An Historical Perspective
Many of us are still seething over the Emperor's veto of the embryonic stem cell research bill. His justification for the first veto of his regime was clearly so at odds with his stance on war waging and his disregard for the victims of Hurricane Katrina as to make the whole incident an example of his perfidy.
Deborah Blum attempts to give those of us who are so bitterly disappointed some hope by way of an historical persective in an op-ed piece published in today's NY Times. She reminds us that science, especially medicine, has had to contend with religious forces throughout history and throughout history, science has ultimately prevailed.
IN vetoing legislation that would have supported medical research using embryonic stem cells, President Bush described his decision as moral rather than scientific, an act of conscience opposed to the taking of the “innocent human life” represented by embryonic stem cells. The potential of using these cells to develop life-saving medical cures, Mr. Bush said, was a temptation to be resisted.
The past, however, seems to encourage a more optimistic outlook. Medical progress has stirred religious and moral objections throughout history — objections that were overcome as the benefits of medical advances became overwhelmingly obvious. In the 11th century, European church leaders warned monks that treating illness with medicine showed such a lack of faith in God that it violated holy orders. When 19th-century doctors began using chloroform to alleviate the pain of childbirth, the Scottish Calvinist church declared it a “Satanic invention” intended to frustrate the Lord’s design.
...The fact is that stem cells — especially the amazingly versatile cells evident in early human development — have the potential to hold off our own ministers of death. And history suggests that’s a proposition too powerful to remain shackled by the moral strictures of the moment.
I can't help but feeling that she's right in her assessment, but I don't take much solace in the fact that humankind hasn't changed much in a thousand years.
Deborah Blum attempts to give those of us who are so bitterly disappointed some hope by way of an historical persective in an op-ed piece published in today's NY Times. She reminds us that science, especially medicine, has had to contend with religious forces throughout history and throughout history, science has ultimately prevailed.
IN vetoing legislation that would have supported medical research using embryonic stem cells, President Bush described his decision as moral rather than scientific, an act of conscience opposed to the taking of the “innocent human life” represented by embryonic stem cells. The potential of using these cells to develop life-saving medical cures, Mr. Bush said, was a temptation to be resisted.
The past, however, seems to encourage a more optimistic outlook. Medical progress has stirred religious and moral objections throughout history — objections that were overcome as the benefits of medical advances became overwhelmingly obvious. In the 11th century, European church leaders warned monks that treating illness with medicine showed such a lack of faith in God that it violated holy orders. When 19th-century doctors began using chloroform to alleviate the pain of childbirth, the Scottish Calvinist church declared it a “Satanic invention” intended to frustrate the Lord’s design.
...The fact is that stem cells — especially the amazingly versatile cells evident in early human development — have the potential to hold off our own ministers of death. And history suggests that’s a proposition too powerful to remain shackled by the moral strictures of the moment.
I can't help but feeling that she's right in her assessment, but I don't take much solace in the fact that humankind hasn't changed much in a thousand years.
posted by Diane at 3:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home