Unfettered Letters

Fate of frozen embryos

Stem-cell research is controversial. There are strong and passionate voices on both sides. Ellen Goodman’s column (3/15, Opinion, “Fate of extra embryos an unanswered question”) presents a good discussion of the issues.

Many frozen embryos will never be used. They can never become humans unless they are implanted successfully and survive pregnancy. Those embryos are similar to accident victims whose lives are sustained mechanically when there is no hope for their recovery. For that case there are provisions to end life support and, with required permissions, to harvest organs that can aid others in need.

Taking those embryos off “life support” and using them to help those with otherwise incurable conditions, either directly or through research, should be a solution that could be embraced by all who value human life.

I am signing the organ donor permission on the back of my driver’s license. Wouldn’t those unused embryos want to do the same?

Roy Busdiecker
Overland Park
 
The battle over embryonic stem cell research is brewing again. The lines are drawn between those who believe life begins at conception and those who do not.

An embryo can be frozen for years at a time and removed later for implantation, but a living being cannot be frozen and brought back. Does life begin before or after we can be frozen? If a child and an embryo share life, then both should be able to be frozen and reborn.

Kenneth Paull
Overland Park

Stem-cell research

The Star’s editorial “Stem-cell research is step ahead for science” (3/10, Opinion) characterized President Bush’s executive order limiting federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research as “illogical.” I’ll see your illogical and raise you unproductive and unethical.

Embryonic stem-cell results are sketchy, including tumors in patients and no cures. Adult stem cells show promise for more than 80 diseases without the same effects. Embryonic stem cells are less promising, more costly and controversial. Their only logic is convenience.

At what point should we confer human rights? Not at birth. A mother begins labor based on her health, age, chance and medical convenience. If not at conception or the presence of a heartbeat, spinal cord, eyes and legs, when? Nothing more is required than the fusion of two cells and a willing partner. A full-term child requires no less.

Embryonic stem-cell research kills our society a little bit each time as it slips further from a culture of life, and that is illogical.

Kirk Taylor
Lansing

As a former embryo myself, I am grieved that experiments are taking place on my kind, especially when no harm could be done by using other types of stem cells.

Science and the state, when they overstep their limits, must be opposed by people who have been allowed to grow into mature human beings.

Andrew Kennell
Lee’s Summit

Saving umbilical cord blood

I heartily applaud St. Luke’s for joining the growing movement to collect donations of umbilical cord blood from its maternity patients beginning Dec. 1. (11/17, Local, “A potential lifesaver; Public program’s cord blood can be used in the same way as adult stem cells to help treat disease”). Until now, only hospitals in St. Louis were taking such donations, somewhat limiting the options available to Missouri obstetrical patients.

In 2003 and 2006, I gave birth at St. Luke’s and, in both instances, worked with the doctors and nurses there to collect my children’s cord blood. In 2003, we paid a private, out-of-state company to process and store our son’s cord blood. By 2006, however, we had discovered another out-of-state company that was willing to provide the equipment and pay the overnight shipping costs to process and add our younger son’s cord blood to its nationally registered donor bank.

My experience was that the collection procedure was quick and painless. More important, the cord blood collection did not in any way detract from the unique joy of bringing a new baby into the world. And knowing that the cord blood — which could have easily been discarded as medical waste — might someday save a life made these two birthdays even more special.

Jennifer Chapin Woods
Kansas City

Stem-cell research

In response to two recent letters (2/18 and 2/23) slamming conservatives for standing in the way of embryonic stem-cell research, I suggest the writers do some reading of recent news before they write their letters saying conservatives are crippling science.

There have been many news articles, including one on the front page of The Star (Nov. 21, 2007), about a new successful breakthrough in reprogramming skin cells to match embryonic stem cells.

This is great news!

Embryos won’t have to be destroyed and the Missouri constitution didn’t need amending after all.

I understand that Michael Rudd and Emily Lauterbach have gone through some terrible times, but before you write the paper blaming conservatives, you may want to do your research.

Tony Hawkins
Kansas City

Medical research funds

The letters from two individuals battling cancer correctly assert that stem cells hold promise for treating their conditions as well as other devastating diseases. However, beyond the debate over stem cells a greater roadblock exists to defeating these diseases.

Funding for the National Institutes of Health has been under siege. The budget proposed by President Bush would hold NIH funding at current levels, an effective cut since the biomedical research inflation rate is projected to be 3.6 percent for 2009.

Given similar budget scenarios over the past five years, the situation has become critical.

I serve on one of about 150 panels that judge NIH grant proposals. It is an exercise in frustration since many exciting and worthwhile projects are not being funded.

The morale among the medical research community is low, and these sentiments are filtering down to undergraduates pondering careers in science.

I think that we, as a nation, have become complacent about medical and technological advances, expecting them to continue at the breakneck pace of recent years. Right now there is a scientist who has a great idea to attack a disease that might strike you or someone you love, but who cannot do the research for lack of funding.

Joseph D. Fontes
Associate professor, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
University of Kansas Medical Center
Kansas City, Kan.

Stem-cell research

Regarding the proposed state constitutional amendment (2/21, Local, “Stem-cell ballot language rewritten”): Biology and common sense tell us that a few cells in a lab dish are no more a human being than a few cells from my finger.

Until the embryo is attached to the womb, begins to differentiate into organs, etc., can it possibly be considered even close to human?

But some people would like to force on everyone their belief that a few undetermined cells are a human. What possible scientific reasoning can they come up with to defend this idea?

I really take offense to having a religious view stand in the way of progress that could relieve human suffering and do so much good for humanity.

John Vollmer
Grandview

Cures desperately needed

I am very sorry to hear that Michael Rudd (2/18, Letters) has been diagnosed with lung cancer. I empathize with his fear and sadness as I have just finished a year of treatment for Stage III breast cancer, which included the removal of my breasts, ovaries and uterus.

The reason that I got cancer at a young age is that I inherited a genetic mutation from my maternal side which, if I have passed on to my 16-month-old son, Eli, will increase his chances of developing several deadly cancers.

I agree with Mr. Rudd that any promising lines of research, including embryonic stem-cell research, need to be aggressively pursued to fight cancer and other terrifying diseases.

The politicians who pander to the religious right on this issue disgust and infuriate me.

The odds are against me living long enough to see Eli graduate from college, but even the remotest possibility of advancement in protecting his health into adulthood, and the health of any other living child or adult, is worth the destruction of a mountain of embryos which would not have become babies anyway.

To those who wish to cripple science: Keep your religious beliefs away from my son’s body. My family, and many others’, need cures.

Emily Lauterbach
Kansas City

Stem-cell research

I was recently diagnosed with lung cancer and am now undergoing the standard chemotherapy and radiation treatment.

In discussing this dreadful disease with my doctors, the consensus of opinion in the medical community is that the eventual breakthrough will come from the manipulation of the body’s cells. Studies currently being done include embryonic stem-cell research.

Then I hear the worlds of people like George Bush and Mike Huckabee, proudly announcing how they would to all they can to block embryonic stem-cell research. While that may be their personal, religious opinion and I respect that course for them, how dare they impose their narrow viewpoint on millions of people like me and others who suffer from a variety of diseases and disabilities?

What arrogance, what selfishness to deny possible and potential relief to so many, just because that’s how they personally believe.

Michael Rudd
Leawood

Stem-cell research

Robert Lanza works for ACT, a biotech corporation in Massachusetts (1/11, A-2, “Stem-cell advance; Scientists say a new technique creates the cells without harming embryos”).  He is “fuming” because the Dickey amendment prevents him from using your tax dollars to fund his for-profit research.

He claims that no embryos were harmed using his stem cell technique, but Story Landis from NIH is correct that it is “impossible to know definitively.”

Fertility doctors used to perform this technique often, but now the American Society of Reproductive Medicine has recommended against its use during in-vitro fertilization due to decreased pregnancy rates and possible harm to the future child.

In Lanza’s own data, he shows that 17 percent of the human embryos stopped developing after he biopsied them, and ironically 100 percent will be sacrificed once he’s done with them.

Meanwhile adult, umbilical cord and iPS (the type announced in June) stem cells continue to churn out real life-saving cures without sacrificing embryos.

Dana M. Winegarner, D.O.
Neurologist, MidAmerica Neuroscience Institute
Board member, Cures Without Cloning
Leawood

Stem-cell research

Thanks, Drew Dimmel, for your comments on stem-cell research (11/26, As I See It, “Repeal of stem-cell amendment would stifle hope”). I, too, have a family member who was diagnosed when he was 51 with Parkinson’s. He worked six more years but had to retire early because of the natural progression of this disease.

We were elated to see the voters in Missouri pass Amendment 2. But the will of the people was disregarded by nay-sayers.

I will make all opponents a solemn promise: I will never make them receive stem-cell treatment if they will promise me that they will not interfere with my right to have stem-cell treatment if and when the need arises.

And just for the record, I don’t believe for one minute that opponents of stem-cell research would not choose to receive treatment if stem cells would keep them productive members of society.

My husband is only 62, and we pray that he will survive long enough to reap the benefits of this research.

Lynnette Koenig
Independence