could stem cell research have saved terri?

Last week, the U.S. Congress set a new precedent in legislative timeliness when they gave Federal courts jurisdiction over Terri Schiavo's fate. Although ineffective, the law could serve as a model in the House and Senate for pushing through another bill that actually has the potential of saving other terminally-ill patients.

Embryonic stem cell research has been on the forefront of political debate for at least the past decade. Celebrity heavyweights Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve gave new public awareness to the issue after each was diagnosed with a terminal illness. The issue regained national attention last year after the death of Ronald Reagan, when his wife, Nancy, publicly supported national funding for stem cell research. She was later followed by her son, Ron Reagan Jr, when he spoke at the Democratic Committee Convention in Boston. Now, Terri Schiavo's condition in Florida raises new questions about the use of stem cells.

The benefits of embryonic research, though, are still relatively unknown. A recent article in Physiologic Reviews highlights the vast opportunities afforded by using embryonic stem cells, including providing an unlimited "source of cells for regenerative medicine." But just like any other brand of medicine on the cutting edge, there are significant downfalls:

Before therapeutic applications can be realized, important problems must be resolved. Ethical issues surround the derivation of human [embryonic stem] cells from in vitro fertilized blastocysts. Current techniques for directed differentiation into somatic cell populations remain inefficient and yield heterogeneous cell populations. Transplanted [embryonic stem] cell progeny may not function normally in organs, might retain tumorigenic potential, and could be rejected immunologically. The number of human [embryonic stem] cell lines available for research may also be insufficient to adequately determine their therapeutic potential.

Needless to say, it's difficult to say whether or not Terri Schiavo would have benefited from stem cell therapy. Yet, those of her biggest supporters, including Tom Delay in the House, and Bill Frist in the Senate, are both against Federal funding of stem cell research. The mixed messages go beyond Washington, as groups listed on the Schindler's own website, including the National Right to Life and the Legal Life Defense Fund, are openly opposed to embryonic stem cell research.

Besides prolonging their loved-one's life, the families of terminally-ill patients typically want to keep them alive expecting that a future therapy will be developed that could reverse their condition. Assuming that Terri's parents, along with their supporters, are also opposed to embryonic stem cell research, they can still hope for advances in adult stem and transdifferentiated cell therapy. Neither, though, has the same omnipotent potential, and like embryonic stem cells, both therapies are still in their infancy.

At the end of the day, neither embryonic nor adult stem cell research will benefit Terri Schiavo or Michael J. Fox. Practical uses for either cell line is at least 10 to 20 years away, by most conservative estimates. Rather, most important to those suffering irreversible diseases is augmenting the public's awareness of the issue.

The recent surge in national attention in the Terri Schiavo case should serve as a catalyst for Congress to re-examine the role of stem cell therapies in modern medicine.