[For the uninitiated: Theomorph is an atheist lexivore and Jerry Nora is a Catholic MD/PhD student with penchant for bioethics. – Funky]
A week ago, Theomorph posted some thoughts about cloning on his blog. Below I have the questions that he poses in bold and his own answers in italic, and my own counterpoints are in plain text.
Tuck in, and happy debating!
Please pray for the St. Luke Society, a currently defunct group for
Catholic medical
students that I’m trying to restart as a Chapter of the Catholic
Medical Student Association.
This post is a supplement to Funky’s call for clarity in the stem cell
debate. It was originally published in The Catholic Anchor, a student-run newspaper/magazine sponsored by the Ryan Catholic Newman Center.
Over the past five years, the embryonic stem cell debate has haunted
politicians and voters alike, and it has not grown any easier to cut
through the rhetoric coming from the politicians and activists. Last
year, President Bush said that federal spending on embryonic stem cells
should be limited. On the other side, Kerry and Edwards promised
extensive support on embryonic research, promising cures to a host of
diseases.
Now that the hype has died down for a little while, I found two articles
that do a good job of representing where stem cell research stands On
one hand, there is an article (www.indystar.com, January 16,
2005) about a paraplegic woman in Michigan is learning how to walk again
thanks to cell treatment. While we could not see Christopher Reeve walk
again, at least such a cure is drawing closer for the many other
paralysis victims in the United States
On the other hand, we learned (via www.wired.com, January 31, 2005, and www.halifaxlive.com, January 30,
2005) that embryonic stem cells have been converted to motor neurons,
and that researchers are planning on transplanting these cells into a
lab animal. Presumably all their work has been in vitro so far,
with isolated cells in a culture dish and not inside a living organism.
We have two articles: In one case, we made human embryonic stem cells
become human nerve cells; in the other case, a woman is learning how to
walk While halifaxlive.com is a small news service like indystar.com,
Wired is an influential technology magazine. Should
it not be a bigger deal that a human being is being at least partially
cured of paralysis?
Big Media is often suspiciously quiet about adult stem cell
successes in human, while an embryonic stem cell experiment performed on
animals may get prime coverage at the New York Times.
I have been in stem cell-related activism since 1999, when the NIH under
the Clinton administration opened the issue of embryonic stem cell
research (ESCR) to public opinion. The myths I saw blinding people about
the real issues with stem cell research back then are still as strong as
ever now. I hope, Gentle Reader, that this article may set the record
straight on some key issues.
Myth One: ESCR is the only form of stem cell research, and if you
oppose ESCR, you therefore oppose all stem cell research.
Wrong Embryonic stem cells are but one kind of stem cell
Human embryonic stem cells are derived from 4 to 5 day-old embryos This
is before cells differentiate into the many tissues and organs making up
a more mature human. Thus, those cells have the potential to grow into
many different tissue types, making them potentially very useful as a
flexible tool to rebuild lost or damaged tissue. They are called
pluripotent stem cells for this reason, since they have the power or
potential to develop into many (plures)
types of cells.
However, many tissues in a mature human have another class of stem
cell called multipotent stem cells. As I will discuss later, these cells
have great promise in research. But the take-home message for this myth
is that one may oppose embryonic research and still support stem cell
research. Opposing ESCR does not make you some anti-science Luddite. It
just means that you think that it violates medical and scientific ethics.
Myth Two: Even though we have adult multipotent stem
cells, they may not be able to do everything that embryonic stem cells
can. Therefore, we still need ESCR.
Multipotent adult stem cells are more specialized than
embryonic stem cells, but recent studies suggest that they can do
whatever we want. You may find these stem cells in bone marrow, skin,
fat (no shortage of that!), and even in the brain, which people had
previously assumed had no ability to regenerate. Scientists believed
that these stem cells could only differentiate into whatever tissue they
were found in. A bone marrow stem cell could produce a white blood cell,
for instance, but not a neuron. Recent studies have shown that
multipotent stem cells can be “coaxed” into assuming many different
studies. One exciting study on rats used bone marrow-derived stem cells
to repair heart tissue damaged by a heart attack, for instance. On
February 2, 2005, The Washington Post reported a new type of adult stem
cell in the bone marrow that may be as versatile as embryonic stem
cells.
However, even if there are some inherent limitations on just how far
you can get a multipotent stem cell to change, because they appear in so
many tissues in the body, you can probably find a stem cells that come
from whatever organ or tissue that you are trying to treat.
The aforementioned Wired article on stem cells even mentioned that
getting embryonic cells to assume a particular identity is difficult,
which is the chief reason why the experiment creating nerve cells is
getting attention. The vaunted flexibility of pluripotent stem cells can
therefore also be curse: If you cannot get the cells to reliably assume
a particular identity for a particular disease, they are useless, or
even harmful, to a patient.
Myth Three: Embryonic stem cell therapies are around the
corner.
ESCR advocates have done much to manipulate feelings: They imply
that embryonic stem cells are the only answer (see Myth One) and then
bring out Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve (may he rest in peace)
and made people feel that by opposing embryonic research, they were
denying Fox and Reeve a chance at life because (they imply) big
discoveries are just around the corner.
The fact is that embryonic stem cells have not had a single
successful clinical trial in humans. The press loves to play up whenever
there is a successful ESCR experiment on rats or monkeys, but adult stem
cells have already cured 56 human illnesses. That�s right;
we treated real patients with adult stem cells and cured them outright
or greatly alleviated the symptoms. These are not just animal
experiments and speculation. Adult stem cells are delivering the goods,
while the ESCR activists just deliver promises.
Check out Do No Harm�s website at www.stemcellresearch.org for
their “scoreboard” on embryonic versus adult stem cell cures, and links
to articles on some of these advances.
Myth Four: People oppose embryonic research solely on
religious grounds.
Presumably in a pluralist society, we should avoid theological
arguments that may leave out people of different faiths.
This makes some sense, though I must say that nobody seems to have a
problem with the extensive religious involvement with civil rights from
the Reverend Martin Luther King on to the social justice crusaders of
today. However, I should point out prominent pro-lifer Nat Hentoff. Mr.
Hentoff is an atheist liberal and 1st Amendment champion who
writes for the ultra-liberal Village Voice. Hardly a
Bible-thumper! Yet he courageously argues for the dignity of human life
from conception till natural death.
The surprising fact is that the general pro-life position
about personhood starting at conception is at least as scientifically
solid as other theories. Pro-lifers generally consider personhood to
begin with conception, when a new, genetically unique organism is
created. Pro-choice positions generally define personhood when some part
of development happens, such as organ differentiation or nervous system
development. They are not always very clear about why these
developmental milestones should matter, about why a switch is flipped
when the neural tube closes and a non-person becomes a person. For many
pro-choicers, personhood is up for negotiation, so to speak, and if the
parents do not want the fetus�or even a newborn�then that newborn�s
rights are null and void. This is the position of Princeton�s Peter
Singer, for instance, who supports infanticide on babies as old as 28
days.
Of course, if personhood is up for negotiation, could not any
minority be denied humanity/personhood when the rest of the population
decides to “vote them off the island”? We have had enough cases of
genocide in the past century to last us for the rest of human history,
thank you! We do not need to sacrifice human lives or dignity for vague,
long-term promises of a medical revolution.
The stem cell revolution is already here in the form of adult stem
cell technology, and there are plenty of adult stem cells for the taking
in our own bodies.
Some folks have wondered what the Terri Schiavo case will mean for the conservative
cause, including Ales Rarus regular, DLW
(see March 28, 2005); perhaps we should pay a little more attention to leftists
like the Rev.
Jesse Jackson and Nat
Hentoff before labeling Terri’s cause a right-wing one. Or even those disability
activists that get mentioned from time to time, but have largely been ignored in
media coverage. (Maybe they don’t fit in with this left-versus-right template that
the media chose?)
Michael Gallaugher at Christian Conservative really hit a nerve with this post about Terri Schiavo. I’ve never seen so many comments generated from so little text. Some of the comments really took me by surprise. Not only were commenters ill- or misunformed about Terri’s condition, they also showed a disturbing inability to reason logically. Here’s a sampling.
"Err on the side of life? They have been stuffing her from a tube for 15 years! You are writing about this as if there is some dispute. The woman’s cortex is gone. All that is left is a brain stem. Terri is gone and she has a right to be allowed for her brain stem to die as well. A whole boatload of neurologists and judges have invariably –invariably– found the same thing. She’s gone."
– Public Theologian
Invariably, eh? Perhaps this information would change his mind.
"This is a fascist religious conspiracy to take away Michael Schiavo’s rights to fulfill his wife’s wishes."
– POed Lib
Really? And here I thought it was an attempt to save a women from being treated like the living dead and forced to waste away painfully.
"Excellent opinion, Christian Conservative. We liberals are completely for the ‘Err on the side of life’ mentality." [Unless that life is on the wrong side of a cervix. – Funky]
"Perhaps we should have ‘erred on the side of life’ before sending 1500 US soldiers to their deaths in Iraq, along with an estimated 100,000 Iraqis."
"Perhaps we should have erred on the side of life with the 152 executions he allowed as Governor of Texas."
"Or perhaps the countless patients in Texas whose tubes were removed, simply because the families could not afford the health care — against the wishes of the family."
"Maybe it should be extended to the millions of Americans without health insurance."
"Perhaps slashing Medicaid funding in the proposed budget would be reversed."
"Perhaps."
Can you say "red herring", boys and girls? Does support for Terri necessarily imply support for the war in Iraq, the death penalty, the Texas Futile Care Law, or slashing Medicaid funding? No. Just because President Bush may be acting hypocritically by supporting Terri, doesn’t mean we all are. I don’t like President Bush and I didn’t vote for him (either time). It’s high time liberals learn that sometimes "discrimination" is a good thing.
discrimination – 1. The act of discriminating. 2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
"So you’re going to come out against Bush’s elective Iraq invasion, alll of the executions that he signed off on, the dead people who are dead because they could afford health insurance, and the the texas law that Bush signed that makes it possible for hospitals to cut life supprot for people who can no longer pay?"
"(I’ll be holding my breath while you think about it)"
– jri
Absolutely. I neither like nor voted for Bush. I still want to see Terri Schiavo live. Try not to spontaneously combust as you digest that.
BTW, You can stop holding your breath now.
"I find it ironic that same folks pushing for Shiavo’s "right to life" are the same folks who go on and on about the ‘sanctity of marriage’ – yet they’re stomping on Michael Shiavo’s marital rights. Can’t have it both ways."
– Jinx
Michael doesn’t give a rat’s behind about his marital rights. His girlfriend and their two children are evidence of that.
"Matthew 25 is one of my favorites – to me it summarizes elegantly what it means to be Christian. It also summarizes the beauty of liberalism. We propose direct aid for the hungry, the thirsty, for strangers, for the naked and for the imprisoned. The Adam Smith approach does not do it for us. We admit that it fails and has failed for over 200 years to address the needs of the poor. Conservatives tend to argue that the poor are lazy and need to get to work, or that they will benefit indirectly from government support for the very wealthy. I believe that the conservative view is in conflict with this scriptural teaching."
– Duf
You’ll get little or no argument from me on those points. Now tell me why Terri must die painfully at her husband’s whim.
"I believe that there should be a national statute to protect all citizens from the horror that Terri Schiavo has been experiencing for 15 years. In the absence of clear instructions to the contrary by the patient, the maintenance of life by artificial means such as tube feeding or a respirator should be limited to a maximum of one year unless a judge can be convinced that the patient has a genuine chance of recovery to a state in which they can communicate their wishes."
– tgibbs
Tell that to Sarah Scantlin and others like her.
Don’t get me wrong. Some of the comments are very insightful, especially those by a fellow called Jinx. I encourage my readers, who have demonstrated their superb reasoning and debating skills on a number of occasions, to weigh in on the issues raised over there.
On a related note, if you’d like to see how these mostly civil comments from the Left can be turned ugly, read the ones left at this Hullabaloo post. Some of these individuals must have been foaming at the mouth while writing them.