Way to go, Sue!

[Wise Young]

Published in the Washington Post
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010723-2449624.htm#4

Stem-cells and spinal cords

In her outrageous and inflammatory column about stem-cell research, Mona Charen dismisses medical facts and the potential of the research ("Chorus of stem cell simplicities," Commentary, July 11). It is this sort of attitude that cavalierly dooms millions of people, like me, who suffer from diseases for which the benefits of stem-cell research are our best hope.
Miss Charen portrays supporters of embryonic stem-cell research as people who are dismissive of life. I think she has it backward it is the supporters of embryonic stem-cell research who most value life. I hope that every embryo that can be adopted is adopted and becomes a beautiful child. But those embryos that will be discarded should be used to change the lives of the millions suffering from crippling diseases.
The couples who create embryos are the ones who make the choice about their fate whether to donate them to another couple, donate them to research or discard them. Last year, at the New York University School of Medicine, 40 percent of the couples who planned to discontinue storage designated that their embryos be used for research rather than be discarded. Stem-cell research holds great promise for the treatment of horrible diseases like my spinal cord injury. It is our responsibility as a society to pursue this research for its potential to make a tremendous impact on the quality of life for future generations. Choosing, as 70 percent of Americans do, to support embryonic stem-cell research is choosing to value life.

SUSAN PENDLETON
Columbia, Md.

Susan Pendleton is a member of the Maryland Spinal Cord Injury Research Board.

[Wise Young]

Here is the original URL for the Mona Charen article that Sue Pendleton responded to: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen.html

Stem cell simplicities

http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
LET'S use the bodies of condemned criminals for medical research! We could donate the eyes and heart of a Timothy McVeigh-type to some worthy medical experiment, and the lungs and livers of other murderers for similar purposes. Well, after all, the bodies are only going to be buried anyway, at least this way some good will come of them.

Why do you squirm? Probably for the same
reason that no one stood in line to receive "fresh" organs from Dr. Jack Kevorkian when he offered them.

We flinch from using the organs from condemned people for several reasons, but the most important is our well-grounded fear that using the organs of executed criminals might introduce temptations to the administration capital punishment that would be immoral. If the state takes someone's life, it should be for one reason only -- to exact punishment for a heinous crime. Imagine if judges and juries were also considering how many lives could be saved by making available fresh hearts, lungs, kidneys and so on?

And yet, in the debate over stem cell research, we are constantly reminded that these embryos are going to be "discarded" anyway. Well, that only shows how much work we have to do in sensitizing people to the sanctity of life.

Human embryos should never be "discarded." There are other options, like reducing the numbers of embryos that are created in the first place, or embryo adoption. But this is a secondary question. The heart of the matter is this: Is an embryo an entity that deserves special respect?

Newsweek magazine's cover story on the matter emphatically answers that question in the negative. Over a picture of a fuzzy ball of cells the cover proclaims "There's Hope for Alzheimer's, Heart Disease, Parkinson's and Diabetes. But Will Bush Cut Off the Money?"

Inside, one researcher thunders, "Anyone who would ban research on embryonic stem cells will be responsible for the harm done to real, alive, postnatal, sentient human beings who might be helped by this research."

Emphasis on ( might.. It may be that the miracle cures confidently predicted for Parkinsons, diabetes and such will come to pass, but some caution is certainly in order. Recall that just a few years ago, medical and media circles were abuzz with hopes for the implantation of fetal brain cells into patients with Parkinson's. Then too, as Neil Munro reminds us in the National Journal, The Washington Post urged a president named Bush to lift federal bans on such research since it offered "the best hope for progress on curing such diseases as Parkinson's."

The federal ban was not lifted, but some scientists went ahead with the procedure anyway. The results were noted (very quietly) just a couple of months ago. The New York Times reported that the experimental treatment was a failure, and that some patients suffered side effects described as "absolutely devastating ... tragic, catastrophic."

While results from stem cells may be better, one never hears a scientist asked: What is the marginal benefit of embryonic stem cells versus those found in umbilical cord blood, or those found in adults? Are we five years, or three, or one year away from achieving the same results with less morally comprised tissue?

To extract a stem cell from an embryo is to kill it. Now, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch argues that an embryo in a fertility clinic freezer does not have the same status as a baby in a mother's womb.

A thought experiment: Suppose a burglar with a grudge against a couple went to her fertility clinic and methodically smashed the vials containing their frozen embryos. Would their damages be only the value of the broken glass?

It is difficult for people with limited imaginations to see an embryo as a human being. They don't look like us. But that is the stupendous miracle of life. Each of us begins as a dot of information smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. We are dust -- and yet with the magic of DNA and with time, we become people. And those little clumps of cells, which even Newsweek agrees are "a world of potential," cannot ethically be sacrificed -- no matter what the hoped-for gain.

[rdf]

SueP, you rock! Nice response, we need more like you, for sure.
ps. Im rdf of old.

[Joe B]

Its a shame that the debate on ESCs is not based on logic. Most of those opposed seem to base their opinion on emotion and what they have been told by a religious or other group leader.

Thank you Sue for putting the facts out to be seen. Great article.

I think George W will ultimately make his decision based on the preponderance of voters aligned one way or the other.

Can some one comment on the legal question of embryonic stem cells. I mean, according to the US Supreme Court, they do not have a legal status regardless of George W's efforts. The lawsuit led by Chris Reeve and others seemst to have an overwhelming legal basis. What legal basis does Bush have for preventing Federal funding of ESC research? http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/confused.gif

Joe B

[Curt Leatherbee]

Great Job. Curtis

[Sue Pendleton]

Just for a quick clarification; it was the Washington Times, a rather conservative newspaper compared to the Post. Thanks Wise. After the press conference on Capitol Hill where Senator Orrin Hatch announced his support of embryonic stem cell research I was also interviewed for a future article on stem cells for Popular Science magazine. I'll post the information on publication dates when I hear them but expect it will be 2 or 3 months.

Thanks Maynard. Maynard?? http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif You guys all keep us aimed in the right direction--cure!

Joe, From what I've read it's really complicated and I really don't understand the law on Bush and this. Congress did pass a law a few years back banning the killing of embryos for research. The Clinton administration, by presidental order (I think), decided that that stem cells could be removed by non-government funded organizations and then the stem cells not the embryo they came from could be used in research. Bush appears to be able to rescind or stop (as he has right now) this order if he wants to. This will not necessarily stop embryonic stem cell research or federal funding of it. The senate now has a majority in support of funding so a law can be passed and I doubt President Bush has the votes to veto such legislation. So he can slow this research but I'd say it is very doubtful he can stop it. And non-fderally funded companies can do all the research they want unless a law is passed banning it. That just won't happen, IMHO. Sue

[melliska]

very chill sue

[Max]

You becomming a celebrity!

May I have your autograph:)

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Noel]

...for sharing your voice. Job well done.

Noel