Holiday weekend question I: Is embryo testing equatable to animal testing?
I’ve written quite a bit this week on the embryonic stem cell research issue (here and here). In response I received this email:
I can’t imagine Magda’s plight, although I can identify somewhat with the desperate desire for research to find a cure, having learned after my youngest grandson was born 9 months ago he has cystic fibrosis.
Nevertheless, several questions emerge from Magda’s letter. A few…
Does Magda stand a greater chance of embryonic stem cell research eliciting a cure for Parkinson’s, or adult stem cell research?
Do people like Magda who believe it is actually morally wrong to inhibit embryonic stem cell research have any moral boundaries regarding research for disease cures?
Is embryonic stem cell research morally equivalent to research using animals?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
And, unfortunately for Magda, ESCR will not cure your caps lock button being stuck, either.
My father has Parkinson’s as well, and he would never consent to a treatment obtained by destroying embryos. Life is life is life is life and we cannot pick and choose which life deserves to live and which doesn’t.
Magda’s reasoning is only self-serving. It’s all about what he “deserves.” There’s no comparison between ESCR and animal testing because animals are not people! But I can’t help but wonder, what if the cure for Parkinson’s was found by destroying dog stem cells, or whale or polar bear embryos? If preborn animals were being harmed or killed for the cure cause, what would the outcry be?
Does Magda stand a greater chance of embryonic stem cell research eliciting a cure for Parkinson’s, or adult stem cell research?
I think it’ll be a combo of adult stem cell research and iPS. Take it away Doctor Oz.
Is embryonic stem cell research morally equivalent to research using animals?
Not really. Unless human lives are equivalent to animal lives, then research that ends a human life is not equivalent to research that ends an animal life.
That’s my short answer, anyway. My longer answer is that, I really like the “future like ours” argument, but the corollary of agreeing with that argument is reasonably considering its implications. So any non-human species that you could argue might have a future like ours ought to be treated with the same respect with which you would treat a human, just to be on the safe side. This is why you won’t see me going to SeaWorld any time soon. I also think that research on individual members of species that don’t fall into that category, but have been deliberately conditioned to trust human caretakers (dogs or cats raised as pets, frex) is pretty cruel and exploitative. By giving that animal reason to expect that it can trust us, I feel that we ought to follow through on that promise. The animal won’t understand it, but we do.
So, there’s my ¢2.
It’s unbelievable that any one could equate doing vital scientific and medical research and experimentation with cells and testing animals. Since when can a cell feel pain?
But this is typical of the hysterical fear-mongering of the anti-choice movement.
This movement does nothing but inflame gullible conservatives with its blatant appeal to emotions and equally blatant distortion of the facts.
Anti-chopicers have absolutely no regard for facts, as little as they have for unwanted children who HAVE been born. And the coinstant spreading of lies about the supposed dangers of contracpetion is equally reprehensible and the use oof inflammatory emotional words such as “Murder”,”slaughter”,innocent children”, the preposterous description of cells as “babies” etc.
What proof do anti-choicers have that stem cells will never yeild extremely valuable results some day? None whatsoever. This kind of obscurantism is absolutely appalling.
ESC produce terrible side effects like tumors with teeth and hair in them. I understand that ASC does not. And its more ethical. And from all the science articles I’ve read ASC shows much more promise of finding a cure. But its the pro-aborts who will not abandon the debate and thus try to hold up ALL stem cell research instead of just admitting that ESC is 1) unethical and 2) shows no promise.
ASC shows great promise but the pro-aborts will not allow it. They are fixated on killing babies. period. Even if people like Magda have to suffer.
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201008250900
Dr. Stevens kicks butt in this interview
I don’t know whether ASC or ESC research holds more promise, although I suspect ASC does. The point is, it doesn’t matter. ESC research is wrong whether or not it can save lives. It is wrong to kill the smallest members of the human family in the hopes that their deaths will save someone from pain or suffering. I have two family members who have Type I (Juvenile) Diabetes so I understand the suffering involved. This is one of the diseases that ESCR is frequently mentioned as having the possibility of curing. Neither of my loved ones would accept any treatment that harmed embryos even if it meant a shorter life for them (my loved ones) otherwise. I agree wholeheartedly. How could I accept that hundreds (thousands?) of embryos had to be destroyed to make life easier for us?
As to the difference between animal testing and ESCR: if one does not accept the inherent dignity and worth of the human person (at ALL stages of development), then either noone is worth anything, or animals are worth just as much.
People should check out Do No Harm on the internet – there is much information on adult stem cells there, current clinical trials and good articles regarding Adult Stem Cells helping humans with different diseases.
Unfortunately – people just getting their information through the main stream media will get the pro-embryonic stem cell slant (until very recently). We have been watching this since before 2004 – and the scientific evidence is pointing in the direction for Adult Stem cells – both from a moral standpoint and scientific one.
I feel badly for Magda and others who think that we are anti-science – but in reality we are pro-human and pro-science, and if all that money that got spent (down the drain) for ESCR had been put full throttle into ASCR, we’d have even more to cheer about. But in the end, ASCR will be the tact to take for cures…
Liz – There has been some progress with Type I diabetes – so you may want to take a look…
The difficulty in the end is that ESCR is getting a lot of attention because of pride (be the first one to do x) and $ – patents from the procedures and therapies. One can not corner the scientific market from using your own cells to cure yourself. Procedures, maybe, but the push for the $$ pushes people toward ESCR.
Look we would never would have even figured out how to use adult stem cells without the research done on embryonic stem cells. In fact we would have got there even sooner had it not been for the blocking of the research in the United States “jobs farmed overseas anyone…” I wonder how many sick people died in America waiting for a cure while you “Pro-Life” people play political games with medical research? I wonder how many lives were lost while PETA was doing the same thing with animal research?
Oh I am SO sick of the “We don’t have the right to choose life or death” argument. Pro-lifers, and everyone else, make life and death decisions every single day. We as Americans, make life and death decisions everyday. How many people, women, children, men, old, and very young did we decide to kill in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m not saying it was a good or bad decision one way or the other, but we did decide to kill thousands including kids in schools. I don’t want to debate war but it is state sanctioned murder of humans with individual rights…
Look in your wallet; is there an organ donor card in it with your name? That is a life and death decision you are making in either case for someone you have never meet.
As for the animal vs. human question… Yes a human life is worth more than an animal’s life to a human. I wonder what a dog might say given the chance to answer the same question.
The idea of promoting or protecting human life is an idea that only humans care about, so it’s a self serving concept. I do not personally believe that in the much larger picture of life, human existence means very much. Life was kicking just fine before we got here and it will continue long after we are gone. I think “Pro-life” and religious people in general have far too great an ego to step outside their own beliefs and look at the universe objectively. What else would one expect from a group of people who were created by, talk to, and preach the word of the one true god… The very idea screams self-centered massive ego. The idea that this world was created for you, the animals were created for you, that the entire universe was created just for humans is not only egocentric but as old as human existence, and derived from a much more primitive mindset.
“Look we would never would have even figured out how to use adult stem cells without the research done on embryonic stem cells.”
Biggz, you made this claim before, and you must not have seen the responses, but this is so factually wrong it is embarrassing. Please read the plethora of responses refuting this claim https://www.jillstanek.com/2010/08/rassmussen-reports-stunning-reversal-57-of-voters-oppose-taxpayer-funded-embryonic-stem-cell-research/
In fact, let me repost my reply from that thread:
The first human embryonic stem cells were isolated in 1998 independently by James Thompson of the University of Wisconsin, Madison and John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University. Gearhart come to my school a couple years ago and I heard him talk about this firsthand. However, bone marrow transplants are an example of using adult stem cells to help people. As you know, bone marrow transplants have been around well before 1998, so your claim that embryonic stem cell research lead to adult stem cell research is simply incorrect.
I have no reason to believe that you have ever studied either the science or any of the particulars about stem cell research. Please take the time to learn a little bit about what you are talking about before you form a strong opinion that you wish to share with others. It is embarrassing to you, and frankly insulting to all of us who have spent countless hours research and contemplating these issues carefully from all sides.
What (hopefully) distinguishes humans from animals is that we shouldn’t walk over another living human to get where we want to go. We should instead give them a helping hand so we can both move on.
I would resarch a disease or malady till I came up with so much as one case that reversed itself or kept stable.
But I will not ask you to forfeit your life for mine. It’s the direct opposite of the saying: “Greater love hath no man, but that he should lay down his life for another.”
Most of us don’t have the guts to do that. But to do the opposite is just plain gauche.
“This movement does nothing but inflame gullible conservatives with its blatant appeal to emotions and equally blatant distortion of the facts. ”
Example of said “facts”?
Biggz: “Look we would never would have even figured out how to use adult stem cells without the research done on embryonic stem cells.”
Did you miss the thread in which I disproved this contention of yours?
“Look in your wallet; is there an organ donor card in it with your name? That is a life and death decision you are making in either case for someone you have never meet.”
No…you are saying that your organ(s) can be offered to someone who wants and needs it/them in case you meet an untimely demise and someone else’s life can be saved.
Bobby – I understand what you’re saying but there is no way that stopping embryonic stem cell research did anything but slow down stem cell research development. Stopping it in the USA did nothing except leave it up to other countries to do it, slow down research progress, and make a nice political tool for the republicans and the anti-choice movement… It had zero effect on abortion numbers but quite an effect in slowing down research…
Biggz,
Why not let the market place determine where research dollars should be invested?
If an area of inquiry shows promise, then the private sector will be rife with people who would ‘CHOOSE’ to invest their money if they perceived it was likely to produce effective and marketable results.
Thank you for the encouraging news that we people who value all human life have been effective in preventing the federal government from using our tax dollars to use and destroy human embryo/fetuses.
Robert Berger September 4th, 2010 at 10:50 am
”Since when can a cell feel pain?”
==============================================================
Even single celled amoeba will move away from high heat, low heat, electrical stimuli.
Life seems to know when conditions are inhospitiable to continued existence or at least uncomfortable.
“Stopping it in the USA…”
It was never stopped. Researchers were simply not able to get federal funding if they used cell lines from new embryos. They were still able to get federal funding for old cell lines and were certainly not disallowed from doing research all ESCR.
The “funny” thing is that Obama defunded ASCR. Where were all the screams of “anti-science” when he made that call?
HESCR (Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research) has never been “stopped” in the USA. The American Cancer Society, ALS Association, Alzheimer’s Association, the American Diabetes Association, along with many other charities (those are just a few that begin with the letter A) as well as my home state of Maryland and many other states actively support HESCR that is going on right now.
HESCR is immoral because it is immoral to destroy innocent human life. Embryologists the world over agree that a unique human being is created at the moment when a human egg is fertilized with a human sperm. At that moment there are 46 chromosomes that define a new, unique, human person. We have a moral obligation to protect his newly created, innocent human life.
We do not incur the same moral obligation where animals are concerned. Animals, unlike people, do not have an eternal soul and are not created in the image of their Creator. Our obligation towards the rest of creation, including animal life, is one of faithful stewardship. There is certainly much to be discussed concerning what faithful stewardship entails, (i.e., whether or not it would include research that causes pain and death for animals) but that is another topic altogether.
Removing the truth from this discussion is a disservice to all sides. Some mod wish to remove this post too and then email me and tell me why you removed my posts?
Adult stem cells research seems to be providing more benefit, but even if embryonic research gave results people wanted, it is horribly wrong. I would never use Premarin after find out how it was produced. But, I am glad that diabetics can now control their disease through insulin, which at first and for many years came from animals. If you do use animals for either research or food, you do bear that amount of responsibility. However, we are humans. We should preserve our species first, so if I’m hungry and there’s no plants, guess what? I’m eating that antelope. But I don’t have the right to experiment on an antelope for my eye shadow.
In our culture, self sacrifice is very unpopular. Bearing an illness with stoicism is unpopular. I feel badly for people suffering from other diseases, but I myself am willing to sacrifice. I myself am willing to take action to choose things that say “no testing on animals” when it’s available and I used to buy ‘dolphin safe tuna’ when it was available. But by the same token, using insulin would not make me a hypocrite. It would make me a human that really wanted to stay alive. I don’t care if the vegans consider me a humanist and put that on par with racism. They’re nuts, and because so many vegans and vegetarians I know are also pro-choice, I think that makes THEM hypocrites. Baby human trumps older human (the embryo has a right to its life; the human patient has no right to kill him/her). A human is human at the first cell. Human trumps animal, but humans should be compassionate to animals.
The idea of “a cure at any cost” has morally bankrupted us. A disregard for life from the very moment of conception is just one example of the moral bankruptacy in our society. The fact that people have decided that said being isn’t a baby until whatever time they deem “appropriate” is enough to prove how blind we have become.
It used to be that egg plus sperm = preborn human baby (but still human baby)
Now people want that equation to mean: egg plus sperm = maybe baby.
I’m sorry, but that “Maybe Baby” is only good in a Buddy Holly song and has no place in biology and our society.
Animals have way more laws protecting them than humans. After all, you couldn’t take a fertilzed Eagle egg and do away with it, but you can take a fertilzed human egg (egg plus sperm) and do away with it. It makes zero sense.
(For the record, I’m not a fan of abuse/mistreatment of animals, but I also am a firm believer that every human being has the basic right at the moment of conception of the right to life).
Man kind is both a physical and spiritual being and because we are made in the image of God human life trumps all other life forms. About stem cell research… from what I understand, ADULT stem cell therapy has proven to be effective, and after nearly ten years of research, there are still no approved treatments using embryonic stem cells. Taking a life to save another is unacceptable… giving our life to save another is.
…and the point of that crass and insensitive comment was WHAT, Nick?
(Seriously: what sort of weather patterns have brought the trolls out in swarms, this weekend?)
First of all Nick, since when do will kill someone because they’re lifespan is only 30 or 50 years? “kill em so they don’t die later” isn’t exactly a solid plan.
Second of all, there is no way to project the potential life expectancy of an infant with CF. We have no way of knowing what kind of scientific breakthroughs we might make in the next 30-40 years.
Nick. you should know that I contacted your foundation regarding your comments here.
I see. How about haunting a bridge somewhere, Mr. Troll? You’re getting in the way of those who have manners and decency…
Hi folks,
Guess it is time for some medical (not legal in the US) treatment. I underwent a treatment called Cell Therapy decades ago. And (although it is different than stem cell use today), there are too many similarities.
Pregnant sheep were given abortions very late in their gestation The sheep-feti were dissected into some @90 fractions and then freeze-dried. The doctors then chose the cells (usually 5 types) related to the patient’s needs. These cell fractions were rehydrated, and then injected into subcutaneous (fat) cells in the lower back.
Proteins are long molecules made-up of amino acids, like:: AKA~DGD~FRF~MHM~(until there are 48 groupings of 3). Humans and sheep have identical amino acids except two. So injection meant the immune system would destroy all proteins with these two and use the other amino acids to rebuild the patient’s cells. [Engagement of the immune system resulted is some swelling at the injection site + a mild fever for a day or two.]
The SEQUENCE of the amino acids was retained (for-the-most-part) because it was this sequence that determined to what organ/body-part the rest of the material would flow.
Please note: the German treatment was with animal(sheep) cells. This treatment method was used in Turkey with HUMAN cells, but these cells showed NO advantage in treatment outcomes.
The cell fractions HAD-TO-COME from cells that were at least from DIFFERENTIATION age until +2 years after birth. [There was a raiding of 3rd world villages for infants under 2yrs. Adoption was a best scenario.] The use of embryonic cells was then (and is) problematic.
I also heard of a interesting use for bone-marrow cells and overcoming most genetic diseases. This researcher at U of Chicago injected good marrow cells from a donor into children while they were in the womb of their mothers. These cells ‘taught’ the others the proper way to proliferate.
BTW in Cell Therapy placental cells are also freeze-dried and are used in most rounds of injections. Placental cells trick the body into a quickened repair mode .. like gestation.
Nick,
I’m well aware of what CF is. I know that it’s incurable and that CF patients are lucky to reach any age they reach. I also know that’s not excuse to kill them off in the womb. Besides, nobody knows exactly how long they have to live anyway. A person could die in a car accident at the age of 16 or younger. Does that mean they should’ve been aborted to avoid such a thing? We don’t know the future. We only know the present and what’s in the present could change in the future.
My point was, even with a perfectly healthy baby there’s always something. A kid could get an infection later that causes the parents huge finacial strain.
CF kids have as much of a right to live as a kid who is born healthy and developes health issues later.
Emotional and financial strain are NO excuses. Kids aren’t easy. They almost never are–even the supposedly perfectly healthy ones.
As a parent, I’m well aware of this. I love my child regardless. He could have CF or he could have croup or he could end up the hosiptal or run a marathon. He’s still my son and I still love him and have a responsibility to him.
I’m sure CF patiens would like to live a life without CF, but that doesn’t change that they probably want to LIVE. Abortion doesn’t cure CF anymore than it cures any other malady. It just leaves you with a dead pre-born baby.
And there’s no such thing as replacing a child. Each child is unique–even CF ones. You could never have that same personality, that same unique person ever again. Oh you might have the brown eyes, or the blonde hair, or the nose, but not things exactly 100 percent the same.
Your logic is seriously flawed.
Nick, what a disgusting sentiment.
First of all, most people don’t know they are CF carriers. There are no symptoms for being a CF carrier. An estimated 10 MILLION Americans are symptom-less carriers and do not know it.
There are over one thousand different gene mutations that can result in CF. Most currently available tests screen for 32 of them. 32… that’s it.
In 1959, the average lifespan was 6 months. Now, it is about 35 years. Where will it be 30 or 40 years from now? Who knows? And that is just the AVERAGE. That means about half of people live LONGER than that.
I’m sure Lisa Bentley, the Canadian athlete who is over the age of 40 and has won ELEVEN IRONMAN CHAMPIONSHIPS would be thrilled to know that you think she should have been aborted.
Nick is another great example of the anti-life mindset.
It is so hard to comprehend that people actually think like him. Truly, truly sick and frightening.
“So keeping Charlie would shaft David just as badly as abortion would shaft Charlie”
You can’t really believe that being killed is equivallent to never being conceived in the first place.
I don’t know which is more appalling: that a grown man (such as Nick) could describe such a murderous mindset with such sang froid, or that a medical school actually gave a Ph.D. to someone who is so spectacularly inept at logical reasoning. Grade inflation is alive and well in the USA, it seems…
Nick wrote:
The point is yes by aborting the CF baby (let’s call him Charlie) you’re being unfair to him,
To give credit where it’s due: your flair for understatement is truly impressive.
but if you kept the CF baby you wouldn’t be able to give life to the other baby (let’s call him David),
You just lost me. Why, in your mind, would someone not be able to give life to “David” *after* she gave birth to “Charlie”)? Is a woman limited only to one child, in your mind? It might interest you to know that many women have–apparently against all odds–had additional children after their first one. (You seriously don’t know of any? I’m sure Cranium could dig up some CDC stats to that effect, if you ask him nicely… :) ) You might also check out the threads describing the Duggar family; it might be an eye-opener for you.
the healthy one you would have after you aborted the CF baby. You can’t get pregnant with David if you’re already pregnant with Charlie.
…and waiting until after Charlie is born would be impossible… why?
So keeping Charlie would shaft David just as badly as abortion would shaft Charlie–it would prevent him from being conceived, and deny him existence.
I really must ask you to consider this reasonably! To say that “a nonexistent person” is being “harmed” is the height of nonsense; you might as well try to convict me of swindling Mary Poppins by selling her a faulty flying umbrella! That which does not exist cannot be harmed, friend. Even Ph.D’s who subscribe to the culture of death should know that much.
That would be worse than killing him–it denies him existence altogether, which is worse than being aborted.
See above. You’re talking stuff and nonsense, here. (“What DO they teach them, at these schools?” -Prof. Kirke)
At least the aborted one gets a short life in utero from conception until abortion.
Such largesse! I’m sure “Charlie” wouldn’t wish to sound ungrateful to you for your magnanimous offer, but: could he not have greater benefit from an even longer life (without being shredded alive, in utero)?
The one who doesn’t get conceived gets no life at all!
The “one who doesn’t get conceived” doesn’t exist, friend. You might as well try to design a square circle, as speak of a nonexistent child whose rights are violated. That’s our whole point: since a child has been conceived, he or she EXISTS–and he or she has rights by his or her very nature.
David the healthy baby has just as much right to exist as Charlie the CF baby does.
If they both exist (i.e. they’ve both been conceived), then of course… that’s quite true, and you’ve made our point for us. No one should be executed on the basis of having an illness or disability (to say nothing of dying by such barbarous methods as modern abortion techniques, which–if they were performed on live, post-born puppies or kittens–would not be tolerated for an instant).
Either way you’re being unfair to someone–either to Charlie by aborting him, or to David by not conceiving him.
Please tell me that you now recognize the horrid lapse in logic, in this sentence?
Since you can’t avoid being unfair to one or the other, the smart thing to do is to conceive and grow the healthy one.
No one is stopping anyone from doing that. We’re only seeking to stop that child’s older brother from dying by dismemberment. (Is this seriously so hard for a Ph.D. in the medical field to understand?)
CF is one of the ways the Almighty punishes right-to-lifers.
I see. So: in addition to being an illogical embarrassment to your institution, you’re a cad and a boor, as well. Gleeful, sardonic mockery of someone else’s suffering places you with the lowest of the low, friend… and I suggest you do some serious conscience-searching before you dare share your opinions with civilized people again.
Nick,
Um yeah. That logic doesn’t make sense EITHER. Well of course if you’re pregnant with Charlie you can’t have David. Just like if you were pregnant with David first you couldn’t have Charlie. That’s no argument to abort one.
How would you know you could get pregnant with David anyway? What if the abortion caused damage? What if the woman who was pregnant with Charlie regretted her decision and decided not to get pregnant? David still wouldn’t exist. Or what if, regardless of whether or not Charlie had CF the parents loved him anyway and wanted to give him life. Then David wouldn’t even be conceived an no life would be destroyed.
You see, giving life to one baby while not even conceiving another is not the same as killing an already conceived baby.
Look, healthy baby or unhealthy baby, it’s still a life. It doesn’t matter if it’s got CF, Diabetes, Down Syndrome or any number of things, it’s still a life.
Nick, my brother died at 16 with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. He knew kids were being aborted because they had his disease and it made him feel more rejected by general society. Other kids with MD knew it, and talked about it.
A person with a disease is a PERSON with a disease. The disease is only one aspect of their lives. Yup, it can be more or less debilitating, more or less an inconvenience in daily life. But there is more to the life of a kid with CF or MD or cancer than their disease.
Jill’s grandson will grow up with a loving family to know him and support him. Why do you wish him dead? How do you think that makes a kid with a disease feel?
Problem is, you only see the disease, not the person. If you want to fight disease, work for a real cure, volunteer with organizations helping kids with disease. Killing is not a cure, and just makes you look like someone who hates kids with diseases.
When I was in high school I was the editor of the school paper. It was the time of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Webster case. I wrote an editorial blasting the Supreme Court for not having the guts to make a real decision as to abortion… it was, in my 17 year old mind, a cowardly act of pushing the decision off on others. (Probably ought to revisit what Webster actually said to see if I still agree with my 17 year old self! LOL… but not pertinent to the point I intend to make next.)
One of my staff members had a form of MD. I don’t know what kind of form, but he was in a wheelchair and had only partial use of his hands. When he heard I was doing an article about abortion, he assumed it was because I was pro-abortion (I can only imagine the hateful, hurtful things he must have heard directed either at him or at his parents by people who assumed that because he was physically challenged that he was incapable of comprehending what they said) because his pain was palpable. He said to me, “It’s people like you who would have said my life isn’t worth living and told my mom to have me murdered!” I just looked at him and said, “Please, read the article before you tell me what I would have said.” He did apologize for assuming he knew what slant the editorial would take and we ended up being good friends.
I don’t know that I had a huge pro-life commitment or had thought it out very fully prior to that day. That young man made me look deeply at what did I truly believe and why, and humanized the issue for me.
Years later, it was his strength that filled me when people looked at my autistic toddler son and said, “Throw him in an institution and forget he exists.” (That boy is now 14, on the school football team, and one of the most caring, loving, gentle human beings on the planet.) It was his indignation that filled me when I realized that people thought that my young SIL with Down’s Syndrome should have been murdered in the womb. (God protected her, because I do truly believe that had my husband’s stepmother KNOWN prior to her birth about the DS that she WOULD have had an abortion. Now she is the light of everyone’s life who knows her.)
It was an understanding of his humanity that caused me to look at every child with a debilitating genetic syndrome that I cared for in the hospital as a person, to treat them with respect and to not assume that they could not understand the negative, hurtful things that others said about them. They may or may not have understood the precise words… but I knew they would understand the sentiment.
I don’t know where Garrett is today and I doubt he is still alive. But don’t tell me that his life had no meaning or purpose. It certainly changed mine.
Thanks very much Elisabeth and Mary Ann. I am one of those unusual/unfortunates with a severe genetic condition in the MD family called Friedreich’s Ataxa. Your kind words help a lot…..
BTW …. even more than FA, CF is likely the result of a deficit of zinc and vit B6 during pregnancy.