August 26, 2009

tothesource: What does your new film, Lines That Divide: The Great Stem Cell Debate, have to say about the bioethical issues that are front-and-center in our current national healthcare debates?

Jennifer Lahl: Fundamentally, the bioethical debate is over commodifying human life. We see glimpses of this today as seniors consider the threat of their healthcare being rationed because of their age. There are ethicists and policy advisors who believe that the more years you have lived, the less years you have left to contribute. Therefore, less should be spent on your healthcare. You are only worth what you have left to contribute.

The core issue of using human beings as pure means to an end also surrounds the practice of using embryonic stem cells for research. The haunting question: is it ethical to sacrifice a nascent, tiny human life in order to help find medical cures for others?

Questions such as this grow all the more pressing amid today's healthcare-policy fray. President Obama recently overturned President Bush's restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Some members of the United States congress, such as Diana DeGette, want to allow the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to expire; the amendment prevents the use of federal funds to create human embryos, or to fund research that will harm or destroy a human embryo.

Finally, Francis Collins, whose current support of human cloning and embryonic stem cell research (when using leftover embryos from in-vitro fertilization practices) unfortunately remains in question, has been appointed as the Director of the National Institutes of Health. He is a thoughtful, evangelical Christian, and I am cautiously optimistic about his appointment. He recently stated that he is inclined away from embryonic stem cell research. He needs to fully reject ESCR and all forms of human cloning. As the debates over stem cell research and human cloning come to a head, he thinks it is crucial that the American public be well informed of the issues from the perspectives of science and faith. Collins asserts that it is not only valid, but also essential, that the faith community get involved in this discussion. His position, it seems, corresponds with the goal of the film: to inform Americans so that they can make educated decisions about these issues.

In an immediate sense, the specific motivation to make the film was New York State's recent motion to allow young women to be paid up to $10,000 from state funds for donating their eggs to research. It is deeply troubling to me that states, not just individuals or corporations, are moving toward paying young women to go through egg harvesting, an extremely dangerous medical procedure, so that scientists can create human embryos for research. Evidently there is no more pretending that there are enough “surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization labs that will just be thrown away anyway” to supply for research demands. This is a terrible development. It actually makes me nauseous.

tothesource: How has the film has been received so far?

Lahl: We've shown the film in theaters across the United States, and consistently receive two responses. First, audience members are shocked to discover that adult stem cell research is effectively treating people with medical conditions, such as lupus and multiple sclerosis (MS), right now. The film features several patient success testimonies that resonate powerfully with audiences. Sadly, the success of adult stem cell research has been under-reported in the media, which is why this film is so crucial at this particular moment. As Chuck Colson said, "The film spotlights the breakthroughs being made by adult stem-cell therapy—breakthroughs which are not receiving equal funding or equal media coverage."

Second, audiences are appalled when they learn that young women are currently being exploited for their eggs. Many do not realize that in order for scientists to do embryonic stem cell and cloning research, they need thousands upon thousands of eggs. A common solution: harvesting eggs from young women. Furthermore, people don't know what is actually involved in egg ‘donation'. It's not a simple procedure like donating blood; rather, the woman must take hormones to stimulate her ovaries, then undergo surgery to remove the eggs. There are serious medical risks involved, which comes as shocking news to many viewers since the media has reported very little about the dangers of egg donation.

People from both sides of the stem cell debate have responded positively to the film, especially as a tool for educating people about the issues involved in embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.

tothesource: You've been in the bioethical trenches for years now, writing and speaking about the dangers of egg donation. If you were speaking to a young woman about to head off to college, what would you tell her about egg donation?

Lahl: To this young woman, and to any other young woman considering donating her eggs, I would strongly advise against such a decision.

I would tell her that there have been no studies conducted to reveal these procedures' long-term effects on women. What we do know is that there have been significant cases of women who have donated their eggs and suffered serious medical conditions, such as breast cancer, infertility, and even death.

I would want this woman to know that the healthcare professionals involved in egg donation do not work with her best interests in mind. Their goal is to secure her eggs, and she is simply seen as an instrument. If she gets sick as a result of donating her eggs, few will advocate for her. She is not treated as a patient, meaning that there is no requirement for medical records documenting that she donated her eggs. Right now, there are virtually no laws or regulations protecting women who undergo egg donation. I do not want to see another young woman exploited and endangered for the sake of advancing research.

Responses to A Good Bad Example:

The article "A Good Bad Example" is rated 'poor' by me since it has presented "facts" in such a way, by leaving out some important things, that the Dutch health-care system -being one of the best in the world!- looks very bad. I think the article is misleading. As was the article on the English health care. It's obvious that you seem to have a problem with the health care plans of Pres. Obama. But it's also obvious you have a problem interpreting the rules and methods of other countries. We, as Dutch, on the other side, find it a big disgrace that the US allows people to go bankrupt, end up on the streets or even die because they are not insured. Since they simply cannot pay insurance.. Thát's something to think about, instead of bashing other countries that have had fine insurance systems based on Christian, social, care and love for others. To use arguments about active euthanasia is also incorrect. That's got nothing to do with the insurance model. It would be the same as arguing against your insurance model by pointing to abortion as being the result of that insurance system. Kind regards, - Rudy Brinkman, The Netherlands

Greetings from a neighbour to the north who came from the UK in 1965. The battle over health care has become very divisive in the US and sometimes Canadians are trotted out to give their view on either side of the arguments. When Britain's new Labour Party introduced the National Health system in the '40s I believe there was a similar broohaha, especially among the docs who saw themselves as business people entitled to set their own tariffs. In the end some opted out and remained private; others came in later. The UK continued to run private hospitals such as the great London Clinic, the Royal Masonic, the two I'm aware of. At the onset of national health everything was included, medical, hospitals, dentist, eye care including nasty national health glasses, prescriptions, etc., etc. Eventually as the system started to get overloaded, some small fees were introduced to try and ensure it was used by those who really needed health care. It has now become a two tier system with companies insuring employees and those who can afford it buying their own. According to the new president of the CMA Britain has made a determined effort to get the NHS under control and it now functions as it should. As for Canada, each province has its own medicare. When I came to Nova Scotia hospitalisation was covered but not physicians' fees. That changed a couple of years later. I believe a private insurer administered the system. It's paid for by our sales tax and federal government contributions. It doesn't cover everything but it does mean that no-one goes without medical care, when needed, with a few exceptions.(Overloaded ERs is one). Our biggest problem seems to be shortage of medical personnel.We have to stop sending our Canadian trained medical professionals south of the border! It does work even if it needs an overhaul like the UK. We now have more of a two tier system with private facilities operating side by side with the public ones. I know you would appreciate a universal medicare programme in the US once it was in place and it doesn't mean ending people's lives by so-called mercy killing. The Netherlands is a bad example. I hope legislation will be enacted bringing in a "Made in the USA" public health plan. - Jill Neily

My work says “Amen” to Francis Collins' beliefs For benefit of your readers, I have been a scientist for over 50 years, and during this time I have developed three Satellite patents. All of these were inspired by God (in my opinion), since I “stumbled” upon these inventions through an experience which I felt was like a veritable gift from God. This “gift” was obviously of such a magnitude that it could not have been given just to me, but was clearly meant for the whole world. Its structure and capabilities will change everything we do here on earth, and yet it has a clearly marked “signature” (so to speak) which is unmistakable – that “signature” will be clear to every Christian and even many non Christians as that of Jesus Our Lord. - Bill Grisham