Posted on 10/15/2004 2:43:43 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
Christopher Reeve's shocking death at age 52 is cause for deep mourning over the loss of a remarkable human being and for rededication to the cause he fought for: medical research across the board.
Reeve, as the whole world knows, was the victim of a horrific spinal cord injury. But he did not limit his activism to finding a cure for his own affliction. He was an advocate for every disease victim - and everyone who could be cured of a disease in the future.
In the midst of this presidential campaign, his death is legitimately focusing attention on his backing of embryonic stem-cell research, but it's getting lost that he also was a stout advocate of general increases in medical research funding.
Reeve spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 1996 not about stem cells - which were only theoretical science then - but about the revolutionary potential of 21st century bio-research.
Whenever Reeve traveled in the years immediately after his 1995 spinal injury, he risked his life. A sudden change in elevation or temperature could set off possibly fatal adverse reactions.
Yet he traveled repeatedly to Washington and elsewhere to urge expansion of medical research. I got to know him as an advocate for Parkinson's disease research and for doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health. He was a Democrat, but in the late 1990s the greatest impediment to significant NIH increases was the Clinton administration.
Bill Clinton wasn't opposed to medical research - he added funds for politically important diseases like AIDS and breast cancer and lifted the first President George Bush's ban on fetal tissue research - but it was not a priority.
Once Clinton personally promised Reeve an increase in funding for spinal cord research, but the money never came through. Reeve seethed in private, but said nothing publicly.
It was a bipartisan group in Congress - including Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - who pushed through a plan to double the NIH budget from $13.5 billion in1998 to $27 billion in 2003, calling for an average annual increase of 15 percent.
Clinton accepted the plan - and took credit for it - and the current President Bush promised during the 2000 campaign to complete it. And, he did. NIH's budget is now $28 billion.
However, the Bush administration, besides limiting stem-cell research, is now also advocating severe reductions in medical research funding.
From annual 15 percent increases, Bush is recommending 2.7 percent increases - including significant and necessary new outlays to counter bio-terrorism - which represent a cut after inflation. Next year, according to widespread reports, the administration will call for only a 2 percent increase.
In Congress, the House has approved the administration's 2.7 percent request. At Specter's urging, the Senate Appropriations Committee has voted for a 3.9 percent increase.
Medical researchers say that the abrupt reductions in the growth of federal funding will severely inhibit their ability to expand labs, mount innovative projects or encourage young investigators.
Democratic candidate John Kerry has promised to significantly increase NIH funding as well as to undo Bush's limits on federal support for embryonic stem-cell research. It's no wonder that Reeve backed him before he died.
There's no question that Democrats have hyped the immediate prospects for stem-cell research. Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), said after Reeve's death that "when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of their wheelchair and walk again." That's nonsense.
Embryonic stem-cell research is still in its infancy and it will be decades before it actually fulfills its potential to cure people with diseases like Reeve's or Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's or Mary Tyler Moore's juvenile diabetes.
But the potential exists, the research is under way and it ought not be inhibited by ideology. Bush opposes aggressive embryonic stem-cell research because he opposes the destruction of 5-day-old embryos to harvest their stem cells - even when those "surplus" embryos are destined to be discarded at in vitro fertilization clinics.
The Bush campaign falsely states on its Web site that Bush "did not in any way limit or restrict" the research when in fact he declared that federal funds could not be used to conduct research on any stem cells harvested after Aug. 9, 2001.
Opponents of stem-cell research also have hyped the prospects for so-called "adult stem cells," derived not from embryos, but a patient's own fat, skin or blood cells.
Some dramatic progress has been made with cord blood stem cells obtained from the umbilical cords of newborns, but claims that - for instance - spinal injuries have been cured in Portugal through adult cells obtained from eye cells have not been validated by scientific review.
The director of Reeve's spinal injury foundation, Michael Manginello, told me: "You know Chris. If there had been any credibility to these claims, he'd have been on the next plane. But the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that it's not documented, not repeatable - in fact, is scary."
The Bush administration is devoting $24 million this year to embryonic stem-cell research and $184 million to adult. That is letting ideology outweigh science. Both kinds of research deserve full funding.
And so does medical research in general. Since 1980, largely because of research, the average U.S. life expectancy has increased by four years and disability rates for people over 65 had declined by 25 percent.
Polls show that voters overwhelmingly prefer Kerry's stance on stem cells to Bush's. They also favor increases in research funding. If not to honor Reeve, then to do the public's will, Congress should do as it did in the 1990s - increase research funding and let the president take credit for it.
Mort Kondracke is the Executive Editor of Roll Call.
Reeves was in his last days a shill for Kerry.
His selfish belief that human embryos should be used to help him and others to walk is deplorable.
Nothing about his "activism" was "courageous" or "brave".
He wanted to kill babies to use their stem cells. What a legacy.
Good article. If you get a chance to catch Charles Krauthammer's Column today do so.
He really takes Fluffy to task on this subject.
Alrighty, I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Good old Mort! Another ideologue blinded by his own wife's tragedy to buy into the embryo Stem Cells lie! Hey Mort, forgot to tell the public that embryonic cells cause tumors! Cure your wife and then watch her die of cancer! What a great trade off!
It seems to me that even if fetal stem cells could cure all ills, you'd still have the problem of tissue rejection. Why, because the cells are not yours. That, in and of it self would be the best reason for adult stem cell research. If the cells are yours, there's know reason to kill babies.
George Bush is the first president to approve federal funding for stem cell research. There are 22 lines of stem cells now available, up from one just two years ago. As Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics, has written, there are 3,500 shipments of stem cells waiting for anybody who wants them.
very brave of you to post this....
the hate some of these "Christians" have for the man is amazing to me.....
The left will continually use this as a hammer to bash over conservatives heads. They need to get the message out that the President HAS NOT cut spending and without him, there WOULD BE NO spending on it at this time.
Just my .02...have a good day...
Hedonistic virtue should not be rewarded with praise or tax dollars.
I think it is a tragedy when anyone is afflicted with a terminal or debilitating condition, but aren't these celebrities just a little embarrassed by virtue of the fact that they become activists only after THEY are afflicted? I mean, only Jerry Lewis is an activist that can legitamately claim a noble motive. (Before I get flamed, I think AIDS activism is just a political bandwagon.)
I happen to enjoy what Mort has to say. I do not always agree with him, but, it is worth reading.
I am amazed at what some have to say about Reeves. Some even on this thread have posted a few untruthful facts. But, to try and say otherwise would be a waste of my breath.
Indeed Bush has put energy into this subject. It is misleading I believe to say, Reeve would have walked if stem cells were available for research. I do not see it that way, Edwards is off, Ron Reagan is incorrect.
But, we are going to do all we can do to find a cure,may not be in my lifetime but we are not going to stop.
Thanks for the kind post.
I do not think your point of view should be flamed. Recently I heard why we give hero status to folks like Reeves.
Well, did folks not make him a millionaire by seeing his movies. I think people have a vested in interest in a guy like Reeves. He was injured and found he could not do what he did, but had a voice about his injury.
Jerry Lewis is a fine man. Frankly I do not question the motives of those who are trying to find a cure for any disease. I will be as informed as I can be and balance that with what I read. Thanks for the post.
Former MD Gov./Balto.Mayor William Donald Schaefer was chastized for saying "I don't feel sorry for them. They brought it upon themselves." (referring to AIDS victims) Stats show that 90% of AIDS brought on by victims lifestyle and behavior (sex and drugs). Is it our fault Reeves fell off a horse? Were we to kill the unborn to help him to walk again? I guess the answers are clear to Michael J. Fox, Ronnie Jr., Kerry and company. I bet if Kerry needed a heart transplant and I was a match these ghouls would see to it that I met an untimely brain death.
The presumption Mort makes is that there is no moral problem with destroying 5-day-old embryos.
That is not a safe presumption to make.
If you allow the use of these embryos "to be discarded" you legitimize the creation of same.
From there, it is indeed a short step to "therapeutic" human cloning.
This is a very dangerous road to travel down, and we have seen in the past what happens when medical research is detached from moral concerns.
Be careful, I got suspended for saying stuff like that.
I can't find it now, but I just read an article quoting Christopher Reeve from a Reader's Digest interview. He said he did not think embryonic stem cells would cure his paralysis.
You make an excellent point. I do worry about the slippery slope.
But, oddly enough folks seem to not worry about envitro. Many embryos are lost through this process?
There are many "moral" issues with regard to this and many research methods.
Frankly I had heard him say that as well. I think there is so much raw feelings on this subject that many of facts are being misquoted.
In the end, he wanted to find a cure for this and many other diseases and I understand that. We just have different methods to achieve this.
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.