Are parents ethically responsible for the weight of their children? As the obesity rate in the United Sates rises a new from of child abuse may also be on the rise. Recently in Cleveland Ohio a third graded was taken from his family and put into a foster home because of neglect. However, this situation is unusual because unlike most cases where the child is taken from his or her family for malnourishment, this boy was taken for being over nourished. As a third grader this boy weighs over 200 pounds and is already at risk for type two diabetes and has sleep apnea. The state has accused his mother of neglect and has placed the boy in foster care.
Is this the ethically responsible thing to do? My personal opinion is yes. The negative effects of obesity are under estimated by Jack and Jill. A recent study reported that the effects of childhood obesity have long term negative effects that are serious enough to cause parents great worry. In conclusion one doctor said to imagine a group of children on the playground with cigarettes in their hands, and then to imagine them with bellies. He said the medical risks in both situations are the same.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/11/28/200-pound-child-removed-from-home-because-of-weight/UPI-20971322494181/
Friday, March 9, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Adderall: Why So Serious?
The use of Adderall and other cognitive enhancing drugs by healthy individuals is often met with moral outrage, and in the United States it is punishable by prison. But why is this so? What is so wrong with augmenting focus and improving working memory?
In reality, Adderall is no different than the other forms of cognitive enhancement doctors have been recommending for decades; including a good diet, exercise, and regular sleeping habits. Not to mention the other things people ingest to improve focus and energy, such as coffee and energy drinks. All these things have stimulating effects on the brain, and many affect the catecholamine system, just like Adderall does to improve focus. And yet, no one seems to be saying that drinking coffee should be banned or we should limit the amount of sleep people are allowed to have. So why should the use of Adderall cause such an uproar?
Some people claim that it will undermine human nature, or diminish the value of our achievements, but if this was so then these same people should also stop people from eating healthy (since the variety of food that is available now was not available to people in the past) and drinking energy drinks, since it undermines the “authenticity” of their achievements. Of course, this is absurd, perhaps in other cases these arguments may make more sense, but in the case of Adderall, it only improves focus, it doesn’t suddenly make everyone a genius or able to do things they wouldn’t be able to do before, if they put their minds to it. As a result, in terms of human achievement, Adderall won’t undermine it any more than other forms of “enhancement” that we seem to take for granted.
Secondly, some people assert that Adderall gives unfair advantages to certain people, at the cost of others – especially in college. But again, this argument takes for granted all the other inequalities in the world – in comparison, Adderall will have little effect. For instance, people are endowed with different levels of mental faculties to begin with, some people can’t afford to go to elite schools and get a good education, and others don’t have easy access to the Internet, and all the information it brings with it. Clearly, these inequities are far more troublesome and the use of Adderall is a small inequality in comparison.
Therefore, the use of cognitive enhancing drugs, like Adderall, by healthy individuals is an overly inflated debate which takes for granted all the accepted forms of enhancement, and other problems in the world. Just as drinking coffee has become a staple for society, cognitive enhancing drugs may well be the new trend in a couple decades.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Blastocysts by the Bunch: The Proposition of Free Market Stem Cells
Stem cells are an issue that has always provoked lively
debate. The molding clay of the cell world, the uses of stem cells range widely
from artificially engineering new organs for transplant patients to treating
infertility. One particularly controversial use of stem cells is in anti-aging
therapy, primarily for cosmetic purposes. The success of these treatments has
led to a cacophony of opinions. Opponents of the therapy argue that resources
that could otherwise be used to save lives with extra organ should not be
wasted on indulging the vanity of the rich. Before we can effectively argue for
or against this or any other use of stem cells, we have to make a decision as a
society: should stem cells be open to the free market? Should we instead
completely regulate the allotment of stem cells, and make it solely for
research that is seen to the most good (i.e. saving lives at some point in the
future). I think that the right answer lies somewhere in the middle. A complete
free market economy would lead to the applications of stem cells being
primarily commercial, which for the most part will be at odds with the most
beneficial uses. On the other hand, strict regulation of stem cells could lead to
its own problems. Firstly, if we don’t allow people to receive compensation for
donating stem cells, they will be less likely to donate, making for less
available stem cells. If we restrict the use of stem cells to only a few area
of research, then we may disallow research into areas of study that would be
very beneficial long term, but in a non-obvious way. For example, research into
the use of stem cells as an anti-aging treatment for facial tissues could lead
to valuable data about using stem cells for the restoration of aging vital
organs. The optimal solution would be a partially free market with subsidies in
the form of government grants to promising new areas of research. This would
promote competitiveness in the market, not only for market applications, but
also for novelty in research.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/health/research/scientists-use-stem-cells-to-generate-human-eggs.html?ref=stemcells
How to Make a Killer Virus
Since 2003, there
have been 592 reported cases of avian influenza, or ‘bird flu’ worldwide. Of
those infected, 349 died from the disease, a 59% mortality rate. Regular
seasonal flu, by contrast, kills approximately 5,800 to 7,500 people each year
in the USA alone, from an unreported number of total cases. One of the reasons
that the total death toll from bird flu has been so low is that bird flu virus,
a member of the H5N1 class of influenza viruses, cannot easily spread from human
to human. Until now, that is.
Researcher teams
led by Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands,
and Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, have mutated the
H5N1 virus to be more easily transferrable between ferrets, which are
considered a good analog for human disease transmission. Ferrets infected with
either of the mutated strains were found to spread the virus to other ferrets,
and Fouchier’s team reported a 100% mortality rate from their mutant virus. The
research has sparked an international debate over the ethical issues of
researching infectious diseases. On January 20, 2012, Fouchier, Kawaoka, and 37
others called for a 60-day freeze on further research on mutant flu strains
until the international community could come to a consensus on the benefits and
risks of conducting and, more importantly, publishing such research.
Those who support
publishing a redacted version of the research, like Paul Keim, acting chair of
the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, argue that publishing
the full details of the methods used to make the virulent strains would create
a threat of bioterrorism on an unprecedented scale. While we do have vaccines
and anti-viral medications, our current supply and production capacity are not
nearly sufficient to handle a global pandemic – natural or engineered.
Furthermore, researchers have discovered wild virus strains that are resistant
to our current antiviral drugs. Those strains could be combined with the more
infective strains created by Fouchier and Kawaoka to create an even more potent
killer.
In a statement
advocating that the research be published in full, the World Health
Organization argued that redacting the research would be ineffective at helping
others build on the results found by Fouchier and Kawaoka. The WHO argued
further that distributing the full research to some scientists on a need to
know basis would be logistically impossible. Citing the “substantial immediate
risk” of bird flu, the WHO called on Nature
and Science to publish the papers in
full.
I believe that the
WHO made the right decision. Publication is an important principle of science,
without which progress is stunted. But more importantly, redacting or simply
not publishing the research would not necessarily reduce the risk of bioterrorism.
A determined hostile group could certainly acquire the know-how and equipment
to develop the mutant strains created by Fouchier and Kawaoka, whether or not
the research is published.
The advantage of
publishing the research is that we will be better prepared to combat such a
pathogen, engineered or natural, if it ever appears. As Kawaoka argues, it is “irresponsible”
not to probe deeper into the methods by which such viruses become infectious.
Especially given the extreme interconnectedness of the modern world, the threat
of a pandemic cannot be ignored. We must acquire a better understanding of the
nature of these viruses before the next outbreak. The risk of publishing is
simply not greater than the risk of keeping the results private.
Sources:
“The risks and
benefits of publishing mutant flu studies” Nature, http://www.nature.com/news/the-risks-and-benefits-of-publishing-mutant-flu-studies-1.10138
“Cumulative number
of confirmed human cases for avian influenza A(H5N1) reported to WHO, 2003-2012”
World Health Organization, http://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/EN_GIP_20120305CumulativeNumberH5N1cases.pdf
“Estimates of
Deaths Associated with Seasonal Influenza --- United States, 1976—2007” Centers
for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5933a1.htm
I remember when memories lasted a lifetime…
Whenever
memory comes up in biotech, it almost always deals with improvement. How can we enhance our memories? Take this supplement and your memory will
improve. Eat enough fish so you can
learn more. Recently, however, some
research has been directed toward erasing memories rather than helping them
form.
Like every process in the brain, memories are a product
of connections between cells. Memories
are stored in networks of cells, and each cell's activation launches a cascade
of responses in surrounding cells. In
the late 1990s, Karim Nader, a neuroscientist at New York University, set out
to research how to inhibit memories. He
trained lab rats to associate a certain sound with a painful shock. After training, he played the sound and
injected their brains with chemicals that inhibit protein synthesis. Protein synthesis is required for memories to
form, but to Nader’s surprise, the treatment permanently erased the rat’s
already formed memory of the sound. The
experiment went against a common belief in neuroscience: memories, once formed,
are simply maintained in the same place in the brain. Instead, he discovered, “they are
formed and then rebuilt every time they’re accessed … recalling a memory is
nearly identical to the initial creation of a long-term recollection.” As a result, treatment to prevent protein
synthesis while recalling a certain memory prevents the memory from reforming
in the brain.
So it works in
rats, but what about humans? This research
suggests that with proper treatment, we could potentially erase specific
memories. A person would have to focus
on the event that they wish to forget.
Once they are certain they have a grasp of it, they would take a
protein-synthesis blocker and attempt to recall the memory again. Because recalling a memory requires
rebuilding it, the drug would block the process and the memory would never be
reformed.
So the treatment is scientifically feasible, but should
it ever be used? It’s a tricky issue. On one hand, some people suffer from memory
related diseases such as PTSD. Although
PTSD is a result of stress, it is really related to the memory of a stressful
event. Similarly, victims of assault or abuse
are often haunted by the memory of past events.
What if they could forget their troublesome memories? I believe that such treatment would be
justified in such cases. It would allow
people who are haunted by specific memories to function again.
Drawing the line for what exactly qualifies
for forgetting, however, is nearly impossible.
We already administer antidepressants to the chronically depressed, how
is erasing a single haunting memory any different? If such a drug were readily
accessible, however, it would be only a matter of time before people went from
erasing memories of abuse and events that affect them daily to erasing far more
insignificant events: an awkward encounter, a job interview gone wrong, or even
just a bad day.
My
concern is if such treatment became common practice. The implications of widespread memory erasure
are intriguing, and perhaps too broad for a single post, but on the whole, I
have to say I disagree with the idea. Entire
events could be forgotten outside of direct documentation. What if Americans took such drugs en masse
after 9/11 and forgot the events of the day?
Documentation of it would obviously still exist, but there would be a
clear difference in the national memory of the event versus without such drugs. Ultimately, each person and society is
defined by abilities and memories. In my
view, erasing memories haphazardly amounts to completely changing a person and, along with it, society.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2012/02/ff_forgettingpill/all/1
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-07/uoia-nps072607.php
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2012/02/ff_forgettingpill/all/1
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-07/uoia-nps072607.php
Forced Sterilization: "coaxed, bribed, or even enticed"
In our class, we recently discussed the case of Ashley and
her treatment. Ashley is a girl born with static encephalopathy, meaning that her
mental age will never surpass that of a three-month-old. Her parents decided to
stunt her growth with hormone treatment, while at the same time removing her
breast buds and sterilizing her through a hysterectomy. No one in our class
argued that Ashley’s treatment was wrong.
The
case of Mary Moe draws many parallel’s to that of Ashley, although I think our
class would have a more harder time agreeing on Mary’s case. Mary Moe is an
alias for a 32-year-old woman from Massachusetts.
Moe
is currently pregnant for the third time her life, and is in no shape to raise
a child. She has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar mood disorder.
In between her first pregnancy, which ended in abortion, and her second, which
ended with a boy now in custody of Moe’s parents, Moe has been had “psychotic
breaks” and has been hospitalized numerous times.
Moe’s
parents wanted to abort their daughter’s current pregnancy and took the case to
family court, in which the judge concluded that Moe be “coaxed, bribed or even
enticed” to a hospital in order to be sterilized. The case was appealed.
Moe
is clearly unfit to raise a child, and her pregnancies are creating heavy
burdens, of which she carries little carries little weight. Moe should be
forced to take birth control until, if ever, her condition improves.
Saying
that is easy, but justifying forced sterilization, even temporarily in the form
of birth control bills, is not so easy. Moe’s case is so ethically messy
because she is apposed to abortion, calling herself “very Catholic,” and does
not want to take birth control of be sterilized.
Big
picture utilitarianism offers a potential justification. Allowing Moe to
potentially get pregnant again puts a large burden on her parents and society,
while doing very little to make her happy, as she will have little connection
with the child. The result is a net negative. Forcing her to take birth control
bills makes Moe unhappy, but this unhappiness, I argue, is outweighed in order
of magnitude by the burden it lifts on the people carry the weight of Moe’s
actions. Forcing Moe to take birth control pills leads to a net positive
situation.
What
to do with Moe’s current pregnancy is a much messier issue.
http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10194487-sterilization-forced-abortion-are-never-the-answer-bioethicist-says
http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10194487-sterilization-forced-abortion-are-never-the-answer-bioethicist-says
What Rights Does a Murderer Have? Ethics of Lethal Injection
A man lies strapped down on gurney
in a plain room lined with green tiles. Large intravenous tubes, inserted into
the man’s veins, run through a hole in the wall to another room hidden behind a
one way window. The other large windows are two way, and if the curtains are
raised the man can look at the faces of various observers who have come to see
that justice is done. This will be the last sight the prisoner sees, as the
chemicals run through the tubes into his veins, putting him to sleep and then
ending his life.
But is it the last thing he feels?
This is the question which has raised its own special controversy over Lethal
Injection, the method that the United States uses in the already controversial
practice of capital punishment. First, a little background is needed: the
United States, Japan, and South Korea are the only three industrialized
democracies that still employ the death penalty. Considered the most “humane”
way of doing this, lethal injection usually uses a cocktail of three drugs: a
barbiturate (depressant), a paralyzing agent, and a poison to stop the heart.
Returning to the question then, brings us to the controversy. There is some
debate whether or not the depressant wears off quickly enough to render the
prisoner conscious, but paralyzed, as the potassium chloride burns through
their veins to the heart. They may feel it, but be unable to scream due to the
paralysis. Another piece of the controversy is that, because of the creed “do
no harm” medically trained people cannot participate in the death penalty
directly. Thus the job of inserting the syringes and injecting the drugs falls
to often untrained prison officials who are liable to mess up and cause the
criminal to suffer a lot before finally dying. An example of this is the case
of Angel Diaz, where the syringe had pierced through the vein and the chemical
were released in the arm, burning Diaz his arm without killing him until
another needle was added.
Why is this important? After all, we
are dealing with convicted felons. Dr. Edward Brunner, a professor at the University
of Northwestern Medical School, describes the situation as “experimenting on
human beings, much like the German Doctors did in the concentration camps. What
they are doing is inhuman. The subject ends up with a strong possibility of
being subjected to excruciating suffering.” One issue which Brunner is referring
to the fact is that no one should have to suffer when at death, even if they
are a murderer. If we torture a killer before killing them, then we become just
as bad as that person was, does that mean someone should kill the executioner
as well? What if the person is innocent? While rare, it does happen that
innocent men are executed for someone else’s crime. Why should they be tortured
even while they are hoping for salvation?
The obvious solution to the dilemma
over the effect of the drugs and the question of who is qualified to carry out
such acts is to stop them altogether. Studies show that it costs significantly
less to incarcerate a person for life than to kill them ($2.16 million extra in
North Carolina and $3 million in Maryland. In Texas they have found that it is on average
2.3 million more per person to kill them than to keep them under the highest
security for 40 years.) Clearly, global opinion leans this way, as does popular
opinion. Additionally, if prison is supposed to be rehabilitation focused, then
the death penalty seems a bit counter-purpose. Let’s practice what we preach,
and stop the killing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)