Bush Veto Stem Cell Bill
"On this 20th, President George W Bush exercised this veto rights to the legislation to increase the funding of research using human embryo cells to fight serious illnesses, stoking a fraught emotional and ethical debate.
Supporters of the Bill say it would allow research only on cells created in fertility clinics which would otherwise be thrown away, but President Bush claims the legislation would have supported the use of human beings as scientific material.
Is it acceptable to use embryo cells to seek a cure for devastating illnesses such as Alzheimer's, or is such research a violation of human life? " - from The Telegraph.Co.UK.
6 interesting comments on the Telegraph website :
1
Stem cells are the building bricks of our bodies - able to be whatever kind of tissue we need - and without the rejection issues other forms of organ replacement lead to with recipients. This research has the ultimate potential of making it possible to cure any illness, repair or replace any worn out body parts - in short enable someone to live forever. Science fiction? No a reasonable extrapolation of what we know so far about stem cells from research. So we have the technology on the way - the other side of the equation is obvious - who will have the cash? Stem cells may achieve wonderful things but are they for all - or will the full power of what they may prove able to do be reserved only for the super-rich? Private health care has always been able to offer a bit more than the limits of state health care systems - that is why it thrives even today in Britain with the most expensive NHS model in the world. If we are to pursue stem cell research we need to determine where it is going and whether it is to be for mass cures available to all - or amazing feats of bio-engineering for the few - and if by that we mean the few who can pay.Posted by simon coulter on July 20, 2006 3:31 PM
2
All of the medical advances in stem cells have been in adult stem cells, why do people want to continue dead end research in embryonic stem cell research? Posted by Richard T. Ketchum on July 20, 2006
3
President Bush did the right thing and should use his veto power more often to put a stop to unnecessary spending. Most of the negative comments (see Vivian Philips's remarks as an example) miss the real issue: spending tax money to support controversial research is neither acceptable to many taxpayers nor is it necessary. Most funding for disease and prevention research comes from the private sector, and already millions have been raised to fund stem cell research and many universities, including Harvard, with its enormous endowment, have established privately funded stem cell research centers. Government should spend its money on public works, education and defence and not in places where private money can and will do a better job, as the history of failed government projects has proved.Posted by jay williams, jr. on July 20, 2006 2:24 PM
4
To imply that anyone who is opposed to embryonic stem cell research is some kind of religious lunatic is deeply insulting. I am not of any religious persuasion, but I strongly believe that all human life, whether it be a few dozen cells or a couple of trillion, is sacred and deserves to be protected from deliberate harm. It is no more morally acceptable to carry out research on these "unwanted" embryos than on "unwanted" children in orphanages. We must learn the difference between right and wrong, and if scientists cannot be trusted to keep within moral boundaries then politicians must make them do so. The diseases which this research may alleviate are indeed terrible, but the taking of human lives to extend others is simply not acceptable. Posted by Alison Rawlinson on July 20, 2006 2:16 PM
5
Stemcells are a bit of a generic headline grabbing statement. What are stem cells? They reside in the retina of a chick even as much as in the bone marrow. Each of these stem cells requires 'trophines' and 'growth factors' to differentiate. The question is at which dose and under which culture conditions? Since nobodies knows bioscientists take embryonal stem cells,which they think are the primorial cells of all stem cells. But at the moment nobody succeeded other than in scientific fraud experiments to implement the theory, as cell culture conditions cannot mimmic the real organism as yet. These guys find themselves in the brutal middle-ages of cell culture and they should firstly accomplish their ideas in an animal model before doing it in a human. So far nothing has been delivered by these stem cell scientists but hot air. It will take years until they can deliver a product Posted by christian a. hehn on July 20, 2006 1:38 PM
6
What modern science has taught us about embryos: they're nothing particularly special. Every cell has some potential to become a full individual, via cloning or other similar processes. If an embryo is a sacred life then so is every other cell - and that would just be silly. So, really, I can't see a valid objection to using what is basically a barely differentiated blob of cells for medical research. It's not "a person" yet and in the case of IVF spares, it never will be.Posted by Julian Morrison on July 20, 2006 12:28 PM
Afterthoughts
As an atheist, I just really can’t comprehend the vetoing of stem cell research with Bush citing Christian Rights and stuffs.
All major medical advances started out with the same opposition by moralist and conservative people, i.e blood-transfusions, abortions, surgery, IVF treatments.
But with time, education and compassion for people who are really suffering, I’m sure we will be laughing about this in many years to come.
No doubt, one can’t say if it really can bring the much-touted benefits or God, if there’s one, will be cursing the scientists who started this idea, but the advancement for medical science must start somewhere.
Supporters of the Bill say it would allow research only on cells created in fertility clinics which would otherwise be thrown away, but President Bush claims the legislation would have supported the use of human beings as scientific material.
Is it acceptable to use embryo cells to seek a cure for devastating illnesses such as Alzheimer's, or is such research a violation of human life? " - from The Telegraph.Co.UK.
6 interesting comments on the Telegraph website :
1
Stem cells are the building bricks of our bodies - able to be whatever kind of tissue we need - and without the rejection issues other forms of organ replacement lead to with recipients. This research has the ultimate potential of making it possible to cure any illness, repair or replace any worn out body parts - in short enable someone to live forever. Science fiction? No a reasonable extrapolation of what we know so far about stem cells from research. So we have the technology on the way - the other side of the equation is obvious - who will have the cash? Stem cells may achieve wonderful things but are they for all - or will the full power of what they may prove able to do be reserved only for the super-rich? Private health care has always been able to offer a bit more than the limits of state health care systems - that is why it thrives even today in Britain with the most expensive NHS model in the world. If we are to pursue stem cell research we need to determine where it is going and whether it is to be for mass cures available to all - or amazing feats of bio-engineering for the few - and if by that we mean the few who can pay.Posted by simon coulter on July 20, 2006 3:31 PM
2
All of the medical advances in stem cells have been in adult stem cells, why do people want to continue dead end research in embryonic stem cell research? Posted by Richard T. Ketchum on July 20, 2006
3
President Bush did the right thing and should use his veto power more often to put a stop to unnecessary spending. Most of the negative comments (see Vivian Philips's remarks as an example) miss the real issue: spending tax money to support controversial research is neither acceptable to many taxpayers nor is it necessary. Most funding for disease and prevention research comes from the private sector, and already millions have been raised to fund stem cell research and many universities, including Harvard, with its enormous endowment, have established privately funded stem cell research centers. Government should spend its money on public works, education and defence and not in places where private money can and will do a better job, as the history of failed government projects has proved.Posted by jay williams, jr. on July 20, 2006 2:24 PM
4
To imply that anyone who is opposed to embryonic stem cell research is some kind of religious lunatic is deeply insulting. I am not of any religious persuasion, but I strongly believe that all human life, whether it be a few dozen cells or a couple of trillion, is sacred and deserves to be protected from deliberate harm. It is no more morally acceptable to carry out research on these "unwanted" embryos than on "unwanted" children in orphanages. We must learn the difference between right and wrong, and if scientists cannot be trusted to keep within moral boundaries then politicians must make them do so. The diseases which this research may alleviate are indeed terrible, but the taking of human lives to extend others is simply not acceptable. Posted by Alison Rawlinson on July 20, 2006 2:16 PM
5
Stemcells are a bit of a generic headline grabbing statement. What are stem cells? They reside in the retina of a chick even as much as in the bone marrow. Each of these stem cells requires 'trophines' and 'growth factors' to differentiate. The question is at which dose and under which culture conditions? Since nobodies knows bioscientists take embryonal stem cells,which they think are the primorial cells of all stem cells. But at the moment nobody succeeded other than in scientific fraud experiments to implement the theory, as cell culture conditions cannot mimmic the real organism as yet. These guys find themselves in the brutal middle-ages of cell culture and they should firstly accomplish their ideas in an animal model before doing it in a human. So far nothing has been delivered by these stem cell scientists but hot air. It will take years until they can deliver a product Posted by christian a. hehn on July 20, 2006 1:38 PM
6
What modern science has taught us about embryos: they're nothing particularly special. Every cell has some potential to become a full individual, via cloning or other similar processes. If an embryo is a sacred life then so is every other cell - and that would just be silly. So, really, I can't see a valid objection to using what is basically a barely differentiated blob of cells for medical research. It's not "a person" yet and in the case of IVF spares, it never will be.Posted by Julian Morrison on July 20, 2006 12:28 PM
Afterthoughts
As an atheist, I just really can’t comprehend the vetoing of stem cell research with Bush citing Christian Rights and stuffs.
All major medical advances started out with the same opposition by moralist and conservative people, i.e blood-transfusions, abortions, surgery, IVF treatments.
But with time, education and compassion for people who are really suffering, I’m sure we will be laughing about this in many years to come.
No doubt, one can’t say if it really can bring the much-touted benefits or God, if there’s one, will be cursing the scientists who started this idea, but the advancement for medical science must start somewhere.
posted by 逍遥老头 at 3:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home