 |
 |
In a perfect world, individuals and societies would be able to bring all embryos to term. One-third of all pregnancies would not end in miscarriages. In vitro fertilization would not be necessary. Families would be able to have as many children (or none) as they want, and there would be no need for family planning as everybody would be very healthy and very wealthy and everybody would have everything they wanted and needed. Decisions about whether to go to war or not would never need to be made by leaders who consider life to be sacred because it would be obvious that war is evil and involved the taking of lives. Also, our judicial system would be very simple - there would be no tough decisions about balancing rights, including rights that often are presented to us in absolute terms . However, we don't live in a perfect world and so judges must decide between competing rights, governments must decide whether to go to war or not, and societies have to make difficult decisions about which social policies to endorse. The issue is not whether Scott's views are right or wrong "scientifically and philosophically" The issue is that his position is an abstraction and is fit only for a world other than our own - a perfect world. In the actual world, the one we occupy, there are people who suffer from diseases like juvenile diabetes, spinal injuries, macular degeneration, Alzheimer's, and of course, Parkinson's. Embryonic stem cell research is among the technologies that hold the possibility of curing these diseases. When hydro-electric power was brought to Niagara Falls a century or so ago constructon was sabotaged because there were those who said it was the devil's work; when Dr. Christian Barnard undertook the first heart transplant there were many who thought it was terrible. the Wright Brothers' first flight was a far cry from outer space. The turning point for ESCR research is now. People like Scott need to look at the issue in terms of a tough choice to be made between saving the life of someone who is sick, and prolonging the existence of embryos which will never be born. The solution is not always absolute although he would like to think it is. Difficult decisions have to be made all the time in the real world. A mother who has lost a 15-year old son in an auto accident, or a 5--year old daughter to cancer and who has also experienced a miscarriage is most likely to tell you that she grieves more for the son or daughter with whom she has shared love, memories, experiences.The common sense experience of grief is worth more than 100 embryology textbooks. Considering this common sense experience of real life parents we can explain why people endorse ESCR. Arguing "scientifically and philosophically" in the way that Scott does, produces attitudes and conclusions that are divorced from the reality and experience of people. Scott argues primarily! from abstract examples and uses the phraseology of those on the President's Bio-ethics Committee who oppose ESCR; and of Senators Frist and Brownback. We all know how the choice of words convey images and his use of phrases such as "abortion advocates," "pro-lifers," "athiests and secular libertarians" cause me to question whether he is swift-boating the intent of ESCR. If he were to consider the issue from the perspective of parents who have raised a child, or from the perspective of those who are hopeful that ESCR holds answers, not just from the view of abstract embryological science, he might gain some empathy and see that the argument is about human beings after all, and as for his not having "seen a principled argument defending" ESCR all he has to do is open his eyes and read chapter 11 of Senator Orin Hatch's autobiography, or Dr. Arthur Caplan's writings on the subject, or the comments of Dr. Harold Varmus and so many other Nobel Prize recipients. And if he is truly interested in "the whole human beings that have yet to grow and mature" how many of the 400,000 in in vitro clinics will he and his peers adopt before there is a further melt-down? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn