From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 05:35:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.221723.1732@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu.UUCP (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>> From the one anencephalic baby, we could have harvested 1 heart, 2
>> lungs, 2 kidneys, a liver suitable for ressection to provide
>> transplants for as many as 3 others, bone marrow, and 2 corneas.
>> Transplant recipients had been identified with tissue matches for the
>> heart, both lungs, both kidneys, and 2 liver sections. Bone marrow had
>> not been matched yet. Neither had corneas, but they are relatively
>> easy to match.
>>
>> Since people who call themselves Pro-Life took steps to halt any organ
>> donations until after brain death, this is the outcome:
>> The recipients for the heart, both lungs, 1 kidney and 1 liver section
>> are now dead. The other kidney, liver, and bone marrow recipients are
>> still waiting and hoping. The corneas were eventually used.
>
>It appears as though Mark Cochran is making up the facts as he
>goes along.  My local paper said that NO matches had been found
>for the baby's organs:
>
>  "The baby's organs were not being donated.  Doctors had said
>   Baby Theresa's organs would be too damaged for use as transplants
>   by the time she died, and no matching recipients were immediately
>   found."
>  
>   The Raleigh News and Observer, March 31, 1992
>
I repeated information I got from people directly involved in the case
DODie, and I'll take their word for it over that of your paper.

>Mark Cochran appears to be completely unaware of the medical 
>establishment's strong ethical stance taken against using 
>anencephalic infants as organ donor sources:
>
What stance against it?

>  "``We have had no interest in it from the organ procurement side
>   because of all the problems associated with it,'' said Wanda
>   Bond, a spokesman for the United Network for Organ Sharing.
>
This is not a stacne against using the organs DODie, it's a statement
that the hassles are more then it's worth to some people.

>   ``It's such a small number of individuals that could be helped
>   that the question is, `Does it make sense to go through all
>   this?'  Clearly, in the medical community the answer is it
>   doesn't.''"
>
A statement that it's more hassle then it's worth is hardly the same
thing as an ethical position against using the organs DODie.

>In response to proposals to change the legal definition of death
>to include anencephalic infants, the authors of an article in the 
>Aug. 10, 1989 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine concluded
>that ``the weight of medical evidence and ethical and practical
>arguments strongly favor retaining current law.''  An article
>in the March 31, 1989 issue of the JAMA made similar conclusions
>against using anencephalic infants as organ donor sources. 
>
Again, merely a statement that the numbers helped are not worth the
hassles involved. Where is this "strong ethical stance your'e talking
about DODie?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion