<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.11" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Christopher Reeve knew that embryonic stem cell research wouldn&#8217;t have helped him.</title>
	<link>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/10/13/790/</link>
	<description>Resolution, Duty, Inquiry</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 12:47:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Wallo World &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Did President Bush Really Kill the Man of Steel?</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/10/13/790/#comment-3834</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 02:17:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/10/13/790/#comment-3834</guid>
					<description>[...] Andrew Hagen has an interesting take on the embryonic stell cell debate that has seen renewed energy in the wake of Christopher Reeves death. As Hagen notes, advocates of research have blasted Bushs ban on the embryonic front and claimed that the research might have helped the actor. However, Hagen accurately points out that even Reeve acknowledged that embryonic stem cells werent able to do much about chronic injuries such as his. Instead, Reeves support for stem cell research came not because he thought it promised a cure for his condition but rather from his perspective that scientists should be free to pursue every possible avenue, to which Hagen responds:  Should scientists be free to explore every avenue, like Reeve said? Of course not. Doctor Mengele’s experiments on live human beings, for example, were beyond reproach. Science must be ethical. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Andrew Hagen has an interesting take on the embryonic stell cell debate that has seen renewed energy in the wake of Christopher Reeves death. As Hagen notes, advocates of research have blasted Bushs ban on the embryonic front and claimed that the research might have helped the actor. However, Hagen accurately points out that even Reeve acknowledged that embryonic stem cells werent able to do much about chronic injuries such as his. Instead, Reeves support for stem cell research came not because he thought it promised a cure for his condition but rather from his perspective that scientists should be free to pursue every possible avenue, to which Hagen responds:  Should scientists be free to explore every avenue, like Reeve said? Of course not. Doctor Mengele’s experiments on live human beings, for example, were beyond reproach. Science must be ethical. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: NN</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/10/13/790/#comment-720</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:02:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.andrewhagen.com/archives/2004/10/13/790/#comment-720</guid>
					<description>Stem cells from fetuses or IVF 'surplus' embryos would otherwise have been discarted if they weren't used for research/treatment. If those cells can save life, then it would unethical not to do so.

As for benefits of stem-cell research, well, at least for the deadly, and very nasty 'Huntington's Disease' stem-cell therapy is the only experimental treatment so far shown to help. The brain atrophy disorder (which sufferers inherit from their parents), cause a progressive psychological, emotional and motoric decline leading to a certain death 15 years or so after the first symptoms. 
In this example, stem-cell therapy (not adult cells, we're talking embryonic cells from aborted fetuses) is the only way to stem the decline. One's value system must be pretty wacky if one would prefer this disease to be unchecked in an adult or child just to be able to throw away/burn an aborted fetus.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stem cells from fetuses or IVF &#8217;surplus&#8217; embryos would otherwise have been discarted if they weren&#8217;t used for research/treatment. If those cells can save life, then it would unethical not to do so.</p>
<p>As for benefits of stem-cell research, well, at least for the deadly, and very nasty &#8216;Huntington&#8217;s Disease&#8217; stem-cell therapy is the only experimental treatment so far shown to help. The brain atrophy disorder (which sufferers inherit from their parents), cause a progressive psychological, emotional and motoric decline leading to a certain death 15 years or so after the first symptoms.<br />
In this example, stem-cell therapy (not adult cells, we&#8217;re talking embryonic cells from aborted fetuses) is the only way to stem the decline. One&#8217;s value system must be pretty wacky if one would prefer this disease to be unchecked in an adult or child just to be able to throw away/burn an aborted fetus.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
