LISTSERV 16.0 - PARKINSN Archives

To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 16:42:11 -0400
Subject: Re: (no subject)
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Linda J Herman <[log in to unmask]>

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/29716_marianne.shtml

Bush can show his compassion
Tuesday, July 3, 2001
By MARIANNE MEANS
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

WASHINGTON -- If President Bush capitulates to anti-abortion zealots by
blocking federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, his carefully
cultivated image as a "compassionate conservative" will be exposed as a
sham; he will look like a "cruel conservative."

It would be mean of the president to prevent federal medical researchers
from exploring the promising potential of embryonic stem cells that many
experts believe hold the key to curing some of humanity's worst diseases
--
including Alzheimer's, from which former President Reagan suffers.

With one regulatory decision, he could possibly prolong the lives and
improve the health of millions of Americans. To throw away the
opportunity
to rejuvenate diseased tissues and organs and relieve the pain of the
sick
and elderly would be immoral and shameful.

Bush's delay in deciding what to do about federally funded embryonic
stem-cell research reflects the conflict between his political habit of
catering to anti-abortion voters and the growing national consensus that
it
is ridiculous to treat this important issue as one that involves
abortion.

The stem cells at the center of the controversy come from embryos that
are
created in fertility clinics by couples having trouble producing
children.
These cells are extracted from the extra embryos that are unused by the
couple, those that would be disposed of as unwanted and unneeded. The
stem
cells could not develop into an intact fetus that could become a living
person.

Britain, France and Canada have already passed rules encouraging embryo
cell research. But in February, after Bush had announced he would review
the Clinton administration's policy of federally funding such research,
18
Republican senators sent Bush a letter opposing "destructive embryo
research."

Yet Sen. Arlen Specter, one of many Republicans speaking out in favor of
funding the research, says: "It's different having an embryo in a dish
than
having one in a woman's womb.... Having an embryo in a woman's womb is
having a life. In a dish, it's just going to be discarded."

The most encouraging political development thus far is that the
president's
indecision has allowed time for common sense to crowd into a public
debate
that had been dominated by opposition from the Catholic Church and
single-minded anti-abortion activists.

Republicans as well as Democrats are urging the president not to be a
scientific Luddite and to fudge his campaign position against embryonic
stem-cell research.

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, an abortion opponent, weighed in by
noting that "the benefits are substantial, as we understand it, and they
should be carefully considered."

Other prominent Republican abortion opponents have also publicly appealed
to Bush to reconsider, including Sens. Strom Thurmond and Orrin Hatch.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson is leading the
pro-stem-cell fight within the administration. Vice President Dick Cheney
is reportedly sympathetic and supportive. But the president's chief
political adviser, Karl Rove, the guardian of White House right-wing
ideology, is firmly opposed. To him, the Catholic vote is all-important.

The president is wise to take his time with this issue. Some of his
earlier, hastily made policy pronouncements that affect foreign policy,
energy and the environment have proved to be unworkable and unpopular.
And
Bush himself does not seem to have a firm grasp of what is involved here.

In May he sent a form letter to a worried patient who suffers from
Parkinson's, one of the diseases most likely to be helped by stem-cell
research.

He repeated his campaign position, saying: "I oppose federal funding for
stem-cell research that involves destroying living human embryos. I
support
...research on life-threatening and debilitating diseases, including
promising research on stem cells from adult tissue."

Tossing adult cells into this mix is misleading, since a recent National
Institutes of Health report concludes that embryonic stem cells have a
greater potential for developing cures than stem cells from the bones and
organs of adults.

And the phrase "destroying living human embryos" is odd, since federal
law
already prohibits the use of federal money to finance researchers who
damage or destroy embryos. The NIH research that Bush temporarily halted
was confined to stem cells removed by privately funded researchers from
embryos that had been frozen at fertility clinics and that were due to be
discarded.

The scientific and moral questions here are more complicated than Bush's
stated opposition suggests. Does he mistakenly think stem cells come from
fetuses that have been aborted? Aren't stem cells legally something less
than human embryos? Why does Bush think these cells have more of a right
to
life than dying and ill children?

To avoid a congressional fight and a public outcry -- and because it is
the
right thing to do -- Bush should demonstrate political flexibility and
let
the research go ahead.

© 1998-2001 Seattle Post-Intelligencer