With all the histrionics about health care this summer, I find
it ironic that a potentially history-making medical
breakthrough
– one made here in the South Bay region – got lost amid the
political fury.
With all the histrionics about health care this summer, I find it ironic that a potentially history-making medical breakthrough – one made here in the South Bay region – got lost amid the political fury. An exciting advance in stem cell research was recently discovered at the Stanford School of Medicine, and I have a hunch it might one day be viewed as a radical turning point in human health care.
The Stanford researchers found that fat cells vacuumed out of the human body in liposuction procedures can be reprogrammed more easily than skin cells to induce what is called “pluripotent stem cells.”
With more than a third of Americans obese, our nation’s hefty folks can easily provide enough globular gold to supply all of our stem cell needs for medical research and treatment. I find it ironic that something like fat cells (a substance Americans produce in such abundant quantities) might turn out to be the key to advanced health care treatment.
The Stanford breakthrough also negates the ethical arguments against stem cell treatment presented by people opposed to using embryonic cells for research. With so many of us Americans on weight-loss diets, no reasonable person could suggest it’s sinful to use fat cells in this advanced medical field.
It’s too bad that the fat stem cell story got short-changed in the news coverage this summer.
If the Stanford findings prove to be of practical medical benefit, it will revolutionize medicine over the next few decades. It will also impact human society if millions of people around the world reap the benefits.
People suffering from prolonged illnesses such as heart disease, lung disease, organ failure, spinal cord injuries, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease might soon find cures from stem cell treatment.
Based on research done in the exciting field of regenerative medicine, stem cells even hold a promise as a kind of “Fountain of Youth.” At medical clinics that provide cellular age reversal procedures, elderly people might one day have the opportunity to turn back the clock and be blessed with the healthy vigor of youth again.
These promises of stem cell research sound miraculous. But a question nags my mind. Where will this path to a brave new world lead? We have important ethical questions we must start asking now if society decides to extensively use stem cell treatment on its members.
Believe me, the questions we face in the near future on where medicine proceeds with stem cell treatment will make this summer’s health care reform debate seem like a playground squabble.
I feel deeply concerned about what will become of a global society where youthful longevity might be so easily available from stem cell treatment clinics. If medical advances likely to be made continue during the next decade, people will find they have the potential of living as long as Methuselah – 900 years.
Should we encourage that kind of ambition? Should everyone be provided this opportunity to drink at the Fountain of Youth? And how will it impact society if people choose to abuse their bodies with cigarette smoking, recreational drug use, high alcohol consumption and excessive eating if they assume that stem cell organ factories can grow them a brand-new heart, lung or liver?
Countless more questions arise in my mind. With the projected growth of health care costs America faces in the coming decades, if it proves to be less pricey to place an elderly person through a regenerative medical procedure than to pay the astronomical dollars for health care in their last few years, should elderly Americans be required to undergo treatment?
Should only insurance companies provide the treatment as part of their coverage or should the government also participate? What if some people don’t want to undergo stem cell treatment to reinvigorate their bodies? What if, on religious or moral grounds, they want to proceed with the cycle of their lives as nature designed them to? Should on a “right to life” basis people be forced to undergo a life-extension from stem cell advances?
And if hundreds of millions of people double, triple, or even quadruple their life span thanks to future stem cell procedures, that would make Earth’s current human overpopulation problems significantly worse. The food and fuel and basic necessities for life people require will become precious commodities if our numbers expand exponentially because we are living artificially lengthy lives. The blessings stem cell treatment brings individuals might come with a curse for our planet’s environment.
If the stem cell research breakthrough recently made at Stanford proves ground-breaking for future medicine, it will dramatically alter debate on health care reform during the next decade. We would be wise to start addressing the ethical and social issues we face as we now pass through the portals into this brave new world.
