Human Organs For Science Analysis

[megamattman1]

[quote]I dont believe its right, to take organs from the dead to do research, It Voilates the peace of that body, I believe.[/quote]
White Knight, would you use someone's donated organs if you needed them? Or since maybe you're asking about research, would you use the technology that arose from the use of the donated organs? I realize what you would do, or if you are inconsistent, does not make it right or wrong, I'm just curious.




[quote]Actually, that's not true. Scientists have found that adult stem cells can undifferentiate and redifferentiate (i.e become a different kind of cell). Initially, they did not think this was possible, but because of the restrictions on embryonic research, they discovered that adult stem cells are a lot more versatile than previously thought.[/quote]

Maybe they're more effective than previously thought, but I heard what he did that they are not as effective as embryonic. Are you saying that adult stem cells are just as effective as embryonic, or just that adult stem cells are more versatile than previously thought?

[quote]Embryonic stem cells have yet to successfully treat anything. [/quote]

This could be because the use of embryonic stem cells is limited.

One point being in this quote and the last is that you should be willing to acknowledge that you may be preventing the prevention or cure of diseases, but are willing to have it that way to stop embryonic cell use.

Edited August 24, 2004 by megamattman1

[p0lar_bear]

Scientists have been working with the embryonic stem cells of mice for [i]more than 20 years [/i]and have yet to accomplish anything. So no, I will not say that embryonic stem cells can cure things that adult stem cells cannot. In fact, a lot of scientists believe that not only is the use of adult stem cells rather than embryonic more acceptable morally, but overall a better option because they are easier to work with and have proven to be more effective both in mice and humans.

Statements from reputable scientists in medical and scientific journals and secular newspapers:

[url="http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact401.htm"]http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact401.htm[/url]


Statements regarding the practical problems that exist with embryonic stem cells:

[url="http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/stemcell/obstacles51004.htm"]http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/bio...tacles51004.htm[/url]

[CreepyCrawler]

I don't think there is a problem with donating your body to 'science' as long as you're buried after you're done with it. Think about it: how would physicians be trained if people didn't donate their bodies to medical schools for dissection? I wouldn't want a surgeon to practice on a LIVE human in med school. As long as people's bodies are treated with respect, then I don't think it's a problem; actually, I find it commendable.

[JimFurst]

I am Catholic, and have been listed as an organ doner for many years. I feel It would be selfish to take my organs into the ground with me if they could be used to learn something medically useful for the long run, or to directly help someone who is still living and in need of a replacement part.

I think most of us have seen and understand the suffering that illness can cause. I find that knowlege highly motivating in my decision to offer that which I will never use again. Since I won't be needing them, it can hardly really even be regarded as a very selfless thing to do. I'd just feel guilty of wastefullness if I did otherwise.

Jim

[cmotherofpirl]

I used to be an organ donor, but I don't trust that the docters will let me die a natural death before removing my organs, so I have changed my mind.

[JimFurst]

CMother

I understand exactly where you're coming from. I've thought about it myself.

If George Bush needs a liver and I'm on the table at the same time, ---If I was aware of the events at hand, I'd be more than a bit worried.

But---I think this is a reflection of our times. The daily news leads us to a strong feeling of hopelessness. We've all become so jaded, an inclanation we just have to fight. Trust has become a rare trait but one we have to hang on to. Otherwise its "every man for himself."

[picchick]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Aug 24 2004, 08:30 AM'] A rich source of stem cells? [/quote]
Yeah, that's what I heard. Breast milk and umbilical cords are sources of stem cells.

[toledo_jesus]

I am an organ donor. I didn't think much about it when I got my license and signed up. I mean, I didn't think much about whether the Church had a position on anything back then.
I do not know if the Church has taught on organ donation. Depending on how long we are in the ground, there might not be much left of us anyway. I'd rather my guts went to save some person's life than just become worm food.

[White Knight]

I guess this thread, never caught much attention, or is it most people think that this isn't a really big issue?

[StColette]

[quote name='picchick' date='Aug 26 2004, 11:10 AM'] Yeah, that's what I heard. Breast milk and umbilical cords are sources of stem cells. [/quote]
yep Picchick I heard the same thing from one of my professors

[amarkich]

Cmom, I have adopted the same position you stated, basically. I am going to remove organ donor from my card when I renew my license. Further, the brain and the gonads cannot be donated as prescribed by Canon Law, I think (as far as my searches went, I could not find this in 1983 Canon Law but perhaps that is a norm established by the old Canon Law that has been accepted under the laws of custom); this is non-negotiable. In any event, I do not plan to have an autopsy either. It is a venerable tradition, in honor for the body as a temple of the Holy Ghost, not to receive an autopsy or to remove organs, etc. In fact, this practice was previously condemned outright for any reason whatsoever. If the Church forbids the donation of the brain and gonads, how could the whole body be donated? That sounds like an insufficient way of dodging a law of the Church, but if part of the body is not allowed to be donated, then surely the whole body cannot be donated. In any event, it is logical that the brain and gonads could never be donated because they are the physical parts of the body which relate to two of the parts of the human character: the intellect and sexuality. The intellect is the closest aspect of the soul to God and is manifested by use of the brain. The gonads are the means which distinguish males from females and determine the sex of an individual; all the other implications naturally follow concerning any of the male-only institutions of the Church. God bless.

[cmotherofpirl]

My position is not the same. I have no problem with what is done to my body AFTER death, I simply want to make sure I am DEAD before anything is done.!!

Current law does not protect an individual after they become incapacitated.

My body is simply the vessel with carries my soul, and after my soul is gone, I have no further use of the shell until the Last Day. So if it can be useful, that is fine.

I actually would prefer to be cremated. The Church asks that bodies be treated reverently, but does not forbid all parts being donated to science.

[toledo_jesus]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2296 Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks incurred by the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Donation of organs after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a manifestation of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or those who legitimately speak for him have not given their [b]explicit[/b] consent.
It is furthermore morally inadmissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.

2301 Autopsies can be morally permitted for legal inquests or scientific research. The free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious.
The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body.[92]

Edited September 15, 2004 by toledo_jesus

[White Knight]

Well say you donate a kidney to help some in dier need, and you do that, but they find that your kidney isn't very healthy, and they find another kindey to give to the person in need thats healthier. You donated your kidney for no reason, and now they can use that Kidney for anything they want. without your promission to do so.


This happens in alot of cases, alot of them go unreported, some get reported, and once again I say, whatever Science can use for good, they can use for Evil, like taking Stealing Stem Cells from your body (adult body) and killing a child just to take their stem cells, thats wrong.

[let_go_let_God]

I'm going to make this post in two parts, what I feel and quotes from the CCC.

First of all I believe that Fetal Stem Cell Research is completely morally wrong. Hands down end of question. The use of aborted children in such a way should not be premissable. If I had persay kidney cancer in one kidney, I would allow them to remove my kidney and use that for medical reasurch.

Part 2

[quote]
2292 Scientific, medical, or psycological experiments on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and the advancement of public help.

2293 Basic sientific research, as well as applierd resesrch, is a significant expression of man's dominion over creation. Science and technology are preciious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benifit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin, and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits.

2294 It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications. On the other hand, guiding principles cannot be inferred from sipmle technical effiency, or from the usefulness accruing to some at the expense of others or, even worse, from prevailing ideologies. Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the sevice of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in comformity with the plan and the will of God.

2295 Research or experimentation on the human being cannot be legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects' potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject's life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentatiion on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.

2296 [i]Organ transplants[/i] are not morally acceptable if the donor or those who legitimately speak fir him have not given their informed consent. Organ transplants conform with the moral law and can be meritorious id the physical and psycological  dangers and risks incurred by the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. It is morally inadmissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.[/quote]


I hope that this helped and answered some questions.