Originally posted by no1marauderI don't see any problem with doing medical research on dead human bodies of any age. That has been done for a long time and has resulted in increased medical knowledge and advances.
Doesn't the fact that he admittedly used tissue from aborted fetuses in his medical research tick you crazy right wingers off a bit?
Dr Carson has stated his objection to the abortion of babies and against the selling of body parts for medical research which was the charge against Planned Parenthood. There is no evidence that Dr. Carson took part in that type of action to get fetal tissue for research. In fact, he stated what he did was different from the charges against Planned Parenthood.
21 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsHow exactly was it "different"?
I don't see any problem with doing medical research on dead human bodies of any age. That has been done for a long time and has resulted in increased medical knowledge and advances.
Dr Carson has stated his objection to the abortion of babies and against the selling of body parts for medical research which was the charge against Planned Parenthood. There ...[text shortened]... arch. In fact, he stated what he did was different from the charges against Planned Parenthood.
21 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsBut how else are Progs expected to make money in this economy?
I don't see any problem with doing medical research on dead human bodies of any age. That has been done for a long time and has resulted in increased medical knowledge and advances.
Dr Carson has stated his objection to the abortion of babies and against the selling of body parts for medical research which was the charge against Planned Parenthood. There ...[text shortened]... arch. In fact, he stated what he did was different from the charges against Planned Parenthood.
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by no1marauderMy understanding from watching the video was that for the right price that they would make sure that certain parts of the aborted babies were not crushed when they killed the babies. What is your understanding?
Your understanding of the Planned Parenthood situation is obviously flawed.
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThat Planned Parenthood was reimbursed for actual reasonable expenses incurred when they honored the woman's request to donate fetal tissue for medical research.
My understanding from watching the video was that for the right price that they would make sure that certain parts of the aborted babies were not crushed when they killed the babies. What is your understanding?
Originally posted by whodeyAs already pointed out several times, there was no "profit". From the Planned Parenthood tapes thread:
For Progs, there are no slippery slopes.
So they want to sell dead baby parts for profit?
What could possibly go wrong? 😵
We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit. Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price.” She continued in an email:
Sawyer, July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit.”
Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” ‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/