Medicine Vs Morality - Where's the boundary?

[mlowe]

We can grow skin, we can even grow replacement ears. You can be religious or not, there's a line in the sand that is so hard to make and keep everyone happy.

In terms of a global standard, it may be hard given our political systems are different, some faith based and other over ruling all faiths. Or, like law should science be regulated above our personal beliefs just as some other crimes are.

At what point does medicine go to far or were does peoples faith go to far in preventing research into curing diseases and preventing them.

Stem cells?

 

[Aaron Saunders]

Religion should have no place in scientific research.

At all.

None.

If you're morally against getting your arm grown back with stem cells, then by all means, don't have the procedure done -- but that shouldn't stop it from being researched.

 

[labgnat]

it's all part of the evolutionary process.

but unfortunately it's the part of the process that sends humanity into the shi@@er.

 

[tplyons]

I personally try to avoid medication whenever possible, but sometimes I feel that medication and/or surgery is necessary. I don't believe in plastic surgery to look better, but I do in the case of facial reconstruction / burn victims. I strive to live a life as natural as possible.

 

[mlowe]

I dig the natural thing. We try to eat as healthy as possible, encourage the kids to understand take out is not good and it's working. Not even a fan of panadol if i can do without.

Our kids love fruit and veg and I think it's all about making it taste good for them and eat it with them.

It's when someone totally innocent gets injured or afflicted with something that could be cured given the ability to research is done.

eg. Baby born with skin missing on parts of body, or spinal injury etc.

Cloning a human, I'm really not sure that's a good idea.

 

[Floating teetH]

As long as dying children understand that their lives are less important than our ability to preserve dead embryos......for.......mummification?

 

[Jeff Moote]

I hold science above any personal ideals, and more or less agree with the way Aaron put it. If you choose not to take advantage of something, that is your call. What gets researched should not be open to public opinion.

 

[jady]

Religion should have no place in scientific research.

At all.

None.

If you're morally against getting your arm grown back with stem cells, then by all means, don't have the procedure done -- but that shouldn't stop it from being researched.

So all of the Nazi experiments were cool then? You are ok with this for the betterment of scientific knowledge?

Dr. Josef Mengele, nicknamed The Angel Of Death, and the other Nazi doctors at the Link Removed tortured men, women and children and did medical experiments of unspeakable horror during the Holocaust. Victims were put into pressure chambers, tested with drugs, castrated, frozen to death. Children were exposed to experimental surgeries performed without anesthesia, transfusions of blood from one to another, isolation endurance, reaction to various stimuli. The doctors made injections with lethal germs, sex change operations, removal of organs and limbs.

At Auschwitz Josef Mengele did a number of medical experiments, using twins. These twins as young as five years of age were usually murdered after the experiment was over and their bodies dissected.

Mengele injected chemicals into the eyes of the children in an attempt to change their eye color. He carried out twin-to-twin transfusions, stitched twins together, castrated or sterilized twins. Many twins had limbs and organs removed in macabre surgical procedures, performed without using an anesthetic."


Science must be regulated by the moral and ethical codes of the society it is done in. Like it or not, most moral and ethical views in a society were originated by the religion of that society..

 

[soulgeezer]

Religion should have no place in scientific research.

At all.

None.

If you're morally against getting your arm grown back with stem cells, then by all means, don't have the procedure done -- but that shouldn't stop it from being researched.

And, harvesting those stem cells from aborted children - or worse, children created for the specific purpose of harvesting their stem cells - is just hunky dory?

Many issues are built on a foundation of other issues of equal or even greater moral/ethical implications. It's not often as easy as saying, "Sure, go ahead and do your research!"

Would you condone grave robbing as a means of supplying cadavers to be used in research or medical education? Do you believe that researchers should have the right to clandestinely infect people with disease to study epidemiological outcomes? Should people with congenital birth defects or natural immunities to disease be involuntarily made the subject of study?

There's a LOT more to it than first meets the eye. And, sometimes, the line is VERY difficult to draw.

 

[soulgeezer]

As long as dying children understand that their lives are less important than our ability to preserve dead embryos......for.......mummification?

You can't get viable stem cells from a corpse. So, I guess it's as long as dying children understand that the only reason they're alive in the first place is because they weren't killed before birth so that their stem cells could be harvested...

 

[Christopher]

Animal testing is a-ok with me.

Stem cell research using human tissue is a-ok with me.

Organ and tissue harvesting from aborted fetuses and death penalty victims is a-ok with me.

Voluntary testing of novel medicines and procedures on human beings with full cognitive function is a-ok with me.

Anything else I have to think about on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Aaron Saunders]

I'd reply to both of your posts in detail, but religion and ethics aren't the same thing. I didn't say ethics don't have a place in science at all.

In fact, I'm going to go ahead and say the one thing that seems to be the BIGGEST problem with arguing on TalkBass:

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[mlowe]

These are exactly the point why i started this thread. It's hard to start to get a idea of the limits. Even this forum has rules. So who makes or has the right to make the ones that involve science?

Let's no confuse faith and fact though. We tend to build laws on evidence. Not on what we believe.

Some people still have a hard time believing that DNA is real and that scientists are just kidding themselves.

 

[soulgeezer]

Scientific ethics is an entire field of academic inquiry. This page from the Eastern Michigan University Physics Department is a very good introduction:

Link Removed

Check the bibliography for more in-depth sources.

 

[soulgeezer]

I'd reply to both of your posts in detail, but religion and ethics aren't the same thing. I didn't say ethics don't have a place in science at all.

In fact, I'm going to go ahead and say the one thing that seems to be the BIGGEST problem with arguing on TalkBass:

Don't put words in my mouth.

Please point out where I mentioned religion or put words in your mouth. I described specific hypotheticals and asked your opinion of them from an ethical point of view.

 

[Aaron Saunders]

k, BJ beat Jens, I can get in this for real now (PS: What a fight!)

I'm not going to dignify jady's post and his suggestions with a response.

You can't get viable stem cells from a corpse. So, I guess it's as long as dying children understand that the only reason they're alive in the first place is because they weren't killed before birth so that their stem cells could be harvested...

There was a recent article (saw it in the paper at the beginning of June) discussing how scientists had managed to engineer stem cells out of the skin of lab mice.

Quote from Wiki:
"06 June 2007 - Research reported this week by three different groups shows that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice. The race is now on to apply the surprisingly straightforward procedure to human cells"

Hot damn. No more babykillin' abortionists needed, so the "moral majority" can shut its trap on stem cell research. [EDIT: Not referring to you here Rob (or even anyone in particular on TB) but just the legion of people riding moral high horses pushing their beliefs on others.]

Would you condone grave robbing as a means of supplying cadavers to be used in research or medical education?

No, but I would condone, say, an unidentified Jon Doe with no living relation being used for medical education straight out of the morgue. IIRC, I think this is actually common practice but don't quote me on that

Do you believe that researchers should have the right to clandestinely infect people with disease to study epidemiological outcomes?

No, I believe in people volunteering for medical study if they're already infected. Kind of like those posters you see "$1000 reward for volunteers to perform in medical study, must be between __ and __ years old and have ____ disease." This is pretty common practice.

Should people with congenital birth defects or natural immunities to disease be involuntarily made the subject of study?

No, but I believe they should be fully informed as to the possible benefits worldwide if they choose to volunteer.

 

[soulgeezer]

There was a recent article (saw it in the paper at the beginning of June) discussing how scientists had managed to engineer stem cells out of the skin of lab mice.

If this is true, it could certainly change the nature of the debate, if...

Quote from Wiki:
"06 June 2007 - Research reported this week by three different groups shows that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice. The race is now on to apply the surprisingly straightforward procedure to human cells"

See, "surprisingly straightforward procedures" are seldom as suprising or straightforward as they first appear. Achieving an effect in humans that has been observed in mice or rats is an incredibly difficult thing to do. We can cure AIDS in a rat (or, is it some form of cancer? I forget...); we are very, very far from doing this in people.

Hot damn. No more babykillin' abortionists needed,...

That would be a truly wonderful thing.

so the "moral majority" can shut its trap on stem cell research. [EDIT: Not referring to you here Rob (or even anyone in particular on TB) but just the legion of people riding moral high horses pushing their beliefs on others.

This was unnecessary within the context of our discussion.

No, but I would condone, say, an unidentified Jon Doe with no living relation being used for medical education straight out of the morgue. IIRC, I think this is actually common practice but don't quote me on that

I believe you are correct. But, even this raises another issue: What if, unknown to the people sending him off to the university, that John Doe had been a practicing member of a religion that didn't allow corruption of the body after death (autopsy, dissection, etc.)? Would it still be alright to use his body in this way?

No, I believe in people volunteering for medical study if they're already infected. Kind of like those posters you see "$1000 reward for volunteers to perform in medical study, must be between __ and __ years old and have ____ disease." This is pretty common practice.

Some diseases can only be studied from an epidemiological perspective by infecting large populations. Now, I can think of very few places where all the people in a relatively large community would volunteer to be infected with an incurable disease. So, just how do we study the epidemiological effects of such a disease?

No, but I believe they should be fully informed as to the possible benefits worldwide if they choose to volunteer.

And, if they say "no," we just let them go on their merry way, condemning possibly millions of people to die? That seems an awful lot like giving them the power to play God.

Again, these are just examples showing that things are seldom as simple as they seem. That's why there is an entire profession committed to studying questions such as these.

 

[Aaron Saunders]

See, "surprisingly straightforward procedures" are seldom as suprising or straightforward as they first appear. Achieving an effect in humans that has been observed in mice or rats is an incredibly difficult thing to do. We can cure AIDS in a rat (or, is it some form of cancer? I forget...); we are very, very far from doing this in people.

Yeah, but it's a huge step forward from "Well, ****, now what are we gonna do?" where they were in how to get around religious effects on political policy.

This was unnecessary within the context of our discussion.

...well...not gonna argue that .

I believe you are correct. But, even this raises another issue: What if, unknown to the people sending him off to the university, that John Doe had been a practicing member of a religion that didn't allow corruption of the body after death (autopsy, dissection, etc.)? Would it still be alright to use his body in this way?

If there's nothing and no way to identify the corpse...tough luck. It's just as (if not more) likely the guy sold his pants for heroine.

Some diseases can only be studied from an epidemiological perspective by infecting large populations. Now, I can think of very few places where all the people in a relatively large community would volunteer to be infected with an incurable disease. So, just how do we study the epidemiological effects of such a disease?

Example? I'm curious to know about any case where a "large population" was infected with a disease for the sole purpose of research, willing or no. Or even about what disease(s) you're talking about.

And, if they say "no," we just let them go on their merry way, condemning possibly millions of people to die? That seems an awful lot like giving them the power to play God.

It seems like the idea of infecting a population with a disease and then attempting to find a cure for said disease is a willing application of playing God by not only taking away the lives of a large population, but then handing them back after having done the necessary research .

Now, if you're talking congenital birth defects or natural immunities being forced into research facilities, that's also very unethical. A person should always have the ultimate decision about what is done with their life, and if they choose to spend it NOT as a lab rat, then that's their choice. If I had a birth defect and similar mental faculties, I would view it as my personal responsibility to do what is necessary to help others and would wholeheartedly volunteer for medical research. Some people don't feel the same, and what they do is their choice.

 

[ric1312]

And, harvesting those stem cells from aborted children - or worse, children created for the specific purpose of harvesting their stem cells - is just hunky dory?

Many issues are built on a foundation of other issues of equal or even greater moral/ethical implications. It's not often as easy as saying, "Sure, go ahead and do your research!"

Would you condone grave robbing as a means of supplying cadavers to be used in research or medical education? Do you believe that researchers should have the right to clandestinely infect people with disease to study epidemiological outcomes? Should people with congenital birth defects or natural immunities to disease be involuntarily made the subject of study?

There's a LOT more to it than first meets the eye. And, sometimes, the line is VERY difficult to draw.

You don't understand what you are talking about. The fetuses that the stem cells are havested from are so early in development they aren't even beings yet, they are barely a collection of cells.

And they if allowed to do it the right way like they want, they will grow their own in a lab. People act like the stem cells are being harvested from someones potential offspring.

All they are really taken from is some fertalized eggs allowed to grow for a very short time.

The religeous morons that are so against this act like they are killeing late term babies to get stem cells.

This kind of thinking goes right along with early doctors catching hell for disecting corpses to learn about the body.

I'm quit sure I'm a little wrong about some of the scietfiic fact here. But, I did do a paper on it some time ago. If you do some research you will come to the same conclusion. That not allowing this research is just stupid. It's just workingwith genetic material. Not ripping it from someones child.

 

[soulgeezer]

Yeah, but it's a huge step forward from "Well, ****, now what are we gonna do?" where they were in how to get around religious effects on political policy.

Only if it works. Otherwise, it's just one more in a long line of fruitless, incredibly expensive scientific endeavors. However, please do not interpret this to mean that we shouldn't be conducting such research -- I only mean that we shouldn't project outcomes until the research is complete and we know what the real story is.

If there's nothing and no way to identify the corpse...tough luck. It's just as (if not more) likely the guy sold his pants for heroine.

You may be right. I'm only pointing out that there are issues that must be considered before such a decision is made.

Example? I'm curious to know about any case where a "large population" was infected with a disease for the sole purpose of research, willing or no. Or even about what disease(s) you're talking about.

Here's one example; there are many others:

Tuskegee syphilis study

Main article: Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male

"One of the worst (and best-documented) cases of unethical human medical experimentation in the twentieth century was the Tuskegee syphilis study. The study took place in Tuskegee, Alabama and was supported by the Tuskegee Institute.[4]

"The study began in 1932 using a group of 600 poor, uneducated black sharecroppers. 399 of then men were intentionally infected with the disease, and 201 were uninfected control patients. The government stated at first that treatment was supposed to be a part of the study, but they were unable to produce any useful data. It was then discovered that the government had decided to leave the men untreated and follow the course of the disease to these men's eventual deaths. They thought they were receiving experimental treatment for "bad blood" in exchange for free meals and a $50 death benefit. However, the study was designed to measure the progression of untreated syphilis and to determine whether syphilis caused cardiovascular damage more often than neurological damage, and to determine if the natural course of the disease was different in black men versus white men. By 1947 penicillin had become the standard treatment of syphilis. The men were never advised that they had syphilis, nor were they ever offered a treatment, not even Salvarsan or the other arsenical drugs that were in use at the beginning of the study.

"The original study was meant to last six to nine months, but continued for 40 years, ending in 1972, long after many wives and children had been infected, and many of the men had died of syphilis. It was estimated that more than one hundred men and women died for this study. The study only ended because of a story printed in the Washington Star. A class-action lawsuit was then filed against the federal government for the study. This lawsuit was settled out of court and the living subjects and their descendants were awarded a total of ten million dollars. After the settlement was awarded, the government passed the National Research Act, which required the government to review and approve all medical studies involving human studies."

It seems like the idea of infecting a population with a disease and then attempting to find a cure for said disease is a willing application of playing God by not only taking away the lives of a large population, but then handing them back after having done the necessary research .

Agreed.

Now, if you're talking congenital birth defects or natural immunities being forced into research facilities, that's also very unethical. A person should always have the ultimate decision about what is done with their life, and if they choose to spend it NOT as a lab rat, then that's their choice. If I had a birth defect and similar mental faculties, I would view it as my personal responsibility to do what is necessary to help others and would wholeheartedly volunteer for medical research. Some people don't feel the same, and what they do is their choice.

It's great that you are so altruistic. But, what if the research that might save millions would certainly result in your death? Would you be so generous then? And, what gives you or anyone else the right to impede research that might save millions of lives? Isn't the good of society more important than any individual person's life? This is, after all, the logic used to defend the death penalty.