WASHINGTON, June 20, 2007
Most Couples OK Giving Embryos To Research
Infertility Patients With Unused Embryos Say They Would Give Them To Stem Cell Research
-
Supervising Stem Cell Biologist Lesley Young holds up an ampule which stores stem cells, at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control in Potters Bar, England. (AP)
-
Interactive Stem Cell Research Follow the debate, and learn how and why the cells are harvested.
“Large numbers of infertility patients ... support using embryos for research, and these are people who have invested emotionally and financially in these embryos,” Dr. Anne Drapkin Lyerly of Duke University said in a telephone interview Wednesday.
Use of stem cells derived from embryos is a moral issue that has troubled politicians, religious and medical leaders and couples with stored embryos. And it's an issue with strong advocates on both sides.
The problem is, obtaining stem cells kills the embryo.
Many see this as wrong and argue that they are protecting life. That's what led President Bush to veto a bill Wednesday that would have eased limits on using embryos in research.
Others point out that many stored embryos will be destroyed anyway, and letting them be used in research could lead to lifesaving treatments.
So Lyerly and Ruth R. Faden of Johns Hopkins University decided to ask the opinions of couples who had undergone fertility treatments and who had frozen embryos in storage at treatment centers.
“We knew that infertility patients were facing the morally difficult and very personal decision of what to do with remaining embryos, but we didn't have a lot of data,” Lyerly said. They thought that by hearing from these people they might be able to improve counseling and clinical care in the future.
In addition, she said, while there has been a very vigorous public debate on the issue, it has been dominated by lawmakers and religious authorities while the people “most personally and intimately involved have been underrepresented, if at all, so we wanted to bring their voices to the center.”
They chose nine fertility centers around the country and randomly selected more than 2,000 couples to be sent questionnaires.
Of 1,020 people who responded by saying they still had embryos in storage, 49 percent said they were likely to donate some or all of them for research. When asked specifically about stem cell research, the portion willing to donate embryos rose to 62 percent.
“It suggests that people are more willing to pursue research when they know more about it and how it might benefit their fellow citizens,” Lyerly said.
She added that research was preferred over donating the embryos to other infertile couples, “which brings into question the idea that the more you care about an embryo, the more you want it to become a child.”
“This has significant implications for potential policy change on stem cell research,” said Lyerly, an obstetrician-gynecologist and bioethicist. She noted that research donations could provide thousands of new stem cell lines for study.
The findings are published in this week's online edition of the journal Science and will appear in the journal's July 6 print edition.
Stem cells have attracted research attention because they can develop into any type of cell present in the body. Thus, scientists hope to find ways to use them to treat diseases ranging from autoimmune disorders to cancer, by generating healthy cells to replace damaged ones.
However, federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is limited to research on stem cell lines derived from embryos before August 2001, and may not be used for research in which an embryo is destroyed. Funding from private or state funding sources is growing, but is still insufficient, Lyerly said.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From Politics
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 55 CommentsI wasn't talking about what the Commandment means, I was talking about what you said it means(no exceptions)...there's a difference between the 2.
I'm still waiting to hear what facts about killing embryos that I'm not accounting for. I know that I'll be waiting awhile because you have no facts yourself,only a misinformed opinion. That's why you have to stick to name calling because you know you don't have any facts.
The scientists say that the stem cells are needed, the putz's like you think you know more than the researchers. I think not.
Do you think the meat in your freezer is alive too?OK, that's a joke,but then you don't have a sense of humor, do you? OOPs, I'm slipping out of reality, unlike Mr. Embryos outside the womb are life. Talk about a putz.
Posted by pwrslm at 12:58 PM : Jun 21, 2007
Every cell in your body contains your full DNA, does that make every cell a person? And I repeat my question: the placenta is formed from that same collection of cells that makes the embryo: does it mean it's a person?
What are you talking about?
If you want to verify the claims you can call the Doctor at Duke Med and ask her about the methodology.
Was a sample of 2,000 not large enough for you, because all those Rasmussen polls you all like to trumpet only sample about 500-800 respondents.
Posted by realpatriot1
There you go, still posting irrelevant banter like it actually had meaning.
Its pretty simple to understand what I posted, I think you are the only one that doesnt understand that unverifiable claims about unverifiable/unscientific polls asking unverifiable questions and making unverifiable conclusions about unverifiable answers should not be injected into a discussion of facts.
So your posts are, truely irrelevant.
Posted by sy2502
Ignorance is this; denying that life does not begin at conception. Every medical doctor will testify to this fact. Those embryo's are alive, and the all the DNA needed to become a fully functional human being.
Justifying the killing hundreds of thousands, or even millions of embryo's, to do the same thing they can do by modifying living tissue, from a living donor, that stays alive after its all finished.
Thats not to mention, direct solicitation for more embryo's if they need them. The quantity wanted for research will far outstrip the "leftovers" provided by the medical field who legitimately do thier job properly.
God said thou shalt not kill and there are no exceptions.
Posted by some realputz1
No I did not. You need to pay more attention, and try to stay within the boundries of reality, instead of making this stuff up as you go along. Not only do you fail to account for all of the facts about killing embryo's for stem cell research, which is not even needed, but you are totally ignorant of what this commandment means.
Posted by pwrslm at 11:40 AM : Jun 21, 2007
These are embryos that are a few days old. They are a lose collection of cells some of which will become a fetus, some will become the placenta. Is the placenta a human being? Don't be ignorant.
God said thou shalt not kill and there are no exceptions. But people who think like you make exceptions all the time(war,death penalty,hunting,etc.).
To follow your reasoning in this instance, we would have to leave these embryos in their frozen state for eternity.
Sort of like leaving Terri Schiavo's soul in limbo rather than setting it free to be with god.
What are you talking about?
If you want to verify the claims you can call the Doctor at Duke Med and ask her about the methodology.
Was a sample of 2,000 not large enough for you, because all those Rasmussen polls you all like to trumpet only sample about 500-800 respondents.
How should they become more informed on the issue?
Posted by realpatriot1
That doesnt justify hiding behind anonymity, making unverifiable claims about unverifiable polls.
How should they become more informed on the issue?
You seem to be saying that couples who can't conceive on their own without available medical assistance should just not have children because that would be playing God.
Would it be better if these children wern't born then? Did God not play a role in the discovery of the invitro process and in the ultimate success of that process? Is it playing God to offer other forms of medical assistance such as heart bypass surgery to save lives?
It's not about playing God, it's about playing human with God's assistance.
Posted by realpatriot1
There is your irrelevance RP.
Its a choice men have to make. God said thou shall not kill. He didnt make exceptions, life is life, no matter how young it is. An embryo is human, and it is alive.
Dont play twist Gods morality to fit the purpose, the truth is, research has proven that they can aquire the same stem cells without using embryo's.
If you want to cleave to a Gods assistance theme, then do so in context with Gods Commandments, thou shall not kill....we dont need to, that is all the help we need from God.
Following your line of thought, the 30- percent of people still thinking Bush is doing a good job are not fully informed either.
Posted by abbe7
Your right about the people expressing thier true feelings. The problem is, that in what context they describe thier true feeling is not verifiable by this story, so those feelings are irrelevant to the truth because they are 100% hidden.
Is this some kind of heroic attempt for you to demonstrate that you dont like Bush? Bush bashing is the only defense you have presented that has any relevance to the truth your trying to represent. I can compare your arguement to a bucket that your pouring water into, except the bottom of the bucket has a huge, huge hole in it.
So it doesnt matter how far from reality that you strike, your omissions demonstrate that the only thing your doing here is spreading gossip, rumor, and lies.
You keep saying that I'm making invalid points and that i'm ignoring others yet you never give examples of what you mean.
Tell me what you think is invalid and what you think I'm ignoring and I'll respond.
You're the one whose trying to avoid issues.
Guess what, they didn't even have to swear on the bible that they expressed their true feelings.
Following your line of thought, the 30- percent of people still thinking Bush is doing a good job are not fully informed either.
Posted by pwrslm at 10:59 AM : Jun 21, 2007"
Unlike Queen Bush, I don't have any scandal to "cover up". This reminds me the Schiavo story ... all republicans trying to save Terri Schiavo when she was a vegetable but a little bit before, in another state, passing a bill to allow hospitals to unplug patients when the family couldn't pay anymore.
With Bush & co, issues like ethics, "protecting America", etc ... stop where money starts.
If this "poll" reported on is based on misrepresentation and material deceptions, you will never know, because they dont give you the whole truth that would demonstrate the candor in which the questions were asked.
Posted by abbe7
Thats a petty self serving statement, which ignores most of the real facts in the issue.
ITs people like you that end up confusing the real issue, making witless comments in a political context to cover up for your shallow thoughts.
If there was EVER a case for an example of BIASED reporting, this is it!
Bush is wrong about a LOT of things, but he's right in vetoing this.
Posted by mbcsmith at 10:16 AM : Jun 21, 2007
Talking about self interest ...
Bush wants only to stop the "federally-funded" research, whose results would be public domain and would not allow his corporate friends to make the money they would get from our wallets.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 55 Comments