 |
 |
I like the reasoning in these communications: Sorry if I cut out too much, but my earlier attempt with intact headers exceeded the length limit for posting to the List. WHH 56/38/37 Phillip, I'mnot sure why you raised this issue today but I wanted to share family's views with you in the event that you were not on the list in 1997 when we spoke out insupport of fetal tissue use. Regards, Bob Martone Date: July 22, 1997 Subject: The Udall Parkinson's Research Bill To: Senator William H. Frist - Chairman Public Health and Safety Subcommittee Senator Daniel R. Coates Senator James M. Jeffords Senator Paul Wellstone Senator John Mc Cain Gentlemen, I was just informed that S 535 "The Udall Bill" is being held up in committee because of the concern over the possible and likely use of fetal tissue in the search for a cure for Parkinson's Disease. As a baptized and confirmed Roman Catholic with 8 years in catholic schools I must speak out against the injustice that would result to those who suffer from Parkinson's Disease and many other neurological and spinal disorders by depriving them of fetal tissue remains. My two page summary of the issues is attached together with those of my son-in-law the Reverend Dr. William Bradley Munroe, Minister at the Brenham Presbyterian Church in Brenham Texas. Brad earned his degree in Divinity at the Princeton Theological Seminary and his doctoral work was completed at The San Francisco Theological Seminary. We would both welcome the opportunity to speak before your committee on this very complex issue. In summary we both believe that the remains of a fetus should be made available to save a life just as the remains of a murder victim should be made available for organ transplantation. I apologize for the short notice on this information. I have been fighting for my wife's life for a very long time, longer than any of you have had to serve our country in your current capacities. My wife has endured three brain surgeries and we are now looking at back surgery to fuse together vertebrae that have been damaged by the uncontrollable movements of Parkinsons. I hoped and prayed that this issue would not be confused with abortion which we are unequivocally opposed to. Depriving my wife of what could be the medical breakthrough that we have waited so long for also has moral and ethical consequences and I would ask you to open your hearts and your minds to help the many that suffer from this terrible disease. Respectfully, Use of Federal Funds to Support Fetal Tissue Research Prepared by Robert A. Martone careperson for wife Nancy who has suffered with Parkinsons Disease for 22 Years June 24, 1997 The following text was prepared for congressman Tom Delay's office in response to a question about fetal tissue research. 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 and 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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! July 16, 1997 To: Mr. Robert A. Martone From: The Rev. Dr. Brad Munroe Re: Fetal Tissue Research / The Udall Bill Mr. Martone, thank you for this opportunity to offer a Presbyterian perspective on the ethical issues of fetal tissue research. I have read your letter to Congressman Delay and agree with your premise that fetal tissue research is the moral equivalent of organ donor transplants. I would like to expand the scope of the ethical discussion to include some other issues from both philosophical and theological ethics. Let me say here that I am pro-life except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. Philosophical Ethics There are two dominant approaches to philosophical ethics: utilitarianism and the categorical imperative. Utilitarianism asks, "What is the greatest good for the greatest number of people?" Applied to the issue of fetal tissue research, utilitarianism clearly states that the greatest good is the physical health, social well-being and economic benefit found in a cure for Parkinson's and other neurological diseases. This would not be true if the fetuses were aborted for the purpose of harvesting tissue since, I believe, that tissue constitutes a life; however, because Congress has passed legislation banning abortions for such purpose, and because similar legislation also bans donors from designating a recipient of the tissue, the question of the morality of abortion is here secondary. If the abortion has already occurred, the moral question asked begins after the life has been terminated. From that moment, what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people? Clearly, it is to use the fetal remains for medical research. The Categorical Imperative asks, "What course of action would apply universally to all people in all situations?" Applied to the issue of fetal tissue research, the categorical imperative clearly directs the use of fetal tissue for research. The principle at stake is one of pragmatism. Even if I do not believe abortion is moral, what am I to do once it has occurred? Am I to turn away from the good? Or am I to alleviate the bad by yet pursuing the good? I believe the latter is pragmatic and applies to all people in all situations. What cancer patient does not seek treatment because such a bad thing as cancer has befallen them? The normal, ethical response of the cancer patient is to attempt to turn a bad thing, cancer, around by seeking treatment. In fact, it can be asked of the "purists" whether or not their response is ethical: how can one not seek a possible good when the opportunity presents itself? Theological Ethics The issues of theological ethics I would like to address revolve around the concepts of grace, judgment and conscience. The ethics of grace were articulated most clearly in this century by a German theologian named Helmut Thieleke who was active during the rise, reign and aftermath of Nazi Germany. As the German situation made clear, an ethical quandary presented itself: it was immoral not to seek the overthrow of Hitler, yet the overthrow of Hitler required violent means. What to do? The ethics of grace states that because we live in a fallen world, most if not all of our choices need grace--God's gift of forgiveness--because whichever option that is chosen will be tainted by sin. That is, very few ethical decisions are black and white but rather shades of gray. The grace question asks, "Given that both options are impure, which leads to the greater good?" Applied to the issue of fetal tissue research, the ethics of grace acknowledges that receiving tissue from abortions is not morally pure, but, once received, using that tissue for good purposes is a more ethical option than not using the tissue. If other tissue could be used such as ectopic or spontaneous abortion tissue, then researchers would be morally compelled to use that tissue. However, given that such tissue has been proven through clinical study to be ineffective, aborted fetal tissue is the most moral choice. The ethics of grace says, "Use the tissue and trust God's grace for your decision." The ethics of judgment recognizes that we will all one day stand before our Creator to give an account of our actions. Those who stand against fetal tissue research will one day stand before their Creator to explain this: why, when they had the opportunity to relieve the physical, social and financial suffering of millions of people, did they not do so? My guess is that opponents of fetal tissue research will answer that they were standing against abortion and the slaughter of babies. This would be morally justifiable if it were true; unfortunately it is not. Whether one likes it or not, abortion is legal in this country and abortions will occur. Moreover, the use of fetal tissue in research does not create the desire for abortion. Rather, it is a woman's physical, emotional, financial and/or social stress that leads her to choose to terminate her pregnancy. How many women think to themselves, "I really should carry to term, but if I abort, then my baby's tissue can be used for research?" Please, the notion that fetal tissue is an issue in any decision for abortion is both offensive and absurd. The ethics of conscience require that a person's autonomy of conscience be kept free. In the Presbyterian tradition, one of our most sacred principles says, "God alone is Lord of the conscience." We accept that two Christians can be both faithful and both intelligent, and yet disagree. Therefore, in matters of ethics where there is no clear word of Scripture, (and sometimes even when there is), we do not bind the conscience. The ethics of conscience applies to the issue of fetal tissue research in two ways. First, it is inappropriate for a particular segment of the Church or the populace to bind the conscience of intelligent people of good will, particularly when discussing the issue of how to care for the remains of a fetus after the fact of an abortion has already occurred. Second, if fetal tissue is to be used in research, somewhere in the legal mechanism the woman whose fetus is aborted must be given the choice to authorize use or disallow use of the remains for research purposes. Without such permission, it would be unethical to use any tissue. It is not uncommon for pastors, priests and rabbis to be asked to conduct funerals for babies who are miscarried; the sanctity of the woman's decision's must be maintained in all such circumstances. An analogy would be using a murder or accident victim's organs for transplant without either the victim's or family's prior permission. Mr. Martone, I urge you to continue your efforts in support of the Udall bill. I hope members of Congress will rise above politics to do the right thing for the millions of people who suffer the ravages of Parkinson's Disease. Please feel free to pass this note along to anyone you think might benefit from it. Also, if there is a need to contact me directly, you or another interested party can reach me by phone at (409) 836-7632 or by email at [log in to unmask] May God bless your efforts. Sincerely, The Rev. Dr. Brad Munroe Brenham, Texas Phone 409-836-7632 Subject: Re: Study: Fetal cells ease life for Parkinson's patients Following is a portions of a letter which I submitted to The Sheboygan Press in the Letters To The Editor. It was printed on December 11, 1992 It was in response to an article entitled "Fetal tissue research looks promising " by a columnist by the name of Joan Beck. It was my opinion in 1992 and it is one which I feel even stronger about today. I quote the letter in part: KILLING A FETUS NO SOLUTION FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE ....................In one of her paragraphs, Ms. Beck states, "But such successes do offer hope that fetal tissue transplants can be an effective treatment for Parkinson's Disease..........." It would not and does not offer hope to me. I cannot even begin to consider that an unborn life , one that has not as yet enjoyed the love of family and the many joys of God's creation , should have to give up its life so that I might be able to possibly extend my 52 years with an improved state of health. ..........In the fetal tissue transplant, the donor must give up its life. You say, there is no life in a fetus as it has not as yet been born. Earlier in her column Ms. Beck states , "But fetal tissue is necessary for such transplants . Fetal cells can survive long enough for the procedure to be done." I think the key word in this quote is "survive". For something to survive, there had to be life as indicated in The American Collegiate Dictionary under the definition of "survive". ...........One person has already given His life for me that I might have a fuller life. It is His birth that we celebrate this Christmas season And that is the only life I need to have been given for me." End of article. I would be happy to mail a copy of the entire to anyone who would request it. Philip J Lammers 58/15 Study: Fetal cells ease life for Parkinson's patients 4/21/99 -- 8:35 PM http://www.tampabayonline.net/news/news100h.htm TORONTO (AP) - A controversial surgery which implants fetal cells into an adult's brain have helped many Parkinson's patients improve brain function and move better, researchers said Wednesday. The researchers studied 38 American and two Canadian patients who underwent such surgery, the latest effort in the use of cells from aborted fetuses to stimulate brain activity. The patients were randomly chosen to either receive a fetal cell implant or a placebo surgery, said Dr. Curt Freed of the University of Colorado, who led the study and presented the results at a meeting in Toronto of the American Academy of Neurology. Parkinson's, characterized by stiffness and tremors, destroys the brain cells that produce dopamine, a chemical that influences many parts of the brain. The fetal cells are used to replace them. ``We simply put in new cells where others have died,'' said Freed, adding it was the first surgical study of its kind. Over the year following the operation, more than half the patients who received fetal cells had a significant increase in levels of dopamine. But how long the improvements will continue is still under investigation. More than one million Americans suffer from Parkinson's, a degenerative brain disease most often found in people over 50. But younger people can also develop it. Actor Michael J. Fox announced earlier this year that he has Parkinson's. Most of the benefits of the operation, including better motor control, were in patients under 60, said Dr. Stanley Fahn, Freed's partner from New York's Columbia Presbyterian Hospital. Researchers believe it's because the aging brain is less resilient. Many patients were also able to reduce or stop taking medication. Toronto-area residents Judy Hazlett and Lynda McKenzie, who took part in the trials, said they struggled before volunteering for the surgery. ``I debated a long time before I decided to have the fetal tissue,'' said Hazlett, who was 29 when she was diagnosed with Parkinson's 20 years ago. ``But you have to realize it's recycled tissue; the woman has already decided to abort the child.'' Hazlett said the surgery has resulted in ``little but amazing changes.'' She can now sleep through the night, carry a spoon without dropping it, and hold her head up. She is also taking less medication. It's been 10 years since surgeons first experimented with fetal cells implanted in human brains. Since then, more than 100 surgeries have been performed worldwide. The U.S. trials, which lasted nearly five years, were funded by $4.5 million from the National Institutes of Health. They were the first to receive federal research grants in 1993, when President Clinton lifted a Reagan Administration ban on fetal-tissue funding.