Things said, not said, and how they are said
Stem cell research has become the October Surprise of this election season. The state of Missouri will be voting on an amendment to the state constitution that will prevent the state legislature from regulating any future research beyond the regulations imposed by the federal government. In the past few days, it has loomed large as a campaign issue of sorts in at least one Senatorial race, (the one in Missouri), and may yet become a hot issue in Wisconsin & Maryland.
In Missouri, the relevance of the issue is practically nil in the Senate campaign, (the ballot issue is a state initiative), but it is being forged into a huge ball and chain for both candidates.
I have not yet decided just how I feel about the issue, but I have read enough, in the way of pamphlets (partisan tracts), articles (usually biased in one direction or another, but at least a bit more forthcoming with information), as well as papers published by various research groups on the internet to know that we are NOT all on the same page with this, and that there are a lot of assumptions that enter the debate in one way or another without being challenged or illuminated that it may well be impossible (for me anyway), to develop an informed opinion on the issue.
I am for the advancement of science and medicine, and as such, I back the issue of stem cell research, though my sentiment is not without qualification.
My concerns:
There is, by all accounts, a lot of potential for good in embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic cells are those that are taken from a fertilized (human) egg, prior to implantation. These, by many accounts, are different from older stem cells in the ease in which they can be 'coaxed' into developing into various types of tissue, and as such, are considered to be more valuable to researchers. Logic here dictates that for research to go forward, a supply of fertilized eggs is required.
First, I ask where will these eggs come from? Is there an accepted methodology for collecting harvested human eggs? Will donors be compensated? Will there be an underground black, (or maybe gray) market for eggs? Is there a code of ethics that covers this?
Second, will human embryo's, already fertilized, be harvested in some manner from women? It is frequently noted that these organisms are considered to be pre-embryonic, but I have some trouble with that. As gruesome as the question is, it needs to be clear as to whether aborted fetuses will be harvested as well. To my knowledge, that question has not come up, but in the era when (some) will even violate the bodies of persons passed on to collect usable tissue, it really needs to be asked.
Third, there is the issue of somatic cell transfer, a means of inserting a complete cell nucleus into an egg, and coaxing it to begin dividing into stem cells. This is the method that produced Dolly the sheep and several siblings in Scotland. It is the method that the USDA is considering approving for beef and pork production. It produces, prior to its destruction, an organism that has the capacity to become a sentient being, (a clone).
This particular point really bothers me as it sets an arbitrary line for when "life" begins. Once that line is set, it can be moved to suit whatever circumstance comes along. If that line is set at any arbitrary point, the definition of "human" is then up for grabs.
Something that is not often brought up, (make that 'never'), is the fact that stem cell research is currently underway using cells harvested from adults, children, as well as from placental umbilical cords. It is widely noted that these cells are not as easily manipulated as embryonic cells, but it is not considered to be impossible.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but I have a suspicion that the use of embryonic cells is seen as the cheapest and quickest route to new drugs, treatments and, just so it is not unsaid, huge profits for drug companies.
Another point that is not mentioned is that research along these lines is already underway, in this country. For all the absolutes, the hyperbole and posturing, this research is not illegal, it is simply not funded by the government. There is no legal barrier to anyone, or any company, doing this research in the United States. They simply have to pay for it themselves, which brings me to another minor sticking point. Nothing in this debate makes mention of accessibility for all for these miracle cures and wonder drugs. Nope, free enterprise still reigns in the pricing and access arena.
I will say again that my mind is not yet made up. I can neither absolutely endorse or condemn this initiative. I resent the way that it is being pushed by both camps here, as the be all and end all of good or evil.
To sign on with this effort is to take a long step towards the "Brave New World" as envisioned by Huxley, and to accept the arbitrary resolution of some rather sticky social issues. (The issue of most abortions will no longer be in question). To reject this line of inquiry may be to permanently close the door on some truly miraculous discoveries. Neither camp is justified in their position of absolute right and wrong.
Between sixty and seventy years ago, a large body of medical data, (and with the collated and analyzed data, knowledge), was amassed and compiled for the betterment of the general population. That data and the extrapolated knowledge has never seen the light of day, though much of it has been duplicated in the years since.
Why?
The data was gathered during all manner of experiments conducted by the Nazi Germans on subjects whose lives were deemed to be of no value. The suppression of that data, to this day, is done in the name of the dignity of those persons who fell victim to these (and other) crimes. Let's not forget that for any of our lives to have value, for our illnesses and infirmities to be worthy of the search for treatment and cure, we are honor bound to harm nothing, no one in our quest to improve ourselves.
I urge you to think about this, search your heart and soul, then do what you think best. We all know people who will agree and disagree with us on this issue. Respect their opinions, and walk away from situations that will turn into arguments. Please, attempt to bring back some measure of reverence and solemnity to the discussion.
This issue has suddenly become highly emotionally charged in the past few days, it is now a bucket of mud to tarnish the reputations of candidates or people who speak out on the issue.
We have seen entertainers and public figures on both sides of the issue, and, while recognizing that their opinions are as good as mine, and that they may be more educated than I am on the issue, it is still very distasteful to see an illness exploited, or at the other extreme, an impression left by a highly regarded movie role used to influence us emotionally. All the good intentions in the world will not be helped by clouding this very important issue.
I am not touching the fact that certain high profile media whores, (again, on both sides of the issue), are doing their utmost to cast into disrepute anyone not taking their position. They disgust me.
If you are a voter in one of the affected states, take some time to think this through, (as best as we can anyway). Don't listen to movie stars, pundits or any other talking head explain why their view is correct and all others are not. This decision is as personal as it gets. Do what is right. And, if the situation calls for it, don't be afraid or ashamed to change your mind.
Stay focused.
In Missouri, the relevance of the issue is practically nil in the Senate campaign, (the ballot issue is a state initiative), but it is being forged into a huge ball and chain for both candidates.
I have not yet decided just how I feel about the issue, but I have read enough, in the way of pamphlets (partisan tracts), articles (usually biased in one direction or another, but at least a bit more forthcoming with information), as well as papers published by various research groups on the internet to know that we are NOT all on the same page with this, and that there are a lot of assumptions that enter the debate in one way or another without being challenged or illuminated that it may well be impossible (for me anyway), to develop an informed opinion on the issue.
I am for the advancement of science and medicine, and as such, I back the issue of stem cell research, though my sentiment is not without qualification.
My concerns:
There is, by all accounts, a lot of potential for good in embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic cells are those that are taken from a fertilized (human) egg, prior to implantation. These, by many accounts, are different from older stem cells in the ease in which they can be 'coaxed' into developing into various types of tissue, and as such, are considered to be more valuable to researchers. Logic here dictates that for research to go forward, a supply of fertilized eggs is required.
First, I ask where will these eggs come from? Is there an accepted methodology for collecting harvested human eggs? Will donors be compensated? Will there be an underground black, (or maybe gray) market for eggs? Is there a code of ethics that covers this?
Second, will human embryo's, already fertilized, be harvested in some manner from women? It is frequently noted that these organisms are considered to be pre-embryonic, but I have some trouble with that. As gruesome as the question is, it needs to be clear as to whether aborted fetuses will be harvested as well. To my knowledge, that question has not come up, but in the era when (some) will even violate the bodies of persons passed on to collect usable tissue, it really needs to be asked.
Third, there is the issue of somatic cell transfer, a means of inserting a complete cell nucleus into an egg, and coaxing it to begin dividing into stem cells. This is the method that produced Dolly the sheep and several siblings in Scotland. It is the method that the USDA is considering approving for beef and pork production. It produces, prior to its destruction, an organism that has the capacity to become a sentient being, (a clone).
This particular point really bothers me as it sets an arbitrary line for when "life" begins. Once that line is set, it can be moved to suit whatever circumstance comes along. If that line is set at any arbitrary point, the definition of "human" is then up for grabs.
Something that is not often brought up, (make that 'never'), is the fact that stem cell research is currently underway using cells harvested from adults, children, as well as from placental umbilical cords. It is widely noted that these cells are not as easily manipulated as embryonic cells, but it is not considered to be impossible.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but I have a suspicion that the use of embryonic cells is seen as the cheapest and quickest route to new drugs, treatments and, just so it is not unsaid, huge profits for drug companies.
Another point that is not mentioned is that research along these lines is already underway, in this country. For all the absolutes, the hyperbole and posturing, this research is not illegal, it is simply not funded by the government. There is no legal barrier to anyone, or any company, doing this research in the United States. They simply have to pay for it themselves, which brings me to another minor sticking point. Nothing in this debate makes mention of accessibility for all for these miracle cures and wonder drugs. Nope, free enterprise still reigns in the pricing and access arena.
I will say again that my mind is not yet made up. I can neither absolutely endorse or condemn this initiative. I resent the way that it is being pushed by both camps here, as the be all and end all of good or evil.
To sign on with this effort is to take a long step towards the "Brave New World" as envisioned by Huxley, and to accept the arbitrary resolution of some rather sticky social issues. (The issue of most abortions will no longer be in question). To reject this line of inquiry may be to permanently close the door on some truly miraculous discoveries. Neither camp is justified in their position of absolute right and wrong.
Between sixty and seventy years ago, a large body of medical data, (and with the collated and analyzed data, knowledge), was amassed and compiled for the betterment of the general population. That data and the extrapolated knowledge has never seen the light of day, though much of it has been duplicated in the years since.
Why?
The data was gathered during all manner of experiments conducted by the Nazi Germans on subjects whose lives were deemed to be of no value. The suppression of that data, to this day, is done in the name of the dignity of those persons who fell victim to these (and other) crimes. Let's not forget that for any of our lives to have value, for our illnesses and infirmities to be worthy of the search for treatment and cure, we are honor bound to harm nothing, no one in our quest to improve ourselves.
I urge you to think about this, search your heart and soul, then do what you think best. We all know people who will agree and disagree with us on this issue. Respect their opinions, and walk away from situations that will turn into arguments. Please, attempt to bring back some measure of reverence and solemnity to the discussion.
This issue has suddenly become highly emotionally charged in the past few days, it is now a bucket of mud to tarnish the reputations of candidates or people who speak out on the issue.
We have seen entertainers and public figures on both sides of the issue, and, while recognizing that their opinions are as good as mine, and that they may be more educated than I am on the issue, it is still very distasteful to see an illness exploited, or at the other extreme, an impression left by a highly regarded movie role used to influence us emotionally. All the good intentions in the world will not be helped by clouding this very important issue.
I am not touching the fact that certain high profile media whores, (again, on both sides of the issue), are doing their utmost to cast into disrepute anyone not taking their position. They disgust me.
If you are a voter in one of the affected states, take some time to think this through, (as best as we can anyway). Don't listen to movie stars, pundits or any other talking head explain why their view is correct and all others are not. This decision is as personal as it gets. Do what is right. And, if the situation calls for it, don't be afraid or ashamed to change your mind.
Stay focused.
posted by eccentric recluse at 6:28 PM
4 Comments:
I live in Missouri, and I don't expect the bill to pass. Quite a Bible-belt part of the country.
Really? How does the bill stack up in rural vs urban areas of the state.
Rural areas - no way is this going to pass there. I was in Ste Genevieve earlier this week, and there were signs EVERYWHERE saying NO to this.
Urban areas - More acceptance, but even here religion plays a big part - and Jeff Suppan, our best pitcher on the St Louis Cardinals, has publicly come out against it. No way will it pass.
The thing is, even if it does not pass, it will have little bearing on the research---only where it is conducted. My understanding is the Bill O'Reilly threw some mud on the Stowers family who are backing this, hinting that they have some 'financial' interests in it. The Stowers' are billionaires from the mutual fund industry, any profits that they may realize, (and my understanding is that they will not get any income from this...), would pale in comparison to what they get now.
This is a very significant issue, it is a shame that it cannot be discussed and worked out openly without the media whores getting into things. They are the winners, the rest of us lose.
Post a Comment
<< Home