One major controversy regarding fetal tissue transplantations into patients with neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease involves the use of fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions. The precious need for fetal tissue for research could hypothetically encourage many women to become pregnant only to abort their fetuses for profit. Horrible nightmares of an underground black market operation where women are systematically impregnated in assembly line fashion, with their fetuses aborted at prime time and collected by the thousands, could become a reality. Although this conception may sound as far-fetched as an unbelievable science fiction movie, it may not be so exaggerated since society is sometimes innocently naive about such repulsive "goings on." Or, more importantly, even though some segment of society is informed, its members may simply turn their heads and deny that which is ugly. Although the situation may never reach such extremes, society should take a serious look at this concern because of its abhorrent implications. Even though there are those who favor the use of fetal tissue from induced abortions, only that fetal tissue obtained from non-induced abortions should be used for fetal tissue transplants into humans with neurodegenerative diseases for scientific research.
Opposing researchers arguing for the need for fetal tissue for scientific medical research claim they have obtained significant results from fetal implantations in the treatment of diseases such as Parkinson's disease. According to Hilt, "Experiments over the last decade indicate that transplanting fetal organs or cells could help patients with intractable diseases like Parkinson's or Alzheimer's" (A9). Even some generalizations cause public skepticism, but "studies report significant improvement of motor performance in some of their patients" (Gage 405).
Since researchers insist on using fetal tissue from induced abortions, the need for fetal tissue could be understood if results were substantial enough to justify taking the life of another human being. Several reports in 1990 show those patients afflicted with Parkinson's did improve, "but the degree of recovery was not therapeutic" (Gage 405). Therefore, it appears the need for fetal tissue from induced abortions may be of a paradoxical nature. Why would anyone kill a new life so that an old one may carry on for a short while longer?
Surprisingly, not all scientists believe that research should be continued with fetal tissue. Even though some studies show some benefits, if further improvements over what has been presently cited do not show much greater improvement, transplanting of human tissue should stop and other methods be developed (Gage 406). On the other hand, if the tissue exists because of unintentional abortions such as those produced spontaneously or by the need for removing an ectopic pregnancy, there is not any clear reason not to use this fetal tissue. Nonetheless, I cannot find myself accepting any reason or justification for the use of fetal tissue from induced abortions.
While this type of research continues, practicing researchers argue that the supply of fetal tissue obtained from non-induced abortions is insufficient in quantity and quality. Evidently, much tissue is needed for all the different operations being performed during the experimental stages. Because fetal tissue contains the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is continually being degenerated in those patients suffering with Parkinson's disease, researchers claim that more tissue in more places is needed for improved results (Gage 406). In addition, the quality of tissue appears to be of utmost importance. Dr. Jay Moskowitz, the associate director for science policy and legislation of the N.I.H. comments, "The cells and tissues from spontaneous abortions and ectopic pregnancies are generally of poor quality because they a) may represent inherently abnormal tissue b) have been subjected to diminished blood supply c) exist in a poor in-vivo environment d) may have been retained in the body for five to eight weeks prior to expulsion" (Hilt A9).
Nevertheless, in pursuing any successful undertaking, scientists perceive the need for both quantity and quality of tissue being used for sensitive brain tissue transplant operations. Therefore, President Bush created a fetal tissue bank last year which was supposed to collect tissue from spontaneous abortions and ectopic pregnancies in an effort to provide whatever tissue was needed for research (Anderson 591). Supporting this effort, the spokesman for Health and Human Services, Alixe Glen, said, "Our commitment to establish a fetal tissue bank is totally supported by medical experts who confirm that this bank would provide sufficient tissue to meet research needs," (Hilt A9). Unfortunately, when President Clinton took office, he lifted the band on federally funded fetal tissue research, reopening Pandora's box, and consequently making the idea of the fetal tissue bank a futile effort. Therefore, because of inadequate supply and quality of non-induced fetal tissue, it seems that researchers insisting on using induced abortion tissue have a legitimate argument and will win this fight. However, such action still does not justify taking the lives of the unborn. When a conscientious person realizes that the "materials" needed for scientific experiments are actually unborn human beings, not some inanimate object, or even if the "material" were an animal, he or she has to consider the human life. Aren't human beings supposed to be above and separated from non-living substances or animals? Moreover, not only are the lives of human fetuses involved, but the lives of the women who allow themselves to undergo this loss are involved. Even though abortion is legal in some states, by no means is it without risk. The reality of risk is substantiated by this surprising statement, "Exhaustive study has shown that maternal deaths resulting from legal abortions are replacing those due to illegal abortions" (Chopko, Harris, and Alvare 196). From this point of view, it seems that maybe the "materials" used for brain transplant experimentation ought to be reconsidered while different methods of research are pursued.
Still, those patients suffering with neurodegenerative disease, such as Parkinson's, have every reason to want any means of relief from their physically and emotionally crippling disease. "Among the cruelest of all diseases to affect the elderly . . [is] Parkinson's; and among the most promising of all therapies is fetal tissue implantation" ("Fetal Tissue Foolishness" A20). Yes, it is cruel, for the victims of Parkinson's suffer physical deterioration while their intellects are unaffected. Probably one of the most grievous situations in anyone's life would be to maintain a sane mind trapped in a deteriorating body. The victim's mind commands the body to perform, but the body refuses to do so. In addition, Parkinson's symptoms include "trembling, a rigid posture, slow movements, and a shuffling, unbalanced walk" (Clayman 722). Virtually all motor skills are affected; the body becomes uncontrollable with constant trembling of the hands; speech and writing are impaired; the body becomes stiff in a fixed stooped position reminding one of the Hunchback of Notre Dame, and gradually the ability to walk, without falling down, decreases, causing the victim to eventually become wheelchair bound. This process creates a vicious cycle of frustration and depression and seems to speed deterioration of the victim's health.
Indeed, this unfortunate situation paints a very sad picture, and it seems that fetal implantation is justifiable in such cases. On the other hand, we must consider the preciousness of life whether it be the life of an embryo or the life of an elderly person. The life of an embryo represents the beginning and continuity of life, while the elderly's life represents a lifetime--its ideas, knowledge, experiences, values, and so on-- and the inevitable ending of a life's story.
We should not sacrifice those lives which are about to begin for those lives which are about to end. But we cannot forsake those elderly persons who surely have contributed much richness to this world. Scientists, for the sake of humanity, need to seek other avenues in finding a cure for these dreadful degenerative diseases. I believe that somewhere, somehow, cures do exist because in the past when scientists diligently researched other diseases, cures were discovered. Other methods must be found to improve those suffering from neurodegenerative diseases. We must not believe that God would approve a cure at the expense of the life of another human being.
Works Cited
Anderson, Christopher. "Healy Stays, Fetal Tissue Ban Goes." Science 29 Jan. 1993: 591
Chopko, Mark E., Phillip H. Harris, and Helen M. Alvere. Phi Kappa Phi Journal Fall 1989. Bender, David L., et al. eds., Abortion: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1991.
Clayman, Charles, MD., ed. "Parkinson's Disease." AmericanMedical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine. New York: Random House, 1989.
Gage, Fred H. "Fetal Implants Put to the Test." Nature 4 Feb.93: 405-406.
Hilts, Phillip J. "Fetal-Tissue Bank Cannot Meet Goal, Agency Memo Says." New York Times 27 July 1992: A9
"Fetal Tissue Foolishness." New York Times 29 July 1992: A20.