Letter: Biotech patents hamper research
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Neither of the letters you printed (6 June) in response to "The mouse that roared" raised the matter of consent - particularly pertinent given the case of Diane Blood and her husband's sperm.
I had a baby last year and I am appalled to learn that tissue taken from my body was used to inflict suffering on laboratory animals without anyone considering that I might like to have been consulted first. I am fully in favour of medical research on human tissue, but not if it involves the suffering of other creatures.
Even if umbilical material is argued to belong to the baby, who cannot make a decision, the issues raised are essentially the same as in the question of sperm removal from a dead man where prior consent has not been obtained. At the very least I should surely have been consulted as the child's legal guardian.
JUDITH FOIDL
Tadworth, Surrey
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments