Medical Ethics

"Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to alleviate so much suffering."

~ Nancy Reagan

So, for the last few months, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge has been running rampant across the planet. Celebrities ranging from Steven Spielberg to Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, up to and including political figures like Justin Trudeau, George W. Bush, and the Governor-General of Canada, have dunked litres and gallons of water, and pounds of ice over their heads, in an effort to raise awareness and funds for research into this medical condition. I myself was subjected to 25 litres of ice and six pounds of frosty, freezing... well, let's just say it was 20 degrees Celsius outside, and I'm not a fan of anything over 15.

But, as it must always be, with anything of this sort, there are those who choose to sneer at such things. There's a whole host of criticisms out there, available for anyone who can read. But there's one that, as I'm sure few would find surprising, kind of aggravates me.

American leaders of the Catholic Church, citing the use of embryonic stem cells in ALS research, have heavily criticized it. Of course, they don't often speak well of where these stem cells are procured: in vitro fertilization. Dr. Robert Geraldo, medical director of Culture of Life Family Services, a faith-based non-profit that coins itself as an alternative to Planned Parenthood in San Diego, said on a Youtube video that the process "turns the child that is produced into a commodity."

He goes on to say that "the only right [the husband and wife] have is the right to each other's bodies," and therefore have no right to have children of their own. From a completely pragmatic viewpoint, I can agree with that last quote, even though saying that leaves a horrifically distasteful smear on my lips. But what about a person's right to life? I'm not talking about pro-life against pro-choice when I say this, though I can understand some people dragging me that direction with this topic.

I mean the right to live a full and healthy life, the right to see the world in all its wonder, while not having to suffer tremendously from some medical condition. Isn't that why we have hospitals and doctors? Embryonic stem cells are quite often harvested from the 'leftovers' of in vitro fertilization - the embryos created during the process that are not wanted by the couple looking to start, or enlarge, their family. These are embryos, the vast majority of which are less than five days old, well short of the 20-week threshold so many Republican politicians have so often pushed for.

In exchange for allowing the detritus of creating the next generation to be reused for other purposes, what benefits could be reaped? (Because, you know, it's all about the Three R's.) Current research in stem cell treatments could be applied to treatments for everything from ALS and multiple sclerosis to strokes, spinal cord injuries, macular degeneration, diabetes, and even severe burns. Combine this with use to repair damaged or failing organs - and anyone with a brain cell can tell you about a severe shortage in viable organs for transplant - and the number of reasons to stand against stem cell research seems to dwindle to the point of absurdity.

And when both the wife and son of Ronald Reagan, the president many blame for having started the Republican slide to the consolidation of church and state, have been quoted multiple times as being in favour of stem cell research (oh, so many I could have chosen from) you can call me crazy all you want - but I'm going to pay attention.