Stem cells: Give us the cures, spare us the sermon

[Newark, NJ] -- Paul Byrne has been a political operative in Jersey City for 25 years. He is one of those guys for whom politics is both vocation and avocation. He knows everybody in Democratic politics, and everybody knows him.

Nine years ago, Byrne was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, which has led to a retina condition called macular degeneration. At 57, and despite two operations on both eyes, he has lost 98 percent of his sight. But he keeps up with the news because four or five friends call and read him the newspapers.

Among the stories that came to him this way was a piece about a breakthrough in stem cell research in India that has led to the successful restoration of damaged retinas.

It left him furious. It is a fury directed at President George W. Bush, who is an opponent of embryonic stem cell research because the technique results in the destruction of embryos. Accordingly, Bush has ordered that federal funding be denied for this kind of research. And never mind that the embryos at issue are those left over from in-vitro procedures at pregnancy clinics and would be destroyed in any event.

So, freeze in perpetuity superfluous embryos created in a lab to induce birth, and you are doing the Lord's work. Destroy embryos after their stem cells are extracted in an attempt to cure people suffering from a dozen different diseases, and you are in league with Satan. Insert a recipient's DNA into a stem cell to reduce chances the body will reject it and you are paving the way for human cloning.

Last week the state Senate passed a bill that would make New Jersey the second state in the nation to legalize embryonic stem cell research. (NJ Senate Votes to Harvest Babies for body parts (My Title)) The bill is sponsored by Richard Codey, the Democratic leader in the Senate. It passed in a party-line vote with most Republicans abstaining. It passed over the objections of the Roman Catholic Church and various anti-abortion allies. The Codey legislation may be altered a tad but Gov. James E. McGreevey is a supporter and it is going to become law.

Not surprisingly, Paul Byrne is an enthusiastic supporter of the Codey bill. It may help him see again. He believes it's good science and good politics in a state chockablock in pharmaceutical research firms.

Of the opponents, he says, "They are the very people who believed in miracles, yet they would deny me my miracle." And they are hard at work.

Joan Quigley is a Democratic assemblywoman from Hudson County. She is being flooded with form letters informing her that the Codey bill "is not part of God's plan."

"I tell them that it's more important that God help those to whom he's already given life," Quigley says.

For years now, I've been reading about the promise of stem cells as a cure for a bunch of diseases. Parkinson's disease as often as not heads up the list. This interests me because I've had Parkinson's disease for about six years now. I'm not complaining. If you have to get a heretofore incurable, degenerative disease, this one is not the worst. Still, it hasn't been much fun and it's nice to know there's a potential cure out there.

So I could do without President Bush playing politics with my future by buying into the religious right's contention that it knows what God is thinking and God believes the destruction of embryos in course of research isn't much different than killing babies.

As for the Catholic Church, if the bishops want to take the position they know the mind of God on the question of embryonic research, so be it. But they might want to think about confining their efforts to people who still put stock in what they have to say. Their moralizing rings a little hollow these days.

Let God and me handle this. If the bishops don't mind, I'd like the opportunity to be treated if and when the researchers come up with the right technique.

And I'm willing to take my chances that God won't make me out to be a mass murderer.

Dear Lady, it took some digging, but I found it. [Only because I tend to bookmark every article Askel5 psots!]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38b187435dd6.htm
Tadpoles and Babies

Is a tadpole a frog? One answer to this question is another question: Who cares? What difference does it make to us? It is not a bad answer, either, since we care no more for frogs than we do for tadpoles. Whether a tadpole is a frog may be an interesting question to some few people, but to most of us it is certainly not an important one.

It would be important, of course, to a primitive tribe that regarded the frog as a sacred animal. Frogs, to such a tribe, would be untouchable. Yet the tribe might come to feel that too many frogs were too much of a good thing. Murmurs might arise about a Frog Explosion. Something, clearly, would have to be done.

At this point the wise men of the tribe would confront the question whether a tadpole is a frog. Some of them would argue that a tadpole is not a frog because it does not took like a frog. But, they would say, looks are all we have to go by: only that is a frog which looks like a frog. A tadpole, therefore, is not a sacred animal and may be killed at pleasure.

Others among them would point out that tadpoles, if they survive, always come to look like frogs and therefore must already have the nature of frogs. Looks are not all we have to go by. We can recognize the nature of the frog as having been present from the beginning in the tadpole. To kill a tadpole, therefore, is to kill a frog.

The anti-tadpole school would probably carry the day, but not because of their superior philosophical intelligence. They would win the argument on the highly pragmatic ground that the way to get rid of unwanted frogs without feeling guilty about it is to kill tadpoles before they look like frogs.

##############

Happy Christmas to you and yours, carenot.

As the title says,"Spare me the sermon." You do not even know my religion.

The moral precept "Thou shalt not murder the innocent" is universal; to what religion you personally subscribe is irrelevant.

"And at that time the idea that all children are human will be forced upon people, at gunpoint if necessary. "

That a fellow conservative could write this phrase with a straight face chills me to the bone.

Why does law enforcement chill you to the bone? What is the State for if not to enforce the law?

"I'm sorry about your uncle, but so what? "

This speaks for itself. We have nothing further to discuss on this matter.

Well, anytime you feel like arguing, bring it back on. Your position is flawed and indefensible.

I never said that ANY tax dollars should be used for this research...it seems that all that is needed from the government here is a legal Go-ahead.

Get your facts straight. It isn't illegal to do stem cell research. But it is against federal rules to fund it with government revenues.

Your side doesn't want "time" to examine anything. You would simply ban any research with which YOU have philosophical or religious issues. Asking for "time to study it" is a stall.

Now you read minds? Spare me the psychoanalysis. You don't know me nor do you understand the reasons why I want to delay any decision on stem cell research. But here's a glimpse. During WWII, J. Robert Oppenheimer and a collection of top physicists gathered in the desert of New Mexico to do something that had never been done before. At first, they were enthused and excited about the prospect of working on such a radical new technology. But, as time when on, they started to have doubts and reservations over how their research would be used and its long-term impact on human civilization. After they completed development of the technology, Oppenheimer and others voiced grave doubts about what they had done. But, you see, it was too late by that time. The genie was out of the bottle.

Now, of course, I'm not trying to suggest that stem cell research is equivalent to nuclear weapons. But I am saying that the dilemma over whether to proceed with a disruptive technology -- and let's not kid ourselves; stem cell research is indeed a disruptive technology -- should be examined thoroughly before you begin. Otherwise, you could find out that this "next big thing" is actually Frankenstein's monster.

You can start here, I am not going to be your reference librarian. "Adult and umbilical stem cells work"

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3fd0b84dba.htm

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

_______________________________________________________________

Source: Wall St. Journal; December 3, 2002

Research Shows Fetal Cells From Abortions Don't Help Parkinson's

Washington, DC -- A second study of transplanted fetal cells obtained from abortions has failed to show a therapeutic benefit in Parkinson's disease patients and produced serious side effects in some patients, the Wall Street Journal reports. The findings are "a blow" to researchers who had thought that transplants of brain tissue from aborted babies could stop the effects of the disease.

For the study, which involved 34 participants, Mount Sinai School of Medicine and University of South Florida researchers infused brain tissue from up to eight aborted babies, ranging from six to nine weeks old, into 23 patients with Parkinson's disease.

Brain scans of the participants indicated that the transplanted cells
functioned "normally," but researchers were unable to "find any measurable improvement on tests of motor and other skills," according to the report.

In addition, the "most severe setback" was side effects that included
uncontrolled limb movement in 13 patients. Three patients experienced such severe side effects that they required additional surgeries to control them.

The study -- the second of two federally funded studies to examine if
embryonic stem cells can repair brain tissue in Parkinson's patients --
could lead to a "winding down" for future fetal-cell transplants. Anthony Lang, a Parkinson's expert at Toronto Western Hospital in Canada, said, "This is a surprising result that forces reconsideration of transplantation without a great deal more research."

The study could also have implications for embryonic stem cell research, which has recently "upstaged both politically and scientifically" research using fetal cells from abortions. Some researchers consider stem cells "more versatile" than fetal cells.

President Bush in August 2001 prohibited federal funding for any new embryonic stem cell research. Research using fetal cells from abortions, however, is covered by a separate rule established in 1993 under former President Clinton.

Fetal Cell Study a Bust
By David Brody, Washington, D.C., correspondent

SUMMARY: A federally funded medical study shows
conclusively that fetal cells taken from abortions do not
benefit Parkinson's patients. As a matter of fact, many of
them experienced serious side effects.

For years, liberal scientists had thought taking cells from
aborted fetuses would be a cure-all for adults that have
debilitating diseases. But a study from the University of
Florida shows that's not the case at all. Researchers
infused brain tissue from up to eight aborted babies into
Parkinson's patients. Not only did the treatments not
help the patients, but 13 of them suffered uncontrollable
limb movement. Three of them needed additional
surgery to fix the problem.

Richard Doerflinger, a spokesman for the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops, says it's a case of "I
told you so."

"This is what the pro-life movement was saying 10 years
ago -- that this was not so promising, that is was morally
problematic," Doerflinger said. "It looks, once again, as
though we were right. I don't imagine anyone's going to
thank us for that."

Two years ago, another federally funded study showed
the same type of results. So, the question really is: Why
doesn't this type of research end once and for all? Tom
Lothamer, executive director of Baptists for Life, has a
theory.

"It is satanic to me. That's really the bottom line,"
Lothamer said. "It doesn't make sense why they
continue to have to keep trying to go down this road
when ... they're finding negative results."

Some might hope that these negative results using
aborted fetal tissue might also give researchers pause
before plunging further into the area of stem cells
derived from human embryos. However, Doerflinger
doubts that will happen and, in fact, he envisions a far
worse scenario.

"The reaction that some people are having to this latest
study is that, 'Oh, the fetal tissue doesn't work so we
must renew our efforts to go even further down the
ethical sink by going more and more into embryonic
stem cell research,' " he said.

In addition to being unethical, Doerflinger noted such
research would be scientifically irresponsible because, in
the past, when cells from an embryo were placed into
animals, the animals got tumors.

I'm generally in favor of medical research; however, my enthusiasm ends when those who favor it tell us that we should suspend ethical considerations for the sake of expediency. Certainly, we should consider the reality of human suffering related to disease processes. But an even more fundamental consideration is who we are -- or what we become -- when we make human suffering the sole consideration for medical treatment. I believe that an embryo represents the most nascent form of human life. I also believe that, simply because embryos cannot defend themselves against our scientific interests, it doesn't give us the right to destroy them.

I know the consequences of these beliefs. It's quite possible that I, my loved ones, and and many who I don't even know, may suffer as a result. But an equally probable outcome is that fetal tissue research won't benefit mankind at all (reference failures with Parkinson's treatment). The thing is ... I don't want to have to destroy human life in order to save it. There is an inherent conflict in that scenario that I find untenable.

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.