 |
 |
At the risk of opening a new thread on fetal tissue research, I thought I would share this latest round of discussions that I have been having with many of the Texas Republican members of Congress. While very view of them have indicated that this issue will prevent them from cosponsoring the Udall bill, only one has actually agreed to cosponsor and that is Tom Delay from Houston, the House Majority Whip. While I have very little experience in US politics, it appears that the Texas Republicans are still sorting out how to deal with this issue. What follows is my response to a phone call from Congressman Delay's health aide last week regarding federal funding of fetal tissue research. If you are from Texas please call your congresman and ask him/her to support the Udall bill. June 24, 1997 To: Christen Simmons Nelson (health aide to Congressman Delay), Christen I have summarized my comments in response to your phone call regarding the Chris Smith bill. That bill as you know would prohibit use of federal funds for fetal tissue research. The basic arguments I used follow. 1. My wife and I are pro-life supporters and we have spent a great deal of time working through this issue. We believe there are two parts to the question of fetal tissue research. The first deals with the abortion question. On moral grounds we do not believe abortion is appropriate with a few exceptions such as rape, incest and the mothers life being placed at significant risk. However, our views on this are not relevant to the question on the use of fetal tissue. Fetal tissue use can and should be compared to organ transplantation. Once the first life is terminated whether it be accidental or on purpose , such as a shooting victim, there is an opportunity for a second decision regarding the use of the remains of the deceased. As we now know heart an lung transplants can and do save lives and current research clearly shows that fetal cells can be used to save a Parkinsonian and possibly other's from a long life of misery and a very unpleasant death. 2. To the suggestion that fetal tissue use would create a demand for abortion or would encourage abortion, we simply ask does heart transplantation encourage murder? There is no evidence to support such a conclusion and we certainly don't believe this to be the case. 3. To the question are adequate safe guards in place to prevent a market from forming in the use of fetal tissue. Laws were passed a few years ago which prevent profiteering in fetal tissue "sales" and also to prevent a woman from being able to designate a recipient for the remains .. 4. To the question of why not use ectopic or spontaneous abortion tissue . President Bush spent one to two million dollars in an attempt to determine whether this tissue could be reused and the results did not support reuse. 5. To the question about current research projects that are using fetal tissue. Approximately 4% of the Parkinson research dollars are going into fetal tissue research. This work has shown great promise and recipients are showing significant improvement in their Parkinson's symptoms. A recent audit by the GAO of these projects indicated full compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law. 6. Would the PD community support a ban on the use of fetal tissue in the Udall bill? For the reasons already mentioned above the answer is no . In addition my perspective as a laymen is that research takes place at many levels. If you think of these levels of work as levels in a pyramid , with the highest level being the closest to success and the lowest level being the necessary foundation for the upper levels, my understanding is that the fetal tissue is probably pretty low in the foundation but an essential component along the way. Will fetal tissue wind up at the top of the pyramid? It does not appear likely for a number of reasons such as cost, difficulty in obtaining tissue, testing for HIV and other potential problems, and the complexity associated with getting up to seven fetus's for each human transplant. Then why don't you just drop the idea? Because the pyramid or a significant piece of it would likely collapse costing a great deal of money and a tremendous amount of human suffering. People like my wife who has suffered for 22 years are just about out of time. Fetal tissue research is showing such great promise especially from the considerable knowledge that science is gaining regarding the transplant site in the brain, tissue survivability issues and much more. 7. In summary my wife and I as pro-lifers who do not see a moral issue with fetal tissue use and now know that there is much hope from the research that is underway, and that the guidelines for this research are being followed, can not and do not support the removal of federal funds from fetal tissue research. 8. Finally, in a purely hypothetical case, lets assume that abortion is illegal and it is determined that like murder it is a capital offense punishable by death. Do we really think that this will stop abortions anymore than capital punishment has stopped murder? Probably not, but it should serve as quite a deterrent. Now, with the deterrent in place an abortion takes place and the fetal remains are ready for disposal. At this point is there not an opportunity to make a humane decision and make the remains available for use in life saving efforts for others, just like the organ transplant programs that are now common place. We think in this purely hypothetical case even with significant abortion deterrents in place, there will be and should be an opportunity for a second decision and that is to save a life! Let me know if you have any more questions. Bob Martone Phone: 281-358-5168 e-mail: [log in to unmask] -- [log in to unmask] Kingwood, TX