It wasn't the Dems who made the deal (think: 7 RINOs).
Posted on 07/29/2005 12:15:49 PM PDT by AFPhys
Since 2001 when stem cell research first captured our nation’s attention, I’ve said many times the issue will have to be reviewed on an ongoing basis -- and not just because the science holds tremendous promise, or because it’s developing with breathtaking speed. Indeed, stem cell research presents the first major moral and ethical challenge to biomedical research in the 21st century.
In this age of unprecedented discovery, challenges that arise from the nexus of advancing science and ethical considerations will come with increasing frequency. How can they not? Every day we unlock more of the mysteries of human life and more ways to promote and enhance our health. This compels profound questions -- moral questions that we understandably struggle with both as individuals and as a body politic.
How we answer these questions today -- and whether, in the end, we get them right -- impacts the promise not only of current research, but of future research, as well. It will define us as a civilized and ethical society forever in the eyes of history. We are, after all, laying the foundation of an age in human history that will touch our individual lives far more intimately than the Information Age and even the Industrial Age before it.
Answering fundamental questions about human life is seldom easy. For example, to realize the promise of my own field of heart transplantation and at the same time address moral concerns introduced by new science, we had to ask the question: How do we define “death?” With time, careful thought, and a lot of courage from people who believed in the promise of transplant medicine, but also understood the absolute necessity for a proper ethical framework, we answered that question, allowed the science to advance, and have since saved tens of thousands of lives.
So when I remove the human heart from someone who is brain dead, and I place it in the chest of someone whose heart is failing to give them new life, I do so within an ethical construct that honors dignity of life and respect for the individual.
Like transplantation, if we can answer the moral and ethical questions about stem cell research, I believe we will have the opportunity to save many lives and make countless other lives more fulfilling. That’s why we must get our stem cell policy right -- scientifically and ethically. And that’s why I stand on the floor of the United States Senate today.
*
Four years ago, I came to this floor and laid out a comprehensive proposal to promote stem cell research within a thorough framework of ethics. I proposed 10 specific interdependent principles. They dealt with all types of stem cell research, including adult and embryonic stem cells.
As we know, adult stem cell research is not controversial on ethical grounds -- while embryonic stem cell research is. Right now, to derive embryonic stem cells, an embryo -- which many, including myself, consider nascent human life -- must be destroyed. But I also strongly believe -- as do countless other scientists, clinicians, and doctors -- that embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise for some therapies and potential cures that adult stem cells cannot provide.
I’ll come back to that later. Right now, though, let me say this: I believe today -- as I believed and stated in 2001, prior to the establishment of current policy -- that the federal government should fund embryonic stem cell research. And as I said four years ago, we should federally fund research only on embryonic stem cells derived from blastocysts leftover from fertility therapy, which will not be implanted or adopted but instead are otherwise destined by the parents with absolute certainty to be discarded and destroyed.
Let me read to you my 5th principle as I presented it on this floor four years ago:
No. 5. Provide funding for embryonic stem cell research only from blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded. We need to allow Federal funding for research using only those embryonic stem cells derived from blastocysts that are left over after in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be discarded (Cong. Rec. 18 July 2001: S7847).
I made it clear at the time, and do so again today, that such funding should only be provided within a system of comprehensive ethical oversight. Federally funded embryonic research should be allowed only with transparent and fully informed consent of the parents. And that consent should be granted under a careful and thorough federal regulatory system, which considers both science and ethics. Such a comprehensive ethical system, I believe, is absolutely essential. Only with strict safeguards, public accountability, and complete transparency will we ensure that this new, evolving research unfolds within accepted ethical bounds.
My comprehensive set of 10 principles, as outlined in 2001 (Cong. Rec. 18 July 2001: S7846-S7851) are as follows:
1. Ban Embryo Creation for Research;
2. Continue Funding Ban on Derivation;
3. Ban Human Cloning;
4. Increase Adult Stem Cell Research Funding;
5. Provide Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research Only From Blastocysts That Would Otherwise Be Discarded;
6. Require a Rigorous Informed Consent Process;
7. Limit Number of Stem Cell Lines;
8. Establish A Strong Public Research Oversight System;
9. Require Ongoing, Independent Scientific and Ethical Review;
10. Strengthen and Harmonize Fetal Tissue Research Restrictions.
That is what I said four years ago, and that is what I believe today. After all, principles are meant to stand the test of time -- even when applied to a field changing as rapidly as stem cell research.
*
I’m a physician. My profession is healing. I’ve devoted my life to attending to the needs of the sick and suffering and to promoting health and well being. For the past several years, I’ve temporarily set aside the profession of medicine to participate in public policy with a continued commitment to heal.
In all forms of stem cell research, I see today, just as I saw in 2001, great promise to heal. Whether it’s diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, or spinal cord injuries, stem cells offer hope for treatment that other lines of research cannot offer.
Embryonic stem cells have specific properties that make them uniquely powerful and deserving of special attention in the realm of medical science. These special properties explain why scientists and physicians feel so strongly about support of embryonic as well as adult stem cell research.
Unlike other stem cells, embryonic stem cells are “pluripotent.” That means they have the capacity to become any type of tissue in the human body. Moreover, they are capable of renewing themselves and replicating themselves over and over again -- indefinitely.
Adult stem cells meet certain medical needs. But embryonic stem cells -- because of these unique characteristics -- meet other medical needs that simply cannot be met today by adult stem cells. They especially offer hope for treating a range of diseases that require tissue to regenerate or restore function.
*
On August 9, 2001, shortly after I outlined my principles (Cong. Rec. 18 July 2001: S7846-S7851), President Bush announced his policy on embryonic stem cell research. His policy was fully consistent with my ten principles, so I strongly supported it. It federally funded embryonic stem cell research for the first time. It did so within an ethical framework. And it showed respect for human life.
But this policy restricted embryonic stem cell funding only to those cell lines that had been derived from embryos before the date of his announcement. In my policy I, too, proposed restricting number of cell lines, but I did not propose a specific cutoff date. Over time, with a limited number of cell lines, would we be able to realize the full promise of embryonic stem cell research?
When the President announced his policy, it was widely believed that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for federal funding. That has proven not to be the case. Today only 22 lines are eligible. Moreover, those lines unexpectedly after several generations are starting to become less stable and less replicative than initially thought (they are acquiring and losing chromosomes, losing the normal karyotype, and potentially losing growth control). They also were grown on mouse feeder cells, which we have learned since, will likely limit their future potential for clinical therapy in humans (e.g., potential of viral contamination).
While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases. Therefore, I believe the President’s policy should be modified. We should expand federal funding (and thus NIH oversight) and current guidelines governing stem cell research, carefully and thoughtfully staying within ethical bounds.
*
During the past several weeks, I’ve made considerable effort to bring the debate on stem cell research to the Senate floor, in a way that provided colleagues with an opportunity to express their views on this issue and vote on proposals that reflected those views. While we have not yet reached consensus on how to proceed, the Senate will likely consider the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which passed the House in May by a vote of 238 to 194, at some point this Congress. This bill would allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research for cells derived from human embryos that:
1. are created for the purpose of fertility treatments;
2. are no longer needed by those who received the treatments;
3. would otherwise be discarded and destroyed;
4. are donated for research with the written, informed consent of those who received the fertility treatments, but do not receive financial or other incentives for their donations.
The bill, as written, has significant shortcomings, which I believe must be addressed.
First, it lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism. One example we should look to is the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) that oversees DNA research. The RAC was established 25 years ago in response to public concerns about the safety of manipulation of genetic material through recombinant DNA techniques. Compliance with the guidelines (developed and reviewed by this oversight board of scientists, ethicists, and public representatives) is mandatory for investigators receiving NIH funds for research involving recombinant DNA.
Because most embryonic stem cell research today is being performed by the private sector (without NIH federal funding), there is today a lack of ethical and scientific oversight that routinely accompanies NIH-(federal) funded research.
Second, the bill doesn’t prohibit financial or other incentives between scientists and fertility clinics. Could such incentives, in the end, influence the decisions of parents seeking fertility treatments? This bill could seriously undermine the sanctity of the informed consent process.
Third, the bill doesn’t specify whether the patients or clinic staff or anyone else has the final say about whether an embryo will be implanted or will be discarded. Obviously, any decision about the destiny of an embryo must clearly and ultimately rest with the parents.
These shortcomings merit a thoughtful and thorough rewrite of the bill. But as insufficient as the bill is, it is fundamentally consistent with the principles I laid out more than four years ago. Thus, with appropriate reservations, I will support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
*
I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It’s genetically distinct. And it’s biologically human. It’s living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn’t just a matter of faith. It’s a fact of science.
Our development is a continuous process -- gradual and chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.
I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported. But, just as I said in 2001, it should advance in a manner that affords all human life dignity and respect -- the same dignity and respect we bring to the table as we work with children and adults to advance the frontiers of medicine and health.
*
Congress must have the ability to fully exercise its oversight authority on an ongoing basis. And policymakers, I believe, have a responsibility to re-examine stem cell research policy in the future and, if necessary, make adjustments.
This is essential, in no small part, because of promising research not even imagined four years ago. Exciting techniques are now emerging that may make it unnecessary to destroy embryos (even those that will be discarded anyway) to obtain cells with the same unique “pluripotential” properties as embryonic stem cells.
For example, an adult stem cell could be “reprogrammed” back to an earlier embryonic stage. This, in particular, may prove to be the best way, both scientifically and ethically, to overcome rejection and other barriers to effective stem cell therapies. To me -- and I would hope to every member of this body -- that’s research worth supporting. Shouldn’t we want to discover therapies and cures -- given a choice -- through the most ethical and moral means?
So let me make it crystal clear: I strongly support newer, alternative means of deriving, creating, and isolating pluripotent stem cells -- whether they’re true embryonic stem cells or stem cells that have all of the unique properties of embryonic stem cells.
With more federal support and emphasis, these newer methods, though still preliminary today, may offer huge scientific and clinical pay-offs. And just as important, they may bridge moral and ethical differences among people who now hold very different views on stem cell research because they totally avoid destruction of any human embryos.
These alternative methods of potentially deriving pluripotent cells include:
1. Extraction from embryos that are no longer living;
2. Non-lethal and non-harmful extraction from embryos;
3. Extraction from artificially created organisms that are not embryos, but embryo-like;
4. Reprogramming adult cells to a pluripotent state through fusion with embryonic cell lines.
*
Now, to date, adult stem cell research is the only type of stem cell research that has resulted in proven treatments for human patients. For example, the multi-organ and multi-tissue transplant center that I founded and directed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center performed scores of life-saving bone marrow transplants every year to treat fatal cancers with adult stem cells.
And stem cells taken from cord blood have shown great promise in treating leukemia, myeloproliferative disorders and congenital immune system disorders. Recently, cord blood cells have shown some ability to become neural cells, which could lead to treatments for Parkinson’s disease and heart disease.
Thus, we should also strongly support increased funding for adult stem cell research. I’m a cosponsor of a bill that will make it much easier for patients to receive cord blood cell treatments.
*
Adult stem cells are powerful. They’ve effectively treated many diseases and are theoretically promising for others. But embryonic stem cells -- because they can become almost any human tissue (“pluripotent”) and renew and replicate themselves infinitely -- are uniquely necessary for potentially treating other diseases.
No doubt, the ethical questions over embryonic stem cell research are profound. They’re challenging. They merit serious debate. And not just on the Senate floor, but across America -- at our dining room tables, in our community centers, on our town squares.
We simply cannot flinch from the need to talk with each other, again and again, as biomedical progress unfolds and breakthroughs are made in the coming years and generations. The promise of the Biomedical Age is too profound for us to fail.
*
That’s why I believe it’s only fair, on an issue of such magnitude, that senators be given the respect and courtesy of having their ideas in this arena considered separately and cleanly, instead of in a whirl of amendments and complicated parliamentary maneuvers. I’ve been working to bring this about for the last few months. I’ll continue to do so.
And when we are able to bring this to the floor, we will certainly have a serious and thoughtful debate in the Senate. There are many conflicting points of view. And I recognize these differing views more than ever in my service as majority leader: I’ve had so many individual and private conversations with my colleagues that reflect the diversity and complexity of thought on this issue.
So how do we reconcile these differing views? As individuals, each of us holds views shaped by factors of intellect, of emotion, of spirit. If your daughter has diabetes, if your father has Parkinson’s, if your sister has a spinal cord injury, your views will be swayed more powerfully than you can imagine by the hope that cure will be found in those magnificent cells, recently discovered, that today originate only in an embryo.
As a physician, one should give hope -- but never false hope. Policy makers, similarly, should not overpromise and give false hope to those suffering from disease. And we must be careful to always stay within clear and comprehensive ethical and moral guidelines -- the soul of our civilization and the conscience of our nation demand it.
Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream. But the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It’s time for a modified policy -- the right policy for this moment in time.
We have wandered (or have been led) so far away from the philosophical premises of our liberty, laid out in our Declaration, incorporated in our Constitution's limitations on government power, and articulated in the massive writings of America's Founders, that we cannot easily identify the basic premises the Senator's position violates.
How about pulling out just 2 strands as a start?
1. "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."- Jefferson. A "first principle" of our liberty is incorporated in the Declaration's assertion of "Creator-endowed" life, liberty, and rights, one of the "self-evident" truths Jefferson claimed reflected what he called "the American mind" of 1776. JFK said it differently: "The world is different now....And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."
The Founders' declaration, if it is to mean anything, must mean that no person or collection of persons--not an overlord in a fiefdom; not a king; not a dictator; not a Priest, nor a President; not a Supreme Court or a Congress; not even a parent--can arrogate to him(her)self(ves) power to either grant or deny what is "Creator-endowed." President John Quincy Adams called the Declaration's assertions, "the only legitimate foundation of civil government."
If the foundation is eroded or abandoned, then where is the security for liberty for any person of any age?
2. "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."- Jefferson
These words should guide the President and the Congress in considering public funding for purposes that conflict with the deeply-held beliefs of a large segment of the population of citizens. Senator Frist can hold whatever personal position he wishes on embryonic stem cells and their uses. So can the Reagan family and all families who are struggling with illnesses. Under current law, all privately can contribute funds for research.
The Founders' Constitution, however, provided no mechanism by which government possessed a legitimate right to "compel a man" or to "take" from a citizen his/her hard-earned money to support the spread of ideas that were "abhorrent" to him/her. The talking heads of the Left loves to quote Jefferson when they wish to "exclude" the use of public funds for "religious" purposes. They should be equally fond of his recognition of the danger of "tyrannical" use of the funds of religious citizens for purposes they consider to be threatening to the liberty of all citizens.
Though we are faced with difficult questions, many of them rooted in scientific discovery, science and technology also have provided us with advancements which allow us to "see" and observe human life in its earliest stages (making it less likely for ignorance to lead us to buy into the "antics with semantics" that devalue life in the womb). Technology also has made it possible for us to have easy access to the writings of the Framers of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and to the wisdom of the ages that preceded them. Armed with that knowledge, we can be better prepared to refute "counterfeit ideas" that might lead us to erroneous conclusions.
President Jefferson's First Inaugural contained these words:
"The essential principles of our Government... form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety." --1st Inaugural Address, 1801
I saw Frist's speech yesterday and read his speech twice, and for the life of me, that oversight is the ONLY reason I could find that he uses to rationalize using Federal funds...
I just don't like this at all. The House should be ashamed.
I am as dismayed at you are...I thought, I heard Hatch say that they still needed enough votes in the Senate to ensure it to be veto-proof...
BUT, I am afraid that other than Brownback, Santorum, Osborne (ob/gyn), Sessions, maybe Cornyn, maybe MCConnell, I just don't think there are enough Senators that would vote against it....sigh...
My other fear about this, other than the killing of those little babies, is that this will make any legislation regarding abortion that much harder to tamp down...
IF the Senate votes for THIS, then how can they say any fetus is off limits...even in partial-birth abortion...
I just KNOW that NARAL and Planned Parenthood are gearing up to use this legislation some how!
My gosh, Mitt Romney is having difficulty keeping "mother" and "father" on Mass. Birth Certificates because of the hugh gay lobby!
Tony Snow is discussing this on Fox RIGHT NOW
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" — Thomas Jefferson
By whatever mechanism or semantic confusion employed, the "removal" of the "firm basis" of liberty as a "conviction in the minds of the people" is dangerous to the liberty and rights of all.
I know, and it's dissapointing.
May God continue to bless your granddaughter and your family.
It's been a bad week for me with my mother's last sister and two friends passing away.
Maybe I've become too cynical, but I believe Frist may have calculated his stem cell comments to alleviate the effect of his efforts to thwart "poison pill" amendments to the Lawful Commerce in Firearms bill.
It wasn't the Dems who made the deal (think: 7 RINOs).
I predict: Some veto proof bill is certain to pass.
Let's try to make it the best bill we can.
Maybe we can get Frist and others to mollify us to a certain extent.
As I've said, I WOULD SUPPORT a ban on IVF. That's not going to happen, though to me it is the most ethical position.
We have to do the best we can here.
Good points.
I would love to ban IVF altogether, and remove this situation.
What can we do short of that? It seems we have to do the best we can to protect as much as possible.
I'm so sorry about you and your family's troubles. I can't imagine losing so many people at once. I hope you're getting extra sleep and that you always get your way with the Admin Moderator in the future.
Roni's chart is about 4 inches thick (even just the copies I got from the hematologist), and hers is the first karyotype of someone that I actually know, that I've seen.
She's one reason that I'm working on my own website, in order to counter act the disinformation that even docs and scientists receive through our own media and journals and to try to build a community for all those we leave out of the ethical ethics organizations when we insist on religious or degreed affiliation.
Besides, I want to get my two cents worth in, too.
I can't believe those Senators are so afraid of a constitutional confrontation that they'd give the Liberal/Leftists something like Stem Cell Research which they were gaining ground toward anyway, in exchange for less hasseling over Supreme Court Nominees. I guess I'm too stupid to see the benefit to the Dems, unless they are demoralized over the unions lack of unity...
It just doesn't add up to my considerate conservative mind. I can't figure what the 7 RINO's would be winning with this that's really going to help with the constitutional option, or anything else, other than they just want SCR and the devil take the hindmost!!! What am I missing, oh great sage of political scenarios???
What you are "missing" is the gore that makes political sausage. Sen. Frist traded SCR for 4 SC justices. OK, that sux. President Bush will veto SCR. OK, that's cool.
After the dust settles, no *human* SCR (animal SCR has always been legal) and 4 new originalist SC Justices.
Pro-life wins. Conservatives win. RINOs get to be praised by the liberal talking heads for backing SCR. Dems get to portray Conservatives as anti-science.
Everybody wins, just at different levels.
If they were... what an Achilles Heel!!! If they sucked into this scenario hook, line and sinker... That would be stupendous!!! Hey! Rove is good, but nobody is this good!!! (grin)(you got me wonderin, however, but I sure am skeptical)
What you're really sayin is that there really is NO predictability in D.C. politics and our whole system is designed around feinting sell-outs and such... right? (I'm growing from skepticism to cynicism as I type this)
Did you happen to catch the McLaughlin Group on PBS this weekend? Those people are gettin spookier than Art Bell!!! They touched on this subject, too. I guess one could go to PBS.org and review the program if one even wanted to. It's actually getting quite amusing! I like to refer to it as "The Political Gong Show!"
"Robert Klein II, chairman of the state's stem cell institute, said he feared Frist would allow the Senate to approve restrictions that would "handicap or destroy" stem cell studies showing promise in treating and curing disease."
I can't tell you how much I hope that is real.
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.