LISTSERV 16.0 - PARKINSN Archives

Message-ID: <001201c43f4b$2c0bbb80$b1ff3d18@yourn3ty7athd5>
Reply-To: "Diane Wyshak" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Diane Wyshak" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Fw: Senator Specter: The Ethical Dilemma of Stem-Cell Research
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:49:16 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


----- Original Message -----
From: "Meyer, Steve" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Steve Meyer (E-mail)" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 11:13 AM
Subject: FW: Senator Specter: The Ethical Dilemma of Stem-Cell Research


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Mazzaschi" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 10:30 AM
> Subject: Senator Specter: The Ethical Dilemma of Stem-Cell Research
>
>
> The following commentary by Senator Specter also appears in the new issue
of
> The Forward.
>
> Tony Mazzaschi
> AAMC
>
> BOTH SIDES: The Ethical Dilemma of Stem-Cell Research
> By ARLEN SPECTER
>
> I have a constituent by the name of Jim Cordy who suffers from Parkinson's
> disease. When I am at events in the Pittsburgh area, I often see Jim hold
up
> an hourglass to demonstrate how delays in critical medical research have
> left him watching the hours of his life slip away just as the sand slips a
> grain at a time through the hourglass.
>
> Jim contracted Parkinson's when he was 40 years old, and has been waiting
> for scientific progress against the disease ever since. Over the years, I
> have watched as his condition has deteriorated. It is literally a race
> against time for Jim and millions of others with similar diseases.
>
> For them, the debate regarding stem cells is much more than a debate about
> "research." It is a debate about saving lives.
>
> Stem cells have the extraordinary ability to replace damaged or diseased
> cells in the body, and have the potential to be used to treat the more
than
> 100 million Americans * like Jim Cordy * who are affected by deadly and
> disabling diseases and conditions, including cancer, heart disease,
> diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries and multiple
> sclerosis.
>
> Embryonic stem cells can be derived from in vitro-fertilized embryos that
> are developed in excess of those needed for the procedure used to enable
> infertile couples to have children. The in vitro fertilization process
> results in more embryos than are needed by the couple. There are estimated
> to be more than 400,000 such embryos * which are currently frozen and
likely
> will be destroyed if not donated * available for research, with the
informed
> consent of the couple.
>
> The concern of many opponents of the research has been that stem cells
> derived from human embryos would potentially destroy life. The fact is
that
> the only human embryos that are used as a basis for stem-cell research are
> those that would otherwise be discarded from in vitro fertilization
clinics.
> This is not a matter of using a human embryo that has the potential to
> produce life. Rather, these otherwise discarded embryos have the potential
> to save lives.
>
> >From my position as chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services
> Appropriations Subommittee, I took the lead in allocating $2 million for
> embryo adoption, but the unused frozen embryos continue to grow in number.
>
> Some say that we should ban medical research related to stem cells because
> it is unproven and may lead to unintended consequences. These fears were
> heard 25 years ago during a debate on a new biotechnology called
recombinant
> DNA.
>
> At the time, many believed that recombinant DNA could be used to cure
> diseases, while others thought the technology was unproven and unsafe. In
> the end, Congress allowed this research to go forward. The results are
> clear: Recombinant DNA has led to the development of vaccines, insulin for
> diabetics and drugs to fight AIDS, cancers and many other diseases.
>
> President Bush allowed the first federal funding of embryonic stem-cell
> research by making funding available for research on stem-cell lines that
> had been derived before August 9, 2001. Originally, it was thought that 78
> stem-cell lines were available for federal funding, and that these lines
> would allow significant progress toward cures. The president made a
sincere
> and thoughtful effort to strike an acceptable balance on this issue.
>
> Unfortunately, more than two years after the policy was instituted, only
19
> stem-cell lines are available to federally funded scientists. All these
> lines are contaminated by the use of mouse-feeder cells and probably will
> never meet the standards required for human treatment. There is no doubt
> that these lines are inadequate for the quality of research needed.
>
> Since August 9, 2001, significant progress has been made in the science of
> stem-cell derivation and handling. Several stem-cell lines derived after
> that date have been either derived or grown without the use of
mouse-feeder
> cells * but under Bush's current policy, these more advanced stem-cell
lines
> are not available to federally funded scientists.
>
> In other words, the embryonic stem-cell lines eligible for federal funding
> will not be suitable to promote life-saving research. With more than
400,000
> spare embryos available at in vitro fertilization clinics * again, embryos
> that would otherwise be discarded and destroyed * there is a real question
> of why the National Institutes of Health funding should be available only
> for stem-cell lines in existence as of 9:00 p.m. on August 9, 2001. It is
> essential that the current policy restrictions be relaxed to allow this
> research to be fully explored. The time has come to expand the current
> policy on human embryonic stem cells so that American scientists and
> physicians can continue to make strides toward cures and treatments.
>
> There is no doubt that the debate on human embryonic stem cells makes us
> question our priorities, compassion, morals and ethics. That is as it
should
> be with any new scientific journey. We must choose a path that does not
> impede the progress of science, that gives us the best chance to help
those
> who may benefit from stem-cell research, and that does so in a moral and
> ethical fashion.
>
> Recently, Nancy Reagan came out strongly in favor of stem-cell research.
She
> sees the chance to help others through her support of the research that
> might one day help those like her husband, President Reagan, who is
> afflicted with Alzheimer's disease. "Ronnie's long journey has finally
taken
> him to a distant place where I can no longer reach him," she recently
said.
> "Because of this, I'm determined to do whatever I can to save other
families
> from this pain. I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this."
>
> The American playwright Howard Sackler once wrote, "To intervene between
our
> fellow creatures and their suffering or death, is our most authentic
answer
> to the question of our humanity." Now is the time for the healing to
begin.
>
> Before we close off the opportunity to save lives, we owe it to ourselves
> and future generations to at least give this research a chance. With the
> limited number of stem-cell lines currently available, and their
> contamination with mouse-feeder cells, the potential for "breakthrough
> therapies and cures" noted by Bush in his 2001 announcement of federal
> funding for stem-cell research cannot be achieved.
>
> These therapies could change the practice of medicine forever. They also
> might prevent others from following President Reagan on his long journey,
> and might just allow Jim Cordy to put down his hourglass.
>
>
> Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, is chairman of the
Labor,
> Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee.
>
>
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn