August 18, 2005
WE’RE NEVER TOO YOUNG TO BE OF SERVICE
Fetal skins cells offer burn treatment breakthrough (Sheryl Ubelacker, Globe and Mail, August 18th, 2005)
In a procedure that could revolutionize burn treatment, doctors have used fetal skin cells to successfully heal young children with severe scalding injuries, avoiding the need to remove a patch of their own skin for a graft.The skin cells, taken from an aborted fetus and grown in the lab into a sheet-like covering, acted as a “biological Band-Aid,” said lead researcher Dr. Patrick Hohlfeld, a professor of gynecology and obstetrics at the University Hospital of Lausanne in Switzerland. [...]
A woman gave them permission to biopsy four square centimetres of skin from her 14-week-old fetus that had been aborted for “medical-social” reasons. The doctors then divided and multiplied the cells, which were seeded into a collagen “construct,” producing nine-by-12-centimetre sheets of bioengineered skin.
The procedure is bound to raise ethical flags because the skin was obtained from an aborted fetus, a source that raises the spectre of women agreeing to truncated pregnancies to provide new body parts for the old or ailing.
Dr. Hohlfeld said such a scenario would never happen because it wouldn't be necessary.
"Dammit we're going to find a use for aborted foetii somehow!"
I've heard that skin makes a great lampshade, they might want to look into that.
And what the hell are "medical-social resons?"
She changed her mind.
Posted by: erp at August 18, 2005 12:01 PM"Medical-social reasons." In other words the unborn was uberfluessig.
Posted by: Lou Gots at August 18, 2005 12:21 PMWho says zombies aren't real.
Posted by: Luciferous at August 18, 2005 1:10 PMYou could probably make some really killer, er, I mean nice, shoes as well...
Posted by: b at August 18, 2005 1:16 PMDr. Hohlfeld said such a scenario would never happen because it wouldn't be necessary.
Notice that he didn't say it would never happen because that it would be immoral. That's like saying "we'll never stoop to cannibalism as long as we have enough cows".
Posted by: Robert Duquette at August 18, 2005 1:35 PMLou: Aren't those words ('aborted for medical-social reasons') chilling? Are there any pro-choice readers around who don't find that phrase bothersome?
Posted by: David Cohen at August 18, 2005 2:49 PMDavid: I strongly agree. The words give you the feeling that your eyes are getting used to the darkness in the death chamber at Tenochtitlan, and you are starting to see the blood-drenched chac-mool. Obviously the unborn was killed because his or her mother had other priorities.
Posted by: Lou Gots at August 18, 2005 6:48 PMDavid, I find the use of the word foetal obscene in this context. It's just a euphemism for murder.
Posted by: jdkelly at August 18, 2005 6:54 PMLou,Strongly agree. Your post wasn't up when I posted. Not David's eyes though. All of our eyes are getting to used to the chamber of death.
Posted by: jdkelly at August 18, 2005 7:40 PMDavid Cohen:
I don't find it bothersome.
The phrase "aborted for 'medical-social' reasons" is just bureaucratic gibberish.
Perhaps they should call a reason unrelated to a physical medical problem simply a "social" abortion, to negate their intended smokescreen, but the bottom line is that the woman wasn't forced to have an abortion.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 19, 2005 2:01 AMMichael:
We can all agree that it is bureaucratic gibberish. So was "relocation".
What's with the "just"?
Posted by: Peter B at August 19, 2005 6:19 AMMichael: In context, what it means is that this was not a first trimester abortion (it was actually done at 14 weeks, according to the article) done for the convenience of the mother. The phrase, however, is, as Lou notes, redolent of Nazism and could as easily be used for involuntary abortions of the untermenschen.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 19, 2005 9:58 AM