Little Lenny wrote:
The question of whether Stem cells should be used or not is a massive ethical debate, which again has to remain open ended if you look at it logically because there will always be those who are pro and those who are against.
Myself I believe that if the scientists can perfect a way of recreating those cells without using Stem cells from a Fetus then that would be brilliant. But at the moment, this is the only way that Stem cells can be sought.
Excellent. Back on topic. You're right, Lenny, it's as big a debate here as abortion still is, even though that's been legal for 30+ years. I don't feel there's enough evidence on stem cells yet. There's way too much gray area and wide open space hanging over it, and that's part of the problem. Getting past the research phase to see what can be done is the main hurdle at this time. They've looked and are still looking at alternatives, too. The main debate surrounds embryonic stem cell research because while they have the highest and best use, you're talking about embryos. The alternative adult stem cell research is less of a debate because you're talking about willing donors, but you're also talking about much more limited use.
Somewhere in all this was brought up the fact that there are cases of parents needing donor matches for a sick child and if options are exhausted and one isn't available, they have another child hoping it will be a match. There's nothing in the law here saying this can't be done, and clearly it's a family choice, but it's also an issue that gotten some press.
Little Lenny wrote:It's difficult for me looking at this thread because obviously our laws and legislature are different to yours in the US. Rules surrounding Abortion are very different and also stem cell research etc.
Every single Abortion whether it is done privately or on the National Health Service has to be reported to the Chief medical officer of England & Wales , documents are sent to Whitehall in London, it looks like this
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1991/Uksi_19910499_en_3.htmalso
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1967/PD ... 087_en.pdfPlease Note Lords Spiritual and Temporal on the document, means Church Lords and Law Lords, Commons means politicians.
is it similar to your system? Bearing in mind this only covers termination of pregnancy...
All this debate has made me think... so IM interested to see what your system works on.
Our system is scattered on this, unfortunately. The main holding on the issue by the US Supreme Court is this:
The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's uterus, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."
All that really means is you are allowed, by law, to seek this course of action. The legalese there says "yes you may". But you also have the doctors and clinics who can choose not to offer it. They are not reported to the goverment as in your country.
The individual state laws would of course have to uphold it, but with their own criteria added.
What futher laws apply, depend entirely upon on which state you live in.
In response to Roe v. Wade, most states enacted or attempted to enact laws limiting or regulating abortion, such as laws requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions, parental notification laws, spousal mutual consent laws, spousal notification laws, laws requiring abortions to be performed in hospitals but not clinics, laws barring state funding for abortions, laws banning abortions utilizing intact dilation and extraction procedures (often referred to as partial-birth abortion), laws requiring waiting periods before abortion, or laws mandating women read certain types of literature before choosing an abortion.
While you're allowed by law to have the procedure, should you choose, you may have to look far and wide to find a place to have it safely. The protests still go on, and many places choose not to offer it just to avoid trouble. It's pretty sad in my opinion that we have a situation where people are harmed - even killed - over something that been a legal practice since 1973. The protests become violent (sanctity of life? yeah...
) and there have been instances of doctors being harrassed, some killed, just because they or their clinic performs a legal medical procedure. Don't kill the babies, but kill the doctors? I have a real hard time when people start justifying that kind of action. I don't understand how that is supposed to solve anything, or what the justification is for violence against people who are simply excercising a legal right.
Hopefully some of those things answer your questions about how it's handled here and what the laws are. It's legal and you have the right to keep it private, but with each state applying its own laws to it, and with such controversy still looming, it's still a very tough issue.
Thanks for sharing the info on your laws, Lenny. It's always interesting to see how things are handled in other places.
