 |
 |
Linda, I am a new PWP, work in an office, type, do graphic layout and design with the computer. My doctor recently told me he did not know why my typing should suffer with this disease (this is the same doctor I have written about before and am in the process of replacing-hopefully this month). I will print off your message - and explain to him again why I must find a doctor who knows more about Parkinson's. I can still type and do design, but know now that it will inevitably become more and more difficult. Good thing is, now I can plan for it. My "anniversary" is approaching, only two years since diagnosed - closer to three since I noticed symptoms. God Bless you this holiday season. I will pray for you and a cure. Melanie -----Original Message----- From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Linda J Herman Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 6:52 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: A parkinson's anniversary and an article Dear list friends, Today is the sixth "anniversary" of my Parkinson's diagnosis. Six years ago i could have typed these few paragraphs in a just a few minutes. This morning it took a great deal longer. Yet after 6 years i know i am one of the luckier PWP. My functioning is more limited, but not yet disabled. As many of us have been told when we were first diagnoses --"a cure is coming soon".."just around the corner"... "so many advances in the research"...."a breakthrough in five years"... etc. etc. What the neuros fail to tell us about are all the political forces slowing or blocking the promise of scientific advances. We've seen the same cycles with stem cell reseach -- announcement of positive research results -- media hype in the news -- knee- jerk reactions by politicians -- attempts by pressure groups actions to ban public funding, or the research itself -- attempts by researchers and disease advocates and journalists to publicize facts on what the new technology is and what it isn't -- political reactions to stop or limit the research while the ethics are further "studied." In the European Union nations, in Australia and other countries, governments acted decidedly and swiftly in permitting and funding therapeutic cloning for controlled research purposes and banning research that would be used to create humans. While in the U.S,. the House of Representatives passes and the Senate is considering a bill threatening scientists with prison if they pursue research that may bring the cure for PD and so many other diseases. As i begin year seven i'm hoping my government won't toss out the key. Linda FROM: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel December 3, 2001 Monday FINAL EDITION SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 09A HEADLINE: CLONING'S PERILS AND PROMISE; Let's not toss out the key BYLINE: MARIANNE MEANS "President Bush's premature and ill-informed condemnation of the human cloning experiments by a private Massachusetts company stands in sharp contrast to his prolonged consideration of whether to deny federal funds for stem cell research. He ended that deliberation by allowing the research to continue, but on a limited basis. The issues of cloning and stem cell research are not identical, although they are linked in the minds of those whose religion teaches that life begins at conception. Other religions teach that life begins later. Bush's emotional overreaction last week made no distinction between cloning to duplicate a human being, which the company says it's not doing, and therapeutic cloning, which is aimed at producing stem cells that can fight terrible diseases. The latter, the company says, is its goal. The issue is whether reverence for an embryo is more important than the promise of medical cures to prolong life and relieve pain. "The use of embryos to clone is wrong," Bush snapped, immediately after Advanced Cell Technology announced it had cloned the world's first human embryos. "We should not as a society grow life to destroy it. And that's exactly what's taking place." No, it isn't. The president panicked without knowing what he was talking about. He knocked down a straw man. Polls show there is no support in this country or abroad for the cloning of human beings to create their genetic twins, as researchers have done with animals. There are powerful ethical questions about producing artificial humans. But that is not what ACT did. The definition of "life" depends on whether one believes an embryo is in itself a living human being or a collection of cells with human potential if implanted in a woman's uterus. The researchers insist they will never place a cloned embryo in a woman's uterus. So it could not grow into a baby. The very word "cloning" makes some people hysterical. And the scientific implications are complex and confusing. It is some stretch to claim that ACT grew "life." It has cloned some embryos to try to harvest their stem cells to combat degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, for which there are no cures. None of the clones, however, lived long enough to produce any stem cells. Much more research has to be done. The laboratory announced the minimal breakthrough anyway in hopes of getting credit for being a pioneer in the field and attracting new financial support. In many other countries, leaders seem to have no trouble distinguishing between cloning for controlled research purposes and cloning to create humans. The European Union recently rejected a proposed ban on human cloning by a vote of 316 to 37. Britain expressly permits and regulates therapeutic cloning experiments but forbids human cloning. No European state has admitted it would ever permit a human baby to be produced by cloning. The U.S. House has approved a bill criminalizing human cloning for any purpose. The Senate, however, has taken no action. It has been inclined to sympathize more with the scientists and the sick who need improved medical treatments than with the pro-life religious conservatives. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) is pressing for a comprehensive anti-cloning measure that would either forbid the practice or impose a six-month moratorium on such research. But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) is leading the opposition. It is unclear which side has more support, but Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) says he will not schedule a vote on the issue until next year, after hearings can be held. "The scientific community is ready to put forward a very strong case," Specter said. "And I think that case will be persuasive to the Congress." Bush, of course, won't be listening. His mind is made up. He didn't wait for the facts or repeat the thoughtful deliberation he went through in deciding to block funding for research on new stem cell lines but to continue funding for existing cell lines. He should have stayed out of the new cloning issue, and so should Congress. The science in cloning is coming and can't be stopped. The toothpaste is out of the tube. If we ban the technology in America, we will fall behind other countries in the search for medical cures. The wise course would be to keep both public and private research legal so that it will be done in the open and can be regulated. The Bush administration doesn't approve of most regulations, but this is one area in which government supervision -- but not suppression -- is needed." ------------ Marianne Means is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn