NursingLink

New research regarding stem cells seems to emerge daily. What are your thoughts on the topic? Should scientists be able to use stem cells to research diseased like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's? Or are stem cells off-limits?

   I favor it. Some of the research studies stem-cells from adults--not just fetuses--also stem-cells from mice and perhaps other animals, and also human embryos.

   Some opponents may argue that the work is immoral, but there has never been agreement about what is right or wrong. So far I don't see the work as objectionable.

    Good topic, gb; thanks for starting it.

Kittyrn says ...

Stem cells are readily available from discarded cord blood at childbirtrh.  This is a readily legal and available supply.  I don't understand why more of it isn't harvested.

That's exactly the point I was going to make. I think it's a great use of the blood from the umbilical cord. With that said, I also think getting stem cells other ways is ok so long as you aren't doing any more harm to the person or animal. But I am very much against the harvesting of stem cells from embryos from women who have been PAID to create (with a little help, of course!) and carry the fetus until it is developed enough to be used for stem cell research (by abortion). It's disgusting. I don't know of that happening in the US, but it is a pretty lucrative "business" in some other countries. I wish I could find the article on it I read about 8 months ago.

Stem cell research when done ethically and morally is another fantastic step in the progress of medicine. 

After watching my father suffer from parkinson's disease for quite a long time, I'm all for stem cell research and use

For!  For!! For!!!

What great innovations & healings are we missing because of politics?

ematthews89 says ...

"I agree stem cell research and usage if obtained by means other than abortion can and should be an important part of medicine.  But could the reason so many "groups" are opposed to it be that if more diseases are cured there won't be need of high cost medications and treatments?  It seems that the ones that would lose the most are the ones protesting it the most. 

I could be wrong....."

Excellent point! Unfortunately Big Pharm (and the Gov't.) are more interested in their bank accounts than in curing people. I read an article in a medical newspaper about 3 years ago that said we know of about 3,000 CURES for most cancers. But do we have them? NO! Why? Because Big Pharm is happy making TONS of money on mediocre treatments that may or may not work (not to mention the side effects). I know there are those of you out there who think I'm nuts, but I urge you to research it before you judge (hint: check out cancer death rates in Sweden, and the differences in treatments).