A week ago, I spotted a post on my Google Reader feeds... I starred it for further comment later on, but then didn't go back - well, I've been a little busy of late.
Robert Colquhoun, of Love Undefiled, spotted the story - largely buried beneath reports of a Royal engagement - that stem cells from the brains of aborted fetuses were being injected into the brains of patients who have suffered strokes, in the hope of a cure, both in Britain and California.
Sadly, this is far from being "news." Back in July 1996 I wrote an article for Faith Magazine explaining the research into foetal tissue transplantation and my fears that the use of aborted foetuses would become routine. My background in neuropsychopharmacology meant that I had access to many of the reports on this research well before the widespread use of Google to check out what was being done in the name of scientific progress and the search for a cure. The past issues of Faith Magazine available online only go back as far as 2002, but my article was copied and stored in the EWTN archives.
As more and more "cures" (as yet there have been no successful therapies involving the use of foetal stem cells, although there have been plenty of successes using adult stem cells) are sought, we must become ever more vigilant and protest against the use of aborted babies as medical material.
When I first heard this referred to in a news piece on Radio 4, my suspicions were aroused, because the reporter coyly referred to "stem cells" being injected. I think we can safely assume now that when the media speaks of stem cells, it means foetal stem cells.
ReplyDeleteThe severe moral issues with such a treatment aside, it all sounds very unscientific to me. Surely an immune reaction in the brain to such an injection would be catastrophic. And I am sure that I have heard of cases before, where such 'therapies' have caused teratomas...
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, it is all perverse and ridiculous anyway. If they wish to investigate embryonic-like stem cells, there are methods available now to create these from the cells of the patient (much more suitable for use in treatment, as they would be genetically identical) WITHOUT the need for a foetus to be to be killed in the process.
I'm glad that you have given us an expert opinion - I wish that there was an updated list of which universities/charities sponsor adult as opposed to embryo research (the SPUC one is a little aged). I was chugged by my alma mater a few months ago - a Russell Group Uni, wanting sponsorship for a new research scheme. I asked did it involve embryo research. Oh no, was the reply. Check and get back, I said. They did. Oh no they said. Definitely not. Why then, I said, is there a large webpage on the Uni site that actually tells us that you are doing embryo research?
ReplyDeleteLiars. And of course there's all the "Jeans for Genes" days at school where it's always the bossiest cover supervisor in charge (£1 if you wear jeans, £2 if you don't). And Cancer Research. So I avoid the staffroom.
It makes you wonder what sort of financial arrangement exists between the abortion factories and the scientists involved in this research.
ReplyDeleteAnd who those scientists' eyes will be swivelling towards next.
After all, if we are little more than clumps of cells and electrical pulses why not anyone?
The Nazis were way ahead of their time.
I guess that means drawing up some kind of living will as to acceptable treatment if one has a stroke or goes gaga?
ReplyDelete