I pray that our son will have professors and mentors in medical school
who have this passion for medicine and the people it serves. I believe
he will. I am so tired of the government and insurance companies telling
physicians how to care or what to do for people. I am just plain tired.

nancy m

John Cottingham wrote:

> The source of this article is the Herald Tribune: http://tinyurl.com/3r6eo
>
> Article published Oct 29, 2004
> Neurologist sees hope and politics collide in stem cell debate
>
> Breakthroughs in genetic research present each of us, as human beings, with both a promise and a predicament. The promise is that one day soon, we may be able to effectively treat and prevent a myriad of disabling and degenerative diseases. The predicament is that our newfound scientific understanding in genetic research may enable us to change the course of a God-given destiny.
>
> Science and biotechnology seem to be moving faster than our moral history, as a nation, can sort out. And, as a society, we seem to be ill-equipped to address the most difficult questions, never before presented by medical science. The apparent collision of science, religion, politics, and big business, seems to have induced a kind of national vertigo.
>
> Although there is much to be said for each side of the equation, I think the deeper danger is indeed to assume that any political party, religious organization or corporate entity possesses the exclusive understanding of such a dilemma.
>
> As a scientist and medical clinician, I have devoted the better part of my adulthood to medical education and patient service. Despite the seemingly endless days, insurmountable bureaucracy and limitations of available funding, my profession as a doctor is still an inarguable privilege.
>
> I pursued subspecialty training in the field of neuroscience and neurodegenerative disorders, with a specific interest in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease. I have lost a favorite uncle to ALS, a grandfather to Parkinson's disease and a grandmother to Alzheimer-type dementia, so the embryonic stem cell debate at hand has now become personal.
>
> While still in its infancy, embryonic stem cell research has the potential to treat or perhaps one day cure more than 100 million Americans who truly suffer and face their demise or death from cruel, unforgiving illnesses, such as heart disease, cancer, juvenile diabetes, and a complex array of neurological disorders, such as ALS. Scientists believe that stem cell research could prove to be one of the greatest revolutions of modern medicine, surpassing even such great discoveries as penicillin and the Salk vaccine.
>
> Yet, their progress is being stymied in this country by divisive debates that are not necessarily based on fact.
>
> The furor over the stem cell debate should not be fueled by hidden political agendas, fire- and-brimstone religious conservatism or fear of business monopolies of biotechnology.
>
> Academic and biomedical activists must prevail and press forward for the pure sake of science and human discovery. To acknowledge the gift of life is to recognize the intrinsic responsibility of scientific mastery and to persevere with our humblest, yet most capable abilities. Doctors have a moral responsibility to ease human suffering and use our knowledge for the betterment of mankind.
>
> The medical, ethical and financial benefit of embryonic stem-cell technology will one day soon come into focus as a necessary and inevitable cause for hope in medical science and the pursuit of wellness, if rational humanitarian efforts prevail. We must study the beginning of human life to fully comprehend the enigma of its frailty and demise. Eventually, with further scientific studies, clues to alternative technologies may likely emerge to squelch the debate about stem cell utilization.
>
> As a doctor, it is frustrating and demoralizing to come face- to-face with a patient suffering from a life-threatening condition and yet remain hopeful, realizing that workable solutions for their inevitable deterioration are being hindered by false arguments and hidden agendas. Scientific innovation has never intrinsically been risk- free, but the risk to ignore potential treatment and cures for the world's most devastating disorders poses an even greater threat to our society at large.
>
> Every person should imagine what their individual life would be like in the grip of a degenerative and life-threatening disease. Let's all allow scientists to pursue the truths of science. When the facts have been unraveled, then, and only then, should we attempt to decide the debate. Neither politics nor religious hurdles should be allowed to dam the stream of biomedical knowledge that may one day set us free from the wrath of true human suffering and all that is implied.
>
>
>
> J. Terry Petrella, M.D., is an adjunct clinical assistant professor of neurology, University of South Florida School of Medicine, Tampa. She maintains a private neurological practice in Sarasota.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>

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