Monday, November 05, 2007
Stem Cell Research 101 - Final Part
Someone close to you is very sick and the only way for them to get well was from research conducted by way of stem cell research, what would you do?
There are two aspects of this question that I would like to address. First, the question is asking if the ends justify the means. Second, the question assumes that the current hopes for Embryonic Stem Cell Reasearch (ESCR) are a reality.
To answer if the ends justify the means: I totally sympathize with the desires of people to find cures. My own family has been greatly impacted by some of the very diseases touted as curable with ESC. However, an embryo doesn’t become a human; it already is a human. If allowed to develop, that same embryo will become a fetus, then an infant, toddler, pre-adolescent, adolescent, adult and elder. So what is really being asked is if I would support the killing of another person, with the hope that research done on their body could save my family member. The answer is no.
At any point along that line of development, a human can die. But we should never seek the opportunity to actively kill life at a specific point of development. In addition, we should never create human life solely for the purpose of killing it and using its body.
To address the assumed success of ESCR: ESCR has not produced a single treatment. This fact does not change everything else I’ve said. Even if ESCR was wildly successful, I would still be opposed. However, after decades of research, ESCR has failed to produce a successful clinical trial. There are no ESCR treatments or cures. In addition, many of the claims made by ESC researchers have been proven to be little more than hyperbole.
Alzheimer’s is often touted as one of the many diseases curable by ESCR. But stem cell researcher Michael Shelanski, co-director of the Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York has little hope. He said, "I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small…I personally think we're going to get other therapies for Alzheimer's a lot sooner."
So this begs the question – why the focus on unethical ESCR? Why not focus research dollars and energy on ethical and successful Adult SCR as well as the other therapies mentioned by Mr. Shelanski?
It’s difficult advocating for the protection of human embryos. There’s very little emotional appeal. The human life that is killed during ESCR does not present itself as an adorable little baby or a vulnerable handicapped or elderly person. The embryo doesn’t even “look” human. But the facts do not change. The embryo looks exactly like you and I did a few days after we were conceived. At the point of conception, that embryo is a human. As a civilized society we should never kill humans in the name of research.
There are two aspects of this question that I would like to address. First, the question is asking if the ends justify the means. Second, the question assumes that the current hopes for Embryonic Stem Cell Reasearch (ESCR) are a reality.
To answer if the ends justify the means: I totally sympathize with the desires of people to find cures. My own family has been greatly impacted by some of the very diseases touted as curable with ESC. However, an embryo doesn’t become a human; it already is a human. If allowed to develop, that same embryo will become a fetus, then an infant, toddler, pre-adolescent, adolescent, adult and elder. So what is really being asked is if I would support the killing of another person, with the hope that research done on their body could save my family member. The answer is no.
At any point along that line of development, a human can die. But we should never seek the opportunity to actively kill life at a specific point of development. In addition, we should never create human life solely for the purpose of killing it and using its body.
To address the assumed success of ESCR: ESCR has not produced a single treatment. This fact does not change everything else I’ve said. Even if ESCR was wildly successful, I would still be opposed. However, after decades of research, ESCR has failed to produce a successful clinical trial. There are no ESCR treatments or cures. In addition, many of the claims made by ESC researchers have been proven to be little more than hyperbole.
Alzheimer’s is often touted as one of the many diseases curable by ESCR. But stem cell researcher Michael Shelanski, co-director of the Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York has little hope. He said, "I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small…I personally think we're going to get other therapies for Alzheimer's a lot sooner."
So this begs the question – why the focus on unethical ESCR? Why not focus research dollars and energy on ethical and successful Adult SCR as well as the other therapies mentioned by Mr. Shelanski?
It’s difficult advocating for the protection of human embryos. There’s very little emotional appeal. The human life that is killed during ESCR does not present itself as an adorable little baby or a vulnerable handicapped or elderly person. The embryo doesn’t even “look” human. But the facts do not change. The embryo looks exactly like you and I did a few days after we were conceived. At the point of conception, that embryo is a human. As a civilized society we should never kill humans in the name of research.
# posted by OregonGirl @ Monday, November 05, 2007 
