Column by Pam Lynn / The Malibu Times
Since when does taking a line straight down the middle of an issue turn a politician into a thoughtful, scientific scholar? If we’re to believe the White House spinners, our fearless leader has read extensively on stem cell research, consulted with experts and solved the ethical dilemma of using embryonic life to cure disease.
No matter how many people he may have asked about this, it’s hard to believe he really understands the complexity of the science or the moral dilemma involved. It seems likelier that the people he asked were more in tune with public opinion than cell division.
Chat shows abound with learned opinions (well, maybe not Jerry Springer’s) spanning the gap between full funding for research that could lead to breakthroughs in treating spinal cord injuries or Alzheimer’s and a ban on any use of embryos and any genetic studies that even hint of cloning.
The average American (if there is such an animal) seems repulsed by the idea of human cloning. “Dolly” be damned. They have urged their legislators to ban it, perhaps realizing (wisely) that one Rush Limbaugh (even one Brad Pitt) is quite enough, thank you very much.
Does this average American understand the possible ramifications of in vitro fertilization, surrogate parenting, or the selling of one’s eggs or sperm? Probably not.
Reading Robin Cook’s “Chromosome 6” is enough to give one pause about the artificial growing of organs in primates injected with DNA from wealthy future organ transplant recipients (no worry about organ rejection or finding a donor match). Yes, there is a shortage of organ donors and too many folks whose livers and hearts are failing (often from self-abuse). Does that mean we understand the moral dilemma of figuring out who deserves to get a new liver and who must make do with their original equipment until it expires? It seems we do not.
When we refuse to fund family planning clinics in foreign countries, where overpopulation is a major cause of starvation and disease, do we remove the natural mechanism by which populations are kept in check? Do we in fact promote overpopulation by genetically modifying crops to artificially increase the food supply?
In nature, animals produce offspring in direct proportion to the availability of food. In drought years there are fewer litters. If one feeds wild animals–the rabbits that raid our gardens, for example–they will multiply in direct proportion to that additional food supply. When they overwhelm our resources, do we then have the right to dispatch them? Do we consider this when we toss our wilted vegetables out onto the hillsides and watch the cute bunnies come to lunch? Most of us do not.
We mess with nature in so many ways just because we can, not because we should. When we have plenty to eat, we want to share with populations that don’t. But in doing so, do we remove the natural mechanism that keeps those populations manageable? And then do we withhold the technology that might restore the balance, on the grounds that it is unnatural, not what the Creator intended? Go forth and multiply, if you will, but not unless you can live with the result.
Did this benevolent Creator intend for us to accept our individual ability or inability to have children, or were we given the brains to circumvent these limitations scientifically? Can we accept that some of us are not adequately equipped to be parents, physically or emotionally, and let it go at that? Or is reproducing one’s own DNA, however defective, an inalienable right? Do we want our legislators and jurors deciding these moral and ethical questions for us?
Did the Creator intend for us to die when our organs wear out? Or did he give us the means to repair and replace them ad infinitum and the brains not only to figure out how to do it, but whether it’s right to do it and at what cost to society at large?
Can one who has not spent a lifetime pondering the contradictions of science and nature understand all this by talking to a few experts, by reading their learned papers? Can a conversation with one’s minister, or even an audience with the Pope, enlighten one sufficiently to resolve these issues? It would seem not.
Is it possible to cling to the middle and take the high ground simultaneously? Will the one straddling the center line become a prophet or road kill?