Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should stem cell research be banned? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should stim cell research be banned?
    yes
    7
    4.73%
    no
    141
    95.27%
    other
    0
    0%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There is no reason not to research using embryonic stem cells as long as Abortion is legal.

    Should abortion be made illegal then maybe we can debate the issue. But as long as embryos are being 'destroyed' legally shouldn't we just use the discarded matter to do something good?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saichu)
    Your first source seems to contradict Islamic views on abortion [1] [2] [3]; the author herself acknowledges that, by her reasoning, abortion ought to be permitted up to 4 months. The second source builds on this, but in a perplexing way: you're not allowed to abort said embryo if it were in the mother's womb, but you are apparently allowed to kill it if it was frozen and not intended to be implanted. One could even suggest this was some kind of contradiction.


    Seems weird that things could be considered human or not, depending on where they reside.

    However, thank you for your sources.
    I can see it from their perspective. An embryo outside of the womb wouldn't develop into a human, whereas in the womb it (normally) would. Therefore, by taking cells from embryos not in the womb, you aren't stopping a life developing - as it wasn't there in the first place.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Well, at any rate there are Muslims who will support stem cell research and Muslims who will not support said research. Aso, Egypt and Iran are working on stem cells themselves
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    the only thing going against it is religious bull**** - and if you beleive in that bull**** and are not prepared to accept stem cell research, then please do us all a favour, and leave your religion NOW or take no further part in this debate, as your opinions are not recognised by the intelligent ones among us

    thank you
    • Offline

      0
      (Original post by callum9999)
      I can see it from their perspective. An embryo outside of the womb wouldn't develop into a human, whereas in the womb it (normally) would. Therefore, by taking cells from embryos not in the womb, you aren't stopping a life developing - as it wasn't there in the first place.
      Sounds a little more like a technicality to me, not to mention a new can of worms. For instance, say technology advanced to the point where re-implantation was near-100% successful. Then you could argue that it's permissable to remove an embryo and freeze it - after all, you aren't hurting its chances of living. But all of a sudden, now that it's on the ice, it's permissible to kill the embryo (whereas it hadn't been, when it was still in the womb). Holy baloney, Sherlock, what do we do!
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by SaturnVengeance)
      I read an article the other day in which they found a cure for HIV thanks to stem cell research,
      I hate to tell you but their is thousands of potential cures for HIV which are either to expensive or in this case to dangerous.

      If it was as simple as modifying CD4 cells it would be relativelly easy to do however you need to destroy the person immune systen for the new CD4 cells to take hold hence you can kill the patient.

      Im all for stem cell research (its an area id love to go into) however id like to see regulation where by the only embryotic cells used are where the mother and father have consented and understand what will happen to the cells.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Saichu)
      Sounds a little more like a technicality to me, not to mention a new can of worms. For instance, say technology advanced to the point where re-implantation was near-100% successful. Then you could argue that it's permissable to remove an embryo and freeze it - after all, you aren't hurting its chances of living. But all of a sudden, now that it's on the ice, it's now permissible to kill the embryo (whereas it hadn't been, when it was still in the womb). Holy baloney, Sherlock, what do we do!
      True. Although I'd have no problem with it continuing if that was the case (I don't personally see an embryo as human until its a viable life - i.e. it can survive outside the womb), it would just have to be crossed when we come to it. With todays technology it makes sense (I do see your point that its more of a technicality though.
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by brokenangel)
      I hate to tell you but their is thousands of potential cures for HIV which are either to expensive or in this case to dangerous.

      If it was as simple as modifying CD4 cells it would be relativelly easy to do however you need to destroy the person immune systen for the new CD4 cells to take hold hence you can kill the patient.

      Im all for stem cell research (its an area id love to go into) however id like to see regulation where by the only embryotic cells used are where the mother and father have consented and understand what will happen to the cells.
      This is true for thousands of different life-changing therapies. Bone marrow transplants effectively leave the patient with no immune system for weeks, but these are standard procedures in today's medicine. There are always risks involved; it's about mitigating that risk. Just because a procedure is risky doesn't mean that it's a terrible procedure; sometimes it just has to be done.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Mad Vlad)
      This is true for thousands of different life-changing therapies. Bone marrow transplants effectively leave the patient with no immune system for weeks, but these are standard procedures in today's medicine. There are always risks involved; it's about mitigating that risk. Just because a procedure is risky doesn't mean that it's a terrible procedure; sometimes it just has to be done.
      Thats the point tho in a patient requiring bone marrow transplants they are going to die (relatively soon) without it, using modern drugs HIV patient can live normal lives for 10-15years in most case significantly longer even to full life expectancy, where as attempting to treat it could kill them in a matter of days.

      The race is on to find a vaccine against HIV as the likelyhood of curing people with it given our limited understanding of the immune system is low ie even if you attempt to irradicate it from the body it often still has areas of infection that lay dorment for many years. The above offers a chance with a high risk of death for a virus that in this day and age is managable
      • Offline

        0
        (Original post by brokenangel)
        Thats the point tho in a patient requiring bone marrow transplants they are going to die (relatively soon) without it, using modern drugs HIV patient can live normal lives for 10-15years in most case significantly longer even to full life expectancy, where as attempting to treat it could kill them in a matter of days.
        That sounds nice on paper, but in practice, an additional, very deadly constraint for HIV victims is cost. Stem cell treatment could develop into an alternative treatment for people who are unable to afford regular regimens of expensive antiretroviral drugs (depending, of course, on how costly it ends up). I'm not really sure what I'm trying to suggest, except that, weirdly enough, economics might beat the hell out of the Hippocratic oath at some point.
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Saichu)
        That sounds nice on paper, but in practice, an additional, very deadly constraint for HIV victims is cost. Stem cell treatment could develop into an alternative treatment for people who are unable to afford regular regimens of expensive antiretroviral drugs (depending, of course, on how costly it ends up). I'm not really sure what I'm trying to suggest, except that, weirdly enough, economics might beat the hell out of the Hippocratic oath at some point.
        HIV drugs are rapidly running out of patent time ie will become cheap very soon (Currently around $25 a month) where as the cost of clonning the CD4 cells + radiation to destroy immune cells etc is going to run into the 100 of thousands of pounds. I suggested destroying the patients immune system once in an immunology lecture and got told ever so kindly the cost would be huge im compairson with the drugs
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Facticity)
        Furthermore, why would Islam be against super soldiers? Does Islam not speak of having an army and fighting being a part of the call for Muslims?
        Hence the problem. :wink2: Most muslim countries aren't economically developed and probably won't have the means to produce 'super soldiers'.
        • PS Helper
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by DaveSimpson)
        The argument that by taking embryonic stem cells you're destroying the potential for life is ridiculous cos you could argue that every time someone decides to have sex with a condom they're also destroying the potential for life because every one of those sperms could potentially be an adult.
        Sperm and embryo's are very different......
        • PS Helper
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by de_monies)
        Well, at any rate there are Muslims who will support stem cell research and Muslims who will not support said research. Aso, Egypt and Iran are working on stem cells themselves
        Well what your assuming is everyone there is pious and fundamental. There will be people working there who aren't Islamic or if they are, will be scientifically inclined to pursue a career rather than to adhere to the normal social restrictions there.

        One thing though, those links you posted seemed hypocritical of each other. And on another note, these links and ideas they present open up a whole 'nother can of confusion. What is the fundamental difference between being in a petri dish and being in the womb? One can easily continue to grow the embryo in the petri dish. There does not seem to be any difference except the medium in which the embyro is continuing to mitose and differentiate. The points raised here are nonsensical and merely are, I suspect, another topic that is tried to be evaded with sketchy passages which in actuality have little or nothing to do with the issue.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by HarryA)
        Erm. Seriously, just stop talking unless you do a ton of research. There are several different types of stem cells, the main two being adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells come from organs, while embryonic stem cells (usually) come from embryos which are donated from IVF clinics who no longer require the embryo.

        That is the major difference, the major moral difference is here. By extracting embryonic stems cells from an embryo, the embryo is destroyed. Adult stem cells have been used for years and there is no moral issue. The only issue is with embryonic stem cells: opponents of argue that all embryos can become a human, ergo it's morally wrong to experiment on them.

        Adult stem cells have cured quite a few problems with people over years of research. Embryonic stem cells have not been fully tested on humans because there is concern about the cells causing cancer and other diseases to the host. The Californian research company, Geron Corporation, is the first to do a clinical test on humans (spinal cord injury patients) after a relatively successful test on rats and approval by the US Food and Drug Administration.

        Why don't we just use adult stems cells (because embryos aren't destroyed and everyone is happy)? Well, they are multipotent - they can only change into a limited number of cells. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent - they have the potential to become an unlimited number of cells.

        I suggest you research embryonic stem cells, the embryo that it comes from, what happens and what would have happened to that embryo had it not been used for research.
        :rolleyes:

        "Erm. Seriously" :o:o

        We'll stop talking when you show us your PhD and have the authority to tell us to stop talking, moron.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by ilickbatteries)
        :rolleyes:

        "Erm. Seriously" :o:o

        We'll stop talking when you show us your PhD and have the authority to tell us to stop talking, moron.
        Look mate, I'm just saying that people should stop making irrational decisions, especially when they don't know anything about the topic they are talking about.

        No, I don't have a PhD and no, I don't have the authority to tell anyone to stop talking, but I do have the authority to state my view and that's exactly what I am doing.
        Offline

        11
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by WhatamIdoing)
        Lol no. It has amazing potential, and in my opinion, it is the way forward for medicine. I hate to see Bible-bashing Republicans and the sort knocking it because it isn't what they would like.
        Some athiest republicans, such as myself, are against it because we don't think it should be federally funded. Fund it with private sector dollars, but don't tax me to fund it, I am taxed enough already. Not everything comes down to the bible :rolleyes:
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        No it shouldn't
        Offline

        9
        ReputationRep:
        Nope.

        Animal testing causes more suffering: they have nervous systems. I don't really see a foetus as life until the second/third trimester and I think there are regulations which mean that a blastocyst has to be used before it reaches 2 weeks old? I thought this was a reason why Muslims didn't object to stem cell research?

        That said, they have a symbolic meaning and for that reason we can't really treat stem cells as commodities to be profligated unnecessarily... it upsets people, and it's pretty important to have the public on your side in science.

        But when it gets to people paying a company to freeze their baby's stem cells from the placenta it gets a bit more confusing because iircc, you get more blood, and hence more stem cells, from the placenta/uterus wall (can't remember which) if you collect it while the woman is in labour in the later stages. This causes conflict because the woman has pre-paid for the stem cells to be collected but if the labour is difficult, the staff caring for her have a dilemma about whether to collect the blood and elongate the labour (I think possibly making it more dangerous) or to leave the blood and risk being culpable.
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        If it was banned, there would be a serious setback for the future of medicine.
       
       
       
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
      Useful resources
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.