Re: Sen.Brownback Say's It Must Be Made Illegal for W...

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your interesting discourse on the Old and New Testament. It was very thoughtful and articulate. I appreciated your reply to my post. It was the only one I received.

Personally, I have adopted the CAMR (Coalition for the Advancement Of Medical Research) definition as to when life begins. Simply put, life begins when a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. It does not begin in a petrii dish with a blastocyst which is in its early stages and contains undifferentiated stem cells in its nucleus which may be harvested for growing stem cells in sufficient quantities for research purposes.

It's very controversial because it's based on personal philosophy. An unanimous agreement will be impossible. Conservative Senators, Hatch and Specter and Reagan who have a reputation for "pro-life" have come to terms with when life begins and have justified the importance of proceeding ahead with therapeutic stem cell research in all forms, adult, embryonic and somatic cell nuclear transfer. Senator Hatch in his book "Square Peg," chapter 14, discusses at length how he arrived at his decision to justify all forms of therapeutic stem cell research. It makes for interesting reading.

Because the issue is so personal and complex there will never be consensus on this subject. It will never be unanimous. So maybe it is up those people who are in philosophical agreement to financially support the basic research. However, if there are major break throughs and cures, preventions and treatments are derived from the research, I don't know how anyone who has opposed the research could justify accepting any treatments that may result from the research. And, that may have to even apply to their progeny.

Because we live in a pluralistic society, I just can't comprehend that people who forbid therapeutic research can impose their belief system on others by attempting to make it illegal. I think the solution is they don't pay for the research and they don't receive any treatments that evolve from the research.

While President Bush has doubled basic medical research funding (NIH) from about $13.6 billion in 1999 to about $27.7 billion in 2004, he may be of the opinion that we are still grossly under funded in basic medical research considering the fact that 1) total national healthcare costs are $1.65 trillion or almost 20% of GDP, 2) health care costs are rising about 10 to 15% per year, 3) there are over 100 million chronically ill people in the US, many who are partially or completely disabled, and 4) their are about 2 hundred thousand iatrogenic deaths and 2 million iatrogenic injuries that range from resolved to completely disable.

It's almost a no brainier that substantially more basic research money is required to improve quality of life. After all, the Apollo program cost $185 billion in 2004 dollars. When Bush 1 was president a request was made for $400 billion for a space program. It was turned down. But do you hear of any requests for $400 billion to cure diseases and improve the quality of life for over 100 million people in the US who have debilitating, chronic illnesses?

In my opinion, quality of health ranks higher than material wealth. If you have all the wealth in the world and you don't have health, the material wealth will not have significance. Health is wealth and if you have your health you will be able to aquire the material wealth to build a space station or whatever is important to you.

As of today, for most of us, enough money or adequate health insurance will buy palliative treatments or a few extra months of life. But, treatments of most cancers has not changed substantially over the years and still consist of burn, cut or poison. It's still crude. Today, there are over 400 neurological diseases and most of the treatments for these disease are palliative. Of course, we can always point to a few lucky soles who beat fantastic odds and are miraculously cured.

Unfortunately, President Bush, based on his personal philosophical views, has held

back therapeutic research at least for more than four years and to some extent has created doubt and stigmatized it as immoral. In my opinion, President Bush should take an impartial view as a leader, encourage debate and provide a means of federal funding proportional to those people who are in philosophical agreement with the research. In stead, the President has dealt with this subject in a very arbitrary way, influenced primarily by his personal belief system.

[Guest guest]

Perhaps Reagan changed her stance on stem cell research when

she watched her beloved husband deteriorate from Alzheimers. I

firmly believe that anyone in power would support this research if

they had a loved one with a motor neuron or other neurological

disease. How a cell should have more protection and consideration

than a living human being is beyond my comprehension.

Edith

> Thanks for your interesting discourse on the Old and New

Testament. It was

> very thoughtful and articulate. I appreciated your reply to my

post. It was the

> only one I received.

>

> Personally, I have adopted the CAMR (Coalition for the Advancement

Of Medical

> Research) definition as to when life begins. Simply put, life

begins when a

> fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. It does not begin in a

petrii dish

> with a blastocyst which is in its early stages and contains

undifferentiated

> stem cells in its nucleus which may be harvested for growing stem

cells in

> sufficient quantities for research purposes.

>

> It's very controversial because it's based on personal philosophy.

An

> unanimous agreement will be impossible. Conservative Senators,

Hatch and Specter and

> Reagan who have a reputation for " pro-life " have come to

terms with

> when life begins and have justified the importance of proceeding

ahead with

> therapeutic stem cell research in all forms, adult, embryonic and

somatic cell

> nuclear transfer. Senator Hatch in his book " Square Peg, " chapter

14, discusses at

> length how he arrived at his decision to justify all forms of

therapeutic

> stem cell research. It makes for interesting reading.

>

> Because the issue is so personal and complex there will never be

consensus on

> this subject. It will never be unanimous. So maybe it is up those

people who

> are in philosophical agreement to financially support the basic

research.

> However, if there are major break throughs and cures, preventions

and treatments

> are derived from the research, I don't know how anyone who has

opposed the

> research could justify accepting any treatments that may result

from the

> research. And, that may have to even apply to their progeny.

>

> Because we live in a pluralistic society, I just can't comprehend

that people

> who forbid therapeutic research can impose their belief system on

others by

> attempting to make it illegal. I think the solution is they don't

pay for the

> research and they don't receive any treatments that evolve from

the research.

>

> While President Bush has doubled basic medical research funding

(NIH) from

> about $13.6 billion in 1999 to about $27.7 billion in 2004, he may

be of the

> opinion that we are still grossly under funded in basic medical

research

> considering the fact that 1) total national healthcare costs are

$1.65 trillion or

> almost 20% of GDP, 2) health care costs are rising about 10 to

15% per year,

> 3) there are over 100 million chronically ill people in the US,

many who are

> partially or completely disabled, and 4) their are about 2 hundred

thousand

> iatrogenic deaths and 2 million iatrogenic injuries that range

from resolved to

> completely disable.

>

> It's almost a no brainier that substantially more basic research

money is

> required to improve quality of life. After all, the Apollo program

cost $185

> billion in 2004 dollars. When Bush 1 was president a request was

made for $400

> billion for a space program. It was turned down. But do you hear

of any requests

> for $400 billion to cure diseases and improve the quality of life

for over 100

> million people in the US who have debilitating, chronic illnesses?

>

> In my opinion, quality of health ranks higher than material

wealth. If you

> have all the wealth in the world and you don't have health, the

material wealth

> will not have significance. Health is wealth and if you have your

health you

> will be able to aquire the material wealth to build a space

station or whatever

> is important to you.

>

> As of today, for most of us, enough money or adequate health

insurance will

> buy palliative treatments or a few extra months of life. But,

treatments of

> most cancers has not changed substantially over the years and

still consist of

> burn, cut or poison. It's still crude. Today, there are over 400

> neurological diseases and most of the treatments for these disease

are palliative. Of

> course, we can always point to a few lucky soles who beat

fantastic odds and are

> miraculously cured.

>

> Unfortunately, President Bush, based on his personal philosophical

views, has

> held

> back therapeutic research at least for more than four years and

to some

> extent has created doubt and stigmatized it as immoral. In my

opinion, President

> Bush should take an impartial view as a leader, encourage debate

and provide a

> means of federal funding proportional to those people who are in

philosophical

> agreement with the research. In stead, the President has dealt

with this

> subject in a very arbitrary way, influenced primarily by his

personal belief

> system.

[Guest guest]

Hi Edith:

You may read about " Reagan's War" in the September/October, 2003 issue of the AARP magazine, page 68 by Wil S. Hylton. Mrs. Reagan visited the Whitehouse to lobby President Bush but was not successful. She continues the quiet fight for the cause. I don't think she believes there will be anything to help her husband. She just doesn't want to see it happen to anyone else. If there is a potential cure, and the scientist seem to believe there is much potential, it will take many years of research and significant sums of money and people resources. Maybe as much as we spent for the Apollo space program.

Hal