Robert Jones, a 3 week old baby is in the neonatal intensive he has been diagnosed
with Type one diabetes. The doctors advise his parents that they believe that Robert’s
interests would be best served by using the latest therapeutic cloning methods to cure
his diabetes. This treatment would require the destruction of a fertilized ova in order to
get the T cells needed for the treatment.
2007-03-21 02:49:03 · 8 answers · asked by maiK 1 in Health ➔ General Health Care ➔ Other - General Health Care
There are several ways people will look at it; you will have your religious followers telling you that it is murder. Then you will have your scientific aspects telling you it is not a life. Truly this is really a hard question to answer, because A) it involves a life that will have never had the chance to live
B) On the other hand it could be a breakthrough for abolishing the diesease as a whole possibly. In in this circumstance I would would say that this would be considered a sacrafice because it is for the sake of saving many many lives. As opposed to life that is not truly developed. Unless of course they are referring to destroying a full term baby then of course that would be some thing that I could not agree to. If we are talking embroyos less a heart then I truly believe it is okay. It is research if the fetus has a developed heartbeat then no. This is a very very tough call and it would be considered a touchy subject. I think the whole clonging thing; (i.e) cloning a sheep is messing with nature,and there are reprecussions to be sought. You are messing with god, but again God is a forgiving person and if he see's this is purely to benifit the lives of others he would more then over look this procedure. This is by far one of the most intersting and excellent questions I have come across so far. I will definately be giving you a star on this questions and definately be interested in see others answers.
2007-03-21 03:09:06 · answer #1 · answered by pattiof 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If it was a fertilized 'ova' from an animal, I'd say go for it. If you are trying to set up a discussion for pro'life, you're loosing. This isn't even a good fantasy since people don't die from diabetes initially. How about if they put you to sleep, remove your pancreas, inject your cells into the baby so it can live, and you can die in peace?! Same scenario, different stages of life
2007-03-21 02:56:29 · answer #2 · answered by nickname 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd go for the treatment as the living baby needs to be given the best chance of healthy life given the tools available. I don't believe this means sacrificing another life, as the fertilised ova is not "alive" in my understanding of what life is. (I believe that it does not yet have a soul and is not yet a person). That it might become both these things is an issue, but not enough to make me want to change my course of action.
2007-03-21 02:53:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
the actuality which you're taking somebody's artwork and passing it off as your guy or woman is incorrect. That guy or woman spent their time, funds, and capability to create the artwork and for antoher guy or woman to thieve it in seconds without plenty attempt is unethical.
2016-10-02 12:21:56 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
is that fertilized ova gonna become a wanted baby or not?
thats what would decide it for me I think.
2007-03-21 02:53:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
At what point does 'experimental' begin to be passed off as 'proven'? I think this case is that very point.
2007-03-24 19:08:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is it a cloned ova?
2007-03-21 02:52:53 · answer #7 · answered by Ya-sai 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If the job is to save somones life then i agree. but for any other purpose, NO!
2007-03-21 02:53:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋