Readers Write: Organ transplants, RFK Jr., housing solutions, domestic violence shelters

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I am writing in response to the recent article on United Therapeutics’ plan to invest $100 million in a pig-to-human organ research center (”Pig-to-human organ center proposed,” Aug. 15). While the organ shortage crisis demands substantial innovation, we must critically evaluate the feasibility of xenotransplantation.

For decades, xenotransplantation has been pushed as an innovative solution, but its track record necessitates more scrutiny. Despite efforts to genetically modify pig organs to reduce rejection, success rates in recent clinical use have been disheartening, with patient recipients surviving no longer than two months.

The potential risks of transmitting pig-borne viruses and pathogens to recipients — and the broader community — also remain concerning. Pig organ producers tout pathogen-free environments and extensive screening protocols. Nevertheless, the first pig heart transplanted to a patient was infected with pig cytomegalovirus, a virus shown to be detrimental to transplant outcomes. Even with more rigorous protocols, we can only screen for what we know. These risks may not become fully apparent until widespread use, making timely intervention difficult.

The time to intervene is now. We must explore other paths out of the organ shortage. Strategies such as improving organ donation systems, bolstering chronic disease prevention and advancing existing technologies like organ preservation and tissue bioprinting present promising and realistic solutions.

Biotech companies want you to believe there is a silver bullet (their bottom line depends on it), but getting the organ waitlist to zero will require a comprehensive strategy. Let’s pursue the safer, more reliable human-centered alternatives to xenotransplantation that avoid its definite harms and risks.

Catharine E. Krebs, Harpers Ferry, W.Va.

The writer is a medical research program manager with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Upon reading the news that Robert Kennedy Jr. is suspending his bid for president, I had mixed feelings. Foremost was the sadness for the man. Here is a person whose family name brought him celebrity but who was unfortunately saddled with personality issues that impeded his ability to transform that celebrity into community good. To the contrary. One might argue that his position regarding the COVID vaccine was applying his celebrity toward community harm. Additionally, how sad for the man that other members who bear the august Kennedy name had to warn the public of his unsuitability to follow in the footsteps of his uncles and father and other family members. Finally, like some flawed character from a Greek tragedy, Kennedy threw his support behind former President Donald Trump. (I wonder what his father would say about that?)

Yes, it’s pretty sad, from my perspective. I would be dishonest if I didn’t acknowledge an ironic sense of relief — that his influence on the general public is waning. Nonetheless, I wish him respite from his internal struggles.

Richard Masur, Minneapolis

I am a renter who lives in the Lowertown area of St. Paul. I moved here from the East Coast, and I chose to live here because of its walkability, along with the historic charm and access to public transit. After reading “Carter proposes 7.9% tax levy hike” (Aug. 14), I was happy that St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter is focusing on revitalizing Lowertown and focusing on implementing stronger tenant protections, such as, according to his address, “limiting security deposits, restricting look backs on outdated criminal, credit and rental history as litmus tests for housing, and preventing source of income discrimination against low-income tenants.”

However, I am concerned that the mayor’s focus on eliminating rent stabilization for new construction is a step in the wrong direction. St. Paul came together in 2021 to mandate that our city pass a strong rent control ordinance to ensure that renters, many of whom are Black, people of color and Indigenous, could afford to stay in their homes amid surging rental prices. Ensuring that all renters can have access to stable, accessible, fair and equitable housing advances our city’s drive toward justice and equity and helps all families thrive, not just survive. If Carter wants to enact greater renter protections, then championing rent stabilization should be a centerpiece policy rather than on the back burner. If renters cannot afford to stay in their apartments, then all other renter protections are meaningless.

Brett Bacon, St. Paul

•••

Regarding “More housing is needed in more places”: The issue of integration vs. segregation doesn’t divide the Twin Cities and the suburbs. Segregation exists in every Minnesotan city because of land-use laws.

Suburban cities exclude and segregate by allowing only the most expensive homes to be built. Cities often require large lots (15,000 square feet or more), three-car garages and other standards that exclude starter-home prices. Many cities simply ban apartments and/or require yearslong approval processes so costly and time-consuming that developers run out of money or just give up. In some cases, cities ban all new housing development of any kind.

The inner cities make affordable apartments easier to build but have maintained their own form of segregation. In Minneapolis, attached homes with three or more stories and more floor space that creates affordability are only legal in a quarter of the city. Arbitrary limits on “floor area ratio” mean that our century-old naturally affordable fourplexes cannot be built today.

It would be wonderful if we could integrate our cities simply by directing developers to build more, but there is nowhere to build. We need the Legislature to set new ground rules and expectations for every city, which make it possible to build new homes of all kinds — subsidized and market rate, detached and attached — in all parts of our state.

Brit Anbacht, Minneapolis

We know that in Minnesota we love our pets. In fact, most households in our state owns a pet. What is also true is that most survivors of domestic violence are pet owners.

Unfortunately, survivors often are forced to make the heartbreaking choice between leaving their abuser and staying in a dangerous situation in order to remain with their beloved pet. About half of people experiencing domestic violence report delaying leaving their abuser because of concern for their pet. Right now, under 20% of domestic violence shelters in the United States have on-site pet-housing programs.

Local communities have an opportunity to make a real difference for these survivors by advocating to make sure that their local domestic violence shelters are pet-friendly.

It is important for us to listen to what survivors tell us that they need and they’ve made it clear that they need their pets in order to heal and survive. There is a current campaign called 25 by 2025 (25by2025.org) with their goal being to make 25% of domestic violence shelters pet-friendly by 2025. The campaign has everything from guidance on how to work with local government to approve the transition, to handbooks for building different types of pet space options, to funding opportunities.

As a community, we must do everything we can to ensure no person has to decide between their safety and their family pet. Ensuring our local domestic violence shelters have pet-friendly housing options has the potential to save lives.

Lauren Kofsky, Minnetonka

Kudos on the new look of the Minnesota Star Tribune. The extra section in Sunday’s paper explaining all the changes was very helpful.

One thing that I’m very pleased with is your commitment to ongoing investigative journalism. As you state, so many news organizations have dropped this valuable part of journalism. It is sorely needed to shine light on government’s actions and nonactions — and much more so now, given our current political climate. Keep up the good work; a newspaper both in the hand and available on electronic media is, and will always be, needed.

Ron Bender, Richfield