Embryonic Stem Cells and 'MS' don't Mix
By Kevin Roeten (11/06/07)
A recent conference call with the 'MS'(Multiple Sclerosis) society, hundreds of callers, two 'MS' hosts, and a moderator, was very eye-opening. At best, it showed the dark side of Americans. Emotions ran high because 'MS' sufferers would do almost anything for a faint glimmer of hope for its cure.
The moderator had previously made all efforts to remove and delete the writer from any ‘MS’ Society internet ‘blogs’ concerning treatment. In particular, from items involved with Embryonic Stem Cell Research(ESCR). The moderator was highly critical of Bush for previously vetoing federal funds for ESCR.
The live show contained two publicized experts(Prof. Linda Glen, and Dr. Ian Duncan) on stem cell work with ‘MS’ patients. No one else was allowed to speak, and a few questions from the listeners were previously handpicked for the one-hour show.
In brief summation, talking hosts discussed ESCs 5-6 days after fertilization. ESCR’s potential broad range of disease treatment was conversed. They centered on the ethical evidence of ESCR, especially on the conclusion there was no neural activity(which only appeared after the 42nd day). Therefore, viability was eliminated.
Also, it was discussed that New Jersey and California are already considering ESCR. Italy has started testing ESCs. Canada is using ESCs for ‘MS’, but its use of ESCs is a little bit contentious because several people have died using the procedure.
Both experts decried the fact that even though Bush OK’d the use of 60 ESC lines, that number was now down to <12, which is not enough. Both experts related that ESCR on mice resulted in teratoma(cancer) formation. They admitted that the more things you tried with ESCs, the more bad things happened. They did not expound beyond the ‘teratomas’. They agreed that all leftover IVF(In Vitro-Fertilization) ESCs should be used. They assumed that IVF was a correct procedure in the first place.
The experts also admitted that the use of ESCs was a little like ‘wild cards’, versus the use of Adult Stem Cells(ASCs). You weren’t really sure what would turn up with the use of ESCs. Prof. Glen stated that, even if they started today, at least 3-8 more years of research would be needed before any actual therapy could take place.
These experts brought up ‘justification’ several times—that many of the ongoing cells would come from ESC’s, not be ESC’s. What wasn’t stated was that fertilized embryos would have to be destroyed to produce those ‘pluripotent’ cells.
Belief that some thought ‘life’ was instituted at the moment of conception was discussed, but not seriously considered. What was really eye-opening was what was not discussed. Did anyone really know if ‘life’ was not created at conception? Could anyone guarantee that young infants could not feel pain just because we could not detect neural activity? When did ‘life’ actually begin? Did anyone think that the cancer formations with ESCR use were a non-verbal signal that this procedure should not be attempted?
Since >85% of Americans are convinced that a “soul” exists in a person, when is it put there? What happens to the soul if the fertilized embryo is destroyed? What does the Creator, who put the soul into the new baby, think about this procedure?
The writer was accused earlier of putting too much emotion into this issue. But the above questions seem very ‘cut-and-dry’. Isn’t the act of using ESCs, in itself, an emotional reaction to outside factors?
Other items rarely mentioned---the use of ASC’s(especially/placenta), which do not involve the destruction of extremely young babies. ASCs have had at least 72 success stories with illnesses. ESC’s have had “O”. “Life” is not terminated with ASCs. Billions of tax dollars are saved by not wasting them on ESCR, and not further increasing the national debt. One would think no ESCR funding sounds like a complete ‘no-brainer’.
It’s difficult to figure out this mode of thinking that many with ‘MS’ seem to have. Maybe they’ve let emotions cloud their decision making. Maybe they have no problem with killing a ‘life’ so they can benefit somewhere down the road. Either way, it’s scary that people like this exist. Another discouragement---so many of these dissenters are from only one party.
Kevin Roeten
http://kevinroeten.us/
(Printer friendly version) Email: Kevin Roeten
