so should doctors be allowed to use stem cells from aborted fetuses to treat stroke victims?

[wannaBeOnTopOfTheChristmasTree]

I guess it's contravercial, but surely in a way it's not dissimilar to organ donation?

here

Very mixed feelings about this. I can see that stroke sufferers could benefit, but i am quite anxious about the source of the cells and about genetically modified cells..it does seem quite a leap in a different direction from anything previously found acceptable.

Yes-why not?
If abortion was enforced then that would be a whole new argument.

yes.

the only concern that i have with this is would Dr's encourage abortions in the future specifically for this reason.

But generally, I feel that stem cell is a good idea and benefits many.

i thought they had discovered a way to gain stem cells from somewhere else, not from foetuses? This was solve a big moral dilemma. I am in favour of this research as it could transform so many people's lives, but worried about abortions and the possible trade that could develop.

this has an unpleasant taste about it.

My dad had a serious stroke at 59, and was left with significant weakness on his one side for the rest of his life. If we could have done anything to help him, we would have jumped at the chance.

I know it is an emotive subject, but in a sense, whether the stem cells are used or not does not affect the outcome for the baby.

Yes, as long as the woman gives her permission.

I'm very worried about the potential for trade in this.

likewise fairyjay my mum has dementia and the idea that there may be one day a way of helping her brain repair itself seems so miraculous, tho of course it will be too late for her. Does anyone know anything about the stem cells they were harvesting from elsewhere, not from the foetus? Maybe it was from the placenta...

Weren't they harvesting stem cells from the placenta and storing them for future use.

I suppose that they could save them from the placenta for the use of others, rather than the new baby?

principally I think it's ok as long as the foetus isn't aborted just for that purpose and the mother is giving persmission. It's not as if the foetus will still need them (sorry to be a bit blunt here not meaning to offend).

Reading through the article I think the reason they 'need' stem cells from aborted foeti is
'These cells have begun to specialise into brain cells and have the ability to rapidly generate brain tissue', whereas in the placenta cells would't have specialised yet.

I don't think its right. I am pro-life anyway and don't believe in abortion and would worry that it would just be another reason for people to think abortion is ok.

I haven't noticed people thinking accidental death is ok, and abolishing health and safety based legislation because we find organ transplant ok!

So only one tissue sample is needed it would seem.
Which makes it far less distasteful IMO

Reneuron's idea is to produce unlimited quantities of stem cells from just one foetal tissue sample.

According to Dr Miljan, this makes their treatment potentially commercially viable and ethically more acceptable.

"We only take one single piece of tissue and for that we can grow up enough cells to potentially treat all eligible patients.

"And we never have to go back to that tissue again. We can provide a renewable source of cells in order to treat a large patient population."

that is pretty amazing if it is really viable piffle.

Where would that fetal tissue sample come from?

Where would that fetal tissue sample come from?

it's from that article,
it would come from one aborted fetus one presumes.
So long as the mother agrees I cannot see any ethical issues - certainly is something a little icky about it, but then we happily extract organs for people needing them wheere possible, I don;t see huge conflict.
If you are anti abortion you are never going to see it clearly are you.

yes

yes

I think it's absolutely wonderful. The samples already exist and so does the technology to clone stem cells. One day - hopefully before too long - paralysed people will get up and walk because of work like this.

I'm no scientist but couldn't they use the same process for a miscarried foetus ? In my eyes it would then be making a decision similar to that in organ donation. Still very emotional under sad circumstances but removing if from the emotive subject of abortion OR are the scientists classifying "aborted" as that and miscarried...

I would still say Yes.....

I could get behind that ok steppyone.

I expect most people who miscarry want to bury their baby. It seems odd to me to go to people in a time of awful grief when there are other sources, and of course, the cloning technology for stem cells which will mean there is no need for more new foetuses to get cells from.

Miscarriages adn "the amjority" of abortions are completely different.
If a medical abortion has to be performed,then I can understand the desire perhaps for a funeral.The majorty of abortions are for completely different reasons and in my experience (ok not vast but 10's not one)nobody wants a funeral.If the foetus was only to be treated as a waste product then surely it would be wrong not to utilise tissue for the greater good and benefit of many lives.
Whether pro or anti abortion,I don't think this will have any impact on abortion rates.