OT - Stem Cell Research, is it ethical?

[Prometheus]

Couldn't find a percentage, here's an article with some ad budgets.

could be quite right about it being a drop in the bucket, but any signifigant money (and I'd call 160.8 million ad dollars for Vioxx pretty darn signifigant) is taking away from R&D. I would imagine that 9 figures would buy a pretty good chunk of research, instead of frittering it away on short videos of people canoeing.

Yippie. They still don't tell you just what in the hell the drug in question is supposed to do- shouldn't that be the point of the commercials?

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

[Todd Fatheree]

How many cells does it take before you won't kill it?

todd Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

[Juergen Hannappel]

[...]

To bring it back (halfway) on topic: Beware of the many birch trees that fly around in atumn, the many oak trees that rain down in autumn, the many fir trees assembled in clusters known as pine cones...

[Doug Miller]

Genetically, there's no difference between an acorn and an oak tree. Of course, morally there's an enormous difference between humans and oak trees, and between human fetuses and acorns.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[Juergen Hannappel]

[...]

So any law concerning trees should start at the seed stage?

Of course. Trees are a blessing to the world.

[U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles]

Actually all of the promising stem cell research has been with adult-source stem cells. None of the promising results have been with fetal or umbilical stem cells.

The Bush administration has funded research with stem cells: Adult, umbilical, and existing strains of fetal. What the Bush administration refuses to fund is the creation of fetuses for the sole purpose of destroying said fetuses.

Using the all-important "Follow the Money" principle, one notes that that Big Pharma, when they must spend their OWN money, choose to spend it on adult stem cell research rather than fetal or umbilical. Given that there's no particular reason why for example a German pharmaceutical company would feel bound by American mores, that suggests to me that reason is purely capitalistic: They believe that adult stem cells are more promising, and vote with their dollars.

[Dave Hinz]

If they say what the drug does, they have to list the possible side-effects in the commercial as well. Not a noticable thing until someone points it out, but obvious after that.

Dave Hinz

[J. Clarke]

If the advertising is ineffective in increasing sales then you might have a point. If the increased income from sales is greater than the cost of the ads then the ads pay for themselves. So, playing Fun With Numbers, we find that Vioxx is an arthritis medication, which puts it in the Anti-inflammatory/analgesics category. Merck's sales in that segment were

2.6 billion dollars in 2003. The Vioxx ads cost 6 percent of that. If they increase sales by 6 percent in the first year in that segment then they've paid for themselves. If they increase it by a much smaller amount over the life of the product then they've paid for themselves.

Merck did not become a forty billion dollar company with 22 billion dollars a year in annual sales and 63,200 employees by "frittering money away on short videos of people canoeing". You can be sure that that expenditure was carefully scrutinized by a number of levels of management before being authorized.

Now, to put it in the perspective of research, Merck increased has increased their research budget about ten percent a year every year since 1994. Between 2002 and 2003 they increased that budget by more than twice the cost of those advertisements. The total research budget is about 20 times the cost of those advertisements. And the advertisements represent less than one percent of Merck's annual sales.

Most companies of any size have their annual reports online. They usually contain this kind of information.

Not if the government doesn't allow it. It's frustrating for the pharmaceutical companies and frustrating for the advertising agencies, but they do the best they can with what they've got. Until the government says precisely what conditions are "on label" and what side effects must be listed in the prescribing information they aren't allowed to say anything about what it treats in their advertising. So they either have to wait until the government gives them that information, in which case they don't get the ad campaign in gear until after the product has shipped, and they lose money in inventory costs, or they put out the kind of vague advertising that you have seen. Obviously they have determined that the vague advertising costs less than the inventory sitting on the shelves waiting for sales to pick up would cost, otherwise they wouldn't be spending money on it.

[Larry Blanchard]

Funny, I've never heard an oak tree say that :-).

[mel]

in my last post spell check changed the 5th type of abortion to hysterectomy.. it should read hysterotomy

[mel]

time when the human gets a soul. I think logic can narrow it down a bit by saying that it's when the brain develops. Any other part of the human body can be transplanted or amputated and the soul remains unchanged.

I want to gently discuss the concept of a soul and expand on your logic a bit if you'll permit. The logical path you've taken is that the soul is contained in the brain. It may be.. but... is conscious thought the soul? Do people with brain damage have a damaged soul? If you subscribe to the belief that a soul even exists then chances are you also believe the soul isn't bound by the physical properties of this world. Brain wave activity can be monitored by various electrical impulses. When those impulses stop, as you yourself have said, the body can continue to function for a bit..... either artificially or simply just winding down. The thing is... brain death and actual death don't always coincide.

You said the following,"If you have ever been present at the time of death when a person becomes brain dead, it's all too clear. The body can continue to function for a time or be assisted by life support, but when the brain's gone...it's all over..."

If you've ever been in that situation.... if you were paying attention....you would have noticed a brief instance between brain death and actual death. That may be when the soul leaves the body. I do not believe we can begin to understand what is the soul or where it resides or even how it can reside and then leave to go..... where? The problem with applying logic to it is that it's illogical in the first place.

I personally don't condemn stem cell research. I'm against using it to justify abortion. Currently, there are over 4,000 abortions performed in the US every day. That's way more research material than we need. There are a sufficient amount of sources for the material needed to conduct research, i.e. miscarriages, stillbirths and even the death of a pregnant woman. Don't see anyone saying a woman ought to include the donating of a fetus in the case of accidental death now do you? You see Jana, you stated earlier that nothing would change your opinion about your hopes for stem cell research and I wouldn't ask you to. What I would ask you to do is to not allow your hope to compromise your values. I do not know if you subscribe to a religious belief or not. I do. My belief includes that one day, by the grace of God and the hope of salvation in Jesus that we all have been given hope of perfect, flawless bodies. If you'd like to discuss this further I'd be happy to via email.

[Scott Cramer]

Mel. I apologize for assuming that you have a sense of irony, and offer my condolences on learning that you don't.

Ditto on the sense of humor.

[Prometheus]

I don't intend to kill any of them. All I've ever said is that I don't believe any of us has the right to make that call for someone else. Somehow that makes me not only a murderer, but a slaver and supporter of Hilter as well, I guess- though I fail to see how.

Damn, it wasn't supposed to be that offensive to everyone, I just thought I'd add a sig file like half the folks on here. Who cares if it's in Latin or English? A quick google search pulls up the definition right away.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

[Tom Watson]

[Prometheus]

You got me there, and I'm not going to argue with it. Not enough sleep and too many cries of "murderer" directed at me got me good and worked up, and I started poking my ass out. I just get irritated with the huge number of commericals on every TV station, radio station, highway, bus-stop, taxicab and hundreds of other sources that surround us all the time. You can't get away from it, and it's gotten really offensive to me. No doubt the companies make money as a result of their ad campaigns- but they also make sickness, in my opinion. Some people must have these medicines, but their doctors should be the ones to prescribe them, not the television.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

[Tom Watson]

The obvious ramblings of someone intheir twenties.

Search Result 5 From: Patrick Leach ( [e-mail]) Subject: Re: How do you cut ten Jaysus H. X, Bennett, I simply chirp in with my $1.380 on why the

1/3rd rule of thumb evolved, and why it's still practical for many and I'm treated in return with rebuttal after rebuttal after rebuttal after rebuttal after rebuttal. I swear to god that I'd soil my drawers if you could just once let something be said uncontested, without a cross-examination that would be the envy of the OJ Simpson defense team.

Let's re-cap where this thread has gone, compliments of you - we've learned that the morticing gauge is a specialized tool; we've visited the East to note that endgrain is terrible; that tenons are the weak part of a mortice and tenon joint; that glued mortice and tenon joints on architectural doors are good; that power tools are designed with each other in mind and take in account proportion; that haunches were only the result of the groove being shot through; and, finally, best of all, that I'm "just trying to come up with solutions that can be achieved by handtools" to do what I do.

My last response in this catacomb of ratholes is, the morticing gauge is not a specialized tool and is very common; I live in the West (where endgrain was finished as well as any other grain) and don't give a rat's ass what they did in China; that my observations point to the mortice being the weak part of the mortice and tenon joint; that glue is un- necessary for pinned mortice and tenon joints (furthermore, it's lame to glue a 9" through morticed lock rail to a 4" stile); that handtools are sized with each other in mind and assist proportion; that haunches are the signature of finer work since they help prevent the rail from twisting; and I do what I do because it's traditional with the tools that I choose to use, is time-tested, has proven itself to yield satis- factory physical properties, and is recommended by scores of authors on the matter.

And since we're getting tremendous dining pleasure over the 1/3rd rule, here's another bone for ya to chew on. Someone asked about what other rules of thumb are used when making tenons. Another rule of thumb, when making mortice and tenons located at the corners of a frame, addresses the width of the tenon. Guess what? The width of these tenons is 2/3rd the width of the rail with the remaining 1/3rd given to the haunch. This is not only done to prevent the rail from twisting along it's face, but it's also done as an attempt to reduce short grain, which, by the way, is increased when making a tenon's thickness greater than one third the rail's thickness.

OK, Bennett, it's tender victuals time. Comes and gits it.......

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Leach Just say Capt. Kirk? He's dead, Bennett. etc.

Regards, Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

[Todd Fatheree]

Try to follow the point. How many cells does it take until you believe there is something worth protecting? When does an unborn get rights of its own, in your opinion? Only when it breathes air?

I didn't say anything about your sig. At least mine is on-topic. ;-)

todd

[Scott Cramer]

"mel" wrote in news:UZRkd.29710$ [e-mail]:

I'm not that easily amused. But your hand-wringing and wailing over the collection of stem cells, and the bizarre extrapolation to abortion, is funny in a bleeding-heart conservative (tmSC) sort of way.

Just a heads up, Mel: stem cells aren't collected by dumpster diving at Planned Parenthood clinics.

[mel]

the bizarre extrapolation to abortion, is funny in a bleeding-heart conservative (tmSC) sort of way.

I'm going to try to help you understand, whether you agree to the views or not, where the extrapolation comes from....

Some say life begins at conception

Some say life begins at birth.

Nobody knows for sure.

If you believe meaningful life begins at conception then you believe that the loss of a fertilized egg is a loss of life.... accidental or intentional.

If you believe meaningful life begins at birth then you believe it doesn't matter until it draws breath.

There are many levels of belief in between. The above are the two extremes.

We, as a people, are being called to define our belief because of 1) abortion, 2) invetro fertilization, and 3) stem cell research.

If you align yourself on the life at conception side then you believe all of these issues warrant responsible consideration. I want to take the liberty to make the statement this view is the only view you know for sure that innocent life is being protected.

If you align yourself on the belief that there exist a particular stage in development before it can be called a meaningful life then you are merely guessing hence the often occurring need for justification. If you say that you can fertilize an egg and allow it to develop to a point and then discard it then you also say that same stage can be aborted. Hence the extrapolation.

Just to define my view....I'm not against stem cell research. As long as the material is collected in a responsible manner with consideration to the protection of innocent life. i.e. miscarriages, stillbirths, accidental death of a mother.

[Larry Blanchard]

Mel, that was one of the few reasonable posts in this thread.

One small quibble to that.

I know that the woman carrying the fetus is a human. When the fetus becomes human is, as you say, a matter of opinion. When there is a conflict betwen the woman and the fetus, I'd have to come down on the side of the woman. That's the only justification I need.