Stem cell therapy

[lukertin]

And I stand by my statement. Theory is not a science. It is the fetus of science. Until a theory is experimentally tested it is nothing but a theory and does not qualify as science, much less medicine, under any reasonable definition of the words.

 

This is a common mistake of the layman. Theory in scientific lexicon has quite a different meaning than the one commonly associated with the word "theory" in the general population.

I hardly qualify as a layman, get off my back. I'm well aware of what a theory is, and the theory that embryonic stem cells can do anything is something people came up on a piece of paper and hope will work in reality.

 

The layman interprets the term "theory" to mean something "untested". In science, if there is one shred non-corroborative evidence, the hypothesis fails and never becomes a theory.

The very nature of science is to rigorously test any hypothesis.

I'm sorry did you want me to use the word 'hypothesis' instead?

[Nintii]

 

For several years now he has been fostered and cared for by a lesbian couple, and they're absolutely wonderful - they can care for him, and they love him very dearly.

 

And, also for several years, they have been desperately trying to get permission to take him to the United States for stem cell therapy, using his little sister's stem cells that were harvested from her umbilical cord blood, in hopes that it may, at least to some degree, improve the function of his brain and help it recover from the damage.

 

However, the judge is an idiot and refuses to allow it. I don't know the reason why.

 

 

Well Lehcar after reading through your topic the thought crossed my mind that perhaps the Judge was against it was because they were lesbian ... I reckon that he must have gotten all the facts and the moment he saw "lesbian couple" that was it and he thought "forget it".

At that point the child's well-being meant nothing ... now I know that your topic is dealing with Stem cell therapy but seeing as you mentioned the "gay factor" this is my approach to it.

 

Having spent the better part of 15 plus years in fem-fem relationships I soon came across the barriers and walls that would go up because of such a relationship, that's why I simply hid the fact after the first three years.

I would try another Judge ... I wish your friends and their child all the best.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Nintii

[draconix]

Theory is not a science. It is the fetus of science. Until a theory is experimentally tested it is nothing but a theory and does not qualify as science, much less medicine, under any reasonable definition of the words.

 

Read up. http://www.notjustatheory.com/

[lukertin]

Theory is not a science. It is the fetus of science. Until a theory is experimentally tested it is nothing but a theory and does not qualify as science, much less medicine, under any reasonable definition of the words.

Read up. http://www.notjustatheory.com/

So where's the medical journal articles describing the use of embryonic stem cells as a panacea? Where are they? It isn't just a theory, so where is the science confirming your easily confirmable THEORY?

 

I'm not going to engage in a moronic semantic argument with you. If embryonic stem cells are as good as people claim, where is the scientific evidence? Where is the medical evidence? Why has nobody come forth with that evidence? Until then, your 'theory' is as useful as my 'theory' that diarrhea is a cure for dehydration.

 

Drawing an analogy between medical science and evolutionary biology is pretty stupid, by the way. Not only is one field held to an extremely rigorous standard of proof because peoples' lives are on the line, but it is also actually useful, has modern application, and includes people who aren't solely intellectually gifted whackjobs doing research on a subject 99% of all scientists and engineers have agreed on as fact.

 

The meaning of 'theory' in applied science and regular science is so divergent, so directed towards different goals, that any comparison (as you have made here) is inappropriate for the mere fact that one is concerned with practicality, the other with possibility.

Edited November 23, 2011 by lukertin

[Jopo1980]

Some will always resist new technologies, but eventually that inertia will be overcome and the technology will be adopted on a large scale. Personally I don´t see anything wrong with Stem Cells and if they can provide us with treatments to different conditions, then I´m all for it.

[hoofhearted4]

i think the big question is, is why is it the governments decision whether or not to treat the child? regardless of the treatment, it shouldnt have to be brought to a judge, because it has nothing to do with the government or the constitution.

[Beriallord]

Honestly if the doctors knew there would be massive complications with the birth, they should have just tried to convince the woman to have an abortion. I can understand if a woman would prefer having an abortion over having a C section and being cut open that leaves a really ugly scar on your body.

 

I'm not opposed to any stem cell research, embryonic or any other kind for that matter.

 

And I agree with hoof's comment above, this situation has nothing to do with the government, so they stick their nose out of it. If some Lesbian couple wants to adopt that kid, so what?

Edited December 5, 2011 by Beriallord

[Marxist ßastard]

why is it the governments decision whether or not to treat the child?

It isn't. But it is the government's prerogative to:

1. Disallow doctors from using patients as guinea pigs for completely untested procedures, and to
2. Prevent foster parents from taking a sick child to a foreign country with inferior health care, for a procedure that's illegal in either country under (1).

[Jopo1980]

If the child was being taken to Europe, then there should be no problem, health care here is equivalent or better than in America, I think.

[hoofhearted4]

why is it the governments decision whether or not to treat the child?

It isn't. But it is the government's prerogative to Disallow doctors from using patients as guinea pigs for completely untested procedures,

not in America it isnt. no where in the constitution does it say that this is one of the governments duties.

 

 

Prevent foster parents from taking a sick child to a foreign country

the fact that they are foster parents could be an issue, however we cant be sure without knowing the judges reasoning behind his decision.

 

 

country with inferior health care

please stop taking pot shots at america, its irrelevant, youve already stated that opinion once before and while i disagree, health care plans arent apart of this debate, as much as you try to make it so.

Edited December 5, 2011 by hoofhearted4