Wendy Higgins of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (letters, October 19), can afford to be outraged' that the Vatican has approved the use of animal organs for humans as morally acceptable.

After all, it isn't her life at stake and animal research, abolitionist groups (like the BUAV) have never shown any consideration for the rights of seriously ill patients.

Seriously Ill for Medical Research (SIMR) asked the major religions for their views on animals in medical research, and discovered they

either actively support the use of animals in medical research or they were tolerant towards those who conduct such research.

As a committed Christian with a keen interest in safeguarding future medical progress, I found such a stand reassuring, because the threat to patients' rights from those who want all animal research abolished is very real.

It is noteworthy that, while all religions recognise the importance of animals in the world, none of the world's major religions holds ceremonies to mark the birth or death of animals.

This emphasises the importance placed on animal life compared to human life by the major religions. Morally, I don't think it's right that these people are prepared to put animals before humans.

One of our patrons, professor Stephen Hawking, who suffers from Motor Neurone Disease, asks the thought provoking question: "Why is it worse to use animal experiments to save lives than to eat them which the majority of the population are happy to do?"

If any of your readers would like further information about our campaign to defend future medical progress, we urge them to write to SIMR, PO Box 504, Dunstable, Bedfordshire LU6 2LU

THOMAS BROMLEY, Littlehampton

November 30, 2001 13:00