h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

1. No

2. Yes, I'd bite their hand off.

3. Yes, I'd bite their hand off.

4. Yes, I'd bite their hand off.

(Note to Eds, I'm being metaphorical and using a colloqualism in my terminolgy here..)

Never one to hold back! Eh? Effers!

It is good to know you haven't changed...

MMF

*backs away from teh biting one*
Oi! I still use my hands

Doubly, triply and quadruply yes to number *four*, as I am having some serious pain right now! I'd bite hands off, for number 4, but no matter that I want to and acting a.m.a. with a bagful of P*n*d*l (trade name)< I still wouldn't go for 2 and 3. The question was framed as 'killing', no mention of embryoes, and no to killing. Anyone.

VL

1.Yes...eventual loss of sight seems to run in the family.

2.No. I would get the Quacks name and number and start preparing a witness statement

3.No. Ditto

4.Free you say?...are you the same Quack from Q2 and Q3?

alec.

1. Yes.
2. Probably not.
3. 'Might' is a word I haven't heard many scientists/doctors use, so I would doubt the authenticity of the 'cure' and decline.
4. Yes.

1 Yes
2 No
3 Yes
4 Yes

"...but doesn't it really come down to at what point do these cells become human."

Er, at what point was this thread about cells? Is there someone someone is not telling me?

1.Do you or anyone in your family have cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, cancer, alzheimer's disease, parkinson's desease, spinal-cord injuries, birth defects, been burned severely, or blind?
Answer: Yes

2. If science offered you a free cure, but it involved killing another human being to cure you, would you take it?
Answer: No

3. If science offered you a free cure, but it MIGHT involve killing another human being, would you take it?
Answer: No

4. If science offered you a free cure and it did not involve any killing, would you take it?
Answer: Pending Yes, but I'd want to know what it *did* involve before I signed on any dotted line.

1. No particularly close family. Everybody knows someone with cancer these days.

2. Possibly, if the 'victim' knows and consents.

3. Probably, if the 'victim' knows and consents.

4. Yes.

1. yes
2. yes
3. yes
4. yes

1. Yes

2. Depends whose being killed. If its someone I really dont care for then go for it. Lets face it there are peole starving and I cant put them infront of my appetite it'd be stupid to put other people's lives ahead of the life or quality of life of me and my loved ones.

3. See above.

4. Yes, if it is the same result as the other treatments but without the need to look the other way when news reports about my demands creating sufering for others come on the TV. Then having to make some token charity donations to asauge my guilt or simply sweep my ethical concerns under the carpet, then sure,that's even better.



So it seems the answer is to relocate stem cell research to parts of the world where life is treated cheaply and people who make a big noise about the santity of life dont really care because, well, its a long way-away.

one love

1.) Yes
2.) No - my life isn't worth more than anyone else's
3.) No - see above
4.) Assuming the usual precautions about the efficacy of medicines, yes.

Iago

Yes, no, no, yes but once again the questions are far too broadly open to interpretation or possibility. Could the person who might die, die anyway in the near future? Would the person who would definitely die be already condemned to death or have a fatal disease? How can the efficacy of a cure be guaranteed? What kinds of death are they, what kinds of side effects does the cure have? How is death guaranteed or be merely possible?

This kind of fairy tale mental exercise can't really prove how people will really react or prove anything about the people who engage in it, even the answers themselves are completely open to different interpretations.

1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No

Love it...