What are we sacrificing for embryonic research?

Again from:

Letters to the editor
Oakville-Mehlville Journal,South City Journal,South County Journal,South Side Journal,Southwest City Journal,Southwest County Journal
08/09/2006

To the editor:

It was with keen interest that I read the guest editorial by the Gudermuths in your July 26 edition.

Their perspective on the current debate about the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative was especially poignant due to their personal health issues. Their own personal experiences, mirrored in the lives of many others, lends a persuasive depth to their view.

I agree with the Gudermuths that much "sound and fury" has been exhibited in the present debate. I also agree that the history of science and medicine is replete with examples of uniformed...misguided...attacks" against those who sought to further knowledge.

However, I must disagree with what seems to be an implicit, underlying assumption in the editorial. That assumption is the embryos that would be sacrificed in order to harvest their stem cells are not human and thus have little or no moral/ethical standing in light of potential cures.

I am certain that no reasonable person would condone the harvesting of stem cells, no matter how significant the gain to be had, if that harvest meant the death of a healthy infant child.

What, then, is the embryo in relation to that same child, if not the infant in its "head of a pin" stage of natural development? Even if an embryo "would not be used to start a pregnancy," does that then mean that he/she has no moral rights?

Granted, reasonable persons may disagree on how to answer these questions and the legal and political sequelae. However, at the risk of sounding reactionary, I hope that persons carefully reflect on what we might truly be sacrificing here in the matter of embryonic research.

Secondly, I am puzzled. On the one hand, the editorial stated "The issue has never been whether or not stem cell research will happen. It is happening every day in other countries..." On the other hand, the editorial also stated "The purpose of the amendment is to protect the right of Missourians to reap the benefits of stem cell research."

If "stem cell research will happen" elsewhere, ethical questions aside, has any "overzealous politician" moved to ban any cures derived from such research from being applied to the suffering of Missourians?

I think that attempts to ban such therapies from Missourians, whatever the source and however morally questionable the means used to discover such cures, would fail.

I might not condone how such knowledge and therapies were discovered, but once discovered, how could I ethically stand in the way of their use to cure the sick? Thus, again, the need for reflection and reasoned debate! Thank you for this opportunity to voice my opinion.

Ed Hart
South St. Louis

Source.