd like to keep it that way. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I think genetically modified plants are a pretty cool technological/scientific breakthrough that's certainly a wonderful advancement. I'm not so sure I feel the same way about goldfish that glow in the dark, but at the same time, it's pretty cool stuff. It's just a gut feeling I have more than anything. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono This is how I see it (yes I am anti-abortion). The only two factors that make abortion tolerable by most is science and location. I'll start with location. The only thing that seperates a premature infant in an intensive care unit and a child the same age still in the womb is location. If that child on life support were to be killed, it would be murder, in the womb it is a legal abortion. That being said, as science gets better, our ability to keep alive babies born at increasingly earlier stages or pregnancy increases. As this ability gets better, I have no doubt that some day we will be able to "grow" a child from conception to what would normally be birth completely artifically. The question then becomes at what point did that "thing" become cognitive and thus human? There is no answer to that. I would argue that at birth most humans are not aware of their surroundings or necessarily "cognitive." Does this mean a child can be killed until an age at which he is self-aware? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew if you think this way, you should stop to jerk off or have sex with protection |
| quote: |
| it has more to do with our conscience than the actual science definition of "what is a living thing". |
If "sacrificing" these fetus's for the sake of curing diseases and advancing medicine to make the health of future generations and ours to be more specific, better, then i think its worth it.
I think "unparalyzing" thousands IS worth studying these fetus's.
In the long run.. it will save more lives than kill.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono No problem, and I see where you're coming from. This is how I see it (yes I am anti-abortion). The only two factors that make abortion tolerable by most is science and location. I'll start with location. The only thing that seperates a premature infant in an intensive care unit and a child the same age still in the womb is location. If that child on life support were to be killed, it would be murder, in the womb it is a legal abortion. That being said, as science gets better, our ability to keep alive babies born at increasingly earlier stages or pregnancy increases. As this ability gets better, I have no doubt that some day we will be able to "grow" a child from conception to what would normally be birth completely artifically. The question then becomes at what point did that "thing" become cognitive and thus human? There is no answer to that. I would argue that at birth most humans are not aware of their surroundings or necessarily "cognitive." Does this mean a child can be killed until an age at which he is self-aware? To me it is rediculous that the only thing that makes abortion legal is that the child is still inside of the mother. Using our technolgy many of these aborted fetuses could be kept alive and flourish under artifical conditions. On the same note a baby killed while on this life support would be murder. It is not a black and white world, and I understand that, but to me I must draw a line at which point I consider something to be human life, even in a primative form. To me this is when those first cells divide, because after which there is no clear deliniation at which point you can unequivicoally say "human." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi "Stephen Hawking in a Schwarzenegger" aka Izzy |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.