Too little space here to list every ADULT stem cell treatment currently in use or holding sufficient promise to be under investigation.

If you seek hope for the suffering, adult stem-cell treatments offer real hope, right now, without sacrificing the lives of the unborn.

Here are just two news examples published within the last twenty-four hours:

Adult Stem Cells Offer Hope for Diabetes Treatment

By Gudrun Schultz

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana, November 13, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Adult stem cells may soon be used to treat human diabetes, after a study by U.S. researchers showed the cells increased insulin production in mice with Type 2 diabetes, and may also have aided in kidney repair.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06111302.html

' ... But what if they could be coaxed to multiply? They can. Scientists, including Marban, have extracted cardiac stem cells from patients undergoing cardiac biopsies, and watched them multiply and generate beating cardiospheres that “began to look like little hearts in a dish.” Tested in mice and pigs, the cardiac stem cells appear to regenerate cardiac tissue and restore pumping capacity. The new cells appear to be able to conduct electricity and contract, just as they would have to do in the human heart. “We can grow millions of cells in a relatively short period of time,” says Marban, who’s now working out the methods for a first human trial of this therapy with large-animal preclinical studies. He expects to start phase I trials within 12 to 18 months.

If successful, the cardiac stem cell approach could pole vault over some of the potential limitations of stem cell therapy. Because they are derived from the patient’s own heart, there is no question of rejection, and they may be less likely to spur the growth of benign or malignant tumors, always a worry with stem cell therapy. “Since cardiac stem cells are already partially differentiated into heart muscle, we can grow them with limited processing. So far we’ve done karyotypes after several passages and the cells are all chromosomally normal,” Marban says. ... '

http://www.dddmag.com/ShowPR~PUBCODE~016~ACCT~1600000100~ISSUE~0611~RELTYPE~CVS~ProdCode~00000000~PRODLETT~X.html

That is really good to know Chris, and I hope that adult stem cell research makes great advances. I am also glad that you agree that it is morally acceptable to use adult cells for such purposes as organ repair or replacement.

1. Fester, what happened to Dolly the sheep was that a nucleus from a mammary gland cell was artificially implanted in an ovum from which the nucleus had been removed. It is simply therefore not true to say that the mammary gland “bunch of cells” was, prior to artificial manipulation, a self organising entity which possessed the innate capacity to mature into a sheep. My contention is that an embryo “bunch of cells” by contrast – whether it arises by natural conception, natural twinning, or by artificial manipulation, is, unlike any other cell (even a sperm or ova) or bunches of cells, a self-organising entity, the identity of which is that of the adult human it naturally tends to mature into.

2.Fester, women are more than morally obligated incubators. But when pregnant they are at least that. Also, parents are morally obligated feeders and cleaners, educators, etc. And if I walk past a stream and see a person drowning that only I can easily rescue, then I am at that point a morally obligated swimmer. And so on. Is this odd?

3. TRTL & Yabby, the only “line in the sand” that won’t blow away with the shifting winds of opinion and taste is one that coincides with a major faultline in the rock beneath. Conception, Yabby, is that faultline. Beyond conception, I am a human being. Before that, I don’t exist. I’m also an innocent human being, and like all other innocents, no-one may take my life intentionally or recklessley, even if the goal is to help relieve the suffering of others. Socrates said it is better to suffer (and tolerate suffering) than to do wrong. Its always wrong to kill, maim or torture innocent human beings even in the quest to relieve the sufferings of others. Or do you disagree?

HH

I assume from your posts that you are also opposed to IVF where the vast majority of embryos are disposed of as medical waste.

Cris adult stem cells have been studied for over 40 years and in my form of leukeamia there is still a 50% treatment related mortality. When we have studied ESC for 40 years a comparison may be relevant.

HH, conception just happens to be where you have drawn your
particular line in the sand. I have drawn mine at the point of
persons, who have a functioning human brain. Without
a functioning human brain, it’s a corpse, or still an organism,
not yet a person.

Innocence to me is not an issue. Lambs, chickens, calves
are all innocent, yet you eat them.

The definition of a being, is any living person or creature.
The definition of a creature, is any living thing which can
move about. Sperms are living and move about. Should
I mourn their death by the billions, or the death of human
ova by the billions? I feel as guilty about killing
zygotes or embryos, as I do about killing sperms or
ova. They are unthinking, unfeeling, unaware organisms,
hoping to compete in the lottery of life and as Darwin
pointed out, they cannot all survive. That’s the reality
of natural law, we ignore it at our peril

When it comes to Socrates’ quote, the question arises
as to what is right and what is wrong, another question
of subjective morality.

If we look at the origins of morality, we find it in our
primate cousins, where things like empathy, a sense
of justice, altruism, food sharing etc can be shown
to have evolved, as part of living as a social species.

To me it is immoral to let people suffer, if we can
show that this suffering could be avoided and the solution
does not involve the killing of other people. Organisms
are not people in the final analysis.

Thanks, Yabby.

1. I’ve raised questions earlier re. your personhood line and am yet to receive a response. Eg: can you kill Jack who is in a deep coma and so whose brain is certainly not functioning well at all, even though he might come out of it in a few moments, but who is currently, in your terminology a “corpse”(!) and certainly not manifesting personhood. My line rules this out. Yours would seem to permit it. Are you happy with this?

2. Animals are neither innocent nor guilty. They have no moral responsibility – even higher primates (that’s why we don’t arrest them for murder). It’s innocent humans that are sacrosanct. Wicked criminals, though, can be executed if necessary for the common good. It’s crucial that they are wicked, and not just insane.

3. You keep repeating this line about sperm and ova as being somehow equivalent to zygotes and embryos. Could you respond to my point that a zygote is, biologically speaking, a young version organising its environment in order to mature into the adult human being, whereas a sperm is a cell that has no innate capacity to grow into a mature human being? Is a tadpole the same creature as the frog it grows into, or is it a different individual? Is there an identity between myself now and myself 10 years ago, given that none of the matter is the same? I say yes, and this identity extends back to the moment of my conception. What do you say?
4. I am in broad sympathy with your statement about suffering, except for the statement re. organisms ( I take it you are referring here to embryos – or do you also mean “corpses” like my poor, temporarily comatose Jack as well?) The latter assertion begs our question: whether it is humans exercising personhood fully, or human beings as such, that are bearers of moral rights.