Do you agree or dissagree...

[~wildangel~]

With Nash's Decision...read about it here, I don't know what to think about it...
Nash's Decision (http://www.cordblood.com/news/a_nash.htm)

------------------
~Wild, the angel of the Mod Squad~
~The MOD Squad~ (http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/serendipity/MSPoster/ModSquad.html)
The Coffee shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)
My family... (http://www.geocities.com/jssejmsgrl/Mypage.html)

[~wildangel~]

I will copy and paste it for you too incase you don't wanna click the link! http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif aint I sweet? I kinda Agree with Nash's decision...but then I also believe some things should be left to fate...but if it were my kid i'd probobly do it!


Baby's Cord Blood Helping Sister and Sparking Debate

A unique umbilical cord blood transplant performed last month on 6-year-old Molly Nash is working better than anticipated.

"Molly's doing so well she's just about ready to be discharged,'' said Dr. John Wagner, a cord blood specialist who performed the transfusion.

Molly was born with Fanconi anemia, a rare, often fatal genetic defect that prevents her body from generating bone marrow, which produces blood cells. Molly's brother, Adam, was born after having been genetically tested as an embryo to make sure he wouldn't have the same disease and so that he would be a perfect blood match for his sister.

Using perfectly matched cord blood from a sibling rather than from an unrelated donor increases the chance of success from about 31 percent to 85 percent, Wagner said, and finding a non-family match is far from certain. A number of additional families are in the process of getting ready for them.

During the transplant, blood collected from Adam's umbilical cord was transfused into Molly's bloodstream. Stem cells in the cord blood eventually migrated to the hollow areas of her bones, where they lodged and began producing a new immune system and healthy blood cells.

Ethicists say the case is controversial because it involved genetic testing to pick an embryo with traits needed to help someone else.

Doctors in the United Kingdom are permitted to select and implant embryos that are free of genetic defects, but they cannot perform the second part of the procedure, which is to test for a tissue match in order to save another life.

"Most people have supported us, and those who don't, don't understand it clearly,'' said Molly's father, Jack Nash.

Meantime, they feel comfortable with the procedure because it helped Molly and ensured that Adam would have a life free of the genetic defect that has made life so difficult for his sister.

"From a parent's perspective, we would do anything to save our child,'' Lisa Nash said. "We also want to ensure that our future children will live healthy lives.''



------------------
~Wild, the angel of the Mod Squad~
~The MOD Squad~ (http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/serendipity/MSPoster/ModSquad.html)
The Coffee shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)
My family... (http://www.geocities.com/jssejmsgrl/Mypage.html)

[paulgro]

I don't understand why you would think somethings wrong about this...

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."


Cosmic Coffee Shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)
Mod Squad (http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/serendipity/MSPoster/ModSquad.html) Permit Man (http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/serendipity/Permit/PermitMan.html)

[amr]

paulgro,

The sticking point is that the parents specifically had another kid in order to use it for donor material. Therefore, from a moral standpoint, the second child is not valued as a human being but as a source of spare parts (or as a "mere means" if you're familiar with Kant's philosophy).

Ethicists generally regard this type of action as a "slippery slope" kind of thing. Today we're having additional kids to donate marrow/stem cells/etc, tomorrow we'll be having kids in order to yank out their organs. This can also get into all sorts of other legal/moral issues of the second child not having free will to refuse or consent to donating a part of themselves. These arguments can also be applied to human cloning.

In this case and other such bone-marrow cases, no harm comes to the second child, so I don't think there's that much wrong with it.

------------------
I am what I am and that's all I am!

[~wildangel~]

Thank you Amr, ditto what she said Paulgro http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
~Wild, the angel of the Mod Squad~
~The MOD Squad~ (http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/serendipity/MSPoster/ModSquad.html)
The Coffee shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)
My family... (http://www.geocities.com/jssejmsgrl/Mypage.html)

[Idnew]

Well a lot of people want more than one child regardless of having another one to save the first one. I think it's great it worked and if having another child saved the first one than so what. I'm sure they love them both the same, maybe even more than they already did.

------------------
(ô¿ô)Proud member of the Dumb Laws Mod Squad so watch it!*smile*

Attitude Ajustments Gladly Performed(ö¿ö)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

Brain Mania (http://www.brainmania.com)

Cosmic Coffee Shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)
Meet The Squad (http://www.geocities.com/idnew52/Mod_Squad_Poster.htm)

[ogb]

On this level I also don't see a problem with that. It is inhuman if you produce a second baby as 'replacement park' for the others, but as long as the second one doesn't have to suffer it's alright for me.

[Phreakmeister]

I think, that if the first child happens to have a disease, there's nothing wrong with letting the second child help him cure.
But when the second child is merely made as a factory for spare parts, then I think it is utterly disgusting. It degrades human life to less than nothing.
But if my brother were to need my kidney for instance, I would be in hospital this very second.
So letting the second child help cure the first child is acceptable IMO, as long as the second child is not there merely to help the first child cure.

[~wildangel~]

I also think it's acceptable as long as the child is also wanted totally, and will be treated equally http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
~Wild, the angel of the Mod Squad~
~The MOD Squad~ (http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/serendipity/MSPoster/ModSquad.html)
The Coffee shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)
My family... (http://www.geocities.com/jssejmsgrl/Mypage.html)

Undoubtebly that second child will have a very special place in that family. He saved his older sister's life. I'm sure that will make a great family story. Much better I would say then them both dieing.

Wherein the whole problem of slippery slope truly lies though is at what stage of reproduction do we have a viable human being? I say viable because in most of the world it is perfectly ok to use organs from the deceased. I assume that no one would argue that the dead are no longer viable human beings and that such "desecration" of their corpses is sufficient given the life-saving which is accomplished by doing so.

I don't know wether in my own mind I believe it was Science-fiction movies or the Religious fundamentalist who where responsible for the media's dark image of cloning. Maybe it was simply the media. But I know that dark image troubles me when I think of the technological set back. The loss of life. I might need a new heart someday. When I think of the opposition to this and other such medical research I think of Galieo's opposition the Church. I can't help but get angry. "I don't want to die for these people's crazy [in my opinion] beliefs"

When I think of cloning I think of research using cells from no longer viable human beings. I know that the majority of "reported" stem-cells have come from eggs that are simply stored. Left-overs from artificial impregnations. As I am to understand they would never do more then sit there in their freezer but some would defend these has newborn children. Me, I see them as a way to save lives. Given the research we may very well soon be able to custom "grow" replacement organs that are clones of our damaged or failing ones. Is this not a good thing?

Everyone's afraid that researchers will act like doctor frangenstein's and that society will fall down that very slippery slope to the dark valley below. Researchers are humans too. Most driven by the need to make the world better for humanity. Do we honestly believe doctors devote all that time and energy simply for money. If that is the case doctors aren't good business people. Their are less stressful ways to make upper class salaries. Medical researchers are similar to doctors. Yes they do create these marvelously expensive new procedures but most medical procedures are expensive no matter. And furthermore, when someone is hurt they usually go do what they can to live. I mean if it where my life or one of my family I certainly wouldn't care if I was in dept for the rest of my life to pay for theirs. Fact of the matter is they are going to go through some expensive procedure anyways even it it is of no avail. I lend myself to the belief that medical researchers also do it mostly for the good of the people. Else why not research a more commerical product that can be sold to everyone rather then a select few with a problem.

So what I'm saying is until we start "growing" people to hack them up for spare parts I'm totally for it. But that is something more from a B Sci-Fi movie then real life. Its more practical both morally and economicially to simply grow replacement organs. Which if you keep up with the research is some of the aim.

Now as for is it morally right to do what these parents did? I'm not so sure what morality is in question. I mean most parents did not plan all or for that manner any of their children. Is it then immoral for them to have sex to enjoy one another and then have a child unnexpectedly. I'd say no. Would it be immoral to shun the child after it was born. I'd say yes.

Is it more moral to plan for your children so that you are financially and emotionally ready rather then take a more "natural" approach?

I'm beginning to see that I'm soon rambling and that is bad but I think my point is apparent: without purpose morality lies in response and without response morality lies in purpose.

[Phreakmeister]

One difference between Galileo Galilei and this:
What Galilei did, was telling the truth, when it was only the contemporary church, that didn't wanna believe his statements. (BTW, it was not just Galilei, it was also Kopperniggk (aka Copernicus) and Kepler, among others) Among the common people, it was already known, and it always was known, that the earth was round. There are a lot of depictions of medieval kings, holding in their hand a "ball", representing the planet. They wouldn't have done that if they believed the earth was flat.
What Galilei did, was showing objective and provable argumentations against a dogma held by a select few.

However, when it comes to xenotransplantations and "organ factories", it has nothing to do with facts anymore. It all falls back to morals and opinions then.