NIH cannot fund embryonic stem cell research, judge rules
By Rob Stein and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
A federal judge on Monday blocked the Obama administration from funding human embryonic stem cell research, ruling that the support violates a federal law barring the use of taxpayer money for experiments that destroy human embryos.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction that prohibits the National Institutes of Health from funding the research under the administration's new guidelines, citing an appeals court's ruling that the researchers who had challenged the less-restrictive policy have the legal standing to pursue their lawsuit.
The decision, a setback for one of the administration's most high-profile scientific policies, was praised by opponents of the research.
"We are encouraged that the court has recognized the seriousness of the ethics and the funding of embryonic stem cell research," said David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council.
The ruling stunned scientists and other advocates of the research, which has been hailed as one of the most important advances in medicine in decades because of its potential to cure many diseases but has been embroiled in controversy because the cells are obtained by destroying days-old embryos.
"This is devastating, absolutely devastating," said Amy Comstock Rick, immediate past president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, a group of patient organizations that has been lobbying for more federal funding.
"We were really looking forward to research finally moving forward with the full backing of the NIH. We were really looking forward to the next chapter when human embryonic stem cells could really be explored for their full potential. This really sets us back," Rick said. "Every day we lose is another day lost for patients waiting for cures."
Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, did not discuss how the administration intends to respond to the ruling, saying only that "we're reviewing the decision." The NIH had no immediate comment.
Steven Aden, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund who filed the suit, said the court will need to clarify whether the injunction affects work using money already issued to researchers under the administration's new guidelines or blocks additional funding.
In his 15-page decision, Lamberth cited "unambiguous" legislation by Congress in 1996, called the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero."
In 1999, Harriet S. Rabb, a lawyer for the Department of Health and Human Services, concluded that the NIH's support of embryonic stem cell research did not violate the amendment if the funds were used only for experiments involving the cells -- not to procure them. The cells themselves are not embryos, she said.
Said Sean Tipton of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine: "NIH carefully designed polices to allow federally funded scientists to explore the potential of human embryonic stem cell research without violating Dickey-Wicker. The NIH policies on stem cell research make it clear that federal funds can be used to investigate cells and tissues created from human embryonic stem cells, but not to create them."
Lamberth rejected that distinction.
"The language of the statute reflects the unambiguous intent of Congress to enact a broad prohibition of funding research in which a human embryo is destroyed," he wrote. "This prohibition encompasses all 'research in which' an embryo is destroyed, not just the 'piece of research' in which the embryo is destroyed," as the Justice Department argued.
On Aug. 9, 2001, President George W. Bush limited federal funding to 21 colonies of existing human embryonic stem cells to prevent taxpayer money from funding the destruction of more embryos to obtain additional cells. Critics of the research praised Bush's move, saying that destroying embryos to advance academic study is immoral and that alternative approaches, such as using stem cells derived from adults, were equally if not more promising.
But many scientists condemned the restrictions, saying they were hindering research that could lead to cures for Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, paralysis and other ailments. Embryonic stem cells, which can morph into many different types of tissue, are able to do things that other cells cannot, proponents argued. No new therapies, however, have been developed.
Soon after taking office, President Obama announced that he was lifting his predecessor's restrictions and ordered the NIH to develop new guidelines addressing the ethical issues involved. Last summer, the NIH issued detailed guidelines and began authorizing new colonies of cells eligible for funding. Seventy-five colonies have been approved so far.
Monday's ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by James L. Sherley and Theresa Deisher, researchers who study other types of human stem cells. The pair argued that the new administration's guidelines would "result in increased competition for limited federal funding," hindering their plans to seek money for other research.
Lamberth initially threw out the case, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled June 25 that the researchers had legal standing to bring a suit. Several other plaintiffs were dropped, including the Christian Medical Association, Nightlight Christian Adoptions and two couples seeking to "adopt" unused embryos. The original suit also contended that the policy would limit the number of embryos available to people seeking them.
Lamberth's injunction does not prevent the government from taking the case to trial. However, the judge wrote that the claim was strong enough to bar federal authorities from "taking any action whatsoever" to implement funding guidelines pending trial.
"The Court finds that the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to plaintiffs, the balance of hardships, and public interest considerations each weigh in favor of a preliminary injunction," he wrote.
To read a copy of the Judges ruling See THIS...
____________
Federal Court Halts Obama Administration's Deadly Research on Human Embryonic Life
By Deacon Keith Fournier
Catholic Online HERE...
8/24/2010
Federal Court opinion an opportunity to speak the truth into a culture which has been lied to
From the Judge's Ruling:
"Having concluded that the Dickey-Wicker Amendment is unambiguous, the question before the Court is whether ESC (Embryonic Stem Cell Research) is research in which a human embryo is destroyed. The Court concludes that it is. The Dickey-Wicker Amendment unambiguously prohibits the use of federal funds for all research in which a human embryo is destroyed. The process of deriving ESCs from an embryo results in the destruction of the embryo."
On Monday, March 9, 2009, President Barrack Obama turned a whole class of human persons into commodities to be used by issuing an Executive Order. The NIH Guidelines which followed treat human embryos as property, 'manufactured' and used as spare parts in experimentation which has produced no discernible scientific results and always kills the human embryonic person.
WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - In a significant opinion issued by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia human embryonic life was given a stay of execution on Monday, August 23, 2010. The Federal Court enjoined the implementation of the Obama Administration guidelines which would have allowed researchers to extract stem cells from "surplus" embryos donated by patients at fertility clinics. This "extraction" amounts to an execution of human embryonic life. These guidelines went into effect in July, 2009.
The case, Dr. James L Sherley et al. v Kathleen Sebelius et al., was filed by Doctors James J Sherley and Theresa Deisher, Nightlife Christian Adoption, Embryos, Shayne and Tina Nelson, William and Patricia Flynn and the Christian Medical Association. At this stage of the proceeding the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the implementation of the Administrations' guidelines. The issuance of an injunction is an extraordinary legal remedy and the party seeking it has a very high burden of proof. The Plaintiffs prevailed. The Federal Judge wrote a long opinion for an injunction. It is filled with solid legal and medical analysis which should be used by everyone seeking to defend human embryonic lives from destruction.
The Federal Court found that the new guidelines issued by the Obama Administration violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment which provides that no Federal funds shall be used for "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed on fetuses in utero" under Federal Law. The Obama administration argued a specious statutory interpretation which strained credulity. The Court did not accept it and properly interpreted the law based upon its clear language.
In the Courts own words "having concluded that the Dickey-Wicker Amendment is unambiguous, the question before the Court is whether ESC (Embryonic Stem Cell Research) is research in which a human embryo is destroyed. The Court concludes that it is." In another section of the opinion the judge made it even clearer: "The Dickey-Wicker Amendment unambiguously prohibits the use of federal funds for all research in which a human embryo is destroyed."
"Thus, if ESC research is research in which an embryo is destroyed, the Guidelines, by funding ESC research, violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. ESC research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed. To conduct ESC research, ESCs must be derived from an embryo. The process of deriving ESCs from an embryo results in the destruction of the embryo. Thus, ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo"
The efforts of this administration to use human embryonic life for deadly experimentation, in spite of the medical science which has proven that Adult Stem Cell Research, (which never injures or kills) is far more promising, is not only bad science but it is also morally reprehensible. On Monday, March 9, 2009, President Barrack Obama turned a whole class of human persons into commodities to be used by issuing an Executive Order. The NIH Guidelines which followed, treat human embryos as property, capable of being "manufactured" and used as spare parts in experimentation which has produced no discernible scientific results and always kills the human embryonic person.
Every "extraction" of embryonic stem cells kills a living human embryonic person. This is not simply a "religious" position, it is medical science and the Judge in this opinion acknowledged these scientific facts. This opinion provides a resource for our work in the great human rights struggle of our age, restoring the legal recognition of the fundamental human right to life for all persons from conception to natural death.
This Federal Court opinion offers an opportunity to again speak the truth into a culture which has been lied to. The insistence upon a framework for evaluating biomedicine which always respects human life is revealed in the Natural Law, we all know it is wrong to kill our neighbor and the child in the womb is our neighbor. It is also confirmed by medical science which proves that the human embryonic person is always killed in embryonic stem cell research. Now we have a well written Federal Court opinion which provides helpful assistance in our important work of exposing the culture of death and proposing in its place a new culture of life and civilization of love.
____________
The Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Lack of a Uniform Moral Code
By: Dr. J. P. Hubert (Biomedical Ethicist)
The two articles above correctly report Judge Lambert's ruling and the legal and the basic scientific facts with respect to ESCR. It is true that in standard ESCR, embyronic stem cells are derived from human embryo's and in all cases the embryonic human beings are killed in the process. This of course is immoral under Traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic principles which hold that it is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
Unfortunately, in the United States and much of the "developed West" Traditional morality is no longer practiced or reveered. Rather, a rabid form of Utilitarianism and Moral Relativism have been adopted by the elites who control our increasingly Neo-Nazi (fascist) Regime (see for example Jim Marrs. The Rise of the Fourth Reich: The Secret Societies that Threaten to Take over America. (New York: Harper, 2008). The intentional killing of innocent human beings was of course one of the hallmarks of the Nazi Third Reich.
The larger question for America is what moral philosophy are we to accept as controlling in our increasingly diverse and immoral society? The courts have largely adopted Legal Pragmatism (for details see my related article at the Intellectual Conservative entitled: “The “Fruits” of Legal Positivism: Utilitarianism in Action”, Intellectual Conservative, 09 December 2005 HERE...) rather than a Natural Law based jurisprudence which of course reflects the rejection of Traditional morality and the adoption of the utilitarian calculus and of necessity moral relativism.
This ruling by Judge Lamberth is encouraging but is actually a legal aberation for a court system which has largely rejected traditional morality. I predict that barring a complete reversal in which Legal Pragmatism is discarded in favor of a return to Natural Law based jurisprudence, federal funding of the killing of human embryo's for their spare-parts will eventually be legalized by the courts.
The real dilemma for Americans is that we are unwilling to agree about what moral code we will accept as the basis of civil law. With respect to Destructive Embryo Research (DER) the debate is not really one of the related legal or medical scientific questions but of the morality or lack of same involved. More fundamentally yet, can a society which has no foundational underlying moral code that is accepted by the vast majority of its inhabitants long survive upon the earth?
Showing posts with label Destructive Embryo Research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Destructive Embryo Research. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Ted Kennedy funeral a "scandal"
Catholic Action League calls funeral a "scandal"
Updated: Monday, 31 Aug 2009, 7:19 AM EDT
Published : Saturday, 29 Aug 2009, 6:39 PM EDT
BOSTON (FOX25, myfoxboston) - A leading conservative Catholic lobbying group says Sen. Edward Kennedy's funeral Mass is evidence of corruption in the U.S. church, and called Kennedy "one of America's most notorious opponents of Catholic morality."
C. J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, said the funeral "a tragic example of the Church's willingness to surrender to the culture."
Doyle noted Kennedy supported abortion and gay rights -- both in opposition to church teachings. Doyle's organization lobbies on political and social issues.
President Barack Obama eulogized Kennedy at the funeral Saturday at the Mission Church in Boston, one of city's the most historic shrines. Cardinal Sean O'Malley led the final prayer.
Kennedy once said his Catholic faith was the greatest gift his mother ever gave to his family.
The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts Released this Statement:
"The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today decried the scandal which occurred this morning at Boston's most historic Catholic shrine --- the Minor Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, known as Mission Church --- where a Mass of Christian Burial was used to "celebrate the life" of one of America's most notorious opponents of Catholic morality, the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Senator Kennedy fought for more than three decades to keep the killing of pre-born children legal and unrestricted in the United States."
Surgical abortion has claimed more than fifty-one million human lives since 1973. The Catholic religion defines abortion as an "abominable crime".
President Barack Obama delivered the eulogy, in which he alluded to Kennedy's support for gay rights. One of the Prayers of the Faithful was a petition to end divisions "between gays and straights".
Ecclesial participants included Rev. Raymond Collins, Rector of the Basilica; Rev. Mark Hession, Kennedy's parish priest from Our Lady of Victories Church in Centerville on Cape Cod; Rev. J. Donald Monan, Chancellor of Boston College; and Sean Cardinal O'Malley, Archbishop of Boston, who thanked President Obama for his words and his presence. Both the homilist, Fr. Hession, and Cardinal O'Malley suggested that the late senator had found eternal salvation.
The Catholic Action League called the event "a tragic example of the Church's willingness to surrender to the culture, and serve Caesar rather than Christ".
Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: "Senator Kennedy supported legal abortion, partial-birth abortion, the public funding of Medicaid abortions, embryonic stem cell research, birth control, federal family planning programs, and so-called emergency contraception. He defended Roe v. Wade, endorsed the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), and opposed both the Human Life Amendment and the Hyde Amendment. Kennedy maintained a 100% rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood. In 1993, he received the Kenneth Edelin Award from Planned Parenthood, and in 2000 received the Champions of Choice Award from NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts at the hands of the same Dr. Kenneth Edelin, the infamous abortionist."
"During his 1994 reelection campaign, Kennedy said 'I wear as a badge of honor my opposition to the anti-choicers'. His successful obstruction of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 effectively prevented the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Beyond his specific positions on human life issues, Senator Kennedy, along with the late Congressman Robert Drinan, provided the cover and the example for two generations of Catholic politicians to defect from Church teaching on the sanctity of innocent human life."
"No rational person can reasonably be expected to take seriously Catholic opposition to abortion when a champion of the Culture of Death, who repeatedly betrayed the Faith of his baptism, is lauded and extolled by priests and prelates in a Marian basilica. This morning's spectacle is evidence of the corruption which pervades the Catholic Church in the United States. The right to life will never be recognized by secular society if it is not first vindicated and consistently upheld within the institutions of the Church itself."
Updated: Monday, 31 Aug 2009, 7:19 AM EDT
Published : Saturday, 29 Aug 2009, 6:39 PM EDT
BOSTON (FOX25, myfoxboston) - A leading conservative Catholic lobbying group says Sen. Edward Kennedy's funeral Mass is evidence of corruption in the U.S. church, and called Kennedy "one of America's most notorious opponents of Catholic morality."
C. J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, said the funeral "a tragic example of the Church's willingness to surrender to the culture."
Doyle noted Kennedy supported abortion and gay rights -- both in opposition to church teachings. Doyle's organization lobbies on political and social issues.
President Barack Obama eulogized Kennedy at the funeral Saturday at the Mission Church in Boston, one of city's the most historic shrines. Cardinal Sean O'Malley led the final prayer.
Kennedy once said his Catholic faith was the greatest gift his mother ever gave to his family.
The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts Released this Statement:
"The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today decried the scandal which occurred this morning at Boston's most historic Catholic shrine --- the Minor Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, known as Mission Church --- where a Mass of Christian Burial was used to "celebrate the life" of one of America's most notorious opponents of Catholic morality, the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Senator Kennedy fought for more than three decades to keep the killing of pre-born children legal and unrestricted in the United States."
Surgical abortion has claimed more than fifty-one million human lives since 1973. The Catholic religion defines abortion as an "abominable crime".
President Barack Obama delivered the eulogy, in which he alluded to Kennedy's support for gay rights. One of the Prayers of the Faithful was a petition to end divisions "between gays and straights".
Ecclesial participants included Rev. Raymond Collins, Rector of the Basilica; Rev. Mark Hession, Kennedy's parish priest from Our Lady of Victories Church in Centerville on Cape Cod; Rev. J. Donald Monan, Chancellor of Boston College; and Sean Cardinal O'Malley, Archbishop of Boston, who thanked President Obama for his words and his presence. Both the homilist, Fr. Hession, and Cardinal O'Malley suggested that the late senator had found eternal salvation.
The Catholic Action League called the event "a tragic example of the Church's willingness to surrender to the culture, and serve Caesar rather than Christ".
Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: "Senator Kennedy supported legal abortion, partial-birth abortion, the public funding of Medicaid abortions, embryonic stem cell research, birth control, federal family planning programs, and so-called emergency contraception. He defended Roe v. Wade, endorsed the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), and opposed both the Human Life Amendment and the Hyde Amendment. Kennedy maintained a 100% rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood. In 1993, he received the Kenneth Edelin Award from Planned Parenthood, and in 2000 received the Champions of Choice Award from NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts at the hands of the same Dr. Kenneth Edelin, the infamous abortionist."
"During his 1994 reelection campaign, Kennedy said 'I wear as a badge of honor my opposition to the anti-choicers'. His successful obstruction of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 effectively prevented the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Beyond his specific positions on human life issues, Senator Kennedy, along with the late Congressman Robert Drinan, provided the cover and the example for two generations of Catholic politicians to defect from Church teaching on the sanctity of innocent human life."
"No rational person can reasonably be expected to take seriously Catholic opposition to abortion when a champion of the Culture of Death, who repeatedly betrayed the Faith of his baptism, is lauded and extolled by priests and prelates in a Marian basilica. This morning's spectacle is evidence of the corruption which pervades the Catholic Church in the United States. The right to life will never be recognized by secular society if it is not first vindicated and consistently upheld within the institutions of the Church itself."
Monday, March 9, 2009
Obama Is Leaving Some Stem Cell Issues to Congress
Editor's NOTE:
If the following article is correct, President Obama will leave it to Congress to decide whether or not to attempt repeal of the so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment--which specifically bans the use of tax dollars used to create human embryos for experimentation/research.
According to the piece below, the President's "order will allow research on hundreds of stem cell lines already in existence, as well as ones yet to be created, typically from embryos left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded."
This means that it will become legal to utilize any already existent embryonic stem cell lines as well as those subsequently created either from already existent embryos or those "to be created embryos" brought into existence in fertility clinics. If Congress were to repeal the Dickey-Wicker amendment it would also allow federal funds to be spent in order to artificially produce human embryos destined for destruction in the process of removing their stem cells as well.
One of President Obama's science advisors Harold Varmus was quoted as saying the following with respect to the new executive order:
"As a result of lifting those limitations, the president is in effect allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to the extent it's permitted by federal law -- that is work with stem cells themselves, not the derivation of those stem cells,"
The morally significant issue is whether it is morally licit to destroy (read kill) human embryos for any reason. Traditional morality answers a resounding no. A Utilitarian calculus answers yes in essence arguing that the further "end" of potentially providing life-saving treatments for patients justifies the proximate end or "means" of killing innocent embryonic human beings in order to obtain their stem cells. The obvious question then is: what other human beings can be killed in order to serve some identified potentially desirable "further end"?
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
The New York Times
Published: March 8, 2009
WASHINGTON — While lifting the Bush administration’s restrictions on federally financed human embryonic stem cell research, President Obama intends to avoid the thorniest question in the debate: whether taxpayer dollars should be used to experiment on embryos themselves, two senior administration officials said Sunday.
The officials, who provided details of the announcement Mr. Obama will make Monday at the White House, said the president would leave it to Congress to determine whether the long-standing legislative ban on federal financing for human embryo experiments should also be overturned.
Yet, people on both sides of the stem cell debate say Mr. Obama’s announcement could lead to a reconsideration of the ban on Capitol Hill, an idea so controversial and fraught with ethical implications that the mere discussion of it would have been unthinkable just a few months ago, when President George W. Bush was in office.
The ban, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, first became law in 1996, and has been renewed by Congress every year since. It specifically bans the use of tax dollars to create human embryos — a practice that is routine in private fertility clinics — or for research in which embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury.
For a time, the ban stood in the way of taxpayer-financed embryonic stem cell research, because embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted from them. But in August 2001, in a careful compromise, President Bush opened the door a tiny crack, by ordering that tax dollars could be used for studies on a small number of lines, or colonies, of stem cells already extracted from embryos — so long as federal researchers did not do the extraction themselves.
On Monday, Mr. Obama will throw open the door much farther with an executive order that will “make clear that the government intends to support” human embryonic stem cell research, said Harold Varmus, the president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, who advises Mr. Obama on science matters.
To the delight of patients’ groups and scientists, the order will allow research on hundreds of stem cell lines already in existence, as well as ones yet to be created, typically from embryos left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded.
The order comes just in time for researchers to take advantage of money in Mr. Obama’s economic recovery package and use it for stem cell studies. But because of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, federal researchers would still be unable to create their own stem cell lines.
Mr. Obama has no power to overturn the Dickey-Wicker ban. Only Congress, which attaches the ban to appropriations bills, can overturn it. Mr. Obama has not taken a position on the ban and does not intend to, Melody C. Barnes, his chief domestic policy adviser, said Sunday. The president believes stem cell research “should be done in compliance with federal law,” she said, adding that Mr. Obama recognizes the divisiveness of the issue.
“We are committed to pursuing stem cell research quite responsibly but we recognize there are a range of beliefs on this,” Ms. Barnes said.
Because embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell or tissue in the body, many scientists and advocates for patients believe they hold the possibility for treatments and cures for ailments as varied as diabetes and heart disease. Some researchers say stem cells may someday be used to treat catastrophic injuries, like damage to the spinal cord.
Mr. Bush twice vetoed legislation that would have expanded his 2001 policy.
Although Mr. Obama’s action on Monday has broad bipartisan support, it could still be overturned by a successor so House Democrats are expected to draft legislation that would codify the president’s executive order.
But with Mr. Obama revisiting the Bush policy, Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado and a leading advocate for embryonic stem cell research, said Sunday in an interview that overturning the embryo experiment ban might not be as far-fetched as some critics imagine.
Ms. DeGette said the first move for lawmakers would be to turn the steps Mr. Obama takes by executive order on Monday into law. But she said she was also talking to her colleagues about overturning the broader Dickey-Wicker restriction.
“Dickey-Wicker is 13 years old now, and I think we need to review these policies,” Ms. DeGette said. “I’ve already talked to several pro-life Democrats about Dickey-Wicker, and they seemed open to the concept of reversing the policy if we could show that it was necessary to foster this research.”
A senior House Democratic leadership aide, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue, said overturning the ban “would be difficult, but not impossible,” adding, “It’s not something that we would do right away, but it’s something that we would look at.”
Fertility researchers also believe the climate is ripe to allow federal money for their work, especially in light of the recent controversy over the birth of octuplets in California, said Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
“I think we’re thrilled that the president is going to lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research,” Mr. Tipton said Sunday. “It is clear, though, that Congress needs to remove the restrictions it puts on other forms of embryo research.”
Already abortion opponents are bracing for a battle. “The administration now steps onto a very steep, very slippery slope,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. “Many researchers will never be satisfied only with the so-called leftover embryos.”
One Republican lawmaker, Representative Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey, is calling Mr. Obama “the abortion president,” and is planning his own event on Monday to protest Mr. Obama’s new stem cell policy.
Mr. Smith said in an interview Sunday that he did not think lawmakers would go along with overturning the embryo experiment ban.
“I don’t think it will fly because the movement in the country is in favor of life,” he said. “For Congress to say that the new guinea pig will be human embryos, most Americans will find that highly offensive.”
Mr. Obama’s announcement on Monday will be part of a broader initiative to make good on his pledge to separate science and politics. Dr. Varmus, a former director of the National Institutes of Health who is a co-chairman of a panel that advises Mr. Obama on science issues, said the president would issue a memorandum to “restore public confidence in the process by which scientific policy is used to guide government action,” by directing his administration to draft guidelines for the use of scientific information and the appointment of outside science advisers.
In reversing the stem cell policy Mr. Bush put in place in August 2001, Mr. Obama will direct the National Institutes of Health to come up with new stem cell research guidelines within 120 days.
Ms. DeGette said she is already talking to the White House about what legislation codifying the executive order might say.
“It’s a wonderful development tomorrow,” she said, “but it’s really the first step in opening up ethical cell-based research.”
If the following article is correct, President Obama will leave it to Congress to decide whether or not to attempt repeal of the so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment--which specifically bans the use of tax dollars used to create human embryos for experimentation/research.
According to the piece below, the President's "order will allow research on hundreds of stem cell lines already in existence, as well as ones yet to be created, typically from embryos left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded."
This means that it will become legal to utilize any already existent embryonic stem cell lines as well as those subsequently created either from already existent embryos or those "to be created embryos" brought into existence in fertility clinics. If Congress were to repeal the Dickey-Wicker amendment it would also allow federal funds to be spent in order to artificially produce human embryos destined for destruction in the process of removing their stem cells as well.
One of President Obama's science advisors Harold Varmus was quoted as saying the following with respect to the new executive order:
"As a result of lifting those limitations, the president is in effect allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to the extent it's permitted by federal law -- that is work with stem cells themselves, not the derivation of those stem cells,"
The morally significant issue is whether it is morally licit to destroy (read kill) human embryos for any reason. Traditional morality answers a resounding no. A Utilitarian calculus answers yes in essence arguing that the further "end" of potentially providing life-saving treatments for patients justifies the proximate end or "means" of killing innocent embryonic human beings in order to obtain their stem cells. The obvious question then is: what other human beings can be killed in order to serve some identified potentially desirable "further end"?
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
The New York Times
Published: March 8, 2009
WASHINGTON — While lifting the Bush administration’s restrictions on federally financed human embryonic stem cell research, President Obama intends to avoid the thorniest question in the debate: whether taxpayer dollars should be used to experiment on embryos themselves, two senior administration officials said Sunday.
The officials, who provided details of the announcement Mr. Obama will make Monday at the White House, said the president would leave it to Congress to determine whether the long-standing legislative ban on federal financing for human embryo experiments should also be overturned.
Yet, people on both sides of the stem cell debate say Mr. Obama’s announcement could lead to a reconsideration of the ban on Capitol Hill, an idea so controversial and fraught with ethical implications that the mere discussion of it would have been unthinkable just a few months ago, when President George W. Bush was in office.
The ban, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, first became law in 1996, and has been renewed by Congress every year since. It specifically bans the use of tax dollars to create human embryos — a practice that is routine in private fertility clinics — or for research in which embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury.
For a time, the ban stood in the way of taxpayer-financed embryonic stem cell research, because embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted from them. But in August 2001, in a careful compromise, President Bush opened the door a tiny crack, by ordering that tax dollars could be used for studies on a small number of lines, or colonies, of stem cells already extracted from embryos — so long as federal researchers did not do the extraction themselves.
On Monday, Mr. Obama will throw open the door much farther with an executive order that will “make clear that the government intends to support” human embryonic stem cell research, said Harold Varmus, the president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, who advises Mr. Obama on science matters.
To the delight of patients’ groups and scientists, the order will allow research on hundreds of stem cell lines already in existence, as well as ones yet to be created, typically from embryos left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded.
The order comes just in time for researchers to take advantage of money in Mr. Obama’s economic recovery package and use it for stem cell studies. But because of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, federal researchers would still be unable to create their own stem cell lines.
Mr. Obama has no power to overturn the Dickey-Wicker ban. Only Congress, which attaches the ban to appropriations bills, can overturn it. Mr. Obama has not taken a position on the ban and does not intend to, Melody C. Barnes, his chief domestic policy adviser, said Sunday. The president believes stem cell research “should be done in compliance with federal law,” she said, adding that Mr. Obama recognizes the divisiveness of the issue.
“We are committed to pursuing stem cell research quite responsibly but we recognize there are a range of beliefs on this,” Ms. Barnes said.
Because embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell or tissue in the body, many scientists and advocates for patients believe they hold the possibility for treatments and cures for ailments as varied as diabetes and heart disease. Some researchers say stem cells may someday be used to treat catastrophic injuries, like damage to the spinal cord.
Mr. Bush twice vetoed legislation that would have expanded his 2001 policy.
Although Mr. Obama’s action on Monday has broad bipartisan support, it could still be overturned by a successor so House Democrats are expected to draft legislation that would codify the president’s executive order.
But with Mr. Obama revisiting the Bush policy, Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado and a leading advocate for embryonic stem cell research, said Sunday in an interview that overturning the embryo experiment ban might not be as far-fetched as some critics imagine.
Ms. DeGette said the first move for lawmakers would be to turn the steps Mr. Obama takes by executive order on Monday into law. But she said she was also talking to her colleagues about overturning the broader Dickey-Wicker restriction.
“Dickey-Wicker is 13 years old now, and I think we need to review these policies,” Ms. DeGette said. “I’ve already talked to several pro-life Democrats about Dickey-Wicker, and they seemed open to the concept of reversing the policy if we could show that it was necessary to foster this research.”
A senior House Democratic leadership aide, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue, said overturning the ban “would be difficult, but not impossible,” adding, “It’s not something that we would do right away, but it’s something that we would look at.”
Fertility researchers also believe the climate is ripe to allow federal money for their work, especially in light of the recent controversy over the birth of octuplets in California, said Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
“I think we’re thrilled that the president is going to lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research,” Mr. Tipton said Sunday. “It is clear, though, that Congress needs to remove the restrictions it puts on other forms of embryo research.”
Already abortion opponents are bracing for a battle. “The administration now steps onto a very steep, very slippery slope,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. “Many researchers will never be satisfied only with the so-called leftover embryos.”
One Republican lawmaker, Representative Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey, is calling Mr. Obama “the abortion president,” and is planning his own event on Monday to protest Mr. Obama’s new stem cell policy.
Mr. Smith said in an interview Sunday that he did not think lawmakers would go along with overturning the embryo experiment ban.
“I don’t think it will fly because the movement in the country is in favor of life,” he said. “For Congress to say that the new guinea pig will be human embryos, most Americans will find that highly offensive.”
Mr. Obama’s announcement on Monday will be part of a broader initiative to make good on his pledge to separate science and politics. Dr. Varmus, a former director of the National Institutes of Health who is a co-chairman of a panel that advises Mr. Obama on science issues, said the president would issue a memorandum to “restore public confidence in the process by which scientific policy is used to guide government action,” by directing his administration to draft guidelines for the use of scientific information and the appointment of outside science advisers.
In reversing the stem cell policy Mr. Bush put in place in August 2001, Mr. Obama will direct the National Institutes of Health to come up with new stem cell research guidelines within 120 days.
Ms. DeGette said she is already talking to the White House about what legislation codifying the executive order might say.
“It’s a wonderful development tomorrow,” she said, “but it’s really the first step in opening up ethical cell-based research.”
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Obama Set to Reverse Bush’s Stem-Cell Restrictions
By DAVID STOUT and GARDINER HARRIS
The New York Times
Published: March 6, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama will announce Monday that he is reversing Bush administration limits on federal financing for embryonic stem cell research as part of a pledge to separate science and politics, White House officials said Friday.
As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama spoke out in favor of stem cell research, so his intention to undo the curbs put in place by President George W. Bush is not surprising. But the decision is nonetheless of great interest, involving a long-controversial intersection of science and personal moral beliefs.
The officials said that advocates of unfettered stem cell research, as well as about 30 Democratic and Republican lawmakers who support it, had been invited to a White House ceremony scheduled for 11:45 a.m. Eastern time, when Mr. Obama is expected to make an announcement.
One person familiar with planning for the event said the president would also speak about a general return to “sound science” in his administration, as a fulfillment of his campaign promise to draw a demarcation line between politics and science. The Bush administration was often accused of trying to shade, or even suppress, the findings of government scientists on climate change, sex education, contraceptives and other issues, as well as stem cells.
Mr. Obama’s announcement is not likely to lead to any immediate change in government policy, since it may take many months for the National Institutes of Health to develop new guidelines for research.
Still, research advocates are expected to push for the process to go as quickly as possible to ensure that universities have time to submit grant proposals that can be reviewed and accepted before September 2010, when the health institutes must commit the last of the $10.4 billion given to the N.I.H. as part of the economic stimulus program.
Because embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell in the body, many scientists believe that they may one day be able to provide tissues to replace worn-out organs or non-functioning cells and, thus, offer powerful new treatments for diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and other ailments. Some researchers say the stem cells may even be used someday to treat catastrophic injuries like damage to the spinal cord.
But many people have a moral problem with embryonic stem cell research because creation of the cells entails destruction of human embryos. For that reason, Mr. Bush ordered in August 2001 that federal research be limited to lines of cells that were already in existence, since the embryo destruction for those had already taken place.
The main suspense about what Mr. Obama would do centered on whether he would seek to undo the Bush-era restrictions through legislation or by executive order. The event set for Monday indicates that he might have decided on the latter course, although one person expected to attend the announcement said he understood that the president might also seek to involve Congress.
Advocates of stem cell research have been hoping for an order lifting all restrictions and allowing scientists and ethicists at the N.I.H., not the White House, to make decisions related to stem cell research.
One prominent advocate of stem cell research is Larry Soler, executive vice president for government relations and operations at the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Mr. Soler said in a telephone interview Friday that he was sure that Mr. Obama would indeed signal a return to an era of “scientists making scientific decisions.”
Discussions about stem cell research have often been deeply personal as well as scientific. Advocates of unrestricted research note that the cells are typically obtained from embryos that have been abandoned by couples seeking in-vitro fertilization and that the embryos would be discarded anyway.
But many of those opposed to the research say the embryos are nothing less than tiny human beings, with souls, and that destroying them is akin to murder. They argue that research on embryos that would be thrown out is a slippery moral slope to be avoided by a decent society.
Critics of embryonic stem cell research also argue that scientists can use different types of stem cells, like those found in amniotic fluid or the placenta. But supporters of using embryonic cells say those are by far the most promising.
No matter what is announced Monday, the debate over embryonic stem cell research will not subside. That was clear from the reaction unleashed Friday.
“It must be Friday night because word leaks of yet another deadly executive order by President Obama,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, calling Mr. Obama’s intention “a slap in the face to Americans who believe in the dignity of all human life.”
But the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation praised the president’s plan.
“By removing politics from science,” said Peter T. Wilderotter, the organization’s president and chief executive, “President Obama has freed researchers to explore these remarkable stem cells, learn from them and possibly develop effective therapies using them.”
The actor Christopher Reeve died in 2004, nine years after being injured in a horseback riding accident. His wife died in 2006. “The Reeves’ belief in the promise of stem cell research is a part of their lasting legacy,” Mr. Wilderotter said.
Among the lawmakers reportedly invited to the White House on Monday are Senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware, all Republicans; Senators Dianne Feinstein of California, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative Diana DeGette of Colorado, all Democrats.
NOTE:
Two glaring problems inherent in the human embryonic stem cell debate are made evident in the above article. First, is the question of what moral philosophy should be operative/normative in considering the ethical question involved (Utilitarianism vs: Traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophy) and second whether it is morally licit to destroy (kill) human embryos for any purpose.
Currently, the procuring of human embryonic stem cells (ESC's) requires the destruction of human embryos. Human embryos are in fact biologically/ontologically entirely human from the moment of conception/fertilization at which time DNA from paternal and maternal gametes are combined and reshuffled. Once in existence, these entities are in every relevant sense--nascent human beings--irrespective of how they came into being or where they are located. They are completely innocent from a moral perspective.
In traditional moral philosophy it is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being (as is done routinely in "harvesting" embryonic stem cells from human embryos). All such embryonic human beings are killed in the process of removing the highly sought-after embryonic stem cells. Therefore, as presently performed--yet from a traditional (golden-rule ethic) moral philosophical perspective, embryonic stem cell research is immoral as is all human destructive embryo research (DER). As such, only if the stem cells could be removed without harm to the embryo and if doing so directly benefited the embryo itself would such manipulations be morally licit.
Since in the United States and Western culture in general, rank Utilitarianism is the reigning (unethical) moral construct, embryonic stem cell research has been embraced by most scientists involved and many interested advocates. President Obama has embraced Utilitarianism as his operative (immoral/amoral) philosophy and thus is prepared to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. It is unclear whether this will involve utilizing (killing embryos in order to obtain their embryonic stem cells) only those embryos already in existence (e.g. those currently cryopreserved in fertility clinics) or whether he also envisions federally funding the wholesale creation of embryos from which embryonic stem cells will be liberally "harvested." This practice is currently legal albeit completely privately financed. The change which President Obama may be advocating is to make federal funds available for this purpose as well. We must wait to see what the details of his policy will be. Only time will tell.
Just as it is immoral (from a traditional moral perspective) to kill human embryos in order to obtain their embryonic stem cells, it is also immoral to artificially create human embryos for that purpose (in fact it is immoral to create them for any purpose such as in IVF although that involves a different moral calculus). Not only should there be a ban on human destructive embryo research (DER) from the perspective of federal funding but it should be made illegal entirely meaning that private entities would also be prohibited from doing so. As a society we must either always and everywhere protect innocent human life or admit that in the United States, some human beings--the most innocent among us--lack the right to life and can be sacrificed for the sake of expediency--a rank utilitarian calculus that. To do otherwise is to be intellectually inconsistent and morally bankrupt.
As I have demonstrated elsewhere, Utilitarianism is a completely inadequate (and often immoral) construct by which to analyze complex ethical problems. It is frequently productive of an ad-hoc/self-serving result which is incompatible with the common good. It is not surprising that those who embrace a Utilitarian ethic would support destructive embryo research (DER).
Many who support DER (such as the referenced individuals quoted in the above article including spokespersons for the White House) engage in sophistry by which they attempt to eliminate all ethical considerations from scientific research by incorrectly conflating the "political" with the ethical. While it is admirable in some circumstances to remove political considerations from scientific investigation, it is never morally licit to eliminate ethical considerations from scientific research. History is replete (e.g. Nuremberg tribunals on human experimentation and US military experiments on syphilitic black males) with examples of what occurs when that is allowed to happen.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
The New York Times
Published: March 6, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama will announce Monday that he is reversing Bush administration limits on federal financing for embryonic stem cell research as part of a pledge to separate science and politics, White House officials said Friday.
As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama spoke out in favor of stem cell research, so his intention to undo the curbs put in place by President George W. Bush is not surprising. But the decision is nonetheless of great interest, involving a long-controversial intersection of science and personal moral beliefs.
The officials said that advocates of unfettered stem cell research, as well as about 30 Democratic and Republican lawmakers who support it, had been invited to a White House ceremony scheduled for 11:45 a.m. Eastern time, when Mr. Obama is expected to make an announcement.
One person familiar with planning for the event said the president would also speak about a general return to “sound science” in his administration, as a fulfillment of his campaign promise to draw a demarcation line between politics and science. The Bush administration was often accused of trying to shade, or even suppress, the findings of government scientists on climate change, sex education, contraceptives and other issues, as well as stem cells.
Mr. Obama’s announcement is not likely to lead to any immediate change in government policy, since it may take many months for the National Institutes of Health to develop new guidelines for research.
Still, research advocates are expected to push for the process to go as quickly as possible to ensure that universities have time to submit grant proposals that can be reviewed and accepted before September 2010, when the health institutes must commit the last of the $10.4 billion given to the N.I.H. as part of the economic stimulus program.
Because embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell in the body, many scientists believe that they may one day be able to provide tissues to replace worn-out organs or non-functioning cells and, thus, offer powerful new treatments for diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and other ailments. Some researchers say the stem cells may even be used someday to treat catastrophic injuries like damage to the spinal cord.
But many people have a moral problem with embryonic stem cell research because creation of the cells entails destruction of human embryos. For that reason, Mr. Bush ordered in August 2001 that federal research be limited to lines of cells that were already in existence, since the embryo destruction for those had already taken place.
The main suspense about what Mr. Obama would do centered on whether he would seek to undo the Bush-era restrictions through legislation or by executive order. The event set for Monday indicates that he might have decided on the latter course, although one person expected to attend the announcement said he understood that the president might also seek to involve Congress.
Advocates of stem cell research have been hoping for an order lifting all restrictions and allowing scientists and ethicists at the N.I.H., not the White House, to make decisions related to stem cell research.
One prominent advocate of stem cell research is Larry Soler, executive vice president for government relations and operations at the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Mr. Soler said in a telephone interview Friday that he was sure that Mr. Obama would indeed signal a return to an era of “scientists making scientific decisions.”
Discussions about stem cell research have often been deeply personal as well as scientific. Advocates of unrestricted research note that the cells are typically obtained from embryos that have been abandoned by couples seeking in-vitro fertilization and that the embryos would be discarded anyway.
But many of those opposed to the research say the embryos are nothing less than tiny human beings, with souls, and that destroying them is akin to murder. They argue that research on embryos that would be thrown out is a slippery moral slope to be avoided by a decent society.
Critics of embryonic stem cell research also argue that scientists can use different types of stem cells, like those found in amniotic fluid or the placenta. But supporters of using embryonic cells say those are by far the most promising.
No matter what is announced Monday, the debate over embryonic stem cell research will not subside. That was clear from the reaction unleashed Friday.
“It must be Friday night because word leaks of yet another deadly executive order by President Obama,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, calling Mr. Obama’s intention “a slap in the face to Americans who believe in the dignity of all human life.”
But the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation praised the president’s plan.
“By removing politics from science,” said Peter T. Wilderotter, the organization’s president and chief executive, “President Obama has freed researchers to explore these remarkable stem cells, learn from them and possibly develop effective therapies using them.”
The actor Christopher Reeve died in 2004, nine years after being injured in a horseback riding accident. His wife died in 2006. “The Reeves’ belief in the promise of stem cell research is a part of their lasting legacy,” Mr. Wilderotter said.
Among the lawmakers reportedly invited to the White House on Monday are Senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware, all Republicans; Senators Dianne Feinstein of California, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative Diana DeGette of Colorado, all Democrats.
NOTE:
Two glaring problems inherent in the human embryonic stem cell debate are made evident in the above article. First, is the question of what moral philosophy should be operative/normative in considering the ethical question involved (Utilitarianism vs: Traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophy) and second whether it is morally licit to destroy (kill) human embryos for any purpose.
Currently, the procuring of human embryonic stem cells (ESC's) requires the destruction of human embryos. Human embryos are in fact biologically/ontologically entirely human from the moment of conception/fertilization at which time DNA from paternal and maternal gametes are combined and reshuffled. Once in existence, these entities are in every relevant sense--nascent human beings--irrespective of how they came into being or where they are located. They are completely innocent from a moral perspective.
In traditional moral philosophy it is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being (as is done routinely in "harvesting" embryonic stem cells from human embryos). All such embryonic human beings are killed in the process of removing the highly sought-after embryonic stem cells. Therefore, as presently performed--yet from a traditional (golden-rule ethic) moral philosophical perspective, embryonic stem cell research is immoral as is all human destructive embryo research (DER). As such, only if the stem cells could be removed without harm to the embryo and if doing so directly benefited the embryo itself would such manipulations be morally licit.
Since in the United States and Western culture in general, rank Utilitarianism is the reigning (unethical) moral construct, embryonic stem cell research has been embraced by most scientists involved and many interested advocates. President Obama has embraced Utilitarianism as his operative (immoral/amoral) philosophy and thus is prepared to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. It is unclear whether this will involve utilizing (killing embryos in order to obtain their embryonic stem cells) only those embryos already in existence (e.g. those currently cryopreserved in fertility clinics) or whether he also envisions federally funding the wholesale creation of embryos from which embryonic stem cells will be liberally "harvested." This practice is currently legal albeit completely privately financed. The change which President Obama may be advocating is to make federal funds available for this purpose as well. We must wait to see what the details of his policy will be. Only time will tell.
Just as it is immoral (from a traditional moral perspective) to kill human embryos in order to obtain their embryonic stem cells, it is also immoral to artificially create human embryos for that purpose (in fact it is immoral to create them for any purpose such as in IVF although that involves a different moral calculus). Not only should there be a ban on human destructive embryo research (DER) from the perspective of federal funding but it should be made illegal entirely meaning that private entities would also be prohibited from doing so. As a society we must either always and everywhere protect innocent human life or admit that in the United States, some human beings--the most innocent among us--lack the right to life and can be sacrificed for the sake of expediency--a rank utilitarian calculus that. To do otherwise is to be intellectually inconsistent and morally bankrupt.
As I have demonstrated elsewhere, Utilitarianism is a completely inadequate (and often immoral) construct by which to analyze complex ethical problems. It is frequently productive of an ad-hoc/self-serving result which is incompatible with the common good. It is not surprising that those who embrace a Utilitarian ethic would support destructive embryo research (DER).
Many who support DER (such as the referenced individuals quoted in the above article including spokespersons for the White House) engage in sophistry by which they attempt to eliminate all ethical considerations from scientific research by incorrectly conflating the "political" with the ethical. While it is admirable in some circumstances to remove political considerations from scientific investigation, it is never morally licit to eliminate ethical considerations from scientific research. History is replete (e.g. Nuremberg tribunals on human experimentation and US military experiments on syphilitic black males) with examples of what occurs when that is allowed to happen.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)