Mona Charen on Stem Cell Research
Source: Pro-Life Infonet; July 7, 2001

Mona Charen on Stem Cell Research

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist,
television and radio commentator and a regular member on CNN's weekly
panel discussion show, Capital Gang Sunday. Charen's column appears in
more than 220 newspapers nationwide.]

Let's use the bodies of condemned criminals for medical research! We could
donate the eyes and heart of a Timothy McVeigh-type to some worthy medical
experiment, and the lungs and livers of other murderers for similar
purposes. Well, after all, the bodies are only going to be buried anyway,
at least this way some good will come of them.

Why do you squirm_ Probably for the same reason that no one stood in line
to receive "fresh" organs from Dr. Jack Kevorkian when he offered them.

We flinch from using the organs from condemned people for several reasons,
but the most important is our well-grounded fear that using the organs of
executed criminals might introduce temptations to the administration
capital punishment that would be immoral. If the state takes someone's
life, it should be for one reason only -- to exact punishment for a
heinous crime. Imagine if judges and juries were also considering how many
lives could be saved by making available fresh hearts, lungs, kidneys and
so on_

And yet, in the debate over stem cell research, we are constantly reminded
that these embryos are going to be "discarded" anyway. Well, that only
shows how much work we have to do in sensitizing people to the sanctity of
life.

Human embryos should never be "discarded." There are other options, like
reducing the numbers of embryos that are created in the first place, or
embryo adoption. But this is a secondary question. The heart of the matter
is this: Is an embryo an entity that deserves special respect_

Newsweek magazine's cover story on the matter emphatically answers that
question in the negative. Over a picture of a fuzzy ball of cells the
cover proclaims "There's Hope for Alzheimer's, Heart Disease, Parkinson's
and Diabetes. But Will Bush Cut Off the Money_" Inside, one researcher
thunders, "Anyone who would ban research on embryonic stem cells will be
responsible for the harm done to real, alive, postnatal, sentient human
beings who might be helped by this research."

Emphasis on might. It may be that the miracle cures confidently predicted
for Parkinsons, diabetes and such will come to pass, but some caution is
certainly in order. Recall that just a few years ago, medical and media
circles were abuzz with hopes for the implantation of fetal brain cells
into patients with Parkinson's. Then too, as Neil Munro reminds us in the
National Journal, The Washington Post urged a president named Bush to lift
federal bans on such research since it offered "the best hope for progress
on curing such diseases as Parkinson's."

The federal ban was not lifted, but some scientists went ahead with the
procedure anyway. The results were noted (very quietly) just a couple of
months ago. The New York Times reported that the experimental treatment
was a failure, and that some patients suffered side effects described as
"absolutely devastating ... tragic, catastrophic."

While results from stem cells may be better, one never hears a scientist
asked: What is the marginal benefit of embryonic stem cells versus those
found in umbilical cord blood, or those found in adults_ Are we five
years, or three, or one year away from achieving the same results with
less morally comprised tissue_

To extract a stem cell from an embryo is to kill it. Now, Utah Sen. Orrin
Hatch argues that an embryo in a fertility clinic freezer does not have
the same status as a baby in a mother's womb.

A thought experiment: Suppose a burglar with a grudge against a couple
went to her fertility clinic and methodically smashed the vials containing
their frozen embryos. Would their damages be only the value of the broken
glass_

It is difficult for people with limited imaginations to see an embryo as a
human being. They don't look like us. But that is the stupendous miracle
of life. Each of us begins as a dot of information smaller than the period
at the end of this sentence. We are dust -- and yet with the magic of DNA
and with time, we become people. And those little clumps of cells, which
even Newsweek agrees are "a world of potential," cannot ethically be
sacrificed -- no matter what the hoped-for gain.