can walk, says stem cell mumHannah Davies

April 15, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
AN AUSTRALIAN woman who was paralysed in a car accident claims she is "walking" again after receiving controversial stem cell treatment in India.

Eighteen months ago, Australian doctors told mother-of-three Sonya Smith she would be confined to life in a wheelchair.

Her spine was broken after she was crushed by her car when the handbrake failed.

But after eight weeks of embryonic stem cell injections, Mrs Smith says she is able to stand with the aid of callipers and has regained bowel and bladder control.

The Brisbane mother reported recovering "deep sensation" in her thighs and feet and can swing her legs.

"When I first moved my toes, I was blown away," she said.

"The doctors in Australia told me I would never walk again, but now I actually think I will be able to -- even without callipers some day."

Mrs Smith is one of more than 300 patients who have been treated in New Delhi by Dr Geeta Shroff -- a controversial pioneer of stem cell treatment using embryos.

She was forced to seek help in India because the treatment is forbidden in Australia.

It involves collecting stem cells from embryos and injecting them into patients with injury or disease.

Stem cells serve as a repair system for the body by dividing to replenish other cells.

When taken from embryos, the cells are not eveloped, so it is believed they are better able to replace damaged tissue.

Critics have described the treatment as irresponsible and unethical.



I am totally for stem cell research, I know people personally who could really benifet from it and are living about 20% of a normal life, these critics have no idea what its like for these people
imagine not being able to just go to a concert or out on the town with the boys because you cant physically do it
I know if I were put in a wheel chair or some shit like that by accident id probably never get over it
I know people who were born with there conditions and have never been able to live like a normal person but in there mind there just as wild as anyone who likes to have fun, and they are
they just CANT be, because they have problems these able bodied critics will never understand, makes me angry

whaddaya rekon?

I dont see anything wrong with it. Hopefully there will be other ways to produce it besides using dead baby tissue in the future but we cant deny people rehabilitation because it turns a few stomachs.

I thinks its wrong to destroy life to save lives.

^^^^^I also think so. As much as it seems beneficial, I dont see any reason y we we can kill somebody to heal anybody. Dont get me wrong. I want to see everyone getting healed but this method is ethically wrong coz u MANUFACTURE life in a waya and then killl it to make someone else's life better.

I thinks its wrong to destroy life to save lives.

So you are against violent war then, huh? You oppose the Iraq war?

Or are you just to stupid to think through such contradictions?

Oh, by the way, how is a Fetus "life"?

^^^^^I also think so. As much as it seems beneficial, I dont see any reason y we we can kill somebody to heal anybody. Dont get me wrong. I want to see everyone getting healed but this method is ethically wrong coz u MANUFACTURE life in a waya and then killl it to make someone else's life better.

You're a fuckin' idiot, Harry.

Are you familiar with something called "INVITRO FERTALIZATION"?

It's when women cannot concieve naturally, so they go to a DOCTOR and give the doctor a bunch of eggs. The Dr. then "fertalizes" the eggs with sperm donated by a man. The doctor will then put ONE FERTALIZED EGG inside the woman to create a child. Guess what happens to the other 999,999 fertalized eggs? THEY GET THROWN AWAY!!!

WHY CAN'T WE USE THEM FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH!!!!

Tell me again about "manufacturing" just to kill it?

Or, better yet, GO SHOOT YOURSELF!

But what if something goes wrong!!!!! I'v seen lots of movies where this sort of thing gets out of hand; then before you know it , you have hourds of CHUDs infiltrating our school system.
http://www.jabootu.com/acolytes/bnotes/images/humanoidsd.jpg
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/58/a9/0cfc124128a0017596849010._AA240_.L.jpg
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/chud/chud2.jpg

^^^ Well, I must admit- the whole "Chud" idea is by far the most rational reason I've seen yet to disallow stem cell research.

You're a fuckin' idiot, Harry.

Are you familiar with something called "INVITRO FERTALIZATION"?

It's when women cannot concieve naturally, so they go to a DOCTOR and give the doctor a bunch of eggs. The Dr. then "fertalizes" the eggs with sperm donated by a man. The doctor will then put ONE FERTALIZED EGG inside the woman to create a child. Guess what happens to the other 999,999 fertalized eggs? THEY GET THROWN AWAY!!!

WHY CAN'T WE USE THEM FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH!!!!

Tell me again about "manufacturing" just to kill it?

Or, better yet, GO SHOOT YOURSELF!

IMMEDIATELY REPPED

So you are against violent war then, huh? You oppose the Iraq war?

Or are you just to stupid to think through such contradictions?

Oh, by the way, how is a Fetus "life"?

Read the bible it will make sence...

Read the bible it will make sence...

No, it doesn't. The Bible says you are supposed to stone your kids to death if they disobey you.

STFU. Don't pretend to be some theologist.

I am all for stem cell research, but I believe the material used should be obtained through donation/consent by abortion mothers and birth parents. I am opposed to the harvesting of material through lab fertilization and incubation. If there is a way to use the discarded material to help develop treatment and cures for various disorders and diseases, then I see no reason to oppose the use of said material.

;467618']I am all for stem cell research. But I believe the material used should be obtained through donation/consent by abortion mothers and birth parents. .

Oh jeez, sorry. This is America. Abortion mothers or birth parents should be forced by law to defer their consent to a state licensed Pastor. You know, like they do it in Iran and Saudi Arabia...

Oh jeez, sorry. This is America. Abortion mothers or birth parents should be forced by law to defer their consent to a state licensed Pastor. You know, like they do it in Iran and Saudi Arabia...

/sarcasm is not your strong point. The right of choice should be made/kept as an option IMO.

^^^ sarcasm is most definately my strong point. So strong that most people can't even handle it!!!!

^^^ sarcasm is most definately my strong point. So strong that most people can't even handle it!!!!

^^^^^^^^^now that's funny...

You're a fuckin' idiot, Harry.

Are you familiar with something called "INVITRO FERTALIZATION"?

It's when women cannot concieve naturally, so they go to a DOCTOR and give the doctor a bunch of eggs. The Dr. then "fertalizes" the eggs with sperm donated by a man. The doctor will then put ONE FERTALIZED EGG inside the woman to create a child. Guess what happens to the other 999,999 fertalized eggs? THEY GET THROWN AWAY!!!

WHY CAN'T WE USE THEM FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH!!!!

Tell me again about "manufacturing" just to kill it?

Or, better yet, GO SHOOT YOURSELF!

Sorry Bruce. I concede you a point. I wrote some stuff that when I read now does nor appear to be right. But I'd be glad if you could reply to this stuff.

http://www.spinneypress.com.au/178_book_desc.html

Arguments against embryonic stem cell research

• It is unethical to use embryonic stem cells, as the process to obtain them destroys a human embryo. The destruction of human life cannot be justified, even if the aim is to save other human life.

• It is unnecessary to use embryonic stem cells, as adult stem cells are proving to be a viable alternative, with many regular breakthroughs occurring. Adult stem cells have already been successfully used in treatment, while embryonic stem cells still offer only theoretical potential for good.

• Most scientists admit that all the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells are still a long way off in the future.

• The use of embryonic stem cells is sure to be an overly expensive and difficult endeavour. In the meantime, many adult stem cell breakthroughs have already taken place.

• The use of adult stem cells seems to solve the problem of immune rejection, which will be a big problem with the use of embryonic stem cells. By using cells from oneself, the incompatibility which occurs when our bodies quickly recognise and try to kill off foreign tissues implanted in them, is avoided.

• Many of the cell lines are in the hands of private companies, who may well put profit ahead of principle.

• The use of embryonic stem cells violates the Nuremberg Code which states that "voluntary consent is absolutely essential" in medical research, and which prohibits experimentation that causes injury, disability or a person's death.

• The destruction of human embryos for research is morally repugnant to many groups including the Catholic Church and some disability rights advocates.

• The potential for research on embryonic stem cells has not yet been proven, and more animal research is needed.

• The fact that frozen embryos will eventually die is no reason to prematurely kill them. After all, all of us will eventually die, but that does not justify being killed. Letting die is not the same as deliberate killing

• The fact that surplus IVF embryos are unwanted does not make them less human, the implication being that we only have human rights if we are wanted.

• The lack of self-awareness argument regarding an embryo ignores its potential. Within nine months or less, it will have emotions and consciousness. If we say that an embryo is not a person because it is not fully conscious, we must also admit that people who are comatose or senile are lacking in personhood. The end result of this is a sliding scale of humanity with a tick list of characteristics which define humanity. This raises the questions: who ticks those boxes; who sets the criteria?

• The first principle of ethics is that we must do what is right and shun what is wrong, however, many people are arguing that the end justifies the means and that we should kill the embryos anyway because of the immense therapeutic benefits of their stem cells.


Peace

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/coxon_2005-06-03.htm

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/jones_2003-02-19.htm

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/hollinger_2001-11-15.htm

Sorry Bruce. I concede you a point. I wrote some stuff that when I read now does nor appear to be right. But I'd be glad if you could reply to this stuff.

http://www.spinneypress.com.au/178_book_desc.html

Arguments against embryonic stem cell research

1• It is unethical to use embryonic stem cells, as the process to obtain them destroys a human embryo. The destruction of human life cannot be justified, even if the aim is to save other human life.

2• It is unnecessary to use embryonic stem cells, as adult stem cells are proving to be a viable alternative, with many regular breakthroughs occurring. Adult stem cells have already been successfully used in treatment, while embryonic stem cells still offer only theoretical potential for good.

3• Most scientists admit that all the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells are still a long way off in the future.

4• The use of embryonic stem cells is sure to be an overly expensive and difficult endeavour. In the meantime, many adult stem cell breakthroughs have already taken place.

5• The use of adult stem cells seems to solve the problem of immune rejection, which will be a big problem with the use of embryonic stem cells. By using cells from oneself, the incompatibility which occurs when our bodies quickly recognise and try to kill off foreign tissues implanted in them, is avoided.

6• Many of the cell lines are in the hands of private companies, who may well put profit ahead of principle.

7• The use of embryonic stem cells violates the Nuremberg Code which states that "voluntary consent is absolutely essential" in medical research, and which prohibits experimentation that causes injury, disability or a person's death.

8• The destruction of human embryos for research is morally repugnant to many groups including the Catholic Church and some disability rights advocates.

9• The potential for research on embryonic stem cells has not yet been proven, and more animal research is needed.

10• The lack of self-awareness argument regarding an embryo ignores its potential. Within nine months or less, it will have emotions and consciousness. If we say that an embryo is not a person because it is not fully conscious, we must also admit that people who are comatose or senile are lacking in personhood. The end result of this is a sliding scale of humanity with a tick list of characteristics which define humanity. This raises the questions: who ticks those boxes; who sets the criteria?



Peace



1- this is completely subjective. You believe that a conglomeration of gooo (non-mature cells that have yet to evolve into a senscient being), is "life". I do not believe this. Therefore using an aborted fetus for scientfic purposes is not unethical or immoral in my mind. It's about as unethical as jacking off. It's about as unethical as a woman mentrating once a month.

In essence: Human Embryo < Senscient Life

I'm not even going to get into the lack of continuity between the Bible Beaters constant clamoring for "respecting life", and thier complete aloofness to the social problems in our society that arise from "kids having kids". You care about "life" just until babies are born into the ghetto,, and then you forget about them while they are malnurished, uneducated and ultimately locked-up for stealing to feed themselves.

2- The Scientific community will decide if/when Embryonic Stem Cell Research is unecessary. Not you and your Pastor. Science is how our society deduces Truth about our world, not faith. Quit going to the Doctor when you get sick if you disagree. Go to a "faith healer" instead.

3- The potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research are being kept from us because of your UNHOLY CRUSADE to deny funding. Our Federal Government teamed up with the worlds greatest minds and helped create a Nuclear bomb in 3 years (The Manhatten Project), our Federal Government teamed up with the worlds greates minds and went to the Moon in 2 years (The Apollo Project)... Unfortunately our Federal Government is being controlled by a bunch of fucking Rubes, so our scientfic community is on their own here.

Besides, I'd rather work now so that in 10 years we have a cure cancer and alzheimers. You, however, can just pray for 10 years and hope the Rapture comes.

4- Yeah, because as a society, we'd be better off spending our vast wealth on war and unsustainable energy infrastructure. Who want's to actually invest time and money into something that can only potentiall CURE FUCKING CANCER!

5- You're a Scientist now? Didn't think so. Take #5 off your list. You don't know what it means.

6-Which is exactly why we have governmental regulatory bodies in America. Same argument can be made against Pharmacutical companies. You want to deny Phizer the ability to make heart disease medicine because "it's a private company that can use the medicine for their own profit."

Wake up, kid.

7-The Nuremberg Code? You're out of your league, kid. It means that Doctors cannot perform scientific testing on LIVE HUMANS unless the LIVE HUMANS give consent. This was born from the practice of Nazi's using prisoners of war as guinie pigs. To apply the Nuremberg Code to Embryonic Stem Cell Research society would have to accpet that embryos are humans. Good luck with that.

8- The Catholic Church shelters pedophiles. What is more repugnant than that? Also, I'm sure MMA is repugnant to "some groups",, should we now outlaw MMA to accomodate the ridiculous sensibilties of "some groups". Where does this end?

9- See my answser to #2.

10- The lack of consciousness does matter. And do not compare a fetus to a person in a coma. Who sets the criteria? Not you and your faith based church.

Sorry Bruce. I concede you a point. I wrote some stuff that when I read now does nor appear to be right. But I'd be glad if you could reply to this stuff.



So you can't make an argument against Stem Cell Research using your own opinions and thinking ability, you have to cut and paste from a website?

I'd neg rep you but I've blown my wad... Do not get into a debate if you cannot use your own words and thoughts.

1- this is completely subjective. You believe that a conglomeration of gooo (non-mature cells that have yet to evolve into a senscient being), is "life". I do not believe this. Therefore using an aborted fetus for scientfic purposes is not unethical or immoral in my mind. It's about as unethical as jacking off. It's about as unethical as a woman mentrating once a month.

In essence: Human Embryo < Senscient Life

I'm not even going to get into the lack of continuity between the Bible Beaters constant clamoring for "respecting life", and thier complete aloofness to the social problems in our society that arise from "kids having kids". You care about "life" just until babies are born into the ghetto,, and then you forget about them while they are malnurished, uneducated and ultimately locked-up for stealing to feed themselves.

Reason > Bullshit once again.

¥the whole post was great, but I could only quote a little.

I'd like to add that equating my existence and the achievements, loves, losses, victories, defeats, successes and failures that comprise it to a clump of dividing cells is not only incorrect in the extreme. It is an insult to me and every other human being.

Assume the existence of god for a moment- don't you think he'd be pissed at someone that valued a small pile of the bricks and mortar he likes to use to construct his temples over the temples he has built?

repped again

EDIT- i have to spread some rep around first

im for it

I'm all for stem cell, fuck the wannabe bible thumpers....

I thinks its wrong to destroy life to save lives.

This idea that you are destroying a life to save a life is kind of baffling. An embrio is not a life. Somebody dying of a degenerative disease. That is a life. It's embarasing to live in a country that elected a president that will not embrace science. (he did just veto a stem cell research bill that easily passed through congress. it's easy to think short term when you know the end is near) I hope both of George Bush's daughters get lupus.

1- this is completely subjective. You believe that a conglomeration of gooo (non-mature cells that have yet to evolve into a senscient being), is "life". I do not believe this. Therefore using an aborted fetus for scientfic purposes is not unethical or immoral in my mind. It's about as unethical as jacking off. It's about as unethical as a woman mentrating once a month.

In essence: Human Embryo < Senscient Life

I'm not even going to get into the lack of continuity between the Bible Beaters constant clamoring for "respecting life", and thier complete aloofness to the social problems in our society that arise from "kids having kids". You care about "life" just until babies are born into the ghetto,, and then you forget about them while they are malnurished, uneducated and ultimately locked-up for stealing to feed themselves.

2- The Scientific community will decide if/when Embryonic Stem Cell Research is unecessary. Not you and your Pastor. Science is how our society deduces Truth about our world, not faith. Quit going to the Doctor when you get sick if you disagree. Go to a "faith healer" instead.

3- The potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research are being kept from us because of your UNHOLY CRUSADE to deny funding. Our Federal Government teamed up with the worlds greatest minds and helped create a Nuclear bomb in 3 years (The Manhatten Project), our Federal Government teamed up with the worlds greates minds and went to the Moon in 2 years (The Apollo Project)... Unfortunately our Federal Government is being controlled by a bunch of fucking Rubes, so our scientfic community is on their own here.

Besides, I'd rather work now so that in 10 years we have a cure cancer and alzheimers. You, however, can just pray for 10 years and hope the Rapture comes.

4- Yeah, because as a society, we'd be better off spending our vast wealth on war and unsustainable energy infrastructure. Who want's to actually invest time and money into something that can only potentiall CURE FUCKING CANCER!

5- You're a Scientist now? Didn't think so. Take #5 off your list. You don't know what it means.

6-Which is exactly why we have governmental regulatory bodies in America. Same argument can be made against Pharmacutical companies. You want to deny Phizer the ability to make heart disease medicine because "it's a private company that can use the medicine for their own profit."

Wake up, kid.

7-The Nuremberg Code? You're out of your league, kid. It means that Doctors cannot perform scientific testing on LIVE HUMANS unless the LIVE HUMANS give consent. This was born from the practice of Nazi's using prisoners of war as guinie pigs. To apply the Nuremberg Code to Embryonic Stem Cell Research society would have to accpet that embryos are humans. Good luck with that.

8- The Catholic Church shelters pedophiles. What is more repugnant than that? Also, I'm sure MMA is repugnant to "some groups",, should we now outlaw MMA to accomodate the ridiculous sensibilties of "some groups". Where does this end?

9- See my answser to #2.

10- The lack of consciousness does matter. And do not compare a fetus to a person in a coma. Who sets the criteria? Not you and your faith based church.

Broken down like a champion. Awesome.

i think its awesome. a dentist told me that within the next 5-10 years they will be able to plant tooth buds into people's gums and teath will grow

there is no place for being ethical, nobody think about how much sperm they ejaculate for nothing, which is the first form of the new life.
the only thing is when it getting a bit a form of a humanlike after meeting the ovum, we treat it as murder cos it seems to be.
we can make the world better with this research, think about it, if somthing happen to somone you love, you would do anything for them, you probably wont think about ethics problems

I don't have anything against stem cell research because of ethical reasons, I'm against it because it seems like a scam to get more research funding without actually delivering anything.

See my thread on eugenics.