More thoughts on amniotic epithelial cells

I would think that to help increase the supply of amniotic epithelial cells we should allow hospitals (or research groups) pay woman for them for the placenta. I know this is a strange thought, and that the laws would have to be changed a bit to allow for this. But I think that allot of good would come from this. It would give some woman one more reason to give birth to their child, and not kill said child before birth. It helps increase the supply of the amniotic epithelial cells. And with the increase in the amniotic epithelial cells could then be used to find cures for diseases.

 Post details 

Categories: News Politics
Tags: No Tags
Published on: August 5, 2005

 Comments (5) 

  1. Max Rossin says:

    Yes, I heard about this research about 6 months ago. They mentioned some problem with using those cells, there’s either a limit or they are more prone to degeneration, etc. Still, I agree that this is a good way to go to convince people that stem cells can be used for cures. The ethical shock of using it from embryo’s is not a viable solution right now – some people have a problem with it (even though hundreds of thousands of embryo’s are discarded every day through natural means). Still, I don’t think it’s a good idea to pay women for this. I can see a lot of mothers already on welfare using this as a cash cow for higher checks for having a baby AND extra income from selling placenta. It should be voluntarily given to science and perhaps some recognition, but no financial reward. Oh look, I’m more conservative than you on this issue. You Liberal! Go get a haircut! 🙂 On another side though, I think doctors are too quick to dismiss using this rather than stem cells. Even if this technology is worse than raw stem cells, they should be more open to exploring and refining the process instead of dismissing it and going after their goals blindly.

  2. I would say it would depend on the stem cells; I will always be against embryonic stem cells since it involves the destruction of human life. As to paying woman for their child’s placenta, I do recognize there are some areas where it can be abused, but I think that we can examine the possibility of payment for placentas. Also I heard on a radio show today, that some researchers think that they might have found lead to a cure for juvenile diabetes, but investors don’t want to invest in it because it involves adult stem cells, and the reasons they don’t want to invest in research that uses adult stem cells is because if something is found there are royalties to be paid to the people who have the patents on them. They want something that will not have to pay royalties. Embryonic stem cells do not have the patents yet, and it is a greed issue there.

  3. Max Rossin says:

    It’s a tough issue. As far as royaltees, etc, it should be just like blood. As far as payment, I think it will be abused. Regarding destruction of human life – women have periods during which you’re almost guaranteed to destroy an embryo (if she’s having unprotected sex). It goes into the whole “every sperm is sacred” bullshit also. Life is tricky business, I’m more leaning towards “must survive outside of womb” to be alive. Any “potential” can go either way and anti-abortion people don’t seem to care much if the mother’s health is in danger. I can go back and forth on when I think abortion should not be allowed, but it annoys me to no end when anti-abortion people say a woman should never have an abortion, even if it threatens her life. Any potential versus a fully grown human being? Bah! I think a good compromise would be no abortion after 2 months of being pregnant, unless there is ANY health risk to the mother. I figure a woman can be late on her first period, so after 4-6 weeks, she definitely knows she’s pregnant. That gives her plenty of time to decide whether or not to keep the baby. After that, you’re locked in for the long haul. I just don’t want to go back to the old days of women using rusty hangers on themselves. Yeah, you don’t hear about those much. What do you think Mike – 2 months? Don’t forget that a woman can have a natural abortion if her body decides to abort the fetus. There will never be a law that completely bans abortion, unless we’re going to have another civil war. So, lets assume we’ll have some allowed abortion – what would your compromise be? (sorry I got off topic)

  4. First I don’t think every sperm is sacred, but once the sperm meets the egg it is no longer a sperm, it is a human. So I would say no abortion after the sperm meets the egg, and before that it is not an abortion. And to the natural abortion thing, there is a difference there, since it is God who “terminated” it as apposed to a human killing the child.

  5. Max Rossin says:

    Yeah, I guess there’s no compromise on your part. Well, I hope you don’t take that too seriously, because we’ll always have abortion made available.

 © 2024 - Michael P. O'Connor