 |
 |
Newsday Electronic Publishing Battle Over Stem Cell Research Ethics, potential medical benefits take center stage by Kathleen Kerr - Staff Writer A legal battle over the fate of thousands of frozen human embryos has attracted an oddball collection of players: a movie actor, an attorney who worked on President George W. Bush's Florida election team, abortion opponents and several scientists. At stake is potentially groundbreaking stem cell research that could someday lead to cures for diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injuries. Stem cells -- possessing a seemingly magical ability to grow into tissues found throughout the human body -- can be extracted from human embryos and are a crucial element for such research. But the Bush administration has put a hold on federal funding for research that uses stem cells extracted from human embryos. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson has asked a panel to examine the ramifications of a Clinton administration rule that would allow the use of human embryos as a stem cell source. Now, two lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., present opposing arguments in the stem cell debate. Insisting that embryos are children who should be adopted and not destroyed in order to provide stem cells for science, two anti- abortion groups have sued the government in an attempt to permanently block government funding for embryonic stem cell research. The groups, the Tennessee-based Christian Medical Association, representing 14,000 doctors and dentists, and California-based Nightlight Christian Adoption, name the Department of Health and Human Services and Thompson as defendants in the lawsuit. Nightlight runs a program that arranges for would-be parents to "adopt” a frozen embryo from couples who have extras left over from their own infertility procedures. The embryo is implanted in the uterus of a so-called adoptive mother who then gives birth. The embryo transfer isn't legally recognized as adoption and is accomplished via contracts. Abortion rights advocates, however, contend the lawsuit represents a back-door attack on abortion rights guaranteed by the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. The lawsuit, they argue, seeks to define when life begins by treating embryos as adoptable children. "It's part of the overall effort by opponents of abortion rights to stop women from having abortions,” said Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. Michelman said the lawsuit, if successful, could harm medical research by eliminating a source for stem cells. "What most Americans don't know is their health is being held hostage to anti-abortion politics,” Michelman said. But Samuel Casey, an attorney with Human Rights Advocates, one of two law firms handling the lawsuit, insists the embryos are "pre-born children” in need of rescue. "We are seeing a refugee population [the embryos] that nobody wants,” Casey said. "We should offer them a place where they can live free. They're on death row now.” Now, some stem cell researchers have struck back with a lawsuit that seeks to force the Bush administration to start funding work involving the controversial cells. The embryos in question -- preserved in liquid nitrogen in fertility clinics across the country -- belong to couples who, in a quest for offspring, underwent fertility treatments and produced a number of embryos, which were frozen to keep them viable. But once a pregnancy is achieved and leftover embryos are no longer needed, they can be destroyed unless they're donated to science. The legal brouhaha stems from the Clinton administration's decision late last year to allow the National Institutes of Health to fund stem cell research but not the actual procedure used to obtain the cells that destroys embryos. Bush has indicated he opposes embryonic stem cell research. Because federal law bans federal funding for experimentation on embryos, under the Clinton rule, those scientists who receive government money would not be permitted to extract the cells from the embryos. Instead, scientists would receive cells from government-approved private researchers who would remove them from embryos created during in vitro fertilization. Embryos could not be created for the sole purpose of research. "There's no question that it's a politically awkward situation for the Bush administration,” says bioethicist Tom Murray, president of the Hastings Center think tank in Garrison, N.Y. "On the one hand they have a policy put in place by the previous administration and they also have a secretary of Health and Human Services on the record supportive of embryonic stem cell research,” Murray notes. "On the other side are people and groups with right-to-life convictions who see the taking apart of an embryo to create stem cells as murder so I don't doubt the authenticity of their beliefs.” Along with Casey, Thomas Hungar, an attorney with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, a Washington law firm, represents the anti-abortion groups. Hungar worked on the legal team that helped Bush prevail in the Florida election battle. "The reason we got involved was because it seemed clear the NIH [National Institutes of Health] policies were in violation of federal law, particularly the congressional ban on funding for this type of research,” Hungar said. "If embryos are destroyed for the purposes of research then those embryos are not going to be available for adoption.” But the scientists who stand to lose funding aren't sitting still. Along with actor Christopher Reeve of "Superman” fame, seven scientists have sued to preserve federal funding for their work. Reeve, paralyzed since a horseback riding accident several years ago, backs stem cell research, which holds out hope for new treatments for spinal cord injuries. Attorney Jeffrey Martin, who practices in Washington, represents the scientists including stem cell pioneers Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin and John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. "What we wanted to do was make clear the court heard from people who are affected by this issue,” Martin said. "There's a very strong argument for the legality of the guideline.” The scientists want the government to implement the Clinton guidelines and to start the approval process for funding requests. They contend adult stem cells, used in some research, are not as versatile as those derived from embryos. Still, some scientists disagree. David Prentice, a stem cell researcher and professor of life sciences at Indiana State University, joined the anti-abortion groups in their lawsuit. "I see an unlimited potential with the adult stem cells,” Prentice said. "Our whole thrust is we need to be curing disease but doing it ethically without any human beings dying in the process.” "Our position is that these are children,” says JoAnn Davidson, director of the Snowflakes program. "It's about these children and they're killing them off.” The Snowflakes program is small. Since 1997, just seven babies have been born to women who "adopted” embryos through Snowflakes. Four more women are pregnant with embryos they obtained through the program. The Snowflakes "adoption” is really just a contract since embryo adoptions aren't legal; a $3,500 fee covers legal work, contracts, documentation and shipping embryos from clinics to couples who want them. Couples then pay their physicians to perform the implants. Dr. Zev Rosenwaks, director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility at Cornell University Medical College in Manhattan, says he sees nothing wrong with the Snowflakes program but that it's not true adoption. "It's embryo donation,” Rosenwaks said. "An embryo is not in and of itself a definite life. It's not a human life until it's implanted in the uterus.” Bioethicist Arthur Caplan, head of the bioethics center at the University of Pennsylvania, says he doesn't see much point in the Snowflakes Program. "The whole concept is daffy,” Caplan said. "In the scheme of these things, relatively few people would want to do this. These embryos are not viewed as people by most Americans.” Now the clock is ticking. A Bush administration response to the scientists' lawsuit is due in less than 60 days. http://www.newsday.com/news/daily/stem601.htm ********** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn