Stem Cells: Solution to Diseases?
Last week, I and my blockmates attended a symposium about stem cells. I don’t know if you have heard of it. As for my case, it was my first time, and I got so interested with it that’s why I am going to talk about them. Pardon me if there are some flaws with this entry as I am new to this topic.
Let me start this entry by defining what stem cells are. Stem cells are cells that are common to us and other multi-cellular organisms. These cells have the ability to multiply and replenish themselves and grow into a wide range of specialized cell types.
As we all know, as we grow older, most of our cells renew and multiply themselves by a process called cell division. But some don’t. Cells in our hearts and brains lose their capability to multiply as time flies by. If no, our heads would be bigger than their normal size and our hearts would be bigger than our fists. And sometimes, these vital body organs get damaged. Thus, these body organs have the tendency to malfunction.
So here is where the stem cells come in. Basically, they can replace almost every part of your body. These could treat neurological diseases like ALS and Parkinson’s disease. These could also treat leukemia and cancer. Thus, making humans’ life span even longer. (But I am not saying that stem cells are now being used to treat all of these diseases nowadays.)
There are two categories of mammalian stem cells which are embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells.
The problem is that the first category, the embryonic stem cells which is way better than the latter is banned. Basically, it is banned because it needs to destroy an embryo. There are these cells in the inner cell mass of a early stage embryo known as a blastocyst which are scraped off, making the embryo unable to make all the cells in our body. These scraped cells are then cultivated where we can derive more than 220 cell types of the adult body. This what makes embryonic stem cells way better than the adult stem cells.
And here comes a big problem. We all know that before a man can be a fully human, we have to be an embryo first. And that means, if this would be done, a breach to the humans’ and God’s law have to be done. It is clearly stated that we cannot kill and as we all know, it is highly unethical to kill somebody just so we can gain something else. In other countries, the use of human embryos where these have to be either created or destroyed are strictly prohibited.
To date, no disease was cured with this first category.
With the latter one, the adult stem cells, there are some cases where patients were cured because of it. Adult stem cells are found throughout the body. Not like with the former one, this have limited capacity for cellular differentiation . We cannot make all the cells in the human body with this. As what the speaker had said, this is not as controversial as the first because this does not require the destruction of an embryo. It was also discussed that there were successful treatments especially with leukemia that cured the patient because of this.
Now, let me ask you a question, do you think this stem cell research is ethical or not?
January 14, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
As a biologist and an anti-abortion extremist, my professional opinion would be a big fat HELL NO!
Embryonic stem cell research is a major step-up for the medical field, alright. But we can’t deny the fact that it is tantamount to abortion, the depletion of an innocent human life.
On the other hand, the proponents of this research insist that the embryos used are only those meant for destruction anyway, e.g. cells used in an in vitro fertilization. But I think that’s another story altogether.
Still, hell no! It’s bloody twisted and inhumane.
January 14, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
Teka, what’s being asked? Yung stem cell research mismo, or the 2nd category of it?
Ahem. I don’t have a clear stand on this, but one of the reasons why I’m pro-choice (abortion) is because embryos aren’t technically human. You can go on about YOUR God, but what about those who do not believe in Him? That’s why reasonings backed up with religion is highly complicated and, errr, sorry to say, ridiculous. It’s God’s laws that would be broken, not human’s. Grr. Ganito. Parang what makes humans different from animals? Eh animals nga, pinapatay diba? (Blah, talk about religious hypocrisy here na bawal pumatay). Both animals and humans have hearts, brains, lungs, etc. Ang nagiging differentiation lang is the capacity to think and reason out (with sense) of course. Yan ang hindi fully attainable for the animals. And embryos, do you really think they have the capacity to think?
Hindi naman kami tinuruan ng ganito sa QueSci, pero kasi, hindi dapat relihiyon ang ginagamit na dahilan sa lahat ng bagay. It’s like disregarding the fact that there are other beliefs besides theirs. That’s why it strikes me as ironic that embryonic stem cells experimentation is banned.
But if the adult stem cells experiment gives hope for patients with ailments, why should the limited capacity of cell differentiation be such an issue? Mga tao talaga, di makuntento.
January 14, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
Shari: i was asking about the stem cell research itself. sorry for the vague question. nevertheless, i already edited my entry. well, i suppose you read tala’s comment. but then, we have our own opinions…
January 15, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Yeah, I must say that the question was vague, and the parameters were not set. I think what Christian was trying to ask was if it’s SCIENTIFICALLY OR MEDICALLY ETHICAL, NOT if it’s ok in the eyes of God.
But lemme agree AND disagree with Shari’s arguments and add some of mine as well.
Shari, you and I and everyone else were priorly embryos. So how can you say that an embryo is not technically human? Just because it is oblivious to the outside world, it’s not human? Tell that to comatose patients. The last time I checked, they’ve lost the capacity to think, but they’re still humans. The fact that an embryo is developing, it is alive and it contains human DNA make it human. Besides, there is more to being human than physical qualities. There is an essence to being human that cannot be covered by mere physical descriptions and functions and that is independent on certain physical and functional qualities. Humanness is innate.
Ok let’s put God aside here, because I AGREE with you that arguing in the name of God is ridiculous. So, porke’t ba antiabortion ang stance ng isang tao, you’re gonna conclude that he’s arguing with God on his side? The keyword here is ethical. I mean, there are people in the medical field who are atheists, and yet they save lives, because they took an oath and most importantly, it’s the most ethical thing to do. Saving lives, no matter how big or small they are, is part of that oath and if done otherwise, medical malpractice ang tawag dyan and they will answer to the law, human law. Bioethics 101, my dear.
You’re arguing about killing animals and stuff. Let’s put God aside again, be hypocritical for a moment, and apply the so-called hierarchy in the animal kingdom. We humans have retained hereditary traits through evolution that have proven to be extremely destructive. We tend to be tribal and aggressively territorial, oriented by selfish sexual and reproductive drives that make cooperation beyond the family or tribe extremely hard for us. Unfortunately, we kill other species in order to survive. Yeah, humans are top carnivores, we sit at the top of the food chain and we reduce other species’ chance of survival. So yeah, it’s human nature that we scrutinize the insides of lower animals for educational purposes, curiosity, AND survival. Sorry, survival of the fittest ang laro dito eh.
Anyway, the gist here is that embryonic stem cell experiments are MEDICALLY UNETHICAL because embryos are still humans, developing, potential humans, and out of all people, scientists and doctors should know that. After all, they have taken their oath to save human lives. Oh, and take note that being God-fearing and being ethical are two unique concepts. One can be ethical and an atheist at the same time, as I mentioned before.
Man that was lengthy. I’m such a scatterbrain. Pffft.
January 15, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Oh, and scientists worldwide are trying to find alternatives to the instrumentalization of embryonic stem cells. I’m pretty that they will come up with better alternatives, what with the advent of modern technology and all. Please, let’s just not revert to our neanderthal selves, which our ascendants used to be. Evolved and civilized na tayo.
Well, if they just can’t wait, then try virgin coconut oil. Two servings a day. They say it works wonders. :lolz:
January 15, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
that’s PRETTY sure. I’m a freak. Kill me. :redface:
January 15, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Now, I’m out in here. I really don’t like to be involved with this. I just want to know the opinion of the people who visit my site about the stem cell research. so I’m zipping my mouth tight now.
Talamasca: Now, you own the longest comment in this site. Lol. And about the VCO, that really made me ROTFL!
January 15, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
OMG i thought you wont come back hehehe, and h im sorry i cant relate but yeah we already studies that cells thingy hahahahaha, im such a stupid person when it comes to biology. :lolz:
ill add your new link later.
January 15, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
may natutunan na naman ako, ayon sa kwento mo mukhang di nga maganda yung papatay para lang makagamot ng iba, ganun din yun, may bubti pero may mamamatay.
sa china iba naman ang sa kanila, kailangan ng embrayo para sa pagpapaganda at pampapabata.
January 16, 2007 @ 12:46 am
Whee, hello and congrats with the new domain.
Is this the thing I heard on tv the other day….? Anyway, as for me, there’s nothing wrong trying the procedure but of course people still have to be aware of consequences and other results since it is still new to us.
Personally, I don’t know much about the topic so uhm…. there. Just remember that human embryos has life and they are humans — in the making. I still believe that we should respect life…. in no matter form it maybe.
January 16, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
kung anu-ano na ang na e explore ng mga tao no, medyo hirap na rin i judge kung makakabuti o hindi. pero obviouly if one will get better for the expense of others parang me problema
January 16, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
haha… It’s hard to argue with Niño…
Now Im right… I read from the Time Magazine issue where Michael J. Fox is featured (Dec-Jan issue), this is what he continue to campaign embryonic-stem-cell research.. At least I now have a clear overview of this issue.
It’s very critical to stand whether the issue is ethical or not.
January 17, 2007 @ 8:07 am
Life is full of contradictions nga naman. Hehe. You see, you “kill” a being for saving another one. Hehe.
This made me think of parallelisms of indigenous cultures and “Animal Rights”. This might sound quite irrelevant to others but I hope you see the parallelisms. See, many AR activists are campaigning on going “purely” vegetarian. However, this campaign posts danger to cultures, particularly the indigenous cultures. The Cañao will never be Cañao without the butchering of pigs. Even if you do the native dances and play the gongs, it will never be Cañao. It may not be an exact example but I hope you can see the parallelism. Hehe.
Is it wrong or right to kill an embryo? It depends on the culture of the society or a person. To the typical Filipino, the pinikpikan process is very brutal. To the Igorots, it the way they prepare the food. I’m not sure if the process is some sort of ritual, but I think it is.
January 19, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Holy sh*t. You don’t expect me to answer Niño’s comments, do you? I don’t think I can even read that. Haha!
Tala, I’m not even going to argue with you on this. So sorry for the crappy argument, but I’m sticking to it. Embryos only have the potential for life (they still can’t live on their own, nasa loob pa lang sila ng womb, being a parasite and all hehe [an attempt at being humorous]), while the people who can benefit from embryonic stem cell research are already breathing forms of human life. I’m not degrading the value of embryos; I’m just stating a fact that we’re already here, and the embryos are not. And in cases like this, it’s one vs. everyone else. One form of potential life against the people who are already alive. Sorry to burst your bubble but “survival of the fittest” also goes for humans.
Hey, I’m not saying that just because you take the anti-abortion stance, you’re arguing with God on your side.
Although I admit and notice that most of them do. Blah. “Oh my God noooo it’s stated in the Bible and the 10 Commandments that thou shalt not kill and what they’re doing is killing so it’s a sin to God huhuhu they’re bad they should go to hell they won’t go to heaven God won’t accept them.”
Doctors have pledged to save lives. Eh dito nga, they’re being given two choices: save a potential life, or save (an) already existing life/lives. Kung ma-outweigh naman ng benefits ng embryonic stem cell research para sa humanity ang mas masama, bakit hindi? It’s still saving lives; it’s still fulfilling what they’ve vowed to do.
And as far as I know, and you’ve even mentioned it before, the proponents of embryonic stem cell research insist that only embryos meant to be destroyed will be used. That’s not a different story altogether, as it is actually an easier path to take. Kung sisirain lang din naman yung embryos, why not put them into use? See, discovering/inventing new cures and treatments by the destruction of embryos meant to be destroyed anyway - not that bad at all.
Kung magiging usapin naman ito ng embryonic vs. adult, sa adult na lang ako. As long as an alternative option is available to avoid losing a life, dun ako. Dun lang ako. I’d hate to lose a potential life as much as you do, Tala. And nabanggit naman ni Christian na may mga cases that conditions of patients have improved. Limited man, may improvement pa rin. It’s just human nature, I guess, na gustuhin yung higit pa.
My gawd. I seem to be forgetting that you’re a Bio major. I hate science. I’m sticking to doing exposés from now on.
It’s 2pm na pala. I need to sleep naaaaa 
January 21, 2007 @ 1:39 am
I’m afraid I have to side with Shari on this one Tala my friend… I do understand that you have strong ethical questions re: abortion of life. But it’s bollocks to argue that an embryo constitute life, beacuse if you think about it, sperm is also life. It’s a living cell. And how many did you kill today huh? I bet millions and millions not counting yesterday’s. The evidence is in the tissue paper. Don’t snigger. And arguing that a sperm or a collection of cells in a Petri dish are morally equivalent to a living person is a bit reaching. Leave that to religious nutters. The fact remains that embryonic stem cell therapy hold potential cures for spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, hundreds of rare immune system and genetic disorders, and much more. Millions upon millions of people die hopelessly each year from these diseases. We are also indiscriminately aborting their lives.
January 22, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Well I don’t see anything wrong with stem cell research. The embryo is already dead. They don’t take it and kill it. They aren’t abortion babies or they aren’t suppose to be.Those were made just for the research. It wasn’t made for life. If it saves lives then its ok. Saving the life that is currently alive. There are too many people in the world anyway. We should keep our population down. If we try to keep everything alive then we would be sucking the life out of the earth. We have to let go of our morals sometimes.