Reality Check 101

On July 7^th, the Stem Cell Research Ballot Question Committee submitted 570,000 signatures to the Secretary of State in an effort to enshrine research on unborn people in Michigan’s constitution.

The problems with this proposal are legion. It encompasses legal obfuscation, political deception, potential medical malfeasance and moral callousness for the sake of economic gain. The proposal’s text is its own best condemnation.

Paragraph 2 begins by stating its purpose to “ensure that Michigan citizens have access to stem cell therapies and cures”. It continues, “and to ensure that physicians and researchers can conduct the most promising forms of medical research”.

With these statements, the political deception begins. Michigan citizens have always had and still have access to the best research and cures without political intervention. There exists no threat to them.

It is vitally important to expose the spin if Michigan truly desires “the most promising” outcomes for her citizens. Stem cell research and clinical trial successes are already here. They have accomplished miracle-appearing results from adult sources as varied as tooth pulp, fat tissue, bone marrow, skin, neural tissue, pancreatic duct tissue, and placenta and cord blood. The amazing list of research breakthroughs and successful clinical trials includes potential treatments for heart failure and stroke, spinal and ocular injuries, cancers, blood conditions, Diabetes and immune system deficiencies. Not one single advance has come from sacrificed “embryos”. There simply is no medical justification for the politics of this proposed amendment.

The legal obfuscations are just as frustrating. The only two practices that are illegal in Michigan are to clone or kill unborn children for research sake. Paragraph two of the proposal would sanction research “permitted under federal law on human embryos”. But there are no federal restrictions on private human embryo research. The restrictions are federal funding restrictions, not legal restrictions. What’s more, under sub-paragraphs (d)(i) and (d)(ii), permission is given to researchers to ignore state and local laws concerning “medical practices and patient safety and privacy” if such laws “prevent, restrict, obstruct, discourage” or “create disincentives” toward their work.

The result, after all the maneuvering, is no federal, state or local legal restrictions on any research, to include killing the unborn or creating cloned ones.

It is enough that this ignores the profound ethical issues involved politically and legally. But the overt moral callousness doesn’t end there. The proposal’s self-imposed limitations only apply to “embryos more than fourteen days” old. Children who were artificially conceived “for the purpose of fertility treatment” and are “in excess” (leftovers) or are not “suitable for implantation” are fair game.

Now we come to it; the violation of the most basic medical ethic of all, to “do no harm”. If a person is pre-born, less than 14 days old and unwanted, researchers are to have free reign with his or her life. It matters not that the mutilation and/or death is not medically or legally necessary or required. It is simply justified for the sake of the greater good; this while rationalizing infanticide and ignoring the greater good that is already being served through adult stem cell successes. Sixty years ago the world stood aghast of such morality.

The Bible speaks of “the lust of the flesh” and “the boastful pride of life”. The drive for prestige, the competition for limited funds and the potential for wealth in this area is intense. Research is not self-funding and fame can be expensive. There are deep pockets in government and drug companies. Those pockets get considerably shallower if controlled by law.

The choice is clear; affirm the greater good through a standard of life or succumb to the culture of death.