TAMPA TRIBUNE
Jun 23, 2001
Stem-cell debate consumes American Heart Association
LAURIE MCGINLEY of The Wall Street Journal

When Deby Schlapprizzi was asked to organize the 2001 Heart Ball
for the American Heart Association's St. Louis chapter, she did
what she always does when faced with a difficult challenge: She
prayed.

Then she tackled the job with her usual gusto. From her sprawling
stucco house in this affluent St. Louis suburb, Schlapprizzi enlisted
more than 40 women to plan the fundraiser, began lining up corporate
sponsors and helped select the theme:
``Twilight in Tuscany: a Celebration of the Heart.''

Then, just as she was getting started, she stopped.

She heard that the Heart Association's board had endorsed
research using embryonic stem cells. That was intolerable to
Schlapprizzi, a devout Catholic who says she believes such
research is immoral. Her problem is with the sources of the
stem cells - either excess embryos donated by couples who
have undergone in vitro fertilization, or aborted fetuses.

Her Heart Ball committee disbanded. Planning for the event,
expected to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, went
on indefinite hold. ``It was a tremendous disappointment,''
Schlapprizzi says now. ``But this was about me doing what I
needed to do.''

Schlapprizzi's defection led to a wrenching debate inside the Heart
Association - a debate that mirrors the one going on in the Bush
administration about whether the federal government should fund
the research.

Embryonic stem-cell research offers hope of alleviating heart
disease and other debilitating illnesses and has support in the
medical, scientific and academic communities. But it also outrages
 Schlapprizzi, the Roman Catholic Church and others because
extracting the cells from embryos destroys the embryos. How the
debate plays out in coming years could have enormous
implications for health science.

A DECISION from the Bush administration on federal funding
is expected soon, once top officials there resolve their differences -
with right-to-life forces on one side and the Department of Health
and Human Services on the other. Whoever wins, the fight is likely
to resume this fall when Congress weighs HHS's appropriations.

Meanwhile, the story behind the American Heart Association's
soul-searching journey through this emotional issue shows
the deep fault lines it has created in the debate about medical
ethics.

The stem-cell debate began in November 1998, when researchers
for the first time isolated and cultured human embryonic stem
cells, which can be turned into any type of cell. Scientists predicted
the finding would fuel the expanding field of ``regenerative
medicine'' in which new tissue and organs could be grown
to replace those hurt by disease and injury.

The breakthrough excited many of the AHA's 30,000 member
physicians, nurses and researchers, who clamored for the
association to explore further. AHA leaders saw an opportunity
to push harder toward their ambitious 1997 goal of reducing
death and disability because of heart disease by 25 percent
by 2010.

In early 1999, the AHA named a task force to study whether to
underwrite stem-cell research and to support federal funding.

Led by Elizabeth Nabel, now a National Institutes of Health
researcher, the group surveyed the AHA's lay and scientific
volunteers. They generally supported both efforts. Last June,
the task force endorsed both to the board.

Yes, there would be debate, . Nabel said. But her panel concluded
the criticism ``will not likely have a significant adverse impact on
fundraising efforts, and any adverse effect will be short-term.''

The board debated the matter. Some raised concerns the backlash
would be greater than expected. But they agreed to proceed,
to develop strict guidelines and avoid making a public announcement.

IT DIDN'T TAKE LONG for news of the board's action to make it
to St. Louis, where the population is nearly 30 percent Catholic.

It began with Schlapprizzi, 46, a mother of four, whose other
charitable work included giving talks to teenage girls about
chastity and promoting the antiabortion efforts of the St. Louis
archdiocese.

Her father, Anthony Sansone Sr., is a prominent real-estate
developer who contributes heavily to Catholic causes and
had pledged $10,000 to the Heart Ball.

When Schlapprizzi heard about the AHA's stem-cell decision,
she called the St. Louis office to ask a few questions and
let people know she wasn't pleased. One staff member turned
for help to Stephen Spurgeon, a local doctor who was on the
AHA's national board and had voted to endorse the research.

Spurgeon and Schlapprizzi met in her home.

She told him, ``I need to understand why this went through.

'' THE DOCTOR EXPLAINED that scientists believe stem-cell
research will save lives. To Schlapprizzi, that was a problem.
She said that if the research was widely perceived as good,
`it could provide a justification for abortion.''

If the AHA board wouldn't reconsider, she said, ``I don't think
I can continue.''

In mid-July, she wrote a letter to the AHA's St. Louis division.

If the association didn't revoke its stem-cell decision, she wrote,
``I will have to resign my current position as chairperson
of Heart Ball 2001, and withdraw support from the American
Heart Association.''

The letter spelled disaster for Peter Strassner, who had just become
chairman of the AHA's St. Louis board in June. The corporate
lawyer says he hadn't given embryo research much thought
and had no personal qualms about it.

Now, it was jeopardizing the Heart Ball and possibly other
fundraising efforts, which typically bring in more than
$2 million a year.

THINGS GOT WORSE. St. Louis Archbishop Justin Rigali,
who has known Schlapprizzi's family for years, denounced
stem-cell research as immoral in his own letter to the
association's national office. He vowed ``to discourage
Catholics from supporting the AHA.'' That meant he might
very well bar the involvement of parochial schools in the
AHA's ``Jump Rope for Heart'' program and the involvement
of Catholic hospitals in the American Heart Walk,
the chapter's biggest fundraiser.

In addition, two local board members told Strassner they might
resign, three nominees to the board said they wouldn't join,
and several staffers were grousing about the decision.

THEN, ON A BUSINESS TRIP in late July, Strassner bumped into
one of his board members in Chicago's Midway Airport.

All the way to St. Louis, the woman argued the stem-cell decision
would cause lasting damage to the association. By the time the
plane touched down, Strassner was determined to change the
national AHA's mind.

Strassner, along with St. Louis division President Craig Reiss, a
cardiologist, sent a two-page letter to M. Cass Wheeler, chief
executive of the association, detailing the potential financial
impact on St. Louis alone.

Schlapprizzi had withdrawn her own family's $10,000 pledge,
as had her father. An additional $150,000 in pledges arranged
by Schlapprizzi and her committee were likely to disappear
as well.

The spring Heart Walk, expected to raise nearly $900,000, might
also be in trouble because the event's chairman was the chief
operating officer of a big Catholic health care system and
several participating hospitals were Catholic.

The association's national leaders initially rebuffed the pleas from
St. Louis. In a letter to Rigali, William Bryant, the Alabama attorney
who chairs the AHA, and Rose Marie Robertson, president,
insisted stem-cell research was crucial to reducing heart disease
and that ``ethical considerations were at the center of the
discussion'' by the board.

For Bryant, it was a poignant issue. He is a Catholic, but his
father-in-law and brother-in-law died from heart disease and
his wife suffers from it. That means his two children were at
risk. ``What if it turns out they could grow a new heart for
my son when he's 40?'' Bryant asks.

As Labor Day neared, the stem-cell debate exploded nationally
after the National Institutes of Health outlined final plans for
funding embryonic stem-cell research.

A few days later, Pope John Paul II denounced such experiments
as ``not morally acceptable, even when their proposed goal
is good in itself.''

In Dallas, where the AHA is based, officials began hearing
more complaints from around the country. Meanwhile, Robertson
let the association's medical professionals and academics know
the stem-cell decision had come under fire. Hundreds responded
with e-mails, letters and phone calls saying not to bow.

But some scientists began to worry the stem-cell stance would
threaten the funding of other AHA research. In an informal poll
by Robertson, a third of the association's medical professionals
urged the board to stick to its stance. But another third said the
AHA should consider reversing itself if overall research funding
could shrink by 10 percent to 25 percent.

On Oct. 26, the association's national board met to reconsider
the stem-cell policy.

In the pivotal vote, the board rescinded its decision to underwrite
embryonic stem cell research and agreed to limit its support
involving adult stem cells.

http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGAJ4NDWAOC.html

* * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn