I realize that the topic I am about to weigh in on is very controversial. There is a recent article out suggesting that Macular Degneration may be cured with stem cells. Click here. I can tell you that as an optometrist, if this treatment becomes mainstream that many will be helped. Macular Degeneration is a devastating eye disease which causes blindness in many people each year. As the baby boomers age, the numbers with macular degeneration will increase. It is devastating to patients physically and mentally.
Yes, I know all of the arguments against stem cell research. The fact that an embryo is destroyed is not to be taken lightly. However, when couples go in for "in vitro" fertilization, many embryos are made. Only a few are used to make a child. The leftover embryos are destroyed. My moral question is if these are going to be destroyed, why should we not use them for research.
Many argue the religious and moral implications to destroying human embryos. However, the Catholic church is one of the few churches which is consistent in opposing stem cell research and "in vitro" fertilization techniques. Based on that, I can see where the Catholic church can put up such an argument. Most religions are all over the map when it comes to issues such as these.
Many of the faithful of all religions would never tell a church member who is having trouble conceiving to not seek medical treatments such as "in vitro" because the leftover embryos will be destroyed in the process of making their child. However, these same people will oppose stem cell research fervently for the same reason.
As for me, I am not going to tell anyone who wants to have a child to NOT do "in vitro" because it destroys embryos. I have never been in the position of not being able to conceive a child so I do not understand. I do, however, believe that if these leftover embryos are going to be destroyed then they should be used for stem cell research when the parents have been educated and the parents approve.
I do know what Macular Degeneration does to patients and see the struggles these patients go through daily. I do have an understanding of the battles these patients face and would like to see them helped. You never know, you just might be one of those patients some day.
As for the way I see it, this is exciting news for my Macular Degeneration patients.
3 comments:
I think your position is exactly right, and I say that as a pastor. I understand where the people who oppose stem cell research are coming from, but much depends on how one defines where life begins. It's not as easy to define as many people want to try and make it. In the meantime, the use of these cells can possibly help millions.
Controversial indeed! Here is my 2 cents worth. My husband and I happened to take a class at church regarding this very issue. It was taught by a medical research scientist.(wish I could put my hands on my notes) First, when Bush cut off funding for embryonic stem cell research, the scientists looked for the alternative - adult stem cell research - and great advances were found using the adult stem cells. As he put it - other ways and methods can be found - and have. He told us several success stories of people he personally witnessed become fully healed using adult stem cells - a man with cancer, who can now say he never had cancer because his cells are "clean" - a man who got up from a wheelchair after years - and another who had his heart healed - all from adult stem cells.
Where does the controversy come from? The value of human life - and when does human life begin? It has already been scientifically proven that human life does indeed begin at conception. So there is the answer to the 2nd question.
So, why not use these embryos that are not going to be used? That is sugar coating things just a bit - that is NOT the only way they get these stem cells - an abortionist can perform an abortion for a few hundred dollars, then turn around and make thousands from selling the stem cells. The argument has always been made that if an "embryo" can not survive on its own, then it is okay to abort it. Think about when your children were born - if you had placed them on a table and walked away - could they have survived? Of course not! And, yes, while it is going to happen anyway, one has to ask themselves if they want to be a part of it. Just because these are "embryos" does not make them less human, without a soul -our society would not condone the murder of say a 5 year old on the playground for research purposes, but we minimize the life of an unborn child - by calling it an "embryo" as if it is less than what it is.
Now, as you remember I was way pregnant when we graduated. I had options - even had people pushing me to head for the easiest door - I thank God all the time I did not do that. Later in my life when I actually wanted to conceive - guess what? I could not. I went to the specialists, etc. We have choices - I chose not to produce a "litter" of embryos that I could not possibly begin to take care of. People do that for selfish reasons - they want a baby. They should ask themselves what their baby wants. Who would choose to be conceived in a dish, then discarded for scientific purposes? While I am not against people investigating their options to conceive, sometimes the answer is NO. Sometimes we do not get what we want. And sometimes we have to wait. I chose to have a minor operation - and then wait. I did conceive and I am happy I did. But, I was also ready if the answer was no.
Lisa, thanks for your comments. I certainly understand and respect your position and it is the same as the Catholic church. However, most who oppose stem cell research are not consistent for the reasons which I listed.
I specifically avoided abortion in my comments and focused on stem cell research as I knew that abortion would open a whole new debate.
I happen to believe that life probably begins at conception. There are many who are a lot smarter than me in this area who argue that life begins when the embryo is implanted into the uterine wall. Many embryos don't implant and are spontaneously discarded or spontaneously aborted by females. So these people will use implantation as the point where life begins.
Even with Bush appointing a conservative in Judge Roberts, it does not appear that the Supreme Court is going to overturn abortion in the near term, if ever. I am not for abortion docs selling embryos and feel like laws could be set up to prevent that from occuring.
Even if abortion were to be overturned, do you think the court would weigh in on in vitro options and deny couples the right to conceive a child? I am not sure the Supreme Court would ever take this on.
And that is why it gets back to the argument that if they are going to be destroyed under present law, why would we not use them for research.
We donate organs such as corneas, hearts, livers, and kidneys from deceased loved ones. An embryo would be just as important as any of these in my view.
Post a Comment