|
Opinion-Despite
Veto, There is Hope for Sufferers
Carol Marie Siedenburg
Reno Gazette Journal
July 5, 2007
President Bush vetoed the Stem-Cell Research Enhancement
Act, which would use taxpayer funds for the destruction of
human embryos for research. In addition to the moral
convictions that form the basis for objections to human
embryonic stem-cell research (hESCR), there are solid
scientific reasons and alternate successes to support an
objection to this line of inquiry. It is illogical to say
that the president's veto shatters hope for sufferers.
There is a growing list of leading researchers who believe
that medical advances are not likely to be found using
hESCR, including Don Landry, Department of Medicine
chairman at Columbia University, and Stanford University's
Bill Hurlbut. There are more than 70 benefits using
non-embryonic stem cells and more than 1,000 clinical
trials. There are no human embryonic benefits or trials.
Embryonic stem cells naturally divide and change rapidly.
When these very adaptable cells find themselves in the
slowly developing adult body, they do not have the
restraint to grow at the right rate or into the correct
cell type for their environment. The cues needed for their
development are found in the fetal environment. When used
in animal studies, these cells create what is known as a
teratoma (a tumor made up of bone, hair, tooth and other
foreign tissues).
But that doesn't mean there is no hope for sufferers. Real
medical breakthroughs are being made using non-embryonic
stem cells. Standing with the president when he announced
his veto was Kaitlyn McNamara. Kaitlyn received a new
bladder manufactured from her own stem cells by Dr. Atala
at Wake Forest Medical Center. Since her bladder was
engineered from her stem cells, it's unlikely that her
body will reject her new bladder as would almost certainly
happen if it was engineered using embryonic stem cells.
This is the tip of the iceberg. Harvard University
researchers have used adult stem cells to cure diabetes in
mice in the United States, and humans in Brazil have been
taken off insulin using a similar approach using adult
stem cells. Other advances using non-embryonic stem cells
include spinal cord injury and Parkinson's disease.
Researchers have used non-embryonic stem cells and other
cells to create lung and liver tissue. Stem cells have
helped in cardiac repair.
This doesn't even account for the advances outside
stem-cell research including the just announced
possibility of treating Parkinson's with gene therapy and
a vaccine for Parkinson's to attack plaque buildup.
Earlier this month, in a corroborated study, scientists
reprogrammed skin cells to function as embryonic stem
cells. If used therapeutically, it would provide tissue
that is not likely to be rejected by the patient. Federal
funding is available to proceed on these cells that were
not derived from an embryo. The basic science advances to
be gleaned from embryonic stem cells can be accomplished
using animal embryonic stem cells.
Critics won't agree with Nevada LIFE and pro-life moral
objections that this undermines human dignity and attacks
the inherent value of human beings, but there is clearly
hope beyond human embryonic stem-cell research.
Carol Marie Siedenburg is a
Nevada LIFE (Life Issues Forum and Education) board
member. |
