Andrew Hagen

Columnist Charles Krauthammer, MD:

After the second presidential debate, in which John Kerry used the word “plan” 24 times, I said on television that Kerry has a plan for everything except curing psoriasis. I should have known there is no parodying Kerry’s pandering. It turned out days later that the Kerry campaign has a plan — nay, a promise — to cure paralysis. What is the plan? Vote for Kerry.

I’m not making this up. I couldn’t. This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: “If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.'’

In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery.…

(*) It would be hard to overestimate the dishonesty, irresponsibility, or recklessness of John Edwards’s statement.

One daydreams about a Kerry-Gephardt ticket.

Krauthammer further points out that contrary to statements in the presidential debates, there is no current “ban” on stem cell research, only a restriction on federal spending. On the other hand, it would be best to ban the embryonic sort of stem cell research and allow the rest.

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.

As Ron Reagan attempts to leverage his father’s legacy to get federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, which would guarantee the destruction of thousands of embryos for no purpose other than medical research, it will be good to keep two things in mind.

First, Ron Reagan himself admits that stem cell research will not cure or even help treat Alzheimer’s, the disease that afflicted his father, President Ronald Reagan. (*)

Second, as Ron Reagan’s brother Michael Reagan reports, Ron Reagan voted for his father in neither the presidential race of 1980 nor of 1984. (†) Michael Reagan also notes that the benefits of stem cell research can all be achieved through adult stem cell research. That way informed consent can be secured from adult donors of stem cells. Using adult, not embryonic, stem cells would eliminate the ethical problem of destroying thousands of embryos without consent for no purpose other than research.

Wesley J. Smith is informative on the bright future of research into adult stem cells. Therapies are soon to come. On the other hand, embryonic stem cells are not looking terribly useful. (*)

Update: Dodd Harris has more at Ipse Dixit. (†)

Michael Kinsley jabs at George W. Bush’s stem cell policy. Kinsley says:

It’s not a complicated point. If stem-cell research is morally questionable, the procedures used in fertility clinics are worse. You cannot logically outlaw the one and praise the other. And surely logical coherence is a measure of moral sincerity.

(*) This misses the point I have raised: human embryos are potential life and deserve either a chance to be born or termination with as much dignity as possible. (†) As human embryos cannot give informed consent, human embryo medical experimentation is by definition without consent. It is worse to be used without consent for experimental fodder and then destroyed than to be simply destroyed. Abortion is justified because the mother’s right to not give birth outweighs the right held by the potential life, the embryo, to be born. Yet, the right of the embryo to not be made the subject of an undignified medical experiment outweighs the right of the parents to use the embryo they create for a purpose not only destructive of the embryo, but destructive of the dignity of the embryo, the potential life.

Embryos are not objects. They are potential life. Embryos do not have the full panoply of rights a living person has, but as potential life, embryos must have some rights. If an embryo has any rights at all, the embryo must have the right to be treated with dignity. It is the height of indignity and disrespect to be transformed from potential life into a dead object for only one purpose: scientific experimentation.

It is tempting to see the issue in a simplistic manner. Why couldn’t we just experiment on embryos enough to cure a terrible disease like Parkinson’s, and then stop experimenting? The ends would justify the means. It is unrealistic to presume, however, that we could stop there. Soon embryos would be experimented upon routinely for any purpose at all, no matter how unprincipled or barbaric.

Meanwhile, all of the benefits of embryonic stem cells are to be had with adult stem cells. Why don’t scientists just use adult stem cells? There are two main reasons. First, it is difficult to obtain informed consent from an adult. It’s easier to just skip that step and deal with speechless embryos. Second, private companies might find it harder to make loads of profits off a cure derived from adult stem cells. Kinsley should drop his personal anger toward Bush’s stem cell policy and direct his wrath at those who are failing to invest in ethical research into adult stem cells.

It should be noted that Kinsley has an ongoing argument with Jay Lefkowitz. That argument does not address my point. (‡) (§)

Updated: 31 October 2003.

I’m strongly pro-choice. Yet, I find myself seriously troubled by embryonic stem cell research.
(more…)