Just the mere mention of the words "stem cells" can furrow almost any brow. The implication of these microscopic remnants of human genesis far outstrip our understanding of what they can in fact do. In an ideal world, they are the miracle many have prayed for without the sin of murder. In this world they are an intriguing look into what could be if science and religion can find a common ground.
Stem cells, or in this case-embryonic stem cells, are cells that are derived from a human embryo. In theory, they have the potential to cure such diseases as Leukemia, Parkinson's Disease and Diabetes as well as revitalize damaged organs such as the liver and pancreas. This sounds like good news, it is, however, the result is a destroyed embryo. An embryo that had the potential for human life; and therein lies the rub.
Conceivably, the only obstacle from full fledged stem cell research is determining whether human life begins at conception or birth. Why is it that we feel so bad about destroying a faceless, mass of cells? I asked around, and working at the OSU Medical Center I get to ask some of the best minds in the business, and the answers I received were surprising similar. It seems that most of the medical professionals applaud the benefits of stem cell research but cannot condone it because it destroys a human embryo. It is in fact not a faceless mass of cells, but rather the glorious beginnings of a new human being, be they Adolf Hitler or Mother Theresa.
But what about the embryos used in in vitro fertilization? A process that creates an embryo in a laboratory setting. In this process, several embryos are created and the "best" is chosen to be implanted in the hopeful mothers womb. There is nothing wrong with this process as it is a wonderful alternative for couples who cannot naturally conceive. However, what about the embryos that flunked Phys Ed? They are usually destroyed. Hardest. Class. Ever. There is also the issue of cloning. Personally, I think cloning is gross. I feel there is too great a temptation to clone things other than embryos. But with proper supervision and regulatory standards it may be the wave of the future; only time will tell.
Now let's recap here. Stem cells have the potential to cure terrible diseases and ailments. They are located in embryos. We seem to have a surplus of embryos. And yet we feel better destroying the ones deemed unfit than using them for research that could possibly save millions of lives. To me that is the equivalent of not finishing a steak dinner in front of a group of cast aways then tying the left-overs to a muddy rock and hurling them into a volcano.
Maybe we don't feel better about destroying the unfit embryos, but they are destroyed nonetheless. Is it possible to treat these embryos as people and still destroy them? Could we not treat them as terminally ill organ donors? After all, they are going to die anyway, why not give the gift of life. If you told someone you had the cure to their debilitating disease but were unable to cultivate it because doing so would hurt your feelings, you might end up in the hospital yourself with several bite marks and various stab wounds.
We are at a peculiar fork in the road. Down the one path lies a potential scientific breakthrough that could cure countless millions, and although it may seem like the fairer of the two it is strewn with legal quagmires and moral ambiguity. The other path seems a little safer but there is a spooky graveyard in the distance. I submit this to you, dear college student, as in 40 or so years, you will be about 60 years old and at risk for at least half of the diseases stem cells can possibly cure. Which path shall we take? The choice is yours.
No comments:
Post a Comment