MARIANNE MEANS Syndicated Hearst
Columnist
Washington- The political struggle over abortion intrudes
once again on an
issue crucial to the health of millions of Americans,
pitting reverence for
undeveloped, unborn human tissue against potential
advances in medical
treatment for living men, women and children.
In this case it is not the mental and physical
well-being of a pregnant
woman that is endangered but that of victims
suffering from Parkinson's and
Alzheimer's diseases, diabetes and other
serious illnesses.
Where should compassion lie?
With inanimate, non-breathing embryonic
stem cells or disabled and sick
friends and family members needing medical
help? No contest, I say. Save the
living.
Scientific evidence indicates that
biomedical research on human
embryonic stem cells could lead to remedies for
all sorts of life-threatening
human afflictions not now curable. Scientists
do not consider the cells
themselves to be embryos because they can be
extracted and isolated and have
not yet grown into the specialized matter
that makes up muscles, nerves,
blood and organs. The potential for
unprecedented medical miracles by
replacing diseased tissue with stem cells
is astonishing.
But anti-abortion activists don't
care about reality. They equate the
cells with an intact, full-term fetus
and demand the same legal rights for
the cells as those granted a living
person.
"Stem cell research is immoral," thunders
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan, a
leading anti-abortion crusader.
Sen. Arlen Specter,R-Pa, and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa,
define dignity and
morality differently. They say that stem cell research
hold so much potential
that "it is morally wrong" to keep scientists from
pursing it. Their priority
is in giving millions in pain the chance for a
life-saving cure.
Caught in the emotional clamor
are federal regulations, issued in
August, that require all stem cell
research to be conducted under strict
ethical guidelines.
Under the rules, the microscopic clumps of cells
must come from embryos
created in clinics for fertility treatment, and are
due to be discarded
because they are no longer needed. Extra embryos are
often created for
multiple in-vitro pregnancies attempts. Unless
implanted in a woman, the
tissue cannot grow into a fetus. Using these spare
embryos does not amount to
killing babies.
This
has become a presidential campaign issue because the Senate is
considering a
bill to allow government-sponsored scientists the freedom to
engage in
embryonic stem cell research, so long as they follow the new
guidelines. For
five years Congress has banned the use of taxpayer funds for
research that
directly involves embryos. The basic progress in this area has
been made by
privately sponsored scientists.
Specter and Harkin
have held seven hearing on the issue and Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott
has promised a vote on the bill before Congress
adjourns this Fall.
As with other abortion-related issues, Vice
President Al Gore and Gov.
George W. Bush are on opposite sides.
Gore firmly puts the disabled and ill first,
favoring the extension and
funding of embryonic stem cell research. He does
not believe that life begins
at conception but rather when the fetus
"quickens" and has the potential of
living outside the mother. Consequently
he supports the concept that abortion
should be an issue between a woman and
her doctor.
Bush, by contrast, believes in life at
conception and is firmly
anti-abortion, except if necessary to save the life
of the mother. This
places him in the camp that opposes embryonic stem cell
research.
But Bush say he supports the concept of
federal help to expand medical
studies. He promised to "fund and lead a
medical moon shot to reach far
beyond what seems possible today and discover
new cures for age-old
afflictions." He said if elected president he would
spend $91 billion to
promote federal research on a variety of diseases,
including Alzheimer's.
His promise is a fraud,
however, if he refuses to let scientists pursue
the most promising avenue to
a "medical moon shot"-embryonic stem cell
research.
Do we live in a modern world of technological
breakthroughs or a
medieval fortress trapped in religious dogma and
intellectual ignorance? To
stop medical research on the grounds of ethical
considerations not shared by
everyone would be a tragedy for those with
diseases, but also for the rest of
us.
Marianne Means is Washington, D.C. columnist with Hearst
Newspapers.
Copyright 2000 Hearst Newspapers.
***************************************************************
The stated
position of the Presidential Candidate's for stem cell research:
Gore=For, Bush=Against.
Your vote counts! (If you don't vote, that
counts too!)
Sid Levin
