Proposition 71

[Anonymous]

As a Christian living in the UK. I would ask everybody to back the Proposition 71. I feel that it is an important part of being a Christian to stand up for those who can not.

Allowing this medical research is very important. Stem cells can now be grown from nasal tissue which does not effect embryos! So I can see that by being being opposed to Proposition 71 would be un Christian like.

Remember Christ's teachings, The paralaysed man? What did Christ do? Did he walk away and ignore the man's suffering? NO.......... he did something incredible. We now all have a chance to make a difference and back Proposition 71.

In the UK we are ahead of the states in this research,

A christian in the UK

[Kurieuo]

As a Christian living in the UK. I would ask everybody to back the Proposition 71. I feel that it is an important part of being a Christian to stand up for those who can not...

So I can see that by being being opposed to Proposition 71 would be un Christian like.

I can see how Prop 71 would be elitist and egocentric. That is, a human life with all its human chromosomes and own unique DNA, should be used and destroyed for the benefit of those who have reached a more developed stage. I can see how supporting Prop 71 can be seen as un-Christian.

Bioethics aside... there are just too many things wrong with Prop 71 including fiscal, bureaucratic, scientific. Pro-life people aren't the only ones opposing the "initiative," but so are pro-choice (http://www.allianceagainstprop71.org/). There's more to this extremely poor initiative than bioethical matters. Adding 6 billion dollars on top of California's existing huge budget deficit is simply ridiculous. The large amount of money being sought for embryonic cell research would be better saved or spent elsewhere, in what would be more productive fields of medical research. Rich has written more about the issues involved at http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/stemcell.html.

However, to quote a Downloadable Facts Sheet developed by http://www.noon71.us/which outlines arguments against the proposal:
<blockquote>Venture capitalist and biotech companies have paid millions of dollars to put Prop 71 on the ballot to obtain taxpayer money to do research that private companies are unwilling to fund because of the low probability of success. This [following] describes the numerous bad provisions created by this constitutional amendment.

Costs
Prop 71 will take 6 billion dollars from the State's general fund—money that would have gone to fund vital state services like schools and roads.

Limited research funding
Prop 71 funds research only for human cloning and embryo destruction. If this measure were really about finding cures, it would fund adult and cord stem cell research, which is currently used to treat over 70 different diseases.

Who gets the royalties?
Prop 71 does not require that one single penny of patent and royalty revenues from future research be returned to California taxpayers. The “Institute” established by Proposition 71 may, at its discretion, have taxpayers pay 100% of the costs, and award venture capitalists with 100% of the profits.

Healthcare cost savings?
Supporters of Prop 71 claim that the measure will reduce healthcare costs. However, the costs to obtain the human eggs to clone one cell line are greater than $200,000! Factoring in the other medical costs would result in a cost of $500,000 to treat just one patient! This will promote healthcare for the rich and famous, but not those of us on limited healthcare plans.

Exploitation of women
The need to obtain hundreds of thousands of human eggs for research will jeopardize the lives of thousands of women, who will be given powerful and dangerous drugs to obtain their eggs. Dozens have died already and hundreds have been hospitalized through the use of these drugs.

Patient rights modifications
Prop 71 changes standards for patient informed consent and rights (required for all medical research studies and procedures). There is no medical treatment that should require compromise of patient safeguards and rights.

Hiding the purpose of Prop 71
Proposition 71 funds research to clone human embryos. Curiously, if you examine the text, you won't find any mention of human embryos. All the words are coded in scientific or vague terms to keep this information away from the California voter:

[Code words = Real meaning]
pluripotent stem cells = stem cells grown by destroying human embryos
products of in vitro fertilization treatments = human embryos
somatic cell nuclear transfer = cloning human embryos</blockquote>
To anyone who is able to vote for this, I see no great reason to vote in the affirmative. I would vote "No".

A Christian in Australia.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your post.

Firstly Iam amazed that as a Christian you are so bothered about money and the financial implications of Prop 71!
You say that it will take 6 billion dollars from the State's general fund—money that would have gone to fund vital state services like schools and roads, but surely 6 million dollars would be better invested in this much needed medical research than more roads!!!

Who gets the royalties? This is back to money and what and who makes money from this does not concern me. The main thing is that it has the potential to cure lots of diseases and help thousands of people.

Since when has taking eggs jeopardize the lives of thousands of women?
I think that nature (God) does this to every fertile woman every month?
Iam against the cloning of human embryos. This is not the area of reseach I would like to see being carried out, what I do wnat to see is Stem Cell research being carried out.

Finally
"There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world" (Psalm 19:1-4).


We all have a voice, and my voice would urge every person to allow this medical research to be carried out. We are on the verge of holidng the key to the cure of many diseases and ailments. Who know's what cure we may discover if we do not allow the research to be carried out.

Thanks.
A Christian in the UK
Nathan

[Kurieuo]

Firstly Iam amazed that as a Christian you are so bothered about money and the financial implications of Prop 71!

Do you know only 30% of the funds will be going into the research? I wonder where the rest would be going... To be able to make the statement you make above, you obviously don't realise the enormity of the amount they are asking for; money if spent, would be better spent in other forms of medical research. And understanding a bit about how organisations work, I can see that such high amounts would likely foster wastage as the organisation attempts to spend it all.

Who gets the royalties? This is back to money and what and who makes money from this does not concern me. The main thing is that it has the potential to cure lots of diseases and help thousands of people.

Embryonic cell research is over-rated into something that will produce a magic wand to cure everything. If this is the case, then why aren't biotech and pharmaceutical companies investing? As pointed out elsewhere, "The reason is that these companies do not want to take the risks associated with the use of embryonic cells in real patients. The downside is too great and the probability of success is small. If these therapies were going to work, the major biotech and pharmaceutical companies would already be investing millions to get a jump on the big profits that could be generated." (http://www.yeson71.us/merit.html).

Alternatives to embryonic stem cells also exist so one doesn't have to destroy the life of a human embryo. These are alternatives which are making headway and likely to provide better results. One alternative is now cord blood stem cells which have been found to be pluripotent (see http://www.jem.org/cgi/content/abstract/200/2/123 or http://www.noon71.us/news.html), that is, to be able to develop into virtually every kind of cell/tissue type (i.e., they offer the same appealing feature embryonic stem cells do!). I think it would be wrong to restrict all this money to one field (embryonic cell research), when there are other fields where this money would be better spent.

Let's take a look at the proclaimed diseases embryonic cell research claims to benefit, which remember are now also offerable through cord blood stem cells (which is also much less morally and ethically reprehensible). To quote another downloadable facts sheet:

Proponents of Proposition 71 claim that the research funded will cure a host of diseases. However, on their website, they fail to distinguish adult stem cell research successes (which are not funded by Prop 71) from the failures of embryonic stem cell research (which Prop 71 specifically funds). A recent scientific review admitted that “So far, there are few examples of ES [embryonic stem] cell-based therapy using animal models of diseases that have provided encouraging and promising results”.(1) Several diseases for which stem cell research will never provide treatment have been included on the proponent's list to artificially inflate the numbers of people affected by possibly treatable diseases to garner support from unsuspecting voters. Below is a list of diseases in which stem cells may or may not be useful for therapy.

<strong>Cystic Fibrosis</strong>
Successes have occurred using adult stem cells (not funded by this proposition) to generate new lung cells (2). Human cloning would be ineffective for this genetic disease.

<strong>Spinal cord injury</strong>
Both embryonic (3) and adult stem cells (bone marrow and umbilical derived) (4) have shown promise in treatment of spinal cord injuries.

<strong>Alzheimer's disease</strong>
Alzheimer's disease was thrown into the stem cell pot because it adds to the number of people who have affected family members. However, according to Michael Shelanski, Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain (Columbia University Medical Center), "I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small." Regarding stem cell therapy for Alzheimer's, Ronald D.G. McKay, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke says, "To start with, people need a fairy tale." (5)

<strong>Type I diabetes, Type II diabetes</strong>
Proponents cite studies in which cultured mouse embryonic stem cells produced insulin However, these cells were not beta cells (cells found in the pancreas), but of neurological derivation, and insulin secretion was very low and not glucose dependent. The reported "success" for embryonic stem cells was actually a dismal failure.6 Any stem cell treatment for diabetes would have to simultaneously solve the problem of autoimmune damage caused by the patient's immune system (which would destroy the transplants), making treatment difficult or impossible.

<strong>Multiple sclerosis</strong>
Numerous studies (including some preliminary clinical trials) have examined the use of stem cells in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. These studies have used adult stem cells7 (not funded by this proposition) or endogenous neural stem cells,8 but not embryonic stem cells.

<strong>Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis</strong>
A study in mice showed that cord blood stem cells (not funded by this proposition) are beneficial in reversing the behavioral effects of spinal cord injury, even when infused 5 days after injury.9 A 2004 review of scientific literature indicated that adult stem cell treatments showed promise for treatment of ALS.10

<strong>Heart disease</strong>
Both embryonic11 and adult stem cells12 show promise in treatment of ischemic heart disease, with adult stem cells being used this year in clinical trials.

<strong>Cancer</strong>
Cancer is caused by cells of the body multiplying uncontrollably due to genetic mutation or viral infection, in some cases. Stem cells would not be useful in therapy. This wide spectrum of diseases was added simply because there are a lot of people who have been affected who might vote for the initiative.

<strong>Parkinson's disease</strong>
Proponents cite studies in which embryonic stem cells produce dopamine in the brain of rats. However, only 50% of the rats had improvement of function and 25% developed brain tumors and died!13 Anybody want to volunteer for the clinical trials?

<strong>Mental health diseases</strong>
Since the cause of most mental health diseases is unknown, it is not known whether stem cells could be useful in therapy. However, since many people suffer from these diseases, it was added to garner additional support for the proposition.

<strong>HIV/AIDS</strong>
AIDS is caused by an infectious virus (HIV) that attacks the immune system. Stem cell treatments could improve the function of the immune system, but the effect would be temporary until the new stem cells became infected themselves. Adult (not embryonic) stem cells would be the preferred treatment, although improvement would be only temporary.

So my conclusion is embryonic stem cell research is much over-rated. Any benefit it would now provide can also be accomplished via much more ethical means (i.e., cord stem cells, which like embryonic stem cells, are also pluropotent), rather than destroying human life. And to repeat again, the amount of money they want for only embryonic stem cell research (none of the money asked for will go towards any other type of research making headway!), just seems totally senseless if it were not for some underlying motivations of special interest groups who would profit.

So again, vote "NO" for Prop 71.

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

Iam against the cloning of human embryos. This is not the area of reseach I would like to see being carried out, what I do wnat to see is Stem Cell research being carried out.

But there is cloning under the proposition. So if you're against cloning of human embryos, then you should be against Prop 71. They disguise "cloning human embryos" under the terminology "somatic cell nuclear transfer." Should this ethical rule you have against human embryos being cloned be sacrificed for Prop 71?

In addition, this is "embryonic" stem cell research. I'm am not dismissing all stem cell research (e.g., adult stem cells or cord blood stem cells I'd advocate) being funded wisely and fairly, but this is purely "embryonic" and I think funding would be unwise and unfair to other forms medical research making headway.

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

Just for those interested in understanding more on stem cells and cloning, there is a great online slideshow Rich has put together detailing the issues and so forth. So for anyone who wants to gain knowledge about such things: http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/stem001.html.

Kurieuo.

[Jac3510]

Wow, K. I'd never looked that much into the subject before. I've been against the proposition for ethical reasons alone, but you pulled up some pretty heavy info.

I'm curious, now, as to why anyone would want to vote for it? I suppose it's simply a lack of information plus a lot of propoganda, right? Who stands to benefit if the bill passes?

I'd vote no if I lived in CA . . .