 |
 |
TAMPA TRIBUNE Jun 23, 2001 Stem-cell debate consumes American Heart Association LAURIE MCGINLEY of The Wall Street Journal When Deby Schlapprizzi was asked to organize the 2001 Heart Ball for the American Heart Association's St. Louis chapter, she did what she always does when faced with a difficult challenge: She prayed. Then she tackled the job with her usual gusto. From her sprawling stucco house in this affluent St. Louis suburb, Schlapprizzi enlisted more than 40 women to plan the fundraiser, began lining up corporate sponsors and helped select the theme: ``Twilight in Tuscany: a Celebration of the Heart.'' Then, just as she was getting started, she stopped. She heard that the Heart Association's board had endorsed research using embryonic stem cells. That was intolerable to Schlapprizzi, a devout Catholic who says she believes such research is immoral. Her problem is with the sources of the stem cells - either excess embryos donated by couples who have undergone in vitro fertilization, or aborted fetuses. Her Heart Ball committee disbanded. Planning for the event, expected to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, went on indefinite hold. ``It was a tremendous disappointment,'' Schlapprizzi says now. ``But this was about me doing what I needed to do.'' Schlapprizzi's defection led to a wrenching debate inside the Heart Association - a debate that mirrors the one going on in the Bush administration about whether the federal government should fund the research. Embryonic stem-cell research offers hope of alleviating heart disease and other debilitating illnesses and has support in the medical, scientific and academic communities. But it also outrages Schlapprizzi, the Roman Catholic Church and others because extracting the cells from embryos destroys the embryos. How the debate plays out in coming years could have enormous implications for health science. A DECISION from the Bush administration on federal funding is expected soon, once top officials there resolve their differences - with right-to-life forces on one side and the Department of Health and Human Services on the other. Whoever wins, the fight is likely to resume this fall when Congress weighs HHS's appropriations. Meanwhile, the story behind the American Heart Association's soul-searching journey through this emotional issue shows the deep fault lines it has created in the debate about medical ethics. The stem-cell debate began in November 1998, when researchers for the first time isolated and cultured human embryonic stem cells, which can be turned into any type of cell. Scientists predicted the finding would fuel the expanding field of ``regenerative medicine'' in which new tissue and organs could be grown to replace those hurt by disease and injury. The breakthrough excited many of the AHA's 30,000 member physicians, nurses and researchers, who clamored for the association to explore further. AHA leaders saw an opportunity to push harder toward their ambitious 1997 goal of reducing death and disability because of heart disease by 25 percent by 2010. In early 1999, the AHA named a task force to study whether to underwrite stem-cell research and to support federal funding. Led by Elizabeth Nabel, now a National Institutes of Health researcher, the group surveyed the AHA's lay and scientific volunteers. They generally supported both efforts. Last June, the task force endorsed both to the board. Yes, there would be debate, . Nabel said. But her panel concluded the criticism ``will not likely have a significant adverse impact on fundraising efforts, and any adverse effect will be short-term.'' The board debated the matter. Some raised concerns the backlash would be greater than expected. But they agreed to proceed, to develop strict guidelines and avoid making a public announcement. IT DIDN'T TAKE LONG for news of the board's action to make it to St. Louis, where the population is nearly 30 percent Catholic. It began with Schlapprizzi, 46, a mother of four, whose other charitable work included giving talks to teenage girls about chastity and promoting the antiabortion efforts of the St. Louis archdiocese. Her father, Anthony Sansone Sr., is a prominent real-estate developer who contributes heavily to Catholic causes and had pledged $10,000 to the Heart Ball. When Schlapprizzi heard about the AHA's stem-cell decision, she called the St. Louis office to ask a few questions and let people know she wasn't pleased. One staff member turned for help to Stephen Spurgeon, a local doctor who was on the AHA's national board and had voted to endorse the research. Spurgeon and Schlapprizzi met in her home. She told him, ``I need to understand why this went through. '' THE DOCTOR EXPLAINED that scientists believe stem-cell research will save lives. To Schlapprizzi, that was a problem. She said that if the research was widely perceived as good, `it could provide a justification for abortion.'' If the AHA board wouldn't reconsider, she said, ``I don't think I can continue.'' In mid-July, she wrote a letter to the AHA's St. Louis division. If the association didn't revoke its stem-cell decision, she wrote, ``I will have to resign my current position as chairperson of Heart Ball 2001, and withdraw support from the American Heart Association.'' The letter spelled disaster for Peter Strassner, who had just become chairman of the AHA's St. Louis board in June. The corporate lawyer says he hadn't given embryo research much thought and had no personal qualms about it. Now, it was jeopardizing the Heart Ball and possibly other fundraising efforts, which typically bring in more than $2 million a year. THINGS GOT WORSE. St. Louis Archbishop Justin Rigali, who has known Schlapprizzi's family for years, denounced stem-cell research as immoral in his own letter to the association's national office. He vowed ``to discourage Catholics from supporting the AHA.'' That meant he might very well bar the involvement of parochial schools in the AHA's ``Jump Rope for Heart'' program and the involvement of Catholic hospitals in the American Heart Walk, the chapter's biggest fundraiser. In addition, two local board members told Strassner they might resign, three nominees to the board said they wouldn't join, and several staffers were grousing about the decision. THEN, ON A BUSINESS TRIP in late July, Strassner bumped into one of his board members in Chicago's Midway Airport. All the way to St. Louis, the woman argued the stem-cell decision would cause lasting damage to the association. By the time the plane touched down, Strassner was determined to change the national AHA's mind. Strassner, along with St. Louis division President Craig Reiss, a cardiologist, sent a two-page letter to M. Cass Wheeler, chief executive of the association, detailing the potential financial impact on St. Louis alone. Schlapprizzi had withdrawn her own family's $10,000 pledge, as had her father. An additional $150,000 in pledges arranged by Schlapprizzi and her committee were likely to disappear as well. The spring Heart Walk, expected to raise nearly $900,000, might also be in trouble because the event's chairman was the chief operating officer of a big Catholic health care system and several participating hospitals were Catholic. The association's national leaders initially rebuffed the pleas from St. Louis. In a letter to Rigali, William Bryant, the Alabama attorney who chairs the AHA, and Rose Marie Robertson, president, insisted stem-cell research was crucial to reducing heart disease and that ``ethical considerations were at the center of the discussion'' by the board. For Bryant, it was a poignant issue. He is a Catholic, but his father-in-law and brother-in-law died from heart disease and his wife suffers from it. That means his two children were at risk. ``What if it turns out they could grow a new heart for my son when he's 40?'' Bryant asks. As Labor Day neared, the stem-cell debate exploded nationally after the National Institutes of Health outlined final plans for funding embryonic stem-cell research. A few days later, Pope John Paul II denounced such experiments as ``not morally acceptable, even when their proposed goal is good in itself.'' In Dallas, where the AHA is based, officials began hearing more complaints from around the country. Meanwhile, Robertson let the association's medical professionals and academics know the stem-cell decision had come under fire. Hundreds responded with e-mails, letters and phone calls saying not to bow. But some scientists began to worry the stem-cell stance would threaten the funding of other AHA research. In an informal poll by Robertson, a third of the association's medical professionals urged the board to stick to its stance. But another third said the AHA should consider reversing itself if overall research funding could shrink by 10 percent to 25 percent. On Oct. 26, the association's national board met to reconsider the stem-cell policy. In the pivotal vote, the board rescinded its decision to underwrite embryonic stem cell research and agreed to limit its support involving adult stem cells. http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGAJ4NDWAOC.html * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn