Print

Print


Given the call for input from the public to the NIH Guidelines, and given the recent
letter to the NIH delaring that stem-cell research not be funded that Trent Lott
instigated and signed, as well as 20 other Senators including John McCain, and Pete
Domenici,

I felt the the following message should be sent, and the message after that be
repeated:

                            WHAT COULD BE MORE PRO-LIFE?

Senator Lott, et al.,

...Happily, parents, who would otherwise be childless, will receive the birth of a
child through the science of in-vitro fertilization, and cells used for research may
and can now, in some cases, mend and save lives.  Deriving stem-cells from embryos
remaining from in-vitro fertilization and using them for research, amounts to
mending life from a source that can't be used to create another whole life, but
could render a broken, dying life whole. It is a win-win situation:  What could be
better? ...  What could be more Pro-Life?

Again, as in the following letter sent last September, please reconsider your
continuous attempts to abolish vital stem-cell research.  Don't allow the far right
wing of the republican party dictate to the entire party, the entire Congress, and
disrupt the election-year debate.  Nothing could be more Pro-Life than stem cells
derived from remaining embryos after a couple has been given the opportunity to have
a child.  To put it simply, in vitro fertilization and stem-cell research is a
win-win situation. Would you abolish T-cell or stem-cell therapies currently used to
extend the lives of leukemia patients by several years?  Would you have banned organ
transplantation when it was being developed?  Would you refuse a life-saving
bone-marrow transplant for your child?  These therapies, too, were once unheard of
and feared.

With organ donation, sadly, a life is saved from a tragic death in most cases.
Happily, however, parents who would otherwise be childless, will receive the birth
of a child through the science of in-vitro fertilization, and cells used for
research may and can now, in some cases, mend and save lives.  Deriving stem-cells
from embryos remaining from in-vitro fertilization, and using them for research,
amounts to mending life from a source that can't be used to create another whole
life, but could render a broken, dying life whole. It is a win-win situation:  What
could be better?

Please allow the NIH and other research centers dependent on federal funding to
advance vital stem-cell research.

Kindly give this your reconsideration.


                                                     Respectfully,


                                                    Charlotte A. Mancuso
                                                     Palo Alto,  CA

...sent last September,  lightly reedited by author 2/16/00.


                                        Action Needed: Advocacy
                                        Wed Sep 29 11:14:31 PDT 1999

                                        HHS Appropriations being voted on today.
                                        Please, call your Senators regarding my
post:

                                        Charlotte Mancuso wrote:
Dear Senator Lott:

With respect, the Senate leadership needs to hear our outrage regarding the deletion
of stem cell
language from the HHS appropriations bill being voted on today.

It should be stressed that stem-cell research is for the good of all those seeking
remedies
or cures, not just for neurological conditions of which PD is just one; this
research holds great promise
 for diseases as  diverse as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and more, AND it would
save the nation, not
only $25 billion for PD costs, but several times that considering these other
disease groups.

Furthermore, as Senator Harkin pointed out, the NIH guidelines are approved; all the
ethical considerations have been examined and accommodated; and the use of these
stem cells derived from the remaining  fertilized eggs after helping a couple have a
child, is PRO-LIFE.  These fertilized eggs, which can't be used to produce more
offspring, are destined to be discarded.

Surely, you see the humane and religious reasons for not letting vital,  life-giving
cells go to waste when they can be saving so many lives.  Would you ban organ
donation too?

Kindly give this your reconsideration.


                                                     Respectfully,


                                                     Charlotte A. Mancuso
                                                     Palo Alto,  CA

--
Charlotte A. Mancuso
***************************************************
For advocacy, medical, and other PD-related material, go to:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/CurePD-NorCal