Susan Cirba - Life Issues -Stem Cell Research

To view a stem cell ad by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops click here.

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos.

A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in-vitro fertilization which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are implanted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother, and born, and are today healthy children.

And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.
You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos: from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placentas. And many scientists feel research on these types of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.

Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities, and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.

Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo and thus destroys its potential for life.
As I thought through this issue I kept returning to two fundamental questions. First, are these frozen embryos human life and therefore something precious to be protected? Second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?

I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet and my friends. On the first issue, are these embryos human life? Well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.

An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. "Make no mistake," he told me, "that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives.”
In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.

Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver. I Strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts or create life for our own convenience.

I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your president I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.
And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.

Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments, yet the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril, so I have decided we must proceed with great care.
As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.

I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made.
Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.

Ban Embryo-Destructive Stem Cell Research (Shorter Version)
The full version that appears in the Aug. 2001 Newsletter follows this article

Internet, television, radio, print media, billboards…. Everywhere we go Americans are surrounded by advertising campaigns. Words and images are used to sell a product or an idea. While most people are aware that products are sold via ad campaigns, they are often not aware that the same sort of marketing and campaigning takes place with all political issues including the current one regarding stem cell research.

First, the debate is not whether pro-life people support or oppose stem cell research. Pro-life people do not oppose stem cell research but only stem cell research that destroys human beings in the embryonic stage of development.
Who would support stem cell research if the cells were taken from a black man who was lynched, or a prisoner who was executed because he was the perfect genetic match.
One human being cannot be destroyed to benefit another. The question surronding stem cell research is not simply "Should we use Adult or Embryonic stem cells?" as though no moral issues were involved. Our opponents speak as though the only questions to be considered are “What sources of stem cells are more plentiful?” and “What sources are more promising in terms of success for curing diseases?”
Moral issues cannot be swept aside. It is not ethical to destroy one class of human beings “frozen embryos” even if it will supposedly cure millions of people in the future.
Human life begins at fertilization no matter how it takes place, whether in the body of a woman or in a petri dish.
When we discuss the issue of embryonic stem cell research, pro-life people must remember to make these clarifications: We do not oppose stem cell research from sources other than human embryos. We cannot condone the destruction of human life at any stage of development.
The New York Times reported that already a Virginia Research firm took 168 donor eggs, fertilized 110 of them with donor sperm, and grew 40 of them to the blastocyst stage. Of the 40 unborn children created, 18 had harvestable inner masses resulting in 3 stem cells lines and 110 lives destroyed. These human beings were created only to be destroyed for research.
The current Ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research has not ended the debates the research. The research into existing stem cell lines will probably create a demand for more killing.
Pro-Life people must continue to sign petitions, write the President, Senators, and Congress demanding that the destruction of human embryo’s for research purposes will be banned in both the public and private sectors.

Embryo-Destructive Stem Cell Research (Full Version)
Internet, television, radio, print media, billboards…. Everywhere we go Americans are surrounded by advertising campaigns. Words and images are used to sell a product or an idea. While most people are aware that products are sold via ad campaigns, they are often not aware that the same sort of marketing and campaigning takes place with all political issues including the current one regarding stem cell research.
First, the debate is not whether pro-life people support or oppose stem cell research. A recent Newsweek cover titled “Stem Cell Wars” Embryo Research vs. Pro-Life Politics. There’s hope for Alzheimer’s, heart disease, Parkinson’s and diabetes, but will Bush cut off the money? No need to read any further that’s a clear slam dunk character assassination of pro-lifers depicting them as heartless Neanderthals who block scientific advances and put their politics ahead of millions of suffering Americans! Pro-life people do not oppose stem cell research but only stem cell research that destroys human beings in the embryonic stage of development.
Who would support stem cell research if the cells were taken from a black man who was lynched, or a prisoner who was executed because he was the perfect genetic match.

It is a matter of principle that one human being cannot be destroyed to benefit another. Neither is it a question of taking stem cells from one source or another (adult vs. embryonic) as though no moral issues were involved. Our opponents speak as though the only questions to be considered are “What sources of stem cells are more plentiful,” and “What sources are more promising in terms of success for curing diseases?”

Moral issues cannot be swept aside. It is not ethical to destroy one class of human beings “frozen embryos” even if it will supposedly cure millions of people in the future.
Human life begins at fertilization no matter how it takes place, whether in the body of a woman or in a petri dish. Recently a local radio talk show host argued in favor of using frozen embryos for research citing that the frozen embryo was “just an egg.” No, the embryo is not just an egg, but a new human life genetically different from the father’s sperm and mother’s egg. If it were “just an egg” (part of the mother’s body) there would be no ethical dilemma.

Feminists have long argued that the unborn child was just a part of the mother’s body - something to be treated like property. Today an egg can be taken from “Woman A”, and be fertilized in a dish to create a new human being That embryo can be frozen in liquid nitrogen, shipped across the country for about $200 and implanted into the womb of “Woman B” who is unrelated to the embryo.

This new human then grows for 9 months, and is born to Woman “B”, proving that the embryo was not a part of Woman A’s body in the first place. (“Embryo” simply denotes a stage of life, not a different or less valuable type of life.)
When we discuss the issue of embryonic stem cell research, pro-life people must remember to make these clarifications: We do not oppose stem cell research from sources other than human embryos. We cannot condone the destruction of human life at any stage of development.
Some frozen embryos have been implanted in adoptive mothers, resulting in the birth of children. Shouldn’t all frozen embryo’s be given a chance to live? President Bush could have encoureged their adoption. Currently, the law treats all unborn children like property no matter what their stage of development.

Bush stated “Scientists are not certain of the potential of embryonic research… and many patients now benefit from treatments from adult stem cells.” Would it not be more prudent to place all the money for stem cell research into the most promising research using adult stem cells? This would not offend the moral sensibilities of millions of Americans.

Mr. Bush, If “embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards” as you have stated, then why are you funding it? If we allow federal funds to be used for research in existing stem cell lines, won’t this simply create a demand for the destruction of more human embryos? The New York Times reported that already a Virginia Research firm took 168 donor eggs, fertilized 110 of them with donor sperm, and grew 40 of them to the blastocyst stage. Of the 40 unborn children created, 18 had harvestable inner masses resulting in 3 stem cells lines and 110 lives destroyed. These human beings were created only to be destroyed for research. Professor Lee Silver of Princeton stated on a CNN interview “It’s a first step.” “In the long run, there is going to be a need for more embryos to do research.”

Adult and cord blood stem cells are already being used successfully to treat patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, anemia and immune deficiencies.
President Bush stated “Scientists are not certain of the potential of embryonic research… and many patients now benefit from treatments from adult stem cells.” Would it not be more prudent to place all the money for stem cell research into the most promising research using adult stem cells? This would not offend the moral sensibilities of millions of Americans.

Mr. Bush, If “embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards” as you have stated, then why fund it? If we allow federal funds to be used for research in existing stem cell lines, won’t this simply create a demand for the destruction of more human embryos? The New York Times reported that already a Virginia Research firm took 168 donor eggs, fertilized 110 of them with donor sperm, and grew 40 of them to the blastocyst stage. Of the 40 unborn children created, 18 had harvestable inner masses resulting in 3 stem cells lines and 110 lives destroyed. These human beings were created only to be destroyed for research. Professor Lee Silver of Princeton stated on a CNN interview “It’s a first step.” “In the long run, there is going to be a need for more embryos to do research.” Adult and cord blood stem cells are already being used successfully to treat patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, anemia and immune deficiencies.

Dr. Jack Willke stated “There are reports of bone marrow stem cells being changed into liver cells, skin cells being changed into heart cells, and of cord blood promising to possibly create neural cells. Further, adult stem cells have been shown to cure diabetes.” There has been an avalanche of successes using adult stem cells and other non-embryonic sources such as umbilical cord blood. There have been very few successes using Embryonic Stem Cells in the culture dish or in mice. Embryonic cells tend to just grow, form tumors when injected into mice or form a mixed collection of partially formed tissue, “while the potential may be there to form any tissue (if left in the intact embryo) it has been difficult to get the cells to “perform” in this way in the lab. Their conclusions were drawn from a July 6th edition of the journal Science on the question of why cloned animals rarely survived and when they do are cursed with horrible defects. The mice were created using embryonic stem cells.

Dr. Jack Willke stated “There are reports of bone marrow stem cells being changed into liver cells, skin cells being changed into heart cells, and of cord blood promising to possibly create neural cells. Further, adult stem cells have been shown to cure diabetes.” There has been an avalanche of successes using adult stem cells and other non-embryonic sources such as umbilical cord blood.

There have been very few successes using Embryonic Stem Cells in the culture dish or in mice. Embryonic cells tend to just grow, form tumors when injected into mice or form a mixed collection of partially formed tissue, “while the potential may be there to form any tissue (if left in the intact embryo) it has been difficult to get the cells to “perform” in this way in the lab. Their conclusions were drawn from a July 6th edition of the journal Science on the question of why cloned animals rarely survived and when they do are cursed with horrible defects. The mice were created using embryonic stem cells.

Main To visit the blog Pro-Life PA by Sue Cirba clik this link.