Thinking About Christopher Reeve and the Legacy We Leave

by Sarah J. Flashing, M.A.

This week our nation mourned the loss of actor and activist Christopher Reeve. By now, it is well known that Reeve died of cardiac arrest after having been treated for a systemic infection caused by a pressure wound (more commonly known as a bedsore). His death was unexpected, as he had lived nine years since the horseback riding accident that left him paralyzed from the neck down.

Famous for his role as the heroic—though not completely indestructible—man of steel, Reeve will also be remembered for his courage and determination to survive and even to walk again. He became an outspoken advocate for spinal cord research, hoping that such research could deliver a cure to those similarly afflicted. Sadly, however, the legacy he leaves is not one that recognizes the inherent dignity of all life; rather, it is a legacy that values certain lives over others. Memories of Reeve will include his unyielding advocacy for destructive embryo research, which he supported in the hope of the discovery of curing disease.

Celebrities like Reeve and Michael J. Fox—who suffers from Parkinson’s disease—have helped bring the media spotlight on stem cell research. Unfortunately, reports on stem cell research frequently overstate the potential of embryonic stem cell research, understate the current widespread application of non-embryonic stem cell research, and obfuscate the vast differences between the two.

One can find reports that sound as if the discovery of cures based on embryonic stem cell research is imminent, giving false hope to many sufferers. Other reports champion the current application of stem cell–based therapies without distinguishing them as being non-embryonic. Still other reports lament the lack of funding for stem cell research, without acknowledging the fact that millions of dollars of both public and private funds are going into both embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research.

A number of conservative commentators have rightly pointed out the flaws in arguments favoring embryonic stem cell research. However, the principle of value and respect for the life of the embryo may be what suffers inattention in the overemphasis on the immorality of giving false hope to those afflicted with disease.

The fact of the matter is that even if all of the embryonic stem cell research hype wasn’t hype—if embryonic stem cell research was being used successfully to cure millions of people—embryonic stem cell research would still be wrong, in that it destroys human life at its very earliest stages.

Sadly, the legacy that Chris Reeve leaves subverts efforts to uphold the inherent dignity of all human beings at all stages of life. May our legacy be quite the opposite. CBHD