Posted by Helen on: 03.10.2009 /
Do you think this is a good move? Is he supporting immoral research? As I understand it, Bush vetoed funding the stem cell research Obama has just approved because he considered it immoral.
Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells
President Obama signed an executive order Monday repealing a Bush-era policy that limited federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research.
Obama’s move overturns an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.
Obama also signed a presidential memorandum establishing greater independence for federal science policies and programs.
“In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,” Obama said at the White House.
Comment by: Jim J
1My understanding is that embryos, being neither a person [in legal terms] nor belonging to a person, are much cheaper. Private funding for embryonic stem cell research has always been available, but little has been invested in them. Seems they’re not that popular with people in the know.
So here we go again, sending taxpayer money to support a bad business plan. At least we’re consistent.
As far as a “false” moral choice, it is if you believe that Mr. Obama is God.
Comment by: Elaine
2Jim J - I would like to understand the basis for your opinions stated above.
Would you please point me to a fact based source for your statements?
thx
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
3I’m curious as to a sort of cost/benefit analysis of research involving stem cells as compared to research into ending malaria.
Is it right, for instance, to spend $100 on research that could lead to a cure for parkinsons, which affects 5 million people worldwide, than it is to spend that same $100 on research into ending malaria, which *kills* at least a million people every year?
Are the answers to these questions affected by where the people under discussion live? Very few people in the U.S. are every going to get Malaria, while perhaps a full fifth of Parkinson’s cases worldwide are in the U.S.
These questions are more interesting to me than the question of the morality or immorality of stem cell research. In fact it strikes me as sort of absurd, somehow, to say it’s okay to use “already-in-use” stem cell lines, but not new ones.
I’d love to hear Eliza’s take.
Comment by: Elaine
4Benjamin - your comments open up a slew of questions for me - none of which are directly related to stem cell research. :)
you lead off by asking about the cost/benefit analysis of research involving stem cells vs. ending malaria - what about the humanity of it? would you not want someone with parkinson to get better?
are you saying that we have to chose to either to fund parkinson or fund malaria research? but, not both? or that the USA is not funding research for malaria and should be?
BTW - I found this site on malaria very informative.
Unlike parkinson or other such illnesses - we know what causes malaria and we do have tools to greatly reduce it. education and a mosquito net go a long way in preventing this disease.
OR was the choice of malaria more about the USA spending its money on diseases/illnesses that directly affect its population vs. the population of 3rd world countries?
(I still remember as a kid, being on vacation in florida and the trucks coming down the street every evening spraying for mosquitos - do they still do that?)
There are so many diseases in the world - how do we choose? Can we really eliminate them all?
And, how many of the world’s diseases/illnesses would be prevented if people (including medical personnel) - simply washed their hands properly? or followed general safety guidelines in handling food and water?
See the reduction of Guinea Worm Disease
AND is it the USA’s responsibility to save the world? what an ego for us to even think we can. I think that is what has gotten us in trouble in so many ways. And now with our economy falling apart, can we save ourselves?
What if everyone does their part?
(wow, I have gone all over the place with this one. Random Chaos. It is not the answers that are important - but pondering the questions.)
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
5Elaine,
I’d love to say I have answers. But all I have is more questions. I think the questions are often more intersting than the answers.
Oh–I see you already said that at the end of your reply. =)
I’m interested in the nature of your “we”. You seem to have a “we” that you call “The USA”. Am I getting that right?
Is it the “the USA’s” responsibility to save the world?
Well, hmmmm. Probably not, I guess. But is it “The USA’s” responsibility to save everyone in the USA?
Or … to prevent people from coming into the USA if they are too poor, so that “we” don’t have to save “them”, since “we” can’t “afford” it?
Why should we look at the fairness of the way money is being spent on medical care in the USA, but not in the whole world? or what if we choose to shift our “we” up one level?
Is it right to spend however much is spent on breast augmentation when some people can’t afford, say, to have basic dental care?
These questions were all sort of … rearranged for me by a story I saw last year about a man in England who had some terrible disease (some form of cancer?) and whose life, it turned out, could probably be extended for six months by a rather expensive drug which had been created by a U.S. drug company.
As it turned out (if I’m remembering the story correctly), the British government health care system has a specific figure, some number of pounds, which they are willing to spend per month to extend the life of someone who is going to die anyway. And the cost of the drug in question was greater than that figure.
This of course seemed very unfair to the guy’s spouse and family. I saw this whole story on breakpoint, where some rather conservative types were using it as an example of how awful “socialized medicine” is.
But this makes enormous sense to me. I mean from what I understand no one in the UK goes without basic medical care. So of course there is a trade off. It was determined that it will cost x amount to provide everyone with x level of medical care. Therefore to ensure that everyone gets x level, we are unwilling to pay extra for y level.
This seems astoundingly fair to me. But maybe I wouldn’t feel that way if the care my loved one needed was in the y level.
But it seems to me there should be some way to do that on a “human” basis, rather than a national basis. Is it fair for person A to have two coats while person B shivers naked? Jesus says not.
Can we apply this idea to the way medical (or any other) dollars are spent worldwide? Practically, that would be hard to do. But is it a good goal? Seems to me that it is.
I understand a certain tendency to want to shy away from this whole discussion. Like it just seems wrong to say to a parkinson’s patient “You must suffer in order that these other 500 people can be freed from suffering”. But maybe it’s not wrong. Maybe it’s just incredibly practical and fair.
(As long as *I* don’t have to suffer, nor see anyone I love suffer! =)
Guess that doesn’t help much.
I would really love to hear from Eliza on this. She’s had some fascinating things to say along these lines previously.
Comment by: Jim J
6Elaine,
The Wall Street Journal has an excellent review of Obama’s decision here.
Comment by: Julie Marie
7the WSJ article irritated me right off the bat. Embryo destroying research??? Fertility clinics destroy unused embryos every day. The method of embryo destruction is not uniform throughout the US. The scarey thing about stem cell research, imo, is not the research itself, but how it is applied. Sickle cell disease. Diabetes. Parkinsons. Chrons. To try and find a way to end the suffering of people afflicted with these life-altering conditions is a worthy use of my tax dollars. The specter of designer babies, however…not so much. We do need ethicists. We do need to have discussions, and lots of them. Do I trust that scientists will always have pure motives and work for the greater good? Nope, I’m not that naive. But just because there is potential for corruption doesn’t mean we shouldn’t explore an avenue that appears to be rich with potential for improving the lives of many people who suffer now with conditions that are treatable, but not curable.
Comment by: Julie Marie
8Interesting concept, Benjamin. That idea would never fly here. But I agree, we need to have discussions about these sorts of things. Fact of the matter is, we do not have unlimited health care resources in this country. We do have to be good stewards. Of course, we almost always agree when the stewardship is applied to someone else. But when we are subjected to it ourselves, it does seem unbearably unfair. I work in health care, and I come across these dilemas every day. Right now we have a patient who is brain dead, on a vent, feeding tube…family wants everything possible done. so the medicaid system is paying - thousands of dollars per day to keep a body alive, while at the same time, having to face the potential that, due to strained budgets, the hospice benefit for medicaid recipients may be stricken from the budget. So…families who have chosen death with dignity will naturally, rather than see their loved ones suffer, make them “full codes” again so they can get treatment.
We Americans have simply got to develop the fortitude to discuss these difficult topics.
Comment by: Elaine
9Hi Jim,
thanks for the link - it was, however, another opinion piece.
so, I went here and here to read exactly what the document said.
After reading it, I did not reach the same conclusion as you or Robert George & Eric Cohen.
What I saw was that the document removed the ban and restriction on funding that the Bush administration imposed on the US scientific community. The research has continued in the rest of the world.
And in the 2nd document, Obama acknowledges the conflict associated with this research -
And so, I respect your point of view, Jim - but I respectfully disagree with your opinion.
Comment by: Helen
10This conversation has gone in an interesting direction. When I lived in the UK it never seemed like having a nationalized health service prevented us getting the health care we needed. I do think it would be wise to consider how health dollars are allocated in the US. And there are other issues - for example, (some) drug prices are insane. In January my doctor prescribed the antibiotic Vancocin for a month and it cost $2,300. (There was a reason she went with this one - the cheaper ones had made me horribly nauseous and messed up my liver enzymes - but she didn’t even realize how expensive this one was)
I’m used to the biologic therapy I’m on for Crohn’s being expensive (currently about $800 per weekly shot of Humira) but an antibiotic which cost that much caught me off guard.
We do have health insurance which covers a lot of the cost of the Crohn’s treatment. I don’t know what people do who don’t have health insurance.
Comment by: Elaine
11Jim - in re-reading my response
What I meant to say is that I disagree with your conclusions.
Comment by: Elaine
12Helen, Julie, and Benjamin - yes, I agree the healthcare systems are broke.
1. the issue of extending someone’s life - with an expensive treatment - that does not improve the quality of their life - doing it just because we can - raises all sorts of moral and ethical issues for me. i.e. my father was terminally ill - MAYBE 4-6 months to live - and they wanted to amputate his leg - with all the complications that go along with amputation and recover time, including his compromised ability to heal - my father opted not to have the surgery knowing he would die in a few days.
2. what does it really mean when people (especially doctors) tell us we have the best health care in the world? even if that is true - which I could debate - if health care is not available/affordable to everyone in the USA - how is that good health care?
My husband and I are self employed. We pay more for a high-deductible health insurance policy than we do for our mortgage. And that does not include the $5400 we have to pay in deductible expenses B4 the insurance pays anything. And when we had claims, they raised our rates the next year.
I have no idea how the government is going to solve this issue. My hope would be all options are open for discussion.
My experience is most people who are healthy and don’t have to use their insurance think it is working fine for them - BUT if they get sick - and need to take a medication that cost $2300 per month for the rest of their life - they can quickly see how paying the out of pocket portion may quickly bankrupt them.
Comment by: Helen
13Elaine we have a High Deductible health care plan too. Because of my medications we met the deductible by January 15th.
Even so it’s so much better than not having health insurance.
And as you pointed out, 10% of some medications (the co-pay after the deductible) is still hundreds of dollars a month.
Comment by: David H
14Was just discussing some of what is wrong with our health care system with my mother. I still remember when Blue Cross/Blue Shield was ostensibly a non-profit and many hospitals operated in that way also. I can’t help but wonder if a bit part of what went wrong was when large segments of our health care system stopped working for their patients and subscribers so that it could provide better returns to investors. Could this possible be another instance when letting the market decide hasn’t worked at all as promised?
Like so many things, health care in the US is broken in so many ways on so many levels I don’t believe it can be fixed with the half-measures and nearly painless measures being discussed by politicians. “The market” needs to be removed from the equation and then, maybe, we can rebuild something that would work better for more people.
Comment by: Elaine
15David - I hear you. John McKnight speaks of the origins of hospitals as being created to “serve” the community - hence the non-profit piece - and then things flipped and the community must now “serve” the hospitals…
Can our current system be morphed into something better for all? It doesn’t seem likely that we can just throw everything out and start from scratch…but removing the politics and special interest groups would help.
Comment by: David H
16Unfortunately it is the special interest groups and stockholders who have most of the money going to politicians to influence how this plays out. As a reporter I have covered previous attempts (at state level) for insurance reform. Of course I was an observer when the Clinton’s tried to morph healthcare. The only way to change things is to play politics and as soon as you play politics then the patients lose because they have the least money.
Comment by: Helen
17Here are a couple of interesting articles about stem cells/Obama’s decision, by someone who does stem cell research:
Lifting the stem cell ban - was there any point?
Adult stem cell lies - everything old is new again
Comment by: Elaine
18very interesting site and articles. thanks for sharing.
Yes - I can see that Obama’s removal of the ban is really more a statement about restoring “science’s” independence from religious thought.
Also, removing the ban on funding was something Obama said he would do during the campaign. Correct me if I’m wrong about that.
Comment by: Julie Marie
19well! the rest of the world marched on, despite the fundies. That makes me smile.
thanks for the link. I feel so much smarter now!
Comment by: David H
20Those opposing embryonic stem cell research appear to be arguing that since we don’t know how to make embryonic stem cells do what we want then we should stop research on them. Not an awful lot logic there.
My reading on the subject seems to indicate a belief that adult and embryonic stem cells could potentially serve difference purposes and each has significant hurdles to overcome. But to stop because we don’t yet know how to overcome the problems at this point is the intellectual equivalent of saying don’t examine anything you don’t already understand.
Some potential long-term uses of ES cells I have heard discussed include culling them at birth and banking them for future use by the child if needed. Such uses won’t even be explored if those opposed to ES cell research have their way.
Also, I noted in several articles I read the use of terms like “embryo-destroying” when discussing ES cell work. Funny thing is the embryos being “destroyed” have already been discarded. No one is talking about terminating fetuses just to supply embryos for this work, they are talking about trying to salvage something from unfortunate circumstances. However, this is a hot-button word/phrase intended to excite (enflame) the choir already singing against ES cell research.
There are certainly ethical issues that have to be addressed with this type of research. But at this point abortion is legal in the US. Until it becomes illegal there shouldn’t be an ethical issue about using aborted embryos for research that could (at some point in the future) save living people.