The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Women can still say 'no' > Comments

Women can still say 'no' : Comments

By Leslie Cannold, published 24/11/2006

How can stem cell research be anti-women? Surely women have the capacity to give informed consent to egg donation?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Bravo Leslie, its about time people realised that young women generally have higher education levels than young men.
Society expects all women to run their lives responsibly ie rear children, engage in paid work and balance the household budget. As such I think young women are quite capable of deciding for themselves whether they want to donate eggs.
Posted by billie, Friday, 24 November 2006 1:13:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes well done Leslie...
Women should absolutely decide on an individual basis, whether they want to take part in such research or not, and not be bound by the religiosity of some politician.

Billie, grow up you feminazi!
Female educational achievement has less than zero to do with this topic.

It's a moral choice, not an educated one. One could go on about how young men do more with their education once completed than young women due to many & varied factors, or how many women use cleaners & child care services to manage the rearing of children, then go on like they do everything around the house, but that probably wouldn't be fair or correct now would it? It'd just be another irrelevant generalisation like your comments were.

I digress...
Posted by Stomont, Friday, 24 November 2006 4:01:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leslie good article, thank you.

Whenever I see the term "bioethical advisor" I look for the catholic church, most times it is there.
Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 24 November 2006 6:03:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am all for making progress in medical science; I have no real problems with stem cell research when eggs are obtained from IVF left-overs or from dead women, which is already happening.

I don’t know why Leslie writes that the ‘opposers’ of egg donations for stem cell research think that women are irrational and lack the capacity to give informed consent to egg donations.
To even suggest that seems demeaning. It also takes the focus of the real point.

The real point is that the government has been promising or suggesting that cures will be provided for patients by extending embryo cloning. It’s good for the economy.
There is NO evidence of possible cures-not even after years of experiments on animal eggs.
Therefore, women will risk their lives for a technology with unproven benefits!

It is unfair of scientists to ask women for consent without telling them that there is no evidence that there is a need for cloning.
There IS a serious health risk for egg donators, and several women have died because of the process, which is not the case with blood donators.
The health risks for donating blood are far smaller than for donating eggs.

Firstly, women have to be injected (many injections over a week or more) with large doses of hormones to make them produce all these eggs.
Then there is the process of inserting needles into ovaries many times to distract the eggs under sedation as it is a painful process.

Saying that women are seen as not being capable of making decisions on an issue that cannot provide them with enough information is misleading. Women shouldn't have to be placed in that position. Wait until there IS more evidence!

If even ONE woman dies for this, so far, useless research, it's not worth it.

All that scientists can tell us is that some women will get sick and some women will die because of the egg-donation processes.

Look at some articles on the Women’s forum Australia and on BBC before making up your mind about this:
http://www.womensforumaustralia.com/home/index.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5323894.stm
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 26 November 2006 4:12:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia.

You are wrong more people die from Phlebotomy errors (sticking a needle in a vien, to withdraw blood) than OHSS.

Uni of NSW research, announced this month, reports on motor neurones derived from embryonic stem cells.

ALL deaths from OHSS have occurred in INFERTILE women undergoing IVF to stimulate egg production.

It is all about informed consent, women need ALL the facts and then they can make a decision.

NOT half truths and vested interests.
Posted by Steve Madden, Sunday, 26 November 2006 6:33:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it is about time that people accept what they naturally have - or have not.

I was on IVF in the early 80s.

I re thought my reasons. I withdrew.

The bottom line is - you get it - or your don't - live with it.
Posted by kalweb, Sunday, 26 November 2006 11:30:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"There is NO evidence of possible cures-not even after years of experiments on animal eggs."
I'm not so sure that is true. But assuming it is, it makes absolutely no difference to you being a fool for a four reasons (as are the stupid politicians of Australia who are against it).

Number 1. Science has never had an obligation nor has there ever been a precedent for proof before research and discovery of a new science. Ever.

Whether it was Einstein or Newton, there was no proof these ideas would ever have a tangible benefit for mankind. In fact religious groups actively sought to censor and intimidate science in some cases. This is science that is thoroughly a part of our everyday lives.

The ignorance and irrational debate lacks recognition of this fundamental (and obvious) principle. This alone should crush any argument as to it's veracity.

2. This is an amazing time in history. Biotechnology is the way of the future, the next big science technology. If idiots and luddites such as the Coalition government (or rather, those who voted against stem cell research, anywhere in the world), determined that nuclear research was irresponsible back in the early 20th century, where would we be today? Where would we be if any science we depend on today had been legislated into criminality, like is happening today?
Posted by Steel, Sunday, 26 November 2006 11:46:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
3. This last is about hypocrisy. In our everyday lives, conservatives (especially them as their politics is against it) in the USA and Australia abort their children. Here they are aborting children who have *actually* developed beyond a single cell. They also abort late term. This is often despite their political belief that abortion should not happen at all. That is clear hypocrisy as they attempt to rationalize that with enforcing their political beliefs on others through their voting habits.

At the same time, these people and politicians, these luddites, are trying to take the moral high-ground on stem cell research even as their partners abort their own children. It's obscene.

*Note: Stem cell research takes cells **extremely** early on. With abortion on the other hand, full on developed fetuses and babies are murdered by these hypocrites.

4. Finally when it comes to pass in the future when this biotechnology has become advanced enough and stem cell research yields some benefits, are these same people and politicians (and their decendents) going to hypocritically utilize the service that these scientists have provided for them? Hell yes! They will use it all they can with nary a second thought about it's moral reasoning. These people SHOULD sign a binding legal document that prevents them and their descendents from EVER receiving future stem cell based treatments...but they won't.

These people are doing a disservice to humanity by opposing stem cell research. They are doing a disservice to Australia by opposing something that will happen inevitably, yet will absolutely cripple Australian science and send Australias best minds overseas. I have never seen these fundamental points debated or raised in the media, which is a true shame, but sadly expected (quality of journalism is on the decline...).
Posted by Steel, Sunday, 26 November 2006 11:47:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel, I think the quality of journalism wasn't ever very high to start with. Nor for that matter, were public or scientific morals.

But that doesn't bother me much. Yeah, I've got my own set of moral values, hence my own standards of ethics. Cannold's got her's, which of course, I'd suggest were ethically challenged. That's what happens in a free society, people are free to disagree.

Whatever, this entire argument is nothing but a waste of time even in the short term. We won't need egg or sperm donors within about 10 years from now because both can be manufactured from just about any old body, man or woman. In fact, once artificial wombs become reality - guess about 15 years - we won't even need men or women to reproduce humans. Anybody can be a biological mum or biological dad irrespective of sex.

Read -

Washington Post, 2nd May 2003
In Laboratory, Ordinary Cells Are Turned Into Eggs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2931-2003May1&notFound=true

Since then, not only farming eggs has been further developed, but they've cracked it with sperm production too. Soon, there will be billions upon billions of human eggs overflowing out of laboratories and no one will care less. The mad scientists can have a field day creating any hybrid creation that their curious little minds could ever dream of.

Women won't be needed to create babies and any man will be able to order up a baby on the Internet - blue eyes or green, your choice, depending on stock available - and have it home delivered along with the groceries.

Cannold's arguments have about as much relevance as discussions pertaining to the Sun or Earth being the centre of the Universe. Naturally, both arguments are complete rubbish and time dishonored.

Unfortunately, people like her and our politicians continue to live in the past. The argument is futile. The Genie won't go back in the bottle. One might even be tempted to suggest that we have now over eaten from the tree of knowledge. Lookout folks. Who knows what's going to happen next? And it probably will.
Posted by Maximus, Monday, 27 November 2006 1:47:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steve,
I agree with you about informed consent: women would need ALL the facts and even be told that there are no facts about possible long-term health issues such as cancer or infertility.

About blood donations: Today, a sterile, new needle is used for every patient. There is no long-term health risk. The only risks are temporary risks such as dizziness, fainting at the worst. I am not aware that donors have died from just donating some blood.
Besides, before one donates blood, one does not have to go through more than a week of daily hormone injections.

Do you have a link to that article about these motor neurons derived from embryonic stem cells? Perhaps I was mistaken about that there is no evidence that this science will benefit patients.
I’d find it interesting and this will possibly change my perspective; at least the egg donations will have a specific purpose.
I had the impression that the stem cells you are talking about were transplants derived from the spinal cord, not from actual embryos. Perhaps I have seen a different study- was this one derived from human embryo or from rat’s embryo?

Steel,
I agree with you on most of your points, including the hypocrisy.
There’s one thing I see differently though:

“Science has never had an obligation nor has there ever been a precedent for proof before research and discovery of a new science.”
True for general science, but there is an obligation when it comes to medical science.

Look at the website of the WMA (World Medical Association): http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm
I agree with the following statement: “In medical research on human subjects, considerations related to the well-being of the human subject should take precedence over the interests of science and society.”

Currently, donating eggs is still a risk to women and risking women’s health in the name of science is unethical.
I keep to my opinion: use excess eggs from IVF treatments as long as there are serious risks to women’s (long-term) health.

Continued
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 27 November 2006 9:03:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia

This is the article on motor neurones.

Stem Cell Division, Diabetes Transplant Unit, Prince of Wales Hospital and University of New South Wale, Australia.

Human embryonic stem cells (hESC) demonstrate a remarkable proliferative and developmental potential and thus have huge therapeutic potential. To direct the differentiation of hESC to a specific lineage of high purity for cell transplantation is highly desirable. Here we describe a modified in vitro procedure to direct differentiation of three clonal hESC lines, hES 3.1, hES 3.2 and hES 3.3 efficiently to spinal motor neurons by using various differentiation factors namely retinoic acid (RA), sonic hedgehog (Shh), bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) and Wnt3A. The highest number of motor neurons (58.0 +/- 7.6%) were obtained by an early treatment of embryoid bodies with a combination of RA + Shh from all the clonal hESC lines combined. The hES 3.1 line, however, produced relatively more motor neurons (69.5 +/- 11.8%) compared to other two hES clones, 3.2 (52.4 +/- 13.1%) and 3.3 (52.3 +/- 15.5%). Immunolocalisation studies revealed the expression of neuronal specific marker, beta omega-tubulin and motor neuron specific marker, HB9/HLXB9 in all the three hESC clones after 45 days of differentiation. The RT-PCR analyses showed the presence of the neuron-specific genes. This modified differentiation protocol provides a mean of obtaining an enriched population of motor neurons from hESC for possible use in studies of lineage development, drug discovery and also as a potential cell therapy for motor neuron disease.

PMID: 17109623 [PubMed - in process]
Posted by Steve Madden, Monday, 27 November 2006 12:38:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's a bit rich for Leslie Cannold to cast aspersions on the intellectual integrity of women academics opposed to cloning. Cannold quips that ”defining ‘independent’ is tricky”, and she should know…

On March 30 this year, Cannold wrote a 'review' of the documentary “Abortion, Corruption & Cops” in The Age. She was described innocuously as "a Melbourne bioethicist” and apparently felt no need to disclose to readers that she was on the Board of Family Planning Victoria and the spokesperson for Reproductive Choice Australia. Nor did she disclose her associations with Jo Wainer, wife of the subject of that film, who is now Cannold’s boss at the Centre for Gender and Medicine.

Similarly on August 28, she wrote an opinion piece bagging the Health Minister without disclosing her significant positions in the special interest groups relevant to that piece.

As for the "factual sloppiness" of which she accuses women’s groups opposed to cloning, Cannold again has some personal experience in the field. She reassures us that disadvantaged women could not be given financial inducements to 'donate' eggs by citing legislative proscriptions against such payments. Yet Cannold would be aware (or should be) that similar legislative safeguards in the UK were overturned as soon as scientists realised they could not secure the volume of ova they wanted through altruistic donations.

Nor should we be reassured by Cannold's reference to IVF figures showing that 'in 2003, 196 Victorian women gave their eggs to women they knew' since she fails to explain that unlike creating babies through IVF, attempting to create a single human clone for experimentation requires hundreds of women’s eggs.

Unlike IVF practitioners who are seeking to limit the number of eggs extracted in order to minimize the risks and discomfort to women, biotech businesses interested in cloning will need as many eggs as they can get from as many women as they can induce to ‘donate’ them.

Leslie Cannold may not regard this as a valid feminist issue but hundreds of well informed women on both sides of the pro-life / pro-choice divide do
Posted by Jersey, Tuesday, 28 November 2006 4:20:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jersey

Where is your proof for "she fails to explain that unlike creating babies through IVF, attempting to create a single human clone for experimentation requires hundreds of women’s eggs"

I assume you are extrapolating the 227 eggs used to clone "Dolly" but this is NOT what this issue is about.

It takes ONE egg to create a hESC line. Embryonic stem cell lines are created from embryos. A single cell from the embryo is placed in a petri dish (without agar) and provided with nutrients and growth factors that simulate those found in the womb. The resulting cell line will continue to divide indefinately as long as it receives sufficient chemical signals telling it to stay undifferentiated.

More uninformed spin from people with their own agendas, as I have constantly said, INFORMED CONSENT, not SPIN.
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 28 November 2006 4:40:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steve,

You obviously know the subject under discussion, respect mate, and you correctly raise the point - in upper case no less - about informed consent.

But further to ethical practice and about being informed, I think Jersey makes an extremely valid point here about Cannold - so called ethecist - and her failure to DISCLOSE HER INTERESTS.

That's what troubles me about this issue and Cannold herself. She presents to readers as being squeaky clean, yet as Jersey points out, she fails to acknowledge her diverse associations with para-political organisations in this field.

It states at the foot of the OLO article the following and it does NOT disclose the information revealed in Jersey's post, which is of some serious significance to readers of this matter - "Dr Leslie Cannold is a researcher, writer, commentator and medical ethicist at the Centre for Gender and Medicine at Monash University. She is the author of The Abortion Myth: feminism, morality and the hard choice women make (1998/2000) and What, No Baby? Why women have lost the freedom to mother and how they can get it back (2005)."

Perhaps Jersey is incorrect. I don't know. But if Cannold is connected as Jersey suggests above, then as a point of ETHICS, Cannold should have gone to explicit pains to make these matters very known and very clear to all of us readers.

If the assertions made by Jersey are incorrect, I believe Cannold should post here to dispell any misunderstandings that may have been created and to set the record straight about her associations.
Posted by Maximus, Tuesday, 28 November 2006 6:58:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy