|
WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH
by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke
CHAPTER 16
EXPERIMENTATION ON EMBRYOS, FETUSES
AND NEWBORNS
Experimentation can be carried out on the living human embryo before
or during his attachment to her womb; or to a fetus while he or she still lives in the
womb. Experimentation can also be carried out on the living human baby after delivery. If
the experiment (for example, trial of a new drug in treatment) is done for the possible
benefit of this specific living human, then it is ethical if the parents approve. If,
however, the experiment is done with the intention of later killing this living human to
determine the effects from the experiment, then a serious crime is committed against human
rights.
But if the mother has the right to abort, why not the right to
consent to an experiment? The child can’t live anyway.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, and the parliaments in some other
nations, debated the conflict of rights between mother and baby. By legalizing abortion,
they granted the mother the superior right. Through the surgery of abortion, she can
"become unpregnant." Once the mother and child are separated, however, if the
child is born alive, there is no longer a conflict of legal rights. Besides being alive
and human, the child is now separated from the mother and equally entitled to his or her
human rights and protection. The same should apply to pre-implantation embryos. Killing in
abortion (by law) should not extend forward or backward outside the womb.
Under what conditions can parents give consent for experimentation?
Parents who give consent for experimentation on their children are
assumed to have concern for their child’s welfare, and the hope has always been that
such experimentation will benefit them. Parents who give consent to have their child in
the womb killed, obviously have no such loving interest.
Legal tradition through our country’s history has always
forbidden parents to injure or allow others to injure their child. That is what
child-abuse laws are all about. If such experiment is not done to preserve the life or
health of the baby, the parents should have no right to grant permission.
Let’s
start with embryos. Is there experimentation?
Practices and laws vary in different nations. In Germany and France
it is forbidden. In England much is permitted. In China there are no limits.
In the U.S., Australia and Britain the push is to allow destructive,
live embryo experimentation until 14 days. In the U.S., President Clinton appointed a
special panel to make recommendations. Every member admitted favoring such
experimentation. Not a single pro-life person was appointed. In reaction, Congress refused
to fund the panel.
And on fetuses?
Not in the U.S. with tax money, but it is legally permitted with private money as
long as the baby is inside and the mother agrees. Laws in other countries differ.
For fetal transplants, are there special needs for the
tissues?
Yes, the older the baby the better; the more alive the better.
Excised tissues die quickly; therefore, immediate chilling or freezing has been tried, but
intact tissue or entire organs are needed. These are best taken from an abortion in one
operating room and planted in the recipient in the next room.
Are fetal tissues available, even without government funds?
Read this electronic mail:
"Human embryonic and fetal tissues are
available from the Central Laboratory for Human Embryology at the University of
Washington. The laboratory, which is supported by the National Institutes of Health, can
supply tissue from normal of [sic] abnormal embryos and fetuses of desired gestational
ages between 40 days and term. Specimens are obtained within minutes of passage and
tissues are aseptically identified, staged and immediately processed according to the
requirements of individual investigators. Presently, processing methods include immediate
fixation, snap fixation, snap freezing in liquid nitrogen, and placement in balanced salt
solutions or media designated and/or supplied by investigators. Specimens are shipped by
overnight express, arriving the day following procurement. The laboratory can also supply
serial sections of human embryos that have been preserved in methyl Carnoy’s
fixative, embedded in paraffin and sectioned at 5 microns." Inquiries are directed to
Alan G. Fantel, Ph.D., Department of Pediatrics RD-20, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA 98195. copy of e-mail transmission as printed out
and mailed to A.L.L. J. Brown, Communique, May 13, 1994, p. 3
Is it ever
ethical to use fetal tissues?
Yes, but if done, transplantation of fetal organs into the body of a
born person should observe the same ethical norms as for organs from born persons. These
include:
- Proper permission, i.e., from parents who have loved and offered
proper care to keep the unborn baby alive and well. If the parent is part of the killing
team, she surrenders any moral right to give such permission.
- The newly developed baby must be dead (there are definition of
death laws in most states) before any organs are removed.
- One cannot kill a baby (in or out of the uterus) to get an organ.
What about using the placenta?
After the child is born, he or she no longer needs their placenta.
For many years, hospitals have frozen and sold placentas to drug companies to extract
hormones and other substances. More recently, placentas have also been sold to cosmetic
manufacturing companies. This may be distasteful or even revolting to many people. There
is, however no major ethical problem in such use.
Can
fetal transplants cure Parkinson’s Disease?
About every two years for the last two decades we’ve seen a
major media splash reporting on a cure. Usually this comes with pictures of a wheel chair
patient now walking. What has not been given publicity is reporting a year later. In all
of these cases, the improvement was temporary and the patient relapses. Theoretically,
transplanting fetal brains should help such patients. In practice, this has failed.
How about Diabetes?
Transplanting islet cells from the pancreas of fetal
107 babies has given
temporary help. There are 1,500,000 diabetics in the U.S. For each patient early
experiments used cells from 8 aborted babies, 14-20 weeks old. To "cure" all
diabetics would require 12 million, but only 120,000 such babies are aborted annually.
A Russian experiment reported using 3 fetuses with
12 newborn rabbits. Some preliminary improvement was reported. T. Maugh, Transplant Cells Aided Diabetics, Los Angeles Times, 4/12/95
What about using newborn anencephalic babies as organ donors?
After he or she dies, the above rules apply. These
are live babies and they should not be killed for their organs. Loma Linda University
experimented with such babies but quit when it became evident that by the time of brain
death (including brain stem death), the other organs were not usable. "Providing
anencephalic newborns with intensive care will tend to preserve their brain stems as
effectively as the other organs, rendering the occurrence of brain death [ahead of other
organs] unlikely." D. Shewmon et al., Anencephalic
Infants as Organ Donors, JAMA, Vol. 261, No. 12, 3/24/89
A detailed investigation of the use of anencephalic infants as
transplant donors was reported from Loma Linda University. Dr. Joyce Peabody studied 12
such infants. With intensive care, only two
demonstrated total brain death after one week, and their organs were then unsuitable. J. Peabody et al., Anencephalic Infants as Prospective Donors, N.
Eng. Jour. Med., 321:344-50, 8/10/89
Dr. Peabody abandoned her study and announced she
will not pursue any further such investigation. When asked about a law to permit such
transplants, she stated, "If you’re going to call these infants dead, you’re going to have to
call them dead -period.
"So the anencephalic infant would be born — and what would
you do? Would you write a birth certificate and then immediately write a death
certificate?
Would there be no legal distinction between a stillborn anencephalic
infant and an anencephalic infant who was breathing? Would there be no distinction between
an anencephalic infant whose parents wanted to donate and an anencephalic infant whose
parents didn’t want to donate?
Would the anencephalic infant whose parents didn’t want to
donate be ‘alive’ and the anencephalic infant whose parents wanted to donate be
‘dead’? "Two anencephalic infants lying side by side with exactly the same
vital signs and exactly the same appearance: Would you call one alive and one dead? I
think legally, with all the rules of discrimination and so forth, you’d have to call
them both the same.
"And, as dramatic as it sounds, if you were to declare
anencephalic infants dead for purposes of organ donation, it would mean that you would be
removing hearts from babies that breathe, suck, kick and cry. I would need to have the
individuals who passed that law feel that if it were not for organ donation they would be
equally comfortable in burying a baby who was breathing, sucking, kicking and
crying."
She was asked: Q: Could you do that?
A: "Absolutely not." J. Peabody AMA News, June 29, 1992
Do doctors agree with using living anencephalics as donors?
Most medical societies in most countries condemn it. In 1994 the
USAMA Ethics Council approved it. After a full year of turbulent objections, it reversed
its opinion.
What is your answer?
We would follow the example of a pediatrician couple
in Cincinnati who now speak publicly about this issue. They took their anencephalic child
home who lived a few days. They fitted him with a little skull cap to hide the defect.
They and their children loved this little infant for the few days that they had him. He
was baptized, named and photographed with various members of the family. Other family
members visited. The children came to know, in those few short days, their little brother,
who now is permanently enshrined in photographs on their mantel. They describe a
completely heartwarming and touching experience that they feel has been a profound
learning and maturing experience for them and their children. They see the experience as a
great blessing to them all. The baby was buried, has a headstone, and lives now in the
family memories. Personal communication, Dr. & Mrs.
J. Molnar
Compare this memory with that of a couple who killed their baby by a
late abortion.
|
