 |
 |
Here are my thoughts on this issue. We should continue to pomote the original version. Chris Smith, Congressman from central New Jersey, has introduced a clone of the Udall Bill. This version, however, prohibits research using human fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions. As an advocate for increased Parkinson's research funding, this new bill has prompted a lot of thought on my part recently the distillate of which I share with you here. First let me reiterate that less than 4% of Parkinson's research involves fetal tissue transplants. This number was derived by reviewing all scientific publications over the last five years. My concern is that increased funding for the other 96% may be sacrificed by the abortion issue. An abortion is an activity which some feel is the taking of a human life and therefore should be banned. Transplanting human fetal tissue is an activity which some researchers feel can restore functions in damaged brains. The central issue here is how are these two activities related. Insight as to how these two activities are related can come from analyzing the components of these activities. These components are: the activity itself, the motivation for undergoing the activity, and the result of the activity. Obviously, the fetal tissue itself is common to both activities. It is the physical result of an abortion. Fetal tissue once aborted is a thing, an object. That it may have been a living organisms is no longer relevant It is in the same category as other transplants organs--hearts, lungs, livers, retinas, etc. Congressman Smith's legislation concurs with this position by allowing fetal tissue research from other than induced abortions. The motivation for having an abortion is primarily not to have a baby or in some cases the health of the mother and/or baby. There are serious ethical questions related to this activity. Relevant to the fetal transplant discussion is whether a woman would be motivated to have an abortion so as to make available fetal tissue for transplants. I believe that the actual occurrence of this motivation is extremely small and perhaps nonexistent. Congressman Upton's legislation, already enacted, deals with this issue. I believe that the current legislation is such that not one additional abortion should occur because of fetal transplants. If this disconnect between abortion and fetal tissue research needs strengthened let us address that issue. The motivation for having a fetal transplants is to extend and/or improve the quality of life of a person suffering a neurologic affliction such as Parkinson's Disease. I believe there is an ethical question here also. Is it not unethical to dispose of, squander material (in this case fetal tissue) which could save the life of someone already living? Don't the living have a right to life too? Particularly, if you can disconnect the fetal tissue from the ethical questions of abortion. With respect to the activities itself, having an abortion and having a fetal tissue transplant are not at all related. If your belief is that abortions should be banned, then pursue banning abortions. Please do not entangle research into finding a cure for Parkinson's Disease with the abortion issue. If you accept the above logic, the only connection is the remote possibility that a woman would choose to have an abortion so as to provide fetal tissue for research. If that common ground needs further attention then let us focus there. As a Pennsylvania resident an analagy comes to mind. Former Governor Robert Casey (a strong pro life advocate) had a heart transplant while serving as governor. That heart came from a man who was murdered. The fact that the transplants came from a murder is to some a similar situation to fetal tissue resulting from an abortion. Unless governor Casey had the man murdered or he was generically murdered to provide organs for transplants, I think most of us see no ethical conflict. I trust that those who have concerns about abortions and their connection with fetal tissue research are sincere. I hope that my comments are persuasive but if not persuasive at least might provide some common ground to go forward. If, however, some are motivated by some political expedience, I ask that you reconsider your position with respect to the human suffering (not to mention huge cost savings) that might be eliminated through fetal tissue research or more importantly the other 96% of Parkinson's research which may become entangled with this issue. Chris Smith, Congressman from central New Jersey, has introduced a clone of the Udall Bill. This version, however, prohibits research using human fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions. As an advocate for increased Parkinson's research funding, this new bill has prompted a lot of thought on my part recently the distillate of which I share with you here. First let me reiterate that less than 4% of Parkinson's research involves fetal tissue transplants. This number was derived by reviewing all scientific publications over the last five years. My concern is that increased funding for the other 96% may be sacrificed by the abortion issue. An abortion is an activity which some feel is the taking of a human life and therefore should be banned. Transplanting human fetal tissue is an activity which some researchers feel can restore functions in damaged brains. The central issue here is how are these two activities related. Insight as to how these two activities are related can come from analyzing the components of these activities. These components are: the activity itself, the motivation for undergoing the activity, and the result of the activity. Obviously, the fetal tissue itself is common to both activities. It is the physical result of an abortion. Fetal tissue once aborted is a thing, an object. That it may have been a living organisms is no longer relevant It is in the same category as other transplants organs--hearts, lungs, livers, retinas, etc. Congressman Smith's legislation concurs with this position by allowing fetal tissue research from other than induced abortions. The motivation for having an abortion is primarily not to have a baby or in some cases the health of the mother and/or baby. There are serious ethical questions related to this activity. Relevant to the fetal transplant discussion is whether a woman would be motivated to have an abortion so as to make available fetal tissue for transplants. I believe that the actual occurrence of this motivation is extremely small and perhaps nonexistent. Congressman Upton's legislation, already enacted, deals with this issue. I believe that the current legislation is such that not one additional abortion should occur because of fetal transplants. If this disconnect between abortion and fetal tissue research needs strengthened let us address that issue. The motivation for having a fetal transplants is to extend and/or improve the quality of life of a person suffering a neurologic affliction such as Parkinson's Disease. I believe there is an ethical question here also. Is it not unethical to dispose of, squander material (in this case fetal tissue) which could save the life of someone already living? Don't the living have a right to life too? Particularly, if you can disconnect the fetal tissue from the ethical questions of abortion. With respect to the activities itself, having an abortion and having a fetal tissue transplant are not at all related. If your belief is that abortions should be banned, then pursue banning abortions. Please do not entangle research into finding a cure for Parkinson's Disease with the abortion issue. If you accept the above logic, the only connection is the remote possibility that a woman would choose to have an abortion so as to provide fetal tissue for research. If that common ground needs further attention then let us focus there. As a Pennsylvania resident an analogy comes to mind. Former Governor Robert Casey (a strong pro life advocate) had a heart transplant while serving as governor. That heart came from a man who was murder. The fact that the transplants came from a murder is to some a similar situation to fetal tissue resulting from an abortion. Unless governor Casey had the man murdered or he was generically murdered to provide organs for transplants, I think most of us see no ethical conflict. I trust that those who have concerns about abortions and their connection with fetal tissue research are sincere. I hope that my comments are persuasive but if not persuasive at least might provide some common ground to go forward. If, however, some are motivated by some political expedience, I ask that you reconsider your position with respect to the human suffering (not to mention huge cost savings) that might be eliminated through fetal tissue research or more importantly the other 96% of Parkinson's research which may become entangled with this issue.