Peter Charles wrote in
:

I sincerely respect anyone who rejects the benefits or refuses to take
part in research that they feel is morally and religiously repugnant.
That is admirable. But they have no right to impose that view on
others who do not share it. Again, that is religious tyranny. Do you
exist in a democracy or a theocracy? If a majority, who hold similar
religious views, impose laws on the minority to bring that minority
into religious conformity, then that country has transformed itself
into a theocracy. That is why most Western democracies do their
utmost to separate church and state. Millions have died over the
centuries because of this bigotry. It should never again be allowed
to see the light of day.

Again, let's keep remembering that I am clearly pro stem-cell research,
and playing the devil's advocate here to point out that there are moral
issues that can be recognized on both sides of this argument.

When the US government chooses not to fund stem cell research on new cell
lines, one can hardly call that religious tyranny. In fact, the
government has not made such research illegal, and there's nothing in the
constitution or US code that says the government is required to fund
research at all. We're not talking about law here, only policy. The
next logical step is that the government can continue to fund valuable
research so long as the NIH gets funded-- this isn't a mandated program
like Social Security, where Congress will work hard to make sure the
funds are in place, its a budgetary line item whose size gets argued
about constantly (at least based on the number of letters scientific
organizations ask me to write to try to get larger appropriations). You
**** off enough voters, science-freindly Senators get the boot,
appropriations go down. This happens regardless of the motives of the
constituency, religious or secular. There are benefits to the NIH
staying off the radar screen of the Kooks. It may be wrong, but its the
way things work. We don't live in a theocracy, but the masses do have
their influence, and some of the masses are religious. Certainly,
Institutional Review Boards that put a seal of approval on projects
involving human studies are required by law to have community
representation, and sometimes have clergy representation. Picture going
in front of such a review board and explaining that their morals, formed
in part because of their religious doctrines, have no place in a
scientific discussion. Lead balloon city.

There are slippery slopes on both sides-- the whole right to life thing
is dangerous, IMO, but I also wouldn't want to see fetus farms for
harvesting stem cells, or fetuses conceived for this specific purpose.
It's ethical discussions like this that keep us nicely in the center--
sometimes we momentarily teeter too far in one direction, but usually we
find our way back. Debates like this are best served by trying your best
to understand the counter position. Dismissing that position as
untenable might get your views across quickly and accurately, but rarely
advance the debate.

I can tell you that the instructor of our Tissue Engineering course,
clearly on the pro side, makes his best case in front of the students,
but also discusses the points on the con side. He then polls the
students--intelligent kids coming from a variety of backgrounds, but
mostly from the northeast- and every few years the con wins the count,
and every year they're well represented. These are fairly intelligent
kids, and dismissing their position as untenable would seem shortsighted.

Here's another example that I've pondered over myself. Jews tend to
place a high regard on sending a dead body back to its maker in the same
condition it was given to them. That's why, after a suicide bombing,
some of the first on the scene are canvassing the sites for pieces of
flesh, to make sure they're buried with the right body, or waiting for
the survivors in the ground when they get buried. In any case, because
of the way the dead are treated, orthodox Jews are not organ donors.
Now, people die, and fairly often, waiting on the list for a transplant
donor. Is the witholding of organs by these people "religious tyranny"?
Well, others are certainly free to donate organs, nobody is stopping
them. Nobody is trying to put an end to transplantation either. Yet,
the fact remains, for every orthodox Jew that would make a good organ
donor that dies, that's a few organs that won't ever make it to the
transplant list.

Medical ethics can be quite debatable, and they also change over time.
Many hospitals, at least the smart ones, keep an ethicist on staff to
help committees wrestle over these issues and to make sure all sides are
covered.

Scott

Scott