Michael wrote: If any part of the story, though not true at the present, could in the future become a possibility, then perhaps, that possibility should be scrutinized as well as the present facts.

I assume you are referring to the Sci-Fi story, Michael. There are unlimited possibilities with any scientific finding: Did you ever think that we would be able to transplalnt a heart? What about reattaching a severed finger? Or wiping out (essentially in the US) devastating illnesses like polio or smallpox?? And, as with any scientific finding, there are possibilities that can turn sour - even lethal to the human race.

I think this forum's purpose is to provide information and support for one another. That information may incllude harmful possibilities. But we should try to not provide one-sided stories without balancing them with the opposing facts.

I have written some very one-sided editorials for various media uses. I can show some of them to you if you like. Usually an editor wants an opinion; but I prefer to present questions and facts that make people at least consider or listen to a concept not in compliance with one's own thinking.

We are treading new waters. Some of the "potential" problems are mindboggling (as Michael's fictional story points out). I am going to post one of my "questioning" OpEd's. I am NOT directing it at anyone's comments or opinion - it's just to make us think. As my mom always said, "There are two sides to every story." Thanks for listening to mine.
Peg


ATTENTION: FYI Please note that this editorial was written and published just prior to President Bush's veto on last year's Stem Cell Research bill (HR810). The identical bill was passed by the House this year and awaits a Senate vote. The legislation, S-3 "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007" will likely be voted on in March. The vote is extremely close iin the Senate to make the bill veto-proof.

OpEd The Shape of Things to Come
By Peggy Willocks
August, 2005
TN Coordinator – Parkinson’s Action Network

Take a circular Petri dish, bring together egg and sperm cells, and the miraculous process of creating an embryo begins. But bring together a circle of acquaintances, ask for opinions on embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), and we will surely polarize into a multi-sided shape. Rather than be close-minded, we should listen to those teaching, then weigh all sides.

We listen to the media, adding their sensationalism, and reporting a plethora of political motives and opinions from extremists on both sides of the spectrum. We listen to the scientists, teaching that early studies indicate ESCR has the best potential success. Science claims hope for improved treatments and possible cures for millions from diseases like Parkinson’s, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and spinal cord injuries. And we listen to the pro-life conservatives, teaching their religious angle on this issue. And we listen to the politicians, some of whom don’t always have the interest of mankind at heart. But first, we must get the question right. Simply stated, the question is - Can we support research using science-created excess embryos and preserve the sanctity of human life?

A House passed bill (HR810) requests a relaxing of President’s Bush’s 2001 research moratorium on existing stem cell lines. Bush, who promises his first veto for the House passed bill, remains adamant in his decision. But in a surprise move during the President’s Council on Bioethics report, (former) Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), a heart transplant surgeon, denounced support of President Bush’s stand. And now the debate is on with a possible Senate vote in September.

Since the early 90’s, U.S. doctors at in vitro clinics have been creating and implanting embryos through a process known as in vitro fertilization (IVF), into the wombs of infertile women. But not every fertilized egg is viable; i.e. only the healthiest are “culled.” And not every implantation becomes a viable pregnancy; therefore, more eggs are fertilized than needed, with some trashed and excessive embryos stored frozen.

Some 400,000 unused frozen embryos are presently stored in fertility clinics throughout the U.S., destined to be discarded as medical waste, yet forbidden under present legislation to be used for stem cell research. The “Snowflake” program, organized by a Christian group, provides the option of donating embryos to recipient couples unable to produce their own. This program would not be precluded by HR810. Some Christian conservatives and pro-life supporters strongly believe these excess embryos are “life,” equating their use for research, in which the embryos must be destroyed, to “killing innocent lives.”

There are questions needing answers: Why is it allowable for “life” to be created, knowing that during the IVF process not all embryos will even survive the thaw, and the unhealthy will be culled, or “killed?” If several embryos are implanted – what becomes of those that don’t take? Some methods of birth control (such as IUD’s and certain birth control pills) “work” by causing an attached embryo to be “aborted.” Why is this not considered as killing a human? As ludicrous as it all of this seems, these are inconsistencies to be considered.

Concerning the science of ESCR, how far ethically can we proceed? Will there be clearly defined guidelines preventing embryos past a few days old from becoming “research” material? Will implantation of an embryo in order to “make a baby” via reproductive cloning be outlawed? Will legalization contribute to black-marketing embryos, organs, or body parts? If we don’t support this science, will we fall behind and lose our best scientists and doctors to other countries?

Finally, the ethics of such a science lead us to a closer examination of our own value system, and whether or not one’s religious beliefs should have precedence over another. Are we “playing God” with this science? Will ESC research lead us into never before tested situational ethics, such as genetic ownership or liability? Could we paint ourselves into a fatal corner in an attempt to create immortal bodies, only to eliminate the human race due a genetic vulnerability?

There are choices to be made, choices that could further polarize an already philosophically divided society. But there are also lives to be saved and scientific advancements to be made. President Bush calls this choice a “matter of conscious.” (former) Senator Frist (R-TN), calls it a “matter of science.” Conservatives call it a “matter of life,” while others call it a “matter of politics.” Or is it a “matter of moral, scientific, and political semantic inconsistencies.” The shape of things to come depends on “who’s teaching,” and “who’s listening.”