I have mixed emotions about the President’s veto this week. While I am neither scientist or politician, the deal with continued stem cell research still seems like something worthy of continued support. It’s not that embryonic stem cell therapy has to be the answer to all medical problems and conditions; however, the research could potentially lead researchers toward other types of therapies and treatments that would successfully treat Parkinson’s, ALS, MS, and other chronic diseases.
I understand the moral and ethical issues of embryonic stem cell research; but I am not poised enough to even briefly comment on them. However, I do understand that when the word “incurable” enters one’s consciousness on a daily–sometimes hourly–basis, morality and ethics cannot balance life and death. If those who shouted the loudest against embryonic stem cell research were, God-forbid, given an incurable or untreatable diagnosis they would probably drop their rocks and split.
Yes, I do consider the sanctity of life a given, regardless of the “age” of such life; but if the research process has already started, why allow it to end without reaching a scientific conclusion? I ask this question because, again, the results do not have to point to stem cell therapy exclusively. The power of veto seems like an inappropriate response to a ship that has already set sail.