In clinical trials, a team of scientists led by Richard Burt of Northwestern University in Chicago essentially rebuilt the immune system of 21 adults -- 11 women and 10 men -- who had failed to respond to standard drug treatments.It is especially a pleasure to see such reports after the biased media attention to embryonic stem cells this week.
First they removed defective white blood cells that, rather than protecting the body, attacks the fatty sheath, called myelin, that protects the nervous system.
The immune systems were then replenished with so-called haemopoeitic stem cells -- extracted from the patient's bone marrow -- capable of giving rise to any form of mature blood cell.
The technique is not new. But this was the first time it had been applied to young and relatively health individuals in the early, so-called "relapsing-remitting" phase of the disease. Participants had had MS for roughly five years.
After an average follow-up period of three years, 17 of the 21 patients improved by at least one point on a standard disability scale, and none had a final score lower than before the stem cell transplant.
The procedure "not only seems to prevent neurological progression, but also appears to reverse neurological disability," concluded the study, published in the British medical journal The Lancet.
Cognitive functions and quality of life were improved, and the treatment had a low level of toxicity compared to other drug therapies.
Five of the patients did relapse, but achieved remission after receiving other immunosuppressive therapy, the study noted.
[Emphasis added]
Friday, January 30, 2009
Adult Stem Cells at Work
After the media blitz on embryonic stem cells this week it is interesting to see more real results of non-embryonic stem cells. The following was reported in Lancet, according to Brietbart.com:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Stan,
I just wanted to write a brief note and let you know that I appreciate your work and enjoy your blog.
I look forward to reading your E-books located on your homesite.
Keep up the good work and congrats on the grand-daughter! Great picture!
I don't think you realize that non-pro-lifers are also encouraged by positive treatment results from adult stem cells. We just don't think an additional promising line of scientific inquiry should be closed off because some people think a blastocyst is the same thing as a baby.
Chad, thanks!
Andrew T,
I strongly suspect that at one point in your journey as a human, you were a blastocyst. In fact it is abundantly clear that every human went through that stage of development. It is a normal human stage. You imply that it is not a baby, and that makes it non-human, which is false.
A baby is not a teenager; a teenager is not an adult. These are demarcations that have no implication that any stage is not human. So it is with blastocysts, a human stage in the life of every human.
The actual argument is not the one you made, comparing a blastocyst to a baby. The actual argument is that the blastocyst is not conscious and therefore has no human value. This argument has two fallacies.
First, if a human is unconscious, he is declared to have no value. This is second order eugenics, nearly first order. It should be OK to kill and dispose of sleeping people.
Second, the concept of "value" that is used by pro-abortion, pro-embryonic destructionists is totatlly based on "present value", and totally ignores "future value". This point is argued ad nauseum by those who favor the destruction of certain individuals, and it was the strongest argument of the Third Reich elitists for the destruction of individuals who they felt had no value. It presumes the right to decide which individuals have value on an arbitrary scale, and which do not, AND the right to destroy those who have no (or low) value on that scale. This is a feature of humanist philosophy also, the same humanism that plagued the 20th century with its "New Man" icons.
Third, the right to determine the fate of other people and dispose of them is presumed, and the criteria are to be dependent solely upon the state of those people. This is actually beyond racist, and is actually elitist totalitarianism pure and simple. The only quibble between elitists would be at which state of human development or mental status or other status should we decide to set the flag for destruction of that individual? In other words, it is totally without moral and ethical content, and it reverts pragmatically to the strongest of the elite who will make this decision. In other words, totalitarianism by the strongest elite.
Your argument fails at each and every level, unless you also reject all ethical and moral responsibility, and claim such eliteness for yourself. If you make such claims, even presuppositionally, then you have no need of logic, and can decree whatever you wish.
What a lot of inferences you do make here, Stan. I'm not sure that Andrew had any sort of detailed position to defend, as you seem to intuit. His views could be more nuanced. A person could be opposed to abortion on demand and still support stem cell research under certain conditions, if I recall the Congressional Register correctly. Sen. Hatch certainly thinks so:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Orrin_Hatch_Abortion.htm
So, at the risk of igniting a firestorm, I have to ask: are other animals conscious, or not?
[In terms of firestorms, I certainly welcome the discussion]
We are not talking science here, we are talking ethics. And ethics applies to and supercedes the scientist's self-perceived absolute right to perform any and all human science, regardless of consequence to the humans involved.
(Also for clarity, we are talking EMBRYONIC stem cells, not ADULT stem cells: the use of the term "stem cells" without the qualifier is deceptive.)
Can there be a legitimate question that the presumption of the right to end a human existence at an arbitrary stage also presumes the right to end human life any stage, unless some other criteria for human value is used, rather than being at a stage of human development? If merely being human doesn't persuade, then another criterion is necessary. No inference there.
Consciousness is the criteria that is used to deflect the fact that human blastocysts are human: they are a necessary and sufficent entity for progression into the subsequent stages of human existence.
Whether other animals are conscious is important only if one is to use consciousness as his killing criteria. That of course is not the criteria involved in the ethics of stopping a human in his tracks, forever, for experimentation.
But you are right. Ethics is an exercise that is epi-rational, and certainly non-material. Inference is necessary in this realm; in fact the questions here are as follows:
a) Is it ethical to kill a human at any stage?
b) If it is is ethical to kill a human at certain stages, what criteria are to be discerned as ethical criteria for deciding who to kill, and at what stages?
c) Who will make the death decisions for killing humans at these or other arbitrary stages? What gives them the ethical authority to decide life or death?
The overarching problem in the current social storm is that ethics have become relativist, and being relativist they can be morphed into any form to match the "needs" of the situation (situational ethics). This provides no protection for anyone and is no longer ethics, it is more akin to chaotic paganism. When the governing forces are no longer guided by a fixed ethic, they are totally free to use any means to guarantee their dominance. Defining down the value humans is a great start. And this is precisely the thrust of the Peter Singers of the Atheist secular world.
BTW, what Sen. Hatch thinks is of no concern to the logic of ethical derivation (above). It appears to be an appeal to a non-authority, ime.
If this is still not clear, I'll try for more clarity in a posting.
I need to expand one area where I was not clear:
"...human blastocysts are human: they are a necessary and sufficent entity for progression into the subsequent stages of human existence."
This statement is subject to the argument that the embryo is dependent upon a mother, and is not "sufficient" by itself.
As a human existence it is sufficient to define a stage of human development. In terms of dependence, few humans are totally independent of other humans for their sustenance, shelter, etc.
Sufficiency here refers to sufficiency of the continuation of the developmental process of individuation to define a human, while acknowledging external dependence for sustenance, etc.
The use of "dependence" is another arbitrary criterion that is used to circumvent using "human" as the determining factor. In fact, "dependence" has been specifically used in the eugenics of the past century.
Stan: Here's a quickie for you. There's a burning building, and trapped inside are (a) a five-year-old child, and (b) five petri dishes containing frozen fertilized embryos. You can race back into the building and save either (a) or (b). Which do you choose?
Virtually everyone I know chooses (a). Why do you think that is?
There are several possibilities.
First, it is possible that you only know and question Leftists who believe they can make that decision outside of moral bounds; thus they have decided that embryos are not human.
Second, it is possible that "everyone you know" answers without giving any thought to actual consequences, which would apall ethicist/eugenist Peter Singer, btw, who would weigh the potential input to society from 5 dishes full of humans to the input from one human, and likely opt for the petri dishes.
Third, it is possible that you are just trying to jerk my chain with an ethical dilemma that does not exist in real life, such as the infamous "lifeboat" dilemmas.
Ethical dilemma set-ups are just cartoons of actual ethical decisions that must be made in real life, only in real life they are to be made without the injected panic of "can only save...."
Fake ethical dilemmas can be said to have two correct answers and two incorrect answers... no matter which route you choose, you are both right and wrong. That is why the dilemma itself is false.
A person found in such a dilemma as the "lifeboat" dilemmas would find no censure regardless of the decision that was made.
But your premise seems to be that a majority view is that embryos have no value. If that is so, so what? I have already agreed that American society is currently relativistic. A societal quorum doesn't make it meaningful.
Stan: I'm very confused by your answer, which maybe stems from some imprecision in how I phrased my original post. Let me try again:
How would you answer the dilemma? Do you rescue the five-year-old, or the blastocysts? I, personally would rescue the five-year-old.
If you want to argue for rescuing the blastocysts, I'd be curious to hear your argument, particularly if it involves more than just the unsupported assertion that blastocysts have souls.
Maybe it was me that was not clear: ethical "catastophe dilemmas" are put forward in an attempt to force a person to make a value judgment that he would not ordinarily make.
For example, does (one 16 year-old) equal (two 40 year-olds), or equal (three 60 year-olds)? Would you rescue one 16 year-old or the three 60 year-olds? Forcing values this way is false; rescuing all that are possible in the most efficient way is the only answer that avoids the value-setting, and it is also the most ethical.
The fallacy is called "False Dilemma"; its purpose is to try to trick those with a solid ethic into thinking there are only two choices, when there are actually more. The two choices are designed to make a solid ethic appear untenable. It is a known and named fallacy.
The question forces a differential value judgment where none exists. Any answer is both right and wrong at the same time.
For that reason I do not engage in forcing differential values onto entities that equal in value. The entities are equal in ethical value because they are both legitimate stages in human development, they are both human, and both have whatever value that humans have.
Short version: I do not engage in such false activities.
That's silly. I'm perfectly happy to answer the 16-year-old vs. 40-year-old vs. 60-year-old hypothetical.
The point of the "lifeboat ethics"-style dilemma is to get one to acknowledge that there are moral differences between a blastocyst and a baby -- precisely the position you attacked me for holding earlier in this thread. The fact that you won't engage that argument suggests that even you, intuitively, recognize that such a distinction is rational.
Read the above comment again. It is a logical fallacy, a formal fallacy in argumentation. That you pursue it suggests that you have no better argument for destroying blastocysts than fallacious reasoning.
Of course you are willing to answer the 16-year-old vs. 40-year-old vs. 60-year-old hypothetical. You feel that you have a personal right to determine the life or death of other humans. And of course you do, but only if you choose to violate the Neuremburg Code, (see the next post containing the entire code), which was developed to put a halt to the activities of folks who feel compelled to decide the relative value of other humans.
My position is clear: a blastocyst is a valid stage of human development and is therefore human and entitled to be treated with human dignity, the same as any human.
Your position is also clear: you have a personal right decide which individual has enough value to be accorded human dignity, up to and including death.
Again I will not play the False Dilemma (aka False Dichotomy)word games with anyone. I gave the reasons why above; this is getting to be a waste of time.
If you have a reason for believing that (a) you have special rights to decide life or death for others, or (b) a blastocyst is not a necessary stage in the development of every human, let's discuss that. Otherwise, we're done here it appears.
From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"False Dilemma
A reasoner who unfairly presents too few choices and then implies that a choice must be made among this short menu of choices commits the false dilemma fallacy, as does the person who accepts this faulty reasoning."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#False Dilemma
Also,
"Black and White Fallacy:
The black-or-white fallacy is a false dilemma fallacy that unfairly limits you to only two choices."
I don't think I have a "special right" to decide life-or-death. I'm talking about public policy and how I would vote, which of course concerns life or death matters.
Your criterion is that each and every "stage of human development" is equivalent, meaning that a blastocyst is identical, in moral terms, to a ten-year-old. I don't know what a "stage of human development" is. Does it include sperm? If so, you've just made an awful lot of teenage boys into murderers.
Even if it doesn't include sperm, your argument implies that women who miscarry should be investigated for negligent homicide, and that women who used IUDs, or who use RU-486 or other devices that prevent implantation are murderers.
My argument is much more simple: because we do not have agreement as to when in the "stage of human development" an organism becomes a human being in the moral sense, we should look to some sort of social consensus. It has a degree of arbitrariness to it, but so do all laws (e.g., why is it illegal to drive 66 mph on the highway, but not 65?). Our current system best reflects that uneasy and fragile consensus, and it's better than turning it over to people who can't tell the difference between a blastocyst and a 10-year-old.
Andrew T. said,
"Your criterion is that each and every "stage of human development" is equivalent, meaning that a blastocyst is identical, in moral terms, to a ten-year-old. I don't know what a "stage of human development" is."
This form of denialism blocks off all rational discourse. You cannot deny the premise, so you claim that it is incomprehensible. And with it being declared incomprehensible to you, you merely take it off the table for discussion. So this is an Argument From Incredulity Fallacy.
Your discussion deviates in its focus by trying to obscure the real issue: ethical content vs. physical content. You do not agree with applying any ethical content to either blastocysts or foeti, so you deny their comprehensibility. Then you insist on applying physical content as the only important common characteristic between a blastocyst and 6 or 10 year old.
Also you veer off into the pragmatism of social "consensus" as the determinant of ethical behavior. This is the mark of philosophical materialism, the refusal to acknowledge that ethics has overarching value, and the substitution of that behavior which the materialists (or "consensus" if you must) declare to be pragmatic as a substitute for the ethical. This is an Argumentum ad Populum Fallacy.
Per your idea of "consensus" as ethical determinant, it is quite common for cultures to declare entire population segments as valueless, and to proceed pragmatically from that "ethical" determination. In this case it is blastocysts and foeti. But there is nothing in "consensus" ethics that would induce any restriction to these small segments. These segments are merely the current fad; there is no restriction on any future population segment additions.
BTW, laws are never by consensus, they are by either majority determination, or minority determination. Consensus means 100% agreement: unanimity. That's why I put the word consensus in quotes above, it is an erroneous usage.
Post a Comment