Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 December 2021 | Story Igno van Niekerk | Photo Igno van Niekerk
Dr Samantha Potgieter, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Internal Medicine and Dr Nicholas Pearce, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Surgery comment on their team members’ commitment and determination during the pandemic.

On the forefront of the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic, two UFS doctors are leading a team of inspired healthcare workers in a superhuman effort to make a positive difference.

With the pandemic in its second year and the recurring challenges of new waves and strains consistently in the news, one would expect the doctors to be tired. However, quite the opposite is true.  Upon entering the office where Dr Samantha Potgieter, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Internal Medicine and Dr Nicholas Pearce, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Surgery are in a meeting with colleagues, the debate is vibrant; an energetic sense of mission.

Miraculously succeeded

My brief is to collect stories and experiences they’ve had over the past 18 months at the Tumelo ward for general and high-care patients, where the team has miraculously succeeded in not running out of oxygen or ventilators, despite handling high volumes of patients from the Free State and Northern Cape. “We saw those pictures of piled-up bodies in Italy. We were committed to avoiding that at all costs. And we did.”

Success stories? First mentioned are their team members’ commitment and determination. The team had to stand in when families could not support dying patients. “They did not die alone. Our team was there.”  

“Really sad and frustrating are the deaths that could have been prevented. Unvaccinated patients. They arrive ill, wanting to know if they can get it. Too late...” – Dr Nicholas Pearce


Then came hope


Sad stories? The past year has had its share of sad stories. “Someone comes in during the morning, needs oxygen, in the afternoon they are in ICU, then ventilator – and then they die. We’ve never faced anything like this before.”  

Then came hope. Vaccines. Dr Pearce is in charge of the vaccination site at Universitas Hospital. “Really sad and frustrating are the deaths that could have been prevented. Unvaccinated patients. They arrive ill, wanting to know if they can get it. Too late ...” He opens his cell phone – shares the stats. “We can handle 2 000 vaccinations a day. At the moment about 250 comes in.” He shakes his head.  

“We can beat this virus, but we need to stand together ...”

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept