President Obama's recent order rescinding President Bush's ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) was a victory for all. Now our tax dollars can help science find cures and treatments for many diseases which afflict millions, and pave the way to the future of medical research. But several states have taken steps to reduce or prevent such work within their borders. These states have, in effect, acted to exclude themselves from the potentially huge positive outcomes, economic as well as scientific, that this leading-edge research promises. They have also had the effect of excluding millions of the sick from full citizenship, and put off the day when cures and better treatments will surely be discovered.
In Texas, a legislator has attached an amendment to the state budget prohibiting state funding for stem cell research. Oklahoma has gone further, passing a law that makes stem cell research a misdemeanor. Louisiana, South Dakota, and Arizona already have laws restricting or banning research. Georgia has tabled legislation giving embryos personhood, and there are efforts in Georgia and elsewhere to support embryo adoption. Even in California, someone has brought suit on behalf of a frozen embryo who has been assigned the name "Mary K Doe".
Conservative Christian groups are against funding ESCR and other types of research such as therapeutic (as opposed to reproductive) cloning, on the grounds that such activity violates some prohibitions contained in their religious dogma. It is these groups who are behind attempts to have these microscopic, non-viable cells adorned with the titles, "human being" and "citizen". They are hell-bent to prevent what they call the violation of the rights of "the littlest people". What these groups fail to acknowledge is the fact that embryos are in no way human beings, and further, that giving equal protection and legal personhood to frozen piles of cells actually tramples on the rights of millions of sick people who are depending on science to develop new cures and treatments. Scientists see ESCR as having unprecedented potential for improving the lot of the afflicted. Giving legal weight to frozen embryos which are still frozen because their owners have not decided to conceive, or were unable, or because the clinic simply prepared too many, is not only entirely erroneous, both morally and legally, but it relegates all sick people to a legal status in fact lower than at any time in history, including times when slaves were said to be the property of their owners. But contrary to the claims of anti-research groups, it is not the frozen embryos, but the poor sick people who are slaves to pain, sickness, disability, and the threat of premature death. If these politically active religious groups get their way, the rights of the afflicted, will be considered only after the content of dumpsters behind fertility clinics.
Imagine a world in which the sick are denied cures because more weight is given to frozen embryos, some of which are slated to end up in the dumpster, than to actual, living, breathing, tax-paying citizens who are suffering from fatal, disabling, or crippling diseases. Yes, the cells have the potential to be used to make human beings, but they are not human beings yet, at least not by any legal or scientific measure. These cells could not become human beings without carrying out specific lab proceedures and deliberately implanting the embryos into persons who choose to fully participate in the process as an alternative means of conception. In no way are these frozen cells persons, and to give rights of citizenship to them is as ridiculous as giving rights to a rhino-virus.
Imagine a world in which the boundaries of scientific research are set not by medical experts, but by a dogma-driven, exclusive, superstitious group of moralizers who haven't the slightest clue what devastating impact their restrictions have in terms of human suffering. What would America be like if all of us were forced to live under the narrow and ignorant moral restrictions of one minority religious sect with disproportionate and undue political power? How would you cope with having your rights held hostage by a myopic, misguided board composed exclusively of members of this one sect? I think it would be closer to the visions of Ray Bradbury and George Orwell, rather than those of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
My friends, there are over 300 million points of view regarding these issues in the United States alone. Our constitution prohibits the favoring of one of these points of view over all others. I would call on you to challenge those who would force sick Americans to live without their best hope for better treatments, in favor of material that in no way could pass any test of citizenship. These issues are being decided all over our country today. Please contact your elected officials and let them know you support full funding of ESCR. Now's the time to make your voices heard and make your vote count! Thank you for your consideration.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 10
But the morality of using embryonic stem cells should be dealt with as a stand alone issue based on their status as viable human life and not as a trade off against the rights of sick people. We simply do not trade one life for another.
I am curious to see what the banning states will do if an effective cure for some significant disease, such as diabetes, is actually discovered. Will residents have to travel to other states to receive the treatment? Will they be subject to criminal penalties upon their return? How will insurance companies deal with the bans?
Will people have to travel to get treatments? Will they be subject to criminal penalties upon return? And if they are treated, will insurance pay ... or will they be able to preclude treatment for persons who have received treatments not available in the state in which the policy is underwritten under some variation of "pre-ex"? Will mail-order pharmacies have to deal with different legal formularies for different states (mail-order pharmacies don't do marijuana). rather than a national formulary?
What happens if a physician is licensed in several states that have different laws -- what is a appropriate standard of care?
I do not mean to suggest that embryos should be regarded as a trade-off for sick people. It's a case of apples and oranges to me. On the one hand is human beings, born, raised, and in need of treatment, and on the other hand is not. Embryos are not actually stand-alone, natural-born human beings. They are fertilized eggs, yes, but that's not all it takes to be human. It's one factor in a long list of things that has to happen in order for a human to be born and to live life. My view is that they are no more persons than, say, my liver, or my brain. Even my brain, which contains all of what makes up my fully-defined, adult individuality is not afforded rights separate from myself, because it is not viable alone. No one gives it a name or stands up for it, other than to say it should be donated to research and not just interred with the rest of my remains.
As for the insurance companies and the differing statutes in each state... can you say, "quagmire"?
These people don't care about people or rights, they care about their dogma. They care about what they consider moral and no one else's ideas or opionions matter because they don't know the "truth".
Exactly.
Far fetched, of course, but you can just see someone's thinking going like this. Add in the righteousness and certitude in which religious conservatives seem to steep their beliefs, and their apparent desire to codify their morals into our legal system, and you can see how people could be moved to resist technologies with such powerful potential.
Hopefully, the president's move will be seen as an effort to alleviate suffering and enhance our position as a leading nation in technology and science.
It's a choice. They do not have to delve into the resaerch, nor do they have to undergo any treatment involving these cells, just like Jehovah's witnesses are not forced to use blood or blood products because of a religious belief, but just as Jehovah's witnesses do not force a law on the rest of society concerning the use of blood, neither should any religious belief be instituted as law for all of society to adhere to.
So far stem cell research seems to offer much promise but no proven results. At this stage it is easy to debate the ethics of this technology. I doubt very many will care to argue the ethics question once demonstrable cures are invented. How many are really going to withhold the cure for leukemia from their own child or grandchild should such a cure become available?
Additionally, should such a cure be discovered in say So Korea or India, the barriers to research will come a tumbling down. Just imagine what will happen if Senator Huff and Puff gets caught sending his grandchild to India to be cured of diabetes or Televangelist Jones gets caught sending his daughter to Switzerland for treatment of a TBI?