Stem Cell Debate

Print This Page

Email a Friend

Stem Cell Debate

Editor's Note: Our recent stories on stem cell research (four are cited below) have sparked much email, pro and con. Here's a sampling).

Bush Administration Defends Limits on Stem Cell Research

Patient Groups React Cautiously To Bush's Stem Cell Decision

Bush's Stem Cell Decision: What Will It Mean?

Stem Cell Research: Is Progress Delayed Progress Denied?

I am very disappointed in your article "Stem Cell Research: The Facts." The fact is, stem cell research is, [in] any realm of reality, murder. I am surprised that a reputable web site like this could produce anything this one-sided. I have received many things from WebMD and I have in the past been pleased with the information you have provided. However, one must look at both sides of an issue and give an unbiased look into the subject. This is the key to good reporting, editing, and publishing. I am surprised at you, and I'm not sure I want to receive future mailings either.

(Name withheld)

I am disappointed at the liberal view that this web site has in general toward stem cell research. Even the mere possibility of this type of hideous and cruel research would have never so much as entered people's minds were it not for the evil of abortion. I'll tell you why.

I thought the Hippocratic oath said "First, do no harm." I guess that doesn't apply when some selfish woman or boyfriend/husband feels that there is no room in their perfect little lives for a slobbering, screaming baby. You'd think that no one in the United States ever heard of adoption the way women just go and "terminate pregnancies" as if they were going for their annual Pap smear. Considering the way the general public views abortion (as a "procedure" and not exactly "murder" like it really is), it is easy to see how the transition can be made from "terminating pregnancies" to "using embryos for stem cell research." After all, unborn children aren't really people, right? They are just masses and masses of cells that we can use as we see fit. Well, I've got news for you -- they are people, and they have rights just like you and me. The next thing you know, "doctors" will be growing babies in artificial amniotic sacs and harvesting organs for "sick" people -- as if their lives are any more important!

To all the doctors who say that their research will be more "difficult" because of Bush's decision, I say, "Boo hoo! Poor, poor baby! Start collecting placentas!" (From what I've read, placentas are a viable alternative to this monstrous plot.) To those who say that the rest of the world will "beat us to the chase" medically, I say, "So what? It is better to be honest and poor than to be dishonest and rich." Whoever conducts this research or performs abortions will have a higher power to answer to. As will we all, but some will be talking longer than others.

Catholic and proud of it!

I really appreciate this article. I'm a 45-year-old female hemodialysis patient, and I would desperately like a kidney that matches my genetic makeup. I will keep praying that in spite of the restrictions that have been imposed, perhaps a small door of hope has been opened for those of us who suffer so much.

(Name withheld)

I am an 8-month quadriplegic and a Catholic. In my opinion, given the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, they might as well be used to help seriously ill people. President Bush's decision was clearly political. His political aspirations are clearly killing people and making others suffer. I really wonder how he sleeps at night.

(Name withheld)

I read your article on stem research. I found your article to be biased and slanted toward the "liberal" line. In my opinion, no federal tax dollars should be used for stem cell research. Of course, in the unlikely event that the stem cell research does offer cures or treatment for diseases or illness, people of your ilk will want to continue to push the issue to using newly aborted children. Wait, why not deliver the child, then extract its cells?

(Name withheld)

There is no proof any of this research will ever pan out into any types of cures for any of the diseases mentioned. I don't believe we should be giving hope to people when at the moment there is none. The stem cells that have been given the green light to continue work should be enough to give some indication whether to continue. If, in the future, the research justifies further stem cells, I'm sure the OK will be given and also monies for the research. I do not believe the majority of people are in favor of killing any more embryos at the moment until further testing warrants such. I do not like researchers, doctors, and the media leading the general public to believe this research would result in cures for numerous diseases. At the moment, nothing could be farther from the truth. There is no proof yet. Work with the 60 (or whatever the number may be) stem cells in existence. When there is some real hope, come back, ask for more, and I'm sure it will be given.

I don't like the implication in the article that funding has been limited. That is not so. The stem cells have been limited.

Teddy W.

I work in a women's center in a relatively small town. On our floor alone I can name at least 5 nurses that now have been diagnosed with MS. We have had the CDC and others there to supposedly check the reasons for such a high level at this location. [They] found nothing.

These people are my friends -- almost like family -- and I can't stand to see this debilitating disease take their life away in such a horrific manner. This and other diseases that could be treated with stem cell research should, in my opinion, be allowed to happen. I'm sure that if the president were to think clearly about the state of this world as a whole and the promises to take care of those of us already here, he could put a perspective on the stem cell research that would make people look at this in a positive way.

Daily, our hospital alone delivers many babies, some in really good family situations and some in not-so-good situations. If women had the choice to help others as well as maybe help their own family some day, I think the women of this world, without the bureaucratic red tape, would say do all you can with any "leftovers" available! The population of this world needs to be controlled anyway. Families cannot afford to have a lot of children and take care of them and educate them fully to give the next generation a good foundation. This is not to say that we should not reproduce, but ... be logical about it. There is birth control out there, and [for] the people who want children and can't have them without help, stem cell research can help them, too. I'm an adopted child, and I feel lucky to have been adopted when I was, but look at all those babies that aren't being adopted. Why? Not the right hair color or skin color? Come on, people, a baby, a young child, still has the ability to love if someone is willing to show them love. Our prisons are full of people, overflowing to say the least, but if you really took a look at who is there, how many of them would get to the basics and say they didn't feel love from anyone and therefore they have no love [on which] to base right from wrong?

In closing, I just want to say please advance the research and save my friends and family as well as your own.

Concerned

I have never written a letter to an editor before this issue came up. Now, as a mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother, I have to express my shock and downright anger at this so-called research.

How dare this go on! I cannot believe that the human race has gone so far as to deliberately kill unborn babies to "cure" other humans of a disease or other afflictions. This is exactly what these so-called scientists are doing!

We are all born having a chance at life. If we acquire an illness or a disease, that is the unfortunate life we have. Why can't these poor little babies have the same right, good or bad -- a chance at life? This is God's business. I think he must be very angry at what his people are doing.

The "Age of Disposals" is upon us. Does this mean we have the moral right to "dispose" of unwanted human beings? What's next? Well, gee, Grandma or Grandpa is sick, crippled, blind, or just in the way, so we "dispose" of them, too? And street people, let's do that to them, too.

This makes about much sense as "aborting" a baby because it's an unwanted boy or an unwanted girl.

I have diabetes, but I would never be "cured" by a tiny little baby dying just to "cure" my problem. What a horrible thing to live with! Scientists [who] support this research should all be thoroughly ashamed of themselves and ask God's forgiveness for such actions.

Thank you for letting me express my opinion, as a lot of us grandparents feel the same way.

The Bears
Middleton, WI

The impression that the media is communicating is that President Bush is stifling the potential of stem cell research by limiting the research to the already existing 60 lines. But isn't it true that there are other sources of stem cells? For instance, can't stem cells be obtained from the blood from the placenta/umbilical cord from a newborn? If there are other sources of stem cells, the media certainly don't want the public to know. This knowledge would thwart the liberal media's efforts to make Bush appear to be "uncaring" to the community who is stricken with diseases that may be able to be "cured" from the result of such research.

As our scientific knowledge increases, we must progress carefully. Finding cures to diseases is wonderful, yet we must do it responsibly, carefully, considering all ramifications of our decisions. Sometimes in the effort to do good, we do more harm.

(Name withheld)

Thanks for an unbiased review of the stem cell issue! I am definitely pro-life in my views, however I don't have a problem with President Bush's decision to allow further research on existing lines. I suspect he feels much like I do about the existing lines -- the decision on how to use them was made long before he had much to say about their use.

I base my pro-life views on two stories from the Bible: The first being the verse that says God knew me (Psalms) before I was formed from the dust of the earth. You can see by that verse why fundamental Christians would have a conflict with believing that life doesn't begin until birth. The other story is the one about John the Baptist leaping in his mother's womb when his mother was told that Mary was pregnant with Jesus. Again, if John was not yet a person -- having no spirit or life, how would he have known what Mary was talking about?

I feel that President Bush's decision was based on his personal faith, along with a very diligent review of the facts.

But the reason I wanted to write to you was to encourage you to continue to report the news without bias. We live in an age where all the major news sources seem to believe that none of us are capable of making our own decisions. Every time an important issue is aired, newsmen spend countless hours grinding up the facts and feeding them to us like pablum. Unfortunately, the pablum always gets heavily seasoned with the newsmen's personal views.

If you had published only one side of this issue, and I had gotten the impression that WebMD was now trying to influence me to go against my Christian beliefs, I would have canceled my ability to use your services. I am glad I wasn't forced into that decision, as I have learned a great deal from your open discussions and articles.

(Name withheld)

What I don't understand about the controversy is this:

Nothing has changed that would outlaw the use of new embryonic stem cells, correct?

The only decision was that we would not take money away from people (many of whom are morally opposed to the destruction of embryos for research) in the form of taxes to further such research. By the way, I am not opposed to this research, however I am not so sure that we should be spending the money when the private sector will surely do the research with or without my tax dollars.

This still leaves it open for companies who have or can acquire funding from other sources to continue carrying out this activity. Am I missing something?

Janet W.

What can the average U.S. citizen do to get our president to give a little more? Does he actually understand what this research entails and what it can do for humanity?

(Name withheld)

I was pleased to note in your article that you mention research is going forward in other countries.

In viewing all the newscasts in the past few days, one would believe that limited stem cell research imposed by President Bush is a disaster to future programs, and that only the United States is doing this research.

So far, from the facts, many countries are involved and results will soon be forthcoming in this area regardless of the U.S. decision.

Also, human cloning will not be allowed to go forward in the U.S. and many other countries. However, if it can be done it will be done, perhaps in other rogue countries.

Garnet K. Canada

I was diagnosed with type I diabetes when I was 11 years old. I am 18 years old now, and I am thankful that I am alive because I almost went into a coma before I found out that I had this disease, and I want to let everyone out there who thinks stem cell research is so bad [know] that they are wrong. There are more and more people in the United States who have diabetes or are living with the disease who do not even know they have diabetes. That should wave a red flag in front of the people who are against this research. They think it is killing another human being, but I say to them that without this research there may soon become a time where no one can have babies at all because of complications with a disease that they have. Then all these people who were against it before will change their minds.

Another point I would like to make is if the people who do not have these diseases would walk in the shoes of children, teenagers, young adults, and adults who have diseases such as Parkinson's, diabetes, and other diseases that stem cell research could help, then they would change their tune. Because they would actually see what I and many other Americans go through each day just to remain healthy.

A.T.

Your article criticizing President Bush's position on stem cell research missed one key point. It is never justified to take a life for the sake of research. There are other sources for stem cells and other avenues of research that also hold promise and do not require ending a life.

Another point to consider is the availability of private funds to do the type of research you think is so necessary. No one will be banned from using the stem cells derived from fertility clinic discards. The government will just not foot the bills. If the research is so promising, the money will be raised from individuals like you who have no moral objection to the destruction of the embryos.

A.B.

Just because some research may advance the knowledge we hold in that area does not mean that it is the best choice we can make for the good of all. No one in the pro-abortion camp will admit the obvious: If its not human than what is it, and if it's not life then how is it that it can die? The only difference between us and the embryos they are so eager to destroy for the sake of "knowledge" is time. Given enough time in a protected environment they will be viable. Even a baby when it is born requires many years of protection and care by a loving person to be capable of life on its own. It just moves from one totally dependent environment to another.

I find it totally amazing how easily people can slice hairs. But what if it were their life we were thinking of snuffing out for the sake of science? Especially since there is clear evidence that there are other choices and sources for stem cell research that don't involve the death of the donor (and might I add without their consent!) Until we have exhausted all of the possibilities for research in these other areas we should close the door on the one area that separates us from the animals, our ability to think intelligently!

Cindy M.

President Bush's decision is to be lauded, for he's opened up stem cell research pioneering for the U.S.A. as well as the world, and I support him 100%.

Betty C.G., M.D.

I too am a bit perplexed at the limit put on the stem cell funding project. However, everyone is putting forth their opinion about which areas of medical research would be impacted. None of these people have any idea which projects, if any, might be overlooked, or even if this is a viable genre, although it seems that the data currently available are pointing toward this.

The first thing I heard after the President's decision was released was from some politico from California who indicated that sickle-cell [anemia] studies might not be funded! These politicalizations are ludicrous, and someone should speak out loudly.

Why don't we all just admit the truth -- no one knows if more cell lines would be needed. Let's see what happens with what we have.

R.J.H.

I'm paralyzed from the chest down. I think stem cell research is a good thing. You can help people that are living but have the problems this could help have a much better life. I think the people [who] don't want this to happen need to think of the ones with the problems, not themselves. If I had the money I would go to Israel and have the shot given to me that regenerates the nerves. It would be great if everyone would understand how many different things stem cell research can end up helping.

Melisa Bray

It is a sad day that we will try to live off of a generation not yet born. We are destroying our future by killing off our next generation for our comfort. The culture of death will find a loophole and human embryos will be the target of our insatiable quest for a "perfect" human race. May God have mercy on us.

Margaret L. C.

Thanks for your article about the stem cell debate/decision. I live in San Diego and used to work for one of the greatest research institutes in the world, the Scripps Research Institute. I know for a fact, therefore, that the No. 1 source of funding for research by far comes from the U.S. government. Bush, the conservative politicians, and the uninformed people in this country continue to make sexist decisions on the fate of those with disabilities. You did a great thing by getting this article published for everyone in the world, and specifically for those like me, those who have been suffering with diseases like mine, multiple sclerosis, who are told that there is no cure, but bear with us -- private companies, who sell one of the only drugs that might stop the progression of the disease, will gladly take your $10,000 per year and provide you with some questionable toxins to inject into your muscles. No government control or funding or monitoring here.

But not to worry; maybe by the time you are completely disabled, there will be a cure. Not likely, in my opinion, and in yours partially based on the unavailability of funds for promising research -- all in the name of controlling reproduction, embryos, abortion, etc. Let's stop the madness and conservative agendas, and get on with scientific discovery. My two cents.

(Name withheld)

Originally published 8/17/2001