xkcd
Campaigns

TS-Si supports open and immediate access to publicly funded research.

Petition: remove women of transsexual / intersex history from the GLAAD Media Reference Guide. [ sign ]
Read: Andrea Rosenfield's call for reform.

Opening Doors to Transsexual Medical Research
TS-Si
is dedicated to the acceptance, medical
treatment, and legal
protection of individuals correcting the misalignment
of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition
into society as hormonally reconstituted and surgically corrected citizens.
is dedicated to the acceptance, medical
treatment, and legal
protection of individuals correcting the misalignment
of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition
into society as hormonally reconstituted and surgically corrected citizens.
| Public Funds For Stem Cell Research |
|
|
| Opinion - Editorials | |||
| TS-Si | |||
| Monday, 17 July 2006 21:00 | |||
|
Springfield, Virginia, USA. Stem cell research has enormous implications for medical progress and relieving the distress of millions of people. Scientists can already see potential treatments for Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, and many other conditions.
Transsexuals also could share in that progress. Such research can bring improved understanding of cellular processes, the removal of medical impediments to Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS), and unprecedented advances in plastic and reconstructive therapies.
The U.S. Senate is debating a bill, House resolution 810 (HR 810), to authorize government spending on new embryonic stem cell research. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the government should fund any kind of research, or to what degree.
However, the debate centers on a different kind of issue. Senator Bill Frist (R-TN), Majority Leader of the Senate, calls the stem cell debate “the first major moral and ethical challenge to biomedical research in the 21st century”. He and others oppose stem cell research because, in their view, the accompanying cell destruction is abortion of the unborn.
No. The continuing moral and ethical challenge is to resist attempts at imposing a specific religious viewpoint on governance.
Some people of faith consider the microscopic clusters of human “master” cells that develop within hours of fertilization to be alive. They believe human life begins at conception and the immature organism is a genetically distinct and complete human being. They view the destruction of stem cells for research as the murder of a human being and therefore an abortion (their larger agenda item).
There is no scientific basis for such a position, particularly since it misleads with a cramped understanding of
genetics. But, science has no explicit role in their belief.They just believe what they believe.
Arguing from faith prevents reasoned discourse and the rational decision-making essential to a flourishing democracy. Any citizen can oppose a policy for any reason. Their opposition can have a rational basis or not. In this case, though, non-rational opposition could become the very rationale for later passage of an outright ban on stem cell research. If that happens, the Congressional Record will become a reference point, influencing subsequent court interpretations and even more restrictive legislation.
This issue poses a challenge to each of us as we pursue satisfaction of our individual needs while meeting our civic responsibilities.
We proudly defend the rights of people to hold true to their private belief systems while reserving the right to oppose the translation of questionable impulses into public policy.
In this case, we strongly support the public funding of stem cell research. There is a vital need for such research, and to do so under close public scrutiny. Apart from the obvious medical benefits, the research could well illuminate the very questions that trouble those who claim human life begins with conception.
Let us investigate, examine the results, and provide a rational structure for future decision-making.
There are times when the government pursues a course of action that is opposite to the conscience or pragmatic estimates of one or more individuals. Under our Constitution, we can vigorously and lawfully argue against the proposal. If the majority disagrees, then an individual in the minority has to choose between compliance or civil disobedience.
It becomes unreasonable when a religious faction ignores our constitutional mandate respecting an establishment of religion. It attempts to implement key provisions of their particular faith to meet a larger agenda that includes the diminution of scientific inquiry and the implementation of their articles of faith.
This is, or should be, a non-partisan issue.
Three pieces of stem cell legislation are up for debate at the same time. One measure would support alternative methods of harvesting stem cells without destroying human embryos. This would have no effect on federal policy: it already allows this type of research. The other bill would ban the creation of fetuses for harvesting and research. No one has actually proposed doing such a thing.
The two additional bills provide political cover for senators who oppose the expansion of public funding but want to demonstrate some support of stem cell research for their constituents. The senators can claim they supported stem cell research even though they voted against HR 810.
Following the debate, there will be votes on each bill.
The Senate should vote "aye" on HR810.
President Bush promises his first veto if the Senate passes HR810.
If the Senate passes HR810 and the President exercises his veto, then the Congress should vote to override the veto.
Email this
Comments (0)
![]() Write comment
|
|||
| Last Updated on Monday, 27 August 2007 13:05 |



genetics
The TS-Si News Service
and the TS-Si Research Service are collaborations of TS-Si officials, staff, contributors, and corresponding institutions. The contents do not necessarily convey official positions of TS-Si or its owners, participants, partners, or affiliates.