(Cartoon compliments of Zapiro)
The proposed regulations published for review on Jan. 5, 2007 can be found here.
Section 9.a states:
"[Ownership of] excess embryos from in vitro fertilisation, for the purpose of research, is vested with the donor."
"[Ownership of] excess embryos from in vitro fertilisation, for the purpose of research, is vested with the donor."
While Section 10.a states:
"[Ownership of stem cells derived from] excess embryos for the purpose of research, is vested with the State."
For those not savvy with the SCR method -- harvesting stem cells from an embryo effectively destroys it.
The problem is that these 'embryos' are immature human beings. This is supported by medical, embryological and biological science. From the moment of fertilization, this genetically unique entity will require only nutrition, oxygen and a suitable environment to develop into a fetus, baby, toddler, adolescent and ultimately adult human being. This dynamic process of growth gives very little in the form of distinct moments where functional humanity can be determined.
Bioethicists may use Personhood Theory or suchlike to propose that these embryos aren't in fact human -- or rather they're not human enough to be entitled to any of the rights that functioning humans are (e.g. the right to life). In response, there are convincing rebuttals which suggest that the latency exhibited by embryological/fetal growth is fundamentally comparable to the functional latency of sleep or a short-term comatose state. If the likes of Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, had their way, parents would be able to 'off' their retarded children.
The problem is that these 'embryos' are immature human beings. This is supported by medical, embryological and biological science. From the moment of fertilization, this genetically unique entity will require only nutrition, oxygen and a suitable environment to develop into a fetus, baby, toddler, adolescent and ultimately adult human being. This dynamic process of growth gives very little in the form of distinct moments where functional humanity can be determined.
Bioethicists may use Personhood Theory or suchlike to propose that these embryos aren't in fact human -- or rather they're not human enough to be entitled to any of the rights that functioning humans are (e.g. the right to life). In response, there are convincing rebuttals which suggest that the latency exhibited by embryological/fetal growth is fundamentally comparable to the functional latency of sleep or a short-term comatose state. If the likes of Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, had their way, parents would be able to 'off' their retarded children.
Obfuscation aside, I suggest that the DOH is grossly neglecting clear scientific evidence by allowing free reign to embryonic experimentation and to crown it all claiming ownership of another human's stem cells: biotech slavery.
12 comments:
Is that an indication of ageism?
The problem runs much deeper and is more complex, IMO. Embryonic Stem Cell Research has promised a veritable fountain of youth, but has yet to offer a single cure. It's difficult to say which where the bigger problem lies: regenerative scientific expediency or ethics out of touch with scientific fact. There would also political forces with a vested interest -- a concession here would open up a can of worms on the validity of abortion on demand.
Please keep in mind that stem cells are derived from surplus (i.e. frozen) IVF embryos that would eventually be discarded (as in flushed down the toilet) anyway.
(hex)
True. Most embryos used in research are surplus from IVF, etc. However, this would not apply in the case of therapeutic cloning -- which is also permitted under these regulations. Also -- they aren’t necessarily ‘flushed’. Have you heard of ‘Snowflake Children’?
Hex. If you accept the premise of embryos being fundamentally human, isn't it the moral equivalent of saying that since people are dying of AIDS, malaria, malnutrition in poor, 3rd world regions such as Somalia, Darfur, we should experiment on them for the greater good of mankind? They're dying anyway (i.e. being flushed), why should they not be put to utilitarian use?
The embryos from which stem cells are derived are 4-5 days old: spherical blobs consisting of a maximum of 150 cells, which are called blastocysts, containing nothing except genetic information, and with no central nervous system anywhere in sight. You may well be of the opinion that they are "fundamentally human", but I certainly am not. (hex)
An embryo is genetically a member of the Homo sapien species -- this is not an opinion, but a scientific fact. It isn't a cabbage or a fish. It doesn't magically become 'human' when the fetal heart starts beating. When then, IN YOUR OPINION, does this organism during its dramatic development become worthy of your moral consideration?
Never mind my 'moral' consideration; I prefer the term 'ethical', and in this case I would consider inflicting pain and suffering unethical. "Morals", to me, tend to have religious overtones, and I don't wish to get involved in arguments about religion. I also consider experimentation on animals and, indeed, all cruelty to animals unethical. And the human species is of course located four-square within the animal kingdom. (hex)
Does free experimentation on comatose (or even 'brain-dead') humans also fall under your 'pain and suffering' criterion?
I'm unaware of any kind of experiments being performed on comatose humans. "Brain-dead" people are - to all intents and purposes - dead, and I fail to see what purpose there would be in experimenting on these unfortunates. Uh, Masgruva ... why do I get the feeling you're getting irritated with me (to put it mildly)? I respect your opinion, and you could at least try to do the same with mine. Or are you one of those bloggers who wants only for others to agree with them? Because that would be very dull, don't you think?
The question was purely hypothetical as there isn't such experimentation done AFAIK -- with good reason.
Pardon my conversational style -- I can come across as having the diplomacy of an Israeli bulldozer. I certainly think that reasonable people can (and should) disagree. I value dialogue and relish diversity of opinion: I was simply ascertaining the consistency of your stance.
Now that's what I like to hear. No hard feelings. See you around! (hex)
Post a Comment