There are two amendments up for vote in tomorrow’s election that have a drastic impact on the health mission of Washington University. According to the plain language explanations of the amendments, Amendment 2 will, “allow Missouri patients and researchers access to any method of stem cell research, therapies and cures permitted under federal law. It will also set limits on any stem cell research, therapies and cures, including banning human cloning or attempted cloning.” Amendment 3, “creates a fund which will be used only to pay for programs to prevent and reduce tobacco use and to provide health care to low-insurance Missourians and Medicaid recipients and to cover administrative costs. These programs will be funded by imposing a tax of 4 cents per cigarette and 20 percent on all other tobacco products.” Because these amendments further the important goals of providing health care, Student Life urges votes in favor of both amendments.
There are two separate reasons for supporting Amendment 2. The first is on principle and the second is an issue of practicality. The failure of Amendment 2 opens the door to legislation that would ban stem cell research in Missouri. Success of future legislation banning stem cell research in Missouri will likely do little to stop stem cell research, but simply means stem cell researchers leave Missouri institutions like the University in favor of institutions located in areas such as Illinois where stem cell research is strongly supported. According to the Sept. 28, 2005, Student Life, after authorizing more than $10 million in state grants for stem cell research, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich wrote letters to several Missouri researchers including University professors, encouraging them to consider moving their work to the state of Illinois. This potential brain drain is clearly a harm to the University. The real effect of this amendment, then, would be that it would prevent the people from receiving treatment who are afflicted by diseases that could be cured by stem cell therapies but are too poor to cross state lines. Clearly, this is unjust.
Aside from the practical implications of Amendment 2, the amendment is worth supporting in its own right. The simple facts are that stem cell research holds the greatest possibility for curing diseases such as Parkinson’s, diabetes, ALS and Alzheimer’s and could help negate the effects of severe spinal cord injuries, strokes, heart attacks and cancer. Combined, these painful and life-taking diseases account for a significant amount of suffering worldwide and in the United States, and the possibility of stem cell research to save these lives should be investigated. University research scientist Steven Teitelbaum commented in the Spring 2005 Washington University magazine on a specific type of stem cell research Missouri opponents wanted to ban, saying, “As a physician, I could NOT sit across from a patient with Parkinson’s disease and say to that father or mother or neighbor: ‘Investigating a promising way to save your life is just not worth using a pinpoint-sized ball of undifferentiated skin cells derived from an unfertilized egg and a simple skin cell.’ ” For the sake of these individuals, the ability to conduct and benefit from stem cell research should be protected.
Unlike Amendment 2, Amendment 3 does not offer hope for curing diseases, but it does still have an important effect on people’s health. Not only will the money help fund smoking cessation and prevention programs, but, as Chancellor Wrighton pointed out in his Oct. 23 letter to the University community, “experience in other states has demonstrated that raising the tobacco tax is an effective method to reduce smoking, especially among children and teenagers.” Even if the tax did not act to deter smoking, the funding for programs that will help reduce smoking makes the tax worthwhile. Though money from the tax would also be used to fund programs such as Medicaid, these programs are necessary to provide health care to people who would otherwise go without and need to be funded in some way. Because taxing cigarettes is likely to also deter usage and as a result prevent cancer related to smoking, getting this money by taxing cigarettes seems like a win-win proposal that will only improve health.
Because preserving health is such an important issue, and the products of one or both of these amendments will likely affect the health of a large number of Americans and students now or at some point in the future, students should vote in favor of these amendments.