Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Vote on stem cell research offers hope for millions

Re: House votes to lift stem cell limits, May 25.

I was impressed that 50 Republican members of Congress had the courage to place humane morality over politics and vote in favor of federal funding for enhancement of embryonic stem cell research. Among them were Florida Reps. Bill Young, Ginny Brown-Waite, Mike Foley, Connie Mack and E. Clay Shaw. All the Florida Democrats voted "yes" on the bill and are to be commended as well.

By current count, the Senate's version of the bill has enough visionaries also to see the bill past the political stumbling blocks being thrown by their leadership. They know that the legislation is about hope for the millions of Americans of all ages who suffer from or die of conditions and diseases such as spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's and juvenile diabetes.

Conversely, I was disgusted to see the photographic evidence on the front page showing President's Bush's political exploitation of the families who have been able to finally have children because of advances in science.

We who support this funding and research could create a comparably dramatic and crass display. It would consist of loved ones who could potentially benefit from the research. Their parade in wheelchairs, on crutches and in hospital beds, and hooked up to insulin pumps would fill Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House and back again. Minus, of course, the tens of thousands like my spinal-cord-injured father who didn't survive to see the day.

Embryonic stem cell use not justified

Re: Bioethicists ponder while patients are dying, May 24.

Michael Kinsley's column contains some serious misstatements that I feel compelled to address, as a physician and a scientist:

To state that an embryo has fewer cells than a mosquito and so is less worthy than a mosquito makes little sense. Kinsley seems to ignore that the cells composing an embryo are stem cells, with an unlimited ability of self-replication and differentiation, while the cells of a mosquito are disposable somatic cells.

Contrary to his statement that "in vitro" fertilization is "uncontroversial," the practice is unacceptable to many bioethicists because it involves the formation and disposal of fertilized eggs, which contain the full genome of a human being.

The fact that an embryo has no nervous system, and presumably no feelings, while a grown person has a developed nervous system is irrelevant to the issue of when life begins! If that were a criterion to separate what is and is not alive, we would be justified in harvesting organs from individuals in persistent neurovegetative status or other sensorial disorders.

In the issue of embryonic stem cell research Kinsley has espoused a utilitarian viewpoint that has no scientific foundation or social or moral justification, and could not be further from the principles of justice.

It is still destroying human life

Re: Korean scientists create patient-matched stem cells, May 20.

Once again, the goal of growing replacement tissues from embryonic stem cells to treat and possibly cure sickness and disease might be within sight. Unfortunately, in my view, getting there is murder - in more ways than one.

Last year, Korean scientists cloned a human embryo to harvest stem cells. Now, according to this report, these same scientists have created embryos with stem cells that were genetically matched to injured or sick patients. But in order to get the now customized stem cell, the embryo would have to die. Call it embryo cloning, therapeutic cloning, somatic cell nuclear transfer, it is still destruction of human life, a.k.a. murder.

Undoubtedly, many scientists see an embryo only as a microscopic organism holding the possibility of a cure, not a microscopic person who must be sacrificed for what is, actually, just a possibility. No possibility, not even a guarantee of a glorious end, justifies that murderous means.

Letting other nations take the lead

Re: S. Korea gives stem cell scientist $1-million more, May 26.

Stem cell research is the wave of the future, seeking to help those who are sick or injured receive genetically matched cells and help increase their chances of survival. And, no doubt, South Korea is now accelerating onto the high road of success, as the government gives research scientist Hwang Woo Suk an extra $1-million.

If President Bush remains obstinate about such valuable research and does not change his stance, not only will our country continue to be dependent upon foreign oil, but there may also come a day when U.S. doctors and hospitals will have to look to the advanced technology of stem cell research from foreign countries as well.

What about the war in Iraq?

Re: Bush promises veto for any bill that eases stem cell restrictions, May 21.

President Bush says, "I made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is - I'm against that."

What is he saying here? If you are 18 or older, he will spend taxpayers' money to get you killed to save a life in Iraq. More than 1,600 American lives have been lost, and he has spent $200-billion of taxpayers' money doing it. Is he for real?

Insurance customers need help

Re: Allstate may raise rates, cut policies, May 19.

As a consumer who generally has to have insurance, at least house and vehicle, it continues to alarm me that companies such as Allstate, which have been making profits for many years from our monthly payments, cry wolf when they actually have to come to the aid of their clients.

Why don't our elected officials come to our aid? Is it because they're owned by this company and many like them? How about the top echelon of managers taking a pay cut instead of asking for increases by those barely making it? Isn't the $30-million a year that the CEO of Allstate is paid a bit obscene? Is anybody out there listening?

Raising rates so Mr. CEO can live opulently is a just plain wrong.

The trouble with those oaks

I enjoyed the May 20 article about St. Petersburg's arborist (A love of leaves). However, the article said he loves oaks and likes to plant them. Perhaps he doesn't realize that oak pollen in the spring makes thousands of people miserable.

Each year I dread February and March (and this year the pollen season extended into April and May), and am miserable with watery, itchy eyes, runny nose, sneezing, etc. There are numerous other people who suffer just as I do.

I would like to suggest to the arborist that he plant some other trees instead of oaks.

[Last modified May 27, 2005, 00:40:18]