Experimentation can be carried out on the living human embryo before or during his attachment to her womb; or to a fetus while he or she still lives in the womb. Experimentation can also be carried out on the living human baby after delivery. If the experiment (for example, trial of a new drug in treatment) is done for the possible benefit of this specific living human, then it is ethical if the parents approve. If, however, the experiment is done with the intention of later killing this living human to determine the effects from the experiment, then a serious crime is committed against human rights.

The same should apply to pre-implantation embryos. Killing in abortion (by law) should not extend forward or backward outside the womb.

Parents who give consent for experimentation on their children are assumed to have concern for their child’s welfare, and the hope has always been that such experimentation will benefit them.

Parents who give consent to have their child in the womb killed, obviously have no such loving interest. Legal tradition through our country’s history has always forbidden parents to injure or allow others to injure their child. That is what child-abuse laws are all about. If such experiment is not done to preserve the life or health of the baby, the parents should have no right to grant permission.

Practices and laws vary in different nations. In Germany and France it is forbidden. In England much is permitted. In China there are no limits.

In the U.S., Australia and Britain the push is to allow destructive, live embryo experimentation until 14 days.

In the U.S., President Clinton appointed a special panel to make recommendations. Every member admitted favoring such experimentation. Not a single pro-life person was appointed. In reaction, Congress refused to fund the panel.

Yes, the older the baby the better; the more alive the better. Excised tissues die quickly; therefore, immediate chilling or freezing has been tried, but intact tissue or entire organs are needed. These are best taken from an abortion in one operating room and planted in the recipient in the next room.

Read this electronic mail:

"Human embryonic and fetal tissues are available from the Central Laboratory for Human Embryology at the University of Washington. The laboratory, which is supported by the National Institutes of Health, can supply tissue from normal of [sic] abnormal embryos and fetuses of desired gestational ages between 40 days and term. Specimens are obtained within minutes of passage and tissues are aseptically identified, staged and immediately processed according to the requirements of individual investigators. Presently, processing methods include immediate fixation, snap fixation, snap freezing in liquid nitrogen, and placement in balanced salt solutions or media designated and/or supplied by investigators. Specimens are shipped by overnight express, arriving the day following procurement. The laboratory can also supply serial sections of human embryos that have been preserved in methyl Carnoy’s fixative, embedded in paraffin and sectioned at 5 microns." Inquiries are directed to Alan G. Fantel, Ph.D., Department of Pediatrics RD-20, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.

copy of e-mail transmission as printed out and mailed to A.L.L.
J. Brown, Communique, May 13, 1994, p. 3

Yes, but if done, transplantation of fetal organs into the body of a born person should observe the same ethical norms as for organs from born persons. These include:

• One cannot kill a baby (in or out of the uterus) to get an organ.

After the child is born, he or she no longer needs their placenta. For many years, hospitals have frozen and sold placentas to drug companies to extract hormones and other substances. More recently, placentas have also been sold to cosmetic manufacturing companies. This may be distasteful or even revolting to many people. There is, however no major ethical problem in such use.

About every two years for the last two decades we’ve seen a major media splash reporting on a cure. Usually this comes with pictures of a wheel chair patient now walking. What has not been given publicity is reporting a year later. In all of these cases, the improvement was temporary and the patient relapses.

Theoretically, transplanting fetal brains should help such patients. In practice, this has failed.

A Russian experiment reported using 3 fetuses with 12 newborn rabbits. Some preliminary improvement was reported.

After he or she dies, the above rules apply. These are live babies and they should not be killed for their organs.

Loma Linda University experimented with such babies but quit when it became evident that by the time of brain death (including brain stem death), the other organs were not usable.

"Providing anencephalic newborns with intensive care will tend to preserve their brain stems as effectively as the other organs, rendering the occurrence of brain death [ahead of other organs] unlikely."

Dr. Peabody abandoned her study and announced she will not pursue any further such investigation. When asked about a law to permit such transplants, she stated, "If you’re going to call these infants dead, you’re going to have to call them dead -period.

"So the anencephalic infant would be born — and what would you do? Would you write a birth certificate and then immediately write a death certificate? Would there be no legal distinction between a stillborn anencephalic infant and an anencephalic infant who was breathing? Would there be no distinction between an anencephalic infant whose parents wanted to donate and an anencephalic infant whose parents didn’t want to donate? Would the anencephalic infant whose parents didn’t want to donate be ‘alive’ and the anencephalic infant whose parents wanted to donate be ‘dead’?

"Two anencephalic infants lying side by side with exactly the same vital signs and exactly the same appearance: Would you call one alive and one dead? I think legally, with all the rules of discrimination and so forth, you’d have to call them both the same.

"And, as dramatic as it sounds, if you were to declare anencephalic infants dead for purposes of organ donation, it would mean that you would be removing hearts from babies that breathe, suck, kick and cry. I would need to have the individuals who passed that law feel that if it were not for organ donation they would be equally comfortable in burying a baby who was breathing, sucking, kicking and crying."