Stem Cells Still Have a Chance at Life, Barely - CC
After a quiet period, another article about embryonic stem cell legislation has popped up again.
And I have been very interested to see the progress(?) of the debate as it develops.
On one side, there are doctors and scientists making incredible claims based on their current studies dealing with the cells, and they rave about the vast range of possible health benefits that could come from the research.
On the other hand, it is not hard to find one of any number of thoughtful arguments in stout opposition to using embryonic stem cells for research, as opposed to adult cells which would not require the destruction of a living embryo.
A quick Google search for "stem cells" or "embryonic stem cell research," or any variation thereof generates hundreds of thousands of hits in a quarter second. And while these viewpoints and studies are readily available, the heated debate has seen very slow progress.
I think one of the reasons I find this issue of particular interest is that fifty years from now, a piece of butcher paper may be the only thing separating my bare ass from the cold surface of a doctor's table as I sit and wonder whether someone's embryonic cells could be the only thing to save me from the debilitating effects of advanced Parkinson's disease.
I might think a little differently about it at that point than I do right now. I have not, as yet, made up my mind. But for others like me -- early- to mid-twenty-somethings in college -- the current debate over stem cells will very likely become the topic of conversation in the old-folks' home as we play checkers and discuss what might have been. After all, the current political climate towards using tax-payers' money to fund embryonic stem cell research is luke-warm at best.
But that's only in this country. In Europe and probably Asia as well, such restrictions on embryonic stem cell research do not exist. Overseas, the research has carried on unabated while Americans wring their hands over what-to-do.... what-to-do!?
The truth is that the general population cannot possibly make an informed decision on the matter, and neither can the governmental bodies arguing over the whole mess. After all is said and done, the debate is being waged under the umbrella of ideological points of view. And we know for how long THOSE debates have been carrying on.
No matter how much proof exists on the pro-research side of the debate, those on the pro-life side will cling faithfully to their ideals, never giving in to the suggestion that barely-developed human lives should be used to improve or save the lives of countless others. (If I were a fetus, would I give my life to save countless others? Or would I want a shot at my own life and take my chances against Alzheimer's Disease?)
The answer, I think, is possibly more simple than people would like to consider, and -- in my "infitine" wisdom -- the answer is this:
1. A HUGE number of people have BIG problems with using embryos for stem cell research.
2. NO ONE is going to convince most of them otherwise.
3. People have been dying for as long as there have been people being born.
4. There's no need to push for embryonic stem cells when new data shows we can use adult cells, even if it's much harder to do.
After all, just because 8-year-old kids can make a heck of a lot of tennis shoes in sweat shops doesn't mean it should be done. What I'm saying is, even though embryonic stem cells might be MUCH easier to work with doesn't mean we should use them, especially since so many people are diametrically opposed to the idea.
If I knew that even 1/3 of the people in this country were against a particular kind of therapy, but the therapy was legal due to the required 2/3 vote needed to override the veto, I don't know I'd feel very proud using the therapy. But that is a question that my social peers must contend with, because in fifty or sixty years, make no mistake about it --- cancer, brain diseases, and any number of the other maladies that afflict the old-aged will have most, if not all, of our wrinkled withered butts on the line. And with the Grim Reaper on the doorstep, we just might be rethinking or regretting our youthful decisions.
And I have been very interested to see the progress(?) of the debate as it develops.
On one side, there are doctors and scientists making incredible claims based on their current studies dealing with the cells, and they rave about the vast range of possible health benefits that could come from the research.
On the other hand, it is not hard to find one of any number of thoughtful arguments in stout opposition to using embryonic stem cells for research, as opposed to adult cells which would not require the destruction of a living embryo.
A quick Google search for "stem cells" or "embryonic stem cell research," or any variation thereof generates hundreds of thousands of hits in a quarter second. And while these viewpoints and studies are readily available, the heated debate has seen very slow progress.
I think one of the reasons I find this issue of particular interest is that fifty years from now, a piece of butcher paper may be the only thing separating my bare ass from the cold surface of a doctor's table as I sit and wonder whether someone's embryonic cells could be the only thing to save me from the debilitating effects of advanced Parkinson's disease.
I might think a little differently about it at that point than I do right now. I have not, as yet, made up my mind. But for others like me -- early- to mid-twenty-somethings in college -- the current debate over stem cells will very likely become the topic of conversation in the old-folks' home as we play checkers and discuss what might have been. After all, the current political climate towards using tax-payers' money to fund embryonic stem cell research is luke-warm at best.
But that's only in this country. In Europe and probably Asia as well, such restrictions on embryonic stem cell research do not exist. Overseas, the research has carried on unabated while Americans wring their hands over what-to-do.... what-to-do!?
The truth is that the general population cannot possibly make an informed decision on the matter, and neither can the governmental bodies arguing over the whole mess. After all is said and done, the debate is being waged under the umbrella of ideological points of view. And we know for how long THOSE debates have been carrying on.
No matter how much proof exists on the pro-research side of the debate, those on the pro-life side will cling faithfully to their ideals, never giving in to the suggestion that barely-developed human lives should be used to improve or save the lives of countless others. (If I were a fetus, would I give my life to save countless others? Or would I want a shot at my own life and take my chances against Alzheimer's Disease?)
The answer, I think, is possibly more simple than people would like to consider, and -- in my "infitine" wisdom -- the answer is this:
1. A HUGE number of people have BIG problems with using embryos for stem cell research.
2. NO ONE is going to convince most of them otherwise.
3. People have been dying for as long as there have been people being born.
4. There's no need to push for embryonic stem cells when new data shows we can use adult cells, even if it's much harder to do.
After all, just because 8-year-old kids can make a heck of a lot of tennis shoes in sweat shops doesn't mean it should be done. What I'm saying is, even though embryonic stem cells might be MUCH easier to work with doesn't mean we should use them, especially since so many people are diametrically opposed to the idea.
If I knew that even 1/3 of the people in this country were against a particular kind of therapy, but the therapy was legal due to the required 2/3 vote needed to override the veto, I don't know I'd feel very proud using the therapy. But that is a question that my social peers must contend with, because in fifty or sixty years, make no mistake about it --- cancer, brain diseases, and any number of the other maladies that afflict the old-aged will have most, if not all, of our wrinkled withered butts on the line. And with the Grim Reaper on the doorstep, we just might be rethinking or regretting our youthful decisions.
posted by Joseph at 11:46 PM
1 Comments:
wow, sir! very good article. well thought out, well written, and with great humor to get us to really see what we are talking about here and think about it now, not later, when we're on that table. thanks!
Post a Comment
<< Home