|
I am pro stem cell research, and I have a unique voice in this debate, one that no one else in the United States has: I am a paraplegic, paralyzed from a bicycle wreck, and my daughter is a Snowflake, a former frozen embryo. When my wife and I married in 1995 we knew that it would be difficult to conceive a child, but Kate did finally become pregnant with an adopted frozen embryo. Our daughter Zara was born in July 2002. She is a blessing, and we recommend embryo adoption to anyone who is seeking alternatives to in vitro fertilization or traditional adoption, or who has completed their family but still has remaining frozen embryos. Twice invited to the White House to meet President Bush, we were present at his historic July 19, 2006 veto speech where he proclaimed, surrounded by children who used to be frozen embryos, “These boys and girls are not spare parts.” I agree. Most people would oppose embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) if the media would provide honest and accurate reports. Media often report that I am anti-stem cell research. Are they crazy? Anyone, given 32 years in a healthy body and 13 years dependent upon a wheelchair, would choose walking over rolling. Other than good parking places, there is no advantage to being four-foot tall in a six-foot world. One example of this inaccurate coverage by media was the headline for an article in our local newspaper, “Exeter couple on road to oppose stem-cell research.” The reporter probably did not write the headline, but he also did not mention that we support the kind of stem cell research that works. Since media generally fail to report stem cell research facts, the average citizen assumes that all stem cell research is good and that anyone who opposes any stem cell research is some kind of anti-science religious fanatic. Here is a quick stem cell research lesson and some facts that media regularly omit. In layman's terms, there are two separate types of research in this field: ESCR, which I oppose, and non-ESCR, which I support. Non-ESCR includes research on stem cells found in all humans (adult stem cell research) and research using stem cells found in umbilical cord blood. · 25 years of ESCR has produced zero successful human treatments. Non-ESCR has helped thousands of people with more than 70 different conditions, including 26 different forms of cancer, Parkinson's disease, Crohn's disease, juvenile arthritis, acute heart damage, chronic coronary artery disease, stroke damage and, fortunately for me, spinal cord injuries. · Hundreds of U.S. medical doctors, scientists and bioethics experts oppose ESCR, and many believe that no treatments or cures will ever result from ESCR. Some of these experts have graduated from, or have affiliations with, M.I.T., Georgetown University, U.C.L.A., Loyola University Medical Center, Brown University School of Medicine, The Mayo Clinic, Princeton University and dozens of other excellent institutions. · Many ESCR professionals admit that results are decades away. Some ESCR proponents, especially politicians flush with cash and promises of more from the pharmaceutical industry, exaggerate the benefits of the pseudo-science, thus falsely raising the hopes of millions of desperately sick and injured people all over the world. · The President's recent veto only prohibited using our federal taxes to destroy embryos. ESCR is legal in the U.S. More than 50 private companies, including Johnson & Johnson, are involved in ESCR, and states such as California and New Jersey use their residents' tax dollars for ESCR. · Genetic parents are still using 88% of the approximately 400,000 frozen embryos in the U.S. to grow their families, or they have made no decision on what to do with the frozen embryos. · Media often report that “excess” embryos “are just going to be thrown away” if federal funding of ESCR is not passed. Only the uninformed or malicious would choose to throw away an embryo. The remaining fewer than 50,000 embryos could be adopted or donated to hundreds of U.S. or international ESCR labs. · There are 2.1 million infertile married couples in the U.S. Proper promotion of embryo adoption would cause the demand for frozen embryos to outstrip the supply easily. · Everyone was once a tiny human embryo and ESCR always kills the embryo. · When given a brief explanation of stem cells and the ESCR process, more Americans oppose ESCR than support it, according to a May 2006 International Communications Research poll. ESCR proponents Mary Tyler Moore, Michael J. Fox and Nancy Reagan agree with me on two principles. We want help for devastating medical conditions, and we want help now, or at least soon. ESCR offers neither. Non-ESCR offers both. Every minute of media attention and scientific research, and every dollar spent on ESCR are time and money unavailable for non-ESCR. I have met people who would be dead now if they had not received non-ESCR treatments. I know that one-year-old Abby Pell, three-year-old Ryan Schneider and fifty-seven-year-old Steve Sprague all agree that being alive is better than dying while waiting decades for a cure that will probably never exist. I also know that I do not want one embryo destroyed for my supposed cure, and that the former frozen embryo who is now a four-year-old princess-fairy-ballerina-butterfly (depending on the moment) dancing across our kitchen floor is glad she was adopted instead of destroyed.
Woofie and Zara sleep in the car June 2004 Zara is Four July 2006
Steven B. Johnson is a self-employed Certified Financial Planner who lives near Reading, Pennsylvania with his family.
Contact information:
steve@sbjcfp.com
Steven B. Johnson has given newspapers the right to print this material.
This webpage was created by
|
