It sounds like a horror story made up by an anti-abortion group, but it is not. Neocutis, a Swiss “cosmeceutical,” is being marketed as a “Bio-restorative Skin Cream with PSP™” for “sensitive, stressed and irritated skin.” PSP are processed skin-cell proteins and the manufacturer, Neocutis SA, is honest about where they came from:
Inspired by fetal skin’s unique properties, Neocutis’ proprietary technology uses cultured fetal skin cells to obtain an optimal, naturally balanced mixture of skin nutrients including cytokines, growth factors and antioxidants.
Neocutis SA, cognizant of the ethical objections, declares:
Since the 1930s, the international medical community has used donated fetal tissue to better understand cell biology and as an essential tool in the development of vaccines, which are credited with saving millions of lives worldwide. The 1954 Nobel Prize for medicine was awarded to researchers who utilized fetal kidney cells to develop the polio vaccine… Our view—which is shared by most medical professionals and patients—is that the limited, prudent and responsible use of donated fetal skin tissue can continue to ease suffering, speed healing, save lives, and improve the well-being of many patients around the globe.
In other words, Neocutis SA believes that this is yet another benefit of stem cell research. But is this what proponents have in mind when urging the funding of stem cell research? Does support for stem cell research to cure fatal diseases extend to support for stem cells in cosmetics?
Dr. Summer Johnson of Bioethics.net asks:
… [W]hat moral complicity exists for those who choose to put fetal skin protein creams on their faces? …
She acknowledges that consumers are likely to have one of two responses:
Yet for some, this will have no moral implication at all. For them, fetal proteins in a face cream aren't any different from animal or plant protein because for them the moral status of the aborted fetus doesn't have the moral status to give one concern if consent to both abortion and research took place.
But for many, it would be unthinkable to fetal ANYTHING into their deepening wrinkles to make them become less so. In fact, many would rather have crow's feet deeper than the Grand Canyon than have a fetal tissue cell touch their face as a result of their moral conviction…
I must admit that this issue has never occurred to me. When I think of stem cell research, I think of life saving technologies, not cosmetics. Does it matter, though, what the stem cells will be used for once you’ve decided they can be used? Is there any moral difference between using the tissue of aborted fetuses to cure cancer and using it to cure wrinkles? And if it does matter, what does this tell us about the status of fetal tissue? Are fetal cells no different from the animal and plant cells often used in the manufacture of cosmetics?
At a minimum, people deserve to know when products are manufactured using the tissue of aborted fetuses so they can decide for themselves whether to buy and use them. The real question is whether we should go further. Instead of leaving the moral decision to individuals, should we restrict the use of fetal tissue to life saving products, or even to no products at all?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
MissingK8
aliquot
Roger Fallihee
madcelt
Norwonk
John Moore
Salon.com
Comments
That's certainly one viewpoint. I'm not sure that everyone would agree.
"Using stem cells for legitimate research (like for treatment of disease) is one thing, but for a face cream?"
It makes me really uncomfortable, too, but I'm trying to figure out whether once we decide it is okay to use fetal cells should it make a difference what we those cells for.
"It's not an advertising person's dream product is it?"
Certainly some people are going to be horrified, but I wonder if there are others who would buy it regardless of what's in it.
I'll get back with you.
This kind of thinking is no different than Americans thinking it's disgusting that other cultures eat animals such as cats, dogs, horses, rats, kangaroos, whatever... but it's not just as disgusting to eat pigs, cows, chickens, or turkeys. What's the difference? ALL of it is muscle and/or the organs of an animal, so what does it matter which one it's from? It's completely illogical and egocentric thinking.
And yet so many people think it's fine to kill animals for various reasons, and that's OK... because, you know, humans are superior to all other living beings.
I am thinking not, but then, I'm on the fence. I think(keyword being I --- :) -----) that there's a difference between cancer(life threatening) and wrinkles(just threatening to the ego) but what the hell do I know?
Good article.
Personally it doesn't bother me at all because I'm guessing that the fetal tissue is getting incinerated or disposed of in some other way. Why not use it for something if it was otherwise going to be thrown away. It's human tissue at that point. Nothing more and nothing less.
Thanks for bringing this issue up. It was very much in focus years ago when the rumor was spreading that collagen from aborted fetuses was being used for cosmetics and skins creams.
There may be nearly as many opinions as there are people commenting - but I believe that enthusiastic support of cosmetic uses ultimately works against the life saving value of stem cell research and furnishes the opposition with a straw man to fight in what is actually a life and death struggle for many.
I think everyone would agree that the "yuck" factor is very high, and that is generally a sign that there is something wrong with an idea. However, if there is something wrong, we should be able to describe what it is.
Let's assume for the moment that it is acceptable to use fetal cells for lifesaving purposes, although there are good arguments to be made that it is not acceptable. If we assume that it is acceptable, does it matter precisely what the cells are used for? Is it okay to take kidney cells for kidney transplants, but not okay to take skin cells for cosmetic purposes?
And what do we do if a stem cell product designed for a lifesaving purpose like treating extensive burns and helping skin grafts heal turns out to have a cosmetic benefit as well? If it already exists is it okay to use to the product for cosmetic purposes?
McGarrett50 raises a really interesting question that I had not initially considered. If the product is being used for something other than advancing research or saving lives, shouldn't the "donor" of the tissue share in any profits? Before we say yes, though, we need to consider if that would provide an incentive for abortion and whether we want to provide such an incentive. We don't allow people to sell their organs, but we do allow them to sell ova and sperm. In which category would stem cells fall?
I realize that I am offering far more questions than answers, but this is a complex ethical issue, not an empirical issue with right and wrong answers.
I can't help recoiling from the idea of using fetal cells in cosmetics because it seems to me that fetal cells are different from and should be treated differently from animal or plant cells, but I'm trying to figure out exactly why.
When a situation calls for it that is an admission I truly admire. Thank you.
The cells are the descendants of those that were originally harvested from the fetus.
Why is it OK to kill animals, but when a wild or domesticated animal kills a person (often because the person was invading their space or was bothering/hurting them in some way), it's such a big deal, and people want to disposeof the animal right away?
THAT is a barbaric and self-righteous attitude.
If new uses for fetal tissue can be developed, all the better. Waste not want not. Why should it be better to dispose of this valuable tissue than make use of it?
And maybe the suppression of wrinkles is vanity, but then again that tissue might also suppress skin cancer cells. who knows. And Sandra, I love you madly, but in another 20 years we may both be very much pro anti-wrinkles!
I just don't see a reason to waste anything (abortion product or not) if it could be useful. People have been going to mexico (and switzerland etc..) to get injected with wacky assed stuff like sheep fetal cells, and paying out the ying yang for it too. Applying some human placental cells to your face seems mild by comparison.
It touches on the fringe of one of my favorite bioethical dilemmas, should a living transplant donor be paid for their organ? I say yes, yes in a very big way, but with clearly well thought out contracts to protect the donor.
Dr. Amy,
A fetus (latin for "life") is a HUMAN BEING, not an animal or plant.
And that is why there should be respect for him or her.
"A fetus (latin for "life") is a HUMAN BEING"
But I don't think that's the source of the disgust. If the processed skin cell proteins came from the skin of consenting adults, I suspect that most people would not care.
True, true. It's the taking of something that is still precious, life, and making it cheap and vain. This to me, as are many of the comments here, is disgusting and inhuman.
"It's the taking of something that is still precious, life, and making it cheap and vain."
Is it the idea of abortion, per se, or is the idea that the tissue comes from a dead body and was used without the consent of the person/entity from which is came?
I suspect people would also be outraged if it turned out that the cosmetic used tissue from dead adults without their consent.
Does it work?
:)
Then, again, many people weren't outraged at the "use" of residual tissue from Holocaust victims.
This is what we are reduced to, seeing a dead body, no matter how chopped up, as a potential for personal gain.
Look at what a non trivial subset of woman do to their own bodies, voluntarily, to enhance their perceived appeal to men. If a man MADE women get liposuction or breast implants, he would be [legitimately] considered a monster. Yes woman line up for it. They can't afford health insurance, yet they PAY CASH for it. Or, indenture themselves to a credit card company.
So, women that do this to themselves..... they will be lining up if they think it works. Hell, they made the Nantucket diet book a best seller, and it advocated COLONICS for weight loss! Duh.
I dunno, Amy. All I have to say is that I am not interested in women with plastic boobs. Don't blame this on men.
And, keep selling fetal skin cream!!!!!!!!
They love you. Their marketing people.
Regards, Nick.
They could have brochures showing the effects of botched boob jobs. Even the high end Hollywood Stars get shockingly awful plastic surgery.
Then, they could have some alternatives. Like:
1. Listen to men.
2. Be NICE.
3. Perfect oral sex techniques.
4. %C.
I mean, there are ALTERNATIVES to mutilating surgery. I would say #3 trumps a boob job any day of the year.
Just call me a misanthrope.
Would it be better just to dispose of an aborted fetus rather than use parts of it in cosmetics? If you think so... why? Why is it any different than a person giving their body to science after they have passed on? Why is it any different than a person giving their body to science to be used in educational exhibits in museums, where viewers are able to see the preserved skin, muscle, nerves, etc. of those who have passed on? Many people have a problem with that, but it's really none of their business what happens to another person's body if they chose to give it to science in that way.
Again, no one has the right to tell a woman she can't have an abortion, and if she does have one, what difference does it make what happens to the fetus after it is aborted... whether it be put in the trash, be used to help save lives or to cure a serious health condition, or to use it in face creams to improve one's skin?
I find it to be completely illogical for people to say, "We can use aborted fetuses for this, but we can't use them for that." People's insecurities shouldn't determine what happens. It boils down to people not being able to handle certain things that shouldn't be ethical issues, and THAT shouldn't determine what happens (much like how religious people love to call the shots on things that they have no business in).
The ethical part would come in if companies are encouraging/forcing women to get abortions for this. Maybe for that reason women who get abortions shouldn't be paid for their fetuses. Afterall, they're getting rid of something they decided they couldn't keep, so after that, it shouldn't be their choice as to what happens to it. It's kind of like giving someone a gift. After you give that person the gift, it's none of your business what that person does with it.
You really couldn't make this stuff up.
The truth is always totally unbelievable. I mean, if it WEREN'T TRUE and was submitted as fiction, it would get 86ed for being truly unbelievable.
I am in total shock, Amy.
Please delete any of my posts if you find them offensive, Amy.
I am pro-choice to a certain extent, but I find the idea of using human cells for this purpose repugnant. And I am in favor of stem cell research for lifesaving purposes. I'd no sooner smear fetus on my face than cadaver cells. Maybe that's illogical, but it feels like a terribly disrespectful purpose.
I'm not religious, but to me, it's more than just any clump of cells. It has the spark of human life, whatever that is, and yes, I'd rather see it disposed of than used to prevent wrinkles on some overtanned millionaire.
As for fetal tissue, it's the same. It's tissue that already died, independent of its after use, so the purpose it's being used for has no significance.
People really need to get over their self righteousness. The world would be a much better place if people would learn to come down off their pedestals.
Would it be unethical if reps from these companies went into garbage dumpsters and took the fetal tissue and then used it? No. If the fetal tissue is disposed of, then what is the big deal?
And certainly the idea of a woman profiting from the abortion is repugnant. If you're not allowed to gain montetarily by donating your kidney for a live transplant, you certainly shouldn't be allowed to gain donated a terminated fetus.
Bringing abortion into the picture does nothing to further research. If you are against abortion, advocate another way. This is underhanded and decietful. The more I read your posts, the more confused I get. Are you here to present medical information or are you here to push your own "moral" agenda? I know one thing, the two do not mix.
People make the decision to donate their bodies to science. No relative or any other person has the right to interfere with that once they've made that decision and have passed on. I believe it's the same when women get abortions. Once the fetal tissue is removed from them, it's no longer theirs.
I agree that a woman shouldn't be able to gain financially from this.
I don't get what the big deal is.
Yes, having an administration that supports Stem Cell research is crucial. I would like to see people have a better grasp on Stem Cells and how they are used in research.
Hematopoietic stem cells (blood stem cells) can be obtained from adults or children, not fetuses. This is commonly referred to as bone marrow transplantation.
In general, when people talk about stem cell research they mean stem cells acquired from an embryo or fetus. Unlike blood, stem cells for most organ systems do not persist past the fetal period.
I hope that your son continues to do well. We are not talking about interfering with the type of therapy he received. We are talking about something very different.
"As for fetal tissue, it's the same. It's tissue that already died, independent of its after use, so the purpose it's being used for has no significance."
But we don't allow people to use dead human tissue for just any purpose. You can't take people's organs just because you want them. You cannot desecrate the bodies of the dead. So simply being dead does not end our moral obligation.
This is important to set up, because the argument falls flat if we are just debating WHAT to do with aborted babies, rather than understanding that there is a sanctity of life issue here. If one understands that God created life, gives life and blesses us with children, then the debate is over because it would be at that point, that human life would be valued enough to not be terminated, or put in skin cream, in the first place.
Like I said, I could care less what happens to my body after I pass on, because I won't be in it any longer. If anything, I'll give it to science... but I'm not too worried about whether someone steals it or not. I'm not that egotistical to care what happens to a material object once I've moved on.