 |
 |
The source of this article is The Houston Chronicle: http://tinyurl.com/4fm2d Aug. 17, 2004, 10:20PM Stem cells Nothing can justify arbitrary, unreasoning restrictions on federal support for embryonic research aimed at reducing human suffering. Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle In August 2001, as he was issuing regulations for federally funded research on embryonic stem cells, President Bush wrote, "Stem cell research is still at an early, uncertain age, but the hope it offers is amazing: infinitely adaptable human cells to replace damaged or defective tissue and treat a wide variety of diseases." ADVERTISEMENT Last week, first lady Laura Bush said it was unfair to raise false hopes that embryonic stem cell research would quickly result in medical cures. The divergence of those two statements illustrates why the administration has difficulty gaining traction on this suddenly hot issue. Laura Bush said it was unfair of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry to criticize her husband "without saying what's right." Kerry and his supporters devoted hours of the Democratic National Convention to urging fewer restrictions on federally financed research using embryonic stem cells. How can Kerry simultaneously overpraise the potential of the research, promising to invest $100 million, and not say what he thinks is right? Stem cell research is in its preliminary stages, but rapid progress is being made abroad. The uncertainty of the yield is reason to pursue the research and see where it leads. The Bush administration argues unconvincingly that if one doesn't know the results of research from the start, its funding and scope should be arbitrarily restrained. When he made his decision to limit federal funding to existing stem cell lines, President Bush applied Solomonic wisdom. He concluded that the baby should literally be split, regardless of the utility of keeping it whole. But the administration's policy, aimed at currying favor with the anti-abortion movement while avoiding blame for needlessly prolonging human suffering, cannot answer the question at the heart of the debate: Why is it ethical to use some stem cell lines derived from tiny embryos but not others? Laura Bush pointed out with pride that her spouse was the first president to fund embryonic stem cell research, which did not exist in prior administrations. If the research is not inherently amoral, there's no ethical reason to restrict it. All embryonic stem cell lines come from embryos created in fertility clinics so that older women and those with physical impediments can have children. Embryos not used for that purpose are routinely discarded. There is no reason other than electoral politics why those doomed cells should not be used responsibly in the pursuit of medical progress. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn