Stem Cell Veto

Pres Bush recently vetoed a bill from the Senate that would have allowed federal funding for stem cell research. He marked the occasion with a publicity photo, featuring himself surrounded by several couples with their children that they had "adopted" as unwanted embryos.

There are some facts that do not support Pres Bush's veto:

1) He has delayed medical discoveries that would have positively affected the lifespan and quality of many (or all) of the children in the photo. I am reminded of a poster by the Foundation for Biomedical Research:


2) Current IVF techniques were developed by experimenting with human embryos--meaning that the parents in the photo are to some degree protesting the science that made the photo possible.

3) Pres Bush delayed research that will improve IVF and other reproductive technologies. This has several implications:

a) Couples that cannot afford reproductive medicine will still be unable to do so;
b) Couples will continue to transfer several embryos in the hope that one or two will actually implant (most hope for twins, because IVF is so expensive). The problem is that in some cases, high multiples are achieved. Remember that in terms of infant mortality and morbidity, twins typically do fine, triplets are often problematic, and beyond triplets the outlook is usually poor. The couple is then faced with the option of "selective reduction," which means aborting some of the fetuses so the mother only carries one or two.
c) Couples that cannot be helped by today's medicine will still be unable to conceive.

(I also find it ironic that the same man that can argue that the benefits of war outweigh the costs (ie. civilian deaths and casualties), can also argue that the benefits of embryonic stem cell research do not justify the perceived costs.)