When Abortions Save Lives

By DICK THOMPSON WASHINGTON

A question of ethics stood between renowned cancer researcher Elliott Osserman and his last remaining hope. For nine years, Parkinson's disease had been stealing his abilities -- to write, to walk and then to talk. Still, his mind continued exploring an important advance in cancer therapy, and with help from colleagues, he continued treating patients. Osserman's last hope was an experimental therapy in which the cells malfunctioning in his brain would be replaced by an injection of vigorous developing cells -- cells from a fetus that a woman had chosen to abort.

But by the time Osserman was accepted for the procedure at Yale, all federally supported research involving the transplant of tissue from aborted fetuses into humans was halted while a presidential panel weighed the therapy's ethical implications. In December 1988, after waiting several months, Yale decided to go ahead with Osserman's operation based on the panel's recommendation that the moratorium be lifted. Nearly all of the handful of transplants performed for Parkinson's have produced dramatic results, but for Osserman it was too late: he died within months. Says Yale team leader Eugene Redmond: "He may have been the first victim of the moratorium."

He may not be the last. Despite the presidential panel's recommendation, Presidents Reagan and Bush, bowing to pressure from antiabortion activists, decided to keep the moratorium on fetal-tissue research in place. This week the Senate is scheduled to debate whether to defy the Administration by overturning that ban. The House has already passed such legislation, and a majority of Senators seem ready to go along. But the proponents may not have enough votes to override an expected veto from Bush, who so far shows no sign of relenting on the transplant issue.

Bush is supported by much of the vocal pro-life movement, which argues that fetal-tissue research and transplants depend on murderous abortions -- and could, the pro-lifers claim, even encourage some pregnant women to have abortions they might otherwise decide against. On the other side of the battle are many medical researchers who think the experiments could lead to therapies for many diseases. They have been joined by an unusual coalition that includes victims of such diseases as Parkinson's and even by quite a few converts from the pro-life camp. Their tactic is to separate the issue of fetal-tissue research from the debate over abortion. As they see it, fetal cells are equivalent to vital organs that are available to save lives but are now being thrown away.

Fetal cells are unlike any other tissues. "There's something magic about them," says California neurosurgeon Robert Iacono. In experiments with rats, | mice and monkeys, scientists have discovered that fetal cells are effective in treating a wide range of stubborn conditions. Transplanted cells have cured diabetes and restored some sight in animals. The cells have repaired some spinal-cord injuries, allowing injured rats to run at normal speed. Implants in the brain have improved memory and learning. The work has led scientists to speculate that the cells can be used to treat epilepsy, combat leukemia and stop such degenerative diseases as Huntington's chorea and Alzheimer's.

More than 600 people have received fetal-cell transplants. The cells have effectively treated DiGeorge syndrome, an extremely rare and fatal genetic disease, and appear to have helped people with Parkinson's. But in victims of the Chernobyl catastrophe, fetal cells failed to regenerate bone-marrow function lost to radiation exposure. People with diabetes have been the largest group of transplant recipients, but while there was limited improvement, no patient ever came off insulin. Says Hans Sollinger, a diabetes researcher at the University of Wisconsin: "In animals we were extremely successful, but in humans there's been no success ((with diabetes)) up to this point. We have to find out what the difference is."

Now the ban on federal funding has pushed fetal-tissue research beyond the guidance and control of American science. Only two centers in the U.S. perform the surgery. One surgeon flies his patients to China to perform the transplant. The meager research that has continued with the help of private funds has been done on a piecemeal basis, rather than as part of a broad strategy. Moreover, results of operations often skip science journals and appear -- unverified -- on the evening news.

Still, the stories are remarkable. Donald Nelson of Denver became the first American to have fetal cells implanted to battle Parkinson's -- on the day George Bush was elected President. Nelson, who once trembled so violently that he was forced to crawl on the floor, believes the procedure is the reason he can now walk, sometimes without a cane. In Huntsville, Ala., Fay Day, 65, claims a transplant relieved 80% of her disability. Says she: "If everyone involved in the debate could have Parkinson's for one month, they'd change their minds."

Is the fetal tissue responsible for these improvements? Parkinson's patients have lost cells that produce a crucial chemical called dopamine. In theory, the transplanted fetal cells manufacture the missing dopamine, but there are at least three other explanations for the apparent benefits. First, poking around in the brain during surgery may stimulate diseased cells to start production of repair chemicals, including growth factors that could trigger dopamine release. Second, perhaps the developing fetal cells themselves make the growth factors but not dopamine. Or third, the success stories may have nothing at all to do with the transplants but are just part of the mysterious remission-and-relapse cycle characteristic of Parkinson's.

Scientists do know that the best cells for transplants come from elective abortions. Cells from spontaneous abortions and ectopic pregnancies (in which the fetus never makes it to the uterus) are often abnormal. Yet the reliance on elective abortions could lead to questionable decisions: women becoming pregnant to provide fetal cells for a relative or simply selling the aborted fetus as if it were a pint of blood. In fact, Osserman's two daughters volunteered to get pregnant to furnish fetal cells for their father.

Acknowledging the possibility of abuse, advocates of fetal-cell transplants say a wall should be built between the recipient and the donor. The legislation now in Congress would prohibit the sale of fetal material. And the Yale research team has developed a method of freezing the cells for weeks or months to separate donor from recipient.

The pro-life lobby maintains that social acceptance of fetal transplants would result in increased funding for abortion clinics and broader access to the procedure. "It would affect the cultural attitude toward the unborn if society were to become hooked on this tissue," says Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. Explaining the fetal-cell ban to Congress, Assistant Secretary for Health James O. Mason said, "((The research)) cannot help tilting some already vulnerable women toward a decision to have an abortion."

But some pro-lifers are breaking ranks on the issue of fetal-cell transplants. One of the most persuasive supporters is the Rev. Guy Walden, a Southern Baptist minister from Florida who is also a committed antiabortionist. Walden's son Nathan received fetal cells to fight a fatal genetic affliction, Hurler's syndrome. Two Walden children had died of the disease, but so far the transplant seems to be working for Nathan. Walden's message: "We're not talking about whether a person has a right to have an abortion. But right now this tissue is being thrown in the trash cans. If we can save a life, shouldn't we?"

Lobbying by Walden and others has won over many pro-life legislators, including Republican Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who is now fighting the fetal-cell ban. Thurmond, whose daughter Julie is diabetic, believes this issue "should not be lumped together with the debate about abortion." Says he: "I believe that for the sake of Julie and other individuals . . . we cannot afford to lose this opportunity to develop a cure."

The future of the research will soon be in Bush's hands again -- a difficult predicament for a President seeking re-election. Bush needs to mend fences with Pat Buchanan's wing of the Republican Party, and may use a veto to revalidate his conservative credentials. But if he refuses to lift the fetal- cell funding ban, transplants will be left largely to entrepreneurs offering a crude and expensive procedure to the desperate.