Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Stranger than fiction ...

Back in July (I think it was), Commonweal contributor Jo Mcgowan wrote this pointed column on stem-cell research, where she imagined that the miracle cure offered by stem cells could be used, not just to help cure her daughter's degenrative disorder, but also to cure her daugther's bruised forehead, and her husband's torn nail, and also:

One night while my husband was away, I took a large spoonful of stems (my supply was getting low, but I had already applied for another loan) and mixed them carefully with homemade yoghurt, some chick-pea flour, a little salt, and a few other special ingredients. The exact recipe is available on my Web site, and I do accept Visa.

I rubbed this mixture all over my body and went to bed without bathing. In the morning, after my shower, I was amazed to discover that my skin was similar to that of an eighteen-year-old girl. When my husband returned, he found this oddly horrifying, but that was to be expected from him. The important thing was that my experiment had worked.

It is obvious to me that stem-cells hold enormous promise for ordinary people like you and me, provided we have the courage to get involved with the research and implementation now. Buy a jar, use it liberally, and get past the squeamishness that holds back all scientific progress. I would suggest trying it on toast and using it as shampoo. For those of you with pets, see how they respond to it in their diets.

[The column isn't online. The quote above is from a draft that Jo emailed me; the final version in Commonweal may have been a little different].

Jo is solidly pro-life. The column was an imaginative exercise, sarcastic and pointed, to get people to think about the realities surrounding the whole issue of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).

When in India this summer, I visited Jo and her family in Dehradun. She had just gotten a whole bunch of rather heated email in response to her column -- those that were just plain insulting ad-hominem attacks, to those who thought her flippancy somehow insulted all those who suffered a variety of horrible ailments that ESCR holds the cure for. We talked a bit about this exchange, and wondered if "stem cell body cream" was really quite as far-fetched as it sounds.

Apparently not. This Indepdent (UK) article ("Britons fly abroad for stem-cell makeovers" -- hat tip to Amy for the link) has some rather eye-popping stuff:

Britons desperate to halt the ageing process are being injected with the stem cells of aborted foetuses at a clinic that charges £15,000 for a controversial new cosmetic treatment. Despite warnings from biologists in the UK that the process is unproven and could be harmful, dozens of British women have flown to Barbados in the hope that the injections will make them forever young - and possibly even boost their sex drive.

[snip]

Christine Roberts, a 57-year-old housewife from Knightsbridge, west London, was, by her own admission, starting to feel her age. "My skin looked a bit tired," she said. "I felt I needed a shot in the arm. There was nothing wrong with me. I just needed a feel-good thing."

Wow. So this isn't in some nighmarish Big Brother future. But right here, right now in the oh so enlightened and free world. Euthanizing babies. Not too far from euthanizing the disabled. Welcome to the culture of death.

3 comments:

Heather said...

Stem cell research isn't the same as euthanizing babies if the cells are only going to be washed down the drain anyway. Plenty of couples who have used invetro fertilization have leftover samples, and those samples are either frozen are discarded. Don't you think it is more of a waste to throw the stem cells away then to use them to possibly save lives in the future?

Anonymous said...

The debate is going to grow further on this subject.

In the United States, National Public Radio’s Morning Edition had a broadcast on October 17, 2005. They focused upon research by scientists developing alternative methods for growing embryonic stem cells in mice. If it can be used in humans, the development could resolve the moral debate over use of the cells for research.

Though the broadcast did indicate it may quell the debate, in reality the debate will continue and only quell some individuals. I would still see the practice an issue within the Catholic church and those who share the church’s position. I encourage one to go to NPR and listen to the segment online.

On another note: Science and technology will always create new moral dilemmas. Kazuo Ishiguro, author of “The Remains of the Day” has written a new book titled “Never Let Me Go.” It highlights morality and science with his characters within his story.

As the world becomes more complex, so do the issues we must face with our faith.

Sincerely,

Dogwood

Fr. Gaurav Shroff said...

If one accepts that a fertilized egg, i.e. an embryo is a human person, then the difference is just semantics. It's one of the main reasons why IVF is considered to be morally objectionable. And the point of Jo's column was, I think, the way in which we blind ourselves to this reality, and use a utilitarian calculus to further coarsen ourselves to the reality of human life in the womb. Her column was fiction - stem-cells as a body cream. The Independent article is not. I'm more and more convinced that all of these things result from a worldview where the sanctity of life has been obscured, and replaced by a lethal utilitarianism. This is what John Paul II called the culture of death.

I've heard about the procedure that NPR was talking about. Can't think of the name. Of course it won't erase controversy. And then, let's remember, that there is a lot of good coming out of stem cell research that is ethically unobjectionable: adult stem cell research. And, if I'm correct, the only kind that has actually shown any medical benefits.