 |
 |
Most bloggers are ignorant of the facts. This guy seems rational. Ray Research might help ease suffering of many (EDITOR'S NOTE: The following guest column was written by Andy Fitzpatrick, a regular blogger for Fresh Voices, a blog written entirely by Battle Creek area youth. Read more of his and other youths' opinions on Fresh Voices, at www.battlecreekenquirer.com.) Try to imagine going through your day with a life-altering disease that there is no current cure for. Imagine you have Parkinson's disease, for example. Almost every aspect of your physical life is changed forever. Walking, getting up out of bed or a chair, and even speaking become challenging tasks at times. Sometimes your muscles involuntarily contract; other times, they freeze altogether, leaving you unable to move. Now imagine that you hear scientists might be working on something to ease your life, or even cure you. They say there are no promises, and the research could take a very long time. It may even take too long to benefit you. However, you know what living with this disease is like, and you hope they can come up with something to ease the suffering of equally-afflicted people in the future. There are many, many people likely having these experiences every day. This makes it particularly tragic when the president of the United States, the world's richest, most scientifically advanced nation, has decided to veto any legislation that allows federal funding to go toward embryonic stem cell research. Private funding is still legal, but (as with most things in life) every cent counts, and every cent could be the one that makes the difference Last July, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have allowed federal funding to go to embryonic stem cell research using cells derived from in vitro fertilization. This process results in many left-over stem cells that are then going to be destroyed. The bill that Bush vetoed included the requirement that any cells used for research must be used with the donor's permission. They are never going to be a human life, and no matter how many times Bush holds a photo op with "snowflake babies," that will never change. In the meantime, the area of embryonic stem cell research has lost millions of potential dollars, competent government oversight and precious time. While the president allowed funding for research on cells that were from previously destroyed embryos (making him the first president in history to allow federal dollars for this kind of research), these lines of stem cells are becoming useless with time and DNA damage due to being stored at such low temperatures. Why does the president think it's necessary to veto this important legislation, especially when conservative, pro-life lawmakers such as Bill Frist and Orrin Hatch have said that these restrictions need to be relaxed? Essentially, the argument is that embryonic stem cell research is tantamount to taking a human life. The aforementioned photo op is an example of this opinion. Somehow, in some way, the president has managed to come to the conclusion that it is more "moral" to let these cells die in the deep freeze of some laboratory than to allow them to be utilized for research meant to cure life-ravaging diseases before they are gone forever. Where this opinion lacks critical thinking, though, is on the issue of in vitro fertilization. Where is the moral outrage there? Doesn't that process create the embryos destined for destruction, with the full knowledge of the end result? Some might see the whole affair as an attempt to hold on to a certain base of voters in a tough political year. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research often mention adult stem cell research as a viable alternative. These cells can be taken from a donor without harm. Unfortunately, adult stem cells do not have the same amount of flexibility, referred to as pluripotency, when it comes to developing them into the needed type of cell. This research has yielded promising results in curing certain diseases, but it also has had a significant head-start over embryonic research. In order to find cures for the broadest possible range of diseases, we must employ embryonic stem cell research. This entire issue seems, in the public consciousness, to hinge on the question of when a human life begins. That is the underlying subject here, no matter how much either side wants to debate the other particulars of the case. And, as a collective, the public has answered with, "We don't know." However, one thing is crystal clear for all to see and that is the answer to another question: When does a human life end? In the case of the embryo (if you do indeed define that as "life"), the answer is in the lab, with or without human embryonic stem cell research. In the case of the person with Parkinson's disease, cancer or a host of other afflictions, the answer is only after a long and difficult life. Except with that one, we have the power to decide how long, or how difficult, that life is. Andy Fitzpatrick is a Kellogg Community College journalism student and a political blogger for Fresh Voices. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn