|
'08 Walk for Life * PICTURES FROM 2006 MARCH FOR LIFE * Pregnancy Centers          About Us Volunteer Donate Home |
Then came a flood of protest letters, including one from the Roman
Catholic archbishop of St. Louis. In Missouri, an entire fund-raising
committee resigned, dropping its plans for a gala ball. Donors who
opposed abortion said they could not support the destruction of human
embryos.
So now, just as President Bush is deciding whether to invest federal
money in embryo cell research, the nation's second-largest patient
advocacy group has gone silent. In fact, its board voted last October
not to fund the very research that it had endorsed only four months
earlier as full of promise.
The American Heart Association's reversal shows just how uncertain the
political waters have become as Bush readies his decision on the
research, which is expected in July. Bush, in his limited public
comments so far, has given every indication that he will oppose
federal funding for the research.
The American Heart Association stands as an example Bush can cite --
as a patient advocacy group that will not advocate for the research.
"This raises the question whether this makes it easier for Bush to
oppose embryo cell research, because he can say the American people
are unhappy with it," said Alexander Capron, a professor of law and
medicine at USC.
Several other disease advocacy groups are unhappy that the heart
association will not ask its force of more than 4 million volunteers
to lobby the White House to support federal funding.
Sean Tipton, spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive
Medicine, said "The heart association is influential in this town, and
we sure wish they would join us in the efforts to mobilize their
people for [embryo cell] research."
"It's a legitimate decision for them to make, but it's based on
fund-raising and not on science," said Douglas Melton, a diabetes
researcher and chairman of Harvard University's department of
molecular and cellular biology. "As a scientist, I can say their
decision is shocking."
Groups devoted to juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injury, Parkinson's
disease and other ailments are leading a campaign to persuade Bush to
support the research. Like the heart association, the American Cancer
Society --the nation's largest patients' group by donations -- has not
joined the coalition.
Officially, the national board of the American Heart Association
supports federal funding for the research, but the group is not
lobbying Bush for it, and it declines to spend any of its $133-million
annual research budget on embryo experiments. The route to its nuanced
position was circuitous and contained a few surprises.
Research using embryos became an issue in November 1998, when a
University of Wisconsin researcher first isolated and cultured a
special type of cell, known as a stem cell, that arises in embryos
several days after sperm meets egg. As the embryo grows, its stem
cells give rise to every other type of cell, tissue and organ in the
body.
The discovery of embryonic stem cells immediately raised hopes that
doctors could one day learn to grow them into replacement tissues for
patients--new brain cells for Parkinson's patients, pancreas cells for
diabetics and nerve cells for people with spinal cord injuries. Many
researchers looked to fertility clinics as a source of embryos, as
fertility patients often create more embryos than they need when
trying to conceive children.
In the spring of 1999, the heart association formed a task force to
consider whether to fund stem cell research. As part of its work, the
task force surveyed not only the science but also the opinion of heart
association leaders. It polled the 15 regional affiliates, the 13
scientific councils and various other committees that oversee the
group's management and programs.
The reports that came back generally cheered supporters of embryo cell
research.
Scientists in the surveys thought the heart association should fund
stem cell research. The regional leaders were split by geography.
Those in the Northeast were fully supportive of association funding,
while those in the heartland thought the group might pay a penalty in
donations and volunteerism.
"We thought there would be some objections to the research, but we
hoped that it would not be severe," said David Livingston, an
executive vice president of the heart association.
Last June, the task force presented its report to the 43-member
national board of directors, which voted to fund embryo experiments,
once ethical guidelines were completed and approved. But the task
force had miscalculated. It had surveyed the association at a time
when stem cell research was not widely debated or understood.
Shortly after the June vote, Pope John Paul II said that medical
techniques that destroy embryos are "not morally acceptable, even when
their proposed goal is good in itself." Senators began debating the
research, showing that people held widely divergent views. Pro-life
organizations began opposing the research if it involved killing
unborn children and began promoting a plethora of alternatives.
Regional affiliates of the association began reporting that volunteers
were threatening to quit. Corporate donors, wary of controversy,
suggested that they might also pull out, Livingston said. Among the
protest letters was one from Archbishop Justin Rigali, who leads the
Archdiocese of St. Louis.
"I think that we became more educated about the differing views and
how strongly those views were held," Livingston said.
Reconsidering public opinion, officials made a new damage assessment:
Funding stem cell research would cut donations by $9 million to $15
million in the first year and by $45 million to $50 million the next.
The association raised $485 million last year.
Officials worried that by funding the speculative work on embryo cells
they might lose money slated for other important research.
Moreover, officials worried that its volunteers would no longer be
able to speak at certain churches and hospitals, delivering the
message of how to prevent heart disease and stroke. And the group's
political goals, such as boosting federal health research funding and
requiring defibrillators in public buildings, might also be
jeopardized.
"We just couldn't let one area of research have an adverse impact on
the overall mission of the heart association," said Dr. Rose Marie
Robertson, a Nashville cardiologist and president of the association.
The association has agreed to fund research using various types of
stem cells that come from adults. These cells show great promise.
Looking to Bush's decision, Livingston, the heart association
executive, said he did not see much room for compromise between
supporters and opponents of the research. "It's hard to say there are
going to be all winners. Some are going to be unhappy, regardless of
how it comes out."
Source: Los Angeles Times and the Pro-Life Infonet
Be a TLC Lifeguard
Before You Leave...
|