Messages In This Digest (1 Message)

1.: # 411 Friday, January 25, 2007 - WHERE IS THE BODY? Objections and A From: Stephen Meyer

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Message

1.: # 411 Friday, January 25, 2007 - WHERE IS THE BODY? Objections and A

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:48 am (PST)

# 411 Friday, January 25, 2007
<file:///C:/My%20Webs/myweb11/Archive%20322%20Monday,%20April%2020,%2020\
07%20-%20FLORIDA%20ONCE%20MORE%20PIVOTAL%20TO%20NATION'S%20FUTURE.ht\
m> - WHERE IS THE BODY? Objections and Answers on Stem Cell Research

When I work with Americans for Cures Foundation, which I do about 10
hours a week, I write as a member of a team. Documents produced there
reflect the strengths of individuals like Amy Daly, Constance McKee,
Keith Proctor, Jacqueline Hantgan, David Bluestone, and Sara Jakka.
Sometimes I will do a rough draft to try and get a framework going, and
someone else will edit. Or I might do the same for them. Each of us has
a different way to answer some of the attacks or objections the
opposition may raise.

Amy Daly's approach, for example, is the high road.

If she were asked to respond to a nonsensical attack like,
"Embryonic stem cell research kills people!," she would probably
say something dignified and gentle, like:

"The only cells that are used for this research are cells that are
excess and will be thrown into the trash. Using these cells for research
instead of discarding them will allow us to find treatments and cures
that will save life. Compare this to organ donation: In this case, the
person who is donating the organs can not possibly live. So before life
support is removed, the organs are taken to save lives. With embryonic
stem cell research, these blastocysts can not possibly live (as they
will be thrown away), and so before they are thrown away, the cells are
taken to save lives."

Good stuff. Gentle, non-confrontational.

But when I write for this column, I work with Karen Miner, whose idea of
a calming influence is the advice given to President Harry Truman:,
"Give `em Hell, Harry"—

to which Mr. T. replied, "I just give them the truth, and to them it
feels like Hell!"

An honest question, concern, or polite objection deserves complete
respect. Example:

Concern: "A woman who donates eggs for research undergoes invasive
surgery, and receives hormone injections: this may put her health at
risk."

Answer: this is a legitimate concern, which is why California asked the
NIH to organize a two-day conference on the subject of egg donation
health and safety issues, before even the first grants went out for new
research. Wherever there is risk, (as in almost every medical procedure,
which is why we sign release forms at the hospital) it should be
mitigated. Donating eggs for research, however, involves the exact same
procedures that have been used at In Vitro Fertility clinics,
world-wide, for more than a decade. Roughly one million women have had
the procedure, and the vast majority experienced no problems.

But does a propagandistic assault deserve the same courtesy as an
intelligent concern?

The following contains personal answers to some of both kinds of
question.

Attack: "Embryonic stem cell research kills people!"

Answer: If the research is murder, where is the body? In a court of law,
before a charge of murder can be made, evidence in the form of an actual
corpse must be produced. If anyone wishes to accuse our scientists, let
them either bring out a body, or quit making these ridiculous charges.
The simple truth, of course, is that we are talking about microscopic
cells, not people.

Attack: "Even if called by another name, cloning is cloning; there
is no difference between human reproductive cloning, and the so-called
therapeutic cloning: all forms of cloning should be banned."

Answer: Human reproductive cloning (to make a child) endangers both
mother and infant and should be banned, as it is in California. But to
compare that to therapeutic cloning (to make stem cells) is like saying
a lightning bolt and a light bulb are the same, since both involve
electricity. Consider: if all forms of cloning were illegal, insulin
for diabetics could not have been developed; crime scene police would
have their workload increased, because cloning is used to produce dNA
evidence; gardeners might be arrested, as the greenhouse technique of
"cutting a slip" is a form of cloning: cutting a piece off a
plant to grow it somewhere else. There are also food applications to
consider: like cloning cows which produce the most milk—should we
deny starving people access to milk by a blanket rejection of all forms
of cloning?

Attack: "Whether frozen in liquid nitrogen, or implanted in the
womb, a blastocyst is a child, and must be treated as the equal to any
human. Location makes no difference."

Answer: As it is biologically impossible for an unimplanted blastocyst
to become a child, location makes a huge difference. Frozen in liquid
nitrogen, a blastocyst is tissue cells. Similarly, a tiny droplet of
sperm contains many thousands of spermatozoa, any one of which might
help create a human being if it linked up with an egg and implanted in
the womb. Without implantation in the uterine wall, a blastocyst cannot
become a child. This is just common sense: no woman, no womb-- no Mom,
no baby.

Attack: "Scientists talk about more than 400,000 blastocysts left
over from In Vitro Fertility procedures, and say that some of these
could be used to make stem cell lines. Yet only a tiny proportion of
those were designated for research. It is therefore impossible for the
research can continue, since the donors of embryos are against it."

Answer: A recent survey showed that more than 2/3 In Vitro Fertility
participants were willing to donate leftover blastocysts to science,
after being told of the possibility. Consider the process. A woman
donates usually about twenty eggs for the IVF procedure. These are mixed
with sperm. The strongest one or two blastocysts are then implanted in
the woman's womb, to help the childless couple make a family. But
what happens to the other eggs and/or blastocysts? They may be frozen
for another try later, stored forever for a monthly fee, donated to
other couples (most people prefer to make their own), or be thrown away.
Those options should always remain open. But if a couple decides to
donate the unused materials to research for cure, that is also
worthwhile.

Attack: "Religion and science agree that life begins at conception,
the joining of sperm and egg, and embryonic stem cell research is
therefore going against religion."

Answer: Religions disagree on when life begins. The Catholic Saint
Thomas Aquinas felt it happened at the "quickening", when the
infant first stirs inside the mother. Others feel it begins when the
child can function outside the womb. The Judaic faith holds that life
does not begin until the 40th day after implantation. Muslims feel
similarly. Presbyterians support the research; Catholic leaders do not.
Even inside a church, disagreements are common. One poll showed 72% of
Catholics in support of embryonic stem cell research. As for scientists,
most go along with the most common dictionary definition, which includes
implantation. Should any one religion be allowed to determine medical
science policy, and nobody else's opinion matters?

Attack: "The new skin cell reprogramming method (induced
Pluripotentiary Stem cells, or iPS) is better than human embryonic stem
cell research, so let's stop funding that, and put all our money on
iPS."

Answer: The new form of stem cell derivation may perhaps be wonderful.
But it is at present considered too dangerous for therapies (cancer
risk) and may turn out to be less helpful than we hope. Even if it turns
out to be a valuable new tool, it would be foolish to throw away the
entire toolbox. Our best hopes for cure can be found in full stem cell
research: adult, embryonic, nuclear transfer, as well the new
iPS—but none at the exclusion of the others.

Attack: "Adult stem cells have brought treatments for 72 diseases,
including spinal cord injury and Parkinson's. Therefore, there is no
need for embryonic."

Answer: Where should paralyzed patients go to obtain these wonderful
treatments? If good treatments are truly available, hundreds of
thousands of suffering people would love to have them. Reality is
otherwise: neither spinal cord injury nor Parkinson's have been
successfully treated: these conditions have as yet no cure. Adult stem
cell therapies are useful, and have helped with blood disease and
cancer. With a research head start of more than 40 years, and massively
preferential funding from the federal government, adult stem cell
research has provided approximately nine FDA-approved treatments. But
that is just the tip of the iceberg; chronic disease and disability are
ravaging our country, and the world.

Objection: "My religion opposes embryonic stem cell research, so I
must do the same."

Answer: Throughout history, religions have often blocked or obstructed
medical breakthroughs. Dissection, the very basis of anatomy and medical
research, was a death-penalty crime when religious forces ruled Europe.
(If Michelangelo had been caught and executed for dissecting dead
bodies, he could not have designed the Vatican, nor painted the Sistine
Chapel.) The DNA research which gave us artificial insulin for diabetics
was opposed, as were anesthetics for operating rooms, vaccines for polio
and tuberculosis; even x-rays were argued against on the grounds they
might be used to see through women's clothing! A person's faith
may determine his or her decision on accepting medication (some refuse
blood transfusions, for example) but should never be allowed to forbid
medical benefits to others.

Don Reed
www.stemcellbattles.com <http://www.stemcellbattles.com/>

Don C. Reed is co-chair of Californians for Cures, and writes for their
web blog, www.stemcellbattles.com <http://www.stemcellbattles.com/> .
Reed was citizen-sponsor for California's Roman Reed Spinal Cord
Injury Research Act of 1999, named after his paralyzed son; he worked as
a grassroots advocate for California's Senator Deborah Ortiz's
three stem cell regulatory laws, served as an executive board member for
Proposition 71, the California Stem Cells for Research and Cures Act,
and is director of policy outreach for Americans for Cures. The retired
schoolteacher is the author of five books and thirty magazine articles,
and has received the National Press Award.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)