AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Boy becomes first in the world to have stem cell transplant
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Quote:The landmark operation involved injecting the scaffold of a windpipe, taken from a dead donor, with stem cells from the boy before implanting it in his throat.

The stem cells were removed from the boy's bone marrow and were ready for use just four hours later.

The cells trigger regrowth to create a normal windpipe without any of the risks of normal transplantation such as the organ being rejected by the body.

The operation took place at Great Ormond Street Hospital, in London, on Monday and the boy is breathing by himself and able to speak normally.

It is the first time a child has received an organ transplant created with stem cells and the second time that surgeons have injected the stem cells immediately before implanting the windpipe. In a previous operation the cells were allowed to grow onto the windpipe in the laboratory for some months before the organ was implanted.

The advancement means that more hospitals will be able to use the technique and in future other organs can be replaced or regenerated in the same way.

It is hoped using stem cells will eventually replace all transplant surgery.

The boy, who has not been identified, will remain in hospital while the growth of the cells is monitored. It is expected that the windpipe will be fully formed within two weeks. In the meantime the organ is being supported by an artificial scaffold that will dissolve.

Professor Martin Birchall, head of translational regenerative medicine at University College London, said: "We believe it's a real milestone.

"It is the first time a child has received stem cell organ treatment, and it's the longest airway that has ever been replaced (seven centimetres long).

"I think the technique will allow not just highly specialised hospitals to carry out stem cell organ transplants.

"Now we need to conduct more clinical trials to demonstrate that this concept works. We'd like to move to other organs as well, particularly the larynx and oesophagus.

"Importantly we need to think about how to make regenerative medicine a key part of our health care."

The boy was born with a windpipe just one millimetre in diameter and was unable to breathe by himself. He had one operation early in life to widen the windpipe with a metal scaffold and this worked well for a year but then it pierced a major blood vessel causing massive bleeding.

Emergency surgery was carried out to fix the hole and put in a piece of preserved donor windpipe as a patch and this worked well for ten years.

But in November the metal scaffold again pierced the blood vessel and although the bleeding was brought under control, surgeons were running out of viable options to treat him.

A team of specialists from University College London, Florence, in Italy and Barcelona in Spain had conducted the first windpipe transplant using stem cells in 2008 and developed that technique further for this case.

Prof Elliott , director of the tracheal service at Great Ormond Street, said 'enormous numbers' of patients could benefit from this technique in future. In many types of surgery pieces of tissue from animals or plastic substitutes are used but that could all be replaced with the patient's own stem cells.

He said: "If we could put into anybody, in any organ, a replacement piece of tissue engineered from their own cells, it would reduce the risks of surgery. The whole field of organ repair, of all kinds of surgery, is suddenly improved."

Prof Birchall said: "From here we can now go on an build all sorts of other things. We don't think it will replace normal transplantation yet, it will be many years before it replaces conventional transplantation. I would be surprised if it happened in my professional lifetime but we are inching towards that and it is going to accelerate."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...plant.html
Since the stem cells came from the boy's own bone marrow, there should be no objections on moral or ethical grounds.
I've always supported stem cell research and the many uses it has for mankind.

It's a shame that so many are completely against stem cell research without even learning about the fact that there's many types of stem cells, and that not all of them come from dead fetuses.

and they don't even know that stem cells from fetuses were found to have less uses than that of the ones that come from afterbirth waste (The placenta and foetal membranes) and bone marrow. As an result, scientists are now lessening the use of stem cells from dead fetuses.

I feel that if there was more awareness on the subject all around, it wouldn't be such a huge issue in the first place.
I haven't figured out the "moral objection" myself to any stem cell use. If a fetus is dead,what's morality got to do with it?

It's dead and it's mother wanted it dead,so who's harmed by borrowing stem cells from it????

I think abortion is awful myself,I'd hate to be guilty of killing my own baby,but,it is legal and if the thing is dead why on earth is it then immoral to use a stem cell????


Friend at work told me he opposed it cause it "motivated" abortions which I found silly,girls don't care about the fetus' use after they agreed to kill the darn thing. They don't want to think about it at all. Stem cell or nothing.
There are tons and tons of frozen embryos left over from IVF which will *never* be implanted. Why not use those?
I agree completely.

Those people seem to run on the same logic as the people who are against being an organ donor.

The reason why they're against being organ donors:
Myth No. 1. If they agree to donate organs, the doctor or the emergency room staff won't work as hard to save their lives. They'll remove the organs as soon as possible to save somebody else.

Reality: When you go to the hospital for treatment, doctors focus on saving your life — not somebody else's. You'll be seen by a doctor whose specialty most closely matches your particular emergency. The doctor in charge of your care has nothing to do with transplantation.

in fact I'm an organ donor myself and I've been in many emergency situations, yet nothing happened to me.

I don't even have doctors stalking me up and down the street hoping that something happens to me so that they can harvest my organs. :p

It's weird how their mind works when they think that sort of thing would really happen.

Besides, embryonic stem cells actually don't come from abortions themselves at all. They're artificially made in an laboratory, or in some cases, from IVFs. So embryonic stem cell research and Abortions aren't linked in any way at all.

In fact, fetuses that came from abortions are usually considered "too old" for embryonic research. They only use fertilized eggs at the very earliest stage, where the egg starts to split cells. This is the point where a woman wouldn't even know she was pregnant, and thus it was still too early for her to get an abortion unless she used the morning after pill.

so it wouldn't be "profitable" for any scientist to use fetuses that was aborted by women and their boyfriends/husbands.
Palladine, this subject has been widely explored in science fiction over the past 50 years. The problem with use of organs that must be harvested from the living is that it provides a profit motive for organized crime to murder people for their organs. Stem cells harvested from embyroes provides a motive to murder the unborn--again, for profit. There is no way to ensure that stem cells taken from fetuses were taken from fetuses that would have died anyway. There is no way to ensure that some pregnant woman who has no desire to get an abortion might be abducted and her child forcibly aborted so someone can make a profit on the stem cells harvested.
I have read several articles which state that stem cells can be created from many sources in the human body, and that these are often preferable to fetal stem cells. If this is true, the issue of using fetal stem cells is just a red herring put up to embarrass the anti-abortionists and reinvigorate feminist politics.

Obviously, using a person's own stem cells (or stem cells manufactured from that person's tissue) is biologically better than using someone else's. There is no risk of rejection.
Aurora Moon Wrote:Those people seem to run on the same logic as the people who are against being an organ donor.
Some Orthodox Jews are against organ donation because it is viewed as mutilating a corpse, and the dead must be buried as quickly as possible.

I think the objection to using IVF embryos is that they are allowed to develop before harvesting them for stem cells.
That's creating human life and killing it for stem cells.
Ron Lambert Wrote:Palladine, this subject has been widely explored in science fiction over the past 50 years. The problem with use of organs that must be harvested from the living is that it provides a profit motive for organized crime to murder people for their organs. Stem cells harvested from embryos provides a motive to murder the unborn--again, for profit. There is no way to ensure that stem cells taken from fetuses were taken from fetuses that would have died anyway. There is no way to ensure that some pregnant woman who has no desire to get an abortion might be abducted and her child forcibly aborted so someone can make a profit on the stem cells harvested.

I guess you missed the part where I said that scientists don't use fetuses from abortions AT ALL... instead they use artificially created embryos in labs today. And at this point they use the embryos right away before the embryos are allowed to develop into baby fetuses.

Most aborted fetuses from abortion centers are often at an stage where they're considered "too old" for the scientists to be able to use for embryonic research. So they most likely would actually reject fetuses that had came from abortion centers, and the like.

A ideal embryo for scientists, is in the first stage of development with the egg is splitting up into different cells. This stage is considered the richest type of maternal to get embryonic stem cells. Once it starts developing into an actual fetus baby... that's when the "Embryonic material" starts to degrade. That's why they won't use stem cells from actual aborted babies that was already more or less formed.

http://www.umich.edu/stemcell/faq/#section3

Quote:Myth
Embryonic stem cell research uses embryos that have begun to develop as babies.

Fact
Stem cells are derived from blastocysts that have only developed for about five days after fertilization. The blastocysts used for this research develop entirely in laboratory dishes in fertility clinics and are never implanted in a woman’s uterus. These early stage embryos consist of about 100 cells and are the size of the period at the end of this sentence. At this stage, the cells are undifferentiated: They have no nervous system, no heart, no limbs and no specialized human tissues.

Myth
Embryonic stem cell research uses aborted fetuses.

Fact
There is no connection between abortion and human embryonic stem cells. By the time a human embryo has implanted in the uterus, its cells have specialized to the point where they can no longer be used for the derivation of embryonic stem cell lines.

The embryos used to derive stem cells are created in dishes in fertility clinics. They are never transferred into the human body and are donated for medical research only when parents decide they are no longer needed for fertility treatment.

So only an idiot would think that they could profit by forcing a woman to abort her child, or that they could abort an already developing fetus for profit. not only would they get put into jail for this, They'd end up being nominated for the title of world's dumbest criminal. :lol:
Again, because those dead fetuses are completely useless to scientists at that stage and thus has no value!

of course, a few scientists do use IVFs to save time that would had been "wasted" creating artificial embryos. Armadillo pointed this out as being quite morally questionable. But the thing is that those embryos wouldn't had survived outside of a womb anyway.

People don't see it as immoral when doctors in IVF hospitals artificially fertilize over dozen eggs for hopeful mothers who can't conceive naturally, knowing well enough that out of a dozen fertilized eggs only one or two would be able to develop into a full living baby inside the womb..... and that the rest would be discarded after the rejected eggs were expelled naturally from the womb.

At this point the embryos were already NATURALLY REJECTING the women's bodies by not attaching to the lining of the womb. So in some ways this is not the same as an abortion. It's almost more like an miscarriage, really. So you could say that the Embryos weren't meant to be babies at all when they rejected the women's wombs out there, and instead became discarded.
so why not put them to good use? They're not technically living anymore at that point, after they've rejected the woman's womb.

so you see, contrary to popular belief the embryos ARE NOT fetuses yet until after they've attached to the womb lining inside a woman. only at that point do they start to develop into an actual fetus. It's impossible for an embryo to develop into an actual fetus in an lab or in a hospital outside of a woman.

And plus, there's tons of reasons for why a embryo was discarded...
Many embryos created for IVF are discarded because they do not develop normally or are known to carry serious genetic abnormalities. Such embryos are not suitable for implantation. But in the laboratory, these defective embryos could help researchers understand genetically linked diseases and develop treatments for them.
AM Wrote:Most aborted fetuses from abortion centers are often at an stage where they're considered "too old" for the scientists to be able to use for embryonic research. So they most likely would actually reject fetuses that had came from abortion centers, and the like.
Is this because of RU486? No very early abortions are needed because of it.

Now that you have conclusively proven that there is nothing to worry about morally or economically with respect to the collection of fetal stem cells, why is there such a political flap about them? BOTH left and right get all worked up about it.
jt Wrote:
AM Wrote:Most aborted fetuses from abortion centers are often at an stage where they're considered "too old" for the scientists to be able to use for embryonic research. So they most likely would actually reject fetuses that had came from abortion centers, and the like.
Is this because of RU486? No very early abortions are needed because of it.

Now that you have conclusively proven that there is nothing to worry about morally or economically with respect to the collection of fetal stem cells, why is there such a political flap about them? BOTH left and right get all worked up about it.

Usually a woman doesn't find out that she's pregnant until the embryo had developed into a three-week-old fetus. That's if she wasn't trying to get pregnant on purpose, and it was an condom mishap. So as an result most early abortions are done when the fetus is at least 5 weeks old. And at that point the heart is already developing, so the embryo is no longer "undifferentiated", and thus worthless to stem cell researchers.

The only way they could use abortion as a method of getting embryonic stem cells is this:
the woman got pregnant on purpose, and were monitoring her own condition so that she could time her abortion perfectly, so that her undifferentiated embryo would become valuable.
And even then her timing could be off at times, and thus this was too unreliable for the researchers' liking.

at least, this was the case a long time ago. of course that's why they had to come up with other better ways.. And then IVFs, tube test embryos came into the picture...

And the rest is history. that's why researchers won't use fetuses from abortions anymore.

I think this was where the myth of Stem cell research and abortions being linked together came from. It was true only in the very start... but scientists had ever since discovered better methods and no longer use that method of collecting embryonic stem cells.

So the reason why people still argue over it is because they're actually relying on outdated information of how and where embryonic stem cells are created.

people don't bother to update their knowledge base regarding things like this. They just assume that Scientists wouldn't find a better way to do things, one that wouldn't be so morally objectionable.

It's pretty much like how a few people out there still think that you can get STDs from toilet seats.... they didn't update their own knowledge base, and as an result they look stupid to others who know better without even realizing it.

And of course I'm speaking of both the pro-stem cell and the anti-stem cell people. Because even some supporters of stem cell research still believe in some outdated information that was now no longer true. And as an result when they debate with the Anti-stem cell people, they may be actually passing on wrong information to their opponents.
As an result, Anti-stem cell people become even more convinced that Abortions and Stem cell research go hand in hand.

So people who still argue over this non-issue look rather foolish, regardless of which side they're on. At least that's how I see it.
Ron,

I wouldn't put anything past anyone in our country,cash for fetuses,whatever. Some girls would take the cash and do that.

So,we do not save lives of the living because a handful of psychotically damaged females might have an abortion to sell the fetus? Pass a law to jail her for life if she does. Makes it not a good economic call.
AM Wrote:So the reason why people still argue over it [stem cells from fetuses] is because they're actually relying on outdated information of how and where embryonic stem cells are created.
Or, because they want to maintain the emotional fervor of the argument among the great mass of uneducated voters.
jt Wrote:
AM Wrote:So the reason why people still argue over it [stem cells from fetuses] is because they're actually relying on outdated information of how and where embryonic stem cells are created.
Or, because they want to maintain the emotional fervor of the argument among the great mass of uneducated voters.

yeah, that's certainly a strong possibility too.
AM, at what point do human fetuses become human? Even creating them "artificially" in a test tube or wherever involves combining a human egg with a human sperm to produce a human zygote. Human is human. Were the fetus not sacrificed, it has the potential to grow into a human being. We may not have the technology yet for gestation to full term in an artificial womb, but that is all the more reason why "simply creating a human zygote" in the lab should be regarded as a serious matter, in moral terms.

And indeed, if reports are true and stem cells can be produced from a person's own body, obviating any need for fetus stem cells, then of course that is a good thing, which hopefully will provide a way around the moral challenges of using fetus stem cells. I think that is pretty much what I said before. Maybe some people just don't want to admit that there was ever any such moral problem that needs to be cirvumvented. If so, then they are arguing a point that has become moot.
Whatever - I hope this works out for the boy. People themselves often have the power to help technology in healing themselves. They just don't know it yet.
Ron Lambert Wrote:AM, at what point do human fetuses become human? Even creating them "artificially" in a test tube or wherever involves combining a human egg with a human sperm to produce a human zygote. Human is human. Were the fetus not sacrificed, it has the potential to grow into a human being. We may not have the technology yet for gestation to full term in an artificial womb, but that is all the more reason why "simply creating a human zygote" in the lab should be regarded as a serious matter, in moral terms.

And indeed, if reports are true and stem cells can be produced from a person's own body, obviating any need for fetus stem cells, then of course that is a good thing, which hopefully will provide a way around the moral challenges of using fetus stem cells. I think that is pretty much what I said before. Maybe some people just don't want to admit that there was ever any such moral problem that needs to be cirvumvented. If so, then they are arguing a point that has become moot.

To me, an fetus becomes a full human when it has developed into a full-bodied human being with all functioning organs such as stomach, heart, brain and everything else that an human being needs to live.

To me, lab-created embryos only would ever become an issue when somebody finally finds a way to produce artificial wombs where the baby can develop outside of a woman's body.

But until that day comes, It's completely impossible for that embryo to develop into a compete human being. So why worry about something that never will turn into a human baby?

If it's not inside a womb where it has the chance to develop into a human being, then it's just a bunch of human cells.

Of course, some people such as yourself will disagree with me on that.

At any rate, I'm all for scientists studying this some more in order to find alternative sources. Who knows, Embryos most likely won't be needed one day anymore.
Logically, a fetus must be considered viable and a person, at the point at which the fetus will grow into a human being unless action is taken to prevent that. A fetus in the womb will grow into a person unless prevented from doing so.
Life is more than the mechanical action of biological materials. No one has ever been able to create life, because God alone is the Source of all Life. Is there a difference in quality or level or nature between the spirit of life that the Spirit of God imparts to a human compared to that of an animal or plant? Most people would say yes. Well then, at what point does God give this spirit of life to the developing fetus? Most people would concede that the fetus is alive from the moment of conception. If so, then the spirit of life with which it is alive must be a human life.

Perhaps a relevant question would be, at what point does a fetus begin to have a living mind and personal identity? My belief is that it seems logical to assume the fetus has a living mind and personal identity as soon as it has sufficient sophistication of brain structure to allow this.

If what I am describing here as living mind and personal identity are the same thing other people are thinking of when they use the word "soul," then perhaps this is when the fetus is given a soul. As soon as it has sufficient brain development. My guess is this would be in the second trimester, but it could be earlier. It is hard to detect exactly when a fetus becomes able to think or becomes self-aware. Response to external stimuli has been shown in fetuses quite early. But that is not necessarily thought.

Some people seem rather cavalier in dismissing the developing fetus as merely a "thing" that is not yet human. But what if they are wrong? What proof do they have that it is not offensive to God if a fetus is treated with careless disregard for what may be its already present humanity? Some may say a fetus is just a collection of cells and nothing more. But how can they be sure? Shouldn't this matter?
Pages: 1 2