Stem Cell Research and Torture

[Hunt]

It occurred to me that the same arguments are being made with respect to these two issues, but from different sides. One side argues that the practice should be prohibited as a moral absolute, and the other side argues that the practice should be allowed because it has the potential to save lives.

 

This makes these issues different from something like the minimum wage, where is seems that most of us are willing to argue about what is the most effective method for improving the economy and the situation of the lowest-paid workers. It's also different from something like flag-burning, where both sides are arguing from competing principles.

[nldscout]

HUH?????

[Hunt]

In the debate over torture, one side of the debate says that torture is absolutely wrong and can never be justified. The other side says that torture (or torture-like alternative methods) can be justified in some situations because the information obtained can save lives. For stem cell research, one side says that stem cell research is absolutely wrong (i.e. because it's like abortion), and the other side says that it can save lives.

I guess my view is that "it can save lives" is not ultimately persuasive in either case, at least until you discuss whether there is a moral absolute involved. I mean, I think we'd probably all agree that infanticide is wrong, no matter how many lives might be saved by doing it--that's because we all agree on the moral absolute involved. So, for those who believe in the moral absolute prohibiting either torture or stem cell research, the number of lives saved is not dispositive.

[Trevorum]

Would that we all were as iron-sure as Abraham. I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice my own son for someone else's notion of a moral absolute.

[GernBlansten]

Here's a test to see how you view whether frozen embryos are human beings.

 

You are walking down the street and see an In vitro Fertilization Clinic on fire. You rush through the door. In one room is a freezer labeled with 20,000 embryos. In the other room is a crying baby in a crib. You have only seconds and can only save either the freezer or the baby. Which one do you choose?

 

Your case for torture is flawed, it doesn't hold water (no pun intended), it won't save lives. Information gained from torture is unreliable. Put yourself in the position of the one being tortured, would you say anything the torturer wanted to hear to stop the treatment? Of course you would. Torture is not used to gain information, it is used to punish.

[nldscout]

WHOOSH !!!!

 

Boy is this discussion flying right over my head.....

 

I sure could use some GRITS

[packsaddle]

I see the point that Hunt was attempting to make. It is an apparent contradiction of thought and action similar to an apparent contradiction represented by fundamentalists who oppose abortion, but at the same time support the death penalty. Rooster7, I think, was able to provide in the past the scriptural support for the answer to this.

 

But to address Hunts idea...

In one of the simplest exercises of mathematical game theory, the optimal solution is called, 'tit for tat'. This can be recognized in the 'Golden Rule' and so many other similarly-derived ethics. But in the game, the important distinction is that whoever has the first opportunity to act can make one of two choices: the first choice is an action that will give a marginal and diminishing advantage, the margin of which is wiped out in time. The alternative choice is to act in the manner in which you hope the opponent will choose. This achieves instant and permanent parity (fairness) as long as this ethic is followed by the gaming parties.

This approach was applied to torture policy in the past. Yes, torture may produce misinformation. But torture must also be avoided because WE don't want to be tortured. There is nothing positive about it. And if the other side DOES torture, how does it do us honor if we then lower ourselves by adopting THEIR code of morality? The pragmatist argues essentially, 'tit for tat' while unconscious of the consequences. Any questionable advantage either side might gain by torture will be wiped out in time and what are we left with in the end?....the torture. But when the other side does it, they DON'T do it simply for information. They gain no real tactical advantage by employing torture, they just cause harm and destroy lives. They do it simply to hurt people, simply for the pleasure and satisfaction they derive from it. Is THAT what we want to be like?

But we did it anyway, didn't we?

 

The stem cell issue really is different. The thing about stem cell research is that questions regarding for example, "when does life begin?" are diversions from the current reality. The reality is that, as already mentioned, embryos are already destroyed and we as a society condone this. There is no hand-wringing and widespread re-examination of this practice. It is there and we simply ignore it, the same as we do now for the once-controversial many technologies of molecular genetics and biology.

 

And the reality is that with the new approach mentioned in previous threads, the embryos are not harmed by the development of stem cell lines.

 

Unfortunately the final reality is that this is not an issue based in knowledge or understanding but rather driven by political ideology that is based in ignorance or worse.

But as in game theory, the marginal advantage to those who stand in the way of stem cell research will diminish in time. Unfortunately for persons like SR540Beaver and Gern's son, that time will be unnecessarily long....because of the ideology. And that, to me, is worse than cruel. It is evil.

[SR540Beaver]

Pack,

 

Thanks for thinking of me buddy. The crowd that opposes embryonic stem cell research are usually the same crowd who opposes abortion. While I do understand their reasons, I do note that the situation often dicatates how devoted a person is to the issue. It is easy to stand in opposition to abortion until your 14 year old daughter comes home and tells you that she is pregnant. Likewise, it is easy to stand in opposition to embryonic stem cell research until you have a chronic and deadly disease like diabetes. It is easy for someone to oppose it until they have walked a mile in my shoes.

 

A typical day for "normal" people is to get up, shower, brush their teeth, skip breakfast and drive to work. Not so for the diabetic. I get up, stick my finger and check my blood glucose level. If it is low, I go to the kitchen and eat something. If it is high, I inject insulin. Then I shower, brush my teeth and go back to the kitchen to fix some breakfast. I have to balance my food intake with my insulin dosage. I have to calculate the amount of insulin I take based on the number of carbohydrates I eat. I take 1 unit of insulin for every 8 grams of carbohydrate I eat. Well, that is from around noon until 7:00 AM. From 7:00 AM until noon, I take 1 unit of insulin for every 5 grams of carbohydrate I eat. If my blood glucose is above a target of 120, I take 1 unit of insulin for every 20 above 120 that my blood glucose is. If it is 200, I need 4 units of insulin. If on top of that I am going to eat 24 grams of carbs, I need an additional 3 units of insulin for a total of 7 units of insulin.

 

You get the picture, my day is made up of a juggling act that runs 24/7/365. I have not even mentioned having to throw the 3rd ball of exercise into the juggling act. Exerecise will burn sugar, so you will need to reduce your insulin dosage and/or increase your food intake. I can't simply go out to the garage and fire up the lawn mower or take off on a Philmont trek without knowing my body and having some sort of strategy for actually staying ALIVE. How many folks out there have to figure out how to stay alive 24 hours a day on a daily basis? Oh yeah, I forgot to mention how getting sick with a cold or the flu throws everything out of whack and you have to have a whole seperate plan of attack for those days.

 

It is one thing to have to deal with this yourself as an adult. Imagine having to be a third party who has to watch for "signs" and handle this for a preschool or grade school child!!!

 

All of a sudden, you don't want to leave any stone unturned. Does embryonic stem cell research offer an iron clad guarantee for a cure over adult or cord blood stem cells? No. But since you have all of these embryos that will be tossed in the trash anyway, why not put them to use in addition to the other types of stem cells in a possible search for cures to life threatening diseases? If you had diabetes or a multitude of other life threatening diseases, you'd sing a different tune.

 

I pray for the day that I can take a final injection that is a CURE and live a normal life. Unfortunately for ME, it will be too late to stop the damage that has already been done to my eyes, arteries and nerve endings over the last 32 of my 49 years.

[packsaddle]

Beav, I feel the same empathy for all people in your or similar situations. At one time, there was strong resistance to the development of molecular genetics back when it was in its infancy. Some of this resistance lingers in the form of opposition to genetically modified food products.

 

My point in mentioning this is that the insulin that you and so many others use today was, at one time, extracted from animals. It was an expensive process and, importantly, it was not identical to human insulin - and back then the adverse effects you describe happened with greater frequency and at an earlier age. Depending on your age and the date that you began your treatment, this might have affected you as well.

 

However with the development of molecular genetic technology, the human gene for insulin was spliced into microbes that were cultivated in mass quantities. Biotech now produces biosynthetic insulin that is identical to the real McCoy, and in quantities that has cut costs and saved or prolonged lives.

 

At one time, those who were opposed to the development of this technology argued that claims of potential benefits were purely speculative. The same arguments are made today about stem cell research. These arguments were and are a deception and grounded only in ignorance. The pattern is clear enough by now that I hope most of us can see it. Sadly, the oval office, well.....you know.

[SSScout]

Somewhere in the past posts it is appropriate to interject Gandhi's comment

that "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and soon the whole world is blind and toothless".

But I forget where.

[BrentAllen]

packsaddle writes: "The pattern is clear enough by now that I hope most of us can see it."

 

Unfortunately, the only pattern I see clearly is a lot of hype. But since you see it clearly, please give me the details. What cures are coming, and when will they be here? It has been 5 + years since Bush authorized the federal funding. Other companies have been performing the research for years before that. You and Gern KNOW the cures are right around the corner, so give me the details. Most objective reports I read say IF any cures materialize, they are 15 - 20 years away. They were probably saying the same thing 5 years ago. Take the politics out of it, and there is still a huge question mark about any results. I just hate seeing all this framed in a way that Bush is keeping certain cures from being developed. THAT isn't truthful.

[packsaddle]

Brent, Your reasoning applies equally to your own claim. Because the so-called 'cures' have not been developed, there is no evidence either way. Lack of evidence is simply that.

And ignorance is simply that. It is not a reason to believe anything, positive or negative. However, the knowledge we have is of past developments in science, biology in this case - and that evidence is very supportive of the prediction that future research will discover new therapies, perhaps 'cures'.

Restated, if past experience can be used as a future predictor, then the technological advances hoped for by SR540Beaver, Gern, and others are more likely than not. There is good reason to expect new medical advances from stem cell research. We simply can't predict when they will be discovered or necessarily what they will be.

 

What we CAN predict with 100% accuracy is that if the research is not pursued, new discoveries are less likely to be found. And if the research is impeded, they may be found - but more slowly, and more people will have suffered than was necessary.

 

As I explained previously, if your line of reasoning had prevailed years ago, it would have impeded, for example, the development of new and better sources of insulin. (or a number of vaccines, etc.) In a broader perspective your line of reasoning applies to every form of exploration ever supported by public funds. In every case in which we used tax dollars to explore the unknown I suspect each one of those efforts had similar detractors.

 

If I were to couch your objection in the form of a null hypothesis, "stem cell research will produce no new cures", the logical alternative hypothesis would require a research effort to test it. As you admit, the research will be done by someone. The most you can do with your line of reasoning is to slow it down...a result unlikely to find favor among those of us who would like to see those new therapies sooner rather than later.

 

Your previous point about public funding for research is well-taken. The logical extreme for that line of reasoning is to have no public funding of any kind of research. This would include everything: medical, agricultural, communications, engineering, defense, etc. If your reasoning is sound, none of this should be funded with tax dollars. But THAT is a political question, not a scientific one. We'll all determine that at the polls.

[GernBlansten]

Missle defense, the Apollo moon landings, the atomic bomb, the war on terror all entailed federal expeditures on an unknown outcome. Missle defense has never delivered what it promised. The war on terror looks like it will never be won. Iraq may not stabilize for 20 years.

 

If stem cell research takes 5 years or 50 years, isn't it worth investigating?

 

I have no doubt that other nations will develop and refine stem cell treatments. The US is being left behind and won't reap the finacial rewards from such treatment. Bush obstructed our efforts for religious reasons and flawed logic. If our next president continues with such an attitude, our hope will have to come from overseas. If the next president reverses direction, we have to only wait two additional years for the cure.

 

Brent, you will never convince me that the president did the right thing vetoing the funding. Most Americans agree with me. I believe that this issue played a large part in some the 2006 elections.

 

But I will be reminded in what you said, "Bush was for stem cell research before he was against it".

[BrentAllen]

Yes, Gern, and the expenditures on Missle Defense, the atomic bomb and the war on terror all are towards a primary mission of the federal government - to "provide for the common defense..."

From Time magazine, a good explanation on the difference between the atom bomb and stem cells:

"Even the true believers among scientists, however, dispute eager politicians who have called for a Manhattan Project approach to research. "I hate to say it, but biology is more complicated than splitting the atom," Witte says. "The physicists on the Manhattan Project knew what they needed to accomplish and how to measure it. In biology, we're codeveloping our measurement tools and our outcome tools at the same time." Indeed, a massive centralized effort controlled by the Federal Government could do more harm than good. The key is to have the broadest cross section of scientists possible working across the field. When it comes to such an impossibly complicated matter as stem cells, the best role for legislators and Presidents may be neither to steer the science nor to stall it but to stand aside and let it breathe."

 

Two years for the cure? That is exactly the hype and false hope clowns like John Edwards have sold you. I'm sorry if you think that the only thing preventing a cure from being discovered is federal dollars - that just isn't the truth. If people voted for Democrats over Republicans based on that logic, we are doomed as a country.

 

Look, I hope all kinds of cures develope from stem cell research. I'm just sick and tired of all the hype, deception and blame-gaming. The facts are more therapies and cures are being developed from adult stem cells and umbilical cord-blood cells than from embryonic stem cells. But that doesn't matter to all you Bush haters - you just have to find something else to slam him on, and I'm sick and tired of it. He is a Christian man who prays for guidance. He is a faithful family man who stands for his beliefs. I think these are things we teach in Scouting.

[GernBlansten]

Brent, you must have some extra words in your pocket, because you keep putting them in my mouth.

I didn't write, "cure in two years" I said it will take at least two MORE years. If it takes 20 years to get the cure, it will take 22 because of Bush. That is of course if the nation corrects course and elects a more reasonable president. Will a cure happen? I don't know, I hope it does. Not pursuing it is irresponsible. Standing in its way is reprehensible.

 

And I don't hate Bush. I'm disappointed in him. I think we could have done better. But hate? No. Is criticizing the policies of our elected government hate? I'll leave hate to the professional judgmental religious fundamentalists. They seem very good at it.

 

One question for you Brent, are you ok with the current practices of in-vitro fertilization? Specifically, the treatment of the unused embryos.

Follow up question, if not, what do you propose we do?