Paul

I think your letter can stand on its own.  You have made this issue not only
clear but compelling too.  How interesting to be able to analyze the
ongoning arguements whether or not to use tissue of a fetus and compare them
with our acceptance of tissues from those who have had life. I think you
said something extremely  important that the general population might
understand:  Why is it more valid to respect the rights of an unborn
compared with the rights of those living trapped in a body that no longer
responds beyond that of a small child?  Am I  misinformed in  seeing you all
as the most important factor in this scenario?

audrey  * seattle*  friend of pwp in australia  48/dx 8 /10?


----- Original Message -----
From: P&B Fahr <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2000 5:56 AM
Subject: Stem cells/Fetal Tissue/NIH


> List members:
> The following is a letter to the editor of my local newspaper
> from 1994, the year my father died of PD complications and the
> year after my brother was diagnosed with PD.  Bob Martone's
> recent posting about a letter to NIH reminded me of this letter.
>
> Some of the comments about fetal tissue transplants is now
> outdated, BUT, with some minor editing the same letter would
> apply to stem cell research.  Research is a continuous process.
> Stem cell research evolved from those experiments in the early
> 1990s.
>
> Bob, you or anyone else may use any of these comments you wish.
> I stand by what I said then.  What I said is just as valid now.
>
> Also --- the following quote from a posting a couple of days ago
> makes a valid point.
>
>  "Would the people who oppose the research refuse the cure?"
> K-F Etzold
>
> There are people that oppose use of animals in research but if
> the doctor prescribes the approved medication or medical
> procedure they accept it.
>
> Paul Fahr
> +++++++++++++++++
> February 25, 1994
>
> The Feb. 24 commentary by **** ******* brings up many valid
> points concerning the conflicts of public policy and moral
> issues.  There is one point, however, where her position on the
> issue makes a moral judgment that is contrary to her position on
> the other issues.
>
>  Parkinson's disease affects thousands of persons in this
> country.  There is no cure.
> Progression of the disease can be slowed by some very powerful,
> often hallucinogenic
> medications but not stopped.  Unlike Alzheimer's or most cancers,
> Parkinson's disease
> is not a fatal disorder.  The patient still has their mental
> abilities but due to an imbalance
> in a part of the brain they slowly lose their ability to
> communicate, lose control of their
> bodily functions, and lapse into a "fetal" state.  They become
> 100% dependent on another
> human being for their very existence.
>
>   Research in foreign countries has shown that implanting a
> minute quantity of fetal cells
> into the affected part of the brain of the patient with
> Parkinson's syndrome can restore that
> person to a useful, productive life.  The results have been
> profound and well documented.
> The procedure has been the subject of a documentary on PBS.  The
> actively growing
> tissue from a fetus has proven to produce the best results.
> Tissue from a more mature
> source is not viable enough to reproduce effectively and benefit
> the patient.
>
>    You will note that the research has been done in foreign
> countries, not in the United
>   States where we have the best medical research facilities in
> the world.  That can now
>   change as of 1993.
>
>  I respect your position on abortion and will not argue that.
> What I question is your
> apparent position that a fetus is an important human being but a
> person 45, 50, or 60
> years old is not important enough to try to find a cure for their
> debilitating disorder--even
> with a potential solution on the horizon.  A person with advanced
> stages of Parkinson's has
> all the characteristics of a fetus--they are just 50 or 60 years
> older.  You apparently are
> willing to sentence a formerly productive, breathing, feeling,
> loving  person to life in prison
> in his or her own body.
>
>  Organ and tissue transplants have become an accepted method of
> using human tissue
> from a life that has ended to make the life of another human
> being more fulfilled.  I hear
> no outcry against the practice.  We do not question how the
> donated organ or tissue
> becomes available...be it by murder, accident, or natural causes.
> We accept it as a gift
> and use the resource available to save a life or make a life
> better.
>
>  The first step in research is seldom the final solution.  I do
> not foresee fetal tissue
> transplants as "the answer" to the problem.  The ultimate goal is
> to determine exactly how
> the process works so that an alternative can be found.
> Transplants are only a step in that
> direction.  The cure for Alzheimer's or other neurological
> disorders may result.  Let's give
> the doctors and medical researchers in America the opportunity to
> solve the problem
> without undue conflict.  You never know when you, your family, or
> a loved one may
> become the beneficiary.
>
>  The brain is a terrible thing to waste---whether it is 6 weeks
> or 60 years old.
>
> Paul E. Fahr
>
> ++++++
> The editor used the following headline:
>
> The brain is a
> terrible thing to
> waste at any age
>