California Proposition 71 - Stem Cell Research

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositio...rop71-title.htm

 

(5) Limitations on Payments for Cells

Standards limiting payments for the purchase of stem cells or stem

cell lines to reasonable payment for the removal, processing, dispos-al,

preservation, quality control, storage, transplantation, or implan-tation

or legal transaction or other administrative costs associated

with these medical procedures and specifically including any required

payments for medical or scientific technologies, products, or process-es

for royalties, patent, or licensing fees or other costs for intellectual

property.

 

(6) Time Limits for Obtaining Cells

Standards setting a limit on the time during which cells may be

extracted from blastocysts, which shall initially be 8 to 12 days after cell

division begins, not counting any time during which the blastocysts

and/or cells have been stored frozen.

are authorized or permitted by law.

 

...

 

(t) “Research donor” means a human who donates biological

materials for research purposes after full disclosure and consent.

 

...

 

(v) “Research participant” means a human enrolled with full dis-closure

and consent, and participating in clinical trials.

These are from the pdf of the actual law.

 

It looks an awful lot like people are going to be paid to donate new embryos. If so, I can't vote for it.

 

Anybody think I'm reading it wrong?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

From just that snippet, I actually read it the exact opposite way. To me, this

 

Standards limiting payments for the purchase of stem cells or stem

cell lines to reasonable payment for the removal, processing, dispos-al,

preservation, quality control, storage, transplantation, or implan-tation

or legal transaction or other administrative costs associated

with these medical procedures

 

suggests that research would in fact be limited to only the costs of the actual labor/etc. I don't really see anything implying that any payment's going to go out except to the persons/groups responsible for each step of the process. I don't think anyone's getting a voucher for their blastocysts.

 

Someone with more con-law knowledge than that accrued from a garrulous roommate is welcome to stamp certainty one way or another.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Come on now, it's science.

 

Had this Prop been passed earlier, Chris Reeve would be doing cartwheels by now.

 

OMG, YOU BASTARDS KILLED CHRISTOPHER REEVE...

[MrRant 0]

Stem Cells > Kryptonite?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Horeback riding > Kryptonite...

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

From just that snippet, I actually read it the exact opposite way. To me, this

 

Standards limiting payments for the purchase of stem cells or stem

cell lines to reasonable payment for the removal, processing, dispos-al,

preservation, quality control, storage, transplantation, or implan-tation

or legal transaction or other administrative costs associated

with these medical procedures

 

suggests that research would in fact be limited to only the costs of the actual labor/etc. I don't really see anything implying that any payment's going to go out except to the persons/groups responsible for each step of the process. I don't think anyone's getting a voucher for their blastocysts.

 

Someone with more con-law knowledge than that accrued from a garrulous roommate is welcome to stamp certainty one way or another.

How exactly do you do this w/o killing new embryos?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Here's the part relevant to this from the impartial analysis:

 

http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositio...71-analysis.htm

 

The institute would be able to use up to 3 percent of the remaining bond proceeds for general administrative costs and up to an additional 3 percent for administrative costs associated with grantmaking activities. The remaining funds would be used for the grants and loans for research and research facilities.

 

 

Priority for research grant funding would be given to stem cell research that met the institute's criteria and was unlikely to receive federal funding. In some cases, funding could also be provided for other types of research that were determined to cure or provide new types of treatment of diseases and injuries. The institute would not be allowed to fund research on human reproductive cloning.

 

 

Up to 10 percent of the funds available for grants and loans could be used to develop scientific and medical research facilities for nonprofit entities within the first five years of the implementation of the measure.

 

Institute Operating Costs. As noted earlier, this measure would limit the amount of bond funding available that the institute could use for its administrative activities. The measure does not specify what would happen if the institute's administrative costs were greater than the amount of available bond funding. The amount of additional General Fund support that would be required, if any, is unknown, but would be unlikely to exceed a few million dollars annually.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

What prevents new embryos from being destroyed?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Short answer: I don't know.

 

Long answer: This doesn't provide any changes to the ethical controls aside from the Citizen's Oversight Comittee or whatever that was in the text, it's rather complicated. I wouldn't say that means there are no restrictions. Gray Davis signed a number of things about stem cell research and any restrictions in that would cross over to here. So it adds no ethical protections. It depends on the protections of previous laws.

 

That said, the usual suspects in the right to life crowd is against 71 if that's what matters most to you. However, the primary complaints are fiscal reasons and a possibility of someone cloning. Cloning is already against state law.

 

http://www.noon71.com/ says:

by speaking of stem cell research as a single type of effort, which "medical researches believe... could lead to treatments and cures..." the proponents obscure the fact that Proposition 71 will primarily fund research on human embryos—from IVF clinics (not many available) or more likely from human clones created in science laboratories. They hide the fact that there have been NO successes from either animal or human embryonic stem cell research, and only one documented success in creating a human cloned embryo.

 

Again, human cloning is already against state law, so I'm rather confused why this is a concern.

 

Think of it like this: This isn't asking whether stem cell research should be okay. Those laws were made last year. This is simply asking if we should spend the money to promote the industry growth here.