When ‘principle’ gets in the way of reality

Rod Haxton, editor

By Rod Haxton, editor

While attending a recent gathering of extended family, one individual commented that they don’t purchase a particular brand of soft drinks after learning that the company has helped fund stem cell research.

I don’t know whether or not the company sponsors such research. And if that family wants to live without those soft drinks in their home, or any of the other products which that company has a hand in making, that’s certainly their right. I don’t anticipate it will produce a particular hardship on them or the company they are boycotting.

But it does raise a question as to how far are you willing to go in order to carry out those principles?

The same individuals opposed to a soft drink company’s supposed financial support for stem cell research also have young children. It makes me wonder . . . if one of those children was diagnosed with a life-threatening disease and the only known cure had come about through stem cell research, would they deny their child access to this treatment?

Having been in a situation where two sons had a disease which eventually claimed their lives I know what my answer would have been. It wouldn’t have mattered if the medical advancements had been made possible through stem cell research or been passed down through generations of voo-doo doctors.

If that makes me a heathen, or means I’m forever condemned to a living hell by the religious right, I can live with that.

Is there any parent who would do differently? Really.

If a cure was within their grasp, is there anyone who would inquire, “Were any pets harmed in the manufacture of this product?” or “Were stem cells used in the research?”

Principles, however well-intentioned, are left at the door when faced with reality.

Stem cell research is expected to lead to revolutionary advances in the treatment of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, stroke, arthritis, cancer and burns, just to name a few.

It is also being used to help scientists understand why some cells develop abnormally and lead to medical problems such as birth defects and cancer. The goal is to learn how to prevent some of these diseases.

But if your faith prevents you from using these advances to save your child . . . or yourself . . . that’s a decision you have to live . . . or die . . . with.

This is a contradiction that goes beyond the stem cell debate. There are many within the Tea Party movement, the Republican far right, social conservatives and, quite frankly, the uneducated, who are equally conflicted.

What they consider personal conviction is mindless rhetoric. We’ve witnessed enough political silliness with demands that the government “keep your hands off my Medicare” or claims that death panels will decide whether grandma lives or dies.

The same people who say how much they abhor big government and its intrusion in their lives have no intention of doing without their Social Security check, their Medicare benefits or their farm subsidy payments.

You have no right to complain about big government, but then ask where government was while factories were polluting their drinking water, or a beef packing plant allowed contaminated meat to enter the market.

You can’t protest the cost of education and then demand that the state provide enough money to keep your rural school open, or make sure you have enough funding so you don’t have to cut teaching staff or a science program.

You can’t complain about the cost of government and then complain about the condition of the highway going into town, or whether the public works department removed the snow in front of your house quickly enough.

You can’t complain about too much government regulation and then wonder where was the government when our major financial institutions were taking down the nation’s economy.

You can’t be so ignorant or naive as to think you don’t need government, even though the Republican presidential field is running against government as hard as they’re running against President Obama.

The Republican Party claims it wants to dismantle major cabinet-level departments - from education to commerce to the EPA. That sounds great until one starts to ask who will pick up the tab for special education programs or cleaning up a contaminated site left behind by a company that has since closed its doors.

Any volunteers?

Without government, do you honestly believe that your food supply would be any safer, your highways any better or your social safety net any stronger?

It’s easy, as a matter of principle, to declare that you want nothing to do with stem cell research until the benefits of that research have an impact on your life, or the life of someone you love. It’s easy to shout down big government until you need the protections and the benefits that government has to offer.

Political rhetoric and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee.

Most of us choose to live in the real world.

Rod Haxton can be reached at editor@screcord.com