Adult Stem Cells Offer Ethical Hope for Lupus Sufferers

Dr David Prentice

Dr David Prentice, Senior Research Fellow at the Family Research Council, wrote an article for LifeNews.com, that should give great hope to anyone suffering from Lupus.

Unlike embryonic stem cell research, which has yet to produce effective treatments, adult stem cell research has given us a number of them. Jackie Stollfus, who suffered from Lupus, was the beneficiary of therapy from adult stem cells.

The wonderful thing about this is that Jackie was not offered a choice that involved killing someone else. No human embryos were slaughtered, no women’s bodies were farmed, to produce this treatment.

The video below gives details.

YouTube Preview Image

  • Dale

    The possibiliity of innovative therapies based on adult stem cells is exciting. However, I think we should not lose sight of the experimental nature of these therapies. Although there have been a handful of persons who were helped by them, they haven’t been fully evaluated.

    In the case of Jackie Stollfus, her doctor is currently conducting a Phase I clinical trial of the technique. It will not be competed for another two years.
    http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00278590

    A Phase I trial examines the safety of the technique in a few dozen persons. If the results are positive, a Phase II study will be conducted to test effectiveness of the therapy in a larger group of people. If those results are positive, a Phase III study will be conducted. This final clinical trial will evaluate safety and effectiveness in an even larger group of people than the previous trials.

    I am very happy for Jackie Stollfus, and I am pleased that the technique which helped her is showing promise. However, the therapy is still experimental, and many years will pass before it becomes an accepted tool to fight lupus.

  • Bill S

    So. What if embryonic stem cell research also proves to have beneficial results that cannot be attained any other way? Would you deny those who could benefit because of a religious taboo?

    • hamiltonr

      We know that heart transplants benefit people. Maybe we should allow the rich to kill poor people to harvest their organs.

      It’s the same thing: The strong killing the weak to harvest their body parts.

      • Bill S

        It’s the same thing to you. It’s not the same thing to people trained in the field of medical ethics. They are the ones that professionals listen to.

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          The field of medical ethics? Is this the same group that took bribes to remove homosexuality from the DSM-IIITR?

        • Dale

          Bill, most of the states in the US once had a eugenics program, run by physicians who were fully convinced that what they were doing was ethical.

          These programs were used to sterilize persons who were mentally retarded, mentally ill, had epilepsy, were criminals, or were homosexual. The state also sterilized residents of reform schools and girls who were considered promiscuous. The last state to disband their program was Oregon, which was in 1981.
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1170108/

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Personal fear of this program returning- and rhetoric of the contraception side indicating that it very well might, including certain educational programs in white minority schools- is a huge part of why I am pro life.

    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

      We already know that it won’t and can’t.

      Mitochondrial rejection eliminates that path for anybody who actually understands the research in this area, for entirely scientific and non-religious reasons.

    • Dale

      Bill, embryonic stem cells are being researched because they are pluripotent. They are able to differentiate into a wide variety of cell types.

      We have the ability to induce pluripotency in adult stem cells. This should remove any need to use embryonic stem cells. However, the two types of stem cells need to be compared for long term outcome.

      For the sake of argument, let’s say that embryonic stem cells offer a slight advantage e.g. cheaper or easier to administer. Would that justify using them? I don’t think so.

      As a comparison, human organs are much sought for transplants. If we were to allow the sale of human organs, they would be more abundant and many lives would be extended. However, the sale of human organs is not allowed because it is horribly unethical. The end does not justify the means.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X