February 19, 2009 - President Obama has swiftly reversed the policies of the Bush administration to protect early human life, and there is no reason to think he will stop there.

First, he has reversed the "Mexico City Protocol", which means your tax dollars will not only fund abortions overseas but will allow powerful NGO's to bully Catholic and Islamic governments to legalize abortion and abortifactant contraception.

Second, he has stopped the HHS regulations that require clinics and other health care facilities to document that they are protecting the job rights of those working there who refuse to cooperate with abortion.

This may or may not have any effect, since laws doing this date back thirty years, but with the pro abortion folks promoting the "Freedom of Choice" act, one suspects that these older laws and regulations will be eliminated under the law in the near future.

But the final issue is the overturning the Bush era ban on federal funding of embyronic stem cell research, which the secular press reports may be coming any day.

I've seen several newspaper articles asking why President Obama hasn't yet won't reversed the "anti science" regulations of the Bush administration that prevent your tax dollars from being used for "stem cell research".

Let's just stop here for a few definitions.

Nobody really opposes stem cell research.The objection is to the killing of embryos to obtain "embryonic stem cells".

For Catholics and other religions, this is murder, but many secular ethical traditions also have objections to the killing of life, even a small early human life, to save life.

But ordinary stem cells? No problem. Docs have been using stem cells for years to treat diseases, and nearly every day another "breakthough" is reported. To illustrate the point, just last week there were three major treatment success reported with adult stem cell for treatment of MS, heart repair, and stroke.

In contrast, there are no approved treatments using embryonic stem cells.

Moreover there has been and continues to be safety concern, as highighted again this week when it was reported that a boy who had fetal stem cells injected into his brain to try to stop a fatal illness later developed dangerous tumors.

Stem cells don't have to come from embryos; they can be found in umbillical cords and cord blood from newborns. Slightly more mature stem cells come from the bone marrow, fat, hair follicles, and skin.

There are several advantages for using adult stem cells.

The first advantage is that they can come from the same patient, so you don't have to worry about DNA matching.

The much heralded "embryonic stem cell experiment" last week, where a newly developed stem cell line was being used experimentally to see if it would heal spinal cords, will require the patients to take immunosuppressive medicines, since the stem cells don't "match" the patient.

The second advantage of adult stem cells is that they can be obtained in large amounts, whereas each embryo only results in a small number of stem cells, which then have to be tissue cultured to grow more.

Why is this important? Well, it has to do with cells becoming "old". Older cells (that is, cells that have divided so many times) tend to mutate or even become cancerous. But if you start with a lot of stem cells, the individual cells don't have to divide so much to get enough to use.

But why insist on using the embryonic cells at all?

Scientists have long argued that "only" embryonic stem cells are pliable enough to be able to form just about anything your little heart desires.

But that argument is no longer true.

Two physicians who pioneered embryonic stem cell research, one American and one Japanese, developed moral qualms about what they were doing. So they discovered how to "re-program" the more mature adult stem cells into stem cells that essentially acted the same as embryonic ones.

This means that now scientists can easily get some of the patient's own stem cells, reprogram them to act like embryonic stem cells, and then put them to use. So, from a physician's standpoint, embryonic stem cell research is not needed.

Of course, some scientists argue "well, yes, but we should do it anyway just to learn how these things work"; but destroying human life just out of curiosity is a lot more evil than doing it with the excuse you want to save a life.

In summary, from a Catholic standpoint, embryonic stem cell research, which requires embryo destruction to obtain cells, destroys innocent human lives. Even the argument that such murder could potentially save another life would not justify the action.

However, recent discoveries make the use of such embryonic cells unnecessary, and indeed, their use to date has shown them to be more dangerous, and much less effectove than adult and other non-embryonic stem cells.



Nancy Reyes is a retired doctor living in the Phillipines. She is the author of a number of blogs including Finest Kind Clinic and Fishmarket.

Other Recent Stories: Scandal-Ridden USCCB Brings... USCCB Exec Carr, at Center Of... Conference of Catholic Bishops Exec... The Renewal of Catholic Architectural... Openly Lesbian "Catholic" Woman Is...

Post a comment Name * Email * Comment Enter letters from picture * * You must fill the fields marked with a red asterisk.

Comments received: 8 1. Brendan O. Says: February 19, 2009 (Thu) at 11:39:54 AM Yes, but people do not accept this because the drumbeat for embryonic stem cell research is so loud. That is, if embryonic cells are not necessary for research, why are so many clamoring so vigorously for it? The insistence on it seems to prove its importance. No argument against it is complete without a clear explanation as to precisely why groups are advocating it. 2. chuck Says: February 19, 2009 (Thu) at 01:17:39 PM Nancy, The year is 2019...your grandchild has a fatal condition and will absolutely die if you don't allow a procedure to be performed that absolutely will save the child's life. The treatment was developed using embryonic stem cells (for whatever reason they were the only ones that worked). What do you do?? 3. tom Says: February 19, 2009 (Thu) at 01:22:39 PM I'm a catholic and you are not my voice but you are surely an idiot 4. ray Says: February 19, 2009 (Thu) at 03:10:32 PM Ask yourself two questions: How many Americans have actually died or been forced to lead handicapped lives because the Conservatives decided it was in everyone's best interest to halt stem cell research? Out of a concern for life? I think not. If, as you say, all embryos (and by extension, all sperm) is “life” and therefore sacred, then every egg and sperm not used in propagation is a de-facto abortion and from a very young age, each of us are guilty of murder. For "choice" advocates, the quality of life is much more important than the quantity. Why aren’t the Conservatives more interested in improving the lives all the children now living in our and the world's barrios? It appears their focus is not on the safety, welfare, or education of children – only the demand they get born, regardless of the conditions of their birth. After birth, well then they bow out of the debate - unless you consider sound bytes and photo ops more important than substance. During their 7 -year No Child Left Behind hoopla, they were fond of saying all the right things. Unfortunately, they neglected to provide the program with any funding!!!! Kind of like a corporation donating $10,000 to charity then spending a million on a campaign publicizing their generosity. Same thing with the Catholic Church, of which I am a member. For millennia they have sat on an untold value of wealth - real estate, gold, art etc. and proclaimed how sacred life is while doing precious little to change the misery of too many needy children. Second question: How would Jesus feel about the wealth his church (and many of us) are hoarding while tuning a cold shoulder to the acute needs of those already living? 5. david Says: February 19, 2009 (Thu) at 03:20:27 PM And just how many deaths is the catholic church responsible for? oh, sorry i forget that was in the name of god. this is a most unwarranted and inflammatory article. Shame on you Nancy. 6. tommy golstch Says: February 25, 2009 (Wed) at 07:01:23 AM Try not to let superstition stand in the way of science. This entire article is scary in it's inaccuracies, and strident, dictatorial tone. When it comes to hatred, killing and keeping the sheep stupid, you folks are the top. 7. Brendan O Says: February 25, 2009 (Wed) at 06:17:24 PM Amazing the ignorance displayed by the comments of chuck, tom, ray, and david, as if the content of this article was not understood, or perhaps not even read. chuck: Not a single treatment has been developed with cells of embryos, while many successful ones do already exist which use adult stem cells. Furthermore, the suggestion that the research involves mere "development" of treatment shows a lack of understanding of what is involved. Using one's own cells is always infinitely better than cells harvested from anyone else at any stage of development. ray: The idea that sperm and ova are equivalent to persons including embryos is a non sequitur and shows a severe need to inform yourself. The calumnous ad hominem nonsense about Conservatives and the Church addresses nothing about the article. david: Whatever you believe about deaths caused by the Catholic Church says nothing about the objective moral implication of destroying embryos. The chasm between the intellectual quality of this content and the comments it elicits makes one wonder the value of allowing comments at all. I suppose what it does prove is that no matter what evidence and reasoning is provided, some people have made up their mind. That may just be the answer to the question in my initial post. 8. April Says: March 9, 2009 (Mon) at 06:19:29 AM Why are we putting cells that cannot live without the human body ahead of people who are currently alive and suffering? For most of these people with genetic diseases this is their last hope and yet the extremists think it's okay to let them die. If the embryo can live outside the body then yes, it's a human being. The cells frozen cannot. And if you claim that science can keep them alive, then your even more hypocritical that I thought at the beginning of this article. How dare you claim science to save embryos yet damn the very same science! If you truly believe that scientists are working with embryos out of curiosity you are delusional. Nancy I really and truly believe that you have not done your research and as a doctor you should have. If you even researched for a moment you would see that scientist argue on both ends of the spectrum. Your article and opinions are fueled on your opinions not facts. It's really quite sad when a doctor turns against the science that made them who they are.