The Needs Of The Many . . .
It has been a week since WorldNetDaily reported on a breakthrough in adult stem cell research in which scientists in Pennsylvania claim to have demonstrated that adult cells have the same ability as embryonic stem cells to multiply. Not surprisingly, the discovery has received little attention from the “mainstream” media, as it has joined with the left in investing much emotion and energy to demand that the federal government fund research on cells harvested from embryos.
The logic behind the passionate rhetoric coming out of the left regarding embryonic research – including the allegation that conservatives like George Bush are against helping the disabled – is hard to understand, to put it mildly.
The fact is that, contrary to the verbiage used by its most outspoken proponents, there is no ban in the United States on embryonic stem cell research. All that the Bush administration has said is that it will not allow federal tax dollars to be spent on the research. Anyone with the financial means, or who can convince those with the means to back him, can legally conduct such research to his heart’s content. And perhaps the lack of private funds being made available for such research is more telling than proponents would like to admit.
Private investors are never in short supply to fund research or technology that shows great promise. The fact that such investors are not lining up to fund this research may be the surest sign that, apart from other reasons not to fund such research, the federal government is actually making a wise financial decision for a change.
The truth of the matter, when it comes to the various efforts at using stem cells to provide treatments and cures for disabled humans, is that adult stem cells have shown far more promise than embryonic cells simply by producing any treatments – embryonic cells have produced none to date. Despite this, embryonic research advocates insist that such research should continue – with government backing – due to the alleged – and, as yet, unproven – advantage embryonic cells possess with regard to their ability to reproduce. The significance of this recent discovery by scientists in Pittsburgh is that it may eliminate that supposed advantage that embryonic cells have over adult cells.
But that is not the reason to oppose embryonic stem cell research.
Advocacy of the research is a bipartisan affair, with prominent members of both parties calling on President Bush to set his ethical concerns aside and allow federal funding for the research, with no certainty of it producing anything useful. But to set the ethical concerns aside, as so many already have, could take mankind down a dangerous road.
Suppose that the situation was reversed from what it actually is, and embryonic stem cell research was the only research that had shown such promise. Would that be reason enough to set aside the ethical concerns? Is the culture ready and willing to pursue the objective of medical breakthroughs with no moral restraints on how they are obtained? Do the ends justify the means? For many, they obviously do.
But what if it wasn’t a question of stem cells? What if it was discovered that, for example, several forms of cancer, and spinal cord injuries could be cured through the use of brain tissue harvested from recently-born infants? Would these same advocates be willing to sacrifice one human life in order to improve the life of another?
It may be that some would, but the probability is that the vast majority would not. The interesting thing about this is that those who advocate medical research unfettered by any reasonable ethical constraints, if they advocate the destruction of embryos for such research, are no different in principle than those who would take an infant’s brain tissue. Sacrificing oneself for the good of others is a noble act. Sacrificing another’s life for the good of others is an act of tyranny of the worst kind. Just act anyone who has spoken out against the Chinese government’s practice of harvesting organs from executed criminals. Then ask them what the difference is between that, and creating life just to be destroyed.
The logic behind the passionate rhetoric coming out of the left regarding embryonic research – including the allegation that conservatives like George Bush are against helping the disabled – is hard to understand, to put it mildly.
The fact is that, contrary to the verbiage used by its most outspoken proponents, there is no ban in the United States on embryonic stem cell research. All that the Bush administration has said is that it will not allow federal tax dollars to be spent on the research. Anyone with the financial means, or who can convince those with the means to back him, can legally conduct such research to his heart’s content. And perhaps the lack of private funds being made available for such research is more telling than proponents would like to admit.
Private investors are never in short supply to fund research or technology that shows great promise. The fact that such investors are not lining up to fund this research may be the surest sign that, apart from other reasons not to fund such research, the federal government is actually making a wise financial decision for a change.
The truth of the matter, when it comes to the various efforts at using stem cells to provide treatments and cures for disabled humans, is that adult stem cells have shown far more promise than embryonic cells simply by producing any treatments – embryonic cells have produced none to date. Despite this, embryonic research advocates insist that such research should continue – with government backing – due to the alleged – and, as yet, unproven – advantage embryonic cells possess with regard to their ability to reproduce. The significance of this recent discovery by scientists in Pittsburgh is that it may eliminate that supposed advantage that embryonic cells have over adult cells.
But that is not the reason to oppose embryonic stem cell research.
Advocacy of the research is a bipartisan affair, with prominent members of both parties calling on President Bush to set his ethical concerns aside and allow federal funding for the research, with no certainty of it producing anything useful. But to set the ethical concerns aside, as so many already have, could take mankind down a dangerous road.
Suppose that the situation was reversed from what it actually is, and embryonic stem cell research was the only research that had shown such promise. Would that be reason enough to set aside the ethical concerns? Is the culture ready and willing to pursue the objective of medical breakthroughs with no moral restraints on how they are obtained? Do the ends justify the means? For many, they obviously do.
But what if it wasn’t a question of stem cells? What if it was discovered that, for example, several forms of cancer, and spinal cord injuries could be cured through the use of brain tissue harvested from recently-born infants? Would these same advocates be willing to sacrifice one human life in order to improve the life of another?
It may be that some would, but the probability is that the vast majority would not. The interesting thing about this is that those who advocate medical research unfettered by any reasonable ethical constraints, if they advocate the destruction of embryos for such research, are no different in principle than those who would take an infant’s brain tissue. Sacrificing oneself for the good of others is a noble act. Sacrificing another’s life for the good of others is an act of tyranny of the worst kind. Just act anyone who has spoken out against the Chinese government’s practice of harvesting organs from executed criminals. Then ask them what the difference is between that, and creating life just to be destroyed.
posted by JeffreyH | 11:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home