|
the Stem Cell Page time and ignorance are the enemies |
|
Amendment 2 - A retrospective, looking forward |
|
- by Don Christofferson
November 13, 2006
I chose to work for the passage of Missouri’s Amendment 2 because I had a stem cell transplant in January, 2001. I have had over five quality years of life since. My Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma is one of the few diseases that can be treated successfully with adult stem cells. (Basically the blood diseases are the only treatments that are currently successful with adult stem cells.) It wasn’t the greatest experience to go through but it’s the result that counts. As I was able to use my own stem cells I didn’t have to worry about rejection.
I thank God each day for the research that allowed me to have this cure. I just wish the ‘anti-Amendment 2’ faction would consider the good that research of embryonic stem cells might provide them or their families in the future, though I pray they never need it.
I had a friend who had Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma but could not produce his own stem cells and had to wait for a bone marrow transplant match. By the time they found the match and gave him the transplant, he died - either because by then he too weak, or his body was rejecting the bone marrow from a non-related donor, or both.
I was disappointed to hear rumblings from the Amendment 2 opponents that they’re considering a drive to repeal Amendment 2 in 2008. Assuming they truly have ethical problems with embryonic stem cell research and any treatments or cures it may lead to, I’d suggest they legally commit to rejecting them. This could be accommodated with a notation on their driver’s licenses or by something akin to a Living Will. (They should also specify that the instruction applies in all jurisdictions – domestic and foreign.)
Of course, by extension they should also indicate their unwillingness to undergo any organ transplant. Organs are harvested from victims that are brain dead but kept alive ‘artificially.’ In their terms, this is still the “taking a life” as was demonstrated by the intervention in the Terry Shiavo case, spawned by the religious right. Similarly, the embryos which would be the source of embryonic stem cells are kept alive ‘artificially’ by being cryogenically frozen. If one were to simply unplug the freezers in which they’re stored they could not survive. These embryos also bear a limited “shelf life” - the time they can be kept in storage and remain viable. This is a contributing factor to about a tenth of the supply being destroyed each year.
While the Bush administration would have us believe that the government can do something to increase the rate of embryo adoption, their purported alternative, the truth is that these embryos are not in the government’s custody. Both custody and decisions regarding their disposition rest with the couples who created them. These couples currently have choices:
· They can store them indefinitely · They can offer them for adoption · They can have them destroyed
It’s time we provided an additional option - donation for research. This would give them the same choice as people have who have a loved one pronounced clinically dead. It sure seems a better alternative than to keep destroying these embryos that are not being used, or cryogenically storing them until they crystallize. Destruction by either means is less desirable than transforming them into potential treatments or cures to prevent suffering from terrible diseases.
I have often heard people say that as we have an ample supply of umbilical cord stem cells we do not need to extract stem cells from embryos. Clearly, these people don’t realize that umbilical stem cells are adult stem cells. Nor do they understand that adult stem cells do not hold the same potential as embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells can develop only into a certain family of cell types, while embryonic stem cells can become any of the more than 200 cell types in the human body.
And how many of us have heard the argument that there are no cures for human diseases from embryonic stem cells? One should not expect there would be. This is relatively new research, only 8 years old, compared to the more than 50 years of research on adult stem cells. And there are additional obstacles. The current lines of embryonic stem cells approved for federal research funding by President Bush are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, meaning they can never be used for human clinical trials.
Certainly this research will progress in other states or countries, but if performed elsewhere it may not be subjected to the ethical guidelines and oversight required by Amendment 2. As a Missourian, I’ll feel far more comfortable knowing that research conducted here must live up to those standards.
—— To be notified by email of new editorials, CLICK HERE —— |
|
To contact us: Click Here |