Not trying to hijack the post, but given the mention of death a question of identity emerges. If embryonic stem cells are grown in a culture over time, and then some of them are transplanted into a patient, did anything really die? There was a continuous timeline of cells that came from the same donor, ending in being placed into a host (a fully developed human that the stem cells would have been part of to begin with). Was this a death, or something like a chrysallis stage caterpillars go through? Some philosophers (the name that springs to mind here is Parfit, in opposition to Chisholm) claim that identity is not based on continuously existing over time. In some of these claims, if you died today and were cloned 100 years from now, your clone would be you (the time gap has nothing to do with why your clone is different from you). Any thoughts?
[quote user="Ideen"]I support embryonic stem cell research done on embryos harvested in IVF clinics that would otherwise be discarded. I don't see any kind of ethical dilemma there so I'm all for it[/quote]
This is my opinion on the issue... If these embryos are going to be thrown away, tossed in the garbage, 86ed, then why not rescue them and do something productive with them and turn them into the lifesaving tools that they have the potential to be??? Using them for science is sooooooooooooo much more ethical than throwing them away! This just seem like a no brainer to me.
[quote user="Eric_Carpenter"]
Not trying to hijack the post, but given the mention of death a question of identity emerges. If embryonic stem cells are grown in a culture over time, and then some of them are transplanted into a patient, did anything really die? There was a continuous timeline of cells that came from the same donor, ending in being placed into a host (a fully developed human that the stem cells would have been part of to begin with). Was this a death, or something like a chrysallis stage caterpillars go through? Some philosophers (the name that springs to mind here is Parfit, in opposition to Chisholm) claim that identity is not based on continuously existing over time. In some of these claims, if you died today and were cloned 100 years from now, your clone would be you (the time gap has nothing to do with why your clone is different from you). Any thoughts?
[/quote]No that's a great question. For embryonic stem cells, they are created from embryos which have developed for 8 days. This is the point of development that yields the most cells... none of them having a function. In order to obtain these cells, scientists must "harvest" the cells from the embryos, which is essentially killing the embryo. I don't know what you would consider the cells though. They didn't die... but are they considered living things?
[quote user="Eric_Carpenter"]
Not trying to hijack the post, but given the mention of death a question of identity emerges. If embryonic stem cells are grown in a culture over time, and then some of them are transplanted into a patient, did anything really die? There was a continuous timeline of cells that came from the same donor, ending in being placed into a host (a fully developed human that the stem cells would have been part of to begin with). Was this a death, or something like a chrysallis stage caterpillars go through? Some philosophers (the name that springs to mind here is Parfit, in opposition to Chisholm) claim that identity is not based on continuously existing over time. In some of these claims, if you died today and were cloned 100 years from now, your clone would be you (the time gap has nothing to do with why your clone is different from you). Any thoughts?
[/quote]
With regards to the cloning of 'you.' Your clone would be "you" in the sense that it will look and probably sound like you, but the thoughts will be different. Just because someone clones your DNA doesn't mean they clone your mind, thoughts, or whatever makes you f*cked up in the head. I'd like to think that a clone of me 100 years from now would look like me but be less of a cynical jackass, you know, like a nice person? Ha.
Since the bill has not been passed or even completed for voting I hardly think this is an appropriate post, just a political ramble. It would be nice if something is posted and "facts" are sited that the source should sited, both the document (in this case from July 2009) and the full name of the author, who's politics may be a bit biased.
To the Juvenation Admin, I ask you to remove this post before the politics take on an ugly path.
maybe we'll be able to discuss it as adults? hopefully. it's a very touchy subject people can feel very strongly about. maybe your warning will help to remind people to be civil to each other.
the culture of e-mail forwarding in right wing circles is absolutely bizarre, not to mention "the Power of the People," the ever-refuted death panels nonsense, illegal aliens alarmism, and the invocation of "patriotism" as a way to legitimize a policy position in this e-mail... oy vey.
this whole health care thing is so confusing to me-one side says this and the other side says that and they both leave us in the same place---confused,worried,and uncertain---Where can you go and get the real facts in plain simple English so we the people can get some kind of hold onto what is happening and is going to happen to our healthcare system..I feel like we are at the mercy of those in charge and do they know what they are even doing ?? This is people's lives they are holding in their hands-I sure hope they can see that.,,,,Thanks Tom and sorry for the rant.....
[quote user="Tom"]Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).
Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.
[/quote]
That seems disturbing to me. The hospitals are going to be scared to admit people and a lot of people would suffer for it. The doctors would be put in situations where they would be scared to follow their instincts for best treatments.
I'm with meme, the whole thing is a bit confusing and I hope that none of these seemingly negative policies become reality.
It depends on interpretation for a lot of this...does "result in readmission" mean the person was readmitted at all, or that an error in the initial visit resulted in needing another visit? It seems a lot of fear or resistance to the bill comes from attempting to treat everyone the same, or from attempting to hold medical professionals accountable for inefficient practices. Perhaps rather than resisting the bill altogether, a more beneficial practice would be to work with the politicians to ensure appropriate definitions for what practices should be accepted are established.
[quote user="nicole"]
the culture of e-mail forwarding in right wing circles is absolutely bizarre, not to mention "the Power of the People," the ever-refuted death panels nonsense, illegal aliens alarmism, and the invocation of "patriotism" as a way to legitimize a policy position in this e-mail... oy vey.
[/quote]snopes http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/frazer.asp
alarmist, and rife with erroneous claims.... and I am generally a conservative =)
I'm really glad that the response so far to this post has been everyone seeing right this b.s.
I really recommend going to npr.org, searching for "health care" and listening to various programs they've had with various people talking about it. Because of the commercial-free programming, they have the time to really explore topics, and this topic has been covered extensively for a year now, and longer. Here is a very balanced Radio Times program on it: http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2010/03/04/can-we-really-fix-health-care/
Just a small point -- this fear of "rationing" is absurd. No one is trying to say, "You can only have so much insulin" or anything like that. They're just suggesting that we don't give people treatments that are statistically very unlikely to help when they are so very, very costly. We need to use our health care dollars EFFECTIVELY. My mother died from mouth cancer. If the doctors had told us that the horrible, painful surgeries she had were only likely to extend her life for a few months at best, we would have spared her the pain and cost of those surgeries. And that would have been better for everyone.
Things do not have to be this way. There is a better way. I have a bias for Radio Times, but here is another terrific program that talks about how we could easily improve a great many things in our society, using Europe as a model: http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2010/03/02/what-europes-example-can-teach-the-u-s/
Here's another fact-check about that email, pretty much proving that 97% percent is false and just appealing to fear.
The senate bill has its flaws, and we need to have productive conversations about it, but caricaturing what the bill really says and promoting it as fact because a doctor's name has been attached to it does no one good.
Anyone who believes the gov't is going to decide when you die is extremely paranoid, and doesn't deserve to have an M.D. or D.O. at the end of his name.
Unfortunately, this email references an older version of the health care reform bill, not the one that actually passed the House last November. Using an email forward as a credible source of information makes about as much sense as citing Wikipedia in a doctoral thesis.
I agree that NPR has had great coverage that tries to explains the pros and cons of the health care reform w/o all the partisan fear mongering. I second the idea to go to their website!
Well I have nothing to add. So much wisdom from the juvenation crowd. You give me hope, thanks for bring in the real world into the discussion.
Regardless of whether or not this is the edition that got passed, that it was ever in there in the first place is disturbing enough. Period.