4
---
Friday, February 26, 1993
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
IN OUR OPINION
Ethical questions arise from fetal tissue research
Just three days into his administration, President Bill Clinton rescinded a restriction on federal funding for research using fetal tissue. This tissue came from induced abortions for transplantation. Not an entirely new area in the field of medicine, fetal tissue research in the United States has been limited because of a lack of federal funding from a ban imposed during the Reagan years. With the ban lifted, an arguably more complex issue than abortion has arisen.
Today, our legal system does not recognize human life until the moment at birth. This categorizing of an aborted human fetus as an "it" insofar as medical research is concerned leaves the door open to countless possibilities. The medical advances that have been made through the use of fetal tissue in combating certain diseases have been tremendous. Advances have been made in diseases which would still be leaving patients suffering without fetal tissue research.
Parkinson's disease is a prime example of the contribution this type of research has made. Experimental surgery that transplants vital neural cells from an aborted fetus to a waiting recipient has had considerable success in improving the motor functions and ultimately, the quality of life for former sufferers.
Yet, aside from the obvious benefits, the issue of fetal tissue research opens up a whole new can of ethical worms that forces us to take a closer look at the ramifications of this research. One of the toughest and most traumatic experiences a woman can go through is the decision whether or not to have an abortion.
Should one of the factors that go into making this decision include the possibility that her aborted fetus may contribute to another's health? And should women who have abortions have any say in determining what happens to the aborted fetus? If she does, and her aborted fetus is used for research purposes, is she entitled to compensation?
As research increases, the demand for more fetal tissue will undoubtedly follow suit, adding to the potential for the establishment of a private market. If research demands more fetal tissue than the regular rate of induced abortions can meet, is it acceptable to impregnate consenting women with the sole aim of using their aborted fetuses for research? All of these possibilities, under the protective umbrella of medical advancement, seem perfectly acceptable. In this case though, the scientific ends do not justify the means.
Looking at these examples under an ethical microscope poses some complex questions concerning our society's respect for humanity. While the aborted fetus is legally not a human life, it is definitely a human fetus from which researchers transplant human cells to a waiting human recipient. Condoning this type of research opens up countless other doors that have even the medical ethicists divided. To what lengths can we justifiably go to in obtaining a cure for a disease that has puzzled doctors for years without overstepping the ethical line into the brazen and callous use of the human body?
Allowing this type of research to go on without first weighing the ethical and scientific factors together is incredibly shortsighted, premature, and even suspect. With the abortion issue arguably one of the most divisive and volatile issues in our nation's political history; and considering the dominant role it played in the past election, one wonders if in making this decision, political consequences had priority over ethical ones.
SIMON NALDOZA FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Suppression of hatespeech is wrong answer to closed minds
The University Senate Executive Committee presently is wrestling with a statement against hatespeech. Jean Peterson, chair of the Human Resources Committee, said they were not trying to create policy — unlike the attempt of last year, rightfully overturned, that forbade hateful speech — only trying to reduce tensions that result from it. The solution, she said, is to open dialogue between those who practice it and those who disagree with it.
It's a worthy goal, but like so many idealistic endeavors, next to impossible to accomplish. For while we realize that stifling hatespeech infringes on the rights of those who practice it, we must also acknowledge the futility of arguing with them.
STAFF COLUMNIST
But we don't need — really just can't use — a policy or even a statement to
For most of us, it's almost instinctive to refute this kind of behavior because we are endowed with the principles of biblical "Do unto others..." and Hippocratic "Do no harm."
conquer hatespeech. Neither would be effective. We may vehemently disagree with those who practice it, but we won't change their opinions by arguing with them.
Most thinking people recognize hate speech when they hear it. From the Ku Klux Klan to the Fred Phelpses in our society, we are enraged and disgusted by their harangues. How can anyone, we ask ourselves, possibly believe this garbage?
The problem is that they do. And that belief is all. There is nothing any-one can say to change it. There simply is no dialogue possible with a closed
mind.
People who suffer from this affliction — I choose the word "suffer" on purpose — are so convinced of the truth of their words and actions that they are imprisoned in a world of exclusion and fear.
Argument and heckling simply adds fuel to the fire. Hate-mongers thrive on it. They are not shackled by logic or understanding or principles of fairness and equality. Those driven by religious beliefs, especially view contempt as a welcome "cross" to bear. They see insults as proof of their rightness and righteousness.
The best we as individuals can do is to make our own minds are receptive to consideration of others' ideas. We must really hear what these kinds of people are saying, because fair judgment of their words can be based only on knowledge of their viewpoint.
The recent flap over Rush Limbaugh is a pretty good example. The "dittoroheads," a self-imposed description of those who won't or can't think for
themselves, see him as a guru. Those with a balanced sense of humor hear his absurdity. Others simply ignore him.
And there lies part of the solution to hateseech.
The greatest, vilest insult anyone can pay to another is to totally ignore them. That action says, loudly and clearly, "I renounce your worth to my life. You do not deserve my interest, my time, nor my efforts."
No, ignoring a problem does not make it go away. Change does come about, but only through legal means that grant rights, not through suppression of others' rights, not through changing the beliefs of those who perpetuate the problem.
For while dialogue between rational people is a tool used to bring about change, no law nor policy nor statement will ever alter a closed mind. Never has, never will.
Cecile Julian is a Leawood senior majoring in journalism.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Kansan should have covered Godfather's CEO
A Kansan editorial decried the ignorance of KU students about African-American history and called for them to participate in the activities of African-American history. If found itronic, then, that the Kansan news staff deliberately channeled the appearance at the Union of Herman Cain, president and CEO of Godfather's Pizza.
Mr. Cain's story is one of success—the successful career of an African-American in the intensely competitive world of American business. Mr. Cain, a graduate of Morehouse College in Atlanta, became the youngest vice president in the history of Pillsbury Foods. He then rescued Godfatha's Pizza from a slow death and directed it to its current position as the fifth largest pizza producer in the country, and certainly one of the
most profitable. Today Mr. Cain not only runs Godfather's, he owns it.
Mr. Cain's story is one of ambition, dedication, hard work, and faith. It tells us that the recent history of African-Americans includes many tremendous stories of success in American business. Unfortunately, journalists often don't find stories of African-American businesspeople as compelling as those in entertainment or sports, but such stories are in fact more numerous and often more far-reaching.
Mr. Cain's speech, sponsored by the Minority Students Business Council, was one of the best I have ever heard by an American business leader. He strives to make a difference and to give something back to the communities in which his business operates, such as by working with over 500 economically disadvantaged teenagers in Omaha, Neb. His speech inspired students, faculty, and businesspeople alike who had the good fortune to hear him. I hope he inspired some of the African-American students in the audience to consider a career in business as an
exciting and rewarding way to make a difference. The recent history of African-American business suggests that the opportunities are great for those, like Mr. Cain, who strive to pursue them.
H. Joseph Reitz Professor of Business
Phelps kids not real story to tell of discrimination
In response to "Children on the line for God" by Will Lewis, Kansan staff writer;
I am appalled by the florid publication of the romantic article about the children of Westboro Baptist Church, Topeka, by Mr. Lewis in the Feb. 17, University Daily Kansan. I have lived my life tormented by the discrimination and persecution that the Kansan and find it hard to stomach the publicity they are receiving by the Kansan. Why not publish the real story?
I agree that the children of this
"church denomination" are on the line, but I wonder if it is for their so-called God or for the political aspirations of their leader. Since Mr. Phelps' appearance in Topeka in 1954, his political activities have only warranted suspicion and have been for one apparent reason, his own glorification. Mr. Phelps has a need to be noticed.
And unwarranted publicity is exactly what the 'Kansan' is giving Mr. Mhelp. As I type his name, I wish that I could be a letter writer. It's often been said that if youignore $ something long enough, it will go away.
I suggest that the Kansan report the story that really needs to be heard; one describing the hideous discrimination and the persecution of gays, lesbians and bisexuals; the truth that the Kansan group does not enjoy the same civil liberties that the rest of this so-called "free-and-equal" nation has.
Lesa A. Marbut Toneka
KANSAN STAFF
GREG FARMER
Editor
GAYLE OSTERBERG
Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
BILL SEEFT, Technology coordi
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator
Asat Managing ... Justin Knopp
News ... Monique Guelain
... David Mitchell
Editorial ... Stephen Martino
Campus ... KC Trauner
Sports ... David Mitchell
Photos ... Milton Rowland
Features ... Lynne McAdobe
Features ... Dan Schauer
STEVE PERRY
Business manager
MELISSA TERLIP
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing adviser
Business Staff
Campus sales mgr ..Brad Brado
Regional sales mgr ..Wade Baxter
National sales mgr ..Jennifer Porter
Co-op sales mgr ..Akish Hessel
Production mgrs
Ashley Langford
Marketing director ..Angela Cleverwagen
Creative director ..Holly Park
Creativity
Art director
Dave Habberger
surers should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and homework, or faculty or staff position.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed to reserve the right to edit or reedit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansa newscast, 111 Staffer Plain Hall.
Mystery Strip
by David Rosenfield