Print

---

I wanted to enter the stem cell debate with a few observations.  Stem
cell research while promising  it is not by any means certain that the
research in the field will bear fruit.  That is the nature of research.
According to polls about  65% of the population of the US agrees with
further stem cell research while 35% disagrees.  It appears that  it is
opposed primarily on moral grounds  rather than economic or scientific .
The moral grounds appear to be primarily based on  the religious notion
that human  life begins at conception and therefore any  interference
with this is against God's law.  If you accept the basic premise  the
research into  stem cells  involves  the taking  of a human life. -
but only if you accept the premise that the interruption of the process
of development of life is murder no matter what stage it occurs in.

Others- the majority of Americans- look at the use of stem cells as a
practical matter,  that the research potentially may bear fruit and
conquer many diseases.  but  again it may be a false hope and turn out
to be a blind alley.  Then we have committed  what some consider murder
without the positive results. of developing a cure for anything.

Without getting into the abortion debate and opening that  can of worms
the embryos needed for  research into stem cells come from cell lines
developed from IVF(in vitro  fertilization) .This procedure was
developed for the purpose  of  allowing childless  couples  to  have
children,  This  is a  positive  thing  and very pro life,  even  though
it may involve the disposing  of  embryos which are potentially human
beings.   There is a net gain of wanted children in the world which most
people see as good..   These embryos potentially can be a source for
cells used to find cures for many human illnesses-  embryos which are
the by-product of IVF. This research,  in my estimation is quite pro
life too It is anti life to allow these embryos to go unused and
flushed  down the toilet  rather than used for research.

For those people who disagree  and feel that IVF and stem cell research
is immoral  then  I can admire their consistency of their religious
beliefs but  I also condemn their infliction of  their beliefs on  the
portion of society- in this case the majority-  which does not
subscribe  to their doctrine of faith.

I believe that human life is sacred and must be protected.  But I define
human life as beginning  at birth.  Quality of life is also critical. I
guess this is consistent with my religious tradition but it is I
recognize as largely  arbitrary.  While some might disagree, it is a
greater evil to allow suffering to continue in the world and to throw
out the embryos than  to experiment and therefore possibly relieve the
suffering of those of us who have illnesses like PD. Would you choose
the life of  your one or two week  embryo  in a petri dish over the life
of your living breathing child or your spouse or yourself?.  I would.
make the choice without thinking twice .

What angers me is that those who differ from me with regard to this are
inflicting their religious beliefs on me and harming me in the process
by preventing this line of research.  Why do they oppose this research?
No one is forcing them to take advantage of the  possible benefits of
science.  No one will force them to participate in it in any way like to
have IVF (or the possible wanted children they might conceive  through
this process)  or to cure their  PD or other illnesses they might suffer
from that  research might cure. This is a position that is truly PRO LIFE.

With regard to our democracy it allows those who wish to participate to
do so and those who don't to opt out. Ideally it maximizes freedom and
choice while not coercing anyone to do anything that they don't believe
in unless it has a direct effect to prevent someone else from exercising
his or her rights.

  If you regard flushing the product of conception as murder  then
remember that most people do not hold that view and the definition of
the beginning of life is arbitrary and comes from religious beliefs and
varies even within religions.  If we are to survive as a democracy we
cannot inflict our religious beliefs on one another as much as we may
disagree with what they may be saying or doing.

To Bob Fink In answer to your  statement  of today:.

Many of us who oppose this kind of work oppose it because of the "potential"
for mischief.  Just as those who support it do so because of the *potential* for
benefits

The "slippery slope" argument is bogus. One could potentially use it to
stop any kind of research- such as genetic research  because it may lead
to people wanting to abort  pregnancies because of the possibility of
genetic anomalies.  Should we stop that type of research because it has
the "potential"  for use in a way that you disagree.  Or perhaps  not
teach evolution because it may undermine ''creationist " biblical
doctrine and disrupt  peoples faith  in the literal interpretation of
the Bible.  We can prevent sliding down the "slippery. slope "  by
remaining alert.  And with people on our side like Oren Hatch and Nancy
Reagan and George Schultz I don't think you have to worry that Stem Cell
Research will lead to an increased acceptance of infanticide or even
abortion  or other fears that the " Right to life" people have.


Charlie

Charles T. Meyer, MD
Middleton WI

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