Here is a letter I sent to the Editors of the Joplin Globe in September. Not only did they not print it, they never acknowledged that I sent it. I sent it twice just in case, but never heard from the Globe.
Dear Editors,
There you go again, Globe Editors. In your "In our view" editorial, "Hope where none existed," (Sep. 5, 2005), you refer to the wonderful, heartwarming, perhaps miraculous story of six-year-old Rylea Bartlett, who was born blind, but whose sight was partially restored after receiving stem-cell transplants from umbilical cords. But then your true colors show.
Referring to opponents of embryonic (not umbilical cord) stem cell research, you state, "We don’t fault those who follow their consciences, but we think that they are caught in between rapid advances in medical science that have outpaced medical ethics and public understanding." In effect, what you are saying is that we the public are too ignorant to know what is good for us. You go on to once again push your agenda, claiming that the best hope for those suffering from various unnamed maladies that reduce quality or duration of life is "somatic cell nuclear transfer research here in Missouri." Non sequitur!
Well, the public is not so ignorant as you seem to think. We understand that the creation of human beings (embryos) by the process you so single-mindedly promote, only to destroy them in the hope that others' suffering might be decreased is and forever will be unacceptable. And furthermore, as Rylea's story shows, treatments are being developed utilizing stem cells that do not involve violating this ethical deadline. Wouldn't the wise, compassionate course of action be to hold off on somatic cell nuclear transfer? There is plenty of hope for treatments arising from research using non-embryonic stem cells and from other related techniques under development. I predict that the "need" for embryonic stem cells for medical research will be fleeting. Let's wait and see.
Sincerely,
mpg
No comments:
Post a Comment