Soccer Dad: Cell high

January 12, 2007

Cell high

The New York Times in lockstep with the Democratic congressional leadership wants to Move Ahead on Stem Cells.

House Democrats are poised to push through a bill this week that would loosen President Bush�s restrictions on federal support of embryonic stem cell research. The bill will be opposed by legislators beholden to religious conservatives. Many are likely to cite a new study suggesting that broadly useful stem cells can be derived from amniotic fluid without destroying embryos to get them.
The new study, while certainly intriguing, in no way lessens the need to widen the array of embryonic stem cells available for research and ultimately therapy. The Democrats� proposal is extremely modest � about the least that could be done to accelerate progress in this promising field. It deserves support from veto-proof majorities in both houses.

The Times of course doesn't mention all the successes achieved so far using embryonic stem cells. That's because there haven't been any. So we must "accelerate progress." But as the Hedgehog Report put it so well a half year ago.

Trust me, if the benefits of embryonic stem cell research are so clear, there will be plenty of money available to fund it from the private marketplace from people and companies looking to make even more money. In fact, it owuld not surprise me if they are already doing it. So why do we need federal tax money?

But it's not just the effectiveness of embryonic stem cells that should give its advocates pause, as Sundries Shack observes. (Addressing himself to Arlen Spector, not the NY Times)

Here�s the hitch. Hypemasters have gotten us to believe that the potential for curing nearly everything exists solely with embryonic stem cells. Now, that may or may not be the case. We do know, for a fact, two things about embryonic stem cells: 1) no research has found that they can be used to treat anything, as opposed to the other two major types of stem cells, and 2) extracting them, for research or treatment, kills a human being.

It is the latter part that gives me pause. Without getting very far into the deep rough on the issue, let me say that I think it�s wise to think very hard before I decide to take the life of one human being to save another one. I want to think even harder before I take that life simply on the possibility that it might save another one. I want to think harder still before I take that life simply on the possibility that it might make someone�s life easier.

During the most recent election season there was all sorts of hyperbole. One of my state representatives (with no medical training that I'm aware of) claims that legislation about embryonic stem cell research is the work he's most proud of.

And of course, Michael J. Fox, who unfortunately suffers from Parkinson's disease, used the pathos of his condition to help defeat Republican candidates.

However Charles Krauthammer who, like Michael J. Fox, suffers from a neurological condition (spinal injury as opposed to Parkinson's) but unlike Fox has medical training views things somewhat differently from the actor. In Stem Cell Miracle? ( and here) he writes

This has always been a tendentious characterization of the argument for restricting stem cell research that relies on the destruction of embryos. I have long supported legal abortion. And I don't believe that life -- meaning the attributes and protections of personhood -- begins at conception. Yet many secularly inclined people such as myself have great trepidation about the inherent dangers of wanton and unrestricted manipulation -- to the point of dismemberment -- of human embryos.

You don't need religion to tremble at the thought of unrestricted embryo research. You simply have to have a healthy respect for the human capacity for doing evil in pursuit of the good. Once we have taken the position of many stem cell research advocates that embryos are discardable tissue with no more intrinsic value than a hangnail or an appendix, then all barriers are down. What is to prevent us from producing not just tissues and organs but humanlike organisms for preservation as a source of future body parts on demand?

South Korea enthusiastically embraced unrestricted stem cell research. The subsequent greatly heralded breakthroughs -- accompanied by lamentations that America was falling behind -- were eventually exposed as a swamp of deception, fraud and coercion.

Dr. Krauthammer goes on to say that he has no problem with using stem cells from excess embryos from fertility treatments that would be discarded anyway. But that what was important is that President Bush was setting a limit.

I applauded his insistence that some line must be drawn, that human embryos are not nothing and that societal values, not just the scientific imperative, should determine how they are treated.
The House voted yesterday to erase Bush's line. But future generations may nonetheless thank Bush for standing athwart history, if only for a few years. It gave technology enough time to catch up and rescue us from the moral dilemmas of embryonic destruction. It has just been demonstrated that stem cells with enormous potential can be harvested from amniotic fluid.

(This view that using discarded embryos would be Okay is consistent with the view of Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz here:

(6) This argument is especially strong when we consider the fact that the alternative to stem cell retrieval will not be implantation, pregnancy and birth but destruction for no purpose at all. These embryos are typically left over from fertility treatments and the parties do not desire to use them. As such, the choices are: (1) pursue useless destruction through thawing, etc.; or (2) destruction in the process of retrieval of potentially life threatening cells. Given the reality of that situation, it is difficult to perceive why the second option should be ethically and halachically problematical if the first one is not.

(7) Although halacha might permit stem cell retrieval from embryos that were originally created for fertility purposes that the parties now want to discard ("spare embryos"), it is arguably forbidden to deliberately create an embryo for the purpose of its destruction ("research embryos"). Creating embryos solely for research and destruction might involve the prohibition of emitting sperm for a non-procedure purpose (hotzaat zera l'vatala) and certainly represents a blatant denigration of the sanctity and mystery of human life, reducing it to nothing more than a biochemical commodity that can be manufactured to obtain useful products. Such a denigration of human life and dignity is ultimately a denigration of the Creator.

I am not quoting from Rabbi Breitowitz because his view is the only one according to Halacha or Jewish law. But because of the proximity of his views - though derived from religious sources - to those of Krauthammer. Though Rabbi Breitowitz is one of the foremost authorties on Jewish medical ethics, there are differing views on the subject. The Jewish view on embryonic stem cells is not necessarily exactly the same as the Catholic one.)

There is a rush among many to promote the use of embryonic stem cells. The problem is that they are so sure of their own righteousness, they have failed to consider that maybe they should slow down - not just in the name of morality - but also in the name of science.

(I have altered the ending slightly from what I originally wrote.)

Blogdigger tags: Embryonic Stem Cells, Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz, Charles Krauthammer.