Bioethics

A topic I never completely formed an opinion on, and hesitate even now to take a hard and fast position with, is embryonic stem cells. This lies in that continuum of difficult moral and ethical questions most refer to as bioethics.

First we should discard the extreme positions of those who have chosen to politicize this particular question:

The left side pillories the president, which is their favorite sport these days, for stopping important stem cell research that, if not for his ignorant obstruction of science, would have cured all manner of diseases by now. If your source of information is television news programs, not to mention certain Democratic politicians, then you probably believe that Christopher Reeve would be alive and walking around by now, Ronald Reagan wouldn't have died from Alzheimers, and Michael J. Fox would still be appearing in lots of movies without a trace of his Parkinsons' symptoms, if not for the ignorant policies of the president.

The right side envisions a doomsday scenario where the abortion mills selling aborted fetuses to a new embryonic stem cell industry that gained enough clout to convince a majority of Americans that abortion is not only a positive choice, but helps save lives. The scenario is reminiscent of the old Capra film, Soylent Green.

What we have to do is separate the facts from the rhetoric. And in this particular case, I can't say for certain that I completely understand all the facts. Because it's very hard to tell the truth from spin when proponents of either side of the issue seem to be saying opposite things.

All that considered, here is a list of what seem to be the facts:

• Stem cells are showing terrific promise in treatment of a wide range of maladies.
  
• Adult stem cells are already being used successfully to treat some illnesses.
  
• Placental stem cells have shown the greatest promise yet, and some researchers say they appear to be better than embryonic stem cells.
• Embryonic stem cells, although appearing to hold great promise, have yet to be successfully applied to any positive effect, even in a laboratory environment.
• The president did not ban or restrict stem cell research. There are no laws preventing private companies from experimenting with embryonic or any other stem cells as much as they please. His only crime was in restricting federal funding only on embryonic research to the use of existing lines. Public and private research never stopped, and is continuing today.
• The latest flap is over Bill Frist, who has come out in favor of expanding embryonic stem cell funding to include embryos from fertility clinics that were going to be discarded anyway.

So what conclusions do I draw from what (admittedly little) I understand about the issue?

1. That some research scientists are using the debate to try to get more funding, whether or not there is any potential of a miracle cure in this research.
2. That Frist's new position means nothing, other than he's trying to broaden his support base for a possible run for president.
3. That abortion rights activists see this as a way to get wider acceptance of their philosophy.
4. That the discussion hasn't even gone to the true ethical question yet, but just to how much should taxpayers be forced to contribute to this particular research project, even if they object on moral and ethical grounds.
   
5. That the president's position on this has to come from his core principles and not political calculation. Why? If he had done nothing, nobody would have noticed, and he would have received little or no criticism on the issue.
6. That the bottom line question is, are we willing to sacrifice human life to save other human life? Even when even the possibility of that process working is still in doubt?

I am sort of leaning toward the president's point of view on this one.