Sunday, October 16, 2005

Stem Cell

NYT reported In a development that may shift the political debate over embryonic stem cells, researchers have devised two new techniques designed to alleviate ethical concerns.

Both are ridiculous.
In one, the cells are derived without the need to destroy an embryo, the principal objection of abortion opponents who have strenuously opposed federal financing of the research. The other technique makes skin cells revert to the embryonic state in a way that prevents the embryo from implanting in the uterus. Both are described in today's online edition of Nature.

The technique for making embryonic stem cells without compromising the embryo was developed in mice and has yet to be adapted to humans, but the two species are very similar at this level of embryonic development. "I can't think of a reason why the technique would not theoretically work" in people, said Brigid M. Hogan, an embryologist at Duke University. If it does work in people, the technique could divide the pro-life movement into those who accept or reject in vitro fertilization,
That is the whole reason for these foolish ideas, to try to divide the pro-life movement.
because the objection to deriving human embryonic stem cells would come to rest on creating the embryos in the first place, not on their destruction. "This gets around all of the ethical arguments except for that small minority of the pro-life community that doesn't even support in vitro fertilization," said Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett, Republican of Maryland, whose Web site describes him as "a pro-life legislator."
Sometimes web sites lie, but if he really understood what you propose, and still approves it, he is certainly not pro-life. He may know he has to say he is pro-life to get elected, but
Until now, the only way of deriving human embryonic stem cells has been to break open the embryo before it implants in the uterus, a stage at which it is called a blastocyst, and take out the inner cell mass, whose cells will form all the tissues of the future infant.
And thus kill the baby in a very early stage.
Although the blastocysts used in the procedure are ones that fertility clinics have rejected for implantation, opponents of abortion say destruction of any embryo is wrong. Congress has forbidden the use of federal funds for any such research, and federally supported scientists can work with only a small number of existing lines of embryonic stem cells that have been exempted from this stricture by President Bush.

Robert Lanza and colleagues at Advanced Cell Technology, a biotechnology company in Worcester, Mass., have now developed an alternative way of generating embryonic stem cells that leaves the embryo viable. At the eight-cell stage, reached by a fertilized mouse egg after its third division and just before the blastocyst is formed, they removed one cell. They then coaxed that cell, known as a blastomere, into growing in glassware and forming cells that have all the same essential properties as embryonic stem cells derived from the inner cell mass, Dr. Lanza's team reported. The seven-cell embryo was implanted in the mouse uterus and grew successfully to term. That part of the procedure is known to work with humans too, because it is the basis of a well-established test known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. In the test, one cell is removed from each of a set of embryos and tested for any of 150 genetic defects, giving the parents the choice of implanting an embryo that is disease free.
So you take a frozen embryo, let it start growing, then steal one cell and let it keep growing and because the resulting embryo will create a life you think the pro-life people will be convinced it is a good idea. But realize, that frozen embryo was not intended to be planted. Do you think that just because a baby is created that will live, even if it was unwanted, and even if some woman allows it to be implanted in her, and carried to term, that everything is ok? Or do you plan to steal a cell from embryos created for a woman that wants IVF, and will you tell her what you are doing?
Dr. Lanza's technique is likely to be welcomed by many in the middle of the debate, although it has not won over the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Richard M. Doerflinger, its deputy director for pro-life activities, dismissed the technique, saying that pre-implantation genetic diagnosis itself is unethical. The technique "is done chiefly to select out genetically imperfect embryos for discarding, and poses unknown risks of future harm even to the child allowed to be born," he said in an e-mail message.
I can't imagine anyone on the pro-life side who would approve.
Only a procedure that generated embryonic stem cells without creating or destroying embryos "would address the Catholic Church's most fundamental moral objection to embryonic stem cell research as now pursued," Mr. Doerflinger said in testimony last December to the President's Council on Bioethics.
Such as one that used adult stem cells.
.... In response to Dr. Grompe's reservation, Dr. Lanza said that individual human blastomeres had never been shown to create viable embryos. The reason is that by the eight-cell stage, each blastomere is probably committed to becoming either the outer shell of the blastocyst, which later forms the placenta, or the inner cell mass, which forms the fetus. Only the fertilized egg and the two-cell and perhaps four-cell stages retain the ability to form all the placental and embryonic tissues, Dr. Lanza said.

If Dr. Lanza's technique proved to work in humans, it could do more than just provide researchers with a new source of cells. It might allow every child born through pre-implantation genetic testing to have its own line of embryonic cells banked for the future. The blastomere removed at the eight-cell stage could be allowed to divide, with one cell being used for genetic testing and the other for growing a culture of perfectly matching embryonic stem cells. The cells would be available throughout the child's lifetime for the kind of tissue and organ repair that it is hoped stem cells will one day provide.
That has even more ethical problems.
With the parents' consent, those cells could also be used for research, providing many new embryonic stem cell lines for laboratories. The procedure might be even be offered for all embryos generated in fertility clinics when its theoretical risk has been better assessed. "I can see a day when every fertility clinic embryo has a cell removed and banked for future tissue use or organ replacement," Ronald M. Green, an ethicist at Dartmouth College, said.
I have had nightmares myself, but I never told them to a reporter for the New York Times
Children born after the pre-implantation diagnosis procedure have the same incidence of birth defects as ordinary children. So far, after some 10 years of experience, there is no indication that it causes health problems in humans, said Andrew R. La Barbera, scientific director of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. If Dr. Lanza's technique succeeds in generating human embryonic stem cell lines, Dr. La Barbera said, "I suspect that indeed it will become routine to generate stem cells for everyone who undergoes pre-implantation genetic diagnosis."
I see a need for a new law.
But Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said there was "little data that documents the safety and efficacy" of the pre-implantation diagnosis procedure, even after 2,000 births. She urged the American Society for Reproductive Medicine to create a national database to address the safety issue.

Second method
The other alternative method reported in Nature today addresses an ethical objection to therapeutic cloning, the idea of treating patients with new tissues generated from their own cells. The cells would be obtained by taking the nucleus from a patient's skin cell and injecting it into a human egg whose own nucleus had been removed. The egg develops into a blastocyst from which embryonic stem cells can be derived in the usual way. Critics object that this nuclear transfer technique creates embryos only to destroy them.
A reasonable objection.
To counter this objection, Alexander Meissner and Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., have created mouse nuclear transfer embryos that are inherently incapable of implanting in the uterus. They did so by switching off a gene in the donor nucleus that is needed for the implantation process. The gene was switched back on later because it is needed to form the intestinal tissues. William Hurlbut, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, has suggested that such unimplantable embryos may satisfy those who say a potential life is being destroyed in the nuclear transfer process.
That is the most obscene thing I have heard of. They really don't understand our objection, do they?
But Mr. Doerflinger, of the bishops conference, told the Council last December that that approach did not fulfill the criterion that an embryo should not be created. That is still his position, he says. It is not yet clear if human embryonic stem cells generated from blastomeres would be eligible for federal financial support, since they might still fall foul of the Dickey-Wicker amendment
I certainly hope they would not be allowed.
by which Congress has prohibited federal research in which human embryos are destroyed, discarded or subjected to substantial risk.

37 comments:

anuket said...

I will have to finish your post tonight, but close to the beginning you state that these attempts to find ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells that would be acceptable to those who object most strenuously are really attempts to divide the pro-life movement? Dr. William Hurlbut, a member of the Presdident's Council on Bioethics (PCBE) is staunchly pro-life; Leon Kass, former head of the PCBE, is undeniably pro-life, and he heartily endorsed Hurlbut's idea. President Bush is unquestionably pro-life and *he* endorsed Hurlbut's idea.

Now, perhaps their wisdom in endorsing the idea could be questioned, if you, as you clearly do, find Hurlbut's idea to fall short of a solution.

Or, if you really wanted to go to an extreme, you might assert that these people have demonstrated that they are not pro-life as you define pro-life.

But to say that these people are *trying to divide* the pro-life movement... are you accusing President Bush of trying to divide the pro-life movement??

anuket

Don Singleton said...

What is Dr. William Hurlbut's idea that Leon Kass and President Bush supposedly endorsed?

Hulburt's name does not appear in the NYT article.

If you are talking about research using cord blood, or adult stem cells, that does not involve eggs or embryos, then I have no problem with such research.

But I doubt that Hurlbut or Kass or GWB endorsed taking a cell from the eight cell embryo in an IVF procedure, either with the knowledge of the mother, or especially not without her knowledge.

anuket said...

I will grant you that the NY Times article did not provide any of this background, but I think you will see why I think your assertion is inaccurate (at least as it pertains to the second method of obtaining embryonic stem cells referenced in the NY Times article) if you read the information below - sorry it is so long. And just as an FYI, the taking of a cell from an 8 cell embryo is another one of the four alternative methods for obtaining embryonic stem cells that is discussed in the President's Council on Bioethics White Paper referenced below. Since I am more familiar with the other method described in the article you quote, I can't comment on the question of knowledge or permission regarding the cell-removal option, nor on whether anyone endorsed it or not.

From the NY Times article you reference:

“…Alexander Meissner and Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., have created mouse nuclear transfer embryos that are inherently incapable of implanting in the uterus. They did so by switching off a gene in the donor nucleus that is needed for the implantation process. The gene was switched back on later because it is needed to form the intestinal tissues. William Hurlbut, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, has suggested that such unimplantable embryos may satisfy those who say a potential life is being destroyed in the nuclear transfer process.”

The idea that is being referred to above was developed by Dr. William Hurlbut, as you can see below:

“The third [of four presented to the President’s Council for Bioethics (PCBE)] approach comprises a variety of proposals for engineering “biological artifacts” possessing some of the developmental capacities of natural embryogenesis (but lacking the organismal character of human embryos) and containing cells from which pluripotent stem cell lines can be derived. Crucial to this approach is demonstrating both (a) that the developing entity is truly not a human embryo and (b) that the cells derived from it are in fact normal human pluripotent cells. In addition, one must show that creating such biological artifacts does not itself introduce other ethical problems. One such proposal (“Altered Nuclear Transfer”) was presented at the Council’s December 3, 2004, meeting by Council Member Dr. William Hurlbut.” White Paper: Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells, President’s Council on Bioethics

“Dr. William Hurlbut, a Stanford bioethicist and staunch opponent of research on human embryos, has traveled the country developing and winning support for the idea in consultation with a small circle of scientists and conservative ethicists. The procedure, called altered nuclear transfer, would engineer a human egg that could generate cells with the full potential of embryonic stem cells, but without ever forming an actual embryo.” Boston Globe, November 21, 2004

“Hurlbut called his idea "altered nuclear transfer”…One or more genes essential for normal embryonic development would be temporarily canceled or inactivated at the start. The cluster of growing and dividing cells that would be produced would have no capacity ever to develop into a human fetus. Consequently, it would not have the status of a person by anyone's definition, he argued.” . Washington Post, December 4, 2004

“…Hurlbut advocates genetically altering cloned embryos so, like a teratoma [a type of malignant tumor], they wouldn't have the DNA necessary to become viable humans. For the first few days of existence, they would grow normally and produce stem cells, but then die when a critical embryonic component - say, a placenta - failed to emerge. "They would have no coherent drive in the direction of mature human form," Hurlbut tells the crowd. … As both a medical doctor and a deeply religious Christian, Hurlbut borrows from each side: It's a theological breakthrough in the form of a scientific technique.” Wired, June 13, 2005

Kass endorses Hurlbut’s idea:

"If this pans out scientifically, it will be a major step forward. It may provide an opportunity to get through the political impasse," said Leon R. Kass, the physician who chairs the President's Council on Bioethics.

Kass said the ideas raise the possibility that "the partisans of scientific progress and the defenders of the dignity of nascent human life can go forward in partnership without anyone having to violate things they hold dear." Washington Post, December 4, 2004

I misspoke when I stated that Bush has explicitly endorsed Hurlbut’s idea, but since not only was Kass his appointee to head the Council on Bioethics, the Council itself was formed to guide stem cell policy – and I think it is clear where President Bush’s sympathy’s lie on that subject – I think it is safe to say that Kass’ approval indicates Bush’s tacit approval:

“The council was created in 2001 specifically to guide stem cell policy. Its other members include some of the most influential conservative ethicists in the US. There's Leon Kass, the imposing University of Chicago bioethicist who was appointed chair by Bush; Francis Fukuyama, the worldly Reagan-era pundit and author of The End of History and the Last Man; and Charles Krauthammer, the acerbic syndicated columnist and one of the first well-known neocon thinkers.” Wired, June 13, 2005

And here is Bush expressing approval for the attempts to develop “alternative” methods of obtaining embryonic stem cells – which would include ideas like Hurlbut’s:

Even now researchers are exploring alternative sources of stem cells, such as adult bone marrow and umbilical cord blood, as well as different ethical ways of getting the same kind of cells now taken from embryos without violating human life or dignity. With the right policies and the right techniques, we can pursue scientific progress while still fulfilling our moral duties. President Discusses Embryo Adoption and Ethical Stem Cell Research, May 24, 2005

Don Singleton said...

I support exploring alternative sources of stem cells, such as adult bone marrow and umbilical cord blood

anuket said...

So do I. It would be win-win situation if any of those approaches worked for all the diseases that might be helped by stem cells.

But I also support embryonic stem cell research which, so far, has shown the greatest promise for treating neurological diseases like Parkinson's.

In my opinion, we need to explore all avenues.

However, your support of those branches of research is quite clear in your original post. I did not respond to or take issue with that stance. Rather, I disagreed with your assertion that pursuit of these alternative methods was really an attempt to divide the pro-life community. I think I have shown that it is extremely unlikely that your assertion is accurate.

anuket

Don Singleton said...

The statement about dividing the prolife community originated in the article; I just agreed with it

By definition stem cells are undifferentiated, so I dont see how stem cells from one source are any better than from any other source.

Because there are a number of taxpayers that object to seeing their money spent on embryonic stem cell lines other than those GWB designated, I would oppose Federal Funding for such research, but I would like to see research for Parkinsons and other diseases use stem cells from the other sources, and if private or state funds want to explore embryonic stem cell lines there is little I can do about that

anuket said...

Hi Don,

The article just said that it was possible that some of these ethical issues could divide the pro-life movement - you said that "whole reason for these foolish ideas, to try to divide the pro-life movement." To say something might happen is different from saying someone has that outcome as their goal.

Regarding stem cells, actually, they are not all differentiated to the same degree. I will preface what follows with the disclaimer that this is how i currently understand the differences between stem cells - I am not a scientist.

Stem are divided roughly into three categories: totipotent, pluripotent, and multipotent.

The fertilized egg, or zygote, is a totipotent cell, which means it can not only replicate itself, it can and does give rise to every other kind of cell in the body. It contains the complete set of instructions, if you will, for the formulation of a full grown human, including the very beginning, which is what puts in motion an intricately choreographed domino effect, with each domino's role in the chain reaction becoming more and more focused and specific.

It is just five or so days after the zygote has begun dividing that embryonic stem cells appear. Since they do not contain the very beginning of the instructions on how to develop, they are not totipotent, but they close enough to the beginning of the chain reaction that they are able to give rise to every to every cell that develops after that point, and so they are called pluripotent.

The cells that are known as adult stem cells are also known as multipotent cells. They are the most differentiated, but they can still give rise to other types of cell, so they are still called stem cells. The hematopoietic cell is a good example. It is the source of all of the different types of blood cells produced in the body. But, and this is the important part, they can't turn into anything but blood cells - they are limited to that one specific general type of cell - they could not turn into a dopamine neuron, for example. There are some studies that seem to indicate that such a thing might someday be possible, but they have not been validated.

It is interesting to note that hematopoietic cells are the only adult stem cells commonly being used to treat human diseases today. Stem Cells and Diseases, NIH

There is a ton of good information on the Stem Cell Basics section of NIH's website. If you would like more detail on the differences between embryonic and adult stem cells, I would check out Section V of Stem Cell Basics.

Anyway, ultimately, if someone comes up with an adult stem cell that can turn into a dopamine neuron that can survive and intergrate properly and start replacing lost dopamine in a malfunctioning brain, I will be the first to cheer. But adult stem cells are clearly further from being able to do that than embryonic stem cells, and that is the biggest difference between them, for me - and that is why I support all stem cell research.

Finally, regarding the idea that people's tax dollars shouldn't have go toward things they find morally reprehensible, I have a deal for you. You folks pay for the "war" in Iraq, and let us pay for the embryonic stem cell research - because that is where your argument goes - I find the disaster in Iraq to be morally reprehensible - if you don't have to pay for embryonic stem cell research, then i don't have to pay for that self-made disaster - deal?

(I would address the issue of the importance of government funding and NIH oversight on research, but you are probably sick of me, so I won't)

Don Singleton said...

I find the disaster in Iraq to be morally reprehensible

I find the everything the Islamic Terrorist are doing morally reprehensible, but I would rather have our troops confront them in Afganistan and Iraq, rather than in Alabama and Indiana. I would rather confront them in Baghdad than Boston, Bakersfield, or Broken Arrow. In Najief rather than Nashville, New York, or Newark. Etc.

You seem to think any medical procedure is fine, if it might save human lives.

We know that organ transplant save lives. Instead of executing criminals that have been convicted of capital crimes why don't we just take them apart, harvesting every organ they have. One death by someone who was convicted of a terrible crime would result in who knows how many people getting a second chance of life? I don't approve of this idea, but if saving lives is the only concern, why not do it?

anuket said...

Did you find my description of the difference between stem cells to be educational? Did you have a chance to check out the NIH info?

Regarding the tax question, if you can be exempted from paying for something simply because in your opinion it is wrong, and even if I disagree, then i must also be allowed to be exempted from paying for something simply because in my opinion it is wrong, even if you disagree. We live in a democracy. Via our taxes, we all pay for things we think are wrong every day. It is a moot point, really, since we have a legislature that will (or is supposed to) act on the will of the people, and that is how this question will be decided - unless Bush decides to unilaterally issue another decree - don't know whether that is possible.

In what way did I come remotely close to saying that any medical procedure was ok if it might save human lives? Please don't put words in my mouth.

I am in favor of couples having the option to undergo IVF if they are having trouble conceiving.

I am in favor of couples who undergo IVF retaining responsibility for determining the destinies of their un-needed embryos. I do not feel that I, you or anyone else should have a say in that decision.

I am in favor of those couples retaining the right to choose among various options when determining the destinies of their embryos, including the option of donating them to research. Who but the people who produced those embryos should make such a personal decision? These couples know what the options are – they know that if they are not comfortable donating to another couple, and most are not, that the remaining two options will result in the destruction of the embryos. The embryos that are used in research are there because the people who produced them want their embryos to assist in research that could help millions.

I am in favor of research performed on embryos that were donated by people who had already decided that they were not comfortable donating them to another couple, and who preferred, rather than just throwing them in the trash, that there be the chance that something good could come of their existence – and I am grateful to them for making that decision.

I am in favor of federal funding for such research not just because the government is far and away the largest source of funds for medical research, but because NIH oversight would ensure that research conform to its high standards.

The reason your death row inmate analogy doesn’t hold water (aside from the obvious differences like consciousness and ability to suffer) is because the decision to donate an embryo to research is not made by you or me or the government – it is made by the people who produced the embryo. Your side puts that argument forward as if supporters of stem cell research have any control over whether an excess IVF embryo makes it into a research lab – we don’t.

Pro-lifers are really barking up the wrong tree when they point the finger at supporters of embryonic stem cell research in general - I have no control over whether an embryo makes its way into a research lab – I can only be grateful to those who do.

Don Singleton said...

I did not say that anyone was exempt from paying taxes because money was being spent they did not approve of.

I said "Because there are a number of taxpayers that object to seeing their money spent on embryonic stem cell lines other than those GWB designated, I would oppose Federal Funding for such research"

You make a big todo about the donation of embryos being voluntary (even though many being used were never consciously donated by the sources of the eggs and sperm, but you reject the death row inmate idea, when there have been death row inmates that have wanted to donate an organ to a family member or friend, and who have not been allowed to do so.

The Left is so concerned with a woman being able to control her own body that they will allow a doctor to partially deliver a baby, but before it has made it all they way out of her body, they stick a tube into its brain and suction it out, so the baby will be born dead, and yet they deny a death row inmate that wants to save a dozen or more lives the right to do so.

anuket said...

yes, you did - you said "a number of taxpayers" "object to seeing their money spent on X," and for that reason you "would oppose federal funding for X," or, in other words you feel that they should not have to pay for this thing to which they object - they should be exempt from paying for it. I agree that "exempt" was not the best choice of word because it implies that other people would contine to pay for X when in fact what you are arguing is that no one should pay for X via their taxes, but yes, that people shouldn't have to pay, via their taxes, for things they do not approve of is exactly what you said.

you know, i could say "Bush lied about how many stem cell lines were available," but since I can provide no evidence to support that assertion, i do not. can you provide any support for your assertion that eggs have been donated to research without the consent of the couples who produced them?

Your original analogy with the death row inmates was clearly one in which they were being forced to undergo involuntary organ donation:

"Instead of executing criminals that have been convicted of capital crimes why don't we just take them apart, harvesting every organ they have. "

Now you have inexplicably flopped over to some completely unrelated question of whether death row inmates are or should be allowed to donate their organs - and partial birth abortions.

You make assertions for which you provide no support, you say you merely agreed with something when that was clearly not the case, you say you did not say things that you clearly did say, you ignore my attempt to explain the differences between stem cells, you use one analogy and then morph it into a different analogy that is both baffling and irrelevant.

This is my cue to bow out.

Don Singleton said...

for that reason you "would oppose federal funding for X," or, in other words you feel that they should not have to pay for this thing to which they object - they should be exempt from paying for it.

Saying I oppose federal funding, and that someone should be exempt from paying for it are very different things

can you provide any support for your assertion that eggs have been donated to research without the consent of the couples who produced them?

My statement was "even though many being used were never consciously donated by the sources of the eggs and sperm". In some IVF procedures eggs are fertilized from sperm from a sperm bank. Sperm donated to a sperm bank is usually donated so that infertile couples can have child. Not so that eggs can be fertilized and then subjected to wierd experimentation

Your original analogy with the death row inmates was clearly one in which they were being forced to undergo involuntary organ donation.... Now you have inexplicably flopped over to some completely unrelated question of whether death row inmates are or should be allowed to donate their organs - and partial birth abortions.

Are you saying you favor voluntary organ donation by the condemned, but not involuntary organ donation? What if they want to give their heart to a family member. Should the other parts go to waste?

anuket said...

hi don,

do we agree that if i pay taxes, and the federal government funds ESCR, that i am paying for ESCR?

also, it would be helpful if you would explain to me, again, using different words from the first time, why you oppose federal funding for ESCR.

My statement was "even though many being used [in research] were never consciously donated by the sources of the eggs and sperm".

Yes, and I appreciate your explaining in more detail your belief, but I asked that you provide support for that assertion, i.e., a quote from a reputable source that states that such a thing happens.

Are you saying you favor voluntary organ donation by the condemned, but not involuntary organ donation? What if they want to give their heart to a family member. Should the other parts go to waste?

I actually didn't state any opinion(s) whatsoever on the question of organ donation.

Don Singleton said...

do we agree that if i pay taxes, and the federal government funds ESCR, that i am paying for ESCR?

It is impossible to track every dollar collected and trace it to when it is spent, but it is a reasonable argument.

also, it would be helpful if you would explain to me, again, using different words from the first time, why you oppose federal funding for ESCR.

Using different words... OK, in addition to what I said before, I object to spending money wastefully. There have been advances made from adult stem cell research, there have not been from ESCR. I also dont think the government should spend money developing drugs or medical procedures that others will profit from. Drug companies should invest their money on developing new drugs. Doctors should invest their money on developing medical procedures

My statement was "even though many being used [in research] were never consciously donated by the sources of the eggs and sperm". Yes, and I appreciate your explaining in more detail your belief, but I asked that you provide support for that assertion, i.e., a quote from a reputable source that states that such a thing happens.

Actually you said "can you provide any support for your assertion that eggs have been donated to research without the consent of the couples who produced them?" and I pointed out that the donor of sperm to a sperm bank expects his sperm to go to make babies for childless couples, not so that eggs can be fertilized and then subjected to wierd experimentation

I actually didn't state any opinion(s) whatsoever on the question of organ donation.

Why not. You seem perfectly willing to manipulate embryos without the consent of the eventual babies those embryos would produce, just because it MIGHT save a human life.

In the situation I described, the state is about to take the life of a criminal, and use of his organs DEFINITELY WOULD save several human lives. And you dont have an opinion on that?

Don Singleton said...

Anuket, I sense you may be about to pick up your marbles and leave.

Let me say that it has been a pleasure jousting with you, and I welcome your participation in other threads.

And if you have a blog of your own, please identify it (actually I know you have two, but I dont want to identify them without your permission), so that my readers can visit it.

Don Singleton said...

Correction, one of your two blogs does not seem to be there any more, even though it is in your profile

anuket said...

au contraire, don!

do we agree that if i pay taxes, and the federal government funds ESCR, that i am paying for ESCR?

It is impossible to track every dollar collected and trace it to when it is spent, but it is a reasonable argument.

Does it follow, then, that if I say that I oppose federal funding for ESCR (which you did), that I am essentially saying that I don’t want any of the money I (and/or other people who oppose federal funding for ESCR) pay in taxes to be spent on ESCR?

Actually you said "can you provide any support for your assertion that eggs have been donated to research without the consent of the couples who produced them?" and I pointed out that the donor of sperm to a sperm bank expects his sperm to go to make babies for childless couples, not so that eggs can be fertilized and then subjected to wierd experimentation

yes, I understood your point – you are asserting that sometimes an embryo that was the product of an egg and sperm from a donor bank is donated to research, and you also assert that that has happened or does happen without the consent of the sperm donor.

I am asking you where you read that or heard that.


I actually didn't state any opinion(s) whatsoever on the question of organ donation.

Why not.

Because you are all over the map with this death row inmate business. First you posit a situation in which the state is harvesting their organs, and then instead of responding to my criticism of your analogy, you change the analogy to one in which in which the state won’t let them donate their organs. I am afraid I don’t follow your logic.

You seem perfectly willing to manipulate embryos without the consent of the eventual babies those embryos would produce, just because it MIGHT save a human life.

As I pointed out above, I have no say in whether an excess IVF embryo is donated to research or not. It is the people who produced the embryo who are making decisions on its behalf, not I. I support their decision and their right to make that decision, but that is all I do.

In the situation I described, the state is about to take the life of a criminal, and use of his organs DEFINITELY WOULD save several human lives. And you dont have an opinion on that?

No, I do not think the state should have the right to take an inmates organs without his/her consent. The death row inmate is capable of deciding for him or herself whether or not s/he wants to donate organs, and therefore should have that right.

The excess IVF embryo is not capable of deciding for itself, so someone else has to make that decision. Who do you think that person or persons should be?


and please feel free to link to my blog - thank you for asking.

Don Singleton said...

au contraire, don!

do we agree that if i pay taxes, and the federal government funds ESCR, that i am paying for ESCR?

It is impossible to track every dollar collected and trace it to when it is spent, but it is a reasonable argument.


What is it about that exchange you disagree with? Do you feel it is possible to track every dollar collected and trace it to when it is spent (if so how does that work), or do you not find it a reasonale argument that the government is spending funds one does not agree with?

Does it follow, then, that if I say that I oppose federal funding for ESCR (which you did), that I am essentially saying that I don’t want any of the money I (and/or other people who oppose federal funding for ESCR) pay in taxes to be spent on ESCR?

One can say anything he wants (it is a free country), but I did say that my tax money should not be spent on ESCR, I said that I oppose Federal Government funding.

There is a big difference. I am free to oppose anything I want, but if the government decides to spend money I dont approve of, there is nothing I can do.


you are asserting that sometimes an embryo that was the product of an egg and sperm from a donor bank is donated to research, and you also assert that that has happened or does happen without the consent of the sperm donor.

I am asking you where you read that or heard that.


I dont remember. Do you deny that sperm from donors are ever used in IVF procedures, and are you aware of any sperm banks that allow the donor to specify the terms under which their donation is used?

Because you are all over the map with this death row inmate business. First you posit a situation in which the state is harvesting their organs, and then instead of responding to my criticism of your analogy, you change the analogy to one in which in which the state won’t let them donate their organs. I am afraid I don’t follow your logic.

You may respond to either or both. But if they are too hard, you can skip both

No, I do not think the state should have the right to take an inmates organs without his/her consent.

But it is ok for the state to allow a researcher to take an embryo's cell without his/her consent. Not the consent of the embryo's sperm or egg donor, but the consent of the person that the embryo could/would grow up to be.

The excess IVF embryo is not capable of deciding for itself, so someone else has to make that decision. Who do you think that person or persons should be?

Implant it, and in 21 years 9 months it will be capable.

If you need an answer before then, ask God.

I have also answered a comment on Anuket's blog

anuket said...

I will get back to the federal funding question - but regarding who should decide what happens to the IVF embryo, your answer is sort of a non-answer.

I don't want to make assumptions, so instead i will ask questions. it seems to me you believe it is wrong to destroy any embryo under any circumstances. is that true? if it is true, would it be safe to say then that you are opposed to IVF as it is currently undertaken, since the destruction of embryos is inevitable?

regarding sperm donation, you made an assertion. i do not consider it valid unless you provide evidence that it is true. that is the standard to which i hold myself, and to which i fully expect to be held by others. and to make an assertion without any evidence to support it and then try to make proving you wrong my responsibility - that is a very interesting strategy.

"But if they are too hard, you can skip both"

Perhaps you didn't intend it, but that sounds a little bit nasty to me. It's easy to get nasty, Don. The real challenge is to talk about this subject on which we clearly have very different views without getting nasty.

anuket said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
anuket said...

hi don,

scratch those questions about whether you think no embryo should be destroyed - I ask a better question of you over on my blog.

Don Singleton said...

it seems to me you believe it is wrong to destroy any embryo under any circumstances. is that true? if it is true, would it be safe to say then that you are opposed to IVF as it is currently undertaken, since the destruction of embryos is inevitable?


I am not opposed to IVF for childless couples that are desperate to have a baby, but I wish they would adopt one of the many babies or young children in need of parents.

I do think that current IVF procedures create way too many excess embryos, just so that they can confront parents with the choice of destroying them, or allowing scientists to experiment on them


you made an assertion. i do not consider it valid unless you provide evidence that it is true

http://www.xytex.com/donor/faq.html is the Donor Information page for one sperm bank. In response to the question "What will my semen sample be used for?" the answer is "Your samples will be distributed to physicians worldwide for anonymous donor insemination for their patients who are trying to have a child." Nothing is said about creating embryos for scientific study, and certainly nothing about asking your permission on the disposition of embryos that will not be implanted

"But if they are too hard, you can skip both"

Perhaps you didn't intend it, but that sounds a little bit nasty to me. It's easy to get nasty, Don. The real challenge is to talk about this subject on which we clearly have very different views without getting nasty.


I never intended to be nasty. I believe that end of life decisions are just as important as beginning of life decisions, and perhaps even more important since the involved life is able to make a conscious decision. Therefore I believe that both of the scenerios I discussed are valid, and should be explored. But I gave you an out, if you felt you could not discuss those. I fail to see how that is nasty.

anuket said...

Hi Don,

I also responded to your post on my blog.

You said:
I am not opposed to IVF for childless couples that are desperate to have a baby, but I wish they would adopt one of the many babies or young children in need of parents.

I know a couple who are trying to adopt. They gave up on trying to adopt in this country long ago (I don’t know the reasons why, I just know it was hopeless enough that they started the process in another country.) After a year of failing to get a child in that country, they gave up and are now setting their hopes on a third country. Adoption is not as easy as it looks.

I do think that current IVF procedures create way too many excess embryos

I agree. Everyone would win if they could find a way to do it with exactly the number of embryos, preferably one, that would be needed.

just so that they can confront parents with the choice of destroying them, or allowing scientists to experiment on them

Here is where you lose me – what you said was “IVF procedures create way too many excess embryos just so they can confront parents, etc…. or allowing scientists, etc.”

It sounds an awful lot like you are saying that excess embryos are created on purpose, first so that the parents can be tortured with the difficult decision about what to do with them, and second so that they can be used in research – but you couldn’t be saying that – it would be too whacked.

Nothing is said about creating embryos for scientific study, and certainly nothing about asking your permission on the disposition of embryos that will not be implanted

Thank you for the link!!! However, the reason nothing is said about creating embryos for scientific study is because embryos are not being created for scientific study. They are being created for implantation – period.

And you are right – they do not ask for the donor’s preferences in the event that there are excess embryos. That is because a sperm donor has no parental rights – at least that is the way it is in California, and I would be surprised if it were different in very many states. Sperm donation wouldn’t work very well if the donor retained rights and responsibilities with respect to the entity or entities that came of his sperm. How would it be decided which “father” has the responsibility for the embryo or child? Essentially, that decision has already been made. I would be shocked if there was anyplace where a donor retained rights.

You might argue that it should be made more explicit – perhaps donors should be told that there could be excess embryos and what the options are for the couple or woman whose eggs were used to choose from, but it could only be to inform them so that they could then choose not to donate, because sperm donation would not work if the donor retained any rights or responsibilities at with respect to any embryo created.

Regarding end of life issues, I agree, they are important. However, I think (and believe I demonstrated) that your analogy linking the donation of an embryo to research to the idea of involuntary organ donation for inmates to be fatally flawed, and therefore the two issues remain separate, in my opinion. And, unfortunately, I am less interested in end of life issues at this point in time.

But I gave you an out, if you felt you could not discuss those. I fail to see how that is nasty.

“if you would rather not discuss those issues for whatever reason, I understand,” is an out.

“But if they are too hard, you can skip both,” could be read two ways – either you meant “hard” in the sense of emotionally difficult for me, or you meant “hard” in the sense of being beyond my capabilities. The latter would be nasty, obviously. Your statement was ambiguous, but now it is clear. Thank you for your consideration.

Don Singleton said...

I also responded to your post on my blog.

Thank you. I will check it out when I finish here

I know a couple who are trying to adopt. They gave up on trying to adopt in this country long ago (I don’t know the reasons why, I just know it was hopeless enough that they started the process in another country.) After a year of failing to get a child in that country, they gave up and are now setting their hopes on a third country. Adoption is not as easy as it looks.

There are not a lot of white babies available for adoption (so many are being killed by abortion) and many of the black babies available are adicted to crack. But there are a number of children who really need loving parents.

I do think that current IVF procedures create way too many excess embryos

I agree. Everyone would win if they could find a way to do it with exactly the number of embryos, preferably one, that would be needed.


I agree

just so that they can confront parents with the choice of destroying them, or allowing scientists to experiment on them

Here is where you lose me – what you said was “IVF procedures create way too many excess embryos just so they can confront parents, etc…. or allowing scientists, etc.”

It sounds an awful lot like you are saying that excess embryos are created on purpose, first so that the parents can be tortured with the difficult decision about what to do with them, and second so that they can be used in research – but you couldn’t be saying that – it would be too whacked.


Certainly excess embryos are created on purpose. If they only created the number they were going to implant, there would be nothing left to freeze. Why that is happening could be debated (I did not use the word torture), but the fact that it is being done is irrefutable.

Nothing is said about creating embryos for scientific study, and certainly nothing about asking your permission on the disposition of embryos that will not be implanted

I don't understand. Are you saying that a doctor performing IVF says "I will take x eggs for this procedure, and will you allow me to take y more so that I can use them for scientific study?"

Thank you for the link!!! However, the reason nothing is said about creating embryos for scientific study is because embryos are not being created for scientific study. They are being created for implantation – period.

Then why are they not implanted.

And you are right – they do not ask for the donor’s preferences in the event that there are excess embryos. That is because a sperm donor has no parental rights – at least that is the way it is in California, and I would be surprised if it were different in very many states. Sperm donation wouldn’t work very well if the donor retained rights and responsibilities with respect to the entity or entities that came of his sperm. How would it be decided which “father” has the responsibility for the embryo or child? Essentially, that decision has already been made. I would be shocked if there was anyplace where a donor retained rights.

Earlier I said "even though many being used were never consciously donated by the sources of the eggs and sperm". In some IVF procedures eggs are fertilized from sperm from a sperm bank. Sperm donated to a sperm bank is usually donated so that infertile couples can have child. Not so that eggs can be fertilized and then subjected to wierd experimentation" and you asked "regarding sperm donation, you made an assertion. i do not consider it valid unless you provide evidence that it is true". I just provided the evidence you asked for

You might argue that it should be made more explicit – perhaps donors should be told that there could be excess embryos and what the options are for the couple or woman whose eggs were used to choose from, but it could only be to inform them so that they could then choose not to donate, because sperm donation would not work if the donor retained any rights or responsibilities at with respect to any embryo created.

I am not saying that a sperm donor should retain rights or responsibilities to the embryo created, but I do believe that they should be able to say that sperm they donate so an infertile couple can have a baby, should be able to say the sperm cannot be used to fertilize more eggs than are required for that purpose.

Regarding end of life issues, I agree, they are important. However, I think (and believe I demonstrated) that your analogy linking the donation of an embryo to research to the idea of involuntary organ donation for inmates to be fatally flawed, and therefore the two issues remain separate, in my opinion. And, unfortunately, I am less interested in end of life issues at this point in time.

The only difference is that the life involved in the end of life matter can speak for him/her self. The embryo cannot.

Your statement was ambiguous, but now it is clear. Thank you for your consideration.

You are welcome

anuket said...

Certainly excess embryos are created on purpose.

My mistake. You are correct, the embryos are being made on purpose. What I should have said was that it sounded like you were saying they are created for the purpose of (your words were “just so that,” which is pretty much “for the purpose of”) “they” (who are “’they?”) could “confront” the parents with having to make a choice between destroying them or donating them to research – and that would be a whacked thing to say. I also misunderstood you to be saying that they were also being created for the purpose of use in research. Don’t know where my head was at.

YOU said:
Nothing is said about creating embryos for scientific study, and certainly nothing about asking your permission on the disposition of embryos that will not be implanted

To which you responded:
I don't understand. Are you saying that a doctor performing IVF says "I will take x eggs for this procedure, and will you allow me to take y more so that I can use them for scientific study?"

I said:
“…embryos are not being created for scientific study. They are being created for implantation – period.”

You said:
Then why are they not implanted.

The embryos are created with no other purpose in mind but to give the woman the best chance of a successful implant. The hit rate is low with implantation, so they put several in at a time in order to increase the chances one will implant. They create enough embryos (if they can) to go through several tries at implantation. If it occurs the first try, the rest of the embryos usually go into the freezer until the couple decides what to do with them.

You said:
I just provided the evidence you asked for

Yes, and I said “thanks!” and then went on to give you my thoughts on what you had said.

I do believe that they should be able to say the sperm cannot be used to fertilize more eggs than are required for that purpose.

I would have no problem with that, but how many eggs are required for the purpose?

You said:
The only difference is that the life involved in the end of life matter can speak for him/her self. The embryo cannot.

Capacity to speak for oneself is a crucial difference between an embryo and a person at the end of life – as are the possession or lack thereof of consciousness and ability to suffer. But the one of the biggest differences is that, because the embryos can’t speak for themselves, our society bestows upon the couples undergoing IVF responsibility to speak for them. That is the context in which we are debating this issue.

And here I have a confession to make – I am not even sure what issue it is that we are debating here. Maybe that is a signal that is it time to stop the madness – what do you think?

Don Singleton said...

I would have no problem with that, but how many eggs are required for the purpose?

One, if God wants it to work.

If he does not want it to work, there is no number that would suffice.


because the embryos can’t speak for themselves, our society bestows upon the couples undergoing IVF responsibility to speak for them.

This just shows how our society has deterioriated if it bestows on the people wanting something to happen, the responsibility to speak for the lives of the lives they have created, including giving them the power to say destroy them, or experiment on them

And here I have a confession to make – I am not even sure what issue it is that we are debating here. Maybe that is a signal that is it time to stop the madness – what do you think?

There have been several issues, but you have lasted a lot longer than I thought you would, so if you are tired I will just say thank you for the discussion.

anuket said...

(i can't help myself!)

You said:
One, if God wants it to work. If he does not want it to work, there is no number that would suffice.

Whew! That really simplifies matters. Since it works all the time with the creation of multiple embryos, God must want it to work with the creation of multiple embryos. And since it is probably pretty rare that all the embryos are used, a fact of which God must be fully aware, and he allows successful implantations to take place even when it means there will be embryos leftover, clearly he must want it to happen exactly that way.

You said:
This just shows how our society has deterioriated if it bestows on the people wanting something to happen, the responsibility to speak for the lives of the lives they have created, including giving them the power to say destroy them, or experiment on them

Our society has not deteriorated. This is exactly how it has been and how it should be.

Consider the unfortunate individual who has been rendered brain dead by an accident without stating her/his desires regarding organ donation beforehand. Aside from the differences in circumstances that gave rise to each situation (accident on the one hand, and a decision that the couple has the right to make, on the other), there are myriad parallels between the accident victim and an excess IVF embryo whose parents do not want to donate it to another couple. Neither of them has a future that includes life (again, I am talking about things as they are today, not the way anyone else thinks things should be. And as it stands, the couple has the right not donate to another couple, and once they make that decision, the embryo no longer has a future that includes life.) Neither of them has consciousness or the ability to suffer, nor will they ever have either. Neither of them can speak for themselves (the accident victim could have but missed the chance – the embryo obviously couldn’t have.)

In the case of the accident victim, responsibility for decisions regarding organ donation falls to the closest relative, who is charged with making the decision s/he thinks the person him/herself would have made. In the case of the excess IVF embryo that is not going to be donated to another couple, responsibility for the decision regarding donation to research rests with the closest relative(s), the people who produced it.

If you say that you or the state should decide what happens to the unneeded embryo of a couple undergoing IVF, then you must also say that the decision regarding organ donation in the case described above should rest with the state rather than the closest relative.

Looking at it from another angle, who else should speak for the embryos but the people who created them? You? Me? If you think you should decide, then it seems to me you would say that couples undergoing IVF treatment should not be allowed to donate their embryos to research because it will destroy them, in which case you also have to disallow them from throwing them in the trash. (It would actually mean that IVF as it is currently undertaken would have to be banned, because at this time it cannot be done without destroying some embryos, but we will set that aside for the moment.)

That leaves one option: donating them to another couple – which, if it is not what the couple wanted to do, and according to one article I read, most do not, would be called forced parenthood. (Fortunately, state courts have come down on the side of people having the right not to be parents if they don’t want to be.)

So, following your thought that people should not be allowed to choose to donate their excess IVF embryos to research (that is my interpretation of your statement above) to the logical endpoints, and given that IVF is done the way it is done today, this is where it ends up:

First, IVF would have to be banned. That is the ultimate outcome.

Second, if it were possible to engage in IVF without culling embryos from the group being prepared for implantation, or without losing somewhere between 10-25% in the freezing process alone, and the only embryo loss was that of excess embryos, people undergoing IVF would stripped of their responsibility for their own embryos would be forced by the state to be parents.

Finally, the decision regarding organ donation for a brain dead person who did not state a preference would have to be taken away from the closest relative and bestowed upon the state.

If any of my logic isn’t entirely clear, please read my blog post entitled IVF, Embryos & Giant Pink Elephants. In it, I make the “IVF would have to be abolished” argument in more detail. I have not yet post an article regarding the parallel to organ donation.

anuket said...

just thinking more about the God idea - i have often heard it said by or about someone who is undergoing some challenge or another (cancer, illness of a child, natural disaster, etc.) that it is God's will, that it is all part of God's plan. Your comment that all it would take would be one embryo, if God wanted it so, seems to me to be in the same vein. what god wants to happen, happens.

If that is the case, then is must follow, in my opinion, that everything that happens must be God's will - and everything would include, well, everything - the creation of excess embryos via IVF, the donation of some of them to research, somatic cell nuclear transfer, tsunamis, katrina, illnesses in your or my family, etc.

Isn't that right?

Don Singleton said...

(i can't help myself!)

<grin>

You said:
One, if God wants it to work. If he does not want it to work, there is no number that would suffice.

Whew! That really simplifies matters. Since it works all the time with the creation of multiple embryos, God must want it to work with the creation of multiple embryos.


Not necessarilly. You asked how many are required. And one is required to make a baby.

And since it is probably pretty rare that all the embryos are used, a fact of which God must be fully aware, and he allows successful implantations to take place even when it means there will be embryos leftover, clearly he must want it to happen exactly that way.

Just because something happens does not mean it happened because God wanted it to happen that way. Remember Free Choice?

Our society has not deteriorated. This is exactly how it has been and how it should be.

There certainly has been deterioration in our society. When I was born there was no "abortion on demand", there were far fewer divorces than there are now, prayer in school was not illegal, and we celebrated Christmas - we even sang Christmas carols in school.

People got married first-and then lived together. Every family had a father and a mother.

We were before gay-rights, computer-dating, dual careers, daycare centers, and group therapy.

Our lives were governed by the Ten Commandments, good judgment, and common sense. We were taught to know the difference between right and wrong and to stand up and take responsibility for our actions. Serving your country was a privilege; living in this country was a bigger privilege.

We thought fast food was what people ate during Lent. Having a meaningful relationship meant getting along with your cousins. Draft dodgers were people who closed their front doors when the evening breeze started.

Time-sharing meant time the family spent together in the evenings and weekends-not purchasing condominiums.

We never heard of FM radios, tape decks, CDs, electric typewriters, yogurt, or guys wearing earrings. We listened to the Big Bands, Jack Benny, and the President's speeches on our radios. And I don't ever remember any kid blowing his brains out listening to Tommy Dorsey. If you saw anything with 'Made in Japan' on it, it was junk.

The term 'making out' referred to how you did on your school exam. Pizza Hut, McDonald's, and instant coffee were unheard of. We had 5 & and 10-cent stores where you could actually buy things for 5 and 10 cents. Ice cream cones, phone calls, rides on a streetcar, and a Pepsi were all a nickel. And if you didn't want to splurge, you could spend your nickel on enough stamps to mail 1 letter and 2 postcards.

You could buy a new Chevy Coupe for $600 but who could afford one? Too bad, because gas was 11 cents a gallon.

In my day, 'grass' was mowed, 'coke' was a cold drink, 'pot' was something your mother cooked in, and 'rock music' was your grandmother's lullaby. 'Aids' were helpers in the Principal's office, 'chip' meant a piece of wood, 'hardware' was found in a hardware store, and 'software' wasn't even a word.

Whether it should be as it was when I was born or as it is now is a matter of opinion.


Consider the unfortunate individual who has been rendered brain dead by an accident without stating her/his desires regarding organ donation beforehand.

If he has family, they can still donate his organs. (And even if he stated his wishes ahead of time, they will still have to approve the donation before the organs are taken.) And if he does not have family, then I will agree he is unfortunate.

In the case of the accident victim, responsibility for decisions regarding organ donation falls to the closest relative, who is charged with making the decision s/he thinks the person him/herself would have made.

The dead man does not need his organs any more. He has gone on to a better place where they are not needed.

In the case of the excess IVF embryo that is not going to be donated to another couple, responsibility for the decision regarding donation to research rests with the closest relative(s), the people who produced it.

A potential life, not wanted by those that created it, and not given a chance to live.

If you say that you or the state should decide what happens to the unneeded embryo of a couple undergoing IVF, then you must also say that the decision regarding organ donation in the case described above should rest with the state rather than the closest relative.

I dont know that I MUST say anything, but I have no problem with the state authorizing organ donation. The previous owner of those organs has gone on to a better place (or perhaps not a better place, but in any event he has no further need for them).

So, following your thought that people should not be allowed to choose to donate their excess IVF embryos to research (that is my interpretation of your statement above) to the logical endpoints, and given that IVF is done the way it is done today, this is where it ends up:

First, IVF would have to be banned. That is the ultimate outcome.


Not at all. Just don't create more embryos than you plan to implant.

If you want to harvest multiple eggs at one time, go ahead, and freeze them if you want. But don't create excess embryos to be frozen.


If that is the case, then is must follow, in my opinion, that everything that happens must be God's will - and everything would include, well, everything - the creation of excess embryos via IVF, the donation of some of them to research, somatic cell nuclear transfer, tsunamis, katrina, illnesses in your or my family, etc.

Isn't that right?


Not at all. God gave man Free Will. A lot of things man does are not things that God wants. Many make Him sad. Murders, rapes, abortions, destruction or experimentation on embryos, and many other things.

anuket said...

I said:
First, IVF would have to be banned. That is the ultimate outcome.

You said:
Not at all. Just don't create more embryos than you plan to implant.

when you say implant, do you mean place in a uterus with the goal of implantation, or actually implant?

Don Singleton said...

when you say implant, do you mean place in a uterus with the goal of implantation, or actually implant?

That you intend to place in the uterus at that time

anuket said...

Let’s backtrack:

You said:
I do believe that they should be able to say that sperm they donate so an infertile couple can have a baby, should be able to say the sperm cannot be used to fertilize more eggs than are required for that purpose.

and eventually you said:
And one is required to make a baby.

I think it could be argued that your statement that one egg is required to make a baby is incorrect. It takes one egg to make an embryo – it takes many eggs to make a baby: 60-80% of embryos produced by natural intercourse are lost by day 7 Session 1: Early Embryonic Development: An Up-to-Date Account, President’s Council on Bioethics. Some of them had abnormalities that prevented them from implanting, but they still used an egg.– ergo, it takes one egg to make an embryo, but quite a few eggs, along with implantation, to make a baby.

And that means that if you (as our hypothetical sperm donor) say that your sperm cannot be used to fertilize more eggs than are required to make a baby – well, what it really means is that your sperm can be used to fertilize any number of eggs, because that is what it takes to make a baby.

However, I believe your goal would be more clearly expressed by saying that none of your sperm should be used to fertilize any egg that has any chance of becoming an excess embryo, or any egg fertilized by your sperm would have to be guaranteed to be placed in a uterus,

That could be problematic, because as I understand it, embryos are routinely discarded pre-placement in the uterus if they are deemed to be flawed or inferior, but maybe that would be ok with you – maybe your issue is strictly with ones that are deemed viable but are not placed in utero. Please clarify.

After doing a little reading just now, it seems to me that what happens is that they really don’t have control over how many embryos are created – well, they can predict the maximum possible based on how many eggs are mixed with sperm, but they cannot predict exactly how many will be fertilized. So they take as many eggs as they can get because some will not be fertilized and some that are will be judged inviable and discarded – and they hope they end up with enough to undertake one implantation attempt. Apparently, sometimes they end up with more than will be needed for one implantation attempt and here is where we run into the problem.

I would think that undergoing a “cycle” of IVF (suppression of one’s own hormones, artificial stimulation of egg production and egg retrieval, but particularly the monkeying with the hormones part) is something one would want to avoid if one could, and so if there are more embryos than are needed for a first implantation attempt, it is probably considered fortunate because it means that in the event of failure the first time, a second attempt can be made without subjecting the woman to another “cycle.”

I’d wager that neither of us knows the percentage of times that they end up with more than are needed vs. exactly what is needed vs. fewer than desired, but it seems clear that it is impossible, as IVF is currently undertaken, for them to create just exactly the number of embryos needed for a single implantation attempt – and even if they could, there would surely be those who would argue that precluding the need for a second cycle is desirable enough to warrant at least trying to end up with more embryos than needed for a single implantation attempt.

Regarding your idea that the eggs be frozen pre-fertilization, first, I have no idea whether that is possible, and second, when you thaw them you are faced with the same issues as you would have been if they were fresh.

Anyway, you should work on ideas of how your vision could be achieved. You could take Hurlbut as a role model - he is not a scientist, and yet he came up with this idea (that you think is ridiculous but let’s set that aside for the moment) and he has managed to get someone to undertake the experiment. Of course, he is on the President’s Council for Bioethics, which couldn’t have hurt his cause, but seriously – it is easy for us to sit at our computers and go on about how things should be, especially when we have no expertise at all in the field on which we are commenting (I am speaking for myself – do you have any expertise with IVF?)

Until your vision becomes possible, however, or until such time as couples are stripped of their responsibility for their own offspring and said responsibility is given to the state, i.e., you and me, and couples are forced to give their embryos to others (are there other possible ways of keeping excess embryos from either being created or being destroyed?) there is a reality here that has to be dealt with. Excess embryos are created, and the people who produced them are endowed with responsibility for them, and most of them do not want to donate to another couple, and that leaves two options: simply destroy, or donate to research that could help lots of people, each of which results in the destruction of the embryo.

And I guess you have already addressed that. You don’t want to pay for it, and in your ideal world, it wouldn’t be an issue because there would be no excess embryos, but as long as there are, you are ok with some of them being donated to research – not really ok, I don’t think, but not planning to pursue making it illegal.

Is that right?

If so, then I can live with your position – could have saved us a lot of debating if I had realized that earlier. If there were a way to create exactly the right number of embryos, that would be great (although if that were the case, you and I would no choice but to get into the whole somatic cell nuclear transfer battle – thank goodness for small favors!) but I would definitely oppose something like making it illegal for a couple to decide to destroy their embryo(s) (not that you suggested that, but aside from being able to create just the right number of embryos, I can’t think of any other way to stop the destruction – well, short of outlawing IVF, which would really have to happen to stop the destruction of embryos if your vision could not be achieved.)

You said:
Whether it should be as it was when I was born or as it is now is a matter of opinion.

I am sorry the world or this country has deteriorated so much in your eyes. I agree with some of what you consider deterioration, and disagree with some, but overall, I think this country is going to hell in a hand basket – so there is something else that we agree on, I think, though perhaps for different reasons.

Don Singleton said...

I think it could be argued that your statement that one egg is required to make a baby is incorrect. It takes one egg to make an embryo – it takes many eggs to make a baby: 60-80% of embryos produced by natural intercourse are lost by day 7

And there are millions of sperm, but the baby is a result of one egg being fertilized by one sperm.

That could be problematic, because as I understand it, embryos are routinely discarded pre-placement in the uterus if they are deemed to be flawed or inferior, but maybe that would be ok with you – maybe your issue is strictly with ones that are deemed viable but are not placed in utero. Please clarify.

I am not wild about IVF, but I am prepared to accept it if it enables a childless couple to have a baby. But I don't want excess embryos created and frozen.

Apparently, sometimes they end up with more than will be needed for one implantation attempt and here is where we run into the problem.

Precisely

I would think that undergoing a “cycle” of IVF (suppression of one’s own hormones, artificial stimulation of egg production and egg retrieval, but particularly the monkeying with the hormones part) is something one would want to avoid if one could

A lot of people do a lot of immoral things just because they can.

If a woman wants excess eggs harvested, then freeze them, not embryos


I am speaking for myself – do you have any expertise with IVF?

No, but have no experience killing someone, yet I know it is wrong

Is that right?

Yes, and I believe I have stated those positions earlier.

I am sorry the world or this country has deteriorated so much in your eyes. I agree with some of what you consider deterioration, and disagree with some, but overall, I think this country is going to hell in a hand basket – so there is something else that we agree on, I think, though perhaps for different reasons.

There are good things and there are bad things. Glad we can agree on some things, and have an intelligent discussion when we disagree

anuket said...

You said:
And there are millions of sperm, but the baby is a result of one egg being fertilized by one sperm.

To say it takes one egg and one sperm is like saying that it took just that one airplane at Kitty Hawk get us into the air.

That there are millions of sperm simply serves to buttress my argument. If all it takes to make a baby is one egg and one sperm, then there should only be just be as many of each as a human being could be expect to use, one per baby, in a lifetime. I stand by my assertion – it takes millions of sperm and quite a few eggs and implantation to even start a baby. One egg and one sperm make an embryo, not every embryo becomes a baby, even when God is the only one who has a say in the matter. If all it took was one egg and one sperm to make a baby, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

You said:
If a woman wants excess eggs harvested, then freeze them, not embryos

But Don, you do see that that would not solve the problem of not being able to control the number of eggs fertilized, right? Once those eggs are thawed and united with sperm, you are right back where you started - with no control over how many are fertilized

I said:
I am speaking for myself – do you have any expertise with IVF?

You said
No, but have no experience killing someone, yet I know it is wrong

I said expertise, not experience. That you find IVF to be immoral has been perfectly clear for quite some time now.

One can have expertise, i.e., detailed knowledge of killing (like a medical examiner, for example) without engaging in any killing oneself.

You know, I thought things were going along so nicely, but here you go, answering a question I did not ask in such a way as to imply that I, as one who is not opposed to IVF as it functions today, don’t understand the difference between right and wrong. i am sure that was unintentional, but the fact remains that you did not answer the question I asked, and you are not addressing my suspicion that you don’t have any idea how plausible your dream of creating just the exact number of embryos is.

By the way, last time I checked, you had not responded to my last post on my blog. I am interested in hearing your response, if you get a minute.

Oh, and to say you are not wild about IVF but are willing to accept it, and then to qualify that statement by making your acceptance of it in some way conditional on it not being carried out as it is today kind of negates your acceptance of it. You don’t accept IVF, you would accept a kind of assisted reproduction that did not result in excess embryos, but you don’t accept IVF right now, today, as it is currently undertaken - which is simply confirmed when you liken it to killing in terms of right and wrong. And that is why we have been at odds in spite of our apparent agreement on the broad strokes– because you don’t really think IVF and ESCR are acceptable. You say you do, but then you argue vigorously against them.

Don Singleton said...

To say it takes one egg and one sperm is like saying that it took just that one airplane at Kitty Hawk get us into the air.

It did. A lot happens afterward, just as a lot happens in the 9 months after the embryo is implanted

One egg and one sperm make an embryo, not every embryo becomes a baby, even when God is the only one who has a say in the matter. If all it took was one egg and one sperm to make a baby, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I am not the designer, but as I understand His design usually one egg is released each period, ane millions of sperm are used because they must swim a long way, but once one makes it to the egg the surface of the egg changes so that only the winner makes it inside. Therefore one egg, one sperm. The embryo then may or may not implant, according to His will.

Occasionally multiple eggs will be released, and with millions of sperm they may all become fertilized. If two of the resulting embryos implant, you have faternal twins. If one of the embryos splits into two, you have identical twins.


But Don, you do see that that would not solve the problem of not being able to control the number of eggs fertilized, right? Once those eggs are thawed and united with sperm, you are right back where you started - with no control over how many are fertilized

Not at all. It does not make any sense to thaw eggs and fertilize them if you dont plan to implant.
Thus there are no frozen embryos to be wasted. If a woman wants to discard her frozen eggs, I dont object. If she wants to donate them to another woman who wants a baby I dont object. If some mad scientist wants to fertilize them and experiment on the embryos, I object.


I said expertise, not experience.

I don't have any expertise or experience with killing someone.

By the way, last time I checked, you had not responded to my last post on my blog. I am interested in hearing your response, if you get a minute.

I intend to, and I intend to read the paper you sent. I have just been busy, but I will get to both.

to say you are not wild about IVF but are willing to accept it, and then to qualify that statement by making your acceptance of it in some way conditional on it not being carried out as it is today kind of negates your acceptance of it.... you don’t really think IVF and ESCR are acceptable

I approve of IVF. I wish the prospective parents would consider adoption, but I have no problem with it if they want to spend their money to try IVF. I don't want my tax money to be spent on IVF. I wish they would freeze eggs and sperm and only create the number of embryos they plan to implant.

I do not approve of ESCR. I would not suggest it be made illegal, but I dont want my tax money spent on it.

I do not approve of cloning, and would like to see it made illegal.

I approve of ASCR, and research on stem cells from Cord Blood, and do not object to tax money being spent on it.

anuket said...

I said:
But Don, you do see that that would not solve the problem of not being able to control the number of eggs fertilized, right

You said:
Not at all. It does not make any sense to thaw eggs and fertilize them if you dont plan to implant. Thus there are no frozen embryos to be wasted.

Picture this:
1) you extract X eggs from a woman
2) toss them into a Petri dish with a bunch of sperm,
3) you have no control over how many of the eggs are fertilized (I think we are agreed on that part)
4) so it is possible that you could end up with more than you end up using.

Now picture this:
1) you extract X eggs from a woman and freeze them or some portion of them
2) at some later date the eggs are thawed and you
3) toss them into a Petri dish with a bunch of sperm,
4) you have no control over how many of the eggs are fertilized (I think we are agreed on that part)
5) so it is possible that you could end up with more than you end up using.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, from the “toss them into a petrie dish with a bunch of sperm” step on is the same regardless of whether the eggs are fresh or frozen.

You said:
I don't have any expertise or experience with killing someone.

I always find it puzzling when someone persists in answering a question that was not asked. It makes me wonder – do they think I will not notice? I suppose they do – as do people who say they said one thing when they actually said something entirely different – now, I could understand trying that tactic if it had been a verbal conversation and memories could be questioned, but when it is done “on paper,” so to speak, there are no memories, the thing that was said is there for anyone to read – and still there are those who persist in denying they said it. It is baffling.

you said:
I realize research in both {ASCR & ESCR] is required,

but you also said:
I don't like the idea of anyone doing ESCR, because I feel it is both immoral and unnecessary
Which is it? Is ESCR required, and if so, why, or is it immoral and unnecessary?

Regarding IVF, you said:
I approve of IVF.

you also said:

This just shows how our society has deterioriated if it bestows on the people wanting something to happen, the responsibility to speak for the lives of the lives they have created, including giving them the power to say destroy them, or experiment on them

and, with respect to IVF:
A lot of people do a lot of immoral things just because they can.

and again, with respect to IVF:
No, but have no experience killing someone, yet I know it is wrong

Something about the fact you think that the people who produce embryos having the right to decide their fates, including destroying them or donating them to research, is an indicator of the degree to which our society has deteriorated; and that you consider IVF not just immoral, but throw it into the same basket as murder in terms of degree of wrong-ness… something about those things just doesn’t jibe with the statement “I approve of IVF.”

Don Singleton said...

I received the latest message from anuket just before I went into the hospital, and got so involved in cleaning up other matters when I got back home that I missed his message.

Sorry about that

The gist of my position is that I approve of IVF for a family that cannot get pregnant without it, but I dont approve of federal funding for it.

I do not object to extracting more eggs than will be used in one IVF attempt and freezing them, but I object to freezing and then using for research embryos created in IVF but not implanted.

I do not object to ESCR using the cell lines Bush selected, but I object to the creation of new cell lines just to experiment on.

I believe that ASCR offers a much better chance of success, since cells can be taken from someone needing treatment and grown to create the cure, and not worry about rejection possibilities.