Irrational Cloning Frenzy

Everyone wants a clone, but I don’t understand why.

For those parents who desire clones to replace their deceased children, perhaps clones will offer them condolences to a certain extent, for the replicas of their children may be reassuring. But these clones lack the personalities, memories, traits, and experiences of their deceased predecessors. Without these essentials, the clone will never be the same as the real person who existed before. If this is the case, what then is the purpose of creating a clone?

For those sterile couples who yearn for children, perhaps clones will give them the children they had always desired, especially ones who resemble them more perfectly than their own biological children ever would. But why don’t they resort to IVF instead? Why cloning? According to USA today, clones have “a good chance of being brain-damaged” and possessing “devastating birth defects.” Therefore, not only are clones no better than children conceived through IVF, but they also create more problems than solutions as potential parents may face more obstacles and difficulties in raising clones with all the negative effects that could result.

In addition, people may argue that clones are a necessity for every narcissist. But as aforementioned, without the distinct, unique personalities, memories, character traits, and personal experiences of a person, clones are nothing but empty shells. They may outwardly resemble you, but inwardly, they could be someone else’s clone for all you know. You can never be replaced by your clone. Your clone is not you.

So why do we continue the pursuit of cloning technology? Perhaps it is because we seek the unattainable, the amazing, the absurd, the ridiculous. But everything that is unattainable, amazing, absurd, and ridiculous is not always the best option for humankind.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/healthscience/articles/20030126.htm

Stem Cells to the Rescue

In March 2009, President Obama lifted the Bush administration’s restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research. While Obama has angered opponents of abortion with his decision, I believe that he made the correct choice in paving the way for future medical advances that will benefit people with incurable diseases in ways never imagined. Not only are embryonic stem cells capable of “developing into any type of cell or tissue in the body,” but researchers believe that these particular stem cells may also lead to “treatments and cures for ailments as varied as diabetes, Parkinson’s and heart disease”—perhaps even “catastrophic injuries, such as spinal-cord damage.”

Opponents argue that stem cell research kills embryos who have the potential to become humans. But there are so many flaws in that argument. First of all, if it is unethical to conduct embryonic stem cell research and make good use of the countless already frozen embryos that will probably never live anyway, then is it not also unethical to keep these embryos frozen without the prospect of being implanted and allowed to develop into a fetus?

I don’t view stem cell research as killing babies but as saving innumerable lives. Billions of people suffer from incurable diseases with no hope of undergoing successful treatment anytime soon, but stem cell research offers them hope. Instead of investing in frozen embryos without definite identities, imagine the lives that we could save from stem cell research! These are the lives of people currently alive in the world—people who are breathing, feeling, experiencing, suffering. To me, they are of greater importance than nameless embryos that don’t breathe, feel, experience, or suffer.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10stem.html

A History of Perfection

The desire for a perfect community, and the debate over what kind of community that would be, is one nearly as old as human civilization itself. In The Republic, Plato describes what he believes to be the ideal state. He envisions a state of total equality among its citizens in terms of gender, class, and hierarchy. Universal education would be established. The community would be governed by a benevolent philosopher-king, who has been trained from childhood to lead. While this seems idealistic and idyllic, some of the measures Plato suggests in The Republic for bringing about this society seem wrong, in the context of modern ethics. A guardian class would be established to maintain the state, and they would enforce the abolishing of private property and individual wealth. With this would come the dismantling of the family; because of the total equality of the society, parents would not raise their own children, and children would not know who their parents are. Instead, they would be raised by the community as a whole. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this is a selective breeding program, where individuals are paired by the guardian class to produce ideal offspring. Essentially, this is eugenics. Though we may balk at the extreme proposals put forth by scientists and intellectuals like Peter Singer and Julian Savulescu, we must bear in mind that these are not new ideas. Rather, they are simply the newest incarnations of very old ideas.

I'm My Own Gaurdian

As I go into the hospital for my two week check-up post surgery, I find myself forgetting that I am in fact 18 and that I have to carry my own insurance card and photo identification. Obviously, I walk into the hospital without those things, in total oblivion to the fact that I am my own independent person. My parents are my parents but they can’t be my guardians forever. I am now own guardian. So when I go to sit down with the paper work woman she makes me sign a paper agreeing or disagreeing with the statement that I have a living will. I was so confused. I was like why do I need a living will, I’m only going in for minimal procedure? Of course, I reminded myself that I was 18 now and that statement of having a living will is a serious one once you become an adult. Regardless of what kind of procedure I was going through, anything is possible at any given moment. While the woman assured me that I didn’t have to be concerned about the fact that I didn’t have a living will for my procedure, I started questioning if I should have one. Now that I am an adult, Mommy and Daddy can’t decide everything for me. And since I don’t have a living will, if something were to happen in any medical procedure, everything would be left up to me parents. That’s where the problem comes in. If I left the burden of deciding what to do with me up to my parents, there could potentially be huge controversy. Yes, they would want to try make me healthy again for as long as it would take, but people will judge them saying maybe she doesn’t want to live like this. The acknowledgement of a living will is a significant document that most people go on living without until they get older. People may not want to face the fact that something bad could happen to them and they would have to resort to the document. But whether your 18 or 89, anything is possible, and I think one would rather be safe then sorry when it came to a situation that would involve a living will.

New Execution Techniques--when are they ethical?

A man named Kenneth Biros, who was put on death row after brutally murdering and dismembering a woman he met at a bar, died this morning in an Ohio prison by a new method of execution. Ever since lethal injections have been used for individuals sentenced to death, the injections have typically been three-drug cocktails. Today, however, Biros became the first person in American history to be executed by a single drug. The drug was a large dose of an anesthetic typically used by veterinarians to euthanize animals, and which was one of the drugs in the typical three-drug injection. This drug, however, has never been used on its own in executions before, and the effects of using this one drug were unknown. In addition the Ohio prison had about three problem executions before, one of which left a man in so much pain that the governor had to call the execution off. So, Biros appealed to a higher court, his lawyer asking for a postponement of the execution by a few days so that the ethicality of this new execution protocal could be discussed. The courts refused.
While this man committed a terribly heinous crime, I think people should still be treated humanely in their last few hours of life. This drug could have made his death a slightly longer process, but it apparently puts the prisoner into a sleep so deep that he stops breathing. While falling asleep seems to be a humane way to die, a longer death seems to be less humane. Is it ethical to try out a new drug as an execution technique? The articles I read do not clearly state how much research went into the decision to use this one drug. I think that if significant research shows that the drug would be more humane, then using a new drug in an execution, would be acceptable.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/07/lawyers-fight-ohio-execution
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/12/biros_becomes_first_inmate_exe.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/biros-execution-kenneth-b_n_384409.html

Grit

With talk about the ability to genetically alter humans to increase intelligence there is an interesting study that finds that it is not raw intelligence that causes success, but rather a term that psychologists call 'grit'. Grit is the ability to see long-term goals and pursue them with an impressive work ethic and not falter until the goal is accomplished. This idea of old-fashioned elbow grease brings up a new dimension to the ideas of being able to genetically enhance human beings. It is the creatine of the intellectual world. Many studies show that IQ is not a particularly good standard for assessing future success and many are now pushing that grit is more important than raw intelligence. In Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, he describes from a sociologists perspective the influence that the opportunity to do work (and doing that work) contributes to future success. He finds that it is the people that had the most opportunites to do a specific task that become true outliers. He shows that it is hard work and determination for long-term goals that are the factors of perfection and not natural talent. This new spin on the idea of genetically enhancing humans does not fall under Sandel's drive to mastery in the same way that increasing IQ does. If you could find the gene for hard-work would it really be wrong to manipulate it? What is wrong with having people that work harder? Some countries already have a reputation for working harder than others (not to fill into stereotypes) but in the continuance of globalization in the world Americans face an uphill battle as the Chinese and Indians enter the job market and prove to be harder working than their American counterparts. So if hard work and commitment to long term goals really does dictate success than would you have any problem with turning this gene on?

Brought Back to Life

In class I talked about a hypothetical experiment where religious zealots could be given the means to kill themselves and then be brought back to life in order to get a glimpse of what the afterlife might look like. Obviously, this experiment is made up, but there is significant research going into the actual phenomenon of what happens when people die and then are brought back to life. These people have incredibly similar accounts that center around a long tunnel with a bright light at the end. They describe colors that they have never seen before and encounters and conversations with relatives and friends they have lost. They also describe the bright light as a strong but comforting presence. They note that things just feel right. Sometimes the relatives even tell them it is not their time and they return to the body and can even see their bodies on the table as if their spirit is hovering above. A single case of this might be dismissed but there are literally thousands of documented cases where people describe all of these same basic principles. These experiences lead to interesting and provocative questions about the after life. Many want to believe that these people are actually experiencing the journey to "heaven" and that bright presence is the god-like figure described in most religions. However, a theory that can be equally true is that the brain is in severe distress and during the time when the body dies the person has thought so intensely that death "should" look like a bright light at the end of the tunnel that this is what they actually see. They might not actually be "dead" because death is not a moment but a process. When the heart stops the brain is not necessarily completely dead, although brain death is very quick to follow. These results are some of the most interesting and some might say that experiments on terminally ill patients wanting to attempt to find god and further their religious sentiments should be able to try to explore this idea because they really do not put a price on finding out if there is an afterlife.

The Giver

If after our class discussion on eugenics you want to read some novel related to the topic, a good choice is The Giver by Lois Lowry (if you haven’t read it yet). I read the book a year ago, and although my recollection may not be accurate, the book basically depicts a perfect community in which the technology has advanced to the degree that gene sequences in zygotes are modified so that people can’t perceive each other’s differences in traits any more. The community people live in is perfectly harmonious, without crimes, discriminations, or wars. A committee made of the wise controls everything in the society one can think of: family make-up, occupation, daily activities, information people receive, etc. Once the kids in this community reach a certain age they get assigned to occupations that they will do their whole life. The story is centered around how Jonas, the protagonist, gets this job that involves him experiencing all the painful, disastrous, and miserable memories in human history. The Giver is only assigned to one person in the society so Jonas bears all the heaviness from the past. From Jonas’s decision in the end, Ms. Lowry reveals what she thinks would happen if scientific experimentation on human beings goes unregulated, or develops with too much emphasis on science.

Health Disparities

There are people in the United States living in conditions similar to those of the developing world. In Washington D.C., among the black community, HIV rates are higher than those in seven African nations that receive funding from the US for HIV prevention and treatment (Teblas). In addition, many Native Americans in the United States are denied treatment for serious illnesses, some even dying while on the waiting list for treatment, or suffering from full-blown breast cancer when, if they had received treatment earlier, the warning lump could have been treated easily. According to a recent New York Times article, in Native American hospital nationally there is a 20% deficit in doctors and a 25% deficit of nurses.

With regard to the Native Americans, the issue appears to be that some politicians believe that since the United States has given the Native Americans rights to their land, they should not have to subsidize their healthcare on that land.  This is an interesting dilemma. It appears that the politicians apposing these subsidies have a grudge against the Native Americans for insisting on having their own independent reservations. Because, why not use the same argument for not giving aid to African nations? It does not make sense to deny Native Americans funding while sending aid far away to Africa.

Furthermore, with regard to the African American community, there is no excuse for having such healthcare disparities. African Americans tend to receive inferior care in a wide range of diseases and  are also often subject to higher rates of illness. This seems to me to be unacceptable. There is no reason for African Americans (nor Native Americans) to receive inferior treatment to whites while living in the same country.

Sources:

“New Hopes on Health Care for American Indians.” New York Times. 1 Dec. 2009. 

“Research Finds Wide Disparities in Health Care by Race and Region.” New York Times. 5 Jun. 2008. 

Pablo Teblas. World AIDS Week Talk – Rocky Private Dining Room Dec. 1. 

The New Lobotomy

This Friday’s version of The New York Times had a front-page article that described the well being of two men. The first man was older and found “himself completely unable to wash himself or brush his teeth”, while the second was a teenage who had “become so terrified of germs that he would regularly shower for seven hours”. These OCD patients both decided to undergo an experimental surgery that would, idealistically, allow them to overcome their disorder. This surgery requires that “four raisin-sized holes” would be “burned deep in their brains”. 24 months after the surgery, the first man insists that there was no change in his behavior as he “still doesn’t leave the house”. The second subject, however since the surgery, has been able to return to a “normal” life and is even able to attend college. This modern day lobotomy immediately evokes a comparison to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. He argument over this procedure lies within the risk. Some medical ethicists still believe the results are hugely unpredictable. The Times explains, “It was not so long ago…that doctors considered the frontal lobotomy a major advance- only to learn the operation left thousands of patients with irreversible brain damage”. So far this experimental surgery is exercise for only extreme untreatable cases of OCD (5- 15 percent of OCD patients qualify). I believe that we need to make the distinction between progress toward a solution and deeming this surgery a solution. Careful research should continue, while only using this treatment on very drastic cases. It is our nature to desire to help everyone in need immediately, but we are not fully aware of the repercussions. We must recognize this step in the right direct, but not deem it the end of our journey to help these people.


Thanks to: Surgery for Mental Ills Offers Hope and Risk by Benedict Carey The New York Times

PGD Testing - Selecting healthy embryos

Recently, specialists have been able to use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to implant healthy embryos into the womb and discard the embryos which are damaged. Experts believe that this genetic screening of embryos could eventually eliminate diseases such as breast cancer and cystic fibrosis. However, this prospect worries many ethicists. Bernadette Tobin, an ethicist at Australian Catholic University, was quoted in the article saying that selecting some embryos while rejecting others is a morally unacceptable way of avoiding having a child with a serious disease. Furthermore, discarding embryos with certain diseases creates a slippery slope. Sydney IVF medical director Dr. Mark Bowman says that they "are testing for serious genetic diseases." But, who's to say where a disease stops being "serious" and becomes "mild." By allowing this kind of embryo selection parents will start discarding possible children in search of that perfect embryo with no setbacks whatsoever. Eventually, this process could lead to an experience in which parents line up their embryos and select the best one from the bunch, much like one shops in the mall or the supermarket. Though this is probably not reasonable at the moment because we do not know the functions of all of the genes, it is certainly possible that one day it could be a reality.

I do understand that the main goal of this testing is to prevent children being born with incredibly painful and challenging lifelong diseases. However, another objection to this type of selection is that people will almost always choose to throw out the embryos with genetic "malfunctions" and we will start to see a decline or even lose much of the disabled population. This genocide of sorts against the disabled is also unethical. They should have just as much of a right to survive as perfectly healthy children do. There is no reason that a child with a severe disability cannot live a worthwhile life.

Instead of rejecting embryos because of an undesirable genetic trait, we should strive to create cures for diseases so that when a person with a serious illness chooses, they will be able to reduce the suffering or improve their condition. They should be allowed to live and subsequently, they should be given the choice to live with their disease or to use the cure. It is not our jobs to play God and choose which embryos gets to develop and which get put in the trash.

Relevant site: http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/designing-principles-at-birth-of-a-new-era-20091121-is43.html

A New Form of Psychiatry

A new cure for obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, Tourette’s syndrome, and maybe even obesity may have been found, but not in the form of any drug. Instead, patients with severe cases of obsessive compulsive disorder have turned to brain surgery. A new technique of psychosurgery, called cingulotomy, surgeons can thread wires into a circuit connecting the regions of the brain processing emotions to the frontal cortex. This circuit appears to be overactive in patients with OCD, and the surgery can help relax the patients. Other surgeries can stimulate the brain by providing more or less electric current to certain areas of the brain, while others burn out sections of certain brain circuits associated with a particular disease.
So far, only patients who meet strict criteria have been permitted to undergo this surgery (such as a boy who spent seven hours a day in the shower or a man who refused to wash himself). In some cases it has been successful while some surgeries have not created much of a change. Patients have to undergo strict screening and many are turned down if their symptoms are not disabling enough. Now the surgery is used as a last resort for patients who have tried everything else, with the understanding that it may or may not be successful.
This surgery can provide relief to severely affected people, but we still do not know enough about the brain to promise a positive outcome. We are essentially tampering with these patients’ brains and rewiring parts of their minds. At the moment it is in its experimental stages, but once scientists have learned enough to promise success, how will we determine who is disabled enough to undergo treatment? So far, obsessive compulsive disorder has been the most common cause of surgery, but anxiety, depression, and obesity have also been mentioned as “diseases” that may be cured. However, there is no marker that specifically defines someone as anxious. Eventually, will healthy people look to have their brains stimulated to help them relax more, concentrate better, or otherwise enhance their minds? It makes sense to help people whose day-to-day lives are severely affected by their mental disorders, but we need to make sure that these surgeries to do not cross over the line separating treatment and enhancement, no matter how tempting may be.

Article Relevant to my Post:
"Brain Power--New Techniques in Brain Surgery Mix Hope with Risk" by Benedict Carey
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/health/research/27brain.html?_r=1&ref=health&pagewanted=all

To Decide or Not to Decide

When I was researching a topic for the third essay, I came across the ethical dilemma of whether teenagers should be able to make decisions in the context of life-altering situations such as surgery or the refusal of certain medical treatments. A teenager under 18 is not legally in charge of his or her own medical care, but the question is should they be able to make their own decisions? There is a very arbitrary line drawn at the age of 18 when an individual is suddenly capable of legally making all the decisions in his or her life. Ironically, the day before your 18th birthday you need parental consent and are considered incapable of these same decision making processes? A better judge of capability is the level of maturity of such an individual, because it is quite clear from everyday experience that some individuals are mature beyond their years, and just as many are the opposite; they are extremely immature.

One example comes to us from Britain, where a 13-year-old girl decided to refuse a life saving heart transplant. Understandably, this worried a few of her doctors and outside observers. They said she was making a rash decision and that she did not have enough life experience to know what was truly good for her. However, she had thoroughly thought about the surgery and decided that one more surgery would only prolong her life a little longer before she needed another one too. Also, she wanted to spend time with her family instead of in a hospital and believed she would be saving the life of another patient who needed a heart transplant. Her rational, logical argument and contemplation convinced the lawyers and the local child service agent as well as a good number of those who learned of her story. This rational and convincing logic is a sign of maturity, and teenagers who can make decisions in this fashion seem to be capable of choosing what is best for them. However, these teenagers still lack the degree of knowledge their parents and doctors have, so the question remains, who makes the decision in these cases?

Souces Relevant to my post:
“Teenagers and the right to be wrong” by Dominic Wilkinson
November 14, 2008 on the website Practical Ethics: Ethical Perspectives in the News

“Hannah's Choice: Saying No to a New Heart” by Nancy Gibbs.
Thursday, Nov. 13, 2008 in Time.com

The Perfect Egg Donor

Recently, as I was browsing Facebook, I stumbled upon an advertisement requesting egg donors. With curiosity heightened by our studies of human experimentation, I followed the link to EliteEggDonors.com. The site was offering $75000 to donors with the specific characteristics that Preferred Donors must have. Among these characteristics were: at least 5’8, athletic—“college or professional level”, very attractive--“Modeling experience a plus,” genetically healthy, and “proven intelligence.” While I could understand how future parents seeking a donor would want to reduce the number of problems their child may have and thus request the best possible donors, I was struck by the requirements of being “very attractive,” having “proven intelligence,” and being “athletic.” While I thought that egg banks coul offer help and support to couples that cannot successfully produce a child, and understood that the banks often go through a rigorous way of appropriately matching eggs and parents, I was initially skeptical of an egg bank requesting such “perfect” eggs. However, I realized that unlike designing children, egg donation is a way of resolving the problem of infertility, rather than seeking enhancement.

If an increasing number of humans began to use the eggs of, in their opinion, the most ideal or perfect person, diversity would probably begin to decline, and people may begin to follow trends in character, rather than accepting differences. While the comparison may be a stretch, the type of eggs in demand may follow a pattern similar to that of clothing—one “style” is in demand, but only a few months or years later, and a whole new “style” becomes popular. Looking at it from an economical perspective, the value of model-like looks, for example, or athletic ability would go down because almost everyone would embody those qualities. Long-term, people would become similar, which could have an array of social and perhaps even psychological consequences, such as devaluation of those without those qualities, inability to accept imperfection, and the like.

While these issues would become a concern if people turned to egg donation and in vitro fertilization as a primary means to choose their child’s characteristics, social chaos could ensue. However, egg banks really only appeal to those who physically cannot conceive or produce children, because in general, people want to have children of their own, with a genetic makeup derived from their own. Egg banks also tend to only offer their service as a solution for couples with existing procreative limitations, so it egg donation and usage can be placed in the realm of therapy, while it is not necessarily therapy by definition. Therefore, since egg banks serve those with reproductive disabilities, egg donation is ethical. Also, in order to reduce emotional complications for the family and the child, choosing children with favorable traits is in the favor of the entire family. In order to reduce unfavorable genetic tendencies that could cause more emotional duress, egg banks request those with the most preferable traits, so as to ensure, as best as possible, family contentment.

EliteEggDonors.com

www.northshorelijivf.com/donor-egg-program-long-island/donor-egg-faq-recipient.html

How Is This Cosmetic?

As I sat in my car on the ride home from the doctors office I was faced with a decision to make: do I get surgery so I can pursue my athletic career or do I not get surgery and be content with my decision that I will never be able to run without pain again; moreover, I may have to quit the sport I love? Tears streamed down my face. Having surgery meant having 5-inch scars on both sides of both of my legs for the rest of my life as reminders of what I did so I could be able to play college lacrosse. Not getting surgery meant quitting the sport that ultimately made my decision of what college I ended up going to and was the sport that was responsible of some of the greatest times of my life so far.

My dad turns and looks at me and says “Ultimately your surgery is a cosmetic surgery.” Obviously I was confused. It wasn’t like I was getting a nose job or breast implants. The doctor would remove tissue from my legs in order for my muscles to expand more and so I could run without pain or numbness. How is that considered cosmetic? But then I thought the situation over and realized that this surgery wasn’t necessary. My life wasn’t in jeopardy if I didn’t receive the surgery. However, in my mind, receiving surgery seemed like the only option. I love lacrosse, and if the only way I could continue to play was to receive surgery, I was going to get the surgery. But to outsiders, including my parents, surgery was just a huge step to take just so I could play a sport, moreover, and optional sport.

Although I may consider my sport part of my life and huge part of shaping me into who I have become today, my sport does not define me. I would be receiving surgery so I could play something for 4 years and then my career would be over since there is no women’s professional lacrosse. I was stuck. Of course I wanted to play lacrosse, but surgery was such a drastic step to take. Was I mature and willing enough to accept that step, for better or for worse, and accept that I may regret it in the future?

I ended up going through with the “cosmetic surgery.” Currently I have 40 plus stitches in my legs. My legs are swollen and I’ve been so doped up on medication I can’t even watch tv. But in my mind, it was all worth it. Some people look at my parents and me and think we are crazy. They question my parent’s moral. How could they let their 18-year-old daughter go through surgery so she could play a sport especially if the surgery wasn’t even necessary? It’s because they love me and love me enough to let me strive at the thing I love. Sure, I may regret this surgery in the future, I may be angry with my parents that they allowed me to have it, or I may be mad at myself that I let myself get lost so lost in a sport that I was willing to put my life as risk to be able to play at a higher level. But for now, knowing that I will have the ability to play at a level I know I can play at pain free is all the motivation I need to get me through this. I couldn’t be happier with my decision and I am looking forward to making great progress with my new legs. Whether this surgery was an enhancement is a whole other story that only time will be able to tell.

Paralyzed But Conscious For 23 Years

Three years ago, a Belgian man who had been assumed to be in a coma since 1983 was found to be completely paralyzed, but completely conscious. Entirely unable to communicate, Rom Houben, 46, was believed to be in a persistent vegetative state until examination using (unspecified) "a state-of-the-art scanning system" as part of a larger study of coma patients revealed that his brain was functioning normally. Since then, he has been able, through intense physical therapy, been able to regain a modicum of control, and can now speak via typing with one finger on a computer keyboard.

This admittedly staggering news story brings with it a degree of sensationalism. To American minds, it is most strongly reminiscent of the national imbroglio that was the Terri Schiavo case, which culminated in 2005 with her removal from life support. Indeed, the neurologist who discovered Houben's brain activity, Steven Laureys, acted as an adviser for that case.

Had Houben, like Schiavo, been removed from life support, his doctors would have unknowingly murdered him. This is especially chilling when one considers Laureys's assertion that misdiagnosis occurs in coma cases "on a disturbingly regular basis."

Yet Houben's family had taken him to the United States for reexamination five times; not until twenty three years into his "coma" was his consciousness able to be diagnosed. Were he removed from life support several years before this discovery came about, it would be tragic, yes, but not retroactively unethical. The curse of medical technology is that each advance brings with it the burden of hindsight; had we been able to transplant a particular organ a year before, Patient X may not have died on the table. What we now know casts a new light on cases of the past, but does not and cannot revise them. We cannot fault those who pulled the plugs for not knowing what they could not have known.

Relevant sites:
"Trapped In His Body For 23 Years" - The Guardian UK

Medical Marijuana: An Issue of Regulation

In 1996 California passed a law that legalized medical marijuana use. Unlike in the laws of the twelve other states that followed California in legalizing marijuana use, California’s law is very open, allowing marijuana to be used “for any illness for which marijuana provided relief.” In effect, this has allowed doctors to “recommend” marijuana (they are not allowed to “prescribe” it under the law) to anybody they see fit. In past years, this has increasingly begun to include adolescents with ADD and ADHD.

 While I have not systematically gone through the literature on the linked between marijuana use and ADD/ADHD, neither the New York Times article that I read nor a search on google scholar with the search term “marijuana ADHD” revealed any studies examining the use of marijuana for treatment of these disorders. Thus, it appears that any “proof” that marijuana is or is not effective in treating ADD and ADHD is purely anecdotal.

 I am not against marijuana use as long as a proper risk-benefit analysis has been conducted and it has been concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks. However, in this case, it does not appear that any proper medical study has been carried out. Some doctors anecdotally swear that marijuana use has allowed ADD and ADHD symptoms in a few of their patients to wane, while other doctors insist that marijuana only serves to disrupt attention and concentration, problems that those with these disorders already must grapple with. In addition, without further research, it would seem that the default should be to steer away from prescribing marijuana as the currently available research does suggest that marijuana can cause dependency and significant long-term problems.

While some oppose marijuana use on ethical grounds stemming from the fact that it is illegal etc, I believe that marijuana should be treated as any other medicine is: put through rigorous medical trials to determine if it is appropriate to use it for various different illnesses and disorders. It seems unacceptable to me that California has allowed doctors such free-license with recommending marijuana to patients when it would seem that other medicines are regulated much more carefully.  

Related Links:

Ellison, Katherine. "Medical Marijuana - No Longer Just for Adults." New York Times. 21 Nov. 2009. 

The Ethics of Psychology

Psychology experiments are aimed at investigating and delving into the inner mind and understanding the way we think. These are a crucial part of learning how people interact with each other, the way we influence one another, and the way we view and perceive our everyday surroundings. But what happens when these experiments go too far? When the focus on scientific knowledge overshadows the well being of the participants?

There are numerous examples of studies, mainly conducted before the advent of ethical standards and guidelines that have subjected the participants to undue amounts of stress or without consent that were clearly unethical. One example was a study by John Watson in 1920 involving a participant nicknamed Little Albert. Watson chose Albert to participate in a study to determine if fear could be conditioned and expand upon the idea of classical conditioning. Albert was subsequently presented with a white rabbit, a white rat, a monkey, a mask with hair, a mask without hair, cotton wool, burning newspaper and various other stimuli. Albert was placed in a room and given a white rat to play with. He did not show any initial fear of the rat, but afterwards Watson began to strike a steel bar every time Albert touched the rat after that. When Albert was later presented with the rat or other objects that reminded him of the rat, he began to cry. Watson had successfully cultivated a fear of the rat, white objects such as the rabbit, and furry objects such as cotton wool. Watson never desensitized Albert though or tried to dissipate the newly formed fear that Albert had developed.

The “Little Albert” study has become one of psychology’s more important studies involving conditioning, but its ethics are extremely questionable. Little Albert did not consent or assent to participate in the study, his legal guardians were not fully informed of the experiment, and lastly he was intentionally scared over and over again. Experiments like this are not permissible in today’s society, and new ethical guidelines help protect participants in experiments by providing review boards to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks and that the subject has given consent to the experiments, however, unethical studies such as the Little Albert study continue to influence psychology today.

Websites Relevant to my post:

http://www.psychology.sbc.edu/Little%20Albert.htm

Reflection on potential harm of genetic engineering

As I read the Sandel article “The Case Against Perfection” for the fifth time to find a good quote, I reached a state that if I were woken up at 4am from sleep and asked on what moral aspects would genetic engineering do harm to humans, I could answer: humility, responsibility, and solidarity without thinking. I guess it is probably true for most of our writing seminar class.
After the three words got so ingrained into my brain, I wondered if there’s any other major harm the whole “drive to mastery” attitude can bring. Finally I came up with one reasonable enough, and I’ll just throw it out here. (I’m sure there must be some sociology name for it, but due to my obliviousness I just don’t know until someone tells me.)
One objection Dan raised in class about Annie’s thought is that implanting chips into brains is expensive, and if anyone’s getting it, it would probably be the rich first until it’s so common one day it’s just one item in the supermarket. This is why many people argue that two human species would be created: one superior kind with perfect attributes and one inferior kind whose opportunities are limited to what the better kind overlooks.
The sub-species theory deserves serious concern because not only is it unequal, but also it suppresses the occurrence of human genius, especially those from the grassroots of a society. Nowadays the gap between the rich and the poor is probably bigger than ever, but people still believe in “Slumdog Millionaire” phenomena. It is possible that a person from an adverse, or unfavorable, environment can still reach great achievements with talent and efforts. In the genetic recombination game we humans don’t play god yet. However, imagine one day the rich get to make sure prenatally that their offspring are talented. It would create such high obstacle for the disadvantaged to catch up through endeavor that the motivation to work hard may decrease. The society as a whole suffers because potential of an ingenious idea is priceless, and there is no guarantee from whom valuable inventions will come from.

Thanks to,
Sandel, Michael J. “The Case Against Perfection.” The Atlantic Online. April 2004. Web. 2 Nov. 2009.

The Length of Duty

Surgeons and scientists may have reached a breakthrough with glioblastoma, a malignant brain tumor (the same as the one that killed Senator Edward Kennedy), and according to Dr. Russell Lonser of NIH “one of the most deadly tumors that exist in humans.” Although still in the trial stage, neurosurgeons have found a way to directly release a cancer drug into the brain and onto these malignant tumors. Using microcatheters, doctors can bypass the blood-brain barrier and release the chemotherapy to directly target the tumors. However, this was a dangerous experiment, as the drug, called Avastin, could have caused swelling in the brain, a hemorrhage, or a seizure.
In an article by the New York Times, Dennis Sugrue was featured as the second person to have had Avastin injected directly into his brain. Despite the dangers of the experimental drug, he agreed to go through with the clinical trial, which has so far been successful. But despite the success and positive direction of the trial currently, there was much more to his decision to participate in the trial. As columnist Denis Grady writes, doctors must “balance their ambition as researchers against their duty as clinicians, and must walk a fine line between offering too much hope and not enough.” Also, according to the guidelines drafted in the Belmont Report, doctors must provide their patients with enough information to allow them to make in informed decision. However, in the actual report, this is all a little vague—how much information is enough? Dr. Boockvar, Dennis Sugrue’s surgeon, answers this question for us: “In neurosurgery they say that if you don’t make your patient cry, you haven’t gotten informed consent.”
After reading this quotation, I began to think about the duty that doctors (neurosurgeons in this case) have to their patients undergoing trials. Just as Grady writes, they must realize that they must protect their patients in addition to aspiring to find the next cure. It may be hard to be completely truthful when on the brink of a huge breakthrough such as a cure for cancer, but doctors must provide their patients with all the information they have. And in neurosurgery, it will be enough to make them cry.

Articles Relevant to my Post:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17tumor.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=health

Cause for Gene Therapy Hope

As I wrote in my essay about Ashley's Treatment, my younger brother was diagnosed with Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy when he was in first grade. Since then, my parents have taken steps in order to maintain the strength of his muscles for as long as possible. My brother goes to physical therapy once a week and is also taking steroids. As a result of the treatment, my brother is still able to function normally, in that he is still able to walk and do things for himself, though not as easily as he once could. The only side effects of the treatment are quick mood swings, an increased appetite, and a reduction in his growth. None of these side effects are life threatening in the least and so the benefits of his treatment greatly outweigh the risks.

Recently, Janaiah Kota and some colleagues from the Center for Gene Therapy at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio engineered a virus which when injected into monkeys increased the monkeys' strength and also stopped the breakdown of muscle which is the main problem with my brother's disease. While this research is very promising and gives me hope that my brother one day may be able to lead a normal life, there are still risks with gene therapy which cannot be overlooked. The monkeys did not have a degenerative muscle disease and it is not known if this treatment will have any adverse effects in humans. If there is more research done on human subjects which still shows results without harmful risks, then I believe it could be considered an option for my brother. However, at the moment, my brother is young and enjoying life. Even though he cannot participate in certain activities, he finds things that make him happy and he is one of the funniest people I know. I would not want my brother to be another newspaper headline for the risks associated with gene therapy. Although I think gene therapy might ultimately help cure my brother of his disease, the unknown risks at the moment are too high. Hopefully this exciting development will progress quickly so that one day my brother will be able to enjoy a limitless life.

Relevant site: http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE5AA3ZY20091111?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&rpc=69

Hidden Agendas for Abortions

Prenatal genetic testing has become a very alarming subject to autistic and down-syndrome communities. Genetic testing involves several laboratory procedures that allow families to receive information on their baby before it is born. These procedures can conclude the possibility of an individual developing certain diseases based on their genetic makeup. Particular communities fear strongly the information discovered in these tests will be used to distinguish the “weak” from the “healthy” babies. Due to this massive fear, people openly oppose these experiments. Asch mentions in his article Prenatal Diagnosis and Selective Abortion: A Challenge to Practice and Policy “that opposition towards prenatal testing and selective abortion comes from the conviction that life with disability is worthwhile and the belief that a just society must appreciate and nurture the lives of all people” (db.jhuccp.org).
I believe that the tests can be powerfully beneficial as long as they are not used to determine whether abortion should be considered. There value should be recognized. One mother explained in Epinion her personal pregnancy story regarding her disabled son and verbalizes, "I would ask you to at least consider the benefits of prenatal testing. Knowledge is indeed power. By knowing about potential problems, you give your child the best chance at a safe and healthy delivery and start in life” (Prenatal Testing Is Not About Abortion). While genetic testing can often ease the minds of families, extreme caution must be exercised.
Susan M. Wolf’s book Feminism and Bioethics: Beyond Reproduction concluded through research in Korea that the country is currently anticipating in the next thirty years a ten percent increase in the male to female ration. Tim Friesen explains, “Sex selection is illegal in Korea but doctors give unspoken results through the amount of enthusiasm they show the mothers. If the doctor lacks enthusiasm upon the test results, the mother often calls for an abortion, knowing that the fetus is a female” (ndsu.nodak.edu). The situation in Korea demonstrates the lurking issue. Sex selection can frequently be masked by other reasons for abortions. The reasons for abortions must be carefully monitored as to ensure the future of the human race.

Thanks to:
-Prenatal Testing Is Not About Abortion (http://www99.epinions.com/content_3993215108)
-http://db.jhuccp.org/ics-wpd/exec/icswppro.dll?BU=http://db.jhuccp.org/ics-wpd/exec/icswppro.dll&QF0=DocNo&QI0=145660&TN=Popline&AC=QBE_QUERY&MR=30%25DL=1&&RL=1&&RF=LongRecordDisplay&DF=LongRecordDisplay
-http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/students/friesen.htm

Physicians and Cognitive Enhancing Drugs

While sleep deprivation fosters much college agony, it is also a serious issue in the medical field. Doctors that have to work many hours, and oftentimes late at night, have to stay on task every minute, because people’s very lives may be in their hands. As a result, some doctors turn to performance enhancing drugs, such as Vasopressin (2) —though this may be a more dangerous stimulant. Studies show that doctors who work longer hours tend to make more mistakes when working on a certain task (1). However, a physician’s job does not allow for many mistakes. In fact, one mistake could cost the life of a single patient. So is it unethical for doctor’s to take performance enhancing drugs? I think the answer to this is no, it is not unethical. Why? Because in taking these drugs, the doctor is helping a great number of people, and preventing mistakes in the procedures.

If an athlete were to take performance enhancing drugs, it may be considered unfair to his opponents, and if a student took performance enhancing drugs, his integrity may be put into question, but when a physician takes performance enhancing drugs, his motives tend to be different. Perhaps the doctor is in fact trying to get ahead of other doctors, but how would he be getting ahead? He would be helping other patients more effectively. Therefore, in striving to get ahead, he would really only be helping his patients. However, if the doctor’s motives are not to “get ahead” then they are probably to stay awake on the job, or to better help the patients. In order to do this, he may turn to mental stimulants, that keep him focused and on task. No matter what the doctor’s motives may be, if he takes drugs that keep him awake and concentrated, his performance on surgeries and procedures will be less prone to fault, thus benefiting all his patients.

While some people use enhancement drugs for their own profit and benefit, and theirs only, at least in a direct sense, when a doctor uses cognitive enhancing drugs while working many hours, he is profiting not only himself, but perhaps hundreds, if not thousands of patients by lowering the chances of mistakes (1). If sick patients are allowed to take enhancement drugs to for healing their ailments, then why can’t their doctor take performance enhancing drugs to heal their patients in a safer and less mistake ridden way? I think that yes, when doctors use cognitive enhancers it only benefits their patients, and is thus ethical.

(1) http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2009/10/13/for-doctors-less-sleep-not-long-hours-linked-with-more-mistakes/

(2) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/smart-drugs-slip-through-gap-in-law-1531330.html

Experimental Gene Therapy: Improving The World You See

Imagine you were a young child sitting in class and you were the only one unable to see the board. You couldn’t see well enough to play baseball or go out to play hide-and-seek with your friends. This is how seven year-old Corey Haas had been living his life so far. As he has gotten older, his vision has worsened. Corey was expected to loose his sight all together. Fortunately for him, when he was eight years old he received an experimental gene therapy that was very successful. After this therapy he was able to participate in many activities that most kids his age did.

Corey had a virus injected into his left eye. The virus had the gene RPE65 inserted into its genome so that when it released the virus DNA into the eye cell’s DNA the RPE65 gene would also be taken in. This gene was critical in improving the eyesight of Corey and others who have had the same experimental treatment. It was given to a group of people who vary in age from Corey’s age to 44. All saw noticeable results, although the younger the patient, the better the results. One of the study leaders, Dr. Katherine High, thinks that it might be possible to give the experimental treatment to younger children (age three and eventually younger) and possibly at some point in both eyes.

There would be a lot of conflict regarding whether or not this therapy should be given to little children. Even though this gene therapy is experimental, it has a great affect on the patients it is given too. It would help a child lead a more normal and easier life. Even though this therapy does not create perfect vision, just that it helps clear up someone’s vision somewhat is helpful. Because this experimental therapy has seen quite a bit of success, I think it would be a good choice for some children with serious vision problems to undergo the therapy.

References:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03eye.html?_r=1&ref=research

An Increasingly Fine Line Between Medical and Non-Medical Treatments

Policy makers are struggling to keep up with the boom in recent years in cosmetic treatments such as liposuction, plastic surgery, and laser hair removal. While all of these treatments can have very real negative consequences, these treatments are as of yet not regulated in many states.

For example, in New York, anybody can provide laser hair removal treatment despite the fact that there have been multiple cases of second and third degree burns from unregulated and improper application of the treatment by self-proclaimed “professionals.”

In addition, medical spas across the country are increasingly offering invasive liposuction therapy and it is not uncommon to see walk-in Botox “clinics” in American malls. With news of the tragic death of a woman in Florida who passed away during liposuction surgery at a “medical” spa, the issue of regulation of these cosmetic treatments has again come to the fore.

I agree with the view that spa treatment should be limited to non-invasive massages and facials that allow customers to relax and pamper themselves. Any procedure that involves an operating table, anesthesia, lasers, or injections should be conducted in a medical environment with properly trained medical professionals, not at a mall kiosk or spa.

In addition, in the future, I would hope that regulatory bodies will take preemptive steps to regulate new medical technologies, not waiting for the alarm bells to ring after people have been harmed and even killed as a result of the lack of regulation.

Related links:

Sweeney, Camille. “Surgery at a Spa? Buyer Beware.” New York Times. 4 Nov. 2009. 

 

"For the Good of All Mankind"

According to Kant we are supposed to always treat others as a mean and not an end. However, the utilitarian says that the greatest good for the greatest number is exercising good morals. In applying both of these philosophical approaches to human experimentation we run into a few problems.
Dr. Henry K. Beecher reviewed cases of violating human dignity and stepping out of bounds in human experimentation and came to the conclusion that the worst transgressions occurred when the experiment sought to benefit society and not the individual patient. According to Beecher, problems arise when humans are used as an ends to further knowledge instead of their own health. For the most part human experimentation has focused more on using people as an ends instead of a means, but should this be the case? The utilitarian view is difficult to accept because the benefits are difficult to measure. They usually occur in the future and putting an exact value to them is nearly impossible. But does this mean that we should limit the number of experiments conducted for the betterment of mankind. In a previous blog post I spoke about the Stanford Prison Experiment. It had obviously negative ramifications for the participants and the original intentions of the experimenter were ambiguous, but it has benefited society in some capacity. The participants consented under their own will and understood that there could be negative consequences. The benefits could be recognized when prisons restructure themselves so that inmates do not suffer the same malicious behavior. The number of people it could help could be infinite. But are we supposed to not allow these controlled experiments to happen?
I absolutely think that there is a line in experimentation, but if informed and willing people participate in controlled experiments, can't the knowledge gained be worth the negative affects? It isn't true across the board, but it can be true in many situations.

Death Penalty Saves Lives?

According to approximately a dozen studies conducted by economists in the past decade, the death penalty saves lives. For each inmate executed, the studies indicate that three to eighteen murders are prevented.

The death penalty has always been a highly controversial topic. Advocates argue that execution will not only give members of the victims’ families a sense of justice and closure, but it will also prevent the convicted from harming his future victims. Opponents disagree, claiming that the death penalty is an ineffective way to deal with criminals; “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” while “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

There is no perfect solution to the death penalty. How do you comfort the victims’ family members? Do you tell them that the murderer will be dealt fair punishment for his actions, or do you tell them that the murderer is being allowed to live while their loved ones had to die? How do you face them after that? As a result, many people feel that the justice system does not do enough to protect the rights of the victims, and consequently, lose faith in the government. But how do you put an end to the vicious cycle that is murder? Do you have the right to control whether or not someone dies or lives? Who really has that right anyway? In a perfect world, no one would murder, and the issue of the death penalty would be resolved.

Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Adrian Vermeule, a law professor at Harvard, both make a valid point when they point out that “capital punishment may well save lives. Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Transgender Athletes

When it comes to the medical enhancement vs. surgical enhancement, there is a fine line. Essentially they both do the same thing, but one is viewed as legal while the other is not. How is it that it’s allowed to correct your vision to be more then perfect while it’s banned to make it so your muscles perform the best that they can? In my eyes, surgical enhancements are extremely similar to medical enhancements and many people reap the same benefits from surgical enhancements that they would from steroids. What makes athletes fall to the use of medical or surgical enhancements is the want to be better or the overall best. They will go to great lengths to do so. Some people even consider having a sex reassignment surgery to do so.

Transgender athletes are becoming more popular as the years go by. With sex reassignment surgery becoming more widely accepted and practiced, some athletes are willing to become another sex in order to excel in the sport that they love. Renee Richards (born Richard Raskind) underwent sex reassignment surgery in 1975. After doing so, U.S. Tennis Association banned her from competing in the U.S. Open. Many women were complaining that Richards would have an unfair physical advantage. When Richards took this case to court in 1977, the court sided with her. Richards then played for five years, won a singles title, and reached the quarterfinals in the 1978 U.S. Open (Hamilton). Had Richards remained a man, the opportunity to reach the U.S. Open would have never be possible for her.

However, some associations prohibit transgender athletes to take part in their competitions. In order to exclude transgender, associations put the phrase “female at birth” clause in their entry forms (Hamilton). The International Olympic Committee does allow athletes who have undergone sex-change surgery to participate in athletic competitions. Those athletes must have their surgery legally recognized and go “through a minimum two year period of postoperative hormone therapy”(Hamilton).

It’s amazing see the lengths some people will go to to achieve their dream of being the fastest or scoring the winning goal. I wouldn’t be willing to sacrifice my gender in order to win a medal but clearly there are those out there who are more then happy to do so. But is it right for someone to change who they were born to be just so they could compete in a different competition. Is having a sex change any different from taking a steroid? Over time, society will decide. For all we know, to make things fair between sexes, we may have to merge both sexes into one open division. Only time can tell the outcome of transgender athletes and the future that lies ahead of them.

thanks to: http://www.gymnica.upol.cz/index.php/gymnica/article/viewFile/74/68

Walking the Fine Line of Obligation

Imagine this hypothetical scenario:

You are a doctor, and one of your patients falls gravely ill; it is unlikely they will recover. However, you are aware of an experimental clinical trial taking place in your hospital testing a new drug which may be your patient's last best hope for survival, at least temporarily. While to place your patient in the trial would constitute a violation of the enrollment criteria of the trial, by doing so, you may save their life. What do you do?

If you are like 90 percent of clinicians surveyed in a recent survey by the Hastings Center, you may bend the restrictions to let your patient in. And why not? He or she has nothing to lose and everything to gain by participation in this trial. Where this becomes a sticky area is when one considers not how this course of action affects the individuals in the trial but how it affects the trial itself. Unhealthy patients, patients with a history of substance abuse, patients with chronic conditions, all of these have the potential to skew the results of drug tests or, by demonstrating catastrophic effects associated with their condition and not the drug, shut down trials on what would otherwise be a significantly less harmful drug.

The obligation to help people on an individual basis is a strong one, and part of the core of the medical profession. This is complicated, however, by the obligation posed by bioethics to serve the greater good. While a patient's continuing survival may hinge on access to an experimental drug, the survival of many more may hinge on that drug clearing the hurdles of clinical trials and becoming widely available. On the other hand, wouldn't doctors widely denying their patients access to that which might save their life be a more worrisome situation? The question is not one easily resolved.

Relevant Sites:
New York Times - Bending the Rules of Clinical Trials
The Hastings Center - Competing Commitments in Clinical Trials

"Not Dead Yet"

Most of the time when I think of or see a severely disabled person, I feel sorry for them when I think about how different his or her life must be from mine. I think of all the parts of life that they are missing out on and how unhappy I would be if I couldn’t run or think or be completely independent. Although I would never advocated for killing a baby with a disability once it is born, I could see where parents or bioethicists like Peter Singer were coming from when they talked about the mercy killing of newborns; maybe the child would have just been happier if he or she never had to deal with the difficulties of a disability. However, after reading “Unspeakable Conversations” by Harriet McBryde Johnson, my opinion changed completely.
Ms. Johnson, who was born with a neuromuscular disease, would have been one of the babies that Peter Singer would have wanted to kill. Forever confined to a motorized wheelchair and unable to perform many basic functions on her own, Singer would have wanted to spare her a “life of misery.” But, as I discovered after reading “Unspeakable Conversations,” she was far from living a miserable life. She was a successful lawyer and activist for others with disabilities. She found it a “great sensual pleasure to zoom by power chair on [Charleston’s] delicious muggy streets.” She also explains how the public “tend[s] to underestimate the quality of life of disabled people.” I would definitely include myself in this public. But after reading about the life a disabled woman who did so much and was so happy with her life, I have a different view on cases like Ashley’s Treatment or people with disabilities in general. A disability is not a reason to pity someone, for, as Ms. Johnson said “the presence or absence of a disability doesn’t predict the quality of life.” Even though it’s hard for me to see Harriet Johnson’s perspective and her reasons for being happy when my life is so different, I believe her when she says that she enjoys her life. And if there is a way to enjoy life, then it should be lived.

Article Relevant to my Post:
Johnson, Harriet McBryde. "Unspeakable Conversations." New York Times. 16 February 2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/unspeakable-conversations.html?scp=1&sq=unspeakable%20conversations&st=cse&pagewanted=10

Should Donators Make a Profit, Too?

Stem cells have aroused a great deal of controversy over the past years.  Questions have been raised about whether or not cloning is appropriate and which stem cells are ethical to use.  Aside from the question regarding their usage, there is also conflict surrounding the benefits that come from the use of stem cells. 

When people donate embryos to research for differentiating into stem cells  they get some sort of payment.  This payment usually covers travel expenses, etc. and does not go much beyond that.  Conflicts arise when something is produced in the research of those stem cells and it is commercialized.  There would now be a profit to be made from the originally donated embryos.  This could be a huge market because of stem cell research now holding the power to create possible treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s and cancer.  The questions are: is it appropriate for the donors of the embryos to receive part of this profit?  Should a specific percentage be set up in advance in the occurrence of a profit?  How much money is too much? 

I think it is only acceptable for the contributor to receive part of the profit if the agreement had been made before the embryos were donated.  It would be unfair to give the embryos and then  to suddenly decide to become involved again once a profit was recognized.  There would have to be a constant connection (at minimum in the form of a contract stating what money would be owed).  For example, when people were donating to the human genome project, there was a huge conflict when patents were made for DNA sequences.  There were issues because individuals felt that they had rights to part of this patent since it was discovered using their donated genes.  It would also be difficult to decide on an appropriate percentage of the profit for the donator to receive.  It would not be a conflict when dealing with a small profit, but when the profit reaches, lets say millions of dollars, and the originally predicted small percentage of this profit is now a huge sum of money, it would become a problem.  Offering the possibility of such a large sum of money could skew the types of people who donate embryos and might draw in people who are only interested in the money (this would border on coercion).   Those individuals with less money may begin to feel obligated to make such donations in order to earn a living, and the donation may not really occur willingly.  It would be difficult to determine what amount of money is considered “too much.” 

References:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12790728/Stem-Cell-Research-For-the-Benefit-of-Today-and-Tomorrow

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=740804

World’s Fastest Man… With No Legs?

Oscar Pistorius, a South African sprinter, has personal records of 46.34 for the 400meters, 21.58 for the 200meters, and 10.91 for the 100meters. These times all stack up against the best in the world, even if they are not medal worthy at the Olympics. What is truly amazing about Oscar is that he runs without lower legs and uses special prosthetic legs called “Cheetahs”. He was born without fibulas and with other defects in his feet, so his legs were amputated below the knee at 11 months old. Given his personal records in the short sprints, Oscar could easily win Olympic medals in the Paralympics, however, his recent goal was to be able to compete in the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games as an able-bodied athlete and not in the Paralympics.

To achieve this goal, Pistorius petitioned the International Association of Athletics Federation, the governing body in track and field, to decide whether or not he could compete. The main objective was to decide whether or not his prosthetics gave him an unfair advantage over able-bodied athletes. Biomechanical tests revealed that the “Cheetah” prostheses resulted in “only about 80 percent of the energy absorbed in each stride, while a natural leg returns up to 240 percent” (Longman 2). Researchers also disproved the belief that his prosthetic legs would provide an extended stride length beyond a normal stride by analyzing gait kinematics that revealed a normal stride pattern and length. In addition, kinematic analysis demonstrated that it takes Pistorius about 30meters longer than able-bodied athletes to get up to full speed. In short sprints, initial acceleration to reach maximum speed is crucial for performance.

Despite the research that demonstrated Pistorius did not have an unfair biomechanical advantage in using the “Cheetahs,” the debate did not diminish. Even though the IAAF ruled that he could not compete in the Olympics, the Court of Arbitration for Sport overruled this decision on May 16, 2008. These two rulings reflect the two sides of the argument, with prosthetics lower legs, Pistorius doesn’t have the same lactic acid that reduces performance as other runners. In addition, the Cheetahs do not require the same amount of energy to maintain top end speed, Gert-Peter Bruggemann of the German Sport University in Cologne looked into Pistorius situation on behalf of the IAAF. He found that he expended 25% less energy than able-bodied athletes running at the same speed and that "from the prosthetic blade is close to three times higher than with the human ankle joint in maximum sprinting” (qtd in Espn’s IAAF Rules…). So what should be done? Obviously the answer to whether or not he has an advantage is ambiguous depending on the biomechanical, mechanical, or physiological perspective, but this type of situation is becoming more and more prevalent; as biotechnology improves, so do the extents to which humans are aided by technology.


Sources relevant to my post:
Associated Press. "IAAF rules Pistorius' prosthetics give him unfair advantage." ESPN. 14 Jan. 2008. Web. 24 Oct. 2009.

Longman, Jere. "An Amputee Sprinter: Is He Disabled or Too-Abled?" The New York Times. 15 May 2007. Web. 24 Oct. 2009.

The Future of Bioethics

Even though bioethics is a rather new field, there is already debate as to which course it should take in the future. In a recent speech by Zeke Emanuel, a leading scholar in the bioethics field, Emanuel argued that for bioethics to be successful in the future there would have to be a much greater focus on collecting and interpreting data because of the current lack of an empirical foundation for which to base their normative claims. While some bioethicists may agree with Emanuel’s desire for a shift in focus towards data, Arthur Caplan is not among them. While Caplan acknowledges that there needs to be more data for bioethics to be successful moving forward, he refutes that there needs to be a shift towards data collection. Caplan argues that bioethics should continue to be based upon history and past cases. He also states that bioethicists must remain in public places so that they can shape policies with coherent arguments based upon that data available to them.

While both make good arguments, I tend to agree more with Caplan. Often there are no clear-cut right answers in bioethics. As such, people make arguments based upon the best available data and past history. Therefore, while more and superior data would help bioethicists support their normative claims, data, as Caplan argues, will never be able to fully supplant the rational arguments for or against a treatment because “for every ethical problem for which sufficient data exists to point toward an answer a hundred blossom for which the data don't.” For example, Ashley was the first “pillow angel” to go forward with estrogen treatment, a hysterectomy, and a mastectomy. There was no specific data (Gunther even admits that they didn’t really know the risks going into the treatment) directing the ethics board in their decision, it was only their moral arguments based upon history and values. Therefore, while more data helps improve bioethics in certain areas, future bioethicists should continue to go to bioethics programs which teach them how to draw from data, history, and their own values in determining if the issues at hand are ethical or not.

Skinny Bitch

I was a bit hesitant as I opened this book by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin, two former models who turned into self-taught nutrition experts. I didn’t expect to learn much from it. “I’ll read it for fun since Kathy recommended it.” I thought. And then I was amazed by its clarity and convincing arguments.
What interested me is the authors’ study of others’ research on the way we consume food today. Never before have human beings been exposed to so many food choices. We can buy large chunks of meat or fish from the supermarket at a considerably low price. However, a few thousand years ago in the ancient world, people regarded meat eating as an extravagant experience in life. We eat more and move less. The excess energy just accumulates and causes obesity all around the world. However, this is not the end of the story.
The media and all sorts of experts make it sound as if we need to have a “balanced” diet that includes meat, vegetables, dairy, grain, etc. The book reveals another side of the story: half of all antibiotics made in the US are administered to farm animals. Therefore while you eat a piece of chicken, you also take in “benzene hexachloride (BHC), chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, dioxin, heptachlor, HCB, and lindane”. It’s the same case for pesticides, steroids, and hormones. And a piece of fish also contains high levels of mercury and other pollutants accumulated through the food chain that can be well absorbed by human body. Moreover, as most of the meat we purchase is frozen, we never get to know if the animal were sick or if the meat is fresh or not. There are some unbelievable data in the book that might make you draw a parallel between eating meat and committing suicide.
The book is engrossing in the way that it analyzes each kind of food (including dairy and egg) that we think is indispensable in our life, and proves how it actually harms our body based on solid data. After reading the book I found it convinces people to be vegan instead of teaching them tactics on losing weight. Beware! If you are tempted to read it, think carefully because you might be convinced so much that you decide to become a vegan. At least I tried that for a month after reading, but soon I went back to being omnivorous because I can’t resist the temptation of homemade authentic Chinese food.

Thanks to:
Freedman, Rory and Barnouin, Kim. Skinny Bitch. Running Press. 2005.

Truly A Monster Study

An experiment performed in 1939 by Wendell Johnson has been nicknamed “The Monster Study” due to the horrific procedure involved and complete absence of any form of ethical experimentation. In order to test the effects of speech therapy, Johnson and one of his graduate students Mary Tudor collected 22 orphans to test. They divided the orphans into two groups: one that would be praised for their speech fluency and another group that would receive negative therapy. In this group therapy, the orphans would be told they had severe stuttering problems and that they mispronounced almost every word. Tudor attempted to belittle the children and make them increasingly self-conscious of their “problem”. Many of the orphans involved in the study had no stuttering problems whatsoever. One group of non-stutterers was told that they had the beginnings of a speech problem and that if they could not talk correctly, they should not talk at all.
The emotional abuse of these clear speaking children manifested itself into a complete reluctance to speak and increased self-consciousness. These psychological scares often have proven to be life-long. One orphan Norma Jean Pugh was “regarded as a misfit after she developed a stutter…she now lives as a recluse” (www.psych.stanford.edu). This is just one example of how unethical experiments can cause a huge impact on the lives of the subjects. Although an experiment that lasts only a week seems harmless, the damaging effects can sometimes never be erased. Even though there were not clear-cut ethical laws in place, I am extremely shocked that at the most basic human level, no one stepped in. A study on orphan children already appears inhumane. I am constantly appalled at the lack of heart science continues to demonstrate to the world. It is this concept that makes me doubt further advancement in technologies and genetic modification.

Thanks to:
http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~bigopp/stutter2.html
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/03/07/11b.php

Protect the Body or Let It Suffer?

My dad always tells me to not use anti-bacterial lotions or hand soaps because it makes my immune system weaker. How can something that is suppose to protect me from becoming sick actually end up making me get sick in the long run?

With the advancement of new medicines and bacteria killing solutions, human bodies are suffering. When babies are born they often get routine vaccinations, one of which is acetaminophen, or better known as Tylenol. The drug prevents people from getting a fever and for a fever to become so severe that it can cause seizures. A recent study that has taken place in Czech has said that due to the vaccine, it is making other vaccines less potent. Since fever is part of an immune response, when the vaccine tries to reduce the fever, it results in not letting the body create the appropriate amount of antibodies.

450 children were divided up into two groups. One group received acetaminophen while the other did not. The group that did not receive the shots got more fevers, but only 1% of those kids had a fever above 103 degrees. "The group of children that did receive the shot however had “significantly lower” levels of antibodies against pneumococcus, Hib, tetanus, and whooping cough." The Czech has not officially concluded anything from this study except for that acetaminophen should only be given when necessary.

What I take away from this study is that the advances we are making in the medical field are beneficial but not in all cases. Nowadays, people are hit harder by illnesses like the flu or the common cold. We are protected from germs as soon as we come out of the womb, and because of that, our bodies suffer because they are not probably prepared to tackle these things with the appropriate antibodies. Years ago, before we had Purell that could kill 99.9% of germs on the spot, little kids would roll around in the dirt, not wash their hands, and no one would worry about anything. Now that times have changed, we are all so weary of becoming sick and because of that we do anything to instantly protect ourselves instead of thinking about what our bodies will benefit from in the long run. So now when I get a headache, I’m not quick to take Tylenol. And when I become sick, antibiotics are never the first thought. Allowing my body to suffer may be uncomfortable for the time being but I know I’m protecting it in the long run.

resource-http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/health/20glob.html?_r=1&ref=health

Forgetting Pain, Forgetting Humanity

A few months ago I watched a few segments of Charlie Kaufman’s “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” While I only saw a few snippets of the film, the storyline was out of the ordinary, and certainly succeeded in catching my attention. In this film, the main character Joel (played by Jim Carrey) falls in love with a young lady. After sharing many wonderful memories, they have a harsh break up. Soon after, Joel gets an official-looking notification that alerts him that his ex-girlfriend erased all her memories of him via a form of selective memory erasure, and that it would be greatly appreciated if he refrained from causing any confusion by re-entering her life. He then proceeded to have his own memories erased, but, in the middle of the memory warping procedure, he decided that he did not want to forget about his girlfriend, because even though the painful memories would be erased, all the tender and happy memories would pass away too.

While this was a fictional story, it certainly made me curious. With the current level of research, the possibility of erasing memories may be nearer than we may think. There are already drugs that erase or numb bad memories, and physicians are learning more about the brain each day. So, if someone could select certain memories to erase, would that be ethical? I think that one would have to be extremely cautious when deciding to have parts of his memory erased. While there could be potential benefit for people who have experienced truly traumatic experiences, mind erasure could be used to avoid all sorts of pain, and could seriously alter the mindset of the general public.

Perhaps in extreme cases where people have witnessed gruesome murders or been in a grisly war, these people could be treated with a form of selective memory erasure. In more general terms, if someone begins to experience severe mental distress, that does not appear to decrease with a substantial amount of time, and that is a result of a horrific memory, erasing traumatizing memories may be a legitimate option.

While these extreme cases seem to justify the use of memory erasure in select cases, the allowance of selective memory erasure would have to be treated with the utmost caution. Consider the situation where memory erasure procedures do not have any health risks. This procedure would have to be very limited and available to only those with severe mental disturbance. Otherwise, people may take advantage of the procedure or drug that enables this erasure and may harm or manipulate others, and the victims will have no idea what happened to them. In society, chaos may ensue when some people have no memory of a certain event, while others do. If this procedure is abused, in an extreme case, people will begin to deny certain events, and accuse others of lying all because they do not have the same memories. For example, many people were severely hurt and traumatized by the terrorist attacks on September 11. What would happen if some people had this lasting memory of the attacks, while others have no clue and deny its occurrence?

In terms of humanity and character, what would happen if someone turned to memory erasure after every sad or harmful event? People would lose their humanity and feeling. Living through sad or hurtful events or situations is indeed painful, but it puts life into perspective. Knowing sadness leads people to understand how good goodness is via juxtaposition. And knowing hurt helps people to learn not to hurt, but rather to appreciate. Hard times give us the opportunity to respond to these hard times in a dignified way, which, as a result, shapes good character. Of course it is easy for people to be “good” when nothing is bothering them, but true character is revealed and seasoned through one’s response to trying situations. So, erasing every little harmful, sad, or upsetting memory would compromise the character of the individual.

While selective memory erasure could undoubtedly relieve severely disturbed individuals of painful and haunting memories, it also has the potential to induce mass chaos and dehumanization. Therefore, I think that mind erasing procedures should be strictly limited to those in extreme torment—such as disturbed war veterans, or people who witnessed particularly gruesome, traumatizing, and mind altering events.

Sources:

http://www.jimcarreyonline.com/movies/eternalsunshine.html?p=2#about

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16893-drugfree-memory-erasure-could-lead-to-spotless-minds.html

To assist or not to assist: that is the question.

In the state of Montana, courts may soon recognize Montana as the first state in the United States to advocate assisted suicide as a “protected right under a state constitution.”

Robert Baxter, a 76-year-old truck driver from Montana, recently died from lymphocytic leukemia, but during the past year, he stubbornly fought for “the right to die with help from his doctor,” hoping to somehow bring about a quicker end to his agony.

Instead, patients much like Mr. Baxter, particularly those with terminal illnesses, continue to suffer endlessly even though no available treatment to relieve them of their pain is in sight.

As the ones experiencing every acute pain, patients should be the ones deciding how they want to live or die. Who are we as outsiders to judge whether or not they have the right to die and escape the pain? The rights of patients like Mr. Baxter need to be protected and even expanded; it is our responsibility to ensure that the patients are making the most of what little time they have left, and if staying alive only hurts the patients more, then perhaps death is the better option. If life is too painful and agonizing for them, why not ease their suffering and fulfill their wishes?

Ms. Tucker, director of legal affairs for a national group advocating the rights of terminally ill patients, has the right notion when she notes, “It’s about empowering patients and giving them the right to decide when they have suffered enough.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/us/01montana.html?_r=1