From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:48:14 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

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
>

Doug, this was AFTER several days of her organs deteriorating due
to her body being unable to sustain them. This is commonly known as
death.Lets kill you and see how your organs look in a week.

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

I guess because they don't want to spend the money on a legal 
battle, that makes such procurement wrong. Is that what you
are saying doug? Right and wrong is determined by who has more money
to spend?

>   ``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.''"
>
>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. 
>

Believe it or not, dissenting viewpoints are allowed in some
magazines and journals. The fact that you cite only one article
in each case would lead one to believe thatthis is such an example.

>BTW, does anyone know where Mark Cochran studies or practices
>medicine?  I wouldn't want to be admitted into a hospital where
>he works, and have him standing over my bed, ready to take out
>my organs once I fall asleep. 
>

I think that would upset the animal rights people, doug. Can't do
that, can we?

>
>Doug Holtsinger
>

Robert Johnston