 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
Click here
|
Research Must Respect Life 5/19/2009 Argus Leader
Click here for direct link.
We all desire cures for debilitating diseases with which we or our loved ones might suffer. Our creator has blessed man with wisdom to conquer those noble goals. We've come to a crossroad in medical research, however. Will we go down the moral path that respects human life and has proven successful? Or will we pursue an unethical and futile course?
Stem cell science is not controversial. Killing embryos is. Only research that requires the destruction of a human embryo is objectionable.
What the media and proponents of embryonic stem cell research ignore is that embryonic stem cells have not cured any diseases or successfully treated a single patient. In fact, embryonic stem cell research has yielded only unstable, deadly tumors and patient immune rejection.
The good news is that there are ethical alternatives to embryonic stem cell research that are working, treating and curing without the destruction of the tiniest human life. Skin cells that are reprogrammed to act like embryos - induced pluripotent stem cells - hold the same research potential as stem cells from embryos.
The induced pluripotent stem cells can be created from the body cells of anyone, so the ensuing stem cell lines are plentiful and avoid the high risk of tissue rejection. They already have been used to make heart muscle, brain neurons, motor neurons, blood and insulin-secreting cells.
One of the researchers who discovered the induced pluripotent stem cell alternative was the first to identify embryonic stem cells. Dr. James Thomson, a University of Wisconsin stem cell scientist, stated, "If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough."
Dr. Mehmet Oz, a cardiovascular surgeon at Columbia University, appeared on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" and in the presence of Oprah and Michael J. Fox declared that the "stem cell debate is dead" because of the successes using adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells.
In an article in the March 4 issue of U.S. News and World Report titled "Why embryonic stem cells are obsolete", Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former head of the National Institutes of Health, wrote that "adult stem cell research successes have 'diminished' the prospect that embryonic stem cell research is the future of regenerative medicine."
Science clearly states that human life begins at conception when the human egg is fertilized. Life at that moment receives its entire DNA, all its genetic makeup, its gender, hair color, etc.
This is a point from which we all began. To devalue life at this point is comparable to saying that the life of a toddler is of less worth than that of a young adult simply because of her size or because she is not as developed. Should we relegate a toddler to research material to benefit the young adult?
Human embryos are not simply tissue to be researched. The underlying utilitarian belief that some humans need to be sacrificed for the betterment of others is morally and ethically wrong.
Experimentation on human embryos contradicts the Nuremberg Code, ethical guidelines established after World War II, which prohibits experimentation that knowingly causes injury or death to humans.
Our South Dakota state Legislature passed laws in 2000 prohibiting research on human embryos, and an attempt to overturn those laws was defeated this year.
Will South Dakota lose our moral compass by submitting to unsuccessful and unethical research that only brings engineered death to the least of these? We all want cures for diseases, and the answer lies in ethical adult stem cell therapy.
|
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
