Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.” – Ronald Reagan
We will never recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life of others. – Ronald Reagan
On the subject of stem cells (embryonic and/or otherwise but for the sake of the ensuing argument let us focus our attention specifically on embryonic), it pains me to consider the absolute truth in the assertions of the late former president, which transcend and no doubt in stark contrast to, the belief held by his second wife and former First Lady Nancy. Hers is certainly a belief which came about arguably at the passing of her husband following a lengthy bout with Alzheimer’s; a bout which was sad and unfortunate indeed. Even still, I shudder to think of dear Ronald turning in his grave at Nancy’s vocal insistence of governmental involvement in providing research funding for such an infantile and mendacious prospect.
There presently exists two fundamental issues on the matter of stem cells and stem cell research; the first of which is an economic issue regarding how best to fund this scientific endeavor. As Reagan rightfully proclaimed in the first aforementioned quote, government does nothing as well economically (or again otherwise) as is done in the private sector. Why just imagine the hilarity of such a persuasion, “Anything you can do government does better.” Such a ridiculous affirmation would likely then beget a roundabout argument between conservatives and liberals on Capitol Hill. I’m betting something likely to the tune of no it doesn’t - yes it does - no it doesn’t - yes it does; when in fact, no it really doesn’t. The recent debacle coming about via the shortcomings provided our troops at Walter Reed are clearly evidence of that. But, as if to say that were a rarity in governmental failing, need I remind the readers of FEMA’s financial bungling of Katrina aid, or dare I invoke a 9/11 reference here. For those who’ve seemingly forgotten, it was government (from the FBI, CIA, FAA, on down) which failed us as the frightful events of that day played out. It was the individual and the individual soul, which not only lies at the heart of the private sector, but which was in fact the true victor of that day. And, when we pair such harsh realities with the financial deficiency which has befallen Medicare and our current Social Security system, we’ve got a prototype for yet another governmental disaster. And, with government unquestionably mired in bureaucracy and its servants literally wound in red tape, why ever would we look towards such a government as the engine which ought to run scientific progress? But then of course, that argument is to say that such scientific progress even has merit.
While the merits of stem cells that have come from sources which go unethically or morally challenged (umbilical chords, the placenta, adult tissues, bone marrow, fat from liposuction, et al.) are forever far and wide with a long list of benefits to human patients; from cancers to auto-immune diseases, to neural degenerative diseases to anemias and other blood conditions, the merits of embryonic stem cells (those which are harvested from embryos) are scant at best. If even we were to accept the following exaggerations as credible, exaggerations which go challenged by The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, one of which being that embryonic stem cells are contributable to curing Type I diabetes through the production of new pancreatic islet cells which could be used in human transplants (when in fact they did not produce insulin in response to glucose changes in their environment and were not found to be the pancreatic beta cells needed to treat diabetes and when placed in animals did not reverse diabetes but instead formed tumors). Or, the history making claim by a Korean research team to have used embryonic stem cells to cure Parkinson’s disease in rats (a success challenged on the human scale by the death of a patient whose transplanted fetal tissue formed clumps of bone, skin and hair in the middle of his brain). Or, the December 1999 announcement of paralyzed rats being able to walk again after being transplanted with specific nerve cells derived from mouse embryonic stem cells, the success of which was over emphasized to the extent that eight years later no improvements have been announced nor has it moved to human trials. If we were to accept these inflated triumphs, does not such research negate the sole purpose of ethics in the medical field? For, there cannot be any greater ethical challenge in the field of medical research than the balance between life and death, or more appropriately between life and life. And, it is without question this oft morally challenged embryonic counterpart, existing as the second and largely more debated issue, which causes us to question the value of life of which President Reagan was referring to in the second quotation from above.
But, to ponder the value of life as President Reagan saw it, one must define what life is and where life begins. The argument, as being held by his wife Nancy and the supporters of embryonic stem cell research, hinders on the belief that the embryonic stage is not life itself but rather the prospect of life. More importantly however, that belief harbors the notion that the, as yet unfounded, potential for scientific achievement ought to be held in much higher esteem than the greater prospect of life. Yet, such a belief discredits itself when you consider that for the sake of research, embryonic stem cells need the benefit of the scientific nutrient (if you will) in order to reach their desired potential in as much as the embryo needs the nutrients provided by the mother throughout the gestation period for it to become life to the extent where those who had previously failed to see it as such can now embrace it. It is unfortunate the proponents of embryonic stem cell research cannot come to terms with such an absolute truth. Yet, because they cannot or will not come to such terms, proponents of embryonic stem cell research shield themselves from criticism by insisting that frozen embryos may one day wind up being discarded and in that regard why not use them for research.
Lest the proponents forget, such embryos were frozen for the prospect of life; a life whose sacred value is no less affirmed than our own.
No comments:
Post a Comment