I apologize ahead of time for posting this request for help as a diary. From my experience, such requests for rarely elicit responses in a short amount of time, and I am going out of town tomorrow. So I need to get this done in the next few hours.
Anyway, here's the deal:
Two weeks ago there was a LTE in my local paper about the rubella vaccine containing fetal tissue. I did a little research, and submitted
an LTE in response.
Today the original author wrote back and ended her letter by asking "What gives anyone the right to kill another human being and then gain a profit from the remains?" Because I am simply unable to let most debates pass me by, I am writing yet another response. This is where I am turning to the DailyKos community for help.
I would like to point out that much of our current medical knowledge is based on research done in precisely the manner the author describes above. I know that this general statement is true, but I don't have the specific facts. Can anyone point me in the right direction? I'm looking for specific medical breakthroughs (i.e., genetics, diabetes treatements, etc.) that we appreciate now even though they were conducted without the consent of the subjects.
FWIW, here is a rough draft of my letter. Feel free to suggest revisions as well.
To say that something is "derived" from a certain substance does not mean that the original substance still exists in its original form. For example, many vegetables are "derived" from dirt. That doesn't mean that when you eat a tomato you are eating dirt.
This is the case with RA27/3, the rubella viral strain used to generate the mumps vaccine. The current vaccine originates from fetal tissue. But once the vaccine is ready for distribution, all traces of fetal tissue have been manufactured out.
The fetus used to derive this vaccine was aborted in 1966 for medical reasons (although it is unknown whether such reasons related to the fetus or the mother), in a medical facility, with parental consent. Even in the early 1960's medical research could not be performed without the consent of the patient or in the case of a minor, the consent of the parent. Perhaps the parent consented to this in order to turn a painful experience into one that would have worldwide value later on. No one will ever know. Why assume the worst of this tragic situation?
{insert medical research stuff here}
We live in an imperfect world and no amount of moralizing will make it perfect. The best we can do is learn to live with paradox and dissonance without making others feel inferior through our own moralizing.