Opinion: In debate over use of stem cells, let choice prevail

The letter writer expressed his moral indignation at stem cell research utilizing embyronic material created for that purpose. He closed with a vow that he would never, personally, avail himself of any medical technology that might flow from such research. My initial reaction was that the writer suffered from excessive righteousness. But after some thought, I think this fellow a hero, his concept a beacon of lucidity in the fog of emotional debate, and I wish others would follow his lead. Let me tell you about my conversion.

Two years ago while shaving I noted a swollen gland. A month down the diagnostic trail came the answer: chronic non-Hodgkins lymphoma. There is currently no cure, but research into this area is exploding. Overnight I went from a middle class, balding, 43-year-old guy to a cancer patient. My only goal now to stay alive until "the cure" is found.

The chemo was rough, but not brutal, and resulted in a blessed remission last May. My remission failed after just two months, and now I'm back at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, seeking another strategy, knowing that one day much sooner than expected I have a date with a bone marrow transplant, the most invasive medical procedure regularly done on humans.

The Moffitt folks were honest; the procedure itself kills 25 percent of patients. Of those who survive, another 50 percent will suffer chronic graft-versus-host disease, "rejection," which will torment them until they die.

The most recent advances at de-lethalizing a bone marrow transplant are the use of stem cells from umbilical cords. Close behind is another bit of reproductive detritus, unused eggs from fertility clinics and the source of debate. I'm 45 today, struggling to reach 50. I pay my taxes, donate to charity and give time freely to the needy. It's a humbling experience to have my chance for life, my opportunity to live, equated with that of a zygote, 100 cells whose only destiny is a sink drain. But then, cancer is like that -- it humbles us.

Science has a way of making us morally uncomfortable. In the past, we, as Americans, faced moral dilemmas with the right, the choice, to absolve ourselves of that which we find objectionable. If a couple object to in vitro fertilization, they may choose to adopt instead. Those who object to "extraordinary measures" make their wishes clear in advance, and these are respected. And so, I argue, it ought to be with stem cell research. If you don't like it, simply take a vow never to avail yourself of its benefit and make your wishes known. How elegant, how American.

I am 45 years old struggling to reach 50, and stem cell research may hold my future; it is not my right to life, but just the possibility of life, my right to hope. I acknowledge that others have a moral problem with the issue and certainly respect their opinion. But to those I would implore: Please don't impose your sense of morality upon me by trying to cut funding. For me, stem cell research is not an abstract discussion. And I pray none of you finds a strangely swollen gland while shaving.
-- Jim Lyons, Apollo Beach

Don't impede the search for cures

Re: Stem cell research.

When religion, politics and far-right religious fanatics want to interfere with stem cell research, they are doing an injustice to people who have horrible diseases and people who will develop horrible diseases. God gave us a brain and the means to use it to find cures to many of these horrible afflictions.

I have lost many of my family members to these diseases, and it hurts to this day. All over the world, children are being born into severe poverty and starvation, and they suffer horrible deaths. Is this better than abortion or birth control? I would think not. Radical pro-lifers are only for their beliefs and to hell with the rest of the world, as long as they get their selfish way. If someone in their family got one of these diseases, they would go screaming for a cure.
-- Ray Raphael, Beverly Hills

Encouraging news

Re: Mixing business with science, July 30.

Thanks for the front-page story about Cryo-Cell International. It's comforting to know that while George W. Bush is flipping coins to determine whether to embrace the use of embryo stem cells for research, here is a company moving forward to find another viable source of stem cells, and making good progress.

Stories such as this give encouragement to an awful lot of people, especially those who would benefit from stem cell therapy like a very close friend who is struggling with Parkinson's disease. We'll stay tuned.
-- Fred Nassif, Clearwater

We should not play God

Thank goodness we still have a few God-fearing lawmakers in Washington, who admit we have no right to play God. He is our one and only creator and never gave man permission to take his place. Yes, even the cloning of animals is immoral.

As to humans, we already have more than enough who can't care for themselves. Who would have the responsibility to care for the less than perfect humans that the scientist want to clone? Certainly not the scientists, but the state, via the already overburdened taxpayer, that's who. Why should we have to pay for something or someone who shouldn't be there in the first place?

As for saying they need the cells for research, what have they used before? Their God-given knowledge, that's what.

Life is a very precious thing and shouldn't be taken lightly by scientists or anyone else. The consequences can be both costly and deadly.

Yes, we need cures for diseases, and lots of cures have been found over the years with legitimate scientific research, using our God-given brains, not killing one human to save another.

Let's not try to play God.
-- Fran Glaros, Clearwater

Choose cloning

Last week the House of Representatives voted to ban human cloning. My best friend Rex is a human clone. He and his brother have identical DNA, having been cloned "in utero." We call clones of this type identical twins. Rex and brother have identical DNA expressed physically in two separate bodies with two separate minds and two separate souls.

Frankly I do not see the harm in this type of cloning. I also do not see harm if this expression of identical DNA were to be separated by a period of years. Certainly there is no harm in either Rex or Ellis. They are two wonderful gentlemen. This gives the lie to the idea that there is something wrong with cloned human beings. I would also like to point out that the first "test tube baby" recently reached adulthood and, contrary to the controversy at the time, is no "Frankenstein's monster." She is a lovely young woman.

Cloning, like in vitro fertilization (test tube babies) is just one of the many ways God has given us to "be fruitful and multiply" through the fruits of our God-given intellect. Originally members of Congress threatened to outlaw "test tube babies." Thank God they did not! Too bad they did not show reasonable restraint regarding cloning.

Libertarians have a general guideline to determining what should be legal and what should be illegal. The guideline is "who is harmed?" If no one is directly harmed who is not a willing participant, then whatever the activity is, it should be legal. If infertile couples try cloning to produce offspring, no one is harmed. On the other hand, when infertile couples take fertility drugs and "cull" (destroy) excess embryos to prevent multiple births, potential human beings are killed. This is common practice and is not illegal. I submit that on the basis of the relative immorality of killing potential humans versus the totally benign practice of producing a human being whose DNA happens to be identical to another person's DNA, cloning should be not only legal but encouraged over the use of fertility drugs.

Choose life! Choose cloning!
-- Michael K. Barnett, St. Petersburg

What does it mean to be human?

Recently many publications, including your own, have explored issues regarding stem cell research, cloning, death penalties, abortion and related topics. Yet, I have not seen any publication that explores what to me seems a pivotal question involved in these issues. The question is: What does it mean to be human? Is man (including women) merely the sum of his individual, physical, concrete parts? If so, then why object to the destruction of embryos, fetuses and certainly murderers (who at least have been found guilty of the unjust taking of innocent life)?

Or is a man "something more?" Is this "something more" a soul, a spirit, a pneuma (Greek), a numa (Latin), a Ka or Ba (ancient Egyptian) etc.? The Stoic philosopher Epictetus, in the first century A.D., believed man had a "spark of divinity in him." Almost every adult in this country knows Jesus' position about this.

Does antiquity and continuity of a concept prove its accuracy and answer the question or the related issues? It seems no one can answer these questions definitively and to the satisfaction of all or even an overwhelming majority of us.

So, what to do? Let those whose conscience and resources, including financial, be allowed to engage in cloning, stem cell research, abortion, etc. with one proviso. Their activities and results must not harm other humans or society. This has been a general measure of human freedom and a basis for lawmaking for millenniums.

However, this exercise of freedom must not be at public (i.e. government) expense. The issues involved above, and others as well, are too profound, too important, too recondite and, indeed, too nebulous to be entrusted to politicians, judges or the vagaries of majority rule. Therefore, each individual must decide what it means to be human and act upon it unless his actions harm others.
-- Charles L. Sodaro, Tarpon Springs

Protect the unborn

Re: Pro-choice, not pro-abortion, letter, Aug. 2.

I applaud George F. Will's July 26 column concisely pointing out "what is wrong with "pro-choice.' " It is simply not possible to be pro-life and pro-abortion at the same time. Either a person believes life begins at conception, a scientific fact, or doesn't, a denial of scientific fact fabricated to justify destruction of life. When life begins, there is a choice: Protect life or destroy life. If a woman is not pro-life, she can only be pro-abortion.

A real pro-choice attitude is to be able to decide when to conceive a child, not whether it is desirable to give birth once it is conceived. The letter writer says she is "simply advocating a woman's right to decide for herself, after much thought, and after medical advice what sort of life it is to which she wishes to give birth." This is frightening. Roe vs. Wade does not give women a right to be so picky. There is plenty of time to think and make choices before a child is conceived. And what lesson is learned when a child is aborted? How does society benefit?

Once a child is conceived there ought to be laws to protect it as "a targeted low-income child." George Will is correct in hoping that laws to protect the unborn will lead to "less justification for abortion."
-- Elisabeth Olden, Pinellas Park

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They also can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

For e-mail users: Letters can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com. E-mail messages must be text only and cannot include attachments. If you're using a word processing program to write the message, you must use its "Save as" function to save it as a text file, then import it into your e-mail program. Please include your return e-mail address, as well as your name, mailing address and phone number, in the text of the message.
--

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page