Stem Cell Research

Some things have to be expressed. And one issue that is extremely close to my heart is life, and that of the unborn. It's funny how all the "you're expecting" books talk about "your baby" and try to appeal to the "human side" of the unborn, yet when a baby is unwanted, a less human term like "fetus" is applied, and facts such as the heartbeat beginning at 3 weeks post conception are overlooked.

(Did you know that you can comment on new stem cell research regulations that will force YOU to pay for the destruction of human embryos? Register your comments with the National Institutes of Health before Tuesday, May 26th.
http://nihoerextra.nih.gov/stem_cells/add.htm?tr=y&auid=4851392&msource=c4alerts&tr=y&auid=4882424)

Here are my comments:

I am extremely opposed to these embryonic stem cell research "guidelines" for multiple reasons:

In the document itself, it says the purpose of the draft guidelines is to help ensure that research is "ethically responsible, scientifically worthy, and conducted in accordance with applicable law." It is NOT ethically responsible to create, clone or destroy embryos to conduct scientific research. To create a human being for the sole purpose of destroying them is inhumane, and goes against the very essence of life itself. (What if, for instance, more thorough research could be conducted by destroying month-old infants that were "created for reproductive purposes" but were "no longer needed for these purposes"?) Two negatives do NOT make a positive here. There is much scientific evidence emerging that adult stem cells are more effective at treating sicknesses in humans. Embryonic stem cells are not effective at curing disease, and in fact, are being found to do the opposite. Surely you are aware of the rejection and the tumors that have resulted due to embryonic stem cell research. (See article: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html) There is a greater likelihood of success in adult stem cell research, because, to quote Dr. Wolfgang Lillge, M.D., "very promising treatments of serious diseases with adult stem cells have already been tried. The special advantage is that there are no rejection reactions, because the cells are from the same body."

Your guidelines allege that "Perhaps the most important potential use of human embryonic stem cells is the generation of cells and tissues that could be used for cell-based therapies." If that's "the most important potential use of embryonic stem cells," then all of these guidelines are under false pretenses, because, as your own web site (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp) says, "Research on adult stem cells has generated a great deal of excitement. Scientists have found adult stem cells in many more tissues than they once thought possible." NIH has openly admitted that there is even less of a need to conduct embryonic stem cell research, since adult stem cells can be found in more places than expected. ("Fat, Bone Marrow, Dental Pulp, Liver, Skeletal Muscle, Umbilical Cords, Placentas and more," according to http://www.ascrnetwork.org/.)

The guidelines claim that "Today, donated tissues and organs are often used to replace ailing or destroyed tissue, but the need for transplantable tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply." Untrue. (See above quote by NIH.)

In the same statement, these "guidelines" claim that "Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases and conditions, including Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, spinal cord injury, burns, heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis." That may be true, but embryonic stem cell research is NOT the answer to the challenge of these diseases. No matter how it is whitewashed, creating or destroying innocent human life in the name of science can never be justified, not by President Barack Obama, not by the NIH or DHHS, nor by any scientific board that chooses to leave out the truly viable option of adult stem cell research as a truly noble and the ONLY ethical method of searching for cures.

Your draft guidelines claim to want to help ensure that research is "scientifically worthy"; would it be "scientifically worthy" to kill born humans in order to cure another? No. Similarly, it is not worth any scientific research to destroy an unborn human to cure a born human.

According to the Adult Stem Cell Research Network, "Adult stem cells can be extracted from many types of adult tissues such as fat, umbilical cord stem cells that come from the blood of umbilical cords after birth and placenta derived stem cells that have up to 10 times as many stem cells than from cord blood." There is no controversy or moral question about any of the latter statement. The government, which is funded by the people, has no legitimate reason by which they should be creating human embryos, destroying human embryos or cloning human embryos. You are not in the business of making babies; that is best left to the people. (Or have you forgotten the haunting, government-funded involuntary sterilization that began in the early 1900s and by which over 60,000 Americans were sterilized against their will because of their "social inadequacy"? http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html)

"Advocacy in favor of sterilization was one of Harry Laughlin’s first major projects at the Eugenics Record Office. In 1914, he published a Model Eugenical Sterilization Law that proposed to authorize sterilization of the "socially inadequate" – people supported in institutions or "maintained wholly or in part by public expense. The law encompassed the "feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf; deformed; and dependent" – including "orphans, ne'er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers." By the time the Model Law was published in 1914, twelve states had enacted sterilization laws." And, "Borrowing from Laughlin’s Model Law, the German Nazi government adopted a law in 1933 that provided the legal basis for sterilizing more than 350,000 people. Laughlin proudly published a translation of the German Law for the Prevention of Defective Progeny in The Eugenical News. In 1936, Laughlin was awarded an honorary degree from the University of Heidelberg as a tribute for his work in "the science of racial cleansing.""

Scientifically worthy?

Scientifically, it would be abhorrent for you to assume the right to create or destroy human life, and especially not when there are alternatives to such monstrous invasions against life and its sacredness. (i.e., there is other research that does not destroy human life, and is also more effective than research that destroys human life.)

There is nothing written in the draft guidelines to prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. There should be no delay in closing this loophole.

Stem cell research is a very important issue, and, as proven by history, the world is watching the United States to see what our approach to it will be. As a citizen of this nation under God, it is my duty to oppose any proposed legislation that would undermine the American rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I am opposing this draft guideline and calling it what it is: an attempt to devalue life, by destroying one life in order to maybe save another. There can be no cause for such "research," especially not when adult stem cell research is proving to be a more positive path for curing many diseases.

By dragging out and pushing the most controversial of avenues, which should not even be considered, you are delaying the research which would be truly helpful, supportive and respectful of all life: choose adult stem cell research.

Babies, Babies, Babies

Our new nephew Zadok was born on March 23, 2009. What a lovely Monday that was! He is a beautiful boy, and is very healthy, doing well, as are his parents. What a cute little squeaker!

I call him "little bird," because his cute chubby cheeks remind me of a baby bluebird. 

xo,

Noelle