 |
 |
Dear Listfriends, Here is a draft of letter I am going to send to the editors of my local newspapers to educate and persuade on this issue, and I thought I'd post it here to get suggestions and to possibly serve as a sample. I hope we will do lots of letter writing, and, in case anyone uses mine for inspiration, please let me know how you improved it in the process! Dear Editor, I am one of the millions of Americans who suffer from a fatal or debilitating disease such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, and osteoporosis. In recent years scientists have been studying the use of embryonic stem cells to find a cure for these and other conditions, and the results of their studies are so far very promising. The cells are called stem cells because they have not yet branched out to take on the features of particular tissue types, such as nerve, bone or muscle. Studies have shown that when stem cells are injected into tissue of a specific type, they can be made to reproduce and take on the features of their surroundings. Thus stem cells offer the possibility of providing a replacement for tissue lost due to disease. Embryonic stem cells are extracted from early stage embryos that are excess byproducts of infertility treatment. If these embryos are not donated to research, they will be simply disposed of. The National Institutes of Health have published guidelines which ensure that the embryos from which stem cells are extracted with government funding are created for no other purpose than to treat infertility. The guidelines also prevent creating embryos for profit or for use by designated recipients. Donation requires the informed consent of the donors. Critics of stem cell research contend that this use of excess embryos is immoral and unnecessary. Immoral, because in the process of extracting stem cells the embryos are destroyed. Unnecessary, because there are adult stem cells which will, they allege, serve equally well. I believe that these critics are mistaken on both points, and they are mistaken in their rejection of an extremely promising form of medical treatment as well. Extraction of stem cells is not the violation of human life that the critics contend it to be. The embryos from which the cells are extracted are developmentally less than one week old. They have not been and will not be implanted in a woman's uterus. They are not on the way to becoming an infant. They have no nerves, muscles, or cartilege, no circulatory or digestive system, no heart, no lungs, no sense organs, no awareness of anything harmful, no mental processes of any type at all. They consist of groups of no more than 100 cells which under a microscope look like a round glob. It is a great distortion to describe them as "people", "children", or "babies". The critics note that stem cells have been shown to exist in adults, and they contend that using adult stem cells will suffice. But researchers of adult stem cells believe that the versatility of adult stem cells is rather limited by comparison, and that it is too early to say what their ultimate potential relative to embryonic stem cells will be. Also, it may be a considerable problem to extract the desired stem cells from adults. To use embryonic stem cells in medical research and treatment rather than to merely dispose of them would greatly enhance their value. There are politicians and clergymen who oppose stem cell research and treatment. The political opposition happens to include presidential candidate George W. Bush and many Republican congressional members or candidates. What a crime it would be to sacrifice the health of millions of Americans to the views of a vocal minority. Phil Tompkins