No. He didn’t. From what I understand, he sent the researchers doing the research some brain tumor samples taken from his patients and his own research and papers on brain tumors which was quoted in this paper and as such he was listed as a contributor to this paper.
”My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients. Those tissue samples were compared to other tissue samples under a microscope. Pathologists do this work to gain clues about tumors.”
“I, nor any of the doctors involved with this study, had anything to do with abortion or what Planned Parenthood has been doing. Research hospitals across the country have microscope slides of all kinds of tissue to compare and contrast. The fetal tissue that was viewed in this study by others was not collected for this study.”
People donate their bodies to science and also their aborted tissue. Miscarriages are called spontaneous abortions.
The pathologist using that tissue is doing his job, he’s not the one promoting or condoning how he/she got the tissue. Otherwise, that would be like saying, doctors who transplant organs of people who die in a drunk driving car crash, are responsible and condoning drunk driving.
Those two posts above by FR_addict and Lucky9teen make some good points.
It is not all that unusual for patients or their next of kin if death occurs, to consent to their biopsies and tissue samples being donated for medical research and some people bequeath their bodies after death to medical research or to be used to teach medical students anatomy and how to perform autopsies – something I am actually considering for myself. And some couples also consent to such similar donations when they miscarry (what is technically and medically called a spontaneous abortion) or if their baby dies because of a tubular pregnancy. And yes some women who have elective abortions consent to fetal tissue donations, perhaps in a way to assuage their guilt, but probably in the case of PP, they may have had no idea what was really happening and the gruesomeness and profit motive involved and thank goodness for those videos bringing it to light.
In early 1996 my mother died from Acute Idiopathic Pancreatitis. She was otherwise healthy and had no prior episodes of pancreatitis, was not a drinker or smoker, did not have gall stones or cancer as the autopsy proved, but spent two weeks in the ICU at Johns Hopkins hospital on full life support and on kidney dialysis, most nearly all of that time in a coma as the poisons/toxins coming out of her pancreas literally started shutting down her other organs and flowing through her blood stream, eventually shutting down her brain. The doctors and nurses did everything medically and humanly possible to save her life, rather heroically from what I saw, but at the end of those two weeks, with our consent she was removed from life support as it had become hopeless as all her organs had shut down or as one doctor described, the acids and toxins pumping out of her pancreas and gall bladder had literally liquefied the surrounding organs and she was declared brain dead.
The day before she was removed from life support, the team of doctors treating her asked us, my father and my brother and I if we would consent to an autopsy and donation of some of her pancreatic tissues as they were puzzled as to the quick onset and severity of her case and felt that perhaps what they might learn from her case, could further research that would ultimate help to save lives of similar patients and even those with pancreatic cancer in the future. They assured us that post autopsy, that her body would be released to the funeral home and that there would be no visible signs, no reason for not having an open casket viewing and told us that we could if we wanted it, could have a copy of the autopsy report and their findings. We talked about it and as a family and knowing what a kind and generous person my mother was, we consented. I would not be surprised if over 10 years later, her tissue slides and samples are still being used in medical research not only at Johns Hopkins but perhaps at other medical research facilities all across the country or the world.
That sort of thing however is a far cry from what PP is doing in performing abortions (which is bad enough) and then performing them in such a way as to make selling the parts very profitable for them.
But that is not to say that all fetal tissue samples come from PP or even that all come from elective abortions.
I was able to find the research paper (pdf) in full. I don’t speak gibberish (research language)... but since you had a MD in your name perhaps you could confirm where the paper that gave him 3rd billing was for just contributing a sample. Do doctors just give samples out on a whim or do they vet research and researchers for their methods. Do you get 3rd billing in something you didn’t know? The paper has a list of contributors at the end, if you just gave samples wouldn’t you just be listed there?
I don’t know, but not buying that he didn’t know this research used babies in it. I can buy that he can claim that baby tissue is not any better than other tissue since if he researched this he has a working knowledge that one is not better than the other.