Congressional Thinking

To the Editor:

My 50-year-old friend received his kidney from a cousin, avoiding the average two-year wait for a transplant if indeed he lived for two more years. High demand for organs has led to extreme measures. One example is China, where according to The New York Times, they extract organs from executed criminals, some even before they are dead. Some could rationalize these “criminals” are contributing to the public good by these “donations.” After all, they will soon be dead and no longer have a need for their organs. Why waste organs when they could be used by people in need?

Nancy Johnson’s commentary in The Bee last week mentions the “strict ethical framework” of using surplus embryos created for fertility treatment, for stem cell research. After all, these extra embryos will not be viable, so why waste them when they could be used for critical research?

Ms Johnson avoids the crucial detail that these “surplus embryos” are in fact human life; instead choosing to advocate the greater need of those already living with a tragic illnesses. A tragic illness, especially in the young, is something difficult to understand or accept, leaving lifelong scars on the survivors, especially the mother. But these illnesses can never justify the process of destroying life for the purpose of saving another.

There are alternatives such as stem cells from umbilical cords, but this will take work and people don’t want to wait. After all, these embryos, just like the criminals in China, will soon be dead so why not use them? Because it is and always will be ethically and morally wrong, just like the thinking of Nancy Johnson.

Sincerely,

Mark Dennen

6 Old Green Road, Sandy Hook                                    June 21, 2005