PDA

View Full Version : Lab Creates Babies As Stem-Cell Donors


LadyCrais
05-04-2004, 10:16 PM
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040505/D82C5HP00.html

Lab Creates Babies As Stem-Cell Donors

May 4, 11:00 PM (ET)

By LINDSEY TANNER

CHICAGO (AP) - In a growing practice that troubles some ethicists, a Chicago laboratory helped create five healthy babies so that they could serve as stem-cell donors for their ailing brothers and sisters.

The made-to-order infants, from different families, were screened and selected when they were still embryos to make sure they would be compatible donors. Their siblings suffered from leukemia or a rare and potentially lethal anemia.

This is the first time embryo tissue-typing has been done for common disorders like leukemia that are not inherited, and the results suggest that many more children than previously thought could benefit from the technology, said Dr. Anver Kuliev, a Chicago doctor who participated in the research.

"This technology has wide implications in medical practice," Kuliev said Tuesday at a news conference.


The Chicago doctors said the healthy embryos that were not matches were frozen for potential future use. But some ethicists said such perfectly healthy embryos could end up being discarded.

"This was a search-and-destroy mission," said Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The chosen embryos "were allowed to be born so they could donate tissue to benefit someone else."

Valparaiso University professor Gilbert Meilaender, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, called the practice "morally troubling."

The council recently called for increased scrutiny of the largely unregulated U.S. infertility industry.

The cases involved prenatal tests called pre-implantation HLA testing, pioneered at Chicago's Reproductive Genetics Institute.

The tests are an offshoot of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, which has been done for more than 1,000 couples worldwide to weed out test-tube embryos with genetic diseases such as Down syndrome, or, more recently, for sex selection.

The institute's doctors made headlines four years ago after performing embryo tissue typing plus genetic disease screening for a Colorado couple who wanted to create another baby to save their daughter, who had a rare inherited disease called Fanconi anemia. The resulting baby boy, Adam Nash, donated bone marrow in an operation doctors said was a success.

Since then, embryo tissue typing with genetic disease testing has been performed more than three dozen times worldwide, with most of the cases done at the Chicago institute, Kuliev said.

Kuliev said the latest cases are the first instances in which embryos were tissue-typed but not screened genetically for diseases.

The cases, reported in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, involved nine couples who submitted embryos that underwent tissue-typing tests during 2002 and 2003. Five had infants considered suitable donors.

So far, stem cells from the umbilical cord blood of one infant have been donated to an ailing sibling, Kuliev said. He called the operation a success but said the older child will need continued monitoring to be sure.

Another baby was born last June to an English couple who traveled to Chicago after British fertility authorities denied them permission to undergo the procedure in England, said Dr. Mohammed Taranissi, a London doctor who co-authored the JAMA report. The couple's older child has Diamond-Blackfan anemia, a rare blood ailment that can lead to leukemia. Taranissi said a transplant from the baby boy's umbilical cord blood is scheduled soon.

Kuliev said the institute has done HLA embryo testing alone for more than a dozen other couples and demand is growing.

More than 13,000 U.S. residents are diagnosed yearly with one of the leukemias involved in the research - acute myeloid leukemia and acute lymphoid leukemia, the most common childhood leukemia.

Taranissi disagreed with ethicists concerned about discarding disease-free embryos. He noted that it often happens with in vitro fertilization, when doctors frequently create more test-tube embryos than are needed.

With tissue-typing embryos, "you're doing this as a lifesaving procedure most of the time," Taranissi said.

For years, families with sick children have conceived babies without costly test-tube procedures, taking a 1-in-4 chance that the child will be a match for the ailing sibling, said University of Wisconsin medical ethicist Norman Fost, who wrote a JAMA editorial.

Some have had abortions when standard prenatal testing showed the child would not be a suitable donor, he said.

The new procedure, he noted, does not involve abortion and poses no known risks to the embryos. Furthermore, parents seeking donor babies typically are well-intentioned and love the donor children, Fost said.

"Of all the reasons people have babies, this would seem to be a wonderful reason. Most reasons are either mindless sex or selfish reasons," he said.

Scarran Raptor
05-04-2004, 10:31 PM
well this is one hell of a moral dilemma to say the least, I mean this is one of those few times when I'm literally without any witty retort

Frellster
05-04-2004, 10:53 PM
Well, if your child had Luekemia, and you could create via invitro, embryos, and screen them for tissue combatibility, you would do it right? It would save your child and create another life.

Ouroboros
05-04-2004, 11:42 PM
I think it would be wonderful for a pair of siblings to grow up together knowing one had actually saved the life of the other. I don't forsee a problem here at all since I don't consider an embryo to be a person any more than I consider a guy who beats off to have commited mass murder. The child dying of Leukemia however most certainly is a person and I'd love to see someone tell his parents that they won't save his life because they might have to kill a few cells in order to do it.

We kill many animals every year in the name of medical research, all of which have higher consciousness and better cause to be called a higher lifeform than does an embryo.

stellar
05-05-2004, 04:43 AM
This isn't cloning. What's the big deal?

LadyCrais
05-05-2004, 05:55 AM
well this is one hell of a moral dilemma to say the least, I mean this is one of those few times when I'm literally without any witty retort

Thank you! I have to admit that it scares the hell out of me when people glide right past these ethical dilemmas as though they were no brainers without the slightest consideration of the ramifications and the slippery slopes down which they take us.

This isn't about saving a child with leukemia. It's about children to order, designer babies, rational design of humanity either for whimsical reasons (gender? eye color? musical talent?) or for livestock purposes of harvesting (stem cells? compatible organ transplant? (kidney or partial liver without killing the child), and who knows what the next technological advance brings).

Frellster
05-05-2004, 07:16 AM
Well, in America, 70% of the time, this type of screening is done for gender as opposed to desease or compatibility. Silly, considering gender is hardly a desease. In ten years or so we'll be able to screen for eye color, height etc... the top priority for scientists is to identify all the genetic markers for deseases. However, since screening for gender is frivilous, it can hardly be compared with screening for illness or tissue compatibility. We can't block a life-saving advancement simply because it can be abused.

Twich
05-05-2004, 07:49 AM
Well, if your child had Luekemia, and you could create via invitro, embryos, and screen them for tissue combatibility, you would do it right? It would save your child and create another life.


The embryo to which you refer would also be your child. Whether you know it as well as you know the other, it's still your child.

This is a difficult subject for me, being pregnant. I firmly believe that an embryo is a person from the moment of conception. Know why? From that very SECOND a woman is pregnant. She's not mostly pregnant or partly pregnant or in stage one of pregnancy. She's pregnant. And her body changes and shifts from that SECOND to nurture and protect the child within her.

*sigh* Disposable babies. I'm going to hug my kids now.

Darth Buddha
05-05-2004, 08:01 AM
Well, Twich, I can't really answer you but with a technical fact to get past the ban:

With many birth control pills, an egg is fertilized... so it is a person, but the artificial hormones prevent implantation. I leave you to your own conclusions.

More importantly, many fertilized eggs don't implant even without said hormones. I again leave you to your own conclusions.

SweetpeaAeryn
05-05-2004, 08:14 AM
I have a hard time with stem cell issues. On the one hand, one of my closest friends has a mom who is alive now because of stem cell work to help her overcome her cancer. Yet, I am very worried about my own fertility and I always think about all of those babies that could have been mine.

And I also understand wanting to screen to prevent disease and illness, but I do worry about the screening eventually going to far, ie. eye color, height, etc. Hitler wanted to be able to do that. It's kind of scary.

So I, honestly, don't know where I stand on the issue, I guess. I always have a hard time because I see all sides really easily and I'm open to hearing others' opinions... but then.. I have a hard time choosing what I believe...

Twich
05-05-2004, 08:38 AM
Well, Twich, I can't really answer you but with a technical fact to get past the ban:

With many birth control pills, an egg is fertilized... so it is a person, but the artificial hormones prevent implantation. I leave you to your own conclusions.

More importantly, many fertilized eggs don't implant even without said hormones. I again leave you to your own conclusions.

Actually, it's only specific types of birth control pills that do that. THe majority of birth control pills work to prevent ovulation at all. There is no egg released, therefore, no fertilization. There are some very specific birth control pills which allow fertlization, but not implantation, but from my personal experience, they aren't widely used in the population. (Just because they are a different make up chemically/hormonally.) I was offered these pills at one point, but it was to counter a specific health problem. The majority of prescribed pills are those that prevent ovulation. That is the first and foremost operation of the pill. IF an egg should become fertilized, the makeup of the uterine lining is changed so the egg won't implant.

As to fertilized eggs not implanting, since I am a devout Christian, I would have to believe that it wasn't in 'the plan' so to speak. If an egg implants on its own (even while on the pill) then to me, that was obviously in the plan. That is also something that happens completely without my knowledge and control...so why should I stress over it?

This is the reason I choose not to use an IUD as birth control. It doesn't prevent fertilization, it just prevents implantation.

mgraylorn
05-05-2004, 09:20 AM
I have trouble with this "plan" notion. If one believes we are "all God's children", then would God let us develop technology if that were not part of the "plan"? Perhaps it is part of the "plan" that we have the technology to be able to save lives through such activities as the above.

Likewise, if a child, or anyone sickens and if untreated, dies, is that part of the "plan"? If we have medicines and other procedures to save that person, should we not use it, because it is "planned" that that person dies?

I am not making fun of you or criticizing your viewpoint, we each have to decide our own moral compass, but these are very sticky ethical delimmas. I would prefer we find a middle ground, rather than moving to the extreme of either end of the viewpoint. And I personally don't believe technology is inherently evil. It gives us tools, and like any tool, we need to learn to use it properly, whatever properly is.

Darth Buddha
05-05-2004, 10:06 AM
mgraylorn, you are expecting a consistent logical view from a non-rational belief structure and the emotion based subscription to it.

Doesn't happen.

While I DO think this is a very serious bio-ethical challenge that must be worked out, I do not expect to discuss it with anyone whose concept of human life is in a single fertilzed cell any more than somebody who believes that a brain dead person is still "alive" and should be kept on life support.

These rationales are generally based on the proposition of a "soul", which in and of itself defies all rational discourse. Ranks up there with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin from a rational POV.

With luck, a reasoned approach can be taken, but then it could still be undone by zealots (Jeb Bush and that poor brain dead woman in Florida comes to mind).

I think folks guiding their own lives by their spiritual beliefs is kind of cool.

I think folks trying to sway policy affecting the lives of other who don't share their particular brand of invisible friend is deplorable.

In the end, I think those who prefer the latter won't be able to stop themselves. So if you want to save your existing child that way, do it quick!

BlackThorn
05-05-2004, 10:18 AM
My main problem with the "plan" concept is that it doesn't mesh well with the concept of free will.

But that's all I'm going to say for now because I don't feel like joining in on yet another discussion that's probably going to turn ugly and circular.

Darth Buddha
05-05-2004, 10:24 AM
Yep, but again, you are expecting consistency. Doesn't work that way.

And I'm not sticking around for any fight... there's no ponit to it. After all, topics like this got people like me BURNED by Christians once upon a time.

BlackThorn
05-05-2004, 10:30 AM
Thanks for telling me what I'm expecting, because I sure as hell didn't know I was expecting consistency on that topic. Anything else going on in my mind that I should know about?

stellar
05-05-2004, 10:33 AM
Anything else going on in my mind that I should know about?

You secretly want me.

Oops... secret's out.

BlackThorn
05-05-2004, 10:35 AM
:rollin:

Paul Cousins
05-05-2004, 10:37 AM
Well, if your child had Luekemia, and you could create via invitro, embryos, and screen them for tissue combatibility, you would do it right? It would save your child and create another life.

How about taking adult stem cells from your child's fat tissues and using that instead to cure him or her.

Darth Buddha
05-05-2004, 11:18 AM
How about taking adult stem cells from your child's fat tissues and using that instead to cure him or her.That would be cheaper and easier. The day it works I think you'll see everyone on the bandwagon. But in the case of from the same child, the assumption that the same disease would be present in them is pretty high.

Moreover, I suspect that a LOT of the uses for fetal stem cells will be found to be fulfilled by other "semi" stem cells. That is, not tabula rasa, but with some development to them. They aren't as useful, and won't be able to do it all, but will take a lot of this, erm, questionable practice out of play.

Good damned point though... that should be the goal.

Thanks for telling me what I'm expecting, because I sure as hell didn't know I was expecting consistency on that topic. Anything else going on in my mind that I should know about?I'm sorry, BlackThorn. Forgot whom I was talking to. Thanks for correcting me.

mgraylorn
05-05-2004, 11:47 AM
I wasn't trying to start a debate, and I won't engage in a debate. I just wanted to raise a question for people to think about. And it is much easier to stand firm on an issue if it isn't impacting you directly. I'm sure people with a sick child who might be cured with stem cells go through long agonizing debates with themselves. I doubt seriously they think, "Well, lets pop out another one to fix the first one" as soon as they get the bad news.

I agree that one can't get into debates based on spiritual beliefs, because there is no scientific, reproducable proof, and ultimately it comes down to having to assume something on faith. I was raised to try to think logically and with a scientific outlook, and I have a hard time accepting something on religious faith grounds.

I also agree, if other, less emotionally charged, cell lines could be used to accomplish the same the same goals, then that is preferable. I see that as a long way off though. If you have a terminally ill child though, you don't have a long time to wait.

BlackThorn
05-05-2004, 11:50 AM
Thanks for the apology, Buddha, and I'm sorry for the caustic reaction. Long day. Headaches + exerting more diplomacy than I usually possess when asking questions about the Media Week ad = :grr:

:hug:

Twich
05-05-2004, 12:51 PM
You know Buddha...there you go again with that totally out of line offensive stuff.

I happen to believe in free choice and free will. I believe God lets us do our own things...but that doesn't make it right. If we were all mindless robots that did the right thing all the time, what would be the point of anything? God gives us the choice. It's called free will. It's what we do with the choice that matters. That's why there's bad stuff in the world. People don't always choose to do the right thing...cause we're imperfect people.

Parents don't always do everything for their kids either. Sometimes they need to learn lessons on their own. Doesn't mean God couldn't step in...it just means He may or may not.

Darth Buddha
05-05-2004, 02:28 PM
Perhaps I find the excessive God talk objectionable either. In fact, I do. More to the point, I find it kind of scary. We really ARE seeing a fundamentalist upsurge in this country. We are seeing long agreed upon definitions of brain death being tampered with by legislators hoping to win the favor (or whip up fervor in) the religious right.

I'd really like to go into some biomedical ethics here, immediacy of consciousness, etc. But since this thread is in reality an abortion by proxy thread, I can't get away with that. Funny that the religious can get away with their dogma, though, now isn't it?

Life begins at fertilization? Same crap, different day.

Frellster
05-05-2004, 02:42 PM
Well, this isn't really about the banned topic, because the disguarded embryos have never been introduced to the womb - therefore, nobody is pregnant. The embryos, at the stage they are tested for combatibility are six days old. This means basically that they are a cluster of cells. They have not yet differentiated into brain/spinal cord, heart, limbs etc... They contain all the DNA instructions but are still in the very early stages of division. We're talk'in microscopic cell cluster. We all began this way. So very fragile.
I can't very well argue the ethics of disguarding these embryos. To me, it doesn't seem like a big deal. They are basically just a cell cluster at this stage; but I've never been pregnant or religious. I would certainly do it to save an existing child.

mgraylorn
05-06-2004, 09:07 AM
Frellster, I don't know how long you've had that poem at the bottom of your posts, but I just now noticed it. That is hillarious, I love it!

Frellster
05-06-2004, 06:32 PM
thanks!