James Kelly, as you may know, is paralyzed from an auto accident and has become one of the nation’s foremost and dedicated activist promoting stem cell research: Adult stem cell research. Kelly has researched the matter quite thoroughly. As reported in this extensive analysis of the recent election in National Review Online, when challenged to be “pro science,” Kelly responded that he is “pro cures.”
I find it amazing–but not surprising–that the media fawns over embryonic stem cell activists with serious afflictions and disabilities, but generally ignore the Jim Kellys of the world. After all, we live in a culture where only “the victims” supposedly have true moral authority to take positions on such issues. But, of course, that is only true if one toes the Establishment line. Kelly takes a heterodox view and that makes him, I guess, not an authentic victim.
He closes his interesting piece with this important point:
When the NIH refuses to fund credible clinical trials using adult stem cells or cord blood to save Americans from suffering from stroke, spinal cord injury, ALS, diabetes, or Parkinson’s Disease, the public needs to hear of it. If Americans can be shown that their health is being sacrificed, that their hopes are being exploited, and their trust has been betrayed to promote biotech financial goals, stem cell issues will become conservative and pro-life political strengths, rather than weaknesses.
In urging conservatives to take a hard-line approach to stem cells issues it might be said that I’m being selfish–that I suggest this course because I hope to walk again, because I want countless millions with diseases and disabilities to see their hopes fulfilled, because I don’t want others to needlessly suffer. If anyone were to say that, he’d be right.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
I have cerbral palsy and I 100% agree with this and think we should be promoting anything that would help others.
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:30 am
The support for embryonic stem cell research by the ‘Central Government’ is an extension of the political war to maintain government control of research based medical education. This was exposed by Mr. Clinton negotiating a settlemenat between NIH and private industry to announce that ‘cooperation’ succeeded in acheiving the ‘complete’ definition of the human genome. The real moral question of this political war against human healthcare by politicians is related to the difference between medical science dependancy on total honesty to acheive its goals and the confrontational degradation of selective ‘truths’ as practiced by law and political enforcerers.
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:34 am
Fortunately at the present time I can agree. The trick is with the implications of endorsing an admittedly selfish, anything-for-real-cures approach based on what-works, or what is *currently* working. Perhaps it is a sure thing ethical standard even long term. But what if hypothetically speaking cures started emerging from the destruction of human embryonic stem cell harvesting at the expense of the life of the human embryo? Would we not then be “caught” with our politically known and endorsed, purely pragmatic ethical basis, and be forced to endorse killing the youngest humans to find cures for mature ones? At the current time, thanks be to God it is a very useful and powerful argument. It needs a bit more of a combinational approach to make sure we value that ancient Greek Hippocratic Oath in sync with more ancient, creational, image of God convictions.