Asking lawmakers to take the ‘stem-cell pledge’

August 22, 2006

Josh Marshall reminded readers yesterday of a weeks-old Jonathan [tag]Alter[/tag] column that seems to have been lost in the late-July shuffle. It raises a good point, particularly in an election-year in which Dems hope to emphasize [tag]stem-cell[/tag] [tag]research[/tag].

In July, 37 senators and 193 members of the House backed Bush and voted against allowing even surplus embryos headed for the trash bin to be used in federally funded research. If they have any moxie, their opponents this year will show up at debates (or press conferences in contests with no debates) and challenge the incumbents who voted with Bush to promise that they will never use any [tag]treatments[/tag] derived from embryonic-stem-cell research. In other words, to put their own health where their votes are.

The actual written [tag]pledge[/tag]…could include language something like this: “Because of my strong opposition to embryonic-stem-cell research, I hereby pledge that should I, at any point in the future, develop diabetes, cancer, spinal-cord injuries or Parkinson’s, among other diseases, I will refuse any and all treatments derived from such research, at home or abroad, even if it costs me my life. Signed, ______”

This isn’t exactly a delicate approach, but it’s entirely reasonable. If we hold opponents of the research to a level of consistency and logic — which, admittedly, is in short supply when it comes to conservative opposition in this debate — they should gladly forswear any life-saving treatments derived from a science they believe, in the words of the White House press secretary, is homicidal.

As Marshall put it:

[S]omeone who’s genuinely morally opposed to the use of stem cells (actually, ones which already have come into existence and are going to be disposed of) wouldn’t have a problem signing. The only folks put on the spot would be those who are just playing politics with other people’s lives.

Just imagine Rep. Jones who votes against allowing stem cell research but isn’t willing to forswear using the fruit of it if and when it’s his life on the line.

Exactly. A key part of this policy debate should be about asking opponents to be consistent with their own ideology. As far as their arguments go, fertility clinics are “death camps.” IVF treatment is “cold-blooded eugenics.” Possible treatments derived from the science are, in effect, fruit from a poison tree.

To oppose the research is to oppose the cure the research produces. I don’t doubt some of the pure ideologues would gladly sign such a pledge to demonstrate their principles, but would all of them? It’d be interesting to find out — before voters head to the polls.

Just silly.

Express your opinion clearly that the Federal Government should be funding stem cell research, or that it shouldn’t. Leave all the hyperbole out of the issue.

Please.

  • Sort of like the pledge I used to suggest to the motorcycle morons I know who think helmet laws are an infringement of their freedom: you can “ride free” all you want, buddy, so long as you have a DNR in your billfold (Do Not Resucitate).

  • Perhaps we can extend it out to everyone who can’t deal with evolution and physics?

    Basically most fundies would simple grains instead of the fatty crap that they enjoy in mass quantities and not being anywhere near any modern communications equipment (which isn’t a bad thing.)

  • I’d ask them to extend the pledge to their family members, as well. Harsh? Yeah. But it would show the same courtesy to THEIR families that they have shown to mine.

  • This reminds me of Michael Moore attempting to get members of Congress to pledge they’d have their children enlist and fight in Iraq. This is the same kind of cheap stunt.

    Stem cell research enjoys pretty strong public support. I’d rather see diabetics, cancer patients, etc., in ads criticizing their congressman for not supporting potential life-saving research. Or an ad that explains how your congressman prefers unused embroyos from fertility clinics head to the landfill rather than being used in valuable life-saving medical research. T

  • It’s an interesting idea, but one which won’t work. We still owe a lot of our medical knowledge to the medical ‘experiments’ carried out in the Concentration Camps. We don’t ignore that knowledge or the treatments derived from it despite the source.
    In exactly the same vein, someone morally opposed to stem cells could still reap the benefits.

  • Ya, OK, good idea. We all know how republicans love to take responsibility. It is a stunt and I mighty dumb one at that.

    A better approach might be to simply ask Farwell, Dobson, and Robertson to take the pledge verbally. They are the ones behind it and they are the ones who’s health is going to be failing sooner then later.

  • Just for a moment, let us consider the potentialities of ramping this issue up to the wing-nut level. CB’s post refers to a pledge that “those who vote against the research should overtly avoid any benefits of that research. Lex extend the suggestion by posting:

    ***”I’d ask them to extend the pledge to their family members, as well. Harsh? Yeah. But it would show the same courtesy to THEIR families that they have shown to mine.***

    What if the scientific community were to take this to its logical conclusion? If, for example, a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription for birth control pills, or the new emergency contraceptive (EC), then would it not it be “just as moral” to deny lifesaving treatments to individuals who sought to prevent the development of those same, said treatments?”

    Given the “if-this/then-that” construct of a premise/conclusion, a medical professional could—based upon his deeply-held convictions, of course—deny medical treatments based upon stemcell research to those 37 Senators; those 193 representatives; everyone connected to the Administration’s opinion on the issue. They could develop a database of those within the religious community who have openly sought to shut down such research—and deny these people treatment, as well.

    I can hear the screams of “religious persecution” already. Can you?

  • Castor Troy–you blithely claim that we owe a lot of our knowledge of modern medicine to the “experiments” carried out in Nazi concentration camps. I’d like you to cite some examples of this. Real examples, not urban mythology. Claims like this are dangerous if they aren’t supported. It’s time to put your facts where your mouth is.

  • This “pledge” conclusion simply does not follow logically from the premise. It’s a technique often used to call someone a hypocrite. An example: someone who opposes hunting admits he’s not a vegetarian, so his position is dismissed because he’s a hypocrite. But it just doesn’t follow.

    In the stem cell example, one could simply say that one is opposed to taxpayer dollars being used, not to the research itself. Congress cut off NASA’s SETI program which began in 1992 one year later. It would be ridiculous to conclude that they opposed private SETI research, or that they should have signed a pledge not to talk to little green men discovered thereafter through SETI.

    And I don’t doubt that one could come up with dozens of other rational arguments for one’s position that don’t logically entail such a pledge.

    This is sophistry, pure and simple.

  • And I don’t doubt that one could come up with dozens of other rational arguments for one’s position that don’t logically entail such a pledge.

    This is hyperbole, pure and simple.

    • Comments are closed.