More on Amendment 2
Following is a response I wrote to an editorial in the Drury Mirror, the campus newspaper of Drury University in Springfield, MO.
Brandy,
First, I'm very sorry for your aunt's suffering as a result of her rheumatoid arthritis. It's a terrible disease and we should all pray that a treatment is found soon.
However, there is virtually no chance that a cure will be found using embryonic stem cell research. That's a fallacy that’s being perpetuated by the supporters of amendment 2. It will be decades, if ever, before somatic cell nuclear transfer is even perfected to the point that it can be used for research. Any potential treatments or cures would come decades after that, if ever.
Embryonic stem cell research is legal in the United States and in the state of Missouri. Always has been. Not one single cure, or even treatment has been discovered. Your aunt’s condition is not a result of legal restrictions.
I won’t deal with your misunderstanding of the science, except to say that somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is cloning, as defined by many medical journals. Rather than outlaw cloning, the proposed constitutional amendment would guarantee the right to clone.
I also won’t deal with the issue of when life begins, except to say that you were once an embryo, even before you were implanted in your mother’s uterus. You had 46 chromosomes, had human DNA, and grew into the person you are today.
If we remove the so-called “religious” argument against SCNT, we can focus on the practical implications of the proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution.
The amendment is very cleverly crafted to achieve the results its supporters desire. The amendment appears to prohibit producing human embryos for research. But, it specifically allows embryos created for in vitro fertilization to be used for research. Nothing is said concerning the ratio of embryos that may be used for either purpose. In other words, you may sell the clinic 100 eggs. As long as one egg is used for IVF, the other 99 may be sold to a researcher for experimentation.
If you do the math, you will see that millions of eggs would be required for research. There is nothing in the proposed amendment to prevent abuse of the process. In fact, the amendment states that anything that would inhibit or even discourage SCNT would be unconstitutional.
By the way, the amendment also states that the researchers can’t be required to disclose any “private or confidential patient, medical, or personnel records or matters, intellectual property or work product, whether patentable or not and including but not limited to any scientific or technological innovations, in which an entity or person involved in the research has a proprietary interest, prepublication scientific working papers, research, or data, and any other matter excepted from disclosure under Chapter 810, RSMo, as amended from time to time.”
In other words, there is no limitation on the number of eggs that can be used for SCMT and no way that anyone can require the researchers to disclose what they’re doing.
Human eggs will most definitely become a market. Section 2 (4) of the amendment prohibits the sale of human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research for “valuable consideration”. However, section 6 (17) defines “valuable consideration” and states that “valuable consideration DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CONSIDERATION PAID TO A DONOR OF HUMAN EGGS OR SPERM BY A FERTILIAZTION CLINIC OR SPERM BANK” In other words, IVF clinics and sperm banks will become middlemen, buying human eggs wholesale and selling them “retail” to the researchers. The same section provides a list of items excluded from “valuable consideration”, allowing these “middlemen” to make their profit.
Here’s something that may hit a little closer to home. It’s no secret that many students sell their blood to make a few extra dollars. The going rate for egg donors is in the thousands of dollars, certainly enough to make the average coed at least think about “donating”, or to make someone else “encourage” her to do so. Imagine having your eggs harvested at gunpoint. It could happen.
Since the average woman produces only one or two eggs each month, the clinics use a procedure called ovarian hyperstimulation to increase the supply. From five to twenty percent of women who undergo this procedure suffer severe medical consequences. Many die. These women aren’t blastocysts. They’re not embryos. They’re living, breathing human beings. They may be your sister, or you neighbor, or your best friend; maybe even you. Most will be poor and disadvantaged. Since there aren’t enough women in the United States of child-bearing age to provide the number of eggs needed, many will be from third world countries. The international egg trade will be huge. Tell me again how a vote for amendment 2 is a vote for life.
Finally, regarding the difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells, you are correct that embryonic cells can be made to form more types of tissue than adult stem cells. However, science is closer to finding a way to induce adult stem cells to act like embryonic cells than it is to finding ANY cures or treatments from embryonic cells.
So, why do we need this constitutional amendment to legalize something that’s already legal? It’s all about the money. The Stowers family of Kansas City, founders of the Stowers Institute, have spent $15 million to promote this initiative. Ask yourself “Why? What’s in it for them?” The answer is obvious. Their $15 million investment will yield billions of dollars in funds, much of it from the taxpayers of the state of Missouri.
Whatever your position on when life begins; whatever your personal medical situation, this is just bad law. It gives constitutional protection to a procedure that has no proven medical value. It guarantees state funding and it makes it impossible for the legislature to regulate their activities. There is no other practice that enjoys this protection in this state, or in any other. I urge you to reconsider your position, for your sake and for the sake of thousands of innocent women who will be put at risk by ovarian hyperstimulation.
Brandy,
First, I'm very sorry for your aunt's suffering as a result of her rheumatoid arthritis. It's a terrible disease and we should all pray that a treatment is found soon.
However, there is virtually no chance that a cure will be found using embryonic stem cell research. That's a fallacy that’s being perpetuated by the supporters of amendment 2. It will be decades, if ever, before somatic cell nuclear transfer is even perfected to the point that it can be used for research. Any potential treatments or cures would come decades after that, if ever.
Embryonic stem cell research is legal in the United States and in the state of Missouri. Always has been. Not one single cure, or even treatment has been discovered. Your aunt’s condition is not a result of legal restrictions.
I won’t deal with your misunderstanding of the science, except to say that somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is cloning, as defined by many medical journals. Rather than outlaw cloning, the proposed constitutional amendment would guarantee the right to clone.
I also won’t deal with the issue of when life begins, except to say that you were once an embryo, even before you were implanted in your mother’s uterus. You had 46 chromosomes, had human DNA, and grew into the person you are today.
If we remove the so-called “religious” argument against SCNT, we can focus on the practical implications of the proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution.
The amendment is very cleverly crafted to achieve the results its supporters desire. The amendment appears to prohibit producing human embryos for research. But, it specifically allows embryos created for in vitro fertilization to be used for research. Nothing is said concerning the ratio of embryos that may be used for either purpose. In other words, you may sell the clinic 100 eggs. As long as one egg is used for IVF, the other 99 may be sold to a researcher for experimentation.
If you do the math, you will see that millions of eggs would be required for research. There is nothing in the proposed amendment to prevent abuse of the process. In fact, the amendment states that anything that would inhibit or even discourage SCNT would be unconstitutional.
By the way, the amendment also states that the researchers can’t be required to disclose any “private or confidential patient, medical, or personnel records or matters, intellectual property or work product, whether patentable or not and including but not limited to any scientific or technological innovations, in which an entity or person involved in the research has a proprietary interest, prepublication scientific working papers, research, or data, and any other matter excepted from disclosure under Chapter 810, RSMo, as amended from time to time.”
In other words, there is no limitation on the number of eggs that can be used for SCMT and no way that anyone can require the researchers to disclose what they’re doing.
Human eggs will most definitely become a market. Section 2 (4) of the amendment prohibits the sale of human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research for “valuable consideration”. However, section 6 (17) defines “valuable consideration” and states that “valuable consideration DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CONSIDERATION PAID TO A DONOR OF HUMAN EGGS OR SPERM BY A FERTILIAZTION CLINIC OR SPERM BANK” In other words, IVF clinics and sperm banks will become middlemen, buying human eggs wholesale and selling them “retail” to the researchers. The same section provides a list of items excluded from “valuable consideration”, allowing these “middlemen” to make their profit.
Here’s something that may hit a little closer to home. It’s no secret that many students sell their blood to make a few extra dollars. The going rate for egg donors is in the thousands of dollars, certainly enough to make the average coed at least think about “donating”, or to make someone else “encourage” her to do so. Imagine having your eggs harvested at gunpoint. It could happen.
Since the average woman produces only one or two eggs each month, the clinics use a procedure called ovarian hyperstimulation to increase the supply. From five to twenty percent of women who undergo this procedure suffer severe medical consequences. Many die. These women aren’t blastocysts. They’re not embryos. They’re living, breathing human beings. They may be your sister, or you neighbor, or your best friend; maybe even you. Most will be poor and disadvantaged. Since there aren’t enough women in the United States of child-bearing age to provide the number of eggs needed, many will be from third world countries. The international egg trade will be huge. Tell me again how a vote for amendment 2 is a vote for life.
Finally, regarding the difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells, you are correct that embryonic cells can be made to form more types of tissue than adult stem cells. However, science is closer to finding a way to induce adult stem cells to act like embryonic cells than it is to finding ANY cures or treatments from embryonic cells.
So, why do we need this constitutional amendment to legalize something that’s already legal? It’s all about the money. The Stowers family of Kansas City, founders of the Stowers Institute, have spent $15 million to promote this initiative. Ask yourself “Why? What’s in it for them?” The answer is obvious. Their $15 million investment will yield billions of dollars in funds, much of it from the taxpayers of the state of Missouri.
Whatever your position on when life begins; whatever your personal medical situation, this is just bad law. It gives constitutional protection to a procedure that has no proven medical value. It guarantees state funding and it makes it impossible for the legislature to regulate their activities. There is no other practice that enjoys this protection in this state, or in any other. I urge you to reconsider your position, for your sake and for the sake of thousands of innocent women who will be put at risk by ovarian hyperstimulation.
posted by Mike at 7:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home