Deseret News | Reader comments: Lawmakers are divided on stem cells

Reader comments
Lawmakers are divided on stem cells

BC | 1:34 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

Its about time!!

Anonymous | 2:48 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

I agree its about time. This resistance to science has got to stop. So many lives can be saved.

JazzFan | 3:28 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

Did anybody see the piece on ESPN about the Boozers and their whole ordeal with their oldest child? (Maybe everybody in Utah already knows about it but I don't live there.) I can't recall exactly but I think there was some use of stem cells for them as well, or at least embryos. I think hearing their story in detail may change some minds about what is right and wrong. I don't normally support some of these initiatives but I realized through the Boozers story that my position may change if I am found in one of those situations where it could really help one of my children, particularly if death is the other option.

Comments continue below

for life | 6:07 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

If I had a child on life-support, who was about to die, I would want to donate his organs in order to save other lives.

If in the process of fertility treatments we had leftover embryos, which would otherwise be destroyed, I would want to donate them so that discoveries could be made which might eventually save millions of lives.

Careful use of embryonic stem cells is very much pro-life.

(Yes I know there is the option of the embryos being adopted, and I'm all for that. But a very very small percentage of them are adopted. The rest, that would otherwise be destroyed, should go to save lives.)

treeleaf64 | 6:20 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

There is also a lot of promise with adult stem cells derived from bone marrow and cord blood.
Using these forms of stem cells takes the ethical questions away from the table.

Dave B | 7:03 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

God bless Senator Hatch, stem cell research needs a chance.

FreeSpeech | 7:36 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

Those companies are not being told they can not do it. They are just being told they can not do it with YOUR MONEY. If they want to do research, then do it with their own money and not the taxpayers money. There is to much of giving the taxpayer money away going around now! DO IT WITH YOUR OWN BUSINESS MONEY!!!!!!!

K | 8:05 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

I did IVF and If there were any chance we'd have left over embryos, which we didn't, I'd not want them be destroyed in the sake of science. I would argue that less embryos should be created in fertility clinicslower dosage for overstimulating of the ovaries will still provide enough eggs for fertilization and is safer for the woman.

Firstly the science has shown that adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells are much more useful in actually assisting in treatments. There is more promise there and no human being dies.

Secondly, I don't buy the donated organ comparison. The organ is a part of life, not the entire life. They also don't transplant organs like the brain for instance. They don't take both kidneys. The arguement is that they are going to be destroyed or killed anyway was used by the Nazi's when they experimented on people in the concentration camps.

The embryo is a life. Conception until natural death. No life is more valuable than another. You don't kill one to save another. This is the same thing as harvesting a born person's parts to the point that they die from the process.

arc | 8:08 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

The question is not if the research, done with proper limits, needs a chance, the question is that with many people thinking this is morally wrong, to take there taxpayer money and use it for something they find this way - that is the point.

for life:6:07am has some very good points to have research legal. I still don't like tax money being used for something that many find against their beliefs, whether I agree or not.

Yes to research!! | 9:49 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

FINALLY! My only hope is that research can help my son with Huntingtons disease before its too late.

MLR | 10:02 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

I don't understand why we never hear anything about getting stem cells from fat tissue. I personnally was involved with this process 4 years ago. I had a thoro-bred race horse that severely tore a left front led tendon in a race. After much consideration and several talks with top vets and a top veterinary clinic in So. Cal we decided to do a stem cell injection in the injured area. Two teaspoons of fat tissue was removed from the hind end(where most of the fat is on people and equine animals) just off from the tail, put that in a cool pack and overnighted to the clinic who then removed the cells from the fat then put them in a cool pack and overnighted them to the vet clinic for injection into the injured area via ultra-sound, then start the rehab process.The super part was it came from the animal that it was injected in to so no rejection worries. The healing was amazing, straight fiber lines-everything. The horse went back to competition 15 months later and won 3 top races in a row. Other horse and animal owners have had the same success.

MLR ( cont) | 10:16 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

There was quite a rehab process with my experience, but nothing extreme. It started with mild exercise for several months leading up to more agreesive workoputs until finally ready to compete again 15 months after stem-cell injection. Local vets were amazed at the perfect healing that took place, which they checked via ultra-sound every 2 or 3 months. To me this process is proven for several injuries and failures and yet I never hear anything about exploring this process for humans. This of course takes the embryo arguement off the table. For more info on these applications Vet-Stem lab in So Cal could be used. Something this simple almost seems too good to be true but we need to research all applications.

Law Makers | 10:57 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

The differance of doers and feet draggers
This is all about what is important to society
Not personal preferance

K | 11:40 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

If all the people in favor of this gave money to have this privately done instead of wasting it getting politicians elected so that the government can do it - the government wouldn't need to fund it and more diseases would be helped from research from either embryonic and non destructive stem cell approaches.

Puzzled | 11:48 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

Whenever I hear anti-government rants..."do it with your own business money"...I'm wondering what model you're working from? Are there other countries, in the history of the world, that solved societies ills through "business?" Please, tell me where this model has worked, I'd like to know! I think that many of you conservatives believe in a fantasy world that doesn't exist nor will ever exist. WE are the government...as a collective, democratic society, WE have decided to pay money into a fund and distribute this money for the good of society. To think that if we leave everything to capitalism, or greed, is frankly not only incredibly naive, but very dangerous and selfish.

K | 12:24 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

MLR,

Cause that doesn't further the abortion agenda like using embryonic stem cells. They are trying to use an embyronic stem cell breaththrough to point to abortion being a positive.

Just think how much cord blood is thrown away. It's costly to freeze for your own potential useful use. Just think what donations of cord blood could do!

Huh? What about Obama? | 2:41 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

Funny. Every other comment section for a story in the DNews that mentions Obama rants about how he is a socialist/communist/fascist @#$#!, how his @#$%# changes will destroy America, and how much worse off we all are because he is going to be the next president.

However, when one of these proposed "changes" from the past administration turns out to be good, the only politically oriented comment is "God bless Senator Hatch"?

You all are a bunch of politically hypocritical ingrates.

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS POLICY CHANGE FROM THE PAST INEPT ADMINISTRATION! IT IS TIME THAT THIS CHANGE HAPPENED! EVEN THOUGH I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU ON OTHER ISSUES, AND I WILL DISAGREE WITH YOU WHEN I NEED TO, I AM A BIG ENOUGH PERSON TO RECOGNIZE THAT YOUR CHANGE IN POLICY WILL BE THE REASON FOR THIS CHANGE, AND I WANT TO PUBLICLY THANK YOU FOR IT!!

Grow up, Utah, and give Obama credit when it is due.

At last | 4:04 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

Sane decisions from a President. The use of stem cells, the prohibition of torture, the closing of Guantanamo...it's like waking from a nightmare...

to FreeSpeech | 5:48 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

Actually govt funded research happens all the time and is necessary. Business will go where the obvious money is but not necessarily where the best long-term solutions are. Many of the most advanced discoveries are made at universities funded with public money and grants from the govt. I completely agree with limiting govt's role as much as possible but there are some instances where the govt needs to provide direction (through funding) that would not otherwise happen. So again, the real question here is should the govt be funding something that may be morally wrong? It's a tough one. The Church has spoken on gay marriage; can they also tell me how to vote on this one?

arc | 5:56 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

For those that didn't like Bush, why didn't you give us someone else to vote for. Gore? Kerry? What did you expect.

If Obama would stay with some of the more moderate things on his website, we might have a chance of getting some good things out of him.

If he goes with some of the things some of the nuts he has hired to transition, not only will be worse off, you will see a GOP majority in both House and Senate in two years.

utah rose | 5:56 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

Adult cell stems work! so does the stem cells from the placenta, but nothing has resulted from using embryonic stem cells (baby cells). I resent the use of my tax money being used for that and for abortion.

President elect Obama said he would do this and he certainly is going by his word. If any of you are upset about this, remember you voted for him!

I would rather die than use a cell from a not-born baby---BABY not embryo, and the scientists that are doing this and politicians oking this will have a lot to answer for from their Maker.

Thank You Obama | 6:25 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

Wow. Change IS good.

some thoughts | 6:59 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

ï¿½If they want to do research, then do it with their own money and not the taxpayers money.ï¿½

The problem is, almost all research institutes, private and public, get money from the federal government. The ban on federal funding means that no resources bought with federal funds can be used in embryonic stem cell research. Some research institutions have had to build and stock completely separate facilities just for embryonic research. A waste of precious medical research funds.

ï¿½Firstly the science has shown that adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells are much more useful in actually assisting in treatments.ï¿½

That's because this type of research has been going on longer, it hasn't been stifled by federal restrictions. Most researchers in the field have high hopes for embryonic stem cells.

ï¿½No life is more valuable than another. You don't kill one to save another.ï¿½

Police do, the military does, when the mother's life is endangered abortion is a generally acceptable option, medical rationing chooses one life over another, we choose to spend our money for our own comfort rather than saving the lives of third world children. I would sacrifice my life for you.

more thoughts | 7:01 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

ï¿½They are trying to use an embyronic stem cell breaththrough to point to abortion being a positive.ï¿½

I am pro-life. I am pro-embryonic stem cell research because it might save my life, and the life of one of my children.

ï¿½The Church has spoken on gay marriage; can they also tell me how to vote on this one?ï¿½

The Church's official position: ï¿½The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not taken a position regarding the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. The absence of a position should not be interpreted as support for or opposition to any other statement made by Church members, whether they are for or against embryonic stem cell research.ï¿½ It's interesting to note that all five LDS senators voted in favor of embryonic stem cell funding.

The government funding things that some are morally opposed to-- many are morally opposed to war, to public schooling, to many things that government does. Pretty much everything that the government does, someone is morally opposed to.

The economics... the faster we cure disease, the more money we'll save. Accelerating, facilitating research is good economics. And it saves lives.

fred flinstone | 7:11 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

What doesn't seem to be addressed so far is that the burning Bush already federally mandated the research use of stem cells. The only problem with his mandate is that is was DOA because the lines that he provided for this research were "tainted." The new administration is merely providing viable "lines" from which the work can be accomplished.

Of course, scientific research is always going to make people uncomfortable, just like the first cars and planes did way back when. But since America preaches the gospel of improvement, we'll just have to learn to get over our discomfort.

Bryan | 7:27 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

To date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells have thus far been the only stem cells to treat any disease.

Taxpayer money should not be used to fund research that so many Americans believe is immoral and which has resulted in no successful medical treatments.

K | 10:36 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

Some thoughts,
If we cared about the children in 3rd world countries we would stop planting biofuels, suddenly taking land away from the food supply so we can fill our tank up for less and feel really good about ourselves. And the mom and dad in the 3rd who spent $1 a day on food now spend $1.40 of their $2 income.

It's the same thing we did when we took the effective stuff out of the mosquito spray. We give them a mosquito net and think that is doing our part preventing them from getting malaria. We could have long since wiped out the disease. We feel like we did something great from the environment, hopefully have lowered cancer rates for people in their 50's and in the meantime how many kids don't live past the age of 5 in 3rd world nations due to malaria? Tell me a parent in the US would be satisfied with only a mosquito net over their kids bed at night to prevent malaria?

Valuable life: I'm Catholic. Deliver the child, give it care and comfort and do reasonable measures. If it's too early then that's how I die.

K | 10:47 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

to - to Free Speech,

Well my church has helped make clear what is morally acceptable.

The 5 non-negotiables for Catholics, no for: same sex marriage, abortion, EMBRYONIC stem cell research, euthanasia and cloning not necessarily in that order. So my beliefs require that I urge all my government representatives not to use taxpayer dollars on these things because I would be indirectly involved in them.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.