Commentaries 

Executive Committee members and select Resource Council members periodically submit opinions and comments on topics currently in the news. This section provides access to those commentaries that are deemed most significant. Soon, you will be able to search on a topic and find only the commentaries that pertain to that topic.

July 25, 2007
Update Letter to TPRC Members
by Linda W. Flower, M.D., Chairman, Executive Committee

Last week I attended the Free Market Board Meeting in Dallas. As always it was very encouraging. Free Market, TPRC, Liberty Legal and the Fatherhood Project all have new websites. TPRC needs more funds to support more office help and an active presence in Austin (still limping along). We did have one major victory during the legislature and that was the demise of the HPV mandate. I was the medical expert for Representative Bonnen who authored the bill to end the governor’s mandate. It will be revisited in 2012, however.

The only pro-life success was some major funding for cord blood centers. We came real close to improving the Advanced Directives Legislation.

There were several other religious liberty victories, including the new Texas pledge which now includes "under God". Having Jonathan Saenz, Free Market legislative liason, stay in Austin for the duration of the legislative session was a major improvement. Now if we could just do that with someone from TPRC, we could accomplish so much more.

Now, until the next legislative session, we need to continue to be vigilant regarding issues such as advance directives, doctor’s right of conscience, stem cell research, sex education (and not exploitation) of our children, sex and violence in the media, abstinence education (got more federal dollars last week!), and pro-life progress (e.g, ultrasounds for clinics and educating folks in the dangers of abortion to women, human trafficking, human cloning, nanotechnology and transhumanism, etc.).

I am having an "Introduction to Free Market Foundation" dessert/coffee in my home on Thursday, August 9. They want to try to open another office in Houston. Lord knows Houston needs that kind of presence here! I have invited several of the local doctors to attend the coffee and will try to use it as a time to introduce TPRC as well. Kelly is coming to speak. Any or all of you are welcome to come join us for the evening. If you need a place to stay, just let me know and I will make arrangements. The invitation is below. We (Free Market) are having a fund raising dinner in Houston in October, so we will be looking for table captains. If enough of you can come, we will have a meeting or we can have it another day. If that still does not work, perhaps we can do a web meeting or a conference call.

I believe that Texas needs our organization, and with the right leadership and funding we can do a lot more. Each of you should try to attend either the CMDA meeting in Chicago next summer (June 18-22) and /or the July CBHD Conference. The spiritual refreshment and the increased understanding of what is at stake along with more tools to make a difference are what you will gain.


June 7, 2007
The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity Calls for Veto of 'SCREA 2007'

The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity calls upon the President to exercise both his moral resolve and his presidential prerogatives and veto immediately the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. Click the title above for the rest of this opinion.

April 24, 2007
For the Sake of the Cure
by Linda W Flower, M.D.

Once upon a time, in a land across the sea, lived two scientists who decided that some folks were just taking up space and diluting the country’s resources. So, in order to promote their idea, they wrote a book. Soon, others in a nearby country, picked up on the notion, having already decided that certain folks were less worthy than others. They wanted to have a pure race of intelligent, good-looking people. After maneuvering their way into political power, the purification began. First, under the guise of “good science” and “sound economics,” they quietly rid their country of those whose injuries from an earlier war had made them unable to work. Then they began getting rid of the mentally infirm, those with epilepsy and incurable diseases, and any one who could not work. This paved the way for them to begin the process of “racial” purification. Since these individuals were just going to be disposed of anyway, the scientists decided that it would be a good opportunity to do experiments on them that under normal circumstances would not be permitted and considered unethical. They decided that this was a way for science and medicine to discover new cures and ultimately save lives….

Seven decades later…

In many countries, scientists were trying to discover how early cells from animals, that don’t look different from one another, grow into certain types of cells and ultimately the organs that make up an animal or individual. Even though it meant destroying an animal at the early or embryonic stage in order to study these “embryonic stem cells,” it was reasoned that if they did understand this process, they might be able to cause these cells to repair damaged organs in fully formed animals. Now scientists have their eye on certain individuals - frozen embryos -that “are just going to be disposed of anyway.” They have already transplanted some of these human embryonic stem cells into laboratory animals. Their goal is noble: to cure disease and save lives. However, under any other circumstance (i.e., if the embryo were grown up), such experiments would not be permitted or even considered, much less ethical. That is, to deliberately destroy one individual to save another or others has been absolutely unthinkable before and especially since the testimony from the Nuremberg trials. Ethically, the process goes against the Oath of Hippocrates, the Nuremberg Code and the AMA Code of Ethics, to name a few.

Is there a better way?

For more than two decades, scientists have been using adult precursor cells or adult stem cells to replace the bone marrow in patients whose blood cells had become cancerous (leukemias) or whose immune system had failed to form properly. They reasoned that perhaps there were similar “adult” stem cells (early lookalike cells, precursor cells) in other parts of the body that could be used to repair other organs. Indeed, this type of cell has been found in almost every adult tissue, amniotic fluid, cord blood, and placentas. When some of these early cells - “adult stem cells” - are removed from the patient, they can often be “coaxed” to either repair other damaged cells or become part of the organ that is damaged and repair it. That’s why they are called “multipotent” or “pluripotent cells” (i.e., they can grow into more than one type of organ specific cell). When the adult stem cells are used to repair damage in the same person, there is no problem of transplant rejection (as there is with donor cells or donated organs). So-called adult stem cells are also found in the cord blood from newborn babies. What is so special about adult stem cells used from cord blood is that transplant rejection is not as big a problem and in some cases completely resolves. There are currently 72 different therapies using adult stem cells in humans that have been successful at least in experimental trials. This type of research has met with major success, is less expensive than embryonic stem cells, and the research has no ethical concerns.

Human experimentation, according to the AMA code of ethics, is permissible when the person can give informed consent, and when the individual who is involved has a potential to be helped by the therapy. According to the American Academy of Family Physicians Research Policy, all such experimentation is to be reviewed by the hospital or institutional review committee prior to proceeding. These codes and rules are apparently being bypassed when it comes to embryos, presumably because they are “microscopic humans.”

References:
AMA.org, AAFP.org, CMDAhome.org

April 2007
Don't Be Deceived
by Linda W Flower, M.D.

Many folks have been deceived by much of the rhetoric concerning so-called ”stem cell” research and therapy. Most of the confusion comes because there are two different types of stem cells.

Stem cells are “young” cells that are constantly being made and held in reserve within every organ system of the body, until they are called into action to repair the various tissues nearby. Although we have known about these cells in the bone marrow for years, the discovery that each tissue and organ has cells that can be transformed into cells for different organs or tissues represents a paradigm shift in the thinking as well as research since 1998. Stem cells derived from adults (or from anyone after birth), cord blood and placentas, are often called adult stem cells, or non-embryonic stem cells. They are also named according to the organ from which they are derived, such as spleen derived stem cells (SDSC) or bone marrow stem cells (BMSC). In some cases, like bone marrow transplants, the cells are donated from a matched donor. In other cases, they are taken from the patient who needs some repairs done on one of his organs, such as his heart, made to multiply and then injected near or into the diseased area. Also, hormone like drugs can be given to induced the stem cells already in place to multiply and repair damage, as has already been done with success in Parkinson’s disease. There are currently over 65 adult stem cell therapies available or in human trials.

Embryonic stem cells are cells from which the actual organs and body form. When they are removed, the embryo is destroyed, no matter what animal you take them from. There are many problems with embryonic stem cells. Their growth and transformation into new tissues is not easily controlled, so they tend to form tumors. They will be rejected as foreign tissue unless, it is postulated, you can clone the individual receiving the embryonic stem cells to prevent this. This has yet to work well in animal models, so why sacrifice embryonic humans to try? Human experimentation goes against innumerable ethical, medical and religious codes. The cost of just one therapy using embryonic stem cells from clones will be prohibitive. Embryos and human eggs will become commodities, bought and sold by those who can afford to do it. Also, the prospect of research on the human embryo in order to make more desirable, or “designer babies” as they have been called, is a temptation that is almost too good for some to pass up. Eugenics anyone?

Permitting experimentation on the embryos who are the brothers and sisters of living IVF children is simply not in the best interest of our culture, no matter what the “promised cure” might be. Scientifically we have understood for over 100 years that all animal life, including human life, begins at fertilization. If this were not the case, why would scientists be so fascinated by it? Scientists and biologists must remain objective, scientific and intellectually honest if they want our trust. Simply renaming an organism or calling it a “non-organism,” so that we can experiment on it, just does not cut it. Thinking people can see through the ruse.


February 27, 2007
TPRC Executive Committee Statement on HPV Vaccine
by Linda W Flower, M.D.

TPRC, after reviewing the literature and discussing the HPV vaccine and the mandate with numerous medical leaders, does not believe that the Executive Order issued by Governor Perry is the best way to proceed at this time. We concur with most major medical organizations that the vaccine Gardasil is too new, and the long term safety and duration of its effectiveness is unknown. A booster shot may be necessary. There are eight more vaccines against various HPV strains currently in development. We do not know if Gardasil will turn out to be the most efficacious or the safest. We do not know if it will be equally efficacious in boys and young men who also transmit the virus, but often have no symptoms. Gardasil does not cure existing HPV infections, does not treat HPV-related problems, does not reduce the need for screening exams or Pap smears, and does not reduce the risk of other sexually-transmitted infections (STI's). It is potentially a great step in the fight against cervical cancer. It should be the responsibility of parents and young adult women to decide if they desire to take advantage of this immunization at this stage of scientific knowledge. Hence, the public needs to be educated about the advantages of taking this vaccine. Parents and policy makers also need to promote abstinence as the safest, most effective means of preventing the spread of all STI's. More experience with this vaccine and more patient education is needed before making this vaccine a requirement for school attendance.