Use This "Open Thread " to Comment on Any Topic Relevant to Secondhand Smoke
Royale, one of the regular participants here at Secondhand Smoke, suggested in a comment that I create a place for people to ask questions, bring up old issues, or generally comment beyond the scope of the individual posts that I place on the site. I think this is a splendid idea--sort of the blog equivalent to "open phones" segments on talk radio.
So, anyone and everyone: Please consider this an open thread. Feel free to raise any bioethical issue you want, so long as it is relevant to what we discuss here at Secondhand Smoke. If it is a success, I will make "Open Thread" a regular feature.
Thanks for the idea, Royale! Let's see what is on people's minds.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:05 PM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
To repeat my addressing Royale's question:
"If ASCR is more promising than ESCR, SCNT too hopelessly impractical for biomedical advancements (millions of eggs needed), etc...what would you do with the 400k + excess embryos from IVF?"
Royale, most of those 400,000 embryos of whom you speak are NOT being slated for destruction; more than 88% being reserved for future attempts at pregnancy. Of the others, we need to present the idea of embryo adoption fairly. It's starting slowly, as most of everything does, but with promotion and understanding I think it will catch on like wildfire, especially for couples experiencing fertility problems.
Thanks Wesley.
I like the idea of embryo adoption theoretically, but I don't think it'll catch the remaining. Even if I assume that 88% is an accurate number (which I don't).
There will remain many embryos slated for destruction:
1. based on contractual and financial concerns.
2. perpetually frozen embryos degrade over time to the point they are unusable
3. if DNA technology gets good enough, people will select the "better" potential embryos (i.e., ones without genetic defects, particular races, etc...)
Wesley in his book talks about crossing moral lines down the slippery slope. Well, I think IVF crosses his own line of treating embryos as distict human entities because IVF inevitable results in excess embryos, that will be destroyed for one reason or another.
If we want to discuss what is the ideal situation, great. Adoption. Fine.
But let's separate that from the real situation. Excess embryos. Racism. Selective adoption. Money. IVF clinics closing.
So, what then?
I concede that ASCR is probably a better solution than ESCR. OK. I don't think we should close the door on ESCR, but rather keep all the options on the table if we have this resource of discarded embryos.
The embryos are going to be destroyed anyway isn't really germane, to me. First, it isn't outlawed by the USA, and will never be. (It is in Germany.) Hence, the issue in the USA is about the extent of federal funding. Second, I oppose it because I think it crosses a crucial ethical line to begin using living human organisms as natural resources that we presume to destroy in order to exploit. The real agenda here is SCNT cloning. ESCR with leftover IVF embryos is useful scientifically, but it is also a political tool to gain access to wider exploitation of human life.
That being said, I would support regulation of IVF so that so many excess embryos are not created. Italy requires that any embryo be implanted and restricts the numbers created at a time to (I think) 3. The Dutch have shown that creating and implanting one embryo at a time is as productive as doing many. So, I think we could and should do a better job in this area. But whether we do or don't, is no reason to take the step over the line and turning these embryos into object as opposed to subjects.
Some American parents have agreements with their IVF doctors that all embryos will be implanted. And they limit the number they implant at one time in order to avoid having to do selective reduction.
Many infertile couples find themselves doing IVF with donor egg and/or donor sperm. It's a short step to adopted embryos.
Deap Toad: Definitely not. We defeated assisted suicide in CA this year, as well as in Vermont and Hawaii. It's a tough struggle, but still very winnable thanks to the diverse coalition opposing PAS.
I really hate the term "selective reduction." It is a euphemism. I once heard a doctor say they turned triplets into twins. No, they just aborted one of the triplets. People have a right to straight talk so they can make ethical decisions about personal conduct and, in some cases, government regulation based on facts, not spin. It is especially egregious when "the scientists" play semantics games.
Speaking of abortion, from a criminal justice standpoint, is it possible to enforce a ban on abortion?
I'm personally opposed to abortion and am certainly no fan of a lot of the rhetoric on the extreme pro-choice fringe, but I think by criminalizing it, the law could not be enforced.
Wesley/ group,
Another question. You seem to be pretty adamant about not treating the living as dead, at least with ESC (that appears to be your language anyway).
Question - what of the case of the dyign pregnant woman and the govt wanted to do a c-section to save the baby, but she refused. I know the USSC held her bodily integrity over-ruled the govt's interest in saving the baby. But based on your ethical principles, do you think that holding was appropriate?
That is an interesting question, Royale. Personally, if the child was viable, I think it should be saved, based on morality, but I don't know if it would be legal given the right to personal integrity.
Hello! I am Brother Daniel M.J.Tobin, 4th Degree Knight of Columbus , Christian fraternity with over 1,000,000 members internationally.I have recently earned the Award of Appreciation from the NY State Blood Center for my 87 lifetime blood donations,and have worked as Town of Hempstead Accountant, Election Inspector,1985-90, and on the Corporate Board of directors for the Victims of Pan Am Flight #103 in the 1990's and prosecuted indicted suspects of the bombing which took 270 lives in 1988, Lockerbie,Scotland. I would like to serve as The President of The United States on the Right To Life Party line, 2008. Please send Federally Insured Bank Checks for political purposes in accordance with applicable FEC Laws, to :Dan Tobin, 115 Atlantic Ave Apt 2A,Hempstead,NY 11550-1204. I promise not to use them for personal reasons, and look forward to serving you honorably, In Health and Freedom, Dan Tobin
Right, Sir Robin. The check is in the mail.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15507998/?GT1=8717
Dutch woman dies next to her own grave
Newspaper says 65-year-old likely died of a heart attack, was carrying will
Or given the euthanasia regime in effect, either with physician supplied medication or her own drugs, decided to die next to her husband?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home