Madam, - I agree with your assessment that the late Christopher Reeve was a man of considerable talent, courage and tenacity (Editorial, October 13th). However, your Editorial praises Mr Reeve's championing of embryonic stem cell research and is, in my opinion, unduly critical of those who oppose it.
There are four possible sources of stem cells: several-day-old embryos, aborted foetuses, umbilical cord blood, and various adult tissues.
I am unaware of any ethical issues associated with taking stem cells from the umbilical cord and adult tissue. However, the act of harvesting stem cells from the embryo results in the death of the embryo.
Such deliberate killing of the embryo raises an understandable ethical problem for many people, and not just fundamentalist Christians.
It seems that embryonic stem cells are more flexible and more easily harvested and grown than cells from the other sources, but research on stem cells from any source has the same potential to cure disease, although this potential will probably be harder to realise using umbilical cord or adult tissue stem cells.
In my opinion, the best option is to concentrate stem cell research on cells taken from umbilical cord and adult tissue. Nobody will have a difficulty in availing themselves of life-saving developments resulting from this approach, whereas many people would feel unable to accept therapies relying on embryonic stem cells. - Yours, etc.,
Prof WILLIAM REVILLE,
Biochemistry Department,
University College Cork.
Madam, - I refer to your Editorial of October 13th last concerning the life, death and strength of character of the Superman actor Christopher Reeve.
The description of Mr Reeve's very American "can-do" attitude in the face of overwhelming odds and lifestyle challenges is indeed commendable. However, the rest of the piece reads like an advertisement promoting stem cell research without reference to the moral and physical consequences of such research.
The Editorial mentions "the extreme view" of the "Christian fundamentalist right in the United States", which advocates that "stem cell research is equal to the deliberate taking of life without exception". Disappointingly, and perhaps misleadingly, the Editorial does not address the physical consequences for embryos used in stem cell research: the result is their destruction. Instead there is an implication that it is somehow "extreme" to defend life.
While your newspaper is entitled to its editorial position, it should also recognise the legitimacy of those with an interest in preserving life, and that such a position is held by more than those labelled "extreme" in your paper. - Yours, etc.,
JOSEPH DUFFY,
Bishop of Clogher,
Monaghan.