For years, we have been debating the issue of stem cell research and using stem cells to develop cures for diseases. This issue has been a major concern among voters and even influenced who we voted for. My thoughts have always been in favor of stem cell research, and even after reading this article, my opinions remain the same. However, for those who are against stem cell research, I can see how this article may provide more ammunition to sway others to their opinion.
The article (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gXPm4dnGNyn2DTR2t_FmA0GW_4JgD96DLTT00) reports that an Israeli child diagnosed with a rare, fatal brain disease, ataxia telangiectasia (A-T), received three injections of neural stem cell from fetuses. After his third injection at age 10, the boy’s brain disease had become severe enough for him to use a wheelchair. But can this be blamed on the neural stem cell injections or is it just a natural progression of his disease?
“But was the boy prone to tumors anyway or were the fetal stem cells to blame? A Tel Aviv University team extensively tested the tumor tissue and concluded it was the fetal cells. Among other evidence, some of the cells were female and had two normal copies of the gene that causes A-T — although that boy’s underlying poor immune function could have allowed the growths to take hold.”
Doctors speculate that the boy’s disease “wasn’t conducive to stem cell therapy in the first place.” So, can we blame the stem cells or the doctors for attempting this procedure without knowing the risks?
“’Patients, please beware,’ said Dr. John Gearhart, a stem cell scientist at the University of Pennsylvania who wasn't involved in the Israeli boy's care but who sees similarly desperate U.S. patients head abroad to clinics that offer unproven stem cell injections. ‘Cells are not drugs. They can misbehave in so many different ways, it just is going to take a good deal of time’ to prove how best to pursue the potential therapy, Gearhart said.”
Another doctor urges that better research is needed to “‘maximize the potential benefits of regenerative medicine while minimizing the risks.’”
I am constantly telling my siblings that medicine is experimental, and to develop cures and medications for conditions, sometimes you have to go through the rule-out process before the right one is found. That is the same with stem cell research. We have to understand that there will be risks and there may be failures. But if one failure leads to one success, then in my opinion, it is worth it. If we believe that there are casualties of war and one person dying is better than 200,000, then why don’t we have that same mentality with healthcare and medicine? Can we put death caused by diseases in the same category as war? Aren’t we fighting a war against disease? If we are, then there are bound to be casualties of war, any war, whether it is a war against disease or terrorism, or to protect our freedoms.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The science behind embryonic stem cells is still very new -- in fact, we've learned that embryonic stem cells can be 'wild cards' -- that is, rapidly growing and developing without control. And I'm surprised to hear that they were using fetal, rather than embryonic stem cells -- there is a difference, on a variety of levels. Very disturbing and makes me wonder if it is accurately reported.
Hopefully, if legislation is passed to allow further stem cell research in the US, the unknowns will not be as much of an issue. If it is allowed, then blockbuster companies will jump on board and raise the bar for other companies....this would be a case where competition is good.
The only problem with stem-cell research is the fact that, unlike a drug product, it is very difficult to develop the processes involved. Biological products, such as vaccines, tend to have a mind of their own, and the R & D process is a relative nightmare.
However, if companies are able to develop the process enough to maximize the benifits and minimize the risks, then I am all for it....as long as the risks and benefits are communicated just as those risks/benfits for any other products are communicated.....if it does become a reality, then I feel very sorry for the FDA who would have to tackle this type of regulation (with the few workers that they have).
Post a Comment