A Chicago clinic has come under fire for selecting embryos that will be compatible for a stem cell transplant to sick siblings.

Here's the full article from CNN.



So, the questions for debate:

Is this new practice ethical?

With the great advances in the fertility industry, do you think it needs to be more regulated?

Is this any different than couples who have a baby "the old-fashioned way" for the same purpose (to save a sick sibling)?


My answers - I think this practice is more ethical than the "old way" when parents might even have abortions when the child isn't an exact match to the sick one.

However, I do think the fertility industry needs more regulation - at least from within the medical community. Unlike most of the rest of medicine, fertility doctors work outside of the workings of ethics committees or other oversight. There are many more questionable practices that occur (like selecting embryos for gender) but the medical community tends to ignore this and remain silent.

I think it is awful. But hey, the liberals and feminists dont see the babies as truly born until the cord is cut. Why would they care about the this? The value of the human life in this culture is becoming alarmingly non-existant. I definately think that some regulations should be in place before things get out of control.

This is a strange and complex situation which raises a large number of issues, none of which are easy. It is impossible for me to say if this procedure is ethical or not without having more information. In particular, I would like to know how developed the embryos are before they are frozen. If this is done at a very early stage of development, before there is any possibility that the embryo can experience suffering, it would not seem to pose an ethical problem if the procedure is done for compelling reasons. (This is exactly my position on abortion.)

Appropriate regulation of such procedures, like appropriate regulation of legal abortion, is a good idea. My concern is that lawmakers will rush to pass laws banning all such procedures entirely.

I worry about the whole idea of having a child, with conception happening inside or outside the womb, just for the purpose of creating a tissue donor. Suppose you knew that the reason your parents had you was to take tissue from you and give it to your older sibling. On the other hand, such children may be as loved as any others, and I can certainly understand parents wanting to go to almost any lengths to save the life of a child.

I would watch what you say more closely. This is intended to be constructive debate. As a liberal and a feminist, I believe human life begins at meeting of sperm & egg. However, as a medical professional, I believe there are situations in which certain procedures - like abortion - is the more humane, less painful way to go... But this debate is not really about the value of human life and where it begins - but the ethics (or morality if you like that term better) of creating children for the purpose of making them living donors for their siblings. Now, in these cases - stem cell donation - it is the cells from the umbilical cord that are actually donated. This is not an invasive procedure by any means, and if the original transplant is successful, then both children will lead healthy lives. Actually, some couples will donate the cord blood of their children to a bank that is used for transplant to any (related or unrelated) matching recipient.

But the question becomes, is it all ethical for doctors to participate in the parents desire to have a child for such seemingly mercenary means... But of course, there are worse reasons to want children that are never questioned - like the desire to have someone to love them, the desire to have companion for a previous kid, etc, etc. I personally haven't really figured out a good answer to this question. Especially when considering that failure of the first transplant could lead to more invasive bone marrow transplants, and even things like living kidney donation (especially in cases of inherited anemias).

For a look from the medical perspective, here is a good article. It does have a lot of jargon, etc - but I think the crux of the matter is in this paragraph:



And as far as this devaluing human life:


So, it is possible to see this as the ultimate way to value life.




It is my concern as well... which is why I keep advocating for the medical profession to step up and start regulating itself. If there are appropriate internal regulations and checks, like regular meetings of ethics committees, etc - then I think it is less likely the lawmakers will be able to get involved, or be able to entirely ban all procedures.

I think the practice of stem cell research is not only HIGHLY unethical, but nauseating to say the least! There's a human life involved here, being treated with the same irreverence as a lab test animal (something I'm opposed to as well - see below), and they have absolutely no business doing this. When scientists toy with genetic manipulation, they're playing God. They simply should have no such authority or power to manipulate human beings who have absolutely no defense, save the voices of "those of us lucky enough to have been allowed to develope into a full adult human being" fighting for them, (if they do at all).

What would these doctors think if THEY were the ones being developed and used as the stem cell provider embryo? Would THEY like to have their lives developed, and then taken away - a sacrificial lamb, so to speak - for the "supposed" benefit of others? (I say "supposed" because these scientific experiments are most likely cover-ups for greater and more disturbing uses of human genetic material.. such as cloning - all of which, I'm sure is already taking place and being kept hidden from the public.) Such knowledge, in the wrong hands, could lead to disaster - ethically AND politically.

There are other scientific methods available to cure the diseases at hand, which, like those for vivisection, are being covered up. (Many of those "experimentations" are not even necessary because scientists KNOW that the genetic make up of any given animal is different than that of a human being and therefor will not have the same outcome or reaction to the drug or chemical. (Ex/ Beagles can inhale massive amounts of cigarette smoke and not develope cancer from it, but humans will. Ex/ Goats can eat arsenic and will not die, humans will. Ex/ Cats will die from eating aspirin, humans will not.) Even Ozone Therapy, proven to be effective against AIDS, Herpes, Arthritis, & Cancer, is prohibited in the United States. One must go to Mexico or Europe to receive and pay for treatments all because the FDA has outlawed its use and medical practice in America - and guess why?! THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY! They make billions of dollars each year on medication for the sick (diabetes, depression medications, etc.) and would go under if the [B]real cures were allowed to be used.[/B]

My point,...I'm sure other methods for cures exist out there, but they're being kept under wraps for the sake of promoting and desensitizing the offensiveness of stem cell research so that the resistance to such will diminish, and so they might use these scientific techniques for political purposes.