It seems that among the many changes sweeping through the Oval House, funding for the sciences has been one of the primary benefactors. White House officials have announced that President Obama will reverse the limits on stem cell funding that were put in place by the Bush administration. This policy, which will be formalized Monday, is a tremendous boost for universities and other facilities with stakes in stem cell research but could draw the ire of pro-life activists. Stem cells have been hailed as having the potential to treat many incurable illnesses. The controversy stems from the type of cells that are used, specifically the embryonic cells. Critics of the research claim that stem cells could be harvested from amniotic fluid or placenta. A human embryo does not need to be sacrificed. Proponents of the research claim that embryonic cells are by far the most promising of the batch.
I personally applaud President Obama’s choice to lift up the limits set by the previous generation. Hopefully, the enthusiasm by the scientists will mean an accelerated rate of research to make up for the eight years the field had been stagnating. The critics may have a point about the killing of a human being; it really depends on what developmental stage of an embryo that one views as being a human. However, they forget that these embryos were going to be discarded anyways, the products of failed in-vitro fertilizations. Stem cells have the potential to benefit a lot of people living in this world today. Isn’t there a need to help them first rather than cells that will never become a human?
Website Relevant to the Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/us/politics/07stem.html?ref=health
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Creating Life after a Death
Posthumous reproduction is becoming more common, with the increased number of soldiers being deployed and unfortunately, dying overseas. This type of reproduction refers to the implantation of a soldier’s stored sperm into a woman after he has died. Of course, this issue does not only pertain to soldiers, but to any man who is dying or already deceased due to a given circumstance. The pressing issue is: What rules should we implement regarding the impregnation of women with sperm that came from a man who is already deceased?
A soldier or a dying man can choose to store his sperm for his wife or girlfriend’s use in the event that he passes away. So, legally and morally, there seems to be nothing wrong with this scenario. The wife or girlfriend may decide to use this sperm to create a child in an effort to recreate the memory of the deceased husband or boyfriend. So, physically and figuratively, this newborn child will be a lasting combination of the mother and the father. In this way, the child’s existence serves as a sort of comfort for the grieving mother.
But, there have been cases where a deceased man’s sperm, at the request of wives or family members, has been taken from men who have not given their consent to the procedure. The issue here involves informed consent of the dying man, and whether laws should require a man to give this consent before he reaches a debilitated state. Sperm has even been taken from already deceased men who have unexpectedly died from heart attacks or strokes, because their wives or girlfriends want to become impregnated with their child.
Laws governing the use of sperm of the deceased and informed consent involving participation in saving sperm for later use need to catch up to this new, increasingly used procedure. We need to either define the decision to extract sperm to be a personal decision that belongs to the man, or a decision of the married couple, or even non-married couple. Furthermore, does the family play a part in this decision? The question is: where do we draw the line when determining who makes the ultimate decision to create a child that is the product of a living mother and a deceased father?
http://www.bioethics.net/articles.php?viewCat=2&articleId=196
A soldier or a dying man can choose to store his sperm for his wife or girlfriend’s use in the event that he passes away. So, legally and morally, there seems to be nothing wrong with this scenario. The wife or girlfriend may decide to use this sperm to create a child in an effort to recreate the memory of the deceased husband or boyfriend. So, physically and figuratively, this newborn child will be a lasting combination of the mother and the father. In this way, the child’s existence serves as a sort of comfort for the grieving mother.
But, there have been cases where a deceased man’s sperm, at the request of wives or family members, has been taken from men who have not given their consent to the procedure. The issue here involves informed consent of the dying man, and whether laws should require a man to give this consent before he reaches a debilitated state. Sperm has even been taken from already deceased men who have unexpectedly died from heart attacks or strokes, because their wives or girlfriends want to become impregnated with their child.
Laws governing the use of sperm of the deceased and informed consent involving participation in saving sperm for later use need to catch up to this new, increasingly used procedure. We need to either define the decision to extract sperm to be a personal decision that belongs to the man, or a decision of the married couple, or even non-married couple. Furthermore, does the family play a part in this decision? The question is: where do we draw the line when determining who makes the ultimate decision to create a child that is the product of a living mother and a deceased father?
http://www.bioethics.net/articles.php?viewCat=2&articleId=196
Thursday, March 5, 2009
One step closer to perfection indeed....
One California fertility clinic in LA has just taken a huge step closer toward the perfect child. How close does that step put us you ask? …Well, what if I said it puts us just a few months away? Ok, so maybe perfection won’t be achieved quite that soon, but selection most certainly will be arriving. How’s choosing your baby’s gender, hair and eye color, even complexion for a start? That’s exactly what this LA fertility clinic, and it’s sibling NY City clinic, plan on offering coming this fall.
An enhanced PGD (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis), that was originally designed to screen for genetic disorders, will be used to filter for cosmetic characteristics, so that IVF patients will be able to choose the eye color, hair color, and complexion, through the same process and techniques that already allow them to choose their child’s gender. Although, “Not all patients will qualify for these tests and we make NO guarantees as to ‘perfect prediction’ of things such as eye color or hair color,’ said the clinic’s news release.” The clinics director, Dr. Jeffery Steinberg, says they will be able to predict gender with 100% accuracy and eye color with about an 80% accuracy. What will results like that cost their patients? The IFV procedure with this additional selection will run patients around $18,000.
Of course this has almost everyone concerned with bioethics in an uproar. This first step seems to have jumped us off of the theoretically ethical diving board, and plunged us straight into the murky waters of the real life deep-end. Many are outraged that precious resources are being devoted toward improving genetic cosmetics, while research toward therapeutic genetic cures are still in need of funding. Some are pushing the argument that designer babies starts us down a new road of discrimination, be it against gender or skin tone. Arthur Caplan says that, “When you get into trait picking for your child, you put expectations on your child no matter what the trait,” and of course with that sort of price tag it will only be available to the rich. Also, a number of other fertility clinics are taking a firm public stance that they will not move in this direction and they affirm that they will continue to only engage in strictly therapeutic pursuits.
One of the pioneers of PGD technology, Mark Hughes, is certainly unhappy about how his technology is being implemented, “I went into science and medicine to diagnose and treat and hopefully cure disease. The last time I checked, eye color and gender wasn’t a disease. There’s no pathology, no pain or suffering and no reason for doctors to be involved.” Hughes is comforted by his belief that no significant amount of people will sign up for this selection, “I don’t care if you are a billionaire; no one wants to go through the psychological and emotional pain of IVF for something so trivial. We need to have faith in our fellow citizens.”
Whatever conclusion ethicists draw they all almost unanimously agree that we aren’t ready for this step and that we need to immediately start drafting policy and legislation to address the issue, and take steps in the appropriate controlling direction before things get out of hand. But this pressing urgency to take action has been diminished as a direct result of the fertility clinic suspending its proposed project. Apparently the ethical outcry had an effect on Dr. Steinberg who said, “Though well intended, we remain sensitive to public perception and feel that any benefit the diagnostic studies may offer are far outweighed by the apparent negative societal impacts involved.” This turn of events is an affirmation that the consideration and debate of the ethical issues surrounding the advancement of biotechnology is indeed having a positive and shaping influence on its direction.
Sources:
http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1066120-p2.html
http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/03/art-caplan-video-designer-babies-ethical/
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2009/03/designed-baby-proposal-nixed-for-now.html
An enhanced PGD (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis), that was originally designed to screen for genetic disorders, will be used to filter for cosmetic characteristics, so that IVF patients will be able to choose the eye color, hair color, and complexion, through the same process and techniques that already allow them to choose their child’s gender. Although, “Not all patients will qualify for these tests and we make NO guarantees as to ‘perfect prediction’ of things such as eye color or hair color,’ said the clinic’s news release.” The clinics director, Dr. Jeffery Steinberg, says they will be able to predict gender with 100% accuracy and eye color with about an 80% accuracy. What will results like that cost their patients? The IFV procedure with this additional selection will run patients around $18,000.
Of course this has almost everyone concerned with bioethics in an uproar. This first step seems to have jumped us off of the theoretically ethical diving board, and plunged us straight into the murky waters of the real life deep-end. Many are outraged that precious resources are being devoted toward improving genetic cosmetics, while research toward therapeutic genetic cures are still in need of funding. Some are pushing the argument that designer babies starts us down a new road of discrimination, be it against gender or skin tone. Arthur Caplan says that, “When you get into trait picking for your child, you put expectations on your child no matter what the trait,” and of course with that sort of price tag it will only be available to the rich. Also, a number of other fertility clinics are taking a firm public stance that they will not move in this direction and they affirm that they will continue to only engage in strictly therapeutic pursuits.
One of the pioneers of PGD technology, Mark Hughes, is certainly unhappy about how his technology is being implemented, “I went into science and medicine to diagnose and treat and hopefully cure disease. The last time I checked, eye color and gender wasn’t a disease. There’s no pathology, no pain or suffering and no reason for doctors to be involved.” Hughes is comforted by his belief that no significant amount of people will sign up for this selection, “I don’t care if you are a billionaire; no one wants to go through the psychological and emotional pain of IVF for something so trivial. We need to have faith in our fellow citizens.”
Whatever conclusion ethicists draw they all almost unanimously agree that we aren’t ready for this step and that we need to immediately start drafting policy and legislation to address the issue, and take steps in the appropriate controlling direction before things get out of hand. But this pressing urgency to take action has been diminished as a direct result of the fertility clinic suspending its proposed project. Apparently the ethical outcry had an effect on Dr. Steinberg who said, “Though well intended, we remain sensitive to public perception and feel that any benefit the diagnostic studies may offer are far outweighed by the apparent negative societal impacts involved.” This turn of events is an affirmation that the consideration and debate of the ethical issues surrounding the advancement of biotechnology is indeed having a positive and shaping influence on its direction.
Sources:
http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1066120-p2.html
http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/03/art-caplan-video-designer-babies-ethical/
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2009/03/designed-baby-proposal-nixed-for-now.html
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Is “Outsourced” Research Ethical?
Now more than ever, drug companies are going outside of the United States to conduct clinical trials. This raises some important ethical concerns, especially when trials are conducted in developing counties, or in nations whose health care systems are very different from ours. Recent studies found low rates of ethical review of research in developing countries and in China. One of the most serious concerns regarding “outsourcing” clinical trials to less well-to-do countries is the possibility that these nations’ poor could be manipulated by financial incentives and inadequate information about the study.
We have seen this scenario before. Both the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont Report state that the exploitation of a “disadvantaged or vulnerable population or community” as an easy source of test subjects constitutes unethical research. In all of our class discussions on the topic, I don’t recall anyone mentioning that a rich country could take advantage of a poorer one for the purposes of medical research. As far as I remember, we confined the issue to within a particular nation. This problem, however, has been magnified to a global scale.
Selecting which nations are eligible to participate in US-based clinical trials would certainly be viewed as discriminatory. However, countries such as Canada and Sweden are believed by bioethicist Dr. Ezekeil Emanuel (and undoubtedly by others as well) to be consistently satisfactory locales for research, so banning clinical trials of American drugs in all foreign countries is not the answer, either. But how are we to ensure that the research is ethical if it takes place on foreign soil?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/business/19clinic.html?hp
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/8/816
We have seen this scenario before. Both the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont Report state that the exploitation of a “disadvantaged or vulnerable population or community” as an easy source of test subjects constitutes unethical research. In all of our class discussions on the topic, I don’t recall anyone mentioning that a rich country could take advantage of a poorer one for the purposes of medical research. As far as I remember, we confined the issue to within a particular nation. This problem, however, has been magnified to a global scale.
Selecting which nations are eligible to participate in US-based clinical trials would certainly be viewed as discriminatory. However, countries such as Canada and Sweden are believed by bioethicist Dr. Ezekeil Emanuel (and undoubtedly by others as well) to be consistently satisfactory locales for research, so banning clinical trials of American drugs in all foreign countries is not the answer, either. But how are we to ensure that the research is ethical if it takes place on foreign soil?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/business/19clinic.html?hp
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/8/816
One step closer to perfection?
Prospective parents will now be able to screen embryos for almost any known genetic disease using a new technique called "genetic Mot". Currently only about 2% of the genetic diseases known to man can be screened in this way.
This "universal test" developed by a team of British scientists led by Professor Alan Handyside should be available sometime this year. The test which will cost around $3000 involves a process called karyomapping which consists of detecting almost any genetic condition by using a cell from a two day old embryo. Not only can it test for muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease, but it can be used for testing for the risk of developing heart disease, cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer's in later life. Furthermore it also gives information about eye color, height and weight.
While researching for the essay about Jesse Gelsinger, I came across an interesting article by J Savulescu titled Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best children. Savulescu argues that we have a “moral obligation” to “use all the available information and choose the option most likely to bring about the best outcome”.
He also argues “we have a moral obligation to test for genetic contribution to non-disease states such as intelligence and to use this information in reproductive decision-making.” According to Savalescu, happiness is measured by our experiences in life and a person with asthma, or a less intelligent person won’t have the fulfilling experiences that a person without asthma or a more intelligent person will have.
Once again, this new development raises ethical concerns and a whole new debate emerges. On one side, ethicists are concerned that this is just like the Nazi society where the weak were weeded out of the society. One the other hand some are arguing that as a parent one has a moral obligation to select an embryo with the best chance of the best life.
But the reality of this situation is sort of scary. As parents we will get the chance to eliminate the ‘least best’ embryos. We will attain a new kind of power, but are we ready to deal with such power?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/oct/24/embryo-research-development
Monday, March 2, 2009
"I had A's in high school..."
Ever felt unhappy with your image growing up as a teenager? Wanted bigger lips, a straighter nose, larger breasts? It seems that more and more minors are undergoing plastic surgery to correct their "inadequacies"; 205,119 operations were done on kids and teenagers 18 and younger, compared to 59,890 in 1997. Raised in a society with a constant bombardment of "the perfect image" by celebrities and models, It's hard not to imagine young girls might feel pressures about their appearance, but to be spurred to go under the knife at such a young age? It's more a reality now than ever before.
Kristen got breast implants as a graduation gift. Julia Marks' mother looked into plastic surgery for her daughter's nose when she was 6. Female self-esteem is as low as ever, but I feel plastic surgery is way out of line for people who can't even vote yet. You can diet, you can exercise, you can put on makeup, but getting yourself sliced up too far for girls whose bodies are still developing and might not understand the repercussions. Plastic surgery isn't just a one-time fix, followup procedures are often needed, and things might not go according to plan.
The motives are remarkably different. Adults get surgery "for that 'wow' factor," to pick up guys, whatever. Kids get surgery so they can feel normal when looking at their fellow classmates. Adults get plastic surgery to be different; kids get plastic surgery to be the same.
Proponents cite childhood bullying, eating disorders, and self-mutilation as things surgery can solve, but I don't think kids should give in. Talk to a counselor, get professional help, talk to your teacher, these are all options. And where are the parents in this? They need to teach self-acceptance instead of fulfilling their child's wildest whims. "You don't get self-esteem from a scalpel," says Dr. D'Amico.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/fashion/15skin.html?pagewanted=1&ref=health
I apologize for the title, I couldn't help it :)
Kristen got breast implants as a graduation gift. Julia Marks' mother looked into plastic surgery for her daughter's nose when she was 6. Female self-esteem is as low as ever, but I feel plastic surgery is way out of line for people who can't even vote yet. You can diet, you can exercise, you can put on makeup, but getting yourself sliced up too far for girls whose bodies are still developing and might not understand the repercussions. Plastic surgery isn't just a one-time fix, followup procedures are often needed, and things might not go according to plan.
The motives are remarkably different. Adults get surgery "for that 'wow' factor," to pick up guys, whatever. Kids get surgery so they can feel normal when looking at their fellow classmates. Adults get plastic surgery to be different; kids get plastic surgery to be the same.
Proponents cite childhood bullying, eating disorders, and self-mutilation as things surgery can solve, but I don't think kids should give in. Talk to a counselor, get professional help, talk to your teacher, these are all options. And where are the parents in this? They need to teach self-acceptance instead of fulfilling their child's wildest whims. "You don't get self-esteem from a scalpel," says Dr. D'Amico.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/fashion/15skin.html?pagewanted=1&ref=health
I apologize for the title, I couldn't help it :)
When Human Trials Come Before Animal Trials
A genetically modified rice trial financially supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health had recently created uproar among scientists and ethicisits. The genetically altered rice, called Golden Rice, carrying higher than normal amounts of vitamin A and beta carotene was intended to treat vitamin A deficiency. While these elevated levels of vitamin A and beta carotene are potentially beneficial for restoring eyesight, it was also noted that overconsumption could lead to toxic effects. Despite such knowledge, scientists and ethicists were appalled that this rice had been fed to children ranging from 6 to 10 years old despite insufficient evidence of the rice’s safety in animal trials and had seriously violated the Nuremburg Code (Poulter)
The necessity of animal trials for safety evaluation before proceeding to human trials may seem obvious. As pointed out in a letter by the scientists protesting this trial: “Our greatest concern is that the rice…has never been tested in animals.” But Dr. Dubock, project manager of Golden Rice, defended the ethicality of the study by reasoning that “as humans are the designed beneficiaries of Golden Rice, the animal testing could not answer the questions posed” (Poulter).
Although humans and other animals are physiologically different, we cannot simply ignore potential warnings if they were presented in animal studies. Additionally, how far would we go in jeopardizing the safety of one population of humans to save another? In this case, it is risking the health of young children in order to vitamin A deficient patients. Even if children were replaced with vitamin A deficient adults, would the study be justified without previous animal trials?
Poulter, Sean. “British Scientists Condemn Using Children in GM Food Trials as Unacceptable.” http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/17-12
The necessity of animal trials for safety evaluation before proceeding to human trials may seem obvious. As pointed out in a letter by the scientists protesting this trial: “Our greatest concern is that the rice…has never been tested in animals.” But Dr. Dubock, project manager of Golden Rice, defended the ethicality of the study by reasoning that “as humans are the designed beneficiaries of Golden Rice, the animal testing could not answer the questions posed” (Poulter).
Although humans and other animals are physiologically different, we cannot simply ignore potential warnings if they were presented in animal studies. Additionally, how far would we go in jeopardizing the safety of one population of humans to save another? In this case, it is risking the health of young children in order to vitamin A deficient patients. Even if children were replaced with vitamin A deficient adults, would the study be justified without previous animal trials?
Poulter, Sean. “British Scientists Condemn Using Children in GM Food Trials as Unacceptable.” http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/17-12
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)