- Share This Post
- submit
- 12
-
Sparkle (0)
Michael J. Fox, Stem Cell Research, Ethics and PoliticsI would like to add my point of view for what it is worth on several, though not all of the issues being discussed on Blogher and elsewhere. I am from Missouri and Claire McCaskill has made the Michael J Fox spot a cornerstone of her campaign. She has made stem cell research a key issue of her campaign.
First of all, my context. I support stem cell research and will be voting "YES."
Having said that, I drive down my street every day and look at sign after sign on the lawns of my otherwise kind and seemingly intelligent neighbors that say "Vote No Sponsored by the Missouri Coalition to Ban Human Cloning."
I am deeply troubled that people have been able to equate stem cell research with an endorsement of human cloning (which is actually specifically banned in the amendment), the fear of creating the Frankenstein monster (who I understand is making appearances in support of the ban). To my neighbors and all other Missouri voters I say, please go read the amendment; don't rely on interpretation. I would say the same to anyone casting a vote anywhere; and anyone voicing an opinion. Get the facts, read the source, and then make up your mind.
Regarding the Talent -MaCaskill campaign I have to say that the two of them are producing some of the most negative and offensive ads that I think I have ever seen...they are misleading,
their tone is offensive, they insinuate as much as they substantiate, and they are targeting fears in the worst manner; quite frankly, if the issues were not so important my inclination would be to not vote for either one of them. I actually fear that people will not vote because of this.
Regarding Michael J Fox, well I think people that are against stem cell research should see the devastation of Parkinsons that he personifies in the ad; some of us have seen it in loved ones and friends. Whether he was on his meds or off his meds for the TV spot is irrelevant to the issue of stem cell research.
THAT is Parkinsons and he is no longer able to continue living the life he was leading before Parkinson; if medical research was able to provide a treatment that CONTROLS his Symptoms well hooray for research and science. THAT is what we are talking about.
However, if he was not taking his meds while the spot was filmed, he SHOULD have said so; if there are meds that he is taking that control his symptoms that might have illustrated the progress that comes from medical research and perhaps strengthen his point. That would put him on the right side of full disclosure. Not that he spoke any words about his condition, but the intent of his appearance was to force viewers to witness his condition.
So, if he did not disclose that he was not taking his ususal medications that would diminish a very powerful and compelling message. That would be misleading. Rush Limbaugh said Fox was misleading, and accused him of acting or being off his meds. He later apologized and then retracted his apology and said he stood by his original accusations.
But, Michael J Fox says he was on his medications and I believe him. I have a relative with Parkinsons and I have seen the range of his symptom; but controlling symptoms don't change the progress of the disease. Only more research will do that.
In Fox's own words,"At this point now, if I didn't take medication I wouldn't be able to speak."
He also said, "The irony is that I was too medicated, I was dyskinesic. Because the thing about, the thing about being sympotmatic is that it is not comfortable; its like bing hit with a hammer."
So, my point is this" That it is surprising when I read things like Dana's words , "Michael J. Fox came into my living room through my television
a few nights ago. He showed me how badly his Parkinson’s disease causes
him to tremor, so that maybe I’d feel sorry for him and vote Democrat,
or maybe I’d feel guilty if I responded to his exploitation of his
condition."
Surprising because Dana sees it as
