Owen and Reeve Debate Killing Embryos

By NRL News Staff

Two disability advocates confronted each other at a Senate subcommittee hearing April 26 in a spirited, troubling debate over the morality of killing human embryos to obtain their "stem cells" in the pursuit of a "cure" for disabilities.

Mary Jane Owen, executive director of the National Catholic Office for Persons with Disabilities, figuratively faced off against "Superman," in the person of Christopher Reeve. Reeve is best known for his portrayal of the Man of Steel in a series of movies from 1978-87.

Because of spinal cord and neurological damage, Owen is blind, partially hearing, and uses a wheelchair.

"I am here to urge you: Do not, in the name of progress for disabled people, certify or justify the destructive harvesting of human embryos for stem cell research, a practice both immoral and unnecessary," Owen said. "While disabled people are interested in cures, as well as better tools for living, greater inclusion in society and other possibilities which will improve our quality of life, we are not so desperate for cures that moral considerations disappear."

Reeve, who was paralyzed in a riding accident, is actively lobbying to remove the current ban, which is intended to prevent tax money from being used to extract so-called "embryonic stem cells" from week-old human embryos. These cells can not be secured without killing the embryos.

Reeve is now a highly visible activist. His unrelenting drive to walk again is well known.

In a widely-reported rhetorical question, Reeve asked, "Is it more ethical for a woman to donate unused embryos that will never become human beings, or to let them be tossed away as so much garbage when they could help save thousands of lives?"

The two co-sponsors of S.2015, the "Stem Cell Research Act of 2000," quickly affirmed their intention to lift the ban.

Senators Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Tom Harkin (D-Ia.) heartily commended the three research scientists and the two disabled individuals who called for passage of this initiative, expected to be debated on the Senate floor soon. In contrast, they displayed little interest in the testimony of the three witnesses who asserted the act is illegal, immoral, and-in light of the ethically acceptable alternatives-unnecessary.

Because they have not yet differentiated and have not yet specialized, stem cells are thought to have the potential to develop into a variety of healthy tissues, theoretically able to replace various defective or diseased organs. Scientists believe they hold out exciting possibilities of curing or delaying many diseases and disabilities.

But these wonder cells are available in other sources besides fetal and embryonic tissue. For example, in the last few years scientists have found that adults can contribute stem cells from their own bodies.

This offers the added benefit that the body will not reject its own tissue. Such cells can be secured through routine surgery, donated by consenting adults, or found in plentiful supply in the by-products of the normal birth process.

Those who stressed these morally acceptable sources included Senator Sam Brownback (R-Ks.). In his testimony to the subcommittee, Brownback reviewed recent successful studies using these alternative sources.

In confirming the immorality of the proposed act, he cited the Supreme Court's infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which held that some human lives-in this instance, black people-were not as valuable as others. Brownback suggested future historians may find the determination that embryos have lesser value than other humans equally barbaric.

Brownback also addressed proposals to extract these embryonic stem cells from "surplus" embryos - - tiny human beings created but not implanted at infertility clinics. He was critical of the justification for destroying "excess" embryos because they may be discarded at some point in time. He suggested the same defense was used in the Nazi experimentations on "people who are going to die anyway," in the death camps.

"Clearly we must continue to fight to help cure disease and to alleviate suffering," he said. "However, it is never acceptable to deliberately kill an innocent human being in order to help another."

Dr. Frank Young, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and dean of the Rochester Medical School, questioned the wisdom of research which denies the sacredness of human life and noted that research can create evil outcomes. From his background in biological research, Young asserted that in many cases adult stem cells can be more easily controlled in their development than those harvested from living human embryos.

"The sacredness of human life is at the very heart of what we will be in the 21st century," he said.

Owen was the final witness opposed to the proposed act. "I have neurological impairments and have sustained spinal injuries," she said, "and while I enjoy dancing in my wheelchair, it might be pleasant to do so in what is considered a normal way."

Owen was adamant in her refusal to endorse the killing of tiny humans for possible benefit to herself.

"I am deeply opposed to any gain in my sight, mobility, or even my hearing if it was purchased at the cost of a single human life," she said. Owen told the subcommittee that she looks to promising research on adult stem cells, which, in animal tests, have restored function to damaged eyes and spinal cords. On the other side was Reeve, who discounted such moral concerns:

Those familiar with Reeve's career before his injury will recall his role as head of Creative Coalition, a Hollywood activist organization which advocated for "abortion rights."

In his effort to add a theological justification to the destruction of human embryos, Reeve read a letter signed by four theologians who support Senate Bill 2015.

Reeve made particular reference to the signature of the "Catholic authority," Margaret Farley, who teaches Christian theology at Yale. He failed to mention her involvement with the pro-abortion "Catholics for a Free Choice."

Illustrating how coordinated the hearing was, as chairman Specter called an end to the proceedings, he announced that a press conference with Reeve would follow.

Specter faced the C-SPAN cameras and asked all who had viewed this [biased] hearing to write to him and their senators to vote on which side had won the debate.

Owen eloquently summarized a concern not often articulated in this debate.

"I think we are terrified of disabilities, of disease,"as if to "postpone our mortality."

She explained, "Itravel alone,"meaning she depends on others as she goes, "and people thank me for being allowed to interact with me," the Catholic Standard reported.

Explaining the human desire for the ideal, she referred to popular plastic children's dolls: "We are not Ken and Barbie who, if defective, are pulled off the assembly line. Ibeg you to stop and think: Is the fear of disability so great in this nation that we have to resort to immorality?"