So the one of the Senate's M.D.s has gone ahead and endorsed expanded funding of stem cell research. Bill Frist, came out in favor of a limited expansion in a floor speech today. I am not shocked. I am also not all that bothered by the suggestion.
We have seen the Bush Administration's policy in action for 4 years. In 2001, the very notion of funding stem cell research was new (Clinton provided no money for such research). Bush put federal money where none was before. It has been successful, but it is not perfect, and scientist realize it may lead to an end to the very lines permitted for experimentation.
Thousands, if not millions, of embryonic cells are destroyed every year as couples undergoing fertility treatments become pregnant and choose to discard embryos that remain frozen or otherwise stored. Frist's support is for the use of funding for research on those embryos where the parents consent to that use without compensation. If for no other reason, I would support this because it does not actively seek to create and/or destroy embryos that would not otherwise be expended. If a couple is going to discard embryos, why shouldn't there be an option to use those embryos for scientific purposes.
More (along with election '08 analysis) below the fold..........
Of course, pro-lifers are up in arms. But I don't quite see why this is such a gross horror. I have not heard any opponents of the current expansion proposal come out in favor of banning couples from discarding embryos after fertility treatment succeeds. Some bloviating fool on Fox News claimed that arguing that the embryos would be destroyed anyway is disingenuous. But he fails to explain why it is disingenuous.
I cannot see why this is not making the most of a bad situation. We can't stop the destruction of the embryo, but we can allow those embryos to benefit others. I would liken this to organ donation, or the right to refuse medical treatment - this is a choice to be made by the individual. Some might say there's a difference in that an embryo cannot make choices the way an adult would with organ donation or medical treatment. But, I would note that there is an analogy here. Parents are given control of medical decisions for their minor children, and parents would certainly be able to "pull the plug" on a brain-dead minor child being kept alive by life support. Those parents would also then be able to consent to organ donation for the minor child. I would say that a couple who chooses to donate unimplanted embryos to science is just combining these two principles - the embryo has no hope of developing into sentient life (as the brain dead child has no hope to recover), and so the couple may choose to terminate "life saving treatment" (concerning embryos this would involve removing them from culture) and then choose to consent to the equivalent of "organ donation."
I do not believe that embryonic stem cell research will lead to cures for disease tomorrow. But without the research we could dramatically increase the number of years that will elapse before a breakthrough occurs. Also, this would be simple legislation - and while spending programs do not die easily, it would be well within the realm of possibility to eliminate the program say 4 years from now if it turns out that it is not any more productive than the policy it would replace.
That said, this will likely see a veto, and the House does not have the votes to override that veto. So it's going nowhere. And yet, Frist has probably put the final nail in his Presidential coffin with this announcement. The pro-life base, which will be a powerful voice in primary voting, is already condemning Frist. While Frist's move moderates him without going overboard, that will only be of help to him in states that allow unaffiliated voters to cast ballots in Republican primaries. Those states are likely to see moderates make up a more substantial portion of the electorate. However, with McCain likely to run, even this is a mixed blessing - Frist will be hard-pressed to compete with McCain for such crossover voters. This will probably mean that Frist is done in politics once his term ends.
Comments