But as regards an illness that can only be treated by transplantation, there is a whole new area of guilt available, and according to medical workers, many patients avail themselves of this extra level of reproach. I’ve seen descriptions in the press of the emotional schizophrenia that can arise when an ambulance siren sounds in the distance. “Did someone die? Will I be saved?” After all, in about half of all transplant cases, survival can only come at the expense of another’s death. Data on the United Network for Organ Sharing Web site indicates that almost 12,000 transplantations were performed in the United States in 2000, of which half came after the death of the donor.

Most of us believe in transplantation. However, one of the true gut-checks in my life was taking my then 16-year-old daughter into the Connecticut DMV for her driver’s license test. The application asks the license holder if they are willing, should the occasion arise, to be an organ donor and to have their license so labeled. But 16-year-olds aren’t allowed to sign such a document for themselves; a parent must co-sign. Of all the times I’ve ever inscribed my name, that was probably the most disconcerting. Nevertheless, I signed.

I bring this up because we are now engaged in a great debate on the moral and ethical questions surrounding stem cell research, specifically whether such research should be funded by governments using general tax revenues. It’s a complicated question, but one that ultimately should be decided in the affirmative. This should be done for several reasons.

In all likelihood, this research will go on, one way or another. Scientists believe that treatments for Parkinson’s disease, leukemia, and other similar illnesses will be found as we learn how to trigger stem cells to produce renewed cellular structures that will allow us to heal organs. However, if we force this work to be carried out totally within the private sector, we will either never see it done or will pay dearly for the results. Public funds grant us all public access.

In addition, we should realize that we already have programs similar to what we’re proposing for stem cell research. We now promote—and even solicit—organ donation, and in one sense, that’s what this research effort is all about. From driver’s license registration to virtually every hospital emergency room, we have programs designed to promote life from the loss of another’s life. And while I certainly do not equate the removal of organs from a cadaver with the removal of stem cells from a blastocyst, the fact is that in both cases, we allow informed consent from an adult to cover those who are not of age to answer for themselves.

However, even having said that this research should go forward, we should do so with the awareness that, hopefully, someone, somewhere, has made an informed decision that these cells and their source should be sacrificed for our better good. And if we who might benefit from that sacrifice feel a little guilt, maybe that’s all right. In fact, maybe that’s even good for us.