2008 Woodie Awards
Playing Politics With the Sick
Stem cell research is unethical and impractical, not medicine's modern miracle.
Tiffany Farmakis
Issue date: 10/27/04 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
The value of life shouldn't be determined by the whims of scientists.
Once again, stem cell research is a political hot button. Scientists, biotech companies and patients' groups continue their campaign to force President Bush to change his funding policy. Sen. John Kerry accused the president of "sacrificing science for ideology and playing politics with people who need cures," adding that treatments "could be right at our fingertips" were it not for "the stem cell ban."
Kerry's attack distorts the president's policy, underestimates the financial responsibilities and ignores the weighty moral issues involved.
Stem cells are human cells that have not yet differentiated to form bones, organs or tissue. They can develop into specialized cells like heart, skin and nerve cells.
For patients with cell-destroying diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's these vital cells could provide a cure.
This is where the controversy hinges; on could, not would.
Scientists are still unable to determine if these moral and ethical landmines have the ability to cure. In reality the research is still in a state of infancy. Scientists aren't trying to discover a cure for Parkinson's using stem cells - they're seeing if the possibility of discovering a Parkinson's cure by using stem cells even exists.
On Nov. 2, California voters will decide the fate of Proposition 71, "The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act." This initiative would provide $3 billion in state funds for embryonic-, cord blood and adult stem cell research over the next ten years.
Why should Californians be interested in launching this costly initiative when vital programs for health, education, police and fire services are being cut? The state cannot afford to pile an additional $3 billion in bonded debt on top of a state budget wavering on the brink of financial ruin.
Let's not forget the moral implications. At what point can we assume that an embryo is not a person or more importantly at what point does a human life become a human person?
Life is not a figment of the imagination. There are not lines that distinguish when a person "spontaneously" develops. There is only one logical conclusion: that human life begins at the stage of the zygote, the moment of conception. This is not faith; this is reason.
Embryonic stem cell research must not be funded if it destroys human life ... and it does. The present technique for obtaining embryonic stem cells results in the death of a developing human life at its most innocent stage.
While saving lives and relieving human suffering are the goals of all legitimate medical research, we can never condone the killing of human life in order to reach these goals. Our government must preserve the rights of all Americans, the most basic being life itself.
Once again, stem cell research is a political hot button. Scientists, biotech companies and patients' groups continue their campaign to force President Bush to change his funding policy. Sen. John Kerry accused the president of "sacrificing science for ideology and playing politics with people who need cures," adding that treatments "could be right at our fingertips" were it not for "the stem cell ban."
Kerry's attack distorts the president's policy, underestimates the financial responsibilities and ignores the weighty moral issues involved.
Stem cells are human cells that have not yet differentiated to form bones, organs or tissue. They can develop into specialized cells like heart, skin and nerve cells.
For patients with cell-destroying diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's these vital cells could provide a cure.
This is where the controversy hinges; on could, not would.
Scientists are still unable to determine if these moral and ethical landmines have the ability to cure. In reality the research is still in a state of infancy. Scientists aren't trying to discover a cure for Parkinson's using stem cells - they're seeing if the possibility of discovering a Parkinson's cure by using stem cells even exists.
On Nov. 2, California voters will decide the fate of Proposition 71, "The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act." This initiative would provide $3 billion in state funds for embryonic-, cord blood and adult stem cell research over the next ten years.
Why should Californians be interested in launching this costly initiative when vital programs for health, education, police and fire services are being cut? The state cannot afford to pile an additional $3 billion in bonded debt on top of a state budget wavering on the brink of financial ruin.
Let's not forget the moral implications. At what point can we assume that an embryo is not a person or more importantly at what point does a human life become a human person?
Life is not a figment of the imagination. There are not lines that distinguish when a person "spontaneously" develops. There is only one logical conclusion: that human life begins at the stage of the zygote, the moment of conception. This is not faith; this is reason.
Embryonic stem cell research must not be funded if it destroys human life ... and it does. The present technique for obtaining embryonic stem cells results in the death of a developing human life at its most innocent stage.
While saving lives and relieving human suffering are the goals of all legitimate medical research, we can never condone the killing of human life in order to reach these goals. Our government must preserve the rights of all Americans, the most basic being life itself.
