Response to first story

12/15/97

SOME TRUTHS ABOUT TRANSPLANTS

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

I was extremely disappointed with The Post's Nov. 24 front-page article by Rick Weiss on organ donation.

The article questions the new D.C. law that allows hospitals to preserve kidneys with a cold solution for up to four hours after natural death has occurred. This medical procedure gives hospital staff the time needed to locate next of kin and inquire whether a family would like to donate a relative's kidneys and save lives in the process.

Since the law's inception in 1996, Washington Hospital Center has implemented it six times. In each case, no family member has complained or expressed concern about the kidney-preservation process, and three families opted for kidney donation. In some cases, family members expressed sadness at not being able to donate the kidneys of a loved one because they could not be reached until after the four-hour time limit on preservation.

The article states that the kidneys were prepared for transplantation immediately after a deceased patient arrived at Washington Hospital Center on Nov. 4. In fact, the kidneys were preserved through cold perfusion as allowed by the D.C. law, but no action of any kind was taken toward removing the organs. The next of kin chose not to donate the kidneys, but she did not oppose the preservation process itself, something Mr. Weiss did not mention.

An ethicist from Texas is quoted as saying, "I'm amazed the law passed." Well, how would an ethicist from another state know that Washington Hospital Center officials met with and received the support of 43 local civic associations, church groups, hospitals, legislators and medical associations, including the D.C. Medical Society? The reporter knew this, but did not include it in his story or include the fact that the law met the approval of not only the D.C. Council but the mayor, control board and Congress.

It seems the needs of the residents of this city came last in this article. The District has the highest rate of end-stage renal disease in the nation, which is why Washington Hospital Center sought to implement the organ-preservation program in the first place. Hundreds of local residents are on the waiting list for a kidney; many will die without one.

In each and every case, Washington Hospital Center has obtained the permission of the medical examiner before placing the lines necessary to perfuse and preserve the kidneys. The process is not one of medical "mutilation," as suggested in the article. It is a simple, dignified process aimed at giving life, not destroying it.

Washington Hospital Center has the highest regard and respect for life, its patients and the previously stated wishes of those who are deceased. The physicians do not declare any patient dead until and unless all means of resuscitation have been exhausted. Only then is the transplant team contacted.

Washington Hospital Center's protocol for organ recovery is accepted by local citizens' groups, churches, legislators and leading medical societies, and we are proud of it.

JIMMY LIGHT

Director, Transplant Program Washington Hospital Center

Washington

Responses to second story

6/22/98

OF MICE AND MEDICINE

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

I was quoted in Rick Weiss's story on genetically engineered mice :"Mice Made Defective to Decode Human Ills," front page, June 7:. I am concerned that statements by other individuals quoted in the story likely left readers with several misconceptions.

In contrast to the assertions by Barbara Orlans and Rebecca Dresser, the vast majority of genetically engineered strains have a normal appearance, are housed under normal conditions and have normal lifespans. For those strains with severe defects, every effort is made to eliminate suffering.

Then there is the suggestion, attributed to critics of the mouse technology, that because of the differences between mice and people, genetically engineered mouse strains may not be useful for studying human diseases. While no animal is a perfect model for another, mice and humans share a strikingly similar genetic makeup. The use of engineered strains already has led to many important medical advances, including the discovery of previously undetected brain lesions in Huntington's disease patients, the discovery of a previously unknown cause of a human immunodeficiency disease, the discovery of genes responsible for several cancers and the generation of animal models for health problems such as heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease and cystic fibrosis. These discoveries already are being used to develop new treatments for humans.

JOHN SHARP Otter Creek, Maine The writer is a superintendent of a mouse research facility.

Despite the claims that genetically engineered animals provide beneficial insights into understanding human ailments, the only certainty that can be attributed to such experimentation is that we have established an even higher level of dominance over another species. As we make advancements in biotechnology, it is upsetting to know that we continue to subject animals to our own deformities in hopes of finding cures that elude us.

All animal experimentation should be illegal. The fact that we are sickened at the idea of similar experiments being conducted on human subjects shows that they are wrong. Perhaps if such experiments were outlawed, scientists would focus on more effective methods of medical research.

TED AND JODI WICK Gaithersburg

Rick Weiss's front-page article about genetically engineered mice gave the impression that scientists are recklessly creating mutant animals with little regard for the outcome. In reality, scientists have not taken these steps without considerable forethought; they simply recognize "knockout mice" to be a powerful tool for finding treatments and cures.

Mr. Weiss, in describing activist concerns regarding mice with cystic fibrosis or cancer, didn't mention the thousands of people suffering from these devastating illnesses. Unless one is willing to take the morally offensive view that the lives of mice are equal to the lives people, it would be unethical not to use such a tool.

Animal research is conducted under strict regulations, and scientists have ensured that the implications of genetic engineering are thoroughly evaluated before moving forward with research. Those in the scientific community strongly agree that the public has a voice in what kind of research is conducted. But attacks from animal rights activists, combined with blatantly distorted descriptions of animal research, have intimidated many researchers and made them reluctant to engage in public discussions.

Scientists welcome more dialogue with the rest of the public about these issues because ethical and moral judgments should never be left to a select few but are the responsibility of everyone.

FRANKIE L. TRULL President Foundation for Biomedial Research Washington