i read an item in wired about embryonic stem cell research today and the writer was discussing the concern in the scientific community about a potential provision in obama's proposed lift of the ban. apparently early drafts of the ban include a mandate that any new lines intended to be derived from the destruction of in-vitro embryos must have the informed consent of the parents. key word being "informed."
Quote:
At issue are informed consent requirements for women who donated eggs left unused during fertility treatments, and eventually used to generate embryonic stem cells.
Though egg collection has long been governed by widely lauded consent standards established by the National Research Council and International Society for Stem Cell Research, those standards didn’t previously meet the letter of the NIH’s proposed law.
The NIH requires consent forms that clearly mention human embryonic stem cell research, forbid donating eggs for the benefit of a specific person, and contain various other stipulations that were generally mentioned during older consent processes, but not rigorously codified. These rules could have a massive impact on existing and proposed research.
|
i'm just wondering what the general take on this is. i don't understand how you can argue against informing people of the eventual destination of their discarded embryos. why isn't it their right to know?
his argument seems to be that if people KNOW their embryos will be used for research, they'll be reluctant to donate. is that really an argument to not inform people? is that moral?
is it just me, because of my views on embyronic stem cell research?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/escguideline/