July 24, 2006

Bush’s beliefs stand in the way of progress

Case In Point

By Chris Honoré
Tidings Correspondent

Last Wednesday, surrounded by children called “Snowflakes” — children who had once been frozen embryos — President Bush vetoed legislation passed by both the House and the Senate which would have freed up federal funds to expand stem cell research. It was his first veto since taking office, and he did so knowing that the House does not have the votes necessary to override his veto and that the Senate would therefore not take up the issue of an override.

Consider the implications of that veto: Stem cells, which can be extracted from a human embryo, meaning a fertilized egg, have the potential to generate cells and human tissue and can be used for cell-based therapies. Stem cells offer the possibility of treating diseases including Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, spinal cord injuries, stroke, arthritis, heart disease and diabetes. The implications are far-reaching and revolutionary, even breathtaking.

The research, for example, could lead to the ability to generate healthy heart muscle cells in the laboratory and then transplant those rejection-free cells into a patient suffering from chronic heart disease. Or for those who suffer from type I diabetes, wherein the cells of the pancreas that normally produce insulin are being attacked by the immune system, there’s the possibility of creating insulin-producing cells that eventually could be used in transplantation therapies. People with severe spinal cord injuries might one day walk. Of course, significant hurdles remain. This is still nascent science. But the medical interventions seem limitless.

And it is because of the promise of stem cells to ameliorate a wide spectrum of debilitating illnesses that the Senate and the House crafted, with strong bipartisan support, this legislation. Hundreds of thousands of embryos are preserved in fertility clinics across the nation, awaiting eventual destruction. The centerpiece of the bill, and its main intent, was to utilize those embryos for research; at least 70 percent of Americans, it’s been reported, agree.

So why would the president veto research which holds such great promise for so many? The problem is that in the process of extracting the stem cells from the embryo, the embryo is destroyed. Shortly after signing the veto President Bush stated, “This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses the moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it.” For the veto, President Bush, referring to the “Snowflake” children, said, “These boys and girls are not spare parts. (They) remind us of what is lost when embryos are lost in the name of research.”

President Bush’s veto is clearly based on his personal religious beliefs. Polls indicate that Americans are far less certain that a frozen embryo is an innocent human being than is the president. Which leads us down a moral and philosophical worm hole, grappling with the issue of how we define and determine when a fertilized egg is a human being and no longer simply a mass of cells. On the one end of the continuum is DNA, found in the cells of all organisms, and on the other the clear formation of a being (sometime in the first trimester?). Those who take the position (as apparently President Bush does) that human life begins the minute an egg is fertilized, also believe that any attempt to use that embryo in experiments would be tantamount to murder. Some have called the destruction of embryos for science genocide.

To follow this line of reasoning, those who protest the use of embryonic stem cells for research should also protest the destruction of those embryos (it is estimated that there are 400,000 frozen embryos in clinics) not used in the process of in-vitro fertilization. Take this position to the next step, as some rigidly doctrinaire churches have, and the result is an emotionally charged discourse about inception, birth control and abortion. In the extreme, anything that interferes with the fertilization of an egg by spermatozoa should be banned. If an intrauterine device (IUD) is known to bar the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus, thus allowing the egg to perish, it must not be used. If life is DNA, then the destruction of spermatozoa at any time, for any reason, should be prohibited, the use of condoms rejected, for the swimmers are part of the plan to create life. The RU-486 pill, an abortifacient medication, and emergency contraception (a.k.a. Plan B, used in cases of rape or unplanned sex or birth control failure), should be eliminated.

This is a slippery slope, and a debate that is not likely to be resolved any time soon, though the courts will try. However, there’s a meta question that should be raised, and raised loudly: if President Bush represents the wishes of the American people who overwhelmingly approve of stem cell research, then shouldn’t he sign such legislation into law, no matter his own religious convictions? We are a nation committed to the separation of church and state, and for good reason. Since our founding, America has Constitutionally resisted the insertion of religion into civil matters, be it the teaching of intelligent design in lieu of evolution or the use of tax payer dollars to support faith-based organizations. The president’s personal philosophy should not be the guiding principle in deciding such a serious matter, one that has the potential to transform countless lives well into the future.