GA Resolution:Repeal Stem Cells For Greater Health

[Ananke II]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

Repeal "Stem Cells For Greater Health"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#49
Proposed by: Mysterious Nation


Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #49: Stem Cells For Greater Health (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: COMMENDING the intent with which "Stem Cells for Greater Health" was written.

NOTING that although some diseases and injuries are incurable there is not yet conclusive evidence that stem cell treatment options will yield hoped for, or even beneficial results towards these ailments.

CONCERNED that the sufferers of currently incurable ailments may endure emotional and psychological stress as a result of false hopes and expectations for a cure brought about by "Stem Cells for Greater Health".

APPLAUDING the conservation of Doctor's and Medical institute's rights to choose whether to participate in procedures involving stem cells due to personal values or principles.
but
ALARMED that similar considerations are not implemented in regards to the values of the public who are both directly and indirectly effected by and exposed to the work of the medical community.

REGRETTING the lack of discussion on the ethical issues surrounding stem cell usage and sources.

FURTHER CONCERNED over lack of guidelines on sources of and harvesting of stem cells, especially due to the increase in demand of stem cells as a result of "Stem Cells for Greater Health", an increase in demand which could lead to the occurrence of unethical and less then 'humane' harvesting of stem cells.


HEREBY repeals General Assembly resolution #49: "Stem Cells for Greater Health"

[Pompadoodle]

I'm in favour of a 'no' vote. Stem cell research should be supported and encouraged. The original resolution looks good to me.

[Cerb]

I'd vote against this. Patients should know that the tem cell isn't a magic bullet that will right all wrongs. The original resolution is adequate.

Suggestion: Might be worth posting the resolution that is up for repeal so lazy people like me don't have to go look it up. It's not like you have anything better to do than hand hold lazy islanders

[Ananke II]

You could also just look at the repeal ingame. It's got a nifty link to the resolution it's trying to repeal...

[Cerb]

But then I have to open another browser window... sigh.

[Kanaia]

FOR
Having worked in the medical field, it is not uncommon for patients to see the "latest breakthrough in stem cell research" on the news followed by the possibility of a cure for their particular disease, and then believe that there is now a magical cure for their disease using stem cells.

Stem cells are truly in the research and development phase which makes me really disagree with this phrase in the original resolution: "ALARMED at the number of diseases and other injuries going either without treatment or with inadequate treatment due to the nature of said ailment,"
Stem Cells don't offer a cure, they only offer a POSSIBILITY of a cure.

Furthermore, the resolution infringes on a nation's sovereignty and right to ban the use of stem cell research with this line: "1) GUARANTEES the right of Doctors to engage in Stem Cell research should they so choose."

In the end, the original resolution meant well but it takes away the right of nations to choose whether or not they want to allow stem cell research, and the original author doesn't seem to grasp what stem cells are and are not capable of.

[Anime Daisuki]

It may or may not sway your decision, but the author of the original resolution was from Texas and was a defender.

CONCERNED that the sufferers of currently incurable ailments may endure emotional and psychological stress as a result of false hopes and expectations for a cure brought about by "Stem Cells for Greater Health".

Having hope is better than having no hope.

Do you know how depressing it is to know you're gonna die with a terminal disease with no hope of cure?

[Cerb]

As an individual that could benefit from stem cell therapy, I can really relate to this.

I agree with AD, a hope of a cure, even a false hope, is better than the abject despair of no hope at all.

I can also see where the original resolution can be interpreted that a doctor has the right to research stem cell therapy and that it could be taken that this is therefor not something a nation can block.

If I was going to go against this, it would be for that one item. I think though that the following item is the escape clause:

4) AFFIRMS the right of Nations to decide the source of the Stem Cells they use for research and development. Also mandates that the Stem Cells must be harvested in the most humane and least destructive way possible.

I see no valid reason to block non-embryonic stem cell research and this section definately ensures the right of a nation to ban embryonic stem cell research.

[ImperialPoland]

for

i agree with Kanaia

[Takaram]

I'm opposed to this entirely. If stem cell research can give people false hope of a miracle cure, so can any other research. This is just a moralist attempt to repeal a good resolution that I would have supported the first time around.

[Pompadoodle]

Jul 15, 2010 19:42:56 GMT -5 Takaram said:

I'm opposed to this entirely. If stem cell research can give people false hope of a miracle cure, so can any other research. This is just a moralist attempt to repeal a good resolution that I would have supported the first time around.

Absolutely. The same argument about 'false hopes' could've been used against medical innovation when it first came out. But I think we're all pleased that organ transplants, for example, are now well established medical procedures.

At the root of this is the religious objection to 'playing god' with genes. And religion needs to be kept firmly outside of policy.

[Echolilia]

Um, no, the "religious object" to stem cell research has nothing to do with genes and everything to do with aborted fetuses being a source of stem cells. Still a silly objection for something that has the potential to save so many lives.

Re "religion needs to be kept firmly outside of policy", I personally don't see any valid or reasonable source of ethics outside of religion, and think ethics must guide policy, so I can't agree with you there.

[Pompadoodle]

Jul 16, 2010 19:52:12 GMT -5 Echolilia said:

Um, no, the "religious object" to stem cell research has nothing to do with genes and everything to do with aborted fetuses being a source of stem cells. Still a silly objection for something that has the potential to save so many lives.

Yeah, you're right about this.

I sometimes get confused about the various reasons/ justifications that religious types use.

Re "religion needs to be kept firmly outside of policy", I personally don't see any valid or reasonable source of ethics outside of religion, and think ethics must guide policy, so I can't agree with you there.

I take a diametrically opposite view here. That is: I don't see any possibility of valid or reasonable ethics inside of religion. However, this isn't the right place to argue about it. I might start a thread in the debating hall on this one- its an interesting issue, though one which can easily degenerate into a flame war.

[Kranusilika]

...religion needs to be kept firmly outside of policy.

Since many nations morales and philosophies are based on the teachings provided by religion, is this really possible?

Just food for thought.

[Echolilia]

"Repeal "Stem Cells For Greater Health"" was defeated 4,309 votes to 1,014.