Tag: ethics

A Christian Ethic of Blogging

museum-ethics

Blake Huggins shared his thoughts on this great quote from NT Wright…

“It really is high time we developed a Christian ethic of blogging. Bad temper is bad temper even in the apparent privacy of your own hard drive, and harsh and unjust words, when released into the wild, rampage around and do real damage. And as for the practice of saying mean an unjust things behind a pseudonym – well if I get a letter like that it goes straight in the bin. But the cyberspace equivalents of road rage don’t happen by accident. People who type vicious, angry, slanderous and inaccurate accusations do so because they feel their worldview to be under attack.” – NT Wright

Blake continues…

I couldn’t agree more. Blogging is at the same time both great and dangerous. It brings out the best and the worst in us. I am grateful for the many friends that I have made through this platform but I get really put out with the slander and hateful words that are put forth under the auspices of speaking the truth or defending the faith, or whatever else. As Christians we have a great opportunity to have rich and robust conversation and to model what charitable dialogue and respectful disagreement might look like. At our best we do that well, but sometimes we blow it.

I totally agree with both. I’ve twittered and blogged several times in the past about how difficult it would be to go a whole day without complaining about something online.
Continue reading A Christian Ethic of Blogging

Adult stem cells score

Shared this story from NPR on Facebook earlier this week.

Here’s what Christianity Today had to say…

Adult Stem Cells Score Again

Windpipe transplant patient Claudia Castillo.
Windpipe transplant patient Claudia Castillo.
A trachea engineered from bone marrow stem-cells makes ethical research more appealing.

Susan Wunderink

Claudia Castillo, whose lungs had been ravaged by tuberculosis, has a new trachea. She made it herself . . . sort of.

Doctors in Spain took stem-cells from Claudia Castillo’s bone marrow and had them form a section of trachea based on the trachea of an organ donor. The scientists transplanted the 2.75-inch piece and published the results in The Lancet:

The graft immediately provided the recipient with a functional airway, improved her quality of life, and had a normal appearance and mechanical properties at 4 months. The patient had no anti-donor antibodies and was not on immunosuppressive drugs.

The results show that we can produce a cellular, tissue-engineered airway with mechanical properties that allow normal functioning, and which is free from the risks of rejection.

Castillo is the first person to have an engineered trachea transplant, The Guardian says. She has had her new windpipe for several months without immunosuppressants—a breakthrough in surgery.

Besides giving hope to those who need transplants, Castillo’s case is also important to the debate over whether to allow stem-cell research which destroys embryos.

“Engineering new tissues and organs from stem cells has long been a goal of researchers, because it would help overcome a chronic shortage of donor organs.” NPR says. “But controversies over the source of stem cells have slowed research in the United States.”

However the transplant, rather than highlighting limitations, is another victory for ethical (and legal) stem-cell research. In its Q&A on stem-cells, CNN says “In the past, because adult stem cells were considered stuck in their ways, the focus had been on embryonic cells but now scientists and doctors will be wanting to see if adult cells can be used to treat a wider range of conditions.”

—
I’m hoping the Obama-Biden team sees more and more stories like these and works to provide more funding for adult stem cell research. They’ve already pledged to increase funding for embryonic stem cell research – let’s keep adult stem cell research on the table as well as stem cells from umbilical cords — as we’re doing here in Texas.

Ethics question of the day

So a same sex couple in New Mexico wanted to have a commitment ceremony.
They started looking for a photographer and contacted one via e-mail.
In returned they received: “We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!”
The couple was hurt, devastated and apparently angry. They sued the photographer for discrimination.
At the hearing, the photographer said that when he and his wife formed the company two years ago, they made it company policy not to shoot same-sex ceremonies, because the ceremonies conflicted with their Christian beliefs.
“We wanted to make sure that everything we photographed — everything we used our artistic ability for, everything we told a story for or conveyed a message of — would be in line with our values and our beliefs,” he said.
The couple won the case and the photographer was forced to pay the $6,600 in attorney fees.
Who was in the right here? Was anyone? What would you have done if you had been the photographer? What would you have done if you had been the couple?
How do you think Jesus would have handled the situation?

Listen to the full story.

Doctors grow new bladders

I don’t know how or why I missed this, but I found a very interesting report from the Washington Post from April of this year.

Researchers said yesterday that they have grown complete urinary bladders in a laboratory and transplanted them into patients, improving their health and achieving a Holy Grail of medicine: the first cultivation of working replacements for failing solid organs in people.
The “neo-bladders,” each one grown in a small laboratory container from a pinch of a patient’s own cells, have been working in seven young patients for an average of almost four years, according to a report released yesterday by the British journal the Lancet. The organs have remained free of the many complications that bedevil the conventional practice of surgically constructing bladders from other tissues.

According to the article, no embryonic stem cells were used in growing the new bladders. That’s great information for possible future health issues.
My decision is still out on embryonic stem cell research. I don’t know enough about the issue to decide. On one hand, I believe we should be looking to cure every and all conditions and diseases we can and I have a hard time believing that it’s OK to flush embryos from fertility clinics down the drain, rather than use them for research. It seems a bit hypocritical to me.
I have a hard time believing its OK to kill anyone, embryo, fetus, newborn or a 115 year old senior living in a nursing home.
On the other hand, I have no issue with adult stem cell research, or umbilical cord stem cells, or even fetus stem cells if the cells can be taken without harming life.
But depending on which report you read, the research seems to go both ways on how much advantage embryonic stem cells might have over other stem cells.
I would love to see the conservatives (or anyone else) stand up and say “While we realize there may be ethical issues involved with embryonic stem cells, we’ll fund research of umbilical cord stem cells, adult stem cells and others.”
Quit arguing over embryonic stem cells and lets find a common ground with other cells that we know will not harm a life.

In contrast to research on embryonic stem cells, non-embryonic stem cell research has already resulted in numerous instances of actual clinical benefit to patients. For example, patients suffering from a whole host of afflictions — including (but not limited to) Parkinson’s disease, autoimmune diseases, stroke, anemia, cancer, immunodeficiency, corneal damage, blood and liver diseases, heart attack, and diabetes — have experienced improved function following administration of therapies derived from adult or umbilical cord blood stem cells. The long-held belief that non-embryonic stem cells are less able to differentiate into multiple cell types or be sustained in the laboratory over an extended period of time –rendering them less medically-promising than embryonic stem cells — has been repeatedly challenged by experimental results that have suggested otherwise.

If this is true, why are we not funding more research on adult stem cells? Chris Bell said in a phone interview last week that he would propose spending $30 million on stem cell research if elected. He didn’t clarify if that was for embryonic or all stem cell research – but given the context of the interview, I would guess it would go towards embryonic.
If I were Gov. “McDreamy” I’d propose spending $30 million on adult and umbilical cord stem cell research in Texas right away. Show the supporters of embryonic stem cell research that there are other options. Prove it to us.
For more articles and information on other stem cell options, visit The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics