#230 Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - GUEST EDITORIAL: by Jeff Eisen, from
his website at: www.stemcellpage.com

(from Don: Hi, Folks, this was such an exceptional piece by Missouri stem
cell research activist Jeff Eisen, that I felt compelled to contact him and
ask to share it.)

In my lifetime I saw polio virtually eliminated from our nation's midst. But
the vaccine came too late to offset the epidemic of 1949.  The first wave of
baby boomers, those born as the GIs were returned from WWII to start
families, was especially hard hit.  I remember those iron lungs.  I remember
children in those metal braces. I remember the fear that gripped the
country.  I remember signs saying "Quarantine - Polio" displayed on homes
with a victim of that disease.

I remember.

I remember mostly because my beautiful sister was stricken in that epidemic
of '49.  She was two years old.  I remember her surgeries - always scheduled
during the summer so as not to interfere with school - through the age of
thirteen.  I remember the bone grafts, attempting to even the difference
between the lengths of her legs in order to minimize her limp.

I remember.

I remember how American society rallied behind the vaccine.  I remember how
our government funded its distribution.  I remember students receiving the
vaccine at school.  I was one of them.

I remember.

The best thing to remember, however, is that polio was totally defeated on
this side of the world.  The last reported case of polio in the Americas was
in Peru in 1991, and the western hemisphere was declared "polio free" in
1994.  Poliomyelitis is now a memory, a triumphant recollection in the
annals of medicine, a chapter in the history books.

Today, even at my age (and despite how old my children perceive me to be), I
can still learn.  Yesterday I learned something about the development of the
polio vaccine.  I read the statement of Ronald M. Green, director of
Dartmouth's Ethics Institute, to the U.S. Senate's Labor, Health & Human
Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee.  In it he said:

"It is not unique that the initial research needed to develop morally
acceptable methods or materials do not meet everyone's approval, but this
does not impugn the methods or materials produced as a result of that
research.  One example is the polio vaccines we use today.  Some of the
initial research on these vaccines was conducted with a technique that
required the use of tissues from aborted fetuses.  Later, this approach was
replaced by other methods.

Almost no one today refuses polio vaccination for their children on the
grounds that they object to the methods used in the first experiments.  I
would point out that even President Bush has been willing to use the
harmless downstream results of research to which he objects."

I was surprised.  I never knew that the initial research that ultimately led
to the defeat of polio was based upon experiments on aborted fetal tissue.
I wonder. To what degree is the "religious right" aware?  And if they were
to become aware, would that awareness manifest as some religious uprising
against the use of polio vaccine?  Would some parents refuse to get their
children vaccinated as a form of protest?

Some might scoff at such questions or fully dismiss the notion.  After all,
one could reasonably submit that since new methods were developed - methods
that do not utilize aborted fetal tissue - there is no longer any reason to
protest.  When it comes to the notions of the religious conservatives, I'm
not so sure.

I recently attended a Missouri Stem Cell Initiative (now "Amendment 2")
debate in St. Louis.  The two sides were represented by formidable speakers.
Speaking in favor was Donn Rubin, Chairman of the Missouri Coalition for
Lifesaving Cures.  Speaking in opposition was Dr. Richard Chole, a St. Louis
otolaryngologist.

I had arrived to the site of the debate early and settled into a seat at a
table in the back.  It was close to the center and provided a good view.  A
few minutes later another chap entered, scanned the venue and walked over to
my table.  He, too, must have thought it was a good location.  "Is this seat
taken?" he asked.

"No," I answered. "Feel free to have a seat."

He was about to sit, but stopped short. "I guess I should ask you if you're
a supporter or opponent."

Not wanting to tip my hand I said, "I'm really here to learn."  He seemed
comfortable enough with that answer to sit down next to me.

He was a friendly sort and, as we had twenty minutes or so before the debate
was to begin, we introduced ourselves, shook hands and exchanged
pleasantries for a minute.  He opened his briefcase and pulled out a large
stack of printed material.  I had seen it before.  It was the opposition's.
Before long, he began to pepper me with questions and prepared talking
points, from the stack of materials he pulled from his briefcase.

I did not debate his religious convictions, but easily rebuked his
"scientific" and "legal" claims.  Point by point, I easily knocked down each
of his arguments.   You know the drill.

The amendment would enshrine in the Missouri Constitution the right to clone
human beings.
 No, but it would allow genetically matched stem cells to be created by
SCNT - and no human beings would ever result since that's banned by the
amendment.

The amendment would mandate that our tax dollars would be spent on the
research.
No, the amendment doesn't require or even request tax dollars.

This research is akin to the Nazi experiments on the Jews.
Really?  Then why do all denominations of the Jewish faith support embryonic
stem cell research?

Well, we don't need this research because adult stem cells are already
successfully treating about 70 diseases.
That list from David Prentice was recently debunked by three leading
scientists, who published their work in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Only nine of the 72 claims were found to be valid.

Well, nine is better than nothing - and embryonic stem cell research hasn't
provided a single cure.
How could it? Human embryonic stem cells weren't isolated until only eight
years ago. The research is still in its infancy.  In the animal tests so
far, embryonic stem cell research has proven better than anyone ever dreamed
possible with adult stem cells.  Besides, people can support both.  Why
would anyone want to shut down either path to potential cures?  This shouldn't
be framed as a contest between one method and another.  It's a fight between
people and disease.  It doesn't matter to those who are sick if cures are
found from adult or embryonic stem cells.  They just want cures to be found.

And so it went for fifteen minutes.  Ultimately, I wore him down.  I
concluded with, "Look, I have no problem with your personal objections.  I
respect your religious beliefs.  But I do have a problem with your trying to
impose your personal beliefs upon everyone else."  I continued by telling
him about some friends of mine, George and Sylvie.

"Now, George and Sylvie are a very nice couple.  George and I worked
together for a few years until Sylvie became pregnant.  At that point, they
decided to move away from Missouri.  George and Sylvie are Christian
Scientists.  They won't go to a hospital for treatment - not even for the
birth of their baby.  They depend upon midwives for assistance in birth.
Unfortunately for them, midwives are not licensed in Missouri, so they
decided to move to Arizona.  Their baby was born, happy and healthy, and all
is well."

It was at this juncture that I simply stopped talking to the fellow sitting
next to me, though I maintained eye contact.  His expression turned
quizzical as he asked, "What do midwives have to do with Amendment 2?  I don't
get the connection."

"It's pretty simple," I answered.  "Though George and Sylvie have personal
religious beliefs against hospitals, they don't go to the capitol demanding
legislators close the hospitals.  But when it comes to embryonic stem cell
research, while you have every right to refuse any medical treatment you
wish, you want to deny the medical autonomy of others.  In this case, you're
attempting to 'close the hospital' of those with a different view.  It seems
to me you should take a lesson from George and Sylvie."

With that, the fellow fell silent, took all the materials he had placed on
the table and returned them to his briefcase where they remained for the
duration.  Minutes later, the other debate began.

After the debate's conclusion, I had an opportunity to ask Dr. Chole a
question that had been bothering me for some time.

You see, there are about a hundred medical practitioners in Missouri who
publicly oppose Amendment 2.  On the other hand, there are more than two
thousand who publicly endorse it.  What had been bothering me is that if a
medical practitioner has a personal objection to therapies or cures derived
from embryonic or SCNT stem cells, is it that doctor's responsibility to
disclose that belief to his patients, or does that responsibility rest with
the patient to ask?  I asked Dr. Chole.

Dr. Chole, of course, could speak only for himself, but he indicated that he
believed doctors should disclose such beliefs and be willing to make
referrals when asked.  I appreciate that response and though I wish it would
become a requirement, I doubt that it will.  But Dr. Chole went on to
volunteer a piece of information to emphasize his objections to embryonic
and SCNT stem cell research.  He told me that he had lost a son to cancer.
His son was in his thirties and Dr. Chole explained that he and his son had
engaged in conversations regarding embryonic stem cell research.  They had
concluded that if that research had led to a therapy or cure for his son,
his son would refuse it.

I've heard a few folks speak similarly in the past.  And this underscores
the very same point I had made to the fellow at my table:

Anyone is free to decline any medical treatment they find to have been
derived by objectionable means.

As I've frequently written, for me there is no moral dilemma regarding the
utilization of frozen clusters of cells in Petri dishes, toward the goal of
ending suffering or saving lives of people living among us.  But it causes
me to wonder if that fellow at my table or Dr. Chole had their children
vaccinated against polio.

I bet they did.  While the fellow at my table might not be familiar with the
vaccine's research history, Dr. Chole certainly is.

Even though the initial polio vaccine research was dependent upon aborted
fetal tissue until new methods could be developed, it did not create fetal
farms, it did not cause an increase in abortions and it did not prevent a
single birth.

So what did it do?  In the end, it eradicated a feared, crippling and killer
disease called polio from our hemisphere.  And that should end the debate.





Don C. Reed, Chair, Californians for Cures, www.stemcellbattles

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