the Stem Cell Page

time and ignorance are the enemies

Election over, let the stem cell “What ifs” begin

November 29, 2006

 

 

With the election behind us, the inevitable analyses commence. Theories abound, giving rise to those unending questions of “what if.”

 

Donn Rubin posed a most interesting “what if” yesterday:   What if churches were banned from serving as polling places?

 

Would Missouri’s Amendment 2 have won by a greater margin without the potential subliminal influence of the surroundings?  Would more voters have shifted to ‘YES’ votes had they been voting in a public school?

 

Interesting thought.  I expect that Donn will have somebody comparing results where public school polling places neighbored church polling places.

 

In a related story, Eric Mink, a columnist for the St. Louis Post Dispatch reported some interesting exit poll statistics.  He reflected on the influence of the church on Amendment 2 voting:

 

Faith, for example, is a powerful force in people's lives, arguably the most powerful. But it is not the only force, and when religion and politics intersect, even people who share the same faith do not vote as a monolith.

In this election, the Catholic church and many evangelical Christian groups conducted passionate, organized campaigns against the proposed stem cell constitutional amendment. Yet 45 percent of Catholics statewide and 34 percent of voters describing themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians voted for the amendment — and they voted for McCaskill [the pro-cures senatorial candidate] by almost identical percentages.

 

As I read those statistics I recall that about one-third of Americans suffer from a disease or condition that is targeted for a cure by embryonic stem cell research.  So is it a surprise to see a similar proportion of self-described evangelical Christians support Amendment 2?  It shouldn’t be.  It’s not a coincidence - it’s a confirmation.

 

Among Catholics, the rise to 45% support is significant.  Despite the declaration of war upon Amendment 2 by the St. Louis archdiocese; despite the regular sermons, despite the printed material left in the pews; despite the preaching in their newsletters and magazine; despite the financial resources committed; despite their strange and uneasy, albeit temporary, brotherhood formed with the Baptist Convention; despite the special Anti-amendment 2 worship services; despite all the free publicity; despite all of this, nearly half of St. Louis Catholics defied their church.  It was not a very good showing for Archbishop Burke, but an amazing silent protest by his parishioners.

 

And Mink also notes an interesting statistic buried further in the exit polls:

Opponents of the stem cell initiative also argued that the measure was designed by and for rich elitists and would hurt the poor, but voters reached different conclusions. Among income groups, the amendment was supported most fervently by people who earn less than $15,000 per year and most enthusiastically opposed by voters with annual incomes of $200,000 or more.

 

Most striking is that those who have the least access to medical care, those who suffer from disabilities that prohibit their earning an income, those who are the most profoundly affected are the people who most widely supported the Amendment.

 

But this still leads me to wonder why so many in the upper income level viewed this as a ‘money’ issue.  Having better health care coverage do they feel insulated?  Do they feel better able to financially handle a medical catastrophe?  Or perhaps they pay more attention to how their taxes get spent?  If so, then we in the pro-cures community have done a relatively poor job of explaining that supporting embryonic stem cell research is medically responsible and fiscally conservative.

 

Let’s consider just one disease targeted for a cure by embryonic stem cell research: Diabetes.

 

What are the odds of having diabetes?  About 6%.  There are 18 million Americans with diabetes. 

 

How many new cases?

One and a half million Americans are diagnosed with diabetes – every year.   

 

And the mortality risk?

Two hundred thousand Americans die from diabetes – every year.

 

That’s serious stuff.

 

Still, opponents argue that the government should not invest in embryonic stem cell research as a line of inquiry.  It’s too expensive.  It could cost billions of dollars and they don’t want their tax dollars wasted. 

 

Let’s assume they’re correct that it’s expensive.  Let’s assume it would cost $5 billion.  Or $20 billion.  Oh, what the heck… let’s make it $50 billion.

 

So what?

 

Diabetes costs the American economy $132 billion - every year.  Diabetes is responsible for one of every four dollars we spend in Medicare - every year.

 

So let’s play a final round of “What if.”  

 

What if a cure could be found for $5 billion?  What if it took $20 billion?  Or what if a cure cost $50 billion? 

 

That’s still a bargain, cheap at twice the price.  It’s medically responsible and fiscally conservative. 

 

As is explained more and more often these days, particularly when the conversation comes around to the rising cost of health care, “If you think the cost of finding cures is expensive, just compare it to the cost of disease.”

 

- Jeff Eisen

 

——

To be notified by email of new editorials, CLICK HERE 

——

Click here to read the next editorial

To contact us:   Click Here