Thursday, August 24, 2006
Poor reporting on stem-cell ressearch
The Times reports here with a headline of "The stem-cell breakthrough that could lift ethical taboo".
Apparently "scientists" have found a way to create stem cells from an "embryo" (their term, as someone for whom human life begins at conception, I've never been happy with this terminology) without doing any damage to the "embryo".
Interested, I read the article; I was looking to discover how this would work in practice. Would the baby be born normally? It seemed incredible. It was, right at the very end of the article (on page 2 of the printed edition) is the money quote:
"Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, of the National Institute for Medical Research, said that the success rate was low, and that while it might be useful for couples undergoing PGD to have a stem-cell line matched to a child for future therapeutic use, it was very unlikely to be taken up by anyone else.
“I am also unconvinced by the ethical arguments. Spare IVF embryos used to derive stem-cell lines would have been destroyed anyway.”"
Excuse me, can the reporter, one who writes for The Times, really be so ignorant? The ethical problem I and many other people have is the destruction of innocent human life. This new development does nothing to address that issue and Nigel Hawkes the Health Editor either must know it, or I would say is incompetent in not knowing it.
I can't even see the point in this poor reporting, anyone with an interest will read the article properly or seek alternative information. Anyone not interested will ignore it, anyone who buys the paper in the hope of a revelation will be disappointed and although unlikely to obtain a refund, will certainly remember the experience.
Apparently "scientists" have found a way to create stem cells from an "embryo" (their term, as someone for whom human life begins at conception, I've never been happy with this terminology) without doing any damage to the "embryo".
Interested, I read the article; I was looking to discover how this would work in practice. Would the baby be born normally? It seemed incredible. It was, right at the very end of the article (on page 2 of the printed edition) is the money quote:
"Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, of the National Institute for Medical Research, said that the success rate was low, and that while it might be useful for couples undergoing PGD to have a stem-cell line matched to a child for future therapeutic use, it was very unlikely to be taken up by anyone else.
“I am also unconvinced by the ethical arguments. Spare IVF embryos used to derive stem-cell lines would have been destroyed anyway.”"
Excuse me, can the reporter, one who writes for The Times, really be so ignorant? The ethical problem I and many other people have is the destruction of innocent human life. This new development does nothing to address that issue and Nigel Hawkes the Health Editor either must know it, or I would say is incompetent in not knowing it.
I can't even see the point in this poor reporting, anyone with an interest will read the article properly or seek alternative information. Anyone not interested will ignore it, anyone who buys the paper in the hope of a revelation will be disappointed and although unlikely to obtain a refund, will certainly remember the experience.
Tags: ethics, pro-life, human life
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
