Marley Greiner
11-29-2003, 12:29 PM
http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/opin-bot1129-3470.html
Embryo police
How's this for folly? The Bush administration can't find Osama bin Laden or
Saddam Hussein. But there's a plan afoot to start tracking every embryo
outside of a womb in America.
Hubris, as everyone knows by now, is big in the President's circle. So are
embryo politics.
In fact, as a draft report by the President's Council on Bioethics shows,
there are even plans to replace the word "embryo" with new terms such as
"nascent child," "child to be" and "future child."
Here is what the bioethics council has discovered: "There is at present no
means of reporting or monitoring the creation, use and disposition of
embryos produced in the context of assisted reproduction." Oh my!
For as long as couples have suffered the pain of having to ask for help to
conceive, they have rightly been given privacy. But now the President's
panel - stacked with the usual abortion-obsessed members - has decided that
this tradition should end.
"By requiring such reporting," it suggests, "the federal government would
signal a measure of respect for nascent human life."
That "signal" could also change the practice of reproductive medicine in
America. In fact, "protections" of embryos, oops, "future children" could
very well result in more couples remaining childless.
Pamela Madsen, president of the American Infertility Association, says her
organization is "concerned about ideologically driven policy that could
restrict (infertility) treatment in the name of protecting the embryo."
The concern mirrors that of scientists and patient advocacy groups over the
administration's desire to ban embryonic stem-cell research into possible
treatments for Parkinson's, diabetes and other diseases. That ban, too,
would elevate the obsession with protecting "nascent lives" over the
opportunity to save existing ones.
Ms. Madsen also says, "We would argue that we need embryo research to treat
(infertility). If we choose to donate our unused embryos for that purpose,
we should be free to do so. We don't want to have to ask permission to enter
treatment.... They are our embryos, the most intimate property of any
hopeful parent."
The Republicans - so quick to mock the "nanny state" and intrusive
government -
should immediately recognize this plan as way out of line.
Luckily, a draft report can be changed. This one should be.
Embryo police
How's this for folly? The Bush administration can't find Osama bin Laden or
Saddam Hussein. But there's a plan afoot to start tracking every embryo
outside of a womb in America.
Hubris, as everyone knows by now, is big in the President's circle. So are
embryo politics.
In fact, as a draft report by the President's Council on Bioethics shows,
there are even plans to replace the word "embryo" with new terms such as
"nascent child," "child to be" and "future child."
Here is what the bioethics council has discovered: "There is at present no
means of reporting or monitoring the creation, use and disposition of
embryos produced in the context of assisted reproduction." Oh my!
For as long as couples have suffered the pain of having to ask for help to
conceive, they have rightly been given privacy. But now the President's
panel - stacked with the usual abortion-obsessed members - has decided that
this tradition should end.
"By requiring such reporting," it suggests, "the federal government would
signal a measure of respect for nascent human life."
That "signal" could also change the practice of reproductive medicine in
America. In fact, "protections" of embryos, oops, "future children" could
very well result in more couples remaining childless.
Pamela Madsen, president of the American Infertility Association, says her
organization is "concerned about ideologically driven policy that could
restrict (infertility) treatment in the name of protecting the embryo."
The concern mirrors that of scientists and patient advocacy groups over the
administration's desire to ban embryonic stem-cell research into possible
treatments for Parkinson's, diabetes and other diseases. That ban, too,
would elevate the obsession with protecting "nascent lives" over the
opportunity to save existing ones.
Ms. Madsen also says, "We would argue that we need embryo research to treat
(infertility). If we choose to donate our unused embryos for that purpose,
we should be free to do so. We don't want to have to ask permission to enter
treatment.... They are our embryos, the most intimate property of any
hopeful parent."
The Republicans - so quick to mock the "nanny state" and intrusive
government -
should immediately recognize this plan as way out of line.
Luckily, a draft report can be changed. This one should be.
