Stem Cells: Politics or Principles?
George Will (Commentary, Aug. 14) gives nearly reverential accolades to President Bush for consulting with bioethicists in his stem cell research decision. He applauds the president’s prudence and humbleness concerning “life’s mysteriousness.” Maybe Bush should have consulted those same bioethicists when he decided to allow arsenic in the water, drilling in pristine wilderness areas, easing of legal pressure on the tobacco companies, bowing out of the Kyoto accord and his upcoming decision regarding the easing of laws that protect the quality of our air.
Ed Silverstein
Santa Monica
*
Will’s bifurcation of the two major political parties according to a “cultural cleavage” represents one of the premises upon which he builds his case that, somehow, Bush and his appointee to head a commission on biomedical ethics are bastions against a tide of “extremism” that is espoused by none other than House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt. The statement by Gephardt that Will uses to indict those who do not unequivocally share his views is, curiously, one that Will believes sums up all the views on the subject.
Will states, “Bush’s decision is so measured and principled that his critics are in danger of embracing extremism.” He launches into a definition of extremism and quotes “the” 19th century historian Jacob Burkhardt and Albert Einstein. I’m afraid Will does not measure up to the stature of either of these gentlemen when he pontificates about “life’s mysteriousness.” We should all bow our heads and humbly meditate that we do not fall into the intellectual arrogance that Will has revealed in this piece: “Watch Out for the Bogeyman.”
Chuck Hackwith
San Clemente
*
The man who oversaw execution after execution without one blink of sympathy had to agonize for weeks over whether embryonic cells deserve protection as human life. His agonizing didn’t distract him from overseeing an unprecedented increase in exploration and oil drilling in wilderness areas. Giving a tilt of the empty hat to the right-to-lifers, the president weaseled out on a campaign promise and now can proudly claim that compassion made him do it.
It is lawful for a woman to have an abortion, but the government will not sanction and support the harvesting of primitive cells that derive from the procedure. But fear not, Republicans, supply and demand in the open marketplace will feed this need quite nicely, unless your right-wing friends in Congress attempt to interfere. Wouldn’t that be interesting?
Bill Wakeland
Cedar Glen
*
Bush’s rationale for restricting federal support to research on stem cell lines to those created prior to Aug. 9 is that he cannot reverse the destruction of embryos used to produce those lines. However, the future destruction of excess embryos originally created for fertility purposes is equally beyond his control. If lack of control over embryo destruction is the criterion for federal support to stem cell research, federal funds should be made available on the latter embryos as well. A second logically consistent approach would be to adopt the position of the Catholic Church, which holds that life begins at the moment of conception and that no stem cell research based on embryo destruction can be sanctioned.
It has been said that a decision that leaves both sides dissatisfied must be a good one. This may be an appropriate criterion for a purely political decision. It is inappropriate for a decision supposedly based on moral principle.
Michael Horstein
Los Angeles
