Clare wrote:
The "scientific" community doesn't save premature babies by the way, the medical community does.
The Scientific community has contributed a considerable number of products and technologies to save premature and babies at risk of dying in infancy.
I worked in a company here in Scotland that developed products for monitoring desperately ill and weak babies. Many were prevented from dying due these scientific advances.

DoricMan wrote:
Clare wrote:
The "scientific" community doesn't save premature babies by the way, the medical community does.
The Scientific community has contributed a considerable number of products and technologies to save premature and babies at risk of dying in infancy.
I worked in a company here in Scotland that developed products for monitoring desperately ill and weak babies. Many were prevented from dying due these scientific advances.

Very true DM. I've worked in Biomedical Sciences for more than 30 years and we provided the information that medics need to diagnose and treat patients successfuly. Most medics don't have much of a background in science.

I didn't say they don't contribute. I said its the medics who do the saving. I meant in hospitals etc.

But hey they're only doctors and clearly they don't count much either.

Martin, I have no comment to make about your post.

Clare wrote:
Tibbie, I asked about your view on it as that was what the thread was about, that's all. I didn't get into the other issues you raised as they were obviously a departure from what we were discussing. I don't have a problem discussing them elsewhere but I can say I support the work Amnesty does in other areas. There are sometimes issues obviously with the type of "help" we provide for our sisters elsewhere in the world. I recall when the contraceptive injection was first being trialed and it was the women of Africa who were used as guinea pigs for it. The drug was effective allegedly for up to a year, as were the side effects associated with it, which weren't known at that time as it was only just being tried out. But then we Western women need to know we're safe don't we? Better to test these things on the women of Africa first and call it "aid".


Are you suggesting that Amnesty International have supported the use of African women as guinea pigs for a contraceptive trial? That is ludicrous Clare.

As for the issues I have raised, they are not a departure from the discussion.

"Schools and colleges must not support charities or groups that promote or fund anti-life policies, such as Red Nose Day and Amnesty International."
The Rt. Rev Patrick O'Donoghue, Bishop of Lancaster.

The Catholic Church urges their followers not to support charities if they do not fall in line with church policies. They quite clearly oppose the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The Association of Medical Research Charities clearly opposes the view of the Catholic Church and two hundred of its members are actively lobbying MPs to vote in favour of the Bill. So will the Catholic Church urge its followers to stop supporting these charities too?

Secondly, as you yourself have said earlier in this discussion, the Catholic Church opposes this Bill on the grounds of conscience. What I am asking you is will they also urge their followers to refuse all benefits from the advances in medical diagnoses and treatments that the provisions in this Bill could bring?

You can call that 'catholic-bashing' if you want to avoid the questions but they are relevant to the discussion.

Tibbie, the topic of the discussion was the Bill about to go through Parliament and the statement made on Easter Sunday by Cardinal Keith O'Brien. The other point I repeatedly attempted to make is that this wasn't a religious issue when so many oppose the mixing of human and animal in such a way. That isn't about religion but boundaries being set. Its about principles and ethics.

Secondly I am not accusing Amnesty in particular of exploiting the women of Africa by using them as guinea pigs, I am accusing "the West" in general of that. It happened. It is not ludicrous. The trials happened.

I have several problems with this vote and with the whole concept of genetic embryo research.

My problems with the vote are related to my scepticism about our elected representatives and their ability and inclination to consider what's best for our society and the long-term implications of anything.

Given the ongoing saga over their expenses, the jobs they move on to when they retire, the honours for votes sagas, etc how sure can we be that they are not succumbing to pressure from the large and completely unethical pharamceutical, petrochemical and agricultural multi-nationals , e.g Monsanto?

If you look at the behaviour over the GM seeds which are infertile, can't remember the name for them, and how it virtually enslaves peasant farmers who cannot keep any of this year's seeds to replant next year then I'm sure you can understand this concern. Also the companies then copyright their creations. Which is not that far removed in legal terms to ownership of a cloned organism and from there to slavery, e.g. Bladerunner.

On the issue of the any church attempting to tell MP's how they should vote and what their conscience ought to be it's an insult to democracy. An MP is not elected to represent their faith but to represent ALL the people in their constituency, without favour or prejudice.

And for any religious leader to attempt to pressurise members on the basis of their religious beliefs is unacceptable.

I have no difficulty with any religious leader expressing his or her veiws on a topic. Since I fail to see how one can express concern for the wellbeing of one's parishoners without being political, but that's entirely different from telling elected representatives how they should vote or questioning the quality or depth of their faith.

After all one of our arguments about Iranian democracy is the religious nature of their parliamentary proceedings.

Clare wrote:
I didn't say they don't contribute. I said its the medics who do the saving. I meant in hospitals etc.The new scientific tools give medical staff early warnings of potential dangers, as well as detailed data for proactive action. Science and medicine are now properly integrated in our hospitals and will continue to develop even further, in the future.

But hey they're only doctors and clearly they don't count much either.Do I assume that this is your view of our Health Service staff Clare. It is certainly not mine.

I believe that medical advances for the good of all should be encouraged but strictly monitored, but let's be honest, the likes of our Westminster government would use the embryo technology not only for the common good but to create the odd virus or even to see if they can create a goat with the testicles of a bull grafted on to its forehead and a butt for eyes.

You don't need to be 'religious; to know this abuse could happen, (though religion usually knee jerks over these issues) we have to be careful.

Cardinal O brien didn't mind getting a pacemaker fitted in the cardiac unit of the Royal.

How does he believe that the ability to create a mechanical version of the Sino-Atrial Node actually came about, and does he realise that many religious types believed that prolonging life in this manner was also against "God's will"?

I wonder if anyone else saw the report in today's Independent about the Christian Right's funding of MPs to oppose the proposed new laws on embryo research.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/e...earchers-802607.html

Kinghob wrote:
Cardinal O brien didn't mind getting a pacemaker fitted in the cardiac unit of the Royal.

How does he believe that the ability to create a mechanical version of the Sino-Atrial Node actually came about....

god's will

I think the question regarding the Church's thinking on medical research has been clearly explained earlier in this discussion.

To summarise, the Church is not campaigning against medical research per se, but this particular line of research where human life is artificially created and then experimented on.

Research on pacemakers never used that line of experimentation.

KH and Lev, I am really disappointed at such a cheap shot from you guys. I have always though better of you.

(I'll be off offline for a week (on holiday) so, if you respond to this, I apologise, but I won't see it till next week).

Lot's of people would think it was God's will. I remember many years ago when my wife's very religious old aunty from Donegal was in hospital for a major operation she said quite confidently that God would guide the surgeon's hands. She lived for another fifteen years.

Levenax wrote:
Kinghob wrote:
Cardinal O brien didn't mind getting a pacemaker fitted in the cardiac unit of the Royal.

How does he believe that the ability to create a mechanical version of the Sino-Atrial Node actually came about....

god's will

But that would be like him saying god is only willing to allow medical experimentation if it benefits the bishop himself then, but if it is other experimentation or for anybody else (perhaps millions of humans) then god isn't as willing?

Like I said, the government is untrustworthy and paranoid enough to believe that they need to keep a chemical/germ aspect of medical experimentation going as well as one that would benefit people from a medical perspective-that is what is ultimately dodgy about the embryo research.

You need to have proper control of those allowed to participate, otherwise the moral aspect could be dodgy as it could potentially cause harm.

I also would be against breeding human organs in half human forms with a heart and blood supply to give out organs 'off the shelf' as that would also be dodgy and you would end up with some sort of 'terminator' styled super-soldier being developed! lol

Is demonstrating a degree of hypocrisy about the advances of medical science benefitting the bishop himself really a "cheap shot"?

I don't think so.

Kinghob wrote:
Is demonstrating a degree of hypocrisy about the advances of medical science benefitting the bishop himself really a "cheap shot"?

I don't think so.

If that's what you were doing, then I would agree with you. However, what you were in fact doing, whether deliberately or not, was misrepresenting the position of the Catholic Church.

Were they opposing all medical research, then having a pacemaker fitted would be crass hypocrisy. However, that is demonstrably not the case. They are, in fact, opposing one line of research. To my knowledge embryo research was never used to perfect the pacemaker.

If I am wrong in this, I will stand corrected and agree with your hypocrisy claim, if not, I stand by my cheap shot statement.

(I will also call for all the scientists involved to be prosecuted as embryo research is not legal as yet).