Judge Royce C. Lamberth Photo by Wikipedia
Pick up any current newspaper, and it will be filled with headlines showing how politics and ethics are perpetually intertwined. Almost every social issue raises a greater ethical question, forcing you to define what is and is not acceptable in our society. The question of where to draw the line, where the border between black and white lies, is constantly debated but very rarely solved. The battle surrounding the ethics of using embryonic stem cell research or disease treatment perfectly exemplifies these grey areas. Many Americans already have an opinion about the course of action they believe the government should take. A U.S. District Court judge made a decision in August 2011 to throw out a lawsuit against the federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. The effects of his decision are yet to be fully realized, but Nature Online has some arguments as to why this decision is just the beginning. Nature Online’s article “Safe, not Secure”, focuses on how Judge Royce Lamberth’s decision will be met with opposition from those who are against the use of embryonic stem cells while at the same time claiming that the decision should not be enough to satisfy those in favor of using these stem cells. As someone pro-life who is against the use of embryonic stem cells in the medical field, I find that this article’s arguments that the judge was simply falling into line, that Congressional funding makes this okay, and that scientists are leaving the field due to uncertainty present several logical fallacies to be dealt with.
If you think that judges are appointed to pick and choose the cases they want to see based on fear of a higher court, then you likely agree with Judge Lamberth’s recent ruling as presented by Nature Online. According to website, Judge Lamberth’s decision was good, but not quite good enough. The online science magazine supports Lamberth’s dismissal of the lawsuit claiming that “It matters little that Lamberth made clear he was only grudgingly falling into line with a higher court's decision in April — he was right” (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7358/full/476005b.html). This leaves readers angry because most readers believe that federal judges are not appointed to make decisions based on fears of appeal or to fall into line with other courts. This logic brings to mind a judge who routinely trash-bins cases hoping to shorten his docket. Surely this country deserves better from one of the highest offices in the land.
However, further research on this case proves that this is not the case at all. Unfortunately, Nature Online has used vague wording that makes Judge Lamberth seem unqualified in a manner that appears intentional. This article includes only information that makes it appear as if Judge Lamberth dismissed this case simply because he felt it would be dismissed by a higher court. In reality, Judge Lamberth originally issued an injunction, or halt, because he felt that President Obama’s decision to grant federal funding of embryonic stem cell research violated the Dickey-Wicker Amendment of 1995 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/health/policy/24stem.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1). The amendment states that the federal government cannot use taxpayer money to fund the creation of human embryos or the destruction of human embryos. Embryonic stem cell research violates both of these criteria, as embryos are created and later destroyed to isolate the stem cells.
I would agree with Judge Lamberth that this amendment is doubly violated by Obama’s executive order to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. Judge Lamberth stood by his injunction until President Obama ordered the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to issue a temporary lift of the injunction. This resulted in Judge Lamberth eventually dropping the case altogether. Which is the same thing I would have done had my judicial authority been disregarded in that manner. Apparently, the judicial system is no longer in charge of interpreting the law and the executive branch gets veto power over everything.
Nature Online goes on to allege that although there are those who feel embryonic stem cell research and use is unethical, “six successive, elected Congresses have seen fit to fund the research” and asserts that this makes it ethically acceptable. The author attempts to make a point that since Congress is elected by the people, the people approve of everything that Congress does. This is a stretch at best and certainly fails to capture the true essence of Congress. The same democratically-elected Congress that approved stem cell research funding also voted themselves a pay raise (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-09-Raise-me_N.htm). How many Americans agree with that? According to a 2010 midterm exit poll, seventy-three percent of Americans were unhappy with the job that Congress had been doing (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021540-503544.html). To me that statistic means that in reality, the majority of Americans disagree with Congress on a regular basis. This logical fallacy assumes that Congress as a whole is an honest legal instrument put in place to serve its constituents. Good one. The fact that we are even discussing embryonic stem cell research alone proves that humanity is not as ethical as one would hope.
As if the fact that Congress voted to expend revenue on this venture isn’t enough to prove to the entire country how worthy the fight for stem cell rights is, Nature Online also mentions a statistic of how expenditures on stem cell research have changed since Congress first allowed it. “[W]hat began as a US$10-million investment by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2002 has grown to an estimated $125 million this year.” This fact should astound anyone, whether pro, con or indifferent. In less than ten years the budget for stem cell research has increased by over one thousand percent. While commerce, agriculture, justice, education, transportation, homeland security and labor are receiving less money in the new federal budget, spending for stem cell research continues to increase at an alarming rate. So important programs for everyday life in our country are being cut, but there is good news if you have one of the zero diseases treated solely by embryonic stem cells. That’s right, to date over a dozen years of research on embryonic stem cells has yet to cure anything.
In the next paragraph, the author argues that the researchers working with embryonic stem cells “have not been able to count on reasonable and steady government funding.” I am curious as to how funding that was reported as increasing over ten times the original amount a mere six lines before this complaint is now considered to be not steady.
In the final paragraph of this article Nature Online claims that “It is unknown how many young people have shunned careers in the field because of the uncertainty, but is likely to be a considerable number.” This overly broad statement serves to shock the audience into thinking that young Americans are abandoning the medical field because they are distraught over the funding crisis in embryonic stem cell research. However, the author uses no evidence or statistics to support this claim. It carries no more weight than if I were to claim that it is unknown how many polar bears have stopped eating their typical fatty fish diet because they are worried about their figures. The ambiguous wording leaves a statement that can neither be proven nor disproven because it begins with the disclaimer that “It is unknown”.
The author of this article was aiming to make logos appeals of how much sense it makes to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. Instead the author delivers several flawed arguments that present logical inconsistencies and flawed reasoning, not to mention one blatant misrepresentation of the truth. The way that Judge Lamberth was presented in this article is offensive and seriously lacking in perspective. The various complaints detract from what should be the main argument, and readers are left thinking that the author is upset by the fact that a judge ruled in his favor but did not do everything in his power to further the cause. The overall argument is ineffective and should have been further developed.
Works Cited
"Safe, not secure." Nature. Nature, 23 Aug 2010. Web. 11 Feb 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7358/full/476005b.html>.
Harris, Gardiner. "U.S. Judge Rules Against Obama’s Stem Cell Policy." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Aug 2010. Web. 23 Feb 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/health/policy/24stem.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1>.
"Congress gets $4,100 pay raise." USA Today. USA Today, 09 Jan 2008. Web. 23 Feb 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-09-Raise-me_N.htm>.
Condon, Stephanie. "Exit Poll: Voters Unhappy with Obama, Congress." CBS News. CBS News, 02 Nov 2010. Web. 23 Feb 2012. <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021540-503544.html>.
No comments:
Post a Comment