The heated race for the White House is on the last leg of the journey, and it has been an interesting partisan marathon for the past several months. While some may argue that the same old 'politics as usual' will end up being what shapes the political landscapes in both Washington, D.C. and Lansing, MI, there are other issues that will be on your ballot that are devoid of partisanship, yet have the ability to affect many within the state of Michigan.
Are you familiar with the two ballot proposals that you have the opportunity to cast a vote upon on Tuesday, Nov. 4th? Proposal 1 deals with the issue of the legalization of marijuana within the state of Michigan. I have an opinion on that matter, but that is not why I'm writing this post. I'd like to direct your attention to Proposal 2. What is Proposal 2 about? It will be displayed on your ballot as follows: "A proposal to amend the state constitution to address
Human embryo and
Human embryonic stem cell research in Michigan." Perhaps you've already seen the commercials from both the proponent and opponent sides of this proposal. Why should you even care? Why is there any debate at all? What is at stake with this proposal? Well... can I borrow a few minutes of your time and try as succintly (insomuch as one such as I can be) to highlight a few key components regarding this amendment? Good. Glad you'll stick around for a few minutes and be willing to think some things through. To preface my thoughts and observations and opinions, and to unabashedly lay out for you, the reader, what side of the proverbial 'fence' I am standing on, I will clearly state that I am a strong opponent of the passage of Proposal 2. In a few moments, I hope I will at least clearly define why I've taken that position and furthermore hope to urge you (would 'persuade' be a more appropriate term?) to join me on this side of the 'fence'....why else would I be compelled to write?
First of all, understand that this is not just the simple passage of a state law. This is an amendment to the State Constitution. I've heard the importance of this type of legislation at the state level compared to, at the federal level, a change in the Bill of Rights. Simply stated: a Constitutional amendment is a BIG deal. So I ask: Do you know what exactly you're voting to change?
Second, this proposal is not simply about stem cell research. It's about stem cell research on
live human embryos. You don't hear much in the way of the word 'human' from the proponent's side when they advertise for the passage of this proposal. It has also been touted that the state of Michigan has very strict limitations on stem cell research, including that of human embryos. Research using embryonic stem cells is
completely legal in Michigan right now. Amazingly enough, the University of Michigan has one of the 3 largest studies involving stem cell research within the entire United States and received one of the highest amounts of federal funding (as a result of G.W.Bush's 2001 ruling) for this endeavor. At this time, the stem cells extracted from embryos have to be brought into the state; they are not able to be harvested here, thereby limiting the extent of the research work scientists would like to accomplish with these cells. To clear the record: those of us who are against Proposal 2 are NOT against stem cell research. We are opposed to the destruction of live human embryos for the purpose of extracting their stem cells for the sake of scientific research. So why all of the fuss about stem cells? Without going into great length, I will simply state that these cells are quite incredible components of our make up. Stem cells are the building blocks for every organ and tissue in the body. They have the ability to renew themselves through cell division and to become many different types of cells; thus, they serve as the growth, maintenance or healing cells of the body, and they represent enormous potential for cures and treatments by applying medical knowledge and technology to the body's own healing mechanism. So how does that affect myself or people I may know? It shows promise to help those who live with such conditions as: Parkinson's disease, congestive heart failure, juvenile-onset diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. It is not hard for either you or I to imagine how radically altered a person's life would be if they were cured of one of these diseases, as well as all of the social/medical/physical ramifications that would also come about in the wake of a cure. Truly, the potential benefits are huge with a capital "H". Where exactly do scientists get these stem cells from? Currently there are four sources: (1) Adult cells; (2) Umbilical cord blood/placentas; (3) Induced pluripotent cells (adult cells 'reprogrammed' to think they are embryonic); and (4) Embryonic cells (extracted from live human embryos 5-7 days after fertilization, an act which kills the embryo). I could apologize for the details, but I think some groundwork needed to be laid. Moving on...
So how does this deal with the proposal I will be voting on?? Glad you asked.
(1) Proposal 2 allows unrestricted science on human embryos and any research involving stem cells. The proposed constitution reads in part (you'll see some of this on Nov. 4th):
"All stem cell research...must be conducted.. in accordance with state and local laws.. to the extent that any such laws do not prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research." That means that if this proposal passes, there will be no state or local law, no ruling of the State Supreme Court or legislation from the state Congress, or will of the citizens of Michigan that will be able to create boundaries around what is being performed within these science labs. Advocates for Proposal 2 want people to believe that federal law will provide regulations and restrictions on human embryo research. The fact is that there are
NO federal laws limiting or restricting research using human embryos. The proponents of Proposal 2 are asking for an enormous loophole through which they can walk through and conduct their research work without much oversight; out of the other states that have adopted a proposal similar to this, none have asked for such leeway within their proposals. Since this proposal prohibits the Michigan legislature from passing any law regarding this research, this proposal aspires to bring to fruition just this: the complete reliance upon Washington politicians (in conjuction with special interest groups) to govern this new arena of science. Perhaps they'll be as fastidious in their governance and oversight of this research work as they were with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac..."Hope so" almost seems too kind of an expression to extend to them.
(2) This proposal does nothing to strengthen or weaken the current ban on human cloning. As a matter of fact, one leading proponent of this proposal expressed in a radio interview that one of their hopes is that in the future they will be able to utilize cloning for their research work. The loopholes in this proposal also mean that cloned human embyros can be trafficked into Michigan and killed through research. As long as an embryo was ostensibly created for "fertility treatment purposes," scientists can do anything they want.
(3) This proposal invites taxpayer funding. No, I did not say that if you vote "yes" for this proposal, the taxpayer will automatically foot the bill. A precedence has been set by the other states in which this research work is currently legal. In New York, Missouri, and Massachusetts, taxpayers are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to fund ESC research; in California, a 3-year, 4 billion dollar (yes, that's BILLION) taxpayer funded study is underway regarding stem cell research (including ESC research). Scientists from the Univ of Mich recently stated at a symposium regarding ESC research that they believe that this research should be 'publicly funded'. Amazing how the local and state legislature, as well as the citizens of this state, have absolutely no say over the regulation of this research as put forth under Proposal 2, but they sure would like to utilize the money in your paycheck to fund their work.
(4) Embryonic stem cell research has shown little substantive evidence of being beneficial in any regard. For all of the hype surrounding this research work, there is
not a single research study or medical treatment that is currently helping any human being. There are NO clinical trials yet to be approved utilizing ESC's. The two major problems in animal trials are: tissue rejection and tumor formation. Makes you want to sign up for a study then, doesn't it? Adult stem cell research has already generated over 70 clinical studies, many of which are showing tremendous potential for therapies to be developed. And the beauty of this research is that there is absolutely no ethical dilemma surrounding the materials scientists are using for their experiments.
(5) This proposal sets up a system of research that has, from the observation of other research work around the country and the world, the potential for much interplay with situations of major ethical dilemma.
In England, it is currently legal to place human DNA within a cow egg; this creation is called a 'human hybrid'. Although there is very little cow DNA within this embryo, it does still possess both human and bovine components. This type of research is distinctly possible in the future regarding ESC's.
In California, there has been much money spent on ESC research, yet scientists are running into a slight dilemma: they're running out of enough embryos to experiment on. Thus, they began offering to pay women money for the purpose of donating their eggs for research. This created an ethical dilemma as well as a dilemma surrounding the physical/emotional/ reproductive effects this type of science involving 'egg extraction' creates for American women. At what cost will women be subjugated to this type of proposition that donating their eggs for research will both be of monetary gain to them, as well as a contribution to research work that has the promise of curing many people who suffer from chronic diseases? What of the long-term effects on their reproductive health? Where is the science to back up the argument that their health is even worth the risk of an unproven science?
It has been speculated that this proposal does create the opportunity for a 'black market' on the buying/selling/ transfer of human embryos, particularly within an industry that is, at the local/state level, very under-regulated.
(6) Proponents of this proposal insinuate that denial of the passage of this proposal is an uncompassionate and inhumane response.
If you have caught any of the TV or radio commercials from the proponents, it always surrounds emotion: the emotion of empathy for the suffering of another human being. This is very interesting to me. (And for all of you who were wondering when I'd get past the technicalities of this issue and on to the whole issue of the validity of the human life being researched upon .....I'm getting to it!) First of all, it never once grants the status of 'human being' upon the embryo they destroy as a result of their research. This is a true "the End justifies the Means" scenario of justification. An embryo less than 14 days of age is still human, is it not? It is just the state of development of a human being at 14 days as opposed to that at 2 months, or 7 yrs, or 99yrs of age. It's all a part of the spectrum of development. I love a snippet of a paragraph within the book
Slouching Towards Gomorrah by Robert H. Bork that I recently came across as I read his book:
"It is impossible to draw a line anywhere after the moment of fertilization and say that before this point the creature is not human but after this point it is. It has all the attributes of a human from the beginning, and those attributes were in the forty-six chromosomes with which it began. Francis Crick, the Nobel Laureate....is quoted as having estimated that 'the amount of information contained in the chromosomes of a single fertilized human egg is equivalent to about a thousand printed volumes of books, each as large as a volume of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica.' Such a creature is not a blob of tissue or, as the
Roe opinion so infelicitously put it, a 'potential life.' As someone has said, it is a life with potential." (p.175)
So, is the alleviation of suffering a just reason for ending the life of an individual who is 7 days old? Ah, yes. Here we are back again at the question of whether or not that embryo has personhood, and thereby has an innate right to live. Certainly, the decisions of 1973 have ramifications upon the decisions of 2008. If you extend personhood to the embryos that may possibly be utilized for research, should not the embryos within the womb also be granted that same status?? This is not an issue the pro-choice movement wants to see defeated. Guaranteed. As to the alleviation of suffering, let me clearly say that NONE of us who oppose Proposal 2 are in favor of suffering. We just believe that the unregulated science and inhumane treatment of human embryos proposed within this amendment are not "just means" by which we should address the plight of human suffering. Furthermore, adult stem cell research shows such promise for the actual implementation of therapies to alleviate suffering, none of which create any ethical dilemma surrounding it.
On a personal note, let me say clearly that I am not anti-science or anti-scientific research. I have a great appreciation for the scientific community. First of all, someone in that field developed insulin, a medicine that I literally would not live more than 2 weeks without. Secondly, I have a friend within the science community and the more I learned of his work, I have come to recognize how dedicated they are to their work; how hard they work for long periods of time to develop theories and models and instruments, etc. that support and implement their research; how competitive that arena is; how much work is done that is completely unrecognized by the American public, yet their work is important because it helps build upon the information gleaned by scientists that follow in their wake; how much they truly want their work to succeed and be beneficial ( in many aspects) to countless others. Yet for all my appreciation and respect, I still believe that science is not limitless. There are certain moral laws which guide and create boundaries and limits around scientific research. We all know that it can be used in a harmful way (i.e.,Tuskegee Syphilis research, Nazi Germany, etc.). How far are we going to let the boundaries go? At what cost will we alleviate suffering?
I have to admit that I've thought about what would happen if, hypothetically speaking, embryonic stem cell research provided a cure for Type I Diabetes. I have dealt with this chronic disease for 22 yrs now, and I can say from a first-hand basis how incredibly life-altering it would be to have a pancreas that performed the way it was designed to perform. But, if I knew it was at the expense of the destruction of a human life, could I accept that cure? Hmmm. If I truly believed in the sanctity of that life, there should be no dilemma. Yet, what to say to the mother on the TV commercial who asks you not to deny her daughter the right to a cure for diabetes? She certainly cares to see a cure! Well, so do I! But again, I ask... at what cost?
I've been long-winded, and yet much more could be said. Let me direct you to a couple of websites for more information on this issue, should you have time to look at it before you cast your vote tomorrow. They are:
www.stemcellresearchcures.com www.2goes2far.org www.micause.com These web sites contain much bibliographic info/articles that back up my message. Some very interesting articles on the 2goes2far site.
And, in order to be a Fox News-worthy woman, I'll be a wee bit "fair and balanced" and include a site from the proponents of Proposal 2.
www.curemichigan.com Remember.... 2 GOES 2 FAR... vote NO on Proposal 2.
Thanks for taking the time to listen. Now go and VOTE for LIFE!
