I AM BOTH pro-life and diabetic. Until now, these two perspectives did not come into contact with one another to any significant degree.
However, the accelerating controversy over whether to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research has forced me - much as it has forced others across the country - to consider a number of philosophical and practical questions.
Embryonic stem cells are precursor cells. They originate from days-old embryos and, as the embryo develops, change into the various types of cells - heart cells, pancreas cells, kidney cells - that make up an identifiable human being. This flexible characteristic has given scientists a hope of developing treatments for a variety of diseases, including multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes and others.
The Clinton administration funded this type of research through the National Institutes of Health. President Bush, upon taking office, placed a moratorium on federally funding stem cell research in order to consider a longer-term policy. Regardless of Bush's ultimate decision on the issue, Congress likely will step in and either try to expand or contract the federal coffers' role in the research.
In considering this issue, no one can side-step the fact that, to get the cells for the research, scientists have to destroy a three-to-five-day-old fertilized egg - an embryo. If one happens to believe (as a number of religious faiths preach) that life begins at conception, this research poses a problem. As one might imagine, numerous groups vigorously have opposed embryonic cell research and expressed moral concerns with the possibility that scientists would view a potential human life as merely a source of research material.
Nevertheless, the federal government should fund this type of research.
One must consider the source of most of these embryos: fertility clinics. A family will fertilize eight to 10 eggs, in the hopes of having one or two healthy babies. The excess embryos get placed in cold storage and usually stay there. Eventually, they become abandoned, and the fertility clinic destroys them. It is largely these embryos, slated for destruction, that would serve as catalysts to locate treatments for countless debilitating conditions.
People who decry the existence of excess, frozen embryos have misplaced their anger. If an evil exists in the use of these embryos, it lies in their creation in the clinics in the first place. It lies with the people who elected to create the original moral dilemma. It does not lie with the scientists or the researchers.
Furthermore, it is possible to distinguish stem cell research from abortion. To state an obvious point, these cells cannot survive on their own unless they're transplanted into a mother's womb. This is in stark contrast to abortion, which stops a process that, if not performed, leads to the birth of a child. Leaving these laboratory-created embryonic cells alone does nothing but let them perish.
A number of opponents to funding stem-cell research have discussed fears of funding "laboratories of death."
Essentially, they fear that federal funds will directly promote the creation of embryos whose sole purpose will be to serve as laboratory fodder. But if such a situation developed, few would give their approval.
Fortunately, just like any other benefactor, the federal government can put conditions on how its money is used in research. For example, it can forbid researchers from directly paying people to donate their embryos. It can ensure that money is not used to induce others to create embryos solely for their use in a laboratory. In effect, the government can restrict the types of embryos used to those I described earlier. If such is the case, a different debate on the sanctity of life emerges.
Which shows a greater respect for the cells contained in these pinpoint-sized embryos: to use them to better the lives of millions of persons across the country, or to leave them to be treated with the same respect usually accorded a Big Mac wrapper? Which has the greater chance to show others the potential for life contained in the cells: to use them to discover miracle treatments or to leave them as biological refuse?
I would argue the former. Hopefully, Bush and members of Congress will see it in a similar light.
(Seth Wood is a Cavalier Daily columnist. He can be reached at swood@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | YesterdayInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 3 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
