Frist backs increased federal stem cell funding


Recommended Posts

Frist backs increased federal stem cell funding

Senate majority leader breaks with Bush on issue

Friday, July 29, 2005; Posted: 10:14 a.m. EDT (14:14 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Friday threw his support behind House-passed legislation to expand federal financing for human embryonic stem cell research, breaking with President Bush and religious conservatives in a move that could impact his prospects for seeking the White House in 2008.

"It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science," Frist, R-Tennessee, said on the floor of the Senate.

Frist's announcement immediately dented his support among Christian conservatives.

"Sen. Frist should not expect support and endorsement from the pro-life community if he votes for embryonic research funding," the Christian Defense Coalition said in a statement as Frist finished his speech.

"Senator Frist cannot have it both ways. He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the group. "Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president in 2008."

The announcement drew praise from perhaps the most powerful advocate for the research, former first lady Nancy Reagan.

""I was heartened by Senator Frist's support," she said in a statement. "Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to alleviate so much suffering. Surely, by working together we can harness its life-giving potential. Thank you, Dr. Frist, for standing up for America's patients."

The late former President Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's disease.

A heart-lung transplant surgeon who opposes abortion, Frist said loosening Bush's strict limitations on stem cell research would lead to scientific advances and "bridge the moral and ethical differences" that have made the issue politically charged.

"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitation put into place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," he said.

"Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified. We should expand federal funding ... and current guidelines governing stem cell research, carefully and thoughtfully, staying within ethical bounds," he said.

Bush has threatened to veto legislation for expanded financial support for stem cell research. A bill to finance more stem cell research has passed the House, but has been stalled in the Senate. Frist's support could push it closer to passage and set up a confrontation with Bush.

Frist's announcement will put pressure on the White House, predicted Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, a cancer patient and the bill's sponsor.

"I know that the president will listen to what Sen. Frist has had to say," Specter said. "I'm not saying he is going to agree with it but ... I think may bring us all together on this issue."

It also could impact Frist's own political future. A likely presidential candidate in 2008, Frist has been courting religious conservatives who helped make Bush a twice-elected president and generally consider embryonic stem cell research a moral equivalent to abortion. But the announcement, coming just a month after Frist said he did not support expanded financing "at this juncture," could help him with centrist voters.

With those political realities in mind, Frist argued that his positions on stem cell research and abortion were not inconsistent. He said the decision was about policy, not politics.

Frist's decision brought quick praise from leading Democrats.

"It is a decision that will bring hope to millions of Americans," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "I know there's still a long ways to go with the legislation, but a large step has been taken by the majority leader today ... and I admire the majority leader for doing it."

Said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: "As a physician, Sen. Frist has a moral calling to save lives and alleviate suffering. He honors his Hippocratic Oath today by recognizing the unique healing power of embryonic stem cells."

i don't see why you can't reconcile pro-life with pro-stem cell research. you can at least support research using discarded stem cells. that is a good first step.

of course, if you say no to all kinds, then you're saying embryos trump living persons right now. who's to say who trumps whom and for what reasons? in any case, saying no exalts those embryos, many of which will never be people, and sentencing all the rest to a life of suffering or death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't see why you can't reconcile pro-life with pro-stem cell research.  you can at least support research using discarded stem cells.  that is a good first step.

of course, if you say no to all kinds, then you're saying embryos trump living persons right now.  who's to say who trumps whom and for what reasons?  in any case, saying no exalts those embryos, many of which will never be people, and sentencing all the rest to a life of suffering or death.

586291905[/snapback]

Well that is not an entirely sound argument. While a dying adult will most definately cause the death (termination, whatever term you wish) of the embryo, an embryo is not causing the death of the adult, the illness is. In the equation you are only asking one to sacrifice themself for another, the embryo has nothing to do with the situation of the adult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that is not an entirely sound argument.  While a dying adult will most definately cause the death (termination, whatever term you wish) of the embryo, an embryo is not causing the death of the adult, the illness is.  In the equation you are only asking one to sacrifice themself for another, the embryo has nothing to do with the situation of the adult.

586291943[/snapback]

well, no, consider this.

recent research has shown that the spinal cord fibers can be regenerated by injecting undifferentiated stem cells into the area, returning to the host lost mobility. much success has been shown in contusion injuries. there is a very real application and very real results can appear as a consequence. of course, we could have prevented the person from injuring the spinal cord: have safer cars, eliminate stairs, etc. but the fact is, the person is suffering and could be helped.

if we say that embryos cannot be used (because we want to preserve their potential for life), then those very embryos that could otherwise have been used (in application, research, and so on) are unable to be applied to such cases. if those conditions could be helped by embryos (which has been shown), then the lack of embryos directly affects those sufferers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, no, consider this.

recent research has shown that the spinal cord fibers can be regenerated by injecting undifferentiated stem cells into the area, returning to the host lost mobility.  much success has been shown in contusion injuries.  there is a very real application and very real results can appear as a consequence.  of course, we could have prevented the person from injuring the spinal cord: have safer cars, eliminate stairs, etc.  but the fact is, the person is suffering and could be helped.

if we say that embryos cannot be used (because we want to preserve their potential for life), then those very embryos that could otherwise have been used (in application, research, and so on) are unable to be applied to such cases.  if those conditions could be helped by embryos (which has been shown), then the lack of embryos directly affects those sufferers.

586291962[/snapback]

But is is generally accepted to be immoral to ask one to sacrifice for another as it places a higher value on one of the involved.

Again, there may be alternatives other than destroying one for another, I feel my analogy stands. The infirmed causes the malady on the embryo, the embryo is under no moral obligation to sacrifice itself to save the infirmed just as I am under no moral obligation to donate blood, donate my organs, or my bone marrow just because it may be beneficial to another - especially if such help results in my life being terminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is is generally accepted to be immoral to ask one to sacrifice for another as it places a higher value on one of the involved. 

Again, there may be alternatives other than destroying one for another, I feel my analogy stands.  The infirmed causes the malady on the embryo, the embryo is under no moral obligation to sacrifice itself to save the infirmed just as I am under no moral obligation to donate blood, donate my organs, or my bone marrow just because it may be beneficial to another - especially if such help results in my life being terminated.

586292005[/snapback]

is it immoral to use cells (i.e. to sacrifice cellular material as opposed to a human being)? millions of sperm and egg cells are sacrificed (and asked to, no doubt) in the creation of a single human being. is it immoral to sacrifice them? should they all be harvested? i'm not picking at the issue. i want to understand every texture of it.

what if the cells are born of the suffering people? can they legislate use?

what about all the cells that are thrown away during the fertilization process? if they are used, aren't they given dignity by supporting life instead of being discarded?

and as a matter of balance and practice, can we really tell people that they will need to continue suffering because we are unable to examine our moral foundations? for administrators, letting people suffer is also morally unacceptable. if we know for a fact that stem cells are the solution (let us say, the only solution, to make it simple), is it fair to let people die? clearly, we cannot ask the stem cells to sacrifice themselves (i can see that point), but can we morally allow people to die when they don't have to?

the way i see it, it's a question of balance. that's why it's so tough. both sides have moral prerogatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is it immoral to use cells (i.e. to sacrifice cellular material as opposed to a human being)?  millions of sperm and egg cells are sacrificed (and asked to, no doubt) in the creation of a single human being.  is it immoral to sacrifice them?  should they all be harvested?  i'm not picking at the issue.  i want to understand every texture of it.

what if the cells are born of the suffering people?  can they legislate use?

what about all the cells that are thrown away during the fertilization process?  if they are used, aren't they given dignity by supporting life instead of being discarded?

and as a matter of balance and practice, can we really tell people that they will need to continue suffering because we are unable to examine our moral foundations?  for administrators, letting people suffer is also morally unacceptable.  if we know for a fact that stem cells are the solution (let us say, the only solution, to make it simple), is it fair to let people die?  clearly, we cannot ask the stem cells to sacrifice themselves (i can see that point), but can we morally allow people to die when they don't have to? 

the way i see it, it's a question of balance.  that's why it's so tough.  both sides have moral prerogatives.

586292044[/snapback]

Well it all comes down the value placed on an embryo, which is significantly higher than single, non-fused sex cells who alone have 0% chance of living.

If we argue on the potentiality of life, and that a born Human has greater value becuase it has life (life as in defined as more than just being alive - cognitions, emotions, etc), then sure it would make sense that the embryo has less to sacrifice in the equation. But, the terminally ill person may arguably have less potentiality for continued life than the embryo, and then we are find ourselves asking who has the potential for more life? A terminally ill individual, who without treatment we are most certain will die or an embryo with whom there may be no medical issues and may live to be 100 years old?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed Armeck

Also, is there not a moral obligation by adults to protect the young? Once a child it is conceived it is now no longer a potenial life but a kinetic life (to use a physic analogy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it all comes down the value placed on an embryo, which is significantly higher than single, non-fused sex cells who alone have 0% chance of living.

do you know what the stats are of a healthy embryo becoming a full human being? i don't know, but i'm interested in finding out.

If we argue on the potentiality of life, and that a born Human has greater value becuase it has life (life as in defined as more than just being alive - cognitions, emotions, etc), then sure it would make sense that the embryo has less to sacrifice in the equation.  But, the terminally ill person may arguably have less potentiality for continued life than the embryo, and then we are find ourselves asking who has the potential for more life?  A terminally ill individual, who without treatment we are most certain will die or an embryo with whom there may be no medical issues and may live to be 100 years old?

586292133[/snapback]

i don't think it's necessarily fair to argue about the potentiality of life. are we really going to weigh people's lives on what they can accomplish? i gave the example in another thread about a nobel laureate who could cure a terrible illness, if only she herself could be cured by stem cell research vs. an embryo. do we have to weigh these factors as well? who are we to decide how to weigh them? are we saying a terminally ill individual who would still die with treatment is less valuable (or less worth saving) than an embryo who could live to be 100?

(divadparadox will remember this :p)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya Armeck the ends (although being very rewarding) never justify the means of going about it.

for administrators, letting people suffer is also morally unacceptable. if we know for a fact that stem cells are the solution (let us say, the only solution, to make it simple), is it fair to let people die? clearly, we cannot ask the stem cells to sacrifice themselves (i can see that point), but can we morally allow people to die when they don't have to?

That is the exact same debate that went through the heads of WWII strategists before they dropped the 2 bombs on Japan. They had the solution to end the war, and they did it. But look at the cost of civilian lives and lasting damage it did to the area.

It all comes back to that simple point, can we justify the means of our actions by the ends in which they produce? Definitely not.

The question then becomes where do we draw the line if we make exceptions to the rule; where we perform an act contrary to the common good resulting in the betterment of other lives. You honestly cant go down that road at all, even seriously considering the implications. Look at the history of the world and examine when we made such exceptions, then look at the results. Not pretty at all. (End of WWII, Roe v. Wade, Holocost etc)

The means in and of themselves are ends to those who who use them to justify evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya Armeck the ends (although being very rewarding) never justify the means of going about it.

That is the exact same debate that went through the heads of WWII strategists before they dropped the 2 bombs on Japan. They had the solution to end the war, and they did it. But look at the cost of civilian lives and lasting damage it did to the area.

It all comes back to that simple point, can we justify the means of our actions by the ends in which they produce? Definitely not.

The question then becomes where do we draw the line if we make exceptions to the rule; where we perform an act contrary to the common good resulting in the betterment of other lives. You honestly cant go down that road at all, even seriously considering the implications. Look at the history of the world and examine when we made such exceptions, then look at the results. Not pretty at all. (End of WWII, Roe v. Wade, Holocost etc)

The means in and of themselves are ends to those who who use them to justify evil.

586292160[/snapback]

is it contrary to the common good if millions of lives can be improved?

the problem is, we can't morally justify one position over the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you know what the stats are of a healthy embryo becoming a full human being?  i don't know, but i'm interested in finding out.

i don't think it's necessarily fair to argue about the potentiality of life.  are we really going to weigh people's lives on what they can accomplish?  i gave the example in another thread about a nobel laureate who could cure a terrible illness, if only she herself could be cured by stem cell research vs. an embryo.  do we have to weigh these factors as well?  who are we to decide how to weigh them?  are we saying a terminally ill individual who would still die with treatment is less valuable (or less worth saving) than an embryo who could live to be 100?

(divadparadox will remember this :p)

586292154[/snapback]

We aren't denying them treatment, just a treament that results in the termation of a living entity. There msut be other treatment options available.

is it contrary to the common good if millions of lives can be improved?

the problem is, we can't morally justify one position over the other.

586292284[/snapback]

But we don't even know if this type of treatment is going to be fruitful, we only theorize tht it wll be. That is a big leap considering the costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is it contrary to the common good if millions of lives can be improved?

the problem is, we can't morally justify one position over the other.

586292284[/snapback]

"Morality is just like Art, it's all about drawing a line somewhere"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another element of this that makes no sense to me is that it is alright to destroy embryos already in existence, but creating them then destroying them is bad? Their origin should be wholly irrelevant. It is either right or wrong to destroy and embryo - how they cam into creation shouldn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way to go Frist! :s Never thought I'd ever type that but now no one can say I never said anything nice. :laugh: It's about time someone "pro-life" started caring about people after they are born instead of giving us the middle-finger. (Y)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Frist has been going against his values to get promotions and such. Apparantly he was never much of a religous right untill this past little while. Maybe this is the true Frist showing through?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We aren't denying them treatment, just a treament that results in the termation of a living entity.  There msut be other treatment options available.

what if it were the only treatment available? of course, if there are other solutions, by all means, consider them, but will it ever make sense to research these solutions (yes, research is necessary) in order to help people who can never be helped otherwise?

But we don't even know if this type of treatment is going to be fruitful, we only theorize tht it wll be.  That is a big leap considering the costs.

586292523[/snapback]

so if they are fruitful, beyond a doubt, would you find it more acceptable? if so, then we have to conclude that the problem is not so much the morality of the issue, but the practical cost-benefit ratio of the issue.

"Morality is just like Art, it's all about drawing a line somewhere"

586292701[/snapback]

exactly.

Another element of this that makes no sense to me is that it is alright to destroy embryos already in existence, but creating them then destroying them is bad?  Their origin should be wholly irrelevant.  It is either right or wrong to destroy and embryo - how they cam into creation shouldn't matter.

586292726[/snapback]

creating them in order to destroy them is slightly more controversial because it commoditizes embryos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what if it were the only treatment available?  of course, if there are other solutions, by all means, consider them, but will it ever make sense to research these solutions (yes, research is necessary) in order to help people who can never be helped otherwise?

so if they are fruitful, beyond a doubt, would you find it more acceptable?  if so, then we have to conclude that the problem is not so much the morality of the issue, but the practical cost-benefit ratio of the issue.

exactly.

586293199[/snapback]

The fact that you are bringing up hypotheticals that simply cannot and will not come to pass is exactly why this is the issue. The fact is there are unknowns, if we were capable of accurately and objectively gauging what is unknown (effectively making it known), we could easily use the the basic rule, "do the most good for the most people".

However, that there are things we cannot know about these hypothecials means we have to preserve oppretunity, equally for all involved. The child effectively has the same chance as becoming a lauret as the terminally ill adult. They also have an equal chance to become the next brutal dictator, or even to wipe out our entire species.

The fact that we do not know how this will play out though, means we favor one person over another, whether from a moral stand point or from a strictly cold pragmatic logical standpoint. Incomplete information may prevent us from making the best outcome possible, but we can still make the best choice given what information we have available.

"You may not be able to decide correctly everytime, but with a little thought you can always make the 'right' choice"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you are bringing up hypotheticals that simply cannot and will not come to pass is exactly why this is the issue. The fact is there are unknowns, if we were capable of accurately and objectively gauging what is unknown (effectively making it known), we could easily use the the basic rule, "do the most good for the most people".

actually, i think the fact that there are hypotheticals is what makes this ethical issue more, not less, solvable.

if it were the case that stem cells could be without a doubt the cure for a certain ailment, then we would be stuck between two equally justified ends.

in our case, we can step back and say, hey now, we don't have enough information about that, so we can't warrant use for an unknown benefit.

but then i wonder. if the search to understand and quantify those benefits could be made, would they (assuming, of course, they require embryos)?

however, the moral issue would still stand, and perhaps, more so, in the case where stem cells do yield real results for real people. and i'm not certain they don't already show signs of those results.

i'm not advising that we encourage recklessness either. it doesn't make sense to go all out to try stem cells for everything. but it doesn't make sense to completely halt or prohibit research either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have read most of what has been said and i have to say im glad that frist is backing the exploration of better stem cells for the research of the possiblity of cures. the debate about the moral or ethical decisions yet to be made are for later in the research imo. if better stem cell lines can either open or close the door on the viablity of possible future use i all for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

breaking with President Bush and religious conservatives

Judging by this statement Bush somewhat opposed the idea because of religion, which to me suggests he shouldnt be in charge of the country unless he can make a decision based on what would benefit the whole, not just the section he sits in. If Christians dont want involvement thats fair enough, but the rest should not be made to miss out on the potentially life saving benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm glad to see a few non-mods to get in on this conversation. :)

I'm kind of sitting on the fence with this. I am totally against abortion, but I don't have a big issue with stem cell research. I'm just glad Bush doesn't try to outlaw all stem cell research.

If this gets past the Senate, I'm sure that the bill will get vetoed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.