Sun Feb 12 2012
The Hudson Hub-Times carried a touching front page story "Cancer survivor credits stem cells" (March 7). It tells of how Diana Tirpak is surviving leukemia thanks to stem cells. And although this piece explicitly states that it was umbilical cord stem cells that were involved, I believe a critical distinction can easily missed here, even by a community as astute as Hudson.
There are two basic types of stem cells. One is adult stem cells (ASC) which include those from umbilical cords. The other type is embryonic stem cells (ESC) which are derived -- actually harvested -- from human embryos soon after conception.
All the controversy that you read about in the press over stem cell research is centered on ESC. Opponents to ESC research, like the Catholic Church, say it constitutes the taking of human life. Still other critics claim that the harvesting of embryos for their ESC parts demeans what it means to be human. For the record, I agree with both positions.
ASC research, on the other hand, is non-controversial. Furthermore, in spite of the wild promises for the potential of ESC research and massive government funding for it, it is only ASC that have shown tangible results, of which Diana Tirpak is a living example.
My message is this. When you read of stories of the medical miracles from stem cells, read closely. Invariable it will be ASC that have done the trick, not the morally objectionable ESC.
Peter Skurkiss
Stow
Comments
By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed.
Hudsonhubtimes.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Login above or Register to comment.
0 Total Comments Home | Back
Copyright Record Publishing Co, LLC. 1995-2011. All Rights Reserved.
Content may not be republished without the expressed written consent of the publisher.
Content may not be republished without the expressed written consent of the publisher.
Dix Communications