Thursday, June 21, 2007



Reaction Paper
Radio Programme: “Dr. Keirstead’s stem cell research





Stem cells are very powerful biological tools because they can replace any destroyed or damaged cell in our body or well slow down the progression of diseases and biological disorders.

Paralyzed people who thought they would never walk again have recovered their hope. Scientists working with Dr. Keirstead have probed the effect of stem cells in animals. They introduced the cells in the spinal chord of paralyzed rats and 6 weeks later these animals could move their tail and then walk. But there are al least 5 to 10 more years to wait to finish the studies before trying this technique in humans.

This project was delayed because it is very expensive and George W. Bush has banned the federal funds destined for it. He took this decision because he extremely opposes to the methods practiced in the project. In order to obtain stem cells human embryos have to be destroyed. These cells are subtracted from embryos 5 days after fertilization and transplanted into humans. Although, in California, 5 million dollars of private money has been invested in order to avoid the stagnation of researches.

But yet moral concerns cause lots of strong discussions, also between scientists. In one hand, Dr. Keirstead was criticized by some scientists, and in the other hand, he was prized for his work. Many scientists think stem cells are the solution to some incurable diseases as heart-attack or diabetes. They tried them in sick mice and after 6 weeks these cells had replaced the damaged ones.

But above all, Dr. Keirstead does not think that what he is doing is morally incorrect. He values life and he thinks this treatment is a responsible thing to do. “Don’t throw embryos away, use them,” he says. Maybe, with this phrase he refers to embryos used for in-vitro fertilization. In this method, for each mom several embryos are fertilized. They use one or two and the others are frozen. After several years being kept freeze they are throw away because their parents have forgotten them. What Dr. Keirstead proposes is to use those embryos to save or improve human life instead of wasting them.

Another advantage of steam cells treatment is that it does not consist of a big operation. Patients go out of hospital very fast and with a band aid only. Although they haven’t tried it in humans yet they know that they require 20 million cells to introduce per person. Short term paralyses are going to be treated firstly.



--------

I think that this treatment is wonderful because it improves human lives. Although stem cells are subtracted from human embryos, in my opinion this does not have any negative moral implication.

If you have a cow ovule fertilized with a bull spermatozoon in a Petri dish and beyond it another dish with a human in vitro fertilized ovule, would you see any difference between them? They are both products of technology. Those ovules need to be implanted in a womb to live; if not, they will never evolve; they will never be a human being or a cow or anything.

Many people question their selves if in-vitro fertilization is right. We tend to think it is correct because its reason is correct, though the words “artificial manipulation of embryos” sound like something bad. This technique is normally required when a mother and father need help to become pregnant. As said before, popular opinion perceives this as a good cause to manipulate embryos. But they are still technology and would continue being if not introduced in a womb.

With stem cells is the same process. We use technology to join a woman’s ovule with a man’s spermatozoon and produce an embryo. That embryo can become a baby born in a family or can be used to save people’s life. To save people’s life is not immoral, and even less if we do it with technology.

Totally immoral would be if we took the embryo naturally conceived of the womb and kill it to take stem cells. That can be consider a murder, because that embryo is alive and it is going to become an entire human being. But you are not doing this, you are using technology to obtain stem cells and that’s not a murder.

I think that the ethic and moral of an action depends on its intention. The purpose of stem cells is to improve people’s life, not to kill. That’s why for me it’s not immoral the use of stem cells to save people.

2 comments:

Val said...

Hey Anto! I promised to enter here... but I don't feel like reading that much!! jejej... Well, it's not the lenght, it's the theme. It's like I know what it will be about, and all that... so I'm sorry =P Next time! jeje!
I also have to go on with Perón, for the exam tomorrow. I'm really happy because I really managed with my times! I thought I would be studying til late at night, but it's 7 pm and I have to study half of Perón, and then reread everythinG!! jejeje So, it's not that much!
See you tomorrow!!
Then comment on my blog! ;)

CAL said...

Very thoughtful entry about this controversial issue, Anto. You discuss the topic by summarizing the contents of the radio program, then add some information and finish by giving your personal opinion. Very well done!

La Pampa landscape

La Pampa landscape