Research offers hope for the future

To the editor:

I have multiple sclerosis and am the mother of a wonderful, healthy son who is the most important thing in my life.

A short time ago, I attended a debate on Amendment 2 for stem-cell research. A doctor against this research was asked if he would feel differently about it if one of his children developed a life-threatening condition that might be cured by stem-cell research.

To my shock, he replied that ethically he could not accept the treatment. How can we as mothers and fathers tell our children that 50 to 100 microscopic cells are more important than those we have brought into this world and promised to protect? There is nothing ethical or moral about that attitude.

Those of us with disabilities know that it may take 10 or even 20 years before cures come from this research. It may in the end be too late for me, but what about my son? Many diseases, including my own, and Parkinson's are passed from generation to generation. What Amendment 2 does is offer hope for our children and grandchildren.

We know it will be a tough road to get to these cures, but remember that in 1906 influenza was the greatest killer among us. Thanks to science, look how things have changed.

It pains me to listen to the same backward excuses raised by opponents who object to taking advantage of the miracles God has made available to us with stem-cell research.

MARY MEYER, Jackson