Stem Cell Research - CLOSED
Message boards :
Science (non-SETI) :
Stem Cell Research - CLOSED
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Shari17  Send message Joined: 13 Oct 03 Posts: 28 Credit: 49,072 RAC: 0 
|
Sorry guys! I'm still learning how to post here. Is there any way to add my own smiley pictures within the words of my posts? We should not injure silence, for it is sacred.___________ Joao Gilberto ID: 330633 ·  |
Misfit  Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
Sorry guys! I'm still learning how to post here. Is there any way to add my own smiley pictures within the words of my posts? Yes. You may do all the testing you like here. me@rescam.org ID: 330641 · |
|
Shari17 Send message Joined: 13 Oct 03 Posts: 28 Credit: 49,072 RAC: 0
|
At UCSF, researchers hope to create cell models of neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson's and Huntington's disease. By cloning embryos using nuclear DNA from sick people, the scientists aim to produce stem cells that are genetically matched to the patients, thus avoiding the problem of rejection. [/quote] I don't know how I feel re cloning homo sapiens. I'm referring only to stem-cell research here. WOW! Stem cells that are genetically matched to a specific patient. Thumbs up! It's brilliant. We should not injure silence, for it is sacred.___________ Joao Gilberto ID: 330642 · |
Enigma  Send message Joined: 15 Mar 06 Posts: 628 Credit: 21,606 RAC: 0 
|
I think you raise a lot of important questions here, Enigma. Fuzzy, perhaps i need to be more direct. If stemcell research leads to the cure of many diseases that would normally attack the weak or elderly then we will end up with a significantly larger aging population (say 65-100 years of age) but these people are no longer contributing to society at large (ouch!). How to carry this economic and indirectly environmental weight? There is no counter-balance. If people are really sick, (heart disease, Parkinson's and Huntington, diabetes etc etc) let them die (quickly if neccessary - euthanansia) Is there going to come a time, where the number of children in a family is no longer a freedom of choice or should it be managed (like in China)?? Either that, or death taxes are going to sky-rocket in the next 25-50 years. It seems like we live in a world of finite economics, finite resources, however infinite population. Belief gets in the way of learning  
ID: 330671 · |
|
Enigma Send message Joined: 15 Mar 06 Posts: 628 Credit: 21,606 RAC: 0
|
Shari, if you wish to use quotes in your response you need to make sure the markup is correct instructions hope this helps..... Now it was not my intention to upset anyone with my post (however it did occur to me that it may as its a sensitive topic). /END DISCLAIMER
Yes, this seems to be part of the problem. Lucky animals dont think this way, but i guess this is what separates us from animals. It is a pity that humans don't have a sense of equilibrium instead we use every natural resource available until the surrounding environment is destroyed. Imagine for a moment if we made concious decisions based on data about what our environment can wistand given our current technology level, this would be novel?? I am not talking about a single nation, i am talking about this gobally (but someone would have to lead the way)
This is debatable however do young people actually listen? I mean the 'ME' generation (there was an interesting post in the polticial thread about this... but it does sum up the way todays youth (born in the 70's 80's and 90's) think.
I would agree, yes that wisdom comes with experience and that can be passed down with significant benefit. However there are other ways of doing this that will become available in the near future (such as knowledge management and AI).
While it is true that wars cost money (lots) and the statistics i gave were pertinent to the U.S. this issue is not just in the U.S. its in all 1st world countries. Wars also create huge post war burden for the next generation of children in terms of veteran affairs (which is often overlooked). >> How to carry this economic and indirectly environmental weight? There is no counter-balance. The taxes of today, don't cover the costs of tomorrow, but someone has to pay. If it did, there would always be a budget surplus. Money is worth less and it costs more to do the same thing (in the future). So the tax you pay when you are 40 is used to repair you when you are 60..and the older we get, the more expensive we are to run (is that too clinical?). Lets not mention a pension or other needs. He was a wonderful father. THE BEST! He pushed his grandson in the right direction during a difficult time in my son's life and all you can say about the elderly is "let them die?" You must be a young person to say things like this. Even in his deteriorating condition we all love him so much and we will all be crushed when he passes. Even in his condition his life means everything to him and to everyone, even in his extended family. His sense of humor still emerges and he enjoys watching us laugh at something he said. His paintings are hanging all around the house. I am sure that he is a wonderful person. But lets put this in perspective, my grandmother had parkinsons and passed on many years ago. Within 5-7 years of being diagnosed, she could no longer recognise her own SON and towards the end even her HUSBAND... i still remember what it was like and yeah it was an aweful experience. But it was equally inhumane and immoral to let her exist in that fashion. Is there going to come a time where the number of children in a family is no longer a freedom of choice or should it be managed (like in China)?? Well China managed their population for a reason.... I'm not advocating it, i was merely suggesting that it is already happening (its not a new concept). Perhaps in 1st world countries people will have less or no children in preference to a better quality of life. This will likely result in a negative birth rate. Either that, or death taxes are going to sky-rocket in the next 25-50 years. I think that parents can educate their children on what is right and wrong and of morality for if they cannot now then they will certainly be unable to when or if they are grandparents.
Actually i am considering the burden that the younger generation has to carry, is this unethical? They may live in debt for their entire lives so that the old can live another 10-20 years. The people born today are going to end up slaves (albeit modern) but forever in debt. This social and economic phenomena is new to mankind as we probably have the highest ever average global longevity in recorded history and without doubt the largest population.
Well, with a shrinking working population and a growing aging population, i would like to see the economics involved. 20 years of education I work from 20-55 years (35 years of productivity) I then live from 56-80 say 24 years of retirement Another possible consideration is that children are held significantly more accountable (not the state) for their parents welfare once they become retirees. I recently saw an article where the parents (retirees) were suing the children for money so that they can survive. Note this was in Singapore. Belief gets in the way of learning
ID: 331206 · |
Fuzzy Hollynoodles  Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0 |
Not necessarily. A lot of elderly people can be active longer and contribute to society through their work and with this taxes, if they are in good health. If people are really sick, (heart disease, Parkinson's and Huntington, diabetes etc etc) let them die (quickly if neccessary - euthanansia) I don't consider diabetes, if it's well treated and well-adjusted, as a serious illness you'll die of. For the other diseases that's untreatable at the moment, such as Huntington's Chorea, Alzheimer's Disease, Pick's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, ALS, my oppinion is that if the person, who suffers from any of these, are aware of of his/her situation and wants to end his/her life before the disease does it, it should be his/her right. For the other's where the disease makes the person unaware of his/her own situation, I think we are in a grey area, as it then will be the relatives and/or the doctors, who must decide. But as these decisions are already made for others e.g. for people in ventilators or with incureable braindamages, this must be adressed in each case. Euthanasia is already performed by the doctors for patients with pains with morphine drops. My father died of bonecancer, metastases from a prostate cancer (you guys out there, make sure you get your prostate examined at your health check ups!!!!), and I was there before he was put into morphine drops. His screams will always be in my memory of that day. The dose of morphine were increased so they at the whole time kept him free of pains, and even they shortened his life with a few hours, he didn't die screaming of pain. I have seen programs on tv from Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland, where euthanasia is allowed, and I think it can be performed ethically. The grey area will always be where it's the relatives, who are deciding for the patient, so the proper authorities must be consulted in those cases. I think it must be examined in each case. If an old person, who's active in life and is well functioning in all areas except for being old, breaks a hip and don't get the proper treatment for that and with this wither away in a hospitalbed, it's a shame. But on the other hand, keeping on with treatments for a person, where it's only for prolonging the life, or one should say existence, is just as bad. There is something I think a lot of people actually forget: Being born means that we have to die. In fact we are all dying. That some people refuse to realize this, so they repress their own mortality, is bad in my view. I try for myself to live my life in the light that when I get to that time, where I have to say goodbye to my existence, I know I have done what I have been able to do in regards to make my life fullfilled. Maybe not as I dreamed about in my youth, but I have done the best in and with my given circumstances, and I know I will be able to leave telling myself that my life has not been in vain. This was also something I learned the importance of, back when I followed my father in his last months being terminally ill. Is there going to come a time, where the number of children in a family is no longer a freedom of choice or should it be managed (like in China)?? It's the opposite here, where the birthrate is dropping due to infertility, mostly among men. Danish men are among the most infertile in the world, link to article. To me it seems that something in the enviroment are causing this, and this is a huge problem. Maybe oestrogen released from plasticbottles, toys, and others, are having this effect, I don't know, as it's discussed. But I think low sperm count will be seen more and more in the industrial world with infertility as a result. Either that, or death taxes are going to sky-rocket in the next 25-50 years. I dont' know what you mean with "death taxes"? But yes, as it seems the birthrate is decreasing, and yes, it has been raised here, that the level of the care for the elderly will be poorer than the level, we have here today, in the future when the big postwar generations retire and the smaller generations from the 60's and 70's "P-pill" generation are the only ones paying for it, we will have to get used to a lower standard for elderly care. And with the development of the narcissistic pesonality structure, that came in the 80's we will see a generation of very selfish, self-centered people, who would rather spend the tax money on themselves and for their own good, than on taking care of the weak in society. So maybe we, us who will be old in that society, will not only have it as an option to be put to sleep, but we will be euthanized? It seems like we live in a world of finite economics, finite resources, however infinite population. Yes, and this is already shown here where we have a tax financed heathcare system. The increase of infertility treatments are very expensive, and also a lot of diseases, which couldn't be cured before, are treatable now, but extremely expensive, it takes money away from other areas of the healthcare system. E.g. organ transplants are very expensive but they don't tell a person, who needs a livertransplant that "Hey, we can't afford to give you a new liver, so just die!", and we don't let Hemophilia patients die without giving them that prophylactic treatment they need. So waitinglists to the public hospitals are increased with sometimes fatal consequences. So then the politics are setting in with laws that gives priority to some certain aggressive cancerforms with the result that treatments of other diseases are pushed even further back on the waitinglists. I have myself been waiting for one whole month to get examined, and luckily there were no signs of cancer, but the month it took to get that knowledge, oh my! And as the public, tax paid, healthsystem gets less and less effective, people here have started to buy private health-insurances, so they can go to private hospitals and clinics here or abroad to get treatments. And this leaves a gab between those who can afford those insurances and the others, who can't, so the social barriers are widened. Ok, it takes away some of the strains on the public hospitals, but people in general still want treatment on the public hospitals in the public system for free. But as for the questions you raise, I don't have any definitive answers to them. It's all grey areas, and ethics are important in dealing with them. "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me 
ID: 331297 · |
|
Shari17 Send message Joined: 13 Oct 03 Posts: 28 Credit: 49,072 RAC: 0
|
Shari, if you wish to use quotes in your response you need to make sure the markup is correct instructions hope this helps..... I think that parents can educate their children on what is right and wrong and of morality for if they cannot now then they will certainly be unable to when or if they are grandparents.
Actually i am considering the burden that the younger generation has to carry, is this unethical? They may live in debt for their entire lives so that the old can live another 10-20 years. The people born today are going to end up slaves (albeit modern) but forever in debt. Look, I believe that people should be able to decide that they've had enough and want out of life. That would be their decision and ONLY their own decision. I believe that the medical community should be allowed to assist in this. It should not be illegal for a doctor to turn down an elderly (AND SICK) person who asks for help in dying. I'm saying that it should forever be the choice of the person making that choice. However, in talking about doctor assisted suicide we need to be extremely careful. It should not be taken lightly by society. Here there should definitely be ethicists and other doctors involved, otherwise these laws will be taken advantage of and there will be murders, not assisted suicide. This social and economic phenomena is new to mankind as we probably have the highest ever average global longevity in recorded history and without doubt the largest population. I agree. It's relatively new, but so are we relatively new to life on this planet. We have encountered many problems and challenges along the way and, for the most part, we've worked them out as a group, as a society, as a culture and as individuals. I'm not a pessimist. We can work out the economics of life, as well. I do think, as a country, we should take the economics seriously and see what we can do but I don't think there should be laws that tell a person, 'Well you're very old, very sick and your family doesn't want to make this decision. Therefore, we have made the decision for all concerned and you will be put to rest in a week's time. Do what you need to do until then.' This is very scary business. I asked you "Do the words "family" and "LOVE" ring a bell for you?" You completely ignored that question and that may just be the most important consideration in this entire discussion. Another possible consideration is that children are held significantly more accountable (not the state) for their parents welfare once they become retirees. I agree! If the children have the means to help their aging parents they ought to do so. It should NOT be that the children are held accountable even when they are in a bad situation, economically. In addition, this too must be worked out within the family unit and not by any laws. If the children can't help - that's when the state needs to take over. And again, the matter of life and death should be decided by the person involved and not legislated. I recently saw an article where the parents (retirees) were suing the children for money so that they can survive. Note this was in Singapore. There are all kinds of people in this world. That's what makes life so interesting. One more thing; if we develop the means to keep people alive and well for a longer period of time it might just help some of our manned missions to other bodies in the solar system. As you know, time is such a barrier when it comes to this. We should not injure silence, for it is sacred.___________ Joao Gilberto ID: 331599 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
Institute's chairman raps senator for bill Klein's letter draws reaction over politics By Terri Somers Union-Tribune June 8, 2006 One day before voters went to the polls, the chairman of the state stem cell institute sent a scathing letter to patient advocates around California alleging that secretary of state candidate Sen. Deborah Ortiz was on an “anti-research crusade.†The letter praised Sen. Debra Bowen, who defeated Ortiz in Tuesday's Democratic primary for secretary of state, for helping with other legislators to improve the state stem cell initiative. The letter written by Robert Klein, chairman of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, has created a stir with public advocates and at least one other member of the stem cell institute's board, who question whether he should be involved in political campaigning. “This is certainly not something that is appropriate for the chairman of the (institute's board) to be cranking out,†said John Simpson of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica. Although Klein legally has a right to campaign for causes he supports, Simpson said, most state residents forever will associate his name and actions with the stem cell institute. Klein said he sent the letter not to campaign against Ortiz for secretary of state, but to clarify his opposition to Senate Bill 401, legislation Ortiz has sponsored with Republican George Runner that he said would impose “crippling restrictions†on stem cell research. Klein said he sent the letter as chairman of Americans for Stem Cell Therapies and Cures, a registered campaign fundraising organization that supports stem cell research nationwide. The views expressed in the letter were not those of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine's board, Klein said, nor of any of the other patient advocacy groups of which he is a member. Board and staff members of Americans for Stem Cell Therapies and Cures, which operates out of the office of Klein's financial firm, followed up the letter with election day telephone calls to some of the letter's recipients. Klein said he wanted to issue the letter Friday, after reading a San Diego Union-Tribune article about Ortiz's repeated attempts to introduce legislation that would add more government control to the stem cell initiative known as Proposition 71. Klein was attending an all-day meeting of the stem cell institute's board Friday. It was not possible for the Americans for Stem Cell Therapies and Cures board and staff to approve the letter until Monday, Klein said. Ortiz declined to comment on the letter. Public advocates and at least one member of the stem cell institute's board said the issue was not so much the content of the letter as whether Klein should be involved at all in campaigning. Institute board member Jeff Sheehy said Klein's letter “doesn't pass the smell test.†“The larger question here is the appropriateness of the chair of a state agency, especially a man who has been very insistent on having operational responsibilities of the institute, having his own political action committee,†Sheehy said. “It just doesn't seem appropriate to me.†Other members of the board contacted yesterday were not aware of the letter. The institute staff said it had nothing to do with the letter, directing all questions about it to Americans for Stem Cell Therapies and Cures. The existence of the organization took Sheehy and the public advocacy groups by surprise. They said they thought Klein had relinquished all stem cell advocacy positions outside the stem cell institute's board. Klein remembers differently. The group under which he sent out the letter originally was called Californians for Stem Cell Therapies and Cures and was the fundraising machine for Proposition 71, which was approved by voters in November 2004. The name was changed last year to reflect its new focus on supporting stem cell research initiatives in other states and federally, Klein said. He said that he told the press and public advocates in February 2005 that he planned to stay with the organization to help it raise $1 million for continuing campaign efforts and to pay off Proposition 71's $1.4 million campaign debt. Klein said he agreed only to relinquish his position in the nonprofit educational organization now known at the Alliance for Stem Cell Research. Sheehy said he didn't see much difference between the two organizations. “I feel like I've been lied to, like there's been a bait and switch,†he said. The Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland, another public advocacy group following the stem cell initiative, also criticized Klein's involvement in the advocacy organization. Its members also disagree with some of the points made in Klein's letter. Jesse Reynolds of the Oakland center said that Klein's letter points out that SB 401's co-sponsor is Runner, a conservative who has been described as “virulently anti-embryonic stem cell research.†And it goes on to say: “Strange bedfellows: Ortiz and the far right.†“When you look at Senator Ortiz's history of involvement with Proposition 71, it's not accurate,†Reynolds said. “She was the first to propose a bond initiative. Klein wouldn't be where he is today without Ortiz.†Ortiz's role in the creation of Proposition 71 is a point of contention with Klein. Ortiz sponsored legislation that made stem cell research legal in California, part of the groundwork for Proposition 71, which would come later. In 2004, she began talking to leading stem cell scientists about proposing a voter initiative. Klein points out that Ortiz had nothing to do with writing the initiative. which he wrote with other patient advocates. Days after Proposition 71 was passed – as scientists and ethicists were gathered in Irvine by the National Academies of Science to begin hashing out how to establish medical and ethical standards and policies for the state stem cell institute – Ortiz introduced her first bill to alter Proposition 71. Since then, Klein said, “she has co-sponsored her legislation with the most conservative, anti-stem cell element in the Senate in a 'grandstanding' attempt to impose her personal view of how the proposition should be changed.†Ortiz said in a previous interview that she thinks her legislation forced the institute's leadership to negotiate changes that give the initiative more public accountability. In his letter, Klein said the real credit for changes to toughen policies and standards of the institute were worked out with Bowen, and Sens. Don Perata, D-East Bay; Joseph Dunn, D-Garden Grove; and Jackie Speier, D-San Francisco. Ortiz broke off with these senators when she couldn't get them to accept her agenda, Klein said, and now is trying to add layers of bureaucracy and cost to the initiative. Simpson of the Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayer Rights said the battle between Klein and Ortiz is a waste of energy. “I don't want to get involved in that food fight and I don't think that most people who care about stem cell research want to either,†he said. Sheehy also would not parse the content of the letter. “I never understood what the conflict was between Bob and Deborah,†Sheehy said. “Frankly, they've hurt themselves, they hurt the agency and they've hurt the issue.†me@rescam.org ID: 331666 · |
|
Enigma Send message Joined: 15 Mar 06 Posts: 628 Credit: 21,606 RAC: 0
|
I think your quotes are getting worse....LOL..... i will give you an example but i will use round brackets ( instead of square ones [ (quote) you need to place the quote in brackets at the beginning of the quote and then place another one with a slash at the end of the quote (/quote) NOTE: The position of the / is VERY important and that the (quote) (/quote) work as a pair... ie. you cannot have (quote) hello world (quote) this wont work or (quote) hello folks (quote) (/quote) will give you unexpected results. The form is (quote) TEXT HERE (/quote) Normally you will need to edit and add/remove (quote) and (/quote) where necessary it can be a little tedious. Remember i have used ROUND '( )' brackets. You need to use the '[ ]' square ones. Hope this helps.
You are a very scary person. If a persons wisdom comes down to a system of knowledge management, then it can no longer be called "Wisdom." It will result as knowledge not wisdom and this "knowledge" may or may not result in a substitute that will be called something else. It certainly won't be wisdom. Wisdom, by it's very definition, comes down to us with love and then is passed on with love.[/quote] Wisdom is a for of tacit knowledge. This is very difficulty to capture, retain and pass on by anything other than human relations and human communication. However this is changing, and this is what i meant by knowledge management. You may think that this is cold and inhuman, however this is reality, it is already here (in a primitive form) and is evolving rapidly. Wars also create huge post war burden for the next generation of children in terms of veteran affairs (which is often overlooked). I am saying that it was not in the 'war budget' economically speaking it was not accounted for, again the next generation(s) pay dearly.
Well years of treatment for something that is going to kill you is just absurd. And only reiterates what a crazy system were advocating. But the drug companies love it, talk about profiting from human-nature. I think our treatment medicine has gone slightly crazy.
Okay, I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from. You may not accept it but you are dehumanizing a generation out of anger and maybe out of a little disgust. [/quote] Why do civilisations crumble? 1. Ethical Decay 2. Lack of resources
As i said i am no advocating it. However if you think that an individual in todays society is going to think beyond himself you are asking far too much. And for him to consider his society or nation at large - forget it. Its never going to happen and this is exactly why China did it. People rarely think beyond themself or their immediate family unit period when they make decisions and perhaps for most decisions they don't, but when it comes to children the SHOULD. Look at Brad pitt and Angelina Jolie (perhaps not the best example..OL...). They have had one child and the rest are adopted. Why is that? I think they have taken a highly responsible position. Actually i am considering the burden that the younger generation has to carry, is this unethical? They may live in debt for their entire lives so that the old can live another 10-20 years. The people born today are going to end up slaves (albeit modern) but forever in debt. Look, I believe that people should be able to decide that they've had enough and want out of life. That would be their decision and ONLY their own decision. I believe that the medical community should be allowed to assist in this. It should not be illegal for a doctor to turn down an elderly (AND SICK) person who asks for help in dying. I'm saying that it should forever be the choice of the person making that choice. However, in talking about doctor assisted suicide we need to be extremely careful. It should not be taken lightly by society. Here there should definitely be ethicists and other doctors involved, otherwise these laws will be taken advantage of and there will be murders, not assisted suicide. [/quote] Yes i agree. This has powerful implications for society as a whole and the unethical/criminal types will certainly try to use it the wrong way. Ethicists would be mandatory.
You are assuming that everyone or the large majority of people think the way you do. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. I agree family values are important but will this always be the case? Is the value of family unit being eroded? Peoples individual wants (material wealth) and career/job demands #1 career #2 family. Combined with divorce rates. How many families today have both parents working vs 30 years ago? The children are in day-care 40-50 hours / week? Perhaps they see their children one day a week and an hour or two a day.
You agree, but you disagree?! Our current system is not going to cope with an aging popuation period. Something is going to break. Even now the gov is looking at estate taxes (DEATH TAXES) because they see the problem (they just arent saying much about it directly). The only think the government is really really good at is TAXING us. Unless the people come up with better ways, you will see all your worldy possesions taxed out of existence. Imagine this, you pay taxes for 25 years while working, then you die and the people that inherit (your children) pay another 20% on the estate! (note this is what paid for your last 20 years of retirement). What makes people accountable, ethics, morals, laws? If ethics and morals are going down hill all that is left is laws (sad i know). Case in point illustrated in the example i gave for Singapore. If i get in a car and destroy property, i'm accountable for it by law. But my accoutability for having children, being a child or a parent from a economic/societal macro view point is almost zero perhaps beyond the first 20 years. I can get married/divorced, two kids here, two kids there, then when i am getting old and sick, i just use the system for 20+ years. Now assuming less and less people want to work or can get work then the picture looks even more scary. There are simply no ethics when it comes to being able to produce children.
This is all you have to say? This is becomming a precedent and shows you just how sick socity is becoming. Drive by individual wants, the children don't care about the parents because all they care about are themselves (ME ME ME) this is what i meant by the ME generation. And guess what, it will be the new 'me' generatio that controls the power when i am old and sick.
This is irrelivent at this stage of humanities development. Perhaps space would be a worthwhile expedition when we are wise enough to stop killing each other over dirt and oil. Belief gets in the way of learning
ID: 331802 · |
|
Shari17 Send message Joined: 13 Oct 03 Posts: 28 Credit: 49,072 RAC: 0
|
Hi Enigma...Thanks for the lesson on using BBCode tags. I'm really bad at this stuff but I'll give it another shot. If it doesn't work I will blame you! LOL! Just one question: When writing a response on the boards and quoting, does one HAVE TO use any format at all? I took a look at some of the other messages and there are plenty of things that were quoted but there wasn't a BBCode to be found. Can you quote without actually using any marks at all??? Okay, now I must say that our dialogues have become so long I'm becoming exhausted. After all, in case you didn't figure it out yet, I'm one of those people who is nearing the age (not there yet - LOL) and should soon be humanely euthanized. I'm fighting for my life here. Please, no KMA (I made that up and it stands for "Knowledge Management Agency." How about JGU (standing for "Just Get 'Um'?" :) Well years of treatment for something that is going to kill you is just absurd. And only reiterates what a crazy system were advocating. But the drug companies love it, talk about profiting from human-nature. I think our treatment medicine has gone slightly crazy. I agree. The drug companies are having a party. I did say before that it makes more sense to seek out cures than to spend a lot of time and money ONLY looking for better treatments. The word "ONLY' is the important word in that sentence. People with diseases that are difficult to treat but for whom treatment is a godsend should get the best treatment there is. Another mention is the flu vaccine. Babies, as well as adults, should get a flu vaccine every year. We tend to forget that the flu virus can (and does) kill. People who get the vaccine are usually protected from the flu, right? Two points: that people are USUALLY protected insinuates that there are some who have gotten the flu have had the vaccine (a milder case of it and recover). In this case the flu vaccine worked as a treatment, not a cure. The second point is that, in the past few years, the vaccine has been in short supply and many who wanted and/or needed it were not able to get it. Why is that? In the case of MOST people this vaccine IS A CURE for the flu. Why has it been in such short supply? Searching for 'treatments' for diseases might just result in a 'cure' for those diseases. In the meantime, many people are offered treatment as they go on their way toward a cure. We MUST keep searching for for both. I don't know where you live, but in NY we have had a shortage of flu shots for the past few years but some people get it. Guess who gets it! The very young, the very old, and those with compromised immune systems have priority over people in the middle range (who have a better chance to fight off the virus themselves). I asked you "Do the words "family" and "LOVE" ring a bell for you?" You completely ignored that question and that may just be the most important consideration in this entire discussion. You are assuming that everyone or the large majority of people think the way you do. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. I agree family values are important but will this always be the case? Once again you evaded my question about "family" and "love." You may not believe this, but I'm a liberal Democrat and I'm saying that family, but especially love, will always...always be important. I asked you a question based on emotion but your reply was based on thought. You wondered if the importance of family values would always stay important but, most of all, you wondered if a large majority of people really THINK the way I do. In essence, I was asking how you "FELT" about something and your reply was based upon the word "THINK." So, yes, I believe that most people "FEEL" the way I do. This was more a situation based on feelings. The family bonds can be so strong in most families that everything that can be done to keep a family member alive (no matter what) will be done. Children might hate their parents but, if they have siblings, that's where the intense emotional bond will be found. Whatever the family is it will most likely always have strong emotional bonds based on love. It was these strong emotional bonds that kept man from going extinct and they exist today in an even more intense permutation. The thing that means the most to the men and women who rocket into space on a manned mission, if they didn't feel it before the launch, come to understand that the love for their spouces and children (for their families) is the most important thing in their lives. Hey, my friend Anigma, I really have to cut this short (short?)! I think we are having an important dialogue here. I'll be back. In the meantime, give your wife and/or husband and/or mother and/or father or children a kiss and tell them you love them! We should not injure silence, for it is sacred.___________ Joao Gilberto ID: 332447 · |
|
Enigma Send message Joined: 15 Mar 06 Posts: 628 Credit: 21,606 RAC: 0
|
WOW! I'm impressed, yourr BBcode skills have improved dramatically! :D When you reply to a POST rather than the THREAD the QUOTE mode will automatiicaly be added to the reply text. So if you don't feel like going through all the text, you can just 'reply to thread' (its the other reply button). However it is really up to you. As long as you have the main points in your reply quoted the other person will get what you are addressing.
OKAY! I'll cross you off the list!...LOL... This reminds me of Logans Run where people are not allowed to live past 30 (oops i'm dead).
I'm lucky i have a good immune system (touch wood). I have never had flu injection, i think its better to let the body fight (and thats what i do). I almost never take anti-biotics etc (i cannot remember the last time i had them > 5 years). But that is not the point i am trying to make. We want to "have the cake and eat it too". Go on populating the place indefinately (with no controls) and live a high quality healthy (pharmecudical drug assisted) life (read low mortality rate) and once more extend that life perhaps 10-20 years (average life expectancy). Having what ever luxuries (imports) we want at our fingertips (actually i strongly believe all 6 billion of us want this!!) There is no balance here. We have all +++ and no --- something has to give and it will. We are good at making decisions that are trans-genreational, however we as a society only think in terms of now. As society, we have to start doing the math and examining the size of population, expected growth, national resources etc etc and actually 'manage the population a bit', estimate how a good quality of life can be provided to most people given the constraints. For example, if you want the elderly to be looked after, then have an exclusive "child tax" for people with more than 2 children then put all taxes towards elderly care. Is it better to watch the slices of cake getting smaller as the population grows or vice versa or somewhere in the middle?? I asked you "Do the words "family" and "LOVE" ring a bell for you?" You completely ignored that question and that may just be the most important consideration in this entire discussion. You are not going to let this one go are you?? LOL. Of these matter and are important to me, if i was faced with what i have suggested previously and it was my loved ones it would be very difficult no doubt. However i am trying to think beyond my individual existence and consider the longer term future. A collective good? Once again you evaded my question about "family" and "love." You may not believe this, but I'm a liberal Democrat and I'm saying that family, but especially love, will always...always be important. I asked you a question based on emotion but your reply was based on thought. True, but love does not pay the bills and start/stop wars. If any nation cannot effectively support its nations demands (read population) especially if that nation was once in prosperity it will end in CIVIL WAR. This is exactly what we need to avoid. New Orleans, Katherine was a classic example of how people can behave when faced with social adversity. Did love or family stop the unbelievable attrocities that were perpetrated in this incident? Imagine a 'great depression' in modern America?!
I cannot argue with this. However in terms of society at large which is where the population/resource debate is centred if it will be indefinately inhumane to euthenaise (very likely) then we need to look at the source (birth) as i suggested earlier. In the meantime, give your wife and/or husband and/or mother and/or father or children a kiss and tell them you love them! Will do.... I hope i'm not draining you too much! HAHA! Belief gets in the way of learning
ID: 332869 · |
Beethoven  Send message Joined: 6 Apr 06 Posts: 1383 Credit: 6,852 RAC: 0 |
In an interesting development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement officers have reached over to the South African government via Interpol, to get permission to investigate some major tissue banks there, for illegal havesting and exporting of tissue. The permission granted extends to the equivalent of executing search warrants there to examine the companies' records and banking documents. ********************************** South African body brokers exposed Local tissue banks under investigation for illegal harvesting and trafficking MEGAN POWER and JOCELYN MAKER PHILANI NOMBEMBE AN INTERNATIONAL investigation into human-tissue exports is under way in South Africa. The Interpol probe into the local multimillion-rand tissue industry  which turns donated bones, skin and tendons into end products  began this week. It was requested by the powerful US watchdog, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A forensic investigator authorised under the Human Tissues Act by the Department of Health visited the country’s two tissue banks and took copies of documents, including donor registers and export permits. His appointment was confirmed in a letter he handed to tissue-bank officials signed by the Director-General of Health, Thami Mseleku. The letter authorised him to investigate “allegations of illegal exportation and/or harvesting and/or transportation of human tissue for the purpose of businessâ€Â. He was accompanied by a senior investigator from the police’s Commercial Branch. The probe will also cover allegations of illegal harvesting of tissue without donor consent. The National Tissue Bank (NTB), based at the University of Pretoria, and the Centre for Tissue Engineering (CTE), at the Tshwane University of Technology, sell a range of products crafted from human tissue to orthopaedic, plastic, maxillofacial and neurosurgeons and dentists. Department of Health spokesman Solly Mabotha told the Sunday Times that South Africa faced a “frightening threat of illegal trafficking of organs and tissueâ€Â. Special agent Rande Matteson, from the FDA’s office of criminal investigations, declined to comment on the probe in South Africa, saying only that it was part of an “ongoing investigationâ€Â. This follows a major tissue scandal in the US last year which saw unscreened, diseased tissue stolen from bodies in funeral homes, sold to leading tissue banks and transplanted into American patients. Major class-action law suits have since been filed by hundreds of recipients infected with HIV, syphillis and hepatitis. Both the NTB and CTE export tissue overseas through US distributor Global Orthopaedics, based in Florida, which has family ties to one of the US tissue banks involved in the contamination drama. Export records show the two banks sent shipments in the last five years to Turkey, Spain, El Salvador, South Korea, Namibia, Germany and Switzerland. Both banks this week said all their exports were above board. The export records reveal that the NTB, which does not procure heart valves, exported at least 120 such valves to Germany. The bank said this week that its medical director, Dr Theo le Roux, had applied for export permits on behalf of Southern Cryoscience, a company which harvests and processes heart valves. But the bank said on Friday that the practice would stop as it was uncomfortable with a private company dealing in human tissue. An independent three-month Sunday Times investigation gave a troubling picture of a poorly controlled sector mired in secrecy, contradiction and half-truths. It established that: - The tissue banks pay people at government mortuaries, funeral homes and eye banks to assist them in finding donors; - Funeral giant Doves this week pulled out of an arrangement with the CTE from which it had received payment for tip-offs about potential donors. In a strongly worded memo outlining strict new protocols, CEO Hannes Wilken banned staff from accepting money from tissue organisations or contacting families of deceased regarding donations. - For five years the lid was kept tightly on an export scandal involving a top South African orthopaedic surgeon, who is also a former highranking tissue-bank official. He was involved in shipping cartons of South African tendons to a Florida businessman, Philip Heitlinger, via South Korea in 2001. It is illegal to import South African tissue into the US. - The relationship between the two tissue banks, which operate within a few kilometres of each other, is strained and because of this there is a battle over access to the small local donor base. - The NTB, which processed 125 donated bodies last year, claims the advent of the CTE in 2002 has had a dramatic effect on its donor base. But the CTE denies this. It refused, however, to disclose how many bodies it processed last year, saying only that it had retrieved enough material to treat 15 000 patients. - The NTB has changed the arm that markets and distributes its donor products three times in the past four years; and - The NTB and the CTE’s marketing and distribution partner, Bone SA, has for four years been involved in a legal wrangle over patent rights on products made from donor tissue. Medical scientist Dr Nicolaas Duneas, acting head of CTE, said he welcomed the Interpol investigation as his bank had nothing to hide. He admitted it paid money to Doves and was concerned the arrangement with this “supplier†had stopped. “They won’t do any work if they do not get reimbursed for time and effort,†he said. The CTE had an export policy which it disclosed freely to “anybody that wants to askâ€Â. NTB’s business manager, Willem Boshoff, said an investigator had visited the bank this week and customs officials had visited a few months ago “related to an Interpol inquiryâ€Â. “We haven’t done anything wrong,†he said, but admitted there needed to be “proper control†from the government. (from today's front page for South Africa's Sunday Times newspaper) ID: 333584 · |
|
Shari17 Send message Joined: 13 Oct 03 Posts: 28 Credit: 49,072 RAC: 0
|
In an interesting development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement officers have reached over to the South African government via Interpol, to get permission to investigate some major tissue banks there, for illegal havesting and exporting of tissue. The permission granted extends to the equivalent of executing search warrants there to examine the companies' records and banking documents. I was just wondering what others who see this think about it. Thanks, Beethoven, it is an interesting article and it gives me pause. You too, Enigma! Bet I know how you'll respond. LOL! <img src="http://www.smileycons.com/img/emotions/151.gif" border="0" align="ABSMIDDLE" alt="" title="What was I thinking?"> Enigma, this is a link to add a picture to my post. I don't know if it will come out correctly so maybe I need another lesson if the picture can't be redeemed. We should not injure silence, for it is sacred.___________ Joao Gilberto ID: 334200 · |
Captain Avatar  Send message Joined: 17 May 99 Posts: 15133 Credit: 529,088 RAC: 0
|
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu//bbcode.php 
ID: 334421 · |
|
Shari17 Send message Joined: 13 Oct 03 Posts: 28 Credit: 49,072 RAC: 0
|
Hi Captain Avatar...I'll give it a shot but I'm not computer saavy. Nice to meet you too! We should not injure silence, for it is sacred.___________ Joao Gilberto ID: 334460 · |
|
Enigma Send message Joined: 15 Mar 06 Posts: 628 Credit: 21,606 RAC: 0
|
In an interesting development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement officers have reached over to the South African government via Interpol, to get permission to investigate some major tissue banks there, for illegal havesting and exporting of tissue. The permission granted extends to the equivalent of executing search warrants there to examine the companies' records and banking documents. Lovelly, i guess this solves the 3rd world country export / trade balance and poverty problems. They can just ship parts of their people (body parts that is) over to the 1st world! The supply and demand issues should push prices to an all-time high in direct correlation with OIL prices. Belief gets in the way of learning
ID: 334570 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
ID: 336188 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
Quick hearing of stem cell case appeal sought Funding blocked by Prop. 71 challenges By Terri Somers Union-Tribune June 15, 2006 The state Attorney General's Office is seeking an expedited appeal of the lawsuits that have been blocking funding to California's stem cell institute. If a motion the office filed yesterday is granted, the filing times for legal briefs and legal arguments would be shortened for both sides in the case. Lawsuits filed last year by the People's Advocate and the National Tax Limitation Foundation argue that Proposition 71, the voter initiative that created the stem cell institute, is unconstitutional. In April, Superior Court Judge Bonnie Sabraw in Alameda County ruled those claims were baseless. Earlier this month, the opponents of the stem cell initiative filed notices saying they intend to appeal Sabraw's decision. Zach Hall, president of the stem cell institute, said the expedited appeal was required because, “these appeals could delay our funding for another year, and that year could be crucial to fighting disease.†“We are eager to get on with funding the science,†Hall said. In November 2004, 59 percent of the voters approved Proposition 71, which directs $3 billion in taxpayer funding to stem cell research in California. But the state cannot sell the bonds to fund the research while the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the stem cell institute are unresolved. “In approving Proposition 71, voters said clearly they want this state to be a leader in stem cell research, which holds so much promise for advancing public health,†Attorney General Bill Lockyer said yesterday. “This legal challenge has thwarted the voters' will. The longer it lasts, the more harm it threatens to inflict on the state's stem cell research efforts.†In her ruling, Sabraw said the bar for proving the initiative was unconstitutional was very high. The plaintiffs maintain her decision was flawed. They think the initiative is unconstitutional because elected state officials do not have control over the $3 billion in taxpayer funds. Sabraw, however, ruled that there is adequate control from state officials, which include the institute's governing board whose members were appointed by elected state officials. Robert Klein, chairman of the institute's oversight committee, called the lawsuit and its appeals a stalling tactic: “This appeal will not be a successful tactic to destroy a democratic expression of the people.†me@rescam.org ID: 338649 · |
|
Enigma Send message Joined: 15 Mar 06 Posts: 628 Credit: 21,606 RAC: 0
|
So how about the fact that Stem Cell research is being funded by creating more DEBT? They are attempting to issue bonds to pay for the research. So we are researching technologies to improve longevitity and increase the already bulging entitlements liability without being in a position to pay for the initial research so we (the private sector) will 'borrow' for that too! Bonds are a fantastic tool for encumbering the public, without the banks being at risk. Again burden the generations to come. It's like deferred responsibility. Has there been any research or papers presented on the burden stem cell research may have on the economy, in terms of increased longevity and an aging population??? Belief gets in the way of learning
ID: 338726 · |
Daniel Michel  Send message Joined: 2 Feb 04 Posts: 14925 Credit: 1,378,607 RAC: 6
|
So how about the fact that Stem Cell research is being funded by creating more DEBT? The burden on the economy is much greater when doctors are forced to fight diseases there is no cure for...Stem cell research is an investment in better health for millions of people around the world...If this research pans out...It could eventually cut healthcare costs by billions of dollars...  PROUD TO BE TFFE! ID: 338746 · |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.