|
|
S.E. Wood Why stem cells? If you listen to the news, you will hear that
one of the most important issues President Bush is wrestling
with these days is whether or not to approve federal government
funding of stem cell research. If you are like me, then you probably have
no idea what a stem cell is. There is a very interesting Web
site sponsored by the National Institute of Health that offers
a lot of answers. If you want the complete story, go to http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm.
But if you would be content with a "nutshell" version
of the controversy, here it is: Pluripotent stem cells are basically the two
cells from which life "stems," or develops. These two
cells alone cannot develop into a living embryo, but they can
be made to grow into almost any kind of specific human tissue,
be it fat, muscle, bone or whatever. So why is that important? If medical scientists
can produce human tissue in the laboratory, then the effect of
certain medicines on these tissues could be determined without
having to inject them into living persons. But more importantly,
it is believed that these cells could be made to produce healthy
tissue right in the bodies of disease victims, successfully replacing
the faulty tissues associated with Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's
disease, cancer, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, diabetes
and who knows what else! The current issue is whether or not such stem
cell research should be federally funded. Controversy has arisen
over the requirement that these two microscopic cells must be
removed from the uterus within a few days following conception,
and before they can combine with other type cells to form a living
embryo. Those who believe life begins at conception object to
any act that interrupts the reproductive process, even though
the result may be medically beneficial. On the other hand, there
are those who say the removal of these two microscopic cells,
which by themselves are incapable of producing life, is insignificant
compared to the current government funding of birth control,
abortion - even partial birth abortion, generally performed with
no medical benefit in mind. You would think this would be a decision to
be made by the medical community, or perhaps in connection with
the religious community, but certainly not a proper subject to
be decided by political bureaucrats. But no! If President Bush
recommends government funding, he will be branded a religious
hypocrite, with no regard for the sanctity of human life. If
he recommends against federal funding, he will be accused of
having no mercy for the sick and disabled ... especially our
senior citizens. He will be damned if he does and damned if he
doesn't. His political opponents really don't care which way
he votes. They have him trapped either way. This is a soul-searching question - the outcome of which may extend far beyond our ability to comprehend, both medically and morally. And yet it is being debated - and will be decided - not upon its merit, but upon its political consequence. |