Tormod Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 At what point do we allow medicine to help someone live? At what point do we tell people that it is better for them to die? Very good points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Sorry, dave. I stopped posting during most of the Christmas activities, and never made it back to this thread. A few questions, if you don't mind...'severly reduced' means just that, if they had not been afflicted with disease, they would be able to live longer.Call me crazy, but how is this different from any other death on any other day? I'm really not trying to be cold, I'm just trying to figure otu what makes your friend unique in that their life was 'severly reduced' as opposed to other people that die daily. Are their lives only 'nominally reduced'? My point here is that when a life ends, it ends. There is no reduction of their life. It's just over. They lived exactly how long they were supposed to live. Not trying to drag this into some deterministic realm, but really... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Someone choosing a poor lifestyle that dies of a heart attack is different from someone who dies because we thought that it wasn't important enough to do everything we can to help them. Why? Who decides when it is ok for a person to die? And why is one death acceptable and one death not? And when is it ever "everything we can to help them"? What exactly EVERYTHING? Stem cells? Clones for everyone? Babies born in order to save an already living sibling, for the express purpose of an organ harvest? Choosing one child over another, in utero? Sorry for only adding more quesitions to this point, but the 'everything' thing really baffles me. Can you explain what you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Survival of the fittest doesn't apply quite as well here as one would think. If we were able to cure the disease, neither the infected nor the uninfected would have any distinct advantage in life. Ok, but the mere fact that there IS an infected person would tend to give one of them a VERY distinct advantage, wouldn't it? So how is that NOT SOTF? Your argument of curing disease leading to over population is valid,Thanks, I finally made a valid argument. :) No, wait...spoke too soon... until one takes it to its extreme. At what point do we allow medicine to help someone live? At what point do we tell people that it is better for them to die? "We" tell people it is better for them to die every single time you walk past a blood donar booth without donating, hide your wallet and avert your eyes from someone collecting money for starving people, or ignore the freezing homeless man on the local streetcorner. Why is it any better, or any worse, to tell people we are not going to use embryonic stem cells for research that may or may not eventually save a life? Allow medicine to help people live? How many more people could be 'living' if not for our greed as a society? YOu want to save some lives? Take the stem cell research money and use it to feed some people that are starving, or use medicine that is already available to help ease some suffering in lesser-developed countries. Millions of tax dollars for 'research'? There are plenty of walking dead in other countries that could be saved by medicine that we take for granted. So yes, let's allow some medicine to help people live. But make it medicine that's already available, not some hope of a hope for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beccareb Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 I hate having to do this... I'm the friend Dave was talking about. I'm a type one diabetic and have been since I was six years old. No action on my part resulting in me becoming diabetic; it was simply the result of my immune system killing my body's own cells. Matters like stem cell research become difficult when you can't look at them completely logically. When someone says that stem cell research isn't worth looking into, it sounds to me like they're telling me that my life should be miserable. I don't really mean to sound bitter, but I know the best hope I have for a cure is stem cell research. When people try to detroy that hope it becomes a personal attack even though I know it's really not. I explained this to Dave once when we didn't know each other that well. My life will be shorter than someone without diabetes. The good news is that if I take really good care of myself and am somewhat lucky, I'll have a near normal life span. The bad news is that "taking good care of myself" involves at least four blood tests a day, the same ammount of injections, and careful control of every piece of food I put in my mouth. Dave used similar arguments when talking to me a few months ago. I guess he changed his mind about the issue... There are plenty of other ways to help people, but this is a different kind of help than mere charity and for a different group of people. Maybe we're not as needy as people starving to death or in need of a blood tranfusion, but we still need medical research to continue on our behalf. In answer to your question, my life is not more important than anyone elses. I know that. I understand why people don't support stem cell research, but I can't ignore how it directly affects me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Welcome, beccareb - and thanks for bringing a real life scenario into this discussion. I happen to favor stem cell research but I also understand why people have second doubts, although I do think a ban on such research is a tragedy. I have chronic bronchitic asthma - which means I have a constant inflammation of the lungs and which requires me to take medicines every day. It can also shorten my life if I do not take care of it, although it is much easier to handle than your case. And I don't know if stem cells could help me, but that is of course not the issue here. I really appreciate your post. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beccareb Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 No problem. I was just trying to insert another perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmaust Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 I haven't read all the replies yet. California is spending billions on stem cell research. I have no problem with the research but when that much money is involved there is always the possibility of waste and fraud. That aside, it will be interesting to see what we get for our money. I'm hopeful but skeptical at the same time. Heck, we can't even cure the common cold. Whats up with that? :) :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
severus Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 well it is quite hard to cure the common cold...it has the same problem as AIDS. it evolves each time, produces a stronger and more resilient type of cold. Scientists, to my knowledge, have not yet worked out how to anticipate the next generation. hence, the problem of curing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted January 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 "We" tell people it is better for them to die every single time you walk past a blood donar booth without donating, hide your wallet and avert your eyes from someone collecting money for starving people, or ignore the freezing homeless man on the local streetcorner. Why is it any better, or any worse, to tell people we are not going to use embryonic stem cells for research that may or may not eventually save a life? Allow medicine to help people live? How many more people could be 'living' if not for our greed as a society? YOu want to save some lives? Take the stem cell research money and use it to feed some people that are starving, or use medicine that is already available to help ease some suffering in lesser-developed countries. Millions of tax dollars for 'research'? There are plenty of walking dead in other countries that could be saved by medicine that we take for granted. So yes, let's allow some medicine to help people live. But make it medicine that's already available, not some hope of a hope for the future.Yes, it is better to use only existing technology than invest in new technologies which MIGHT at some future time help save lives. Think of all the money and effort wasted in the past in this same vien. What good did all that time, effort and money invested in vaccines get us? Cure the plague? Why bother. We had medince back then. Why did we need to invent vaccinations? And remember Polio? The utter waste of money and effort lost in researching cures for it! For what? The (at that time) future possibility to stop the horror of polio for our children? Why bother? We've had roots and mud packs for centuries. And we sure don't want to interfer with god's will. (The specific reason given for rejecting stopping the plague with vaccines) It's time we stopped all investment in medical research. It's nothing but the same waste of money we've seen in medical research all of this time. Oh ya, the waste of money on TB cure research. Can't forget that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted January 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 I hate having to do this...Please don't. You should be proud of standing up for people like yourself. Someone has to. Who better than someone with such an extremely well vested interest? You should shout it from the roof tops. In answer to your question, my life is not more important than anyone elses. I know that. I understand why people don't support stem cell research, but I can't ignore how it directly affects me.As is so often the case. The same people that wish to stop the advancement of medical science are the same ones that want to force women to have children they may not want or that could literally kill them in the process. A desire to claim "pro-life" as long as it only involves "unborn babies", not REAL PEOPLE! The advancement of Medical Science only scares people that accept religious superstitions over the concern of other humans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted January 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 I have chronic bronchitic asthma - which means I have a constant inflammation of the lungs and which requires me to take medicines every day. It can also shorten my life if I do not take care of it,We have something in common. I was told mine comes from growing up with massive 2nd hand smoke. (both parents smoking multiple packs a day) I was on daily meds for years. Theofiline or something like that. Side effects like large cups of coffee. There were times that just getting out of a chair was a challenge, no oxygen. But I didn't like the idea of being on permanent meds my entire life and slowely stopped taking it. Take Bronkaid on rare occasions now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geko Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 I reckon stem cell research should be given the go ahead to. All arguments against it are nothing but dwaddle! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted January 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 I reckon stem cell research should be given the go ahead to. All arguments against it are nothing but dwaddle! :)Admit it geko, you posted that just to use the smiley didn't you! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Thanks for your insight, beccareb. You have an interesting perspective on things, and I enjoyed reading your posts. I would like to continue this discussion over the weekend, and I look forward to your responses. Welcome to the Forum, and I look forward to hearing more from you in the future! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beccareb Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 I have to agree with Freethinker, so often with things like this and abortion, the real people who are affected are forgotten. It's a lot easier to say the group is more important than the individual when you've never met one of the individuals that you're planning on hurting. It's also a lot easier to say to support the group if you're not one of the individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.