Can we for five minutes not politicize this courageous man's death and just send our prayers out to him and his family?

I was shocked and stunned to hear of his passing... my heart goes out to his family.

Respectfully,

Vic

No. Absolutely not. We cannot for five minutes not politicize the death of Christopher Reeve. The actor and activist was a person who had dedicated the rest of his life to finding a cure for spinal cord injury. The most promising avenue is stem cell research. If Reeve were alive, he would be promoting stem cell research and urging the government to support it to the fullest. I would be doing his memory an extreme disservice if I ignored what was most important to him in writing about him.

"...The actor and activist was a person who had dedicated the rest of his life to finding a cure for spinal cord injury."

...AFTER IT HAPPENED TO HIM.

How altruistic.

You are misreading Reeve. He was involved in political activism before he was injured. That included protesting the Pinochet regime at personal risk to himself. He also played a significant role in the environmental movement, particularly in New York. It is true that he came to advocacy for SCI after he was injured. I don't find that surprising. Able bodied people, in general, don't focus on being handicapped. The important thing is that Reeve focused his attention and resources on SCI research, not the timeline.

Many people become advocates for a cause after some personal tragedy.

Vic

President Bush does not oppose stem cell research; He opposes federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, beyond the embryonic stem cell lines that were already in existence. There is no blanket ban on stem cell research. In fact,research on adult stem cells continues and such research has already shown some promising results.

Reeves was an advocate for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. I think Senator Kerry would push for such funding if elected, but I am not really clear on that.

I believe most people in the field of SCI research think that embryonic stem cells are the key to regeneration. So, saying research on adult stem cells is acceptable is not adequate for their purposes. I would like to see a citation for a source in which Bush approves of any research on embryonic stem cells. Those I've read say he is willing to leave current research on adult stem cells alone. It seems doubtful that Bush could explicitly support any form of research on fetal stem cells and maintain the support of the anti-abortion movement.

I have a question: What is the difference between embryonic stem cells and those harvested from umbilical cords?

I would think those two type are pretty closely related... but of course I'm not educated on the subject.

Vic

Here is a cite to a CNN article which states that President Bush is allowing federal funding for research on existing fetal stem cell lines. It also clears up my confusion as to Senator Kerry's position on federal funding for stem cell research.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/07/dems.radio/

Please note that I did not say that limiting research to adult stem cell lines was "acceptable." I was pointing out that the blanket assertion that "Kerry favors stem cell research; Bush opposes it;" is not accurate. Both candidates are in favor of stem cell research. As for embryonic stem cell research, Presidnet Bush is limiting federal funding to those existing lines, while Senator Kerry would fund research on any lines.

Thank you for the citation.

The story, at CNN, says, in part:

Bush issued an executive order on August 7, 2001, limiting federal funding to projects using existing lines of fetal stem cells, a position supported by his party's fundamentalist Christian and conservative faction.

Questions:

What is Shrub's rationale for not axing current research on embryonic stem cells? Since the current lines were likely obtained from aborted fetuses, how does he distinguish them from others that would be obtained from the same source? Has he explained why he considers an executive order a proper method to decide what form of medical research should be pursued? Shouldn't more than one person decide such an important issue?

My understanding (which I will admit upfront is limited) is that embryonic stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses. They are derived from embryos which have been created for artificial insemination purposes. The creation of the stem cells destroys the embryo which some will argue is the destruction of life.

I believe that the distinction drawn by the President in allowing funding on the embryonic stem cell lines which existed as of August 2001 was that those embryos had already been destroyed. Nothing could be done to protect them. However, by not allowing federal funding on further embryonic stem lines, the President believes he is protecting the lives of the embryos which would need to be destroyed to create those lines.

The executive order pertains only to federal funding, and as such is a legitimate exercise of executive power. It does not prevent private funding for the creation of further embryonic lines for research, and as I understand it (with the same caveat that my understanding is limited) such private funding is out there and further stem cell lines have been created for research purposes. Congress could pass legislation to effectively overrule the President's executive order, but there does not seem to be any pending legislation.

As for only one person deciding the issue, it appears that Senator Kerry will reverse President Bush's executive order, so arguably one person would still be making the decision. However, as the next president will be elected in part as a result of their positions on this issue, those of us who vote have a say.

From what I've read, embryonic stem cells can be obtained from aborted fetuses, as well as frozen fetuses. It is the political controversy around abortion that prevents that from occurring, apparently.

With only 21 approved lines of embryonic stem cells, it is mindboggling that American scientists are barred from working on or developing other lines if they receive federal funds.

So, if I understand Bush's reasoning, he would also want to protect embryos that might be aborted. To do so would require overturning Roe v. Wade. The only way that would happen would be if he appointed justices who are anti-abortion to Supreme Court. Ergo, a vote for Bush would be a step in that direction, wouldn't it? For Bush stem cell research is inextricably intwined with the abortion issue. Unless people were to have abortions or create fetuses specifically to obtain stem cells, the two issues are severable, in my opinion.

Yes, the idea for anti-abortion folks is that an embryo, whether created in a laboratory or in a human, is a human life already, and therefore should not be destroyed for any reason.

Of course, many who believe that also believe that we should not be making embryos except by the old fashioned way.

The WaPo has an interesting feature story on Reeve today. It includes these grafs:

Even then, skeptics would shake their heads and, meaning no insult, call him delusional. And it is true that although he showed progress on several fronts in the years to come, he never realized his dream.

Perhaps that means Christopher Reeve was more Don Quixote than Superman, but he was a terrific Quixote. His example inspired a lot of people both here and abroad, and he raised many millions of dollars for research. And besides, how many people get to play both of those parts in one lifetime?

I think that may be the best response to the detractors. Reeve was willing to risk looking ridiculous for a worthwhile cause. Most people aren't.

For the record, I never expected a cure for paralysis by now. What I was hoping for was more progress. Even increasing sensation without movement would be a boon for paralyzed people. Many of their health problems are caused by not realizing what is going on with their bodies.

The WaPo has a full package on Reeve. The site now requires registration.