Saving lives is more important than saving cells.
by Brittany Schmidt
The ethics of stem-cell collection and stem-cell research have been debated for some time now. While many consider the process of obtaining stem cells to be immoral and expensive, the outcome of using them can be incredible and life changing. For Charlie Knuth, stem cells could save his life.
Charlie Knuth is a four-year-old boy from the Fox Valley with Epidermolysis bullosa, a rare genetic condition. His disease is caused by a mutation in his keratin or collagen gene, which affects the connective tissue within his skin. Without collagen or keratin, the layers of skin on his body are not connected properly to one another; therefore, any trauma or pressure causes friction between the layers and makes them rip open and blister.
Because this genetic condition is incurable, Knuth's doctor's only option is to make the boy's condition more manageable and comfortable. The best possible solution was to do a stem-cell transplant. Although it is a very expensive procedure, it was the only one capable of saving Knuth's life. Stem cells have the ability to develop into a multitude of different types of cells to help repair or replace damaged cells. The doctors hoped that Knuth's stem cells would help bind his skin together, making it stronger and more resistant, eventually saving his life.
Because they are easily transformed into skin cells, Knuth's doctors decided to use adult stem cells extracted from his own bone marrow. Although the doctors used Knuth's adult stem cells, there are two other ways to get them. One way is to collect umbilical cord cells when a child is born and then store them away until they are required. Many mothers are starting to collect and save umbilical cord blood at birth in case this type of stem cell is ever needed.
The second method is through the collection of embryonic cells. These are extracted from an embryo before the cells start to duplicate. Many anti-abortion advocates have argued that stem-cell research is unethical and should not be practiced because it destroys embryonic cells, something they argue is equivalent to killing a human being. Therefore, they don't believe this method should be funded for research.
I am pro-choice. There is no comprehensible logic behind the restriction of funds for stem-cell research through embryonic extraction. There is no justification behind saving a group of cells over saving a child's life.
While I realize there are other ways to extract stem cells, I think we need to do as much research into embryonic cells as possible. They are easily turned into any kind of cell needed, while adult stem cells typically turn into the cell they were derived from. Embryonic cells grow from the beginning and double in number every two to three days, giving the patient more cells and thus an increased chance of survival.
With the stem-cell transplant, Knuth is doing a lot better. Some of the blisters on his head and face are healing and he no longer requires a ventilator. This is just one case in which stem-cell research has enhanced the life of an individual, and is ultimately reason enough to continue research. The more we know about stem cells, the more we will be able to grow new organs for transplant patients. If we could use a patient's own stem cells to regenerate or improve the function of an organ, there would be less of a chance of an immune rejection along with a decrease in demand for tissue and organ donation.
According to the National Institute of Health, the need for transplantable tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases like Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease and diabetes.
UW-Madison played an important role in the isolation of the world's first embryonic stem cells in 1998 and has been a leader in stem-cell and regenerative research ever since. Stem-cell research is important and should be supported and funded for a multitude of reasons. It has endless possibilities and could make life-threatening diseases a fear of the past. If the potential of stem-cell research isn't a good enough reason for support and funding, then there is always proof in a little boy named Charlie.
Source: The Daily Cardinal
