Thinking non-destructively…

Can we be living in a world made of paper maché?
Everything is clean and so neat.
Anything that’s wrong can be just swept away.
Spray it with cologne and the whole world smells sweet.

– Dionne Warwick, Paper Maché, (1970)

Do some of us actually think medical research is going to be clean? Do some of us actually think there won’t be life lost in the pursuit of better life? I guess so.

GOP Backs Non-Destructive Cell Research
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Embryonic stem cell research that doesn’t destroy budding human life? Right now, it’s possible only in theory, or on animals. But those alternatives to the most promising stem cell science are enough to win the attention of anti-abortion Republicans and President Bush.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and other GOP lawmakers are considering legislation drawn from a report in May by Bush’s Council on Bioethics, which studied research that might carry medical promise but is in its infancy.

In some cases, the research is ethically objectionable, the panel wrote. Nonetheless, it said four types of studies “deserve the nation’s careful and serious consideration.”

Bush was receptive to funding the theoretical approaches rather than medically more-promising research that destroys embryos, three lawmakers who have discussed the subject with him told The Associated Press.

So theoretical gets all the lovin’ while promising research gets the boot? Look my dear humans. God-fearin’, atheist, and agnostic. There are stark realities in our life. One of those realities is that we are the best test subjects for ourselves. Not a monkey. Not a rat. Not an amoeba. Us! And there are many diseases and parasites out there that don’t give a damn how holy, how spiritual, and/or how moral you are. Those diseases and parasites will smite the wicked and wise. And they will conquer without building a kingdom. They are the ultimate anti-null force. The all-factor. All-consuming. Without regret or remorse and commands our undivided attention. We talk about the war on terrorism. That’s nothing compared to the war on our health waged by things we can’t see with the naked eye.

Do we believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few anymore? Have we ever? Cause if we don’t feel that way, how are we ever going to rid or limit ourselves of various afflictions? So the paralyzed, wounded, diseased, and afflicted must live and die that way because of our unwillingness to sacrifice for the many? God’s will? Not until you feel the pain or watch a loved one feel the pain. OK. OK. Give me the theoretical procedures that makes everything clean and so neat. Cause when it’s wrong (or we don’t like it) it can just be swept away. Spray some cologne and reality smells so sweet. Cause it’s all paper maché anyways. Flimsy, fat, and full of sugary sweet goodness.

Just like the good ol’ days…?

6 Responses to “Thinking non-destructively…”

1. Solotude (formerly The S-Train Canvas) says:

   July 1, 2005 at 10:21 am

   Random Friday morning thoughts (Inaugural Edition)

   I have come to the conclusion that I will never watch another boxing movie after watching Cinderella Man. Four words:…
2. Jerry McClellan says:

   July 2, 2005 at 6:24 pm

   Too Much Misinformation….
   T-Steel from Palm Trees In The Ghetto talks about stem cell research citing how President Bush is supporting supposedly theoretical stem cell research but won’t back research that has shown promise. According to an article he linked to, the GOP is considering legislation that will spell out some guidlines for researching utilizing Embyonic Stem Cells. Basically his argument implies that the act of researching to cure deseases and ailments is like a war and therefore some sacrifices have to be made to benefit the majority….
3. David says:

   July 3, 2005 at 1:24 pm

   No, “the needs of the many” do not outweigh “the needs of the few”. Our Bill of Rights is the most prominent of example of this. I’m not sure how far you are willing to take your own position. Should we kill an innocent person and harvest his organs in order to save five others? Should we be willing to sacrifice our lives (or the lives of our loved ones) in the name science? Should we encourage the practice of Nazi-style medical research? It may be true that science and medicine may advance further if we threw ethics out the window. Psychologists and Neuroscientists, for example, may make important discoveries about the human mind if they weren’t bound by moral considerations in experimenting. At a certain point, though, it’s not worth it.
4. T-Steel says:

   July 3, 2005 at 5:52 pm

   Nothing’s worth it anymore David. We say we are bound by moral considerations but we routinely overlook that in other matters of society such as our prison system. We are too damn inconsistant. My point is that we HAVE to make hard stances/choices for the betterment of us all. Nazi-style medical research? How about grabbing murderers with life sentences and doing experiments on them? What? Uh? Sounds unpleasant? Well we have no problem killing terrorists (which I agree with) so I see no problem with human experimentation on those that lost their humanity. Nasty, eh?

   But we could avoid all of that if we were SERIOUS about medical research and science in general. Not everything can be profit-driven. Not everything can be fiscally sound. But sometimes it is better to spend vast amounts of resources for an ultimate cure than nickel and dime our way to average.
5. David says:

   July 4, 2005 at 11:06 am

   The fact that we’re inconsistent about moral considerations doesn’t exempt us from them. There’s at least one important difference between killing terrorists and human experimentation on prisoners. One is presumably in self-defense. A criminal locked behind bars is hardly a threat to society. And I’m not sure we have the right to determine if he has “lost his humanity”. Your point about being “fiscally sound” comes out of left field. What does that have to do with human experimentation and terrorism?
6. T-Steel says:

   July 4, 2005 at 8:09 pm

   Fiscally sound has everything to do with alot of things. Our whole society is about profit. More plus than minus. The bottom line. In our war on terrorism, the factors of a lighter, faster military is based much on the dollar amount opposed to the cold war model. The profit or bust way applies to our health system. I submit that human experimentation is cheaper than a more moral and ethical way of doing things. To avoid human experimentation, I also submit that we would have to spend WAY more than what we are spending now in medical research to actually cure and/or curb diseases and injuries faster. Right now we are lukewarm on medical research. Our corporations want to do just enough for to get drugs out there too make money above else. That’s my “fiscally sound”.

   Our collective health should be a big deal. But it isn’t.