bpe235 wrote:If this Amendment passes, how will our tax dollars be used for this? Will we see public money invested in cortex?
I hope so!
- 6,775
I hope so!
I've been biting my tongue for a while ----
here's the concern (beyond my personal beliefs, etc.) about Amendment 2:
Reading over the proposal it appears the the industry will be immune from any government oversight or accountibility and cannot be refused funding (citing 'confidentiality') for its lack of accountibility.
Read the bill through. It is so confusing and double-speak that it's open to any judicial/legal interpretation.
My frustration: if the oil companies were allowed the same immunity, we'd never hear the end of it ('big greedy corporations protected by politicians,' etc.)
But since this appears to be 'progressive' and 'cutting edge' and 'hi-tech' and all those things Missouri isn't, we're willing to allow corporations and institutions abosulute free reign.
It's not about cloning, and I doubt it's about cures either. It's about 'doing whatever I want and no one saying I can't.' Maybe that doesn't worry some people, but we don't like the military or utilities acting that way and genetic research should be no different.
here's the concern (beyond my personal beliefs, etc.) about Amendment 2:
Reading over the proposal it appears the the industry will be immune from any government oversight or accountibility and cannot be refused funding (citing 'confidentiality') for its lack of accountibility.
Read the bill through. It is so confusing and double-speak that it's open to any judicial/legal interpretation.
My frustration: if the oil companies were allowed the same immunity, we'd never hear the end of it ('big greedy corporations protected by politicians,' etc.)
But since this appears to be 'progressive' and 'cutting edge' and 'hi-tech' and all those things Missouri isn't, we're willing to allow corporations and institutions abosulute free reign.
It's not about cloning, and I doubt it's about cures either. It's about 'doing whatever I want and no one saying I can't.' Maybe that doesn't worry some people, but we don't like the military or utilities acting that way and genetic research should be no different.
- 6,775
shadrach wrote:Reading over the proposal it appears the the industry will be immune from any government oversight or accountibility and cannot be refused funding (citing 'confidentiality') for its lack of accountibility.
Link?
http://sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitio ... emCell.asp
specifically Section 4 (taken out of context so see link for full text)
Each institution, hospital, other entity, or other person conducting human embryonic stem cell research in the state shall (i) prepare an annual report stating the nature of the human embryonic stem cells used in, and the purpose of, the research conducted during the prior calendar year, and certifying compliance with subdivision (6) of subsection 2 of this section;
and again:
...The report shall not contain private or confidential medical, scientific, or other information. Individuals conducting research at an institution, hospital, or other entity that prepares and makes available a report pursuant to this subsection 4 concerning such research are not required to prepare and make available a separate report concerning that same research.
How will the government know it the facilitiy is compliance with Section 3 if it can withhold sensitive information? Section 5 says funding can not be withheld provided the researcher is in compliance, but again, how do we know?
Section 6 defines the terms in the proposed amendment and cloning is defined rather narrowly.
specifically Section 4 (taken out of context so see link for full text)
Each institution, hospital, other entity, or other person conducting human embryonic stem cell research in the state shall (i) prepare an annual report stating the nature of the human embryonic stem cells used in, and the purpose of, the research conducted during the prior calendar year, and certifying compliance with subdivision (6) of subsection 2 of this section;
and again:
...The report shall not contain private or confidential medical, scientific, or other information. Individuals conducting research at an institution, hospital, or other entity that prepares and makes available a report pursuant to this subsection 4 concerning such research are not required to prepare and make available a separate report concerning that same research.
How will the government know it the facilitiy is compliance with Section 3 if it can withhold sensitive information? Section 5 says funding can not be withheld provided the researcher is in compliance, but again, how do we know?
Section 6 defines the terms in the proposed amendment and cloning is defined rather narrowly.
- 1,026
I admittedly have not read the ammendment - but I have heard similar concerns from others in the legal field. At the very least every seems to agree that its confusing as hell. ...... I'm not so sure about the oil analogy though. If we thought we might get a billion dollars worth of investment from big oil by passing such an ammendment I'm sure we'd see a similar push for its passage. .... and I think we are talking billions here. I'm being optimistic yes - but i think its warranted
Its actually pretty common to place privacy restrictions when medical records are in play - its mandated by federal statute .... HIPPA to be exact. I've actually never seen a medical-related bill (post HIPPA) thatdoesn't have such language.
I read the full amendment, and it is somewhat tricky, but you have to understand that this research WILL happen, no matter if MissouRAH is on board or not. I'm such a dork here, but people in St. Louis used to storm a medical research college in, I believe Tower Grove/ Lafayatte Park area, in the 1800's because they operated on cadavers for scientific purposes. (I need to find the book/link. ) Imagine something that is so obviously reasonable today was COMPLETELY against "god's will" over a hundred years ago. Are we in the same boat today? The same can be said for operating on babies- people were against it! While Massachusetts and California press ahead, our state can turn into the backwater state.
I'm listening to Bill Danforth not some football player that used to bag groceries in Iowa.
I'm listening to Bill Danforth not some football player that used to bag groceries in Iowa.
Boy, if ever a topic needed to be spun-off to it's own thread...hint, hint...
- 11K
Not that I really care, but I think CORTEX may be the only place on this urban forum that the stem cell amendment is relevant.
markofucity wrote:Its actually pretty common to place privacy restrictions when medical records are in play - its mandated by federal statute .... HIPPA to be exact. I've actually never seen a medical-related bill (post HIPPA) thatdoesn't have such language.
True, but isn't that about patient confidentiality and protection from insurance 'abuse'?
This amendment seems to give researchers carte blanche and doesn't allow taxpayers to question where or how their funding is being spent.
I understand the cadaver comment and the progress,etc. Here's my points and then I'm done:
Personally, I don't like the idea of creating life (blastocysts) and then killing it by extracting stem cells. But that's personal beliefs and I'm not going to argue that point. (Or, the cadavers were already dead when they were examined.)
But, I think the amendment is sloppy or more precisely, a ball of obfuscation. Voters and citizens deserve better and our state's legislators should have been more diligent to present their citizens a concise and clearly communicated proposal. It's assumed we're a bunch of numyucks and won't read or question or think it through.
Also it shields researchers in Missouri from Federal law which bans human cloning. Which brings up states' rights vs. Federal government. (Ironically or traditionally, Republicans are more for states rights; Democrats for a strong Federal Government.) It's a sticky wicket all the way around.
FYI, a federal government site on cloning:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/H ... ning.shtml
- 11K
Personally, I don't like the idea of creating life (blastocysts) and then killing it by extracting stem cells. But that's personal beliefs and I'm not going to argue that point.
First, we are all entitled to our own beliefs.
I've yet to reconcile the opposition to creating blastocysts and then 'killing' them for research that has the potential to improve and save lives and creating blastocysts for in vitro vertilization solely for those who can afford it and then 'killing' the thousands of leftover blastocysts. Why aren't fertility clinics being picketed? I believe the moral imperative rests with helping the sick and poor, more so than helping those wealthy enough (however much they would benefit from in vitro) to purchase a fertilized egg.
Any I think that CORTEX will be a raging success with or without this amendment. Remember, nothing happens (yet) if this fails. It's currently the fear of what the statehouse will try to do that is the issue.
- 5,433
DeBaliviere wrote:STLgasm wrote:If Amendment 2 fails I may have to move out of Missourah, and I'm sure other bright people will follow.
I said the same thing to my wife. Jokingly. Sort of.
Me too. And I was also kidding. Sort of.
Fertility clinics were picketed until people started seeing all the happy families brought about by that science and realized that it might not be evil after all.
Though this amendment is an admittedly longer and more confusing than it needs to be, the aim is clear: make sure that any stem cell or somatic cell nuclear transfer research, or any treatments that come of them, that are legal in the US , are legal here in missouri as well. It also bans outright any use of the SCNT procedure to clone humans, though that's kind of moot because no one but those crazy raelians are even contemplating that.
It also establishes that those reports need to be sent to Jeff City for oversight purposes, which sounds reasonable. No one should expect them to provide patient names and things there, that's a serious confidentiality violation. They would have to remove any "protected health information", wich is basically just names, birthdates, SSI's, etc. there wouldn't be any "sensitive information" left out like the poster a few responses back had a problem with.
Lastly, anticipating a tactic that oponnents of this kind of research might take, it prohibits the state from using its funding of health care and science as a stick to block the legal research and treatment. The ads on TV try to use this provision to scare people that they'll be forced to pay for cloning. In reality it's just a way to head off some of the political games that the state legislature or the governor might try to play.
All in all, it's a very good amendment, with a very wide array of groups from all sides of the political spectrum backing it. Thankfully, it seems like this will pass, since the majority of americans seem to be welcoming of stem cell research, provided it's conducted with a modicum of common sense. This will be beneficial to the health of missourians, to our scientific institutions, and to the state's economy. It will also prevent a few idealogues in the capitol from once again trying to make it a felony to recieve any of the cures that may come about from this promising research.
I know that opponnents of this amendment have strenously tried to make opposition to the bill a pro-life issue, but it's simply not the case. Dr. Cole, the guy in the bowtie in the ads, is the head of the neonatal intensive care unit at Children's, and the most pro-life, pro-baby, guy that I know. If he's for this, I can think of no reason to be against it.
Though this amendment is an admittedly longer and more confusing than it needs to be, the aim is clear: make sure that any stem cell or somatic cell nuclear transfer research, or any treatments that come of them, that are legal in the US , are legal here in missouri as well. It also bans outright any use of the SCNT procedure to clone humans, though that's kind of moot because no one but those crazy raelians are even contemplating that.
It also establishes that those reports need to be sent to Jeff City for oversight purposes, which sounds reasonable. No one should expect them to provide patient names and things there, that's a serious confidentiality violation. They would have to remove any "protected health information", wich is basically just names, birthdates, SSI's, etc. there wouldn't be any "sensitive information" left out like the poster a few responses back had a problem with.
Lastly, anticipating a tactic that oponnents of this kind of research might take, it prohibits the state from using its funding of health care and science as a stick to block the legal research and treatment. The ads on TV try to use this provision to scare people that they'll be forced to pay for cloning. In reality it's just a way to head off some of the political games that the state legislature or the governor might try to play.
All in all, it's a very good amendment, with a very wide array of groups from all sides of the political spectrum backing it. Thankfully, it seems like this will pass, since the majority of americans seem to be welcoming of stem cell research, provided it's conducted with a modicum of common sense. This will be beneficial to the health of missourians, to our scientific institutions, and to the state's economy. It will also prevent a few idealogues in the capitol from once again trying to make it a felony to recieve any of the cures that may come about from this promising research.
I know that opponnents of this amendment have strenously tried to make opposition to the bill a pro-life issue, but it's simply not the case. Dr. Cole, the guy in the bowtie in the ads, is the head of the neonatal intensive care unit at Children's, and the most pro-life, pro-baby, guy that I know. If he's for this, I can think of no reason to be against it.
- 1,026
I just attende a very good debate on this topic at the Tap Room ... 2 wash U professors and an ethicist ( I Believe he was from SLU) faced off ... it was damn good.
- 6,775
markofucity wrote:I just attende a very good debate on this topic at the Tap Room ... 2 wash U professors and an ethicist ( I Believe he was from SLU) faced off ... it was damn good.
Who was on what side? I assume the WashU guys were for it?
- 1,026
actually it was one wash u guy for and one against .... I know them (well I know who they are - they're pretty well known)
Dr. Tietlbaum was pro amendment and Dr. Wippold against. If you've been following this debate at all, you've likely come across those names before as they are pretty much the authorities for either side.
It was fantastic debate - and it basically came down to what we've al know for awhile .... that there's only one reason to be against this amendment and that's if you believe a blastocyte to be a human life with all the protections that such lives require. And -- asDr. T pointed out rather well - if you believ that then you also MUST be against invitro-fertilization (which has been going on at fertility clinics for about twenty years now).
all the other arguments are tangents. Who cares how many cures have been developed by adult stem cells versus embryonic (if its not a human life aren't embryonic stem cells worth looking into regardless of whether they've born fruit yet) ..... the whole "harvesting eggs is dangerous" angle is absurd. First off, its not NEAR as risky as the opponents cliam AND AGIAN - they've been doing it for twenty years in frtility clinics - so if you are going to say that its too dangerous for this proceduire then you have to shut down the fertility clinics as well ....
anyway - it was a very good debate.
Dr. Tietlbaum was pro amendment and Dr. Wippold against. If you've been following this debate at all, you've likely come across those names before as they are pretty much the authorities for either side.
It was fantastic debate - and it basically came down to what we've al know for awhile .... that there's only one reason to be against this amendment and that's if you believe a blastocyte to be a human life with all the protections that such lives require. And -- asDr. T pointed out rather well - if you believ that then you also MUST be against invitro-fertilization (which has been going on at fertility clinics for about twenty years now).
all the other arguments are tangents. Who cares how many cures have been developed by adult stem cells versus embryonic (if its not a human life aren't embryonic stem cells worth looking into regardless of whether they've born fruit yet) ..... the whole "harvesting eggs is dangerous" angle is absurd. First off, its not NEAR as risky as the opponents cliam AND AGIAN - they've been doing it for twenty years in frtility clinics - so if you are going to say that its too dangerous for this proceduire then you have to shut down the fertility clinics as well ....
anyway - it was a very good debate.
- 6,775
markofucity wrote:...and an ethicist ....
I've always wondered how someone gets a job title of "Ethicist". Ethics are a matter of opinion, so how can someone say what is ethical and what isn't and anyone take it seriously?
- 1,026
i believe it just means that you study ethics as a philosophical inquiry. He's essentially a specialized philospher
And that opinion itself is debatable. Which means there are a lot of debates and meta-debates in the world of ethics. And we'd have a lot of unemployed people if you had to have objective "what is" and "what isn't" tests to take something seriously.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Ethics are a matter of opinion
phobia wrote:And that opinion itself is debatable. Which means there are a lot of debates and meta-debates in the world of ethics. And we'd have a lot of unemployed people if you had to have objective "what is" and "what isn't" tests to take something seriously.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Ethics are a matter of opinion
Actually, there is growing evidence that ethics and even morals are genetic, and that they are the results of our evolution as communal animals. While specific instances of behavior may illicit different opinions on their "ethicality"; there are generalizable ethical positions that people take across all cultures, even when they are unable to articulate why something is the "right thing to do."
From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/healt ... 1book.html?
- 1,026
You've stumbled onto one of my favorite topics - the genetic (or evolutionary) root of human morals. Check out E.O Wilson's "On human nature" ifyou're interested.
I would note however, that just because <some> human morals may be the result of evolutionary deelopment - still doesn't mean that x or y ethical belief is objectiovely right or wrong. Its still subjective, and thus debatable. Its the root of being "civilized," the notion that one is responsible to look beyond their instincts and overid ethem if necessary. I may want to rape Selma Hyak - and if I was a lion I would - but being civilized means I need to restrain that urge ... I guess
I would note however, that just because <some> human morals may be the result of evolutionary deelopment - still doesn't mean that x or y ethical belief is objectiovely right or wrong. Its still subjective, and thus debatable. Its the root of being "civilized," the notion that one is responsible to look beyond their instincts and overid ethem if necessary. I may want to rape Selma Hyak - and if I was a lion I would - but being civilized means I need to restrain that urge ... I guess
- 10K
markofucity wrote:I may want to rape Selma Hyak - and if I was a lion I would - but being civilized means I need to restrain that urge ... I guess
This sentence may go down as the best thing ever typed on this forum.
^ LOL - There should be a "Best of Urban STL" thread that only moderators can add to!
- 6,775
markofucity wrote:You've stumbled onto one of my favorite topics - the genetic (or evolutionary) root of human morals. Check out E.O Wilson's "On human nature" ifyou're interested.
I would note however, that just because <some> human morals may be the result of evolutionary deelopment - still doesn't mean that x or y ethical belief is objectiovely right or wrong. Its still subjective, and thus debatable. Its the root of being "civilized," the notion that one is responsible to look beyond their instincts and overid ethem if necessary. I may want to rape Selma Hyak - and if I was a lion I would - but being civilized means I need to restrain that urge ... I guess
Michael Schermer has addressed this issue in his books and articles.