Posted on 06/14/2004 11:27:57 AM PDT by areafiftyone
WHITE HOUSE -- The White House is rejecting calls by former President Reagan's family to change its policy on stem cell research.
Press Secretary Scott McClellan says flatly, "The policy remains the same." He adds, "We are looking at other ways to combat disease."
Reagan's widow Nancy and his daughter Patti Davis have been outspoken advocates of expanding medical research using embryonic stem cells. Biologists think these could help create treatments for diseases ranging from diabetes to Alzheimer's, which afflicted Reagan for a decade.
In 2001, Bush signed an executive order limiting federally funded research to 78 lines of embryonic stem cells then in existence. However, researchers say the number of lines actually available is now 19 -- and contamination may make those unusable.
McClellan says Bush believes his policy still provides enough lines to continue research.
Yes, she does think he would, and regardless of your own position on the issue, it's mighty presumptuous to suggest that anyone who's hanging around here would know better than Nancy what he would or wouldn't support.
If it were true, somebody would have. Fact is, until a great deal of research is done on both embryonic and adult stem cells, no one will know which has "more promise" or whether one type is better for some things and the other is better for other things.
The Dems unfortunately are, and the media is going along with it. If you remove the "life starts at conception" aspect of it, which a lot of people will do when it comes to embryos (with the help of media and a certain grieving widow), you have what on the surface, in the 10 second soundbites that most people have time to hear, sounds like a reasonable request of our federal government.
Go ahead and present the conception truths; but be prepared to be countered with things like "we sacrifice our people on Iraqi soil; why not sacrifice human embryos in the everlasting war on human desease and frailty?"
1) limit the number of embryos conceived in the lab to no more than will be safely implanted, with no more 'storing of embryos in clinic freezers
2) allow agencies such as 'Snowflake Adoptions' to seek implantation with the embryos available.
In lieu of changing the IVF policies, allowing the embryos to die a natural death if not placed in the womb is preferable to cannibalizing them.
The unique individual you started as with conception, expressed with the cell division that built your placenta, umbilicus and body you now occupy, continues to express your unique individuality with the stem cells your life continues to make and circulate throughout your body via your blood stream. You individual life is truly 'in your blood' and that individual life began expressing yourself with the first cell divisions of your embryo age.
See post #12 above. You ready to say he was lying when he issued that EO?
It doesn't matter if they do. There have been lots of articles on this, and the major media outlets don't cover it. Give some credit to Fox, though, because they had someone on that discussed the letter who said that someone has turned Nancy's head and made her think that ESCR is the answer, but "it isn't."
I'm tired of this discussion of the possibilities of ESCR when it's been shown that adult stem cells are actually producing good results! And, no, Ronald Reagan would not approve of it. If it was my own child, I couldn't approve, either. Why should I demand the death of someone else to save my life, or my children's? If the stem cells came from infants, would that make a difference to them? I'm not sure. This is just depressing sometimes.
Hard to say. It's a "What's the best way to fix this problem?" question that simply assumes the problem is a permanent and irremediable one. It's somewhat like the question the Death Culture people posed a few years back: "What should we do with the tissue of all these aborted fetuses? Isn't it a shame to waste it?"
The answer there was not what they wanted to hear: STOP ABORTING BABIES! But, of course, the pro-lifers also fought the idea of donating tissue from abortions because we knew the death-lovers would cite that practice as justification for their grisly trade.
Something like that applies here, I think, but with one big difference: The unwanted living embryos could presumably still be implanted and allowed to develop. That would be the most desirable fate for them. Pro-lifers should promote it, even as they discourage the creation of additional "excess" embryos.
But what about organ donors? You are using "leftovers" in that regard, as distasteful as that me be to some. And while adult organ donors express consent, deceased minors defer to their parents' wishes. What is the difference? Forget about aborted fetuses, babies die in other ways.
I appreciate what you've written, it is a beautiful outlook and one that we share: "The unique individual you started as with conception, expressed with the cell division that built your placenta, umbilicus and body you now occupy, continues to express your unique individuality with the stem cells your life continues to make and circulate throughout your body via your blood stream. You individual life is truly 'in your blood' and that individual life began expressing yourself with the first cell divisions of your embryo age."
Where I still disagree, is with this characterization: "allowing the embryos to die a natural death if not placed in the womb is preferable to cannibalizing them"
We would not be consuming them to convert them to energy, then to waste. Letting them rot would be more like that, in my view. Do something constructive and lifesaving with them. I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but as of now I feel it is a dubious (albeit forced) sacrifice that at least salvages some of their intrinsic value.
You missed my point.
I'm not arguing the moral issue .. I'm arguing the MONEY ISSUE. Kerry wants the restrictions relaxed SO THE DEMS CAN USE OUR MONEY.
LET THEM USE THEIR OWN DAMN MONEY!!
Yes, but they are inseparable, because the moral issue prevents the spend. If the moral objections are overcome, then naturally the money follows for this cause, even if you/we object. Almost always, someone will complain whenever federal money is spent on just about anything. In this case the moral and financial are more closely tied than in most.
Great news! I just called the Office of the President (202-456-1111) and thanked him for holding to his word. All Americans are blessed by God to have such a moral and committed man as our leader.
...it's been shown that adult stem cells are actually producing good results"
You see, this illustrates my points perfectly. I'm not pointing fingers at either of you two folks, but now I'm more confused than ever as whether adult stem cells are as useful as embryonic cells...or more useful...or just as useful? Aaaaarrrgghh!
My bet is that someone out there has done the research and does know nad is being muzzled by one side or the other of this debate. This kind of obfuscation is a real problem.
Right policy; right answer; right choice. Now it's time to do a LOT of education on the subject, and to get some federal research money out there for the kind of stem cells that WILL produce real information, and eventually, real treatments and cures.
I agree.
> "I'm confused. What about embryos from fertility clinics, where there are more produced than necessary to achieve conception? Do we toss those? Sorry. I understand limiting in most circumstances, but if we are not opposed artificial conception, then why would we be opposed to doing something with the leftovers rather than wasting them?" <
We should never have allowed them to be there, and we should prevent any new additions to those already present. I believe that we should require - and always should have required - a release from the parents to permit adoption of these orphans, just like other orphans not wanted by their biological parents.
I understand that extra embryos are created in the usual process, that many do not develop properly, and that implantation is frequently unsuccessful. So what? Give them the respect they deserve, and always have deserved since they became the unique creations they now are. If you need to make children this way instead of adopting and loving an existing child, give your own offspring the same opportunity to live. And if you can't stand the idea of your progeny living loving, and growing in another family, you are not mature enough to be a parent, anyway.
No, nobody has done anywhere near sufficient research to answer the question, since this whole line of research is in its very earliest stages. But that doesn't stop lots of extremist "pro-lifers" from falsely asserting that adult stem cells have been shown by real scientists to hold as much or more promise than embryonic stem cells for treatment of disease and growing replacement organs.
Quite likely, both types will prove useful, but not necessarily for the same things. A possible advantage to adult stem cells, IF they can be coaxed to grow replacement organs, is that they would be genetically identical to the patient and thus pose less of a rejection problem. However, if they can't be coaxed to grow replacement organs, this possible advantage would evaporate. And they may turn out to be capable of growing some types of organs and/or tissues but not others. And for patients who have a genetically based disease-causing defect, a genetically identical replacement for the defective organ or tissue type wouldn't do any good anyway.
Human embryonic stem cells weren't even isolated until 1998. The research has hardly just begun (and it's been hampered by politics). There is no scientific basis to conclude that embryonic stem cells won't "produce real information, and eventually, real treatments and cures."
That makes sense. I was misinterpreting what I've been hearing - I think - in that it SOUNDS to me like Alzheimer's is spreading like a communicable disease, increasing exponentially.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.