Posted on 10/19/2011 2:11:44 PM PDT by NYer
Scientists in Britain face being barred from developing life-saving treatments after a court ruled it is ‘immoral’ to use embryos to produce stem cells.
The European Court of Justice has decreed that patenting any treatment using the cells is ‘commercial exploitation’ and ‘contrary to morality’.
Scientists warned the ‘devastating decision’ will stop pioneering treatments for degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s being developed in the UK, with potentially catastrophic consequences for the multi-million pound biotechnology industry.
But pro-life groups, who argue it is immoral to experiment with embryos to advance medicine, welcomed the ruling.
The decision, made unanimously by 13 judges in Luxembourg, follows a case brought by Greenpeace in Germany against Professor Oliver Brüstle at the University of Bonn.
Professor Brüstle filed a patent with the German government in 1997 to convert embryonic stem cells into nerve cells to help patients with Parkinson’s disease.
Greenpeace challenged it and the case went to the highest court in Germany and then Luxembourg.
The resulting 10-page judgement prohibits patenting any process which involves removing a stem cell from and then destroying a ‘human embryo’ – defined as anything ‘capable of commencing the process of development of a human being.’
It states: ‘Patents may not be granted for inventions whose commercial exploitation would be contrary to morality... In particular patents shall not be awarded for uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purpose.’
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I’m stunned.
Who would have thought a bunch of euro-weenie judges could get a morality question right.
Their headline is misleading. Such treatments don't exist.
So how many Parkinson's patients have you helped, Professor?
::::crickets::::
Amazing, indeed!
Who’d have thought that a bunch of Euroweenie judges in Brussels would decide this case in favor of human life?
And the lawsuit was brought by Greenpeace!
Greenpeace is saving babies now, as well as whales and seals? I simply can’t imagine it!
Yes, indeed. “developing” implies that something already exists. What is banned is performing experiments that entail the killing of human embryos if he they had no more value than an unborn chick.
ping!
Eurotrash and greenpeace? Whod’a thunk it? I’m shocked, in a good way, but shocked, none the less.
**So how many Parkinson’s patients have you helped, Professor?**
so far, the ONLY SUCCESS with stem cells, have been with ADULT STEM CELLS!!!
Embryonic Stem Cells have only caused TUMORS.. most Cancerous!!
There are ZERO embryonic stem-cell therapies in use or even close to being in use.
There are no profits.
There is no real hope of profits.
I am stunned that this decision was based on natural law principals.
When will they start caring about people being murdered all over the world by islamics? They don’t about the living, and they don’t care to save the living, but they will save the few cells that were aborted or could never become a human life. Such fake “caring” and islamic murders are taking us back into the Dark Ages.
"No bias here...just move along...".
What life-saving embryonic stem stell research? In spite of all the government and private money thrown at this form of human sacrifice, no useful treatment has yet emerged.
sure do agree with that.....If my life depended on using embryo stem cells or medication derived from them, I would not take it. Adult stem cells have already yielded good results. No one needs embryo stem cells....
If I had to hazard a guess, I’d guess that Herr Brüstle doesn’t appear so smug today. The only manner the author might have used to make this article any more biased would have involved listing the judges’ addresses and strong hints of methods of eradication.
Meanwhile, Yes, this is stunning: GreenPeace, prolifers, and a unanimous panel of 13 Euroweenie judges! Wow!
I'm sifting throug hmy neural nets to see where this could have come from. I remember back in about 1980 Jeremy Rifkin (agnotic Jew, environmentalist, futurist)w as arguing strenuously against genetic engineering, partly on the grounds that since (1) the USCC refuses to see that human life begins at the beginning, and (2) it is possible to patent genetically engineered life forms, therefore (3) it would become possible to patent human embryos, which would be (in his view and mine, too) seriously wrong.
I wonder if Rifkin's in on this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
