Stem cell research should be on tonight's debate agenda

Actor Christopher Reeve died Sunday, nine years after a fall from a horse that made him a quadriplegic and, ultimately, took his life. He never realized his ambition to walk again, never even came close. But he also never lost his passion for life and his commitment to more and better medical research into the treatment of crippling injuries.
Don't be surprised if Reeve's name is invoked during tonight's final presidential debate, which is centered on domestic policy. In fact, it should be, because Reeve was an unwavering advocate for stem cell research as a promising avenue toward progress against injuries and disease. Stem cell research is an issue that deserves more attention from President Bush and Sen. John Kerry than it got during last week's debate.
That is not because stem cell research is a panacea. It isn't. It isn't even the only avenue of cell research that holds promise for the next generation of medical research and treatment of paralyzing injuries and diseases ranging from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's disease.
But embryonic stem cell research has the potential for providing new and better methods of treatment and it is an issue that clearly divides the two presidential candidates on philosophical grounds. As such, a debate gives voters valuable insights into the candidates.
First, a little background is necessary.
As described in a Philadelphia Inquirer story, embryonic stem cells are the building blocks of all types of human tissues -- blood, heart and nerves. Scientists believe these cells may be programmed to turn into new tissue that could be used to treat diseases.
These cells, first isolated just six years ago, exist only briefly in early embryos. While embryonic stem cells are difficult to obtain, they have the ability to multiply indefinitely in the proper chemical environment, thus forming laboratory colonies called stem cell "lines."
Obtaining embryonic stem cells involves destroying human embryos, which is why it is so controversial and ethically charged.
In 2001, President Bush imposed a ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research beyond about 60 lines of cells that had been developed in private laboratories. Kerry would allow federal funding to research stem cells obtained from surplus embryos that are created by in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be discarded.
And there in lies the philosophical difference.
The president's position is
Scientists are also making important inroads using stem cells from mature tissues such as bone marrow. These "adult" stem cells produce subsets of specialized tissues; for example, bone marrow produces red and white blood cells. It is not yet clear whether adult stem cells can be programmed to be as versatile as embryonic stem cells, but even if they are more limited, experts say they may have great therapeutic value.
Kerry and Bush disagree on the issue of human embryonic stem-cell research. Kerry proposes using federal funding to research stem cells obtained from surplus embryos that are created by in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be discarded.
Bush, a foe of abortion, opposes embryonic stem-cell research beyond the limits he imposed in 2001. That year, he put the first federal money into embryonic stem-cell research -- but restricted it to about 60 stem cell lines already existing in privately-funded laboratories. The president did not restrict private or state funding of embryonic stem-cell research.
Now, the philosphy.
whetre the candidates stand ra philosophical issue that p[p. x zziae , or eventsthe should be an impornt iis ec took his ability to move all but a few mugssoared as Superman, but he reached the greatest heights as a mortal after his head-first fall from a horse in 1995.
Reeve, who died unexpectedly Sunday at age 52 from complications related to an infection, had constantly stunned his doctors. Despite being paralyzed from the neck down, the movie actor never gave up his hopes of walking again. He inspired others with each personal milestone he passed toward that goal, all the result of hard work through physical therapy and the willingness to take risks.
He became the optimistic voice of can-do, turning his star status into a fund-raising effort that directed millions of dollars to neuroscience research, and leading the call for exploring the possibilities of embryonic stem-cell research. In last Friday's presidential debate, Democratic Sen. John Kerry cited Reeve as an example of why stem-cell research should be expanded.
In 2002, doctors announced that Reeve was able to move his fingers, wrists and legs. He came to feel pinpricks, and hot and cold. He learned to push off from a wall of a swimming pool and could walk in the water. He underwent innovative surgery in which doctors placed electrodes in his diaphragm to allow him to breathe without a ventilator for extended periods.
Reeve eventually returned to acting and directing, and won a Screen Actors Guild award for his 1998 remake of Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window." He also won the 2003 Lasker award for turning a personal tragedy into public service.
John McDonald, the Washington University physician who treated Reeve, said before the actor entered the spinal cord injury picture, "there was really no hope ... but he's changed all that. He's demonstrated that there is hope and that there are things that can be done."
Reeve himself, in the 1980s, reflected on his Superman character's heroic stunts and wondered if it was time to move on to something else. " What else is there left for Superman to do?" he asked.
It seems now that there was a lot. Only Reeve's most heroic and inspiring role was without the cape.
------
Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in
1591. He reinstated the & quot;quickening & quot; test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16* weeks).
Pope Pius IX reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the & quot;fetus
animatus & quot; and & quot;fetus inanimatus & quot; in 1869. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 and to refer simply to & quot;the fetus. & quot; The tolerant
approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended. The church requires
excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.
The fertilized ovum, embryo and fetus are considered by the church as full human beings. They thus have & quot;an equal right to its
life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take
that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death.
No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations
accept the maxim, that 'evil is never to be done that good may come of it'; or, which is the same thing, that 'a good end cannot
justify a bad means'. & quot; (Catholic Encylcopedia & quot;Abortion, & quot; New Advent. Translated from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 1 (1907). )
In his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI wrote: & quot;It is not licit, even for the gravest reasons to do evil so that good may
follow there from, that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disordered, and
hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well
being...directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons [is] to be absolutely excluded. & quot;
When a delivery goes terribly wrong, and the attending physicians have the choice of:
Killing the fetus, and saving the life of the woman, or
Allowing nature to take its course, and watching both the woman and fetus die,
the only moral decision in the eyes of the church is the latter.
Treatment of frozen embryos: Surplus fertilized embryos are generally produced during each in-vitro fertilization (IVF)
procedure. Multiple ova are fertilized in the laboratory, and allowed to divide. Typically four of the healthiest-looking
embryos are then implanted in the woman's uterus. The hope is that one will successfully implant and lead to a normal
pregnancy. About twenty surplus embryos are typically left over after the procedure is completed. These are normally
frozen in liquid Nitrogen. Cardinal Hume of Westminster, UK, commented on the options for handling these embryos. The
church considers these embryo to have been full human persons from the time that their original ovum was fertilized.
His preference would be that IVF procedures be stopped. But even if this were done, there remains the problem of the
fate of the existing surplus embryos. Cardinal Hume was aware of two suggestions, & quot;neither of which is without moral
difficulties. & quot; He notes that the freezing process is an extraordinary means of preserving life. The least worse solution
would be to simply expose the embryos to the laboratory environment and allow them to die. An alternate method would
be to find other couples who would be willing to 'adopt' the spare embryos by having them implanted in infertile women
who wished to become pregnant. He concludes that this would raise & quot;substantial practical difficulties, and presents
theological problems. These would have to be examined and resolved, if the Church were to endorse this option.