December 12, 2004
IF WE DON'T KILL SOMEONE WHAT'S THE POINT?:
A biased media and stem-cell therapy (Dennis Byrne, December 6, 2004, Chicago Tribune)
On Thanksgiving Day, a South Korean woman, Hwang Mi-Soon, paralyzed for 20 years after a spinal-cord injury, rose from her wheelchair and, tearfully and with the help of a walker, took a few steps. Thanks to stem-cell therapy.The doctors were cautious: Their work needs to be peer-reviewed and replicated. Still, the world has been waiting for this news. Stem-cell therapy has become the most hyped scientific advance since cold fusion. Californians voted to spend at least $3 billion of their money on it. Some politicians want to likewise spend our money. Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said if Sen. John Kerry were elected president, "people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
So then why didn't Hwang make the front page of every American newspaper? Has nearly every American editor suddenly turned stupid?
Not likely. More likely it's because the stem cells used in Hwang's therapy were from umbilical cord blood instead of embryos. Why should that make a difference? Because if you favor embryonic stem cells, you are a smart, loving person. But if you favor cord cells, you are a Luddite. If you want to avoid the ethical, moral or religious difficulties posed by killing embryonic human life or by creating it solely for the purpose of prospecting, you are a cruel person who would let people suffer and die from horrible, painful diseases or injuries. Same goes for advocates of "adult" stem cells extracted harmlessly and without any ethical problems from living tissues of adults and children. In short: Good guys equal embryonic stem cells; bad guys equal adult and cord stem cells.
Unfortunately for Bush-haters, conservative bashers and others who have canonized embryonic stem-cell therapy, Hwang's miracle was pulled off with cord therapy--news that a biased media would prefer to ignore.
For the Death Lobby, it's not about what works but about exercising power over others.
MORE:
Vision | Cells for Building: In tissue engineering, embryonic stem cells might not be the way to go (Charles Vacanti, 11/22/04, The Scientist)
OJ:
Have you ever read Malcolm Muggeridge's essay "The Great Liberal Death Wish"? It is as profound a dissection of modern liberalism's pro-death tendencies as I've ever come across, and this article reminded me of it.
Muggeridge gave his death-wishing theme a sense of personal authority by recounting his experiences with Western intellectuals then sojourning in 1930s Moscow, all of whom worshiped the obviously rotten Soviet Union and openly despised their Western home countries. That a worldwide Communist government would have meant the absolute end of their careers and their lives meant nothing to them: They were too perfectly stupid to notice, or to care.
You can find this essay in Russell Kirk's Portable Conservative Reader.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at December 12, 2004 10:07 PMIf the fetus is already dead, why does it matter whether its tissue is used for stem-cell research, unless the parents have some objection?
This is a scientific matter, let the scientists decide it, and keep the politicians and the priests out.
Posted by: Bart at December 13, 2004 6:54 AMBart,
Gee, where do you suppose they get those dead fetuses?
Posted by: Roy Jacobsen at December 13, 2004 10:38 AMRoy,
Currently abortion is legal. Whether the dead fetuses are used for stem cell research or fertilizer doesn't really matter. The question is a simple one, once the fetus has been killed, what should be done with the body and who gets to make that choice.
The question of whether abortion should or shouldn't be legal is completely independent of the decision to use fetal tissue in stem cell research.
Posted by: Bart at December 13, 2004 11:23 AMBart,
By the time they're aborted, they've gone too far beyond the stage where they can easily get those lovely embryonic stem cells. That's why they're all in a lather whenever someone discusses a cloning ban. That's where they want to get their stem cells.
What's the problem with limited kinds of cloning, like a body part? Why shouldn't you be able to get your kidne\y, your liver or your heart cloned in case of emergency, if you have the bucks?
You are not bringing an organism to term and sentience and then scavenging it for parts.
Posted by: Bart at December 13, 2004 4:34 PMBart,
What's the problem with limited kinds of cloning, like a body part?
Just one teensy little detail: There ain't no such critter. (Besides which, I don't think the advocates of cloning and embryonic stem cell research like the idea of any sort of limits.)
Posted by: Roy Jacobsen at December 14, 2004 4:47 PMRoy,
Don't you remember that picture of the mouse with the human ear growing out of its back?
Posted by: Bart at December 14, 2004 10:10 PM