A Tale of Two Cadaver Cell Trials
In the UK, an adult stem cell trial using cadaver cells will begin seeking to cure blindness. From the story:[[A] two-year trial involving 20 patients with corneal blindness will begin this month at the Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion in Edinburgh and the Gartnavel General Hospital in Glasgow. The treatment being used involves using the stem cells of dead adult donors, rather than the more controversial research involving embryonic stem cells, and if successful could help millions of people around the world who suffer from corneal blindness, around 80 percent of whom are elderly.
As part of the process, adult stem cells are cultivated and then transplanted onto the cornea's surface. "This study is the first of its kind anywhere in the world and it is exciting to be involved in such groundbreaking work," said Professor Bal Dhillon, who is heading the trial.
More controversially, scientists expect to use fetal tissue in an attempt to treat stroke injuries:
Doctors are hoping to launch the world's first trial for a treatment that aims to improve the quality of life for thousands of stroke victims on patients in Glasgow in June, although the procedure must still be approved by an ethics committee.Interesting that Dr. Muir seems so defensive.The treatment, which uses cells taken from an aborted foetus that are to be injected into the brains of stroke victims to see if they can effectively regenerate damaged areas, was developed by Britain-based company ReNeuron. "That single cell was expanded by means of technology so we can have something to treat many, many thousands of patients," said ReNeuron founder John Sindon, who is working with consultant doctor Keith Muir on the planned trial at Southern General Hospital in Glasgow. "You could make the argument that it would have otherwise gone to waste. The reality is that we're trying to turn that into something with a lasting effect."
Many SHSers may disagree with me, but I do think there is an ethical distinction to be made between an embryonic stem cell experiment in which a nascent human life is destroyed for the purpose of research, and the fetal experiment which will use tissue taken from a fetal cadaver who wasn't killed in order to obtain the cells.
Think of this analogy using the eye stem cell experiment mentioned above: ESCR would be akin to a murderer executed for his eye stem cells, while the fetal tissue experiment would be analogous to adult stem cells taken from a prisoner executed without thought of how his body parts might be used after death. If one opposes capital punishment (and lets not argue that issue here), both executions would be wrong, and no subsequent instrumental use of tissues would justify the death. But using the body parts of the second prisoner after his death wouldn't in and of itself be unethical. Or am I wrong in this comparison?
On a different note, using fetal tissue to treat neural insults has been tried in the early 1990s in an attempt to ameliorate the effects of Parkinson's--with devastating results: Many of the patients experiences such severe side effects that the trials were halted. So, I hope the ethics committee--such as they are these days--treads very carefully.
Labels: Adult Stem Cell Research. Fetal Tissue Research. Etihcal Distinctions.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:53 AM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
You're right Wesley, there is a distinction between destroying human life and using already dead humans, whether they be elderly or fetal. However, as you've many times documented, the demand for organs from those who have died can and has led to abuses by those who want the organs, including hastening death to get the organs or pushing for the ability to take organs from "vegitables" while they're still alive.
Luckily for the elderly, standards and laws are in place to minimize these instances of abuse for adults who may have their organs harvested. Unfortunately, unlike adults, there is current ZERO moral protections to prevent the destruction of human life for this research. Until those sorts of safe-guards are put in place, we'll continue to be very skeptical that the research will limit itself to already dead fetuses and thus many, myself included, will be opposed to this sort of research.
I would say that the two acts--murder for the sake of body parts and the use of body parts from a murdered person who wasn't murdered for his body parts--are different, but that it doesn't follow that the second is ethical.
"But using the body parts of the second prisoner after his death wouldn't in and of itself be unethical."
Consider two points: First, suppose that even the second executed prisoner didn't give consent for use of his body parts. Would that not make one more uncomfortable about the ethics of the situation? But obviously, unborn children killed haven't given consent, and the parent who does give consent has also consented to the child's killing, which makes _that_ parents' consent morally problematic. Second, instead of waiving the question of the death penalty, let's consider a case where the person is undeniably innocent but is being executed in, say, a communist country for political dissent. In that case everyone can agree that his killing is wrong. Now does it not add an extra layer of wrong to the situation if the government sells his body parts for research? Wouldn't that extra layer of wrong be there *even if* one were convinced that the execution for political dissent would have taken place anyway and that he was killed for political reasons rather than for his body parts? The wrongness of his killing is connected with the exploitation of his body after death. He is not only being wrongfully killed but also treated as a thing to be used.
Lydia: You nailed it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home