I'm sending the following letter to the editor of Science News magazine
regarding a recent article on the use of pig fetal tissue vs human fetal
tissue as a treatment for pd. I personally don't see the use of pig fetuses
as being any less controversial than the use of human ones.  Neither appeals
to me either, and I intend to continue doing everything in my power to ensure
that I either never, or not for a LONG time, reach the stage of pd where I'd
even give it serious consideration.
 
Any comments from other pd'ers?
 
Wendy T.
*******************************
 
Letter to the Editor regarding:
"Pig cells used for Parkinson's Disease"
Science News, Vol. 148
October 7, 1995
                                                17 October 1995
Dear Sir/Madam,
 
I am writing this letter to comment on the recent article regarding the use
of pig fetal tissue for the treatment of Parkinson's disease.  First,
however, I would like to give some brief background information which should
clarify the reasoning behind the discussion which follows.  Other than the
fact that I have Parkinsons, I am an otherwise healthy, educated, productive,
and independent young (31 years old -
diagnosed at 27, with symptoms prior to that), single woman (currently an
aerospace engineer by vocation, and physicist with a Master's degree by
education), who is also stubbornly committed to maintaining my current level
of health and independence as long as possible.
 
Due in large part to the unique perspective I have on this disease due to my
relative youth and the still somewhat mild symptoms, the issues which hold
the most import for me and my future health differ from those that most
people with this disease are concerned with.  While obviously someone already
severely affected will be most interested in immediate symptomatic relief and
will support further research on the
standard treatments and upcoming possible ones (e.g., fetal transplants,
pallidotomies, genetic therapies, etc.), I am instead extremely interested in
addressing some more fundamental issues.  These are:  WHAT is causing this,
and HOW do we deal with it and its effect on us, all of which cut across many
areas.  In an
era of budget uncertainties, I also view this approach to be pragmatic, in
that resources from many government agencies (FDA, NIH - including the Office
of Alternative Medicine, EPA, NIEH, etc.) can be combined and used to combat
this and other similar illnesses, thus saving duplication of research, as
well as promoting an exchange of ideas from various disciplines to hopefully
speed up the path to a "cure."
 
My definition of a "cure" is more encompassing that that addressed by the
typical treatments aforementioned, which I personally consider to be more
like 'band-aids" rather than "cures".  I do not want to wait until I am
incapacitated to have my needs met.  To have my needs addressed would involve
simply maintaining my current level of functioning - I can successfully live
with what I've got as it now stands, with or without a "cure".  I want more
research, not only into treating severe cases where the
disease has already progressed, but also into ways to slow down or even halt
its progression, and ultimately into total prevention/eradication of this
disease.  In my view, should the link between pd and environmental toxins be
proven (and even if there needs to be some pre-existing genetic
predisposition to these toxins and/or this disease to make one susceptible to
their effects), it would be selfish to only address
our immediate needs and not address the root cause of the problem.  If we
simply focus on treating those who are already worse off, the cause will
still be lying there festering, continuing to advance our disease and to
cause it in other unsuspecting victims.  These issues are often overlooked,
due to their complexity and to the far-reaching impacts implied by their
solutions.  They must, however, be addressed, so that we can not only help
ourselves, but ensure that our children (and also all other life on earth)
are not stricken with diseases possibly caused and/or exacerbated by human
activity and toxic wastes.
 
In this same vein, although I have no moral reservations about the use of
human fetal cells in the treatment of neurological diseases (given the
obvious ethical qualifications are met), for a number of reasons, I do not
believe either human or pig fetal tissue to be a long-term solution or cure
to this disease.  First of all, like I have already said, I am most
interested in causes, prevention, and ways to slow/halt the progression.  I
believe that continual emphasis on these sort of cures detracts from the real
issues, which
will still remain even after one is 'cured' in this manner.  Secondly, I
personally do not want anyone else's brain cells, human or pig, replacing
mine, nor do I want to be on immunosuppressive drugs the remainder of my
life.  That is not much better than having to rely on taking one's Sinemet
regularly.  I want to work on saving the few I have left.  Also just as it is
unethical to abort human fetuses solely for their "medical"
value, I am adamantly against the development of animal fetus 'farms', where
animals are possibly impregnated, then their fetuses aborted, solely for
human use.  Let the poor pig keep its own brain cells.  If we are to use any,
we should use those of our own species, instead of continually treating
animals merely as commodities.  It's bad enough all the testing they must
endure for our 'benefit'.  I find humanity's concept of the value of life to
be disturbing.  It is possible that when (if) I ever get to that stage
of the disease where I would benefit significantly from this, I could change
my view, although it is unlikely.   I'd prefer to believe that I would choose
life for the pig, versus my own selfish interests.
 
For the record, I am not a vegetarian, nor do I consider it immoral to eat
meat for that is nature's way.  It is also nature's way that when an
environment has elements that are not in balance, nature will eventually
restore that balance left to its own.  Human activity, while itself a central
part of nature, has also upset that balance far to one side.  Perhaps the
possible link between Parkinson's and many other diseases to a
toxic environment, primarily caused by man, is in a sense a warning from
nature that she will exert her control over a runaway human species just as
she would any other.  Maybe it's a wake up call to look at the treatment of
disease from a new perspective, and in the process, hopefully reestablish a
balanced relationship with the earth.
 
One positive aspect I have personally found regarding PD, is the creative
inspiration it has provided me, as well as a renewed passion for
environmental issues.  I have attached a poem, which I have written in an
attempt to express my feelings on the issues already mentioned.  Since I have
already been lucky to have
been "blessed" (as some native cultures believe) with a chronic disease, I
intend to make the most of it, and continue my journey of personal growth,
accepting it for what it is, without admitting defeat.
 
Thank you for your consideration of my opinions and thoughts.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
 
Wendy M. Tebay
(NOT a PD Victim, but a PD Warrior!)