Congress just might be on the verge of a spectacular medical breakthrough, but only if promoters of a stem cell bill can garner enough support to override a threatened presidential veto. The debate, which has even divided Republicans, concerns what to do with over 400,000 in vitro embryos that are currently scheduled to be discarded. Although President Bush has announced a campaign to promote the adoption of these embryos, most of the so-called "snowflake babies" would most likely end up being destroyed. The new stem cell bill, which has already passed in the House with the support of 50 Republicans, would allow these existing embryos to be used for the sake of stem cell research.
As far as I'm concerned, a bill like this should have been passed ages ago, and embryonic stem cell research would already be well underway. I tend to agree with conservatives on many issues in our nation, but this debate is one in which I strongly support the liberal cause. I simply don't see how a conglomeration of undifferentiated cells can be considered equal to and possibly even more sacred than truly developed human life. Sure, undisturbed embryos would develop into adult humans, and these embryos might already display "life" in an extremely technical definition of the word, but I'll never accept an embryo as completely human. I don't know of anyone who can say that human embryos feel pain or engage in intellectual thought that is reminiscent of even the most primitive and underdeveloped humans.
Right now, stem cell research could be the gateway to major medical advancements for treating spinal injuries or literally creating brand new cells for vital organs. Embryos provide an abundance of undifferentiated cells that can be manipulated in many ways to fit the needs of doctors and patients. We are on the cusp of major medical breakthroughs, and stem cells are the key. To my knowledge, doctors know of no other method that can produce equally effective results. Right now, scientists are able to extract stem cells from adults, but these cells have already undergone developmental changes that limit their versatility. As is often the case in the modern era, we are clearly limiting our technological and medical advancements because of social concerns. I believe that this issue is one in which the social concerns are unfounded, and this is an issue worth fighting for.
Allow me to pose this simple thought exercise. Suppose you or a loved one suffers a terrible spinal cord injury in an automobile accident. You have no other choice but to spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair, unable to walk and potentially unable to even feed yourself. Perhaps through years and years of therapy you can regain some basic motor functions, but the odds are against this ever happening. Now imagine that you are presented with the option of receiving treatment that could help to regenerate your spinal cord and drastically increase the odds of regaining your motor skills and the life you once had. Would you not jump at the opportunity to receive this treatment? I know I would. Would your decision change if you knew that the spinal cells you would be receiving had been created from undifferentiated embryonic stem cells? Mine surely would not. I find it difficult to believe anyone who claims that their decision would change. Even if you think that you are selfless enough to turn this treatment down, would you still be able to turn it down if your mother or father was sitting in the wheelchair instead? Hopefully not.
What is more ridiculous about this particular Congressional bill is the fact that these 400,000 embryos are currently scheduled to be destroyed. Bush's adoption campaign has yielded about 100 adoptions so far. This number is not even one-tenth of one percent of the total number of existing embryos. I'm not against allowing any adopted embryos to develop into human babies, but we should not waste the others. How can anyone legitimately argue that the remaining embryos should be destroyed rather than used for medical research? How is wastefully discarding the frozen embryos more ethical than using them for stem cell research? It doesn't make sense to me and it never will.
Thankfully, the media reports from Congress indicate progress towards a more rational approach to dealing with stem cells. The fact that many conservatives are now leaning towards a compromise with the existing 400,000 embryos is very promising. I hope that, once this bill successfully passes in the Senate, enough support can be gained to override a threatened presidential veto. Moreover, I am quite confident that once the usefulness and uniqueness of undifferentiated embryonic stem cells can be proven in medical laboratories, the chances for future compromises and advancements in stem cell research will greatly increase.
