CATHOLIC BELIEFS TO DICTATE STEM CELL POLICY?
by diverdonreed
Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 01:36:45 AM PST
Religious freedom is a fundamental American right, no matter how foolish
that faith may seem to others.  If I wanted to worship goldfish, I have the
legal right to do so, without being persecuted-but do I have the right to
impose Goldfish Worship on others?
My family's faith (though not my own) is Catholic. Should that religion's
beliefs be required of Baptists, Episcopalians, atheists, Muslims,
Presbyterians, Jews, agnostics, Sikhs and Buddhists?
The Catholic Church is trying to force to force its stem cell research
policies onto everyone.
diverdonreed's diary :: ::
ARGUING WITH THE CHURCH: Catholic Beliefs to Dictate Stem Cell Policy?
Religious freedom is a fundamental American right, no matter how foolish
that faith may seem to others.  If I wanted to worship goldfish, I have the
legal right to do so, without being persecuted-but do I have the right to
impose Goldfish Worship on others?
My family's faith (though not my own) is Catholic. Should that religion's
beliefs be required of Baptists, Episcopalians, atheists, Muslims,
Presbyterians, Jews, agnostics, Sikhs and Buddhists?
The Catholic Church is trying to force to force its stem cell research
policies onto everyone.
This is not a casual attempt, but a world-wide effort, beginning with the
Vatican, which recently opined that supporting embryonic stem cell research
is an excommunicable offense. Think what that means-that I should literally
be condemned to Hell for all eternity for my opinions on medical research?
To me, that is as nonsensical-and cruel-as the religious belief that
anesthesia in childbirth was against God's wishes, because it said in the
Bible that "In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children".
Personally, I have more faith in God than that. For me, the reason God gave
us a brain is to think and solve problems. But that is my opinion, and I
would not attempt to enshrine it into law.
The reason America separates church and state is because there can never be
agreement on something unprovable. How can God be even described, unless we
can bring Him/Her/It into the room with us? And if we cannot describe God
without arguing, how can we ever hope to agree on religious legislation?
But down through history, the Church has been a power structure, as well as
a source of comfort and wisdom. And when it steps into politics, it must not
be allowed to go unchallenged.
If religious officialdom forces a law, that affects us all. If you drive
into a town where the Churches "persuaded" local officials to require all
stores to close on Sundays, and you need to buy a quart of milk, you are out
of luck.
And if you live in a state or a country-or a world--- where stem cell
research was declared illegal...
In the United Nations, Catholic priests accompanied Bush administration
officials as they attempted to impose a world-wide ban on SCNT (Somatic Cell
Nuclear Transfer, sometimes called therapeutic cloning) an advanced form of
stem cell research.
Nationally, the Catholic Church's and other Religious Right organizations
routinely bully and terrify legislators, utterly controlling the Republican
Party's stem cell policy, preventing the passage of even such a moderate and
mild law as the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
In state after state, the Catholic Church is the center of the anti-research
movement.
In Missouri, the church passed out lawn signs opposing Amendment 2 (which
said Missouri should not be denied any federally-approved medical research),
and let churches be offices for groups which passed out plastic fetuses to
children at county fairs, saying this is what embryonic stem cell research
is all about.
In California, Catholic churches distributed glossy full-color fliers
opposing the science supported by Proposition 71-and every California church
receives anti-embryonic research materials routinely, for the priests to
intone from the pulpit, and for parishioners to take home with them.
In Michigan, the Church mailed 504,000 anti-research CDs (think of the
money-a church which takes a vow of poverty somehow can afford to burn half
a million CDs and postage and padded envelopes for one state mailing alone)
to the homes of Catholic families.
In Texas, meetings of the legislature are held late at night with little or
no public notice-so the Catholic anti-science view can be drummed into the
heads of legislators without opposition.
And now, with the experimental "success" of an alternative stem cell
technique, their campaign moves into high gear.
Led by the Catholic Church, anti-research forces will try to use the
experimental skin cell technique (Induced Pluripotent Stem cells, or IPSc)
to shut down embryonic and SCNT research.
Do I exaggerate?
In a moment we will see the actual open letter from the New York State
Catholic Conference revealing the Church's intent to control stem cell
policy.
New York has a $600 million dollar stem cell program. The Catholic Church is
attempting to thwart the very purpose of the law, and to divert control away
from the voters and the legislature.
They wish to say where the state's tax dollars should be spent-trying to
block funding for the Empire State's embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).
If they can succeed in New York, they will try in other states-- not even
California's glorious new program will be safe from attack-and they will try
nationally as well.
Now politicians are quite understandably timid about challenging the Church.
And the Church tries to sell itself as all-knowing, never to be questioned.
Have you ever wondered why parishioners are lectured to on their knees? The
Vatican's pronouncements are passed down from the top. Debate is (to put it
mildly) not encouraged: how often do people stand up on Sunday and challenge
the priest? Until very recently, the services were even delivered in Latin,
which nobody except the priests understand.
What it boils down to is the Church issues pronouncements, and nobody is
allowed to say, "Hey, I disagree with that!"
But what if we could argue with the Church? What if we could have a
conversation with the church, run along the lines of a court of law, where
people have to speak the truth-- or be instantly challenged? When a lawyer
can say, "I object", and an impartial judge and jury can decide-there is an
opportunity for truth to prevail.
This is not idle chit-chat. Public medical policy affects my family, and
yours. Cures found means suffering eased: cures prevented means the agony
goes on.
And so, today, I would like to argue with the Church. First, to be fair, I
will print their side, a posted letter from the New York State Catholic
Conference in which they publicly propose that all New York's money be taken
away from ESC research, and given to only the research which they consider
worthy.
I have taken that letter, and divided it up into separate sentences. I
inserted underlines, parentheses, and numbers to indicate places where I
disagree, and placed my comments at the conclusion.  But the material itself
is unchanged. The article was originally posted at:
(http://www.nyscatholic.org/pages/news/show_newsDetails.asp?id=344)
NEW YORK STATE CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
NEWS: For Immediate Release: November 20, 2007
Catholic Conference hails stem cell breakthrough, (1)urges state funding be
directed (2) toward this new research.
The New York State Catholic Conference hailed the breakthrough(3) announced
today by stem cell researchers from Wisconsin and Japan that allows the
creation (4) of embryonic-like (5) stem cells by reprogramming (6) mature
human cells, rather than destroying human embryos. (7)
The Conference urges the state government to pursue this research with the
public funds earmarked in the New York State budget for stem cell research.
(8)
Kathleen M. Gallagher, director of pro-life (9) activities for the Catholic
Conference, made the following comment today:
"Today marks the dawn of a new age for ethical scientific research and
discovery. (10) This breakthrough announced in two scientific journals
appears to solve the ethical dilemmas (11) of embryonic stem cell research
and human cloning (12) by eliminating the need for them. (13)
Instead, by simply (14) adding four genes to an existing skin cell, the cell
can be reprogrammed as a 'pluripotent' (15) stem cell. The process appears
to be easier, (16) more cost efficient (17), scientifically promising (18)
and morally untroubling (19).
Beyond the fact that scientists will no longer need to create (20)and
destroy (21) human embryos (22) in a laboratory setting, the new process
eliminates the need for donor eggs (23) and the potential exploitation of
poor women (24) that could entail.
Further, it appears that medical issues (25) such as tissue rejection (26)
would not be a factor. (27)
This may be the best possible outcome (28) for people who yearn for cures of
chronic diseases and disabilities. (29)
Much work needs to be done, (30) but it seems clear (31) that the hurdles
(32) will be much easier to overcome (33) than those that continue to plague
(34) embryo research and cloning. (35)
"The Catholic Conference urges the Empire State Stem Cell Board, created by
Gov. Spitzer and the state legislature earlier this year, to direct all
state funding that would have gone to destructive embryo research and
cloning into research utilizing this new procedure, (36) which can make our
state a leader in the field (37).
At the same time, we continue to fully support funding for research on
'adult' stem cells, (38) which already have many (39) valuable therapeutic
uses in the treatment of disease and disability.
The Conference congratulates those in the scientific community who have
pursued this lifesaving (40) research, which should put an end to any
scientific justification (41) for embryo-destructive research (42) and the
cloning of human beings.(43)
The Catholic Conference represents New York State's Bishops (44) in matters
of public policy."
(End of article).
Now, here are some of my objections, places where, in a court of law,
arguments would be allowed, the attorney's hand would go up, and the words
would be said: "I object, your honor".
"breakthrough"-to call any experiment a "breakthrough" is an unfounded
assertion. Experimental findings must be tested and re-tested, replicated
dozens of times. Can there be a legitimate "breakthrough" on the basis of
two apparently hopeful experiments?
"urges state funding to be directed"-for the Catholic Church to urge such a
domination of public funds seems to me a clear violation of our
Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state.
"breakthrough" repeats the  previous unsupported allegation. It is a
propagandist's trick to endlessly repeat a lie or half-truth-but a
breakthrough does not become one by verbal advertisements, no matter how
often repeated.
"creation"- first, an observation: till now, any scientific advance which
involved anything like "creation" was sure to bring down the wrath of the
Church. Now, apparently, "creation" is acceptable.  Secondly, if by creation
the Church in any way implies the beginning of life, then that must be
challenged as a statement of theology: a philosophical opinion. Even the
Church itself disagrees on the beginning of life. A great Catholic Saint,
Thomas Aquinas, identified the "quickening", when the baby first stirs
inside the mother, as the beginning of life. Is Saint Thomas Aquinas now in
danger of excommunication, as the Church seeks to define life as beginning
before the mother?

 "embryonic-like"-this is an unsupported scientific judgment. Science itself
does not fully understand the properties of embryonic stem cells; how can a
non-scientific body assert that equivalency has been achieved? IPS may turn
out to be "embryonic-lite" instead of embryonic-like. IPS has already been
acknowledged to cause cancer in laboratory animals  Indications are that
these cells may be better for diagnosis than for actual use on people.
    "reprogramming"-that was the attempt of the experiment. But scientific
practice forbids claiming it as an accomplishment, until it is reliably
replicated by numerous independent efforts.
  "destroying human embryos"-here a religious organization attempts to
impose faith-based definitions on a scientific debate. Merriam-Webster's
dictionary defines embryo: "especially : the developing human individual
from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after
conception."  According to the world's leading dictionary, therefore, the
Catholic Church is just plain wrong when it claims embryos are
destroyed-because these were not embryos in the first place, having never
been implanted in the womb.
"The Conference urges the state government to pursue this research with the
public funds earmarked in the New York State budget for stem cell research."
The spokesperson for the Church has no more right to dictate public policy
for science as science has to dictate theological positions to the
church-which is to say, no right at all.
"pro-life"-how can a religion call itself pro-life when it opposes research
which may save the lives of millions?
"Today marks the dawn of a new age for ethical scientific research and
discovery". The Church has been a consistent enemy to medical advances,
opposing everything from dissection and the study of human anatomy (the very
basis of medical research), to x-rays (opposed because they might be used to
see through women's clothing) to polio research (which used tissue from
aborted fetuses) to the cloning of viruses and DNA research which gave us
artificial insulin and over 100 critical medications for heart disease and
cancer, -just as now, it opposes embryonic stem cell research-but today is
somehow a "new dawn", because the church graciously accepts one form of stem
cell derivation, while still attempting to block others?
"ethical dilemmas of embryonic stem cell research"-the only ethical dilemmas
have been those emotional firestorms the Church itself stirred up. For it to
make such a claim is like an arsonist complaining about heat.
"human cloning"-the research the Church seeks to block (Somatic Cell Nuclear
Transfer, SCNT, sometimes called therapeutic cloning) does not clone humans
at all. "Cloning" of cells is what science wants, not the dangerous and
useless nightmare of attempting to clone people. Reproductive cloning is
against the law in California, a state which understands the difference
between copying cells and copying people.
"eliminating the need for them"-Embryonic stem cells are the gold standard
for the scientific community, as acknowledged by the very scientists the
Catholic Church is praising right now. The lead investigators of both
studies are on record as supporting the continuation of embryonic stem cell
research. As a non-scientific body, the Church has no standing to make such
a claim, pretending to foresee the needs of medical science.
"simply adding four genes"-- there is nothing simple about adding four genes
(genetic research, of course, was also opposed by the same Church which now
blesses its results)--  one of the genes in the experiment has properties
that create tumors. Approximately 20% of the laboratory mice in one of the
two experiments developed cancer. In the second experiment, one of the four
genes used is known to cause leukemia. Also, genetic manipulation also
carries the risk of cell mutation-these are not "simple" problems.
"the cell can be reprogrammed as a pluripotent stem cell". This is the hope
of the experimenters, not a proven fact. Many steps must follow before any
such statement can be made. It should be noted that many such claims have
been made before (see bottom of page) and did any of those claims eliminate
the need for embryonic stem cells? If we had listened to their claims, and
stopped doing embryonic stem cell research, we would not be heading to human
trials next year-- which we are.
"The process appears to be easier"-this assumes not only that the goal has
been accomplished, but also that it can be done again-- and easily too! That
is like saying, well, it should be easy for a human being to lift five
hundred pounds overhead, because two world champions have done it.
"more cost efficient"-this is a complete unknown. No one has even attempted
to perform reprogramming on a mass scale. For any new medicine to be
developed, vast quantities are required for testing, which is part of the
reason it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to bring one new drug or
practice to market. What we have here is an apparently promising
experimental method which may provide researchers with a tool for laboratory
studies, nothing more. It may take decades before theory (even assuming
success) can be translated into practice. Only when multiple trials have
produced sufficient materials which actually work, which bring healing
results to people-only then can true costs be estimated.
  "scientifically promising"-this is pure opinion. We will not know this
technique's true promise until it is replicated successfully. Will it be a
useful tool for research? We will not know until science investigates it
fully-- and even then, the questions of its usefulness for actual therapies
will have to be addressed. and translated into useful therapies.
"morally untroubling"- Morals are based on opinion, and opinions change. For
instance, apparently the church no longer objects to experiments on material
drawn from aborted fetuses (which was the case in one of the two experiments
they praised) or flesh taken from the penis of a newborn child (the other).
"Beyond the fact that scientists will no longer need to create" (embryos)
First, scientists do not create embryos for research. They use IVF
blastocysts already in existence, which are scheduled to be destroyed. Or,
they may use the product of SCNT, which involves neither sperm, nor womb,
nor implantation-calling that an embryo is like saying a lightning bolt is a
lightbulb because both involve electricity.
"and destroy". This is a deliberately loaded word.  If we do not except the
religious definition, then it is not destruction we are talking about, but
science in the public good: this is an attempt to save lives, not take them.
"human embryos"-again, imposition of a religious definition.
"the new process eliminates the need for donor eggs"-How do we know this?
Can the Catholic Conference predict the future? Scientists are only claiming
this discovery to be another area needing research. But the Catholic Church
is demanding the replacement of real embryonic stem cells with imitation
embryonic stem cells-- and nobody knows if they will work or not.
 "potential exploitation of poor women"-this refers to the payment of cash
to women who donate their eggs to the In Vitro Fertility(IVF)  process used
world wide to help childless couples, and, rarely, donations for research.
An estimated one million Catholics have been born by the IVF procedure, many
involving a financial payment. Interestingly, the Church at one point
declared the IVF procedure itself to be the moral equivalent of abortion,
and recommended excommunication for parents who sought to have a child by
that method. That policy has never been revoked, and to the best of my
knowledge is still in existence today-just not enforced, perhaps because the
church does not want to lose so many members.
"medical issues"-the Catholic church lacks standing to offer an opinion on
the multiple scientific/medical questions yet to be answered.
"tissue rejection"-ibid
"factor"--ibid
"best possible outcome"-for whom? Scientists who want the freedom to find
out which scientific method works best? Or Religion which seeks to impose
its will on the public? Certainly it is not the best outcome for patients
whose suffering will continue as their cures and therapies are delayed by
stifling other forms of stem cell research.
"people who yearn for cures of chronic disease and disabilities"-these are
the last people who would benefit from the scientific censorship the Church
has so frequently imposed, and is attempting to do so again.
"Much work needs to be done"-colossal understatement. Scientists must be
allowed to go forward on all four main areas of stem cell research-adult,
embryonic, SCNT, and the new "programming" method.
"it seems clear"-to whom? Religious opponents of research?
"hurdles"-the greatest hurdle to scientific advance is political opposition,
which the Church embodies.
"will be much easier to overcome"-again, the Church sets itself up as an
arbiter of science and medical research, a job for which it has no
qualification.
"than those that continue to plague"-the difficulties of finding cures to
disease have always been huge-or so many diseases would not be called
incurable. An estimated one hundred million Americans alone suffer chronic
illness or injury, from autism, Alzheimer's,  spinal cord injury, multiple
sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, on and on-and the Church still opposes
embryonic stem cell research, which might help millions.
"embryo research and cloning"-if embryo research was stopped, many of the
most terrifying birth defects could never be fought-and cloning? Human
reproductive cloning is a science fiction nightmare with neither need nor
constituency. But to remove  cell cloning from science would be as ludicrous
as denying it to gardeners, who practice cloning every time they cut a slip
from a plant. Shall we also deny the cloning of viruses, part of the DNA
research which gave us artificial insulin?
"direct all state funding that would have gone to destructive embryo
research and cloning into research utilizing this new procedure"-this is a
clear attempt at religious domination of the political process, from an
institution that has neither qualifications to determine the best science,
nor legal standing to impose its will.
"which can make our state a leader in the field."-The Church has
systematically opposed the medical research which gave us the medical
benefits we now enjoy-why should we accept their prescription? We should be
guided ratherby  California, in which biomedicine is the number one provider
of jobs-California which by Constitutional law supports the very research
the Church would ban.
"we continue to fully support funding for research on "adult" stem cells."
Despite loudly-voiced vows of poverty, the Catholic Church is the largest
property-owner in the world. If it wished to "fully support funding" the
church should at least contribute what California has-surely three billion
would not be too much from such a powerful global institution. Instead,
however, the Church has spent undisclosed amounts seeking to block research,
as in the state of Michigan, where the church (by its own admission) sent
out half a million (504,000) propaganda CDs to Catholic families,
"educating" them to oppose embryonic stem cell research.
"which already have many valuable therapeutic uses in the treatment of
disease and disability." The word "several" would be more accurate than
many. Adult stem cell research has been fully funded and studied for over 40
years and so has produced treatments, as for example in the use of blood
stem cells to fight certain forms of cancer. However, in too many cases,
there is no immune system match between the donor and the patient. All too
often, the patient dies for lack of this match.  Embryonic stem cell
research could allow the successful treatments of adult stem cell research
to be expanded to include all patients with a disease, not just a select
few. No one suggests that adult stem cell research be abandoned, or
criminalized-it is a part of full stem cell research-but no major
scientific, medical, or educational establishment supports the Church's
attempts to limit research to adult cells alone.
"life-saving research"-opponents of embryonic stem cell research often
criticize us for being too enthusiastic-for "hyping" our hopes. Is this not
exactly that?  Potentially life-saving would be more accurate.
"which should put an end to any scientific justification"-again, this is
ideological opinion, nothing more. The Church is not qualified to make any
such assertions, any more than a scientist should be considered experts on
theological debates.
"for embryo-destructive research"-this is loaded language, implying killing
of embryos, when in point of fact these are not embryos. Linguists may
debate about what makes an embryo, and the science is so new that language
must change to fit the new information. But it can be argued that even the
contents of a married woman's tampon contain a higher form of life than the
blastocysts used for research. That humble discarded item contains materials
that were once inside a woman's womb, whereas neither IVF-derived
blastocysts, nor an SCNT-derived ovasome will ever be inside a womb, and
therefore cannot possibly begin a pregnancy.
"cloning of human beings"- fear and smear tactics. No responsible scientific
or medical organization supports human reproductive cloning. But the copying
of cells, Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, (SCNT, sometimes called therapeutic
cloning) is supported by every major scientific, educational, and medical
group which has taken a position.
"The Catholic Conference represents New York State's Bishops in matters of
public policy." This seems an area of potential litigation. The Catholic
church cheerfully accepts a non-political status when it comes to paying
taxes. If it wants to avoid paying its share of taxes, like a non-political
charity, why then does it feel free to engage in politics? Indeed, an
argument can be made that as representatives of the Vatican, (which has the
status of a country) those who represent its wishes should be required to
register as foreign agents. Why is the Catholic Church allowed to act like a
domineering political agency whenever it wishes, but retreat to its
"non-political" status when it comes to paying taxes?
P.S. Karen found the following alleged "breakthroughs" some hailed as
"alternatives" to embryonic stem cell research. Some are still being
researched; others have been tossed aside. One, found seven years ago, is
even called the same name as the newest "breakthrough", reprogramming. Did
it replace the need for all the other "breakthroughs"? Did any of these
prove so wonderful that all the other methods to derive stem cells were
abandoned as useless-including the newest one?
Personally, I have no objection to any of them. I do not pretend to have all
the answers. If there is benefit from Adult, Embryonic, SCNT, or IPS cells,
that is to the good.
Science will find a way, unless it is censored into a new Dark Ages.
For an idea of the results of what scientific censorship can mean, we have
only to look back to the Dark Ages, when the Catholic Church had unopposed
power, and the Black Plague wiped out much of Europe-and medical dissection
for research was illegal.
Do we want that again?
Rayilyn Brown
Board Member AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's Foundation
[log in to unmask]

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