bb Albert Provocateur: Stem Cells: You Can't Live with 'Em, You Can't Live without 'Em!

Albert Provocateur

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Stem Cells: You Can't Live with 'Em, You Can't Live without 'Em!

Why so much controversy over something as small as a stem cell? What did they ever do to anyone? Why can’t we pick on someone our own size? The 40 or so cells of a four-day embryo, when stained and slipped under a low-power microscope, are really not much to look at. That view hardly merits the hair raised and passions engendered by the little fellas. Depending on which side of the fence you’re on, that roundish sphere of hollow balls, known as an embryo’s blastocyst, might represent an incipient human life, to be accorded all the rights, respect, and dignity owed to any other human, if you are a right-to-life activist. On the other hand, if you suffer from the likes of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Huntington’s disease, stroke, spinal-cord injury, diabetes, or muscular dystrophy, or, if you know or love someone who does, then those “microscopic balls of hope” represent something entirely different, a possible miracle and perhaps the light at the end of the tunnel. Yes, stem cells. You can’t live with ‘em, you can’t live without ‘em! They come from embryos, and may one day treat fatal illnesses. A common misconception is that stem cells come from abortion clinics. Actually, that is not the case. In vitro fertilization (IVF) centers provide them when “spare” embryos, too numerous to implant in the womb of would-be mothers, are to be otherwise discarded. How this material is disposed of has become a moral and theological issue, now even reaching the very steps of the White House. President Bush will have to continually wrestle with the pros and cons of allowing federal funding for research on stem cells taken from human embryos. “Pro-life,” however, does not necessarily mean “no stem cell research.” Fifty-seven percent of abortion opponents support embryonic stem cell research, as do 72 percent of Roman Catholics. Is a frozen embryo stored in a refrigerator in a clinic the same as a fetus developing in a mother’s womb? Many think not. For some, banning research on embryonic stem cells would be tantamount to doing harm to real, live, postnatal human beings who might be helped by such research. The cells of a four-day old embryo are pluripotent. They are able to differentiate into any of the 220 cell types that make up a human body, including those of the skin, brain, pancreas, liver, heart, and kidney. Stem cells might be coaxed to turn into appropriate cell types and transplanted into patients with Alzheimer’s disease or spinal-cord injury. The technology will soon be in place to make infinite quantities of literally all cellular tissue in the body. Stem cell research will, most assuredly, revolutionize the practice of medicine. Such therapy might one day cure rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis by replacing damaged cartilage. It could also supply new skin to burn victims. The NIH, the chief supporter of biomedical research in the U.S., has not awarded grants for studies using human embryonic stem cells as yet. Some research is currently underway, but it is privately funded and not subject to checks, balances, and government oversight, which might become dangerous and problematic, to say the least. More questions than answers about the medical benefits of embryonic stem cells now exist. Stem cells may work therapeutic miracles in the future, or they may fall short of their promise. We won’t know, however, if research is placed on the back-burner. Ah, those stem cells. You can’t live with ‘em, you can’t live without ‘em! By banning research, one thing becomes certain: we uphold the idea of the sanctity of life, but at the price of not doing all we can to improve the lot of the living, the dying, and the suffering.
Copyright 2004, Albert M. Balesh, M.D. All rights reserved.

2 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home