Funds from Terry Fox Run to Support Organization Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research
TORONTO, September 15, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The annual Terry Fox Run takes place this Sunday September 17.
Canada’s Terry Fox run is an inspiring and motivational fundraiser for cancer research invigorated by the loving memory of Canadian hero Terry Fox. Fox was diagnosed with bone cancer and had to have a leg amputated. Nonetheless Fox decided to run across Canada to help cancer victims. After over 3000 miles he was forced to stop as cancer had spread to his lungs. He died at a tender 22.
With that driving force Canadians have raised over $400 million for Cancer research through the annual Terry Fox run. Many schools empty on the day of the run as students take part in the event.
However, the fun ended for pro-life Canadians in 2002, when the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the sole beneficiary of the funds raised through the Terry Fox run, announced its intention to finance destructive research on human embryos.
The Terry Fox run website confirms, “The National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) is the beneficiary of the money raised from the Terry Fox Run in Canada.”http://www.terryfoxrun.org/english/research/default.asp?s=1
The Position Statement on Research Using Embryonic Stem Cells for the National Cancer Institute of Canada says it “will fund human embryonic stem cell research in accordance with the guidelines developed by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).”
The Terry Fox foundation has requested that funds it raises not be allocated to embryonic stem cell research, however such directed funding is ineffective as the NCIC can use other funds to fundÂembryonic stem cell research.Â
The Fall 1993 edition of Human Life Review argued against participation in such ventures. AlthoughÂthey promote some good causes such as fighting cancer, they also include support for moral evils such as embryonic stem cell research. The argument suggests that a man who asks for money to buy his son a baseball bat so that his son may play the game should not be given support if it is known that the man intends to use the bat to beat his wife. While the example is disturbing, pro-lifers point out that abortion is equally if not more disturbing than wife abuse. The argument extends to include providing funds “earmarked” to non-offensive projects. Giving the money to the man if he says he will use the money to buy dinner, and that way can use his own money to purchase the bat to beat his wife, is also obviously unacceptable.