Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I would find it very difficult to appreciate the basis of any
perception that genetic modification of animals is unethical, as expressed
by Dr. Rutger Nandorf, in response to Dr. Janice Hopkins' article on
xenotransplantation (BMJ 1999; 319: 533). While I appreciate that it is
not always easy or possible to set out a basis for one's views, but in the
case of Dr. Nandorf's views, I would think that it deserves some further
explanation. Absent any such further explanation, I am led to say that at
times, judgments may be overwhelmed by emotions that show a lack of proper
balancing of risks and benefits. Such balancing acts are often engaged in
the administration of justice by most courts of law, including the US, UK
and Singapore. It is a necessity that has become indispensable in our
lives, such as, the potential application of xenotransplantation. As
such, to all readers interested in xenotransplantation, I would urge that
they engage in this balancing act so that their views on
xenotransplantation would not be without a basis. Thank you.
Re: Xenotransplantation and ethics.
I would find it very difficult to appreciate the basis of any
perception that genetic modification of animals is unethical, as expressed
by Dr. Rutger Nandorf, in response to Dr. Janice Hopkins' article on
xenotransplantation (BMJ 1999; 319: 533). While I appreciate that it is
not always easy or possible to set out a basis for one's views, but in the
case of Dr. Nandorf's views, I would think that it deserves some further
explanation. Absent any such further explanation, I am led to say that at
times, judgments may be overwhelmed by emotions that show a lack of proper
balancing of risks and benefits. Such balancing acts are often engaged in
the administration of justice by most courts of law, including the US, UK
and Singapore. It is a necessity that has become indispensable in our
lives, such as, the potential application of xenotransplantation. As
such, to all readers interested in xenotransplantation, I would urge that
they engage in this balancing act so that their views on
xenotransplantation would not be without a basis. Thank you.
Competing interests: No competing interests