Catholic groups reject claims of stem cells breakthrough

[cappie]

Catholic groups reject claims of stem cells breakthrough


The US bishops and pro-life groups have been quick to pour cold water on claims published yesterday in Nature magazine that stem cells can be grown successfully from a single cell plucked without harm from a three-day old embryo.

The new technique which has been hailed as "remarkable" by British experts has been developed by a Massachusetts company, Advanced Cell Technology, and involves plucking a single cell from a human embryo when it is still a tiny bundle of eight cells, the British Daily Mail reports.

The technique is similar to one already used in IVF clinics to screen embryos for rare diseases.

The US scientists showed that, once removed, the cell can be coaxed in the laboratory into growing into numerous different cell types, including those found in the eye, liver, skin and nerves.

Crucially, the embryo itself is not harmed in any way, researcher Professor Robert Lanza told the journal Nature.

"What we have done for the first time is to create human stem cells without destroying the embryo itself," Professor Lanza said.

The remaining seven cells are not damaged, allowing the embryo to continue to develop healthily, he added.

However, others scientists warned that the technique is still in the early stages. They say the yield is very low, with lots of embryos being used to create just a few stem cells.

They also have reservations about removing cells - or carrying out biopsies - from embryos.

Professor Peter Braude, of King's College London, told the Daily Mail that "whilst this is a huge technical achievement, I am more sceptical about its clinical usefulness.

"We don't undertake embryo biopsy willy-nilly, as it is better not to remove a cell from a developing embryo unless one really has to.

Pro-Life bodies were even more sceptical with Julia Millington, of the Pro-Life Alliance, asking: "Would anyone want to implant an embryo that has been subjected to this sort of process?"

Matthew O'Gorman from the Life charity also told the Mail that "while the embryo may not be destroyed during this procedure, the human being is still treated as a means to an end; a laboratory tool for us to use as we wish.

"Regardless of the speculated benefits, no human being, particularly the most vulnerable, should be treated as raw material which we can manipulate and manufacture.

"This form of research undermines human dignity through making one's life and liberty dependent upon how useful they can be to the powerful," O'Gorman said.

A representative of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops was also extremely doubtful about the new technique saying that it "raises more ethical questions than it answers".

Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of Pro-life activities at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, says Professor Lanza's methods are unacceptable for several reasons, including the fact that the experiments leading to his recent advance - although done to develop a technique that would preserve embryos - actually destroyed embryos in the process.

"It does not solve the ethical dilemma," Doerflinger told Newseek "It'd be irresponsible to claim now that this is totally safe.

[curtins]

good.

[Norseman82]

Yeah, I was wondering how many had to die before this method was reached. And how they were going to get the embryos except via test tube methods which the Church has declared are immoral.

[cappie]

Proponents of therapeutic cloning should cool it: Pell


Several bishops have weighed in on the heated stem cell debate with Cardinal George Pell of Sydney suggesting that proponents of therapeutic cloning "have a glass of water" and "pause for a minute."

According to The Daily Telegraph, Cardinal Pell said that his comments were directed at those people "very emotionally involved in pushing for change."

"Let's go slowly and clearly," he said.

Dr Pell said he thought religion would play no part in the outcome of the conscience vote in Parliament and that it will be decided according to scientific knowledge and ethics reasoning.

Other bishops have also weighed in on the debate with the eventual conscience vote in Parliament expected to replicate February's emotional free vote on the abortion drug RU486.

In an article for next month's Parramatta diocesan paper Catholic Outlook featured today on CathNews, Bishop Kevin Manning emphasised that "the Catholic Church has an extremely clear teaching about embryos: they are human beings in early stage of development, beings created by God in whose image they are made.

"From the earliest Christian times the Church has taught that it is immoral to destroy human life. For this reason, human life, once conceived, must be protected," he said.

"Pope John Paul II's encyclical Gospel of Life is succinct: 'The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception.'

"That human life begins at conception (fertilisation) is not opinion but scientific fact. The only difference between an unborn embryo and a newborn baby is one of development and location," Bishop Manning wrote.

Sydney's Bishop Anthony Fisher, who is Episcopal Vicar for Life and Health, told the Catholic Weekly that the creation of human beings by IVF and cloning for the purpose of destructive research are practices which are "abhorrent morally and of no proven value scientifically".

"Nothing has changed either ethically or scientifically to justify human cloning or the creation by other means of human beings destined for destruction."

Referring to the Report of the Lockhart Committee, Bishop Fisher said that "this committee excluded specifically ethical concerns from its consideration and recommended lifting most ethical or legislative constraints in this area.

"This report recommended the legalisation of the production (in certain circumstances) of cloned human beings, animal-human crosses, human embryos with multiple human parents or only one and IVF embryos created for the specific purpose of destructive experimentation.

"All these practices would be abhorrent to most Australians who understood them," he added.

Meanwhile, Salesian ethicist Fr Norman Ford writing in Eureka Street again emphasised that "there are ethical alternatives to embryo destructive research."

"There are many possibilities of finding or developing stem cells of wide potentiality without involving embryo destruction".

However, other commentators continued their attack on Tony Abbott with former NSW premier, Bob Carr, saying that the Health Minister is imposing his "tortured theological conceit" in the debate about expanding stem cell research.

"We cannot allow people who hold pretty tortured theological conceit to stand in the way of research that can help us beat and beat faster than we otherwise would, diseases like motor neurone disease," Mr Carr told ABC radio.

"I'm referring to all people, Tony Abbott's one of them. I respect Tony Abbott but he's terribly wrong about this matter and resorting to scaremongering, talking about human-animal hybrids - no one is advocating that.

Mr Carr said Mr Abbott was "absolutely entitled" to argue his case.

"It's just that I disagree with him," he told the Daily Telegraph.

[url="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20233797-36398,00.html"]SOURCE[/url]

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='cappie' post='1049166' date='Aug 23 2006, 08:22 PM']

Matthew O'Gorman from the Life charity also told the Mail that "while the embryo may not be destroyed during this procedure, the human being is still treated as a means to an end; a laboratory tool for us to use as we wish.

"Regardless of the speculated benefits, no human being, particularly the most vulnerable, should be treated as raw material which we can manipulate and manufacture.
[/quote]

This argument pisses me off. What do you WANT, people? At least someone is making a try at developing a new process. I don't think this one is perfected, and I agree that it's too wasteful, but jeeze....at least they're making the effort. Many scientists don't want to bother. It's MUCH easier to harvest the entire embryo. The success rate of establishing new lines is higher, and it's a simpler process. Give 'em a bit of credit.

[Franimus]

it's kinda like contraception: still not the best, but better than abortion...
perhaps that analogy was too close to the matter at hand to use

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote]Matthew O'Gorman from the Life charity also told the Mail that "while the embryo may not be destroyed during this procedure, the human being is still treated as a means to an end; a laboratory tool for us to use as we wish.[/quote]

Well now, this may only be partially true, and even so, that doesn't mean that we should reject it for THIS reason. There may be other reasons of course to reject it, but let's tackle this objection.

1. We OFTEN treat people as means to ends. We recognize that this happens and we look at what there is to be gained, if there is a way to avoid it, etc. (I'm strictly speaking about ESCs here, not the use of ASCs.) I treat you as a means to an end when you give me a kidney, sell me a car, cook my lunch, etc. We use people all the time and think nothing of it.

2. Though many are arguing that this research is non-therapeutic for the embryos, that may not be wholly true. I brought this point up in my comprehensive exam for my PhD on Friday and many of my faculty were in agreement with this point. Let's suppose for a moment that the stem cell line developed from this embryo might one day save that embryo's life. That IS therapeutic. We're not just treating the embryo as a product that is useful, we may be able to help that human as well!

It's just not as clear cut as it seems. Yes, there are problems. Yes, the Church rejects IVF which is how these embryos are created. But, let's stick with the problem as it is. We have an embryo. If we can make this work, then what?

[XIX]

Then, slippery slope probably. That's my initial inclination; I'm very skeptical that they are going to just stick with this and not take it further if possible.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='XIX' post='1051538' date='Aug 27 2006, 11:42 AM']
Then, slippery slope probably. That's my initial inclination; I'm very skeptical that they are going to just stick with this and not take it further if possible.
[/quote]


..take it further & harvest the whole egg? Oh wait...they do that already

[jmjtina]

"[quote]Pope John Paul II's encyclical Gospel of Life is succinct: 'The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception.'

"That human life begins at conception (fertilisation) is not opinion but scientific fact. The only difference between an unborn embryo and a newborn baby is one of development and location," Bishop Manning wrote.[/quote]

heard it on the radio......JP2 is still speaking to us!

[cappie]

Use of embryonic stem cells
unethical and unnecessary

By Bishop Kevin Manning, Bishop of Parramatta.

The decision by the Prime Minister, John Howard, to allow a conscience vote on therapeutic cloning has been greeted with enthusiasm by the media, and some politicians, as making good sense.

From a political viewpoint, maybe; from the embryo's viewpoint, no sense at all; in terms of an embryo being no more than little bunches of cells, maybe; in terms of the embryo being a human being with ongoing potential, no way.

The Catholic Church has an extremely clear teaching about embryos: they are human beings in early stage of development, beings created by God in whose image they are made.

From the earliest Christian times the Church has taught that it is immoral to destroy human life. For this reason, human life, once conceived, must be protected.

Pope John Paul II's encyclical Gospel of Life is succinct: "The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception."

Since the Church considers the embryo a distinct human being it is entitled to all the rights and protection of any other human being.

That human life begins at conception (fertilisation) is not opinion but scientific fact. The only difference between an unborn embryo and a newborn baby is one of development and location.

The Church does not question research in the fields of medicine and biology with the aim of curing disease, or improving the quality of life, provided it is respectful of the dignity of the human being. This respect demands that any research that is inconsistent with the dignity of the human being is excluded on moral grounds.

Dignity
Dignity, as defined here, means the intrinsic worth that is commonly and equally shared by all human beings, whatever their social, intellectual, or physical condition.

It is this dignity that obliges all of us to respect every human being whatever his or her condition. And all the more so if he or she is in need of protection and care.

Dignity is the basis of all human rights; we respect the rights of others because we first recognise their dignity. Common sense and honesty suggests, therefore, that if a specific course of research has already demonstrated success, and raises no ethical questions, it should be pursued before embarking on another that has shown little prospect of success and raises ethical concerns.

Clearly, the human embryos, whether conceived naturally by IVF, or by cloning, should not be created in order to be destroyed

Adult v. embryonic
The question then is about which stem cells should be used. Adult cells which appear to perform all the function of embryonic stem cells, have three major advantages:

1. They do not require the destruction of an embryo.
2. They avoid the problem of immunological rejection.
3. They already have a proven track record in treating patients.

For these reasons there is no argument about adult stem cells being used for human research as they do not entail ethical problems.

On the other hand, research using human embryonic stem cells is hampered by important technical difficulties. The embryonic stem cell experiments have not yet produced a single, unqualified, therapeutic success, not even in animal models.

Moreover, they have caused tumors in animal models, which could seed cancer if administered to human patients.

Putting technical problems aside, the need to extract embryonic stem cells from living human embryos raises ethical questions of the highest order:

1. The process to obtain them destroys the human embryo and it is never justified to destroy a human life even to save another.
2. There is still much speculation about the potential of embryonic stem cells.
3. Many of the cell lines are in the hands of private companies. There is big money to be made in the multi-billion-dollar biotech industry and there is always the real concern of companies making profit the major consideration.
4. The use of embryonic stem cells is in violation of various codes of human rights which state that voluntary consent is absolutely essential in medical research, and which prohibit experimentation that causes injury, disability or a person's death.

Proponents of embryonic stem cell experimentation should be made to answer the following questions:

(a) What do they make of the fact that, to date, embryonic stem cells cannot be used therapeutically because they cause tumours in the animals into which they have been injected. There is a biological complexity involved. Why is it that no one is even close to understanding why this happens?

(b) If the use of embryonic stem cells is questionable why has embryonic stem cell research been so grotesquely hyped by its advocates?

© Why is it that there has been so little public discussion about the fact that adult stem cell therapies are being used extensively today in treating diseases?

(d) If the private sector biotech firms are pouring research dollars into adult stem cell research therapies with some success, why are some scientists directing Government to fund embryonic stem cell research?

I don't doubt that the media and proponents of the embryonic stem cell argument will try to ridicule the Catholic input as outdated moral platitudes versus genuine human need; archaic religion versus progressive science; Christian ethicists against suffering celebrities; religious fundamentalists versus science and enlightenment.

But the truth remains that any use of research, technology or proposed therapeutic procedures, which involves the destruction of the human embryo should be banned altogether as unethical and unnecessary.

Legalising the creation of IVF or cloned human embryos destined to be destroyed for medical research is an awesome responsibility for lawmakers to assume.