Ragsdale: Stem-cell research promises to save lives, not take them
By SHIRLEY RAGSDALE
Register Opinion Columnist
07/06/2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our lifetimes, we are expected to make some judgment calls. Moral and ethical decisions are the hardest.
For instance, when our nation first addressed the choices presented by organ-transplant science, people were fearful. They focused on the here-and-now, not on the possibilities. This new medical procedure was unnatural and dangerous, some said. Would a black market in organs develop? Would organs be "harvested" before the donor was "dead"? It was the stuff of urban legends.
However, organ-transplant research moved forward. Today, transplant medicine is generally accepted and medical technology has outstripped the available supply of hearts, livers, lungs and kidneys. Lucky transplant recipients are given a second chance for a healthy life. But in most cases there's been no getting around the fact that for one person to live, another must die.
Another such debate is festering.
The discovery of human stem cells has enabled scientists to explore human development and better understand how a single cell can develop into the organs and tissues of the human body. From this insight, medical science may discover a remedy for incurable injury or disease.
Here, too, the promise of a restored life hinges on a life-and-death decision.
Privately funded stem-cell research is moving slowly, examining the potential of stem cells derived from adult, fetal and embryo sources. But scientists could move faster and further if federal funding were authorized.
In 1999, the American Association for the Advancement of Science encouraged expanding stem-cell research. Under the Clinton administration, the National Institutes of Health published final guidelines for using stem cells gathered from embryos created through in-vitro fertilization procedures. But when George W. Bush became president, he placed the NIH recommendations on hold.
The Washington Post this week reported the Bush administration had hoped to quietly kill the initiative. Instead, the reversal turned up the volume on the debate.
Utah Senator Orrin G. Hatch and other members of Congress who share his impeccable anti-abortion credentials told the president that abortion destroys life, but stem-cell research "is about saving lives." Bush has been lobbied by the scientific community and patients'-rights groups, all beseeching him to approve funding.
Others are adamantly opposed. Those who believe life begins at conception have said harvesting cells from embryos discarded by fertility clinics is murder. Activists maintain there is no difference between a stem-cell research facility and an abortion clinic. And the president's advisors are reportedly loath to alienate the "Catholic vote."
Blocking federal funding will not stop the science. Some American universities have already formed private companies and foundations to facilitate research. A U.S. ban would merely guarantee that scientists in Israel, Australia and Singapore will assume the lead. Even more costly, the technology might become the sole property of the private sector.
So we have a decision to make.
The controversy revolves around the cells found in a fertilized egg that is precisely 4 days old. This is when the embryo becomes a mass of several dozen cells. It holds the potential for life, but it does not yet live.
To me, the justification for stem-cell research is not that much different from those connected to organ donations.
If a person dies and the family donates their loved one's organs, the futures of many sick people may be positively affected. However, if the family says no, the life-saving opportunity is lost.
Similarly, if surplus embryos warehoused at fertility clinics cannot be dedicated to scientific research, life-saving medical science may remain undiscovered.
Imagine being able to give hope to victims of spinal-cord injuries instead of showing them how to use a wheelchair.
Imagine being able to halt or reverse such devastating illnesses as diabetes or cancer.
Imagine restoring recognition and confidence to the eyes of someone afflicted with Alzheimer's disease. Or flexibility, balance and a steady hand to the victims of Parkinson's. Or defeating multiple sclerosis and ALS.
People with failing organs would no longer have to wait indefinitely for a transplant. Using stem-cell science, doctors might be able to repair the damaged heart.
Deciding the future of embryonic stem-cell research will be heavy lifting for President Bush. Millions of Americans - including many from his own party - hope he will place the chance to alleviate suffering above possible political fallout.
It is impossible to predict the outcome of stem-cell research. But we will never know if we cannot try........................................Editorial: Bush's stem-cell dilemma
He should take the advice of fellow conservatives and let research resume.
By Register Editorial Board
07/06/2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush has backed himself into a corner. After suspending President Clinton's guidelines on funding stem-cell research, now some of Bush's most conservative brethren are advising him to support it. Republican Senators Orrin Hatch and Strom Thurmond and Cabinet secretary Tommy Thompson are among those who have voiced approval for stem-cell research.
Bush maintained during his campaign and early in his presidency that he opposes research using stem cells. In a statement to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, he wrote, "I oppose federal funding for stem-cell research that involves destroying human embryos."
But to obtain stem cells, embryos are destroyed. There's no way around it.
Human stem cells are a sort of "starter" cell extracted from an embryo. The remainder of the embryo is then discarded. These cells can become any type of tissue in the body. That's pretty exciting. With the potential to transform into blood, bone marrow, liver, lung, cartilage, and even cardiac tissue, the possibilities are promising for advancements in treating the leading killers such as stroke, diabetes and heart disease.
One study cites evidence that embryonic stem cells can restore damaged nerves. Paralyzed rats were able to walk a few months after receiving an injection of embryonic stem cells. Another group of researchers induced heart attacks in adult mice to destroy portions of the heart wall. The heart of a mouse, like that of a human, can't repair itself. When the researchers injected cells into the damaged area, new cells began growing in about a week.
The possibilities of this research make it hard for many Americans to muster sympathy for a tiny clump of cells about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. But there are some who insist week-old embryos are human lives. So politicians are careful.
President Clinton was meticulous in the wording of the stem-cell research guidelines he instituted. The guidelines prohibited the use of federal funds for the creation or destruction of human embryos. However, the rule allowed for privately funded researchers to destroy frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization with a couple's consent. Then federally funded scientists could use public money to conduct research on cells from destroyed ones. So one group takes the cells from the embryo before sending them to a different, taxpayer-subsidized group. Once embryonic stem cells are obtained, they can be reproduced in laboratory colonies almost indefinitely.
It's obvious President Bush should have simply left the issue alone. He acted prematurely in tampering with the Clinton guidelines. Now he's grappling with what to do. Perhaps his best recourse is to admit, like Orrin Hatch did, that he was wrong in his original position. Senator Hatch was once vehemently opposed to this research, but he's changed his mind.
Bush should swallow his pride rather than stand in the way of advancements that have the potential to save millions of lives. |
