Christopher Reeve knew that embryonic stem cell research wouldn’t have helped him.
Even now, after the tragic death of a true man of steel, an inspiring figure to so many, Christopher Reeve, before he is even buried, advocates of stem cell research use his memory to push their agenda. I would have much preferred to have waited for a longer period for public grieving before posting this, but in light of the tactics of unethical research advocates, I cannot remain silent.
This is an excerpt from the October 2004 Reader’s Digest interview with Reeve, conducted months ago: (*)
RD: What’s your position on embryonic stem cell research?
Reeve: I advocate it because I think scientists should be free to pursue every possible avenue. It appears though, at the moment, that embryonic stem cells are effective in treating acute injuries and are not able to do much about chronic injuries.
Of course, Reeve’s permanent spinal injury was a chronic injury.
Should scientists be free to explore every avenue, like Reeve said? Of course not. Doctor Mengele’s experiments on live human beings, for example, were beyond reproach. Science must be ethical.
The ethical problems of embryonic stem cell research are certain. As for the benefits, we know the research will not help quadriplegics like Christopher Reeve, even though advocates use his story as the main reason for doing it. Furthermore, with adult stem cell research (non-embryonic) we avoid the ethical problems and pursue a far more promising avenue of research.
Remember this: both you and I and every other human being was once a small clump of stem cells. At one time stem cells made up 100% of every human being. This research would treat our precious human beginnings in the same way we treat lab rats.
October 27th, 2004 at 00:02
Stem cells from fetuses or IVF ’surplus’ embryos would otherwise have been discarted if they weren’t used for research/treatment. If those cells can save life, then it would unethical not to do so.
As for benefits of stem-cell research, well, at least for the deadly, and very nasty ‘Huntington’s Disease’ stem-cell therapy is the only experimental treatment so far shown to help. The brain atrophy disorder (which sufferers inherit from their parents), cause a progressive psychological, emotional and motoric decline leading to a certain death 15 years or so after the first symptoms.
In this example, stem-cell therapy (not adult cells, we’re talking embryonic cells from aborted fetuses) is the only way to stem the decline. One’s value system must be pretty wacky if one would prefer this disease to be unchecked in an adult or child just to be able to throw away/burn an aborted fetus.
January 5th, 2006 at 19:17
[…] Andrew Hagen has an interesting take on the embryonic stell cell debate that has seen renewed energy in the wake of Christopher Reeves death. As Hagen notes, advocates of research have blasted Bushs ban on the embryonic front and claimed that the research might have helped the actor. However, Hagen accurately points out that even Reeve acknowledged that embryonic stem cells werent able to do much about chronic injuries such as his. Instead, Reeves support for stem cell research came not because he thought it promised a cure for his condition but rather from his perspective that scientists should be free to pursue every possible avenue, to which Hagen responds: Should scientists be free to explore every avenue, like Reeve said? Of course not. Doctor Mengele’s experiments on live human beings, for example, were beyond reproach. Science must be ethical. […]