Miracles Do Happen

This is a wonderful story: An infant apparently died and didn't breathe for 30 minutes, but then spontaneously came back to life. After surgery, he is none the worse for wear. The moral of the story? It's Not Over Until It's Over: Unless It Isn't Really Over

New Address for Mark Pickup Blog

Mark Pickup's blog, Humanlife Matters has had some technical difficulties. For those interested, he is now blogging here.

ESCR Debate is a Controversy About Ethics, Not Science

The media and many scientists treat the ESCR/human cloning debates as if they were scientific in nature, rather than about ethics and philosophy--which cannot be determined by the scientific method. Now, a scientist writing in Nature, of all places, makes the same point. (I take no position on the criticisms of the Bush Administration and do not wish that matter discussed here.):

Nature 446, 24 (1 March 2007) Published online 28 February 2007

Need to distinguish science (good or bad) from ethics
David Campbell: Department of Biological Sciences, 425 Scientific Collections Building, University of Alabama, Box 870345, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0345, USA

Sir:
Although I share John Horgan's concern about the misrepresentation of science by the current US administration and others, expressed in his Book Review of Seth Shulman's Undermining Science ("Dark days at the White House" Nature 445, 365-366; 2007), he and other commentators need to distinguish clearly between science and ethics in their arguments. It is bad science to claim that reducing environmental protection will not have adverse effects on rare species, for example, but the decision whether we should protect rare species or not is an ethical one.

"With regard to research on embryonic stem cells, I know of no one who denies that there would be at least some scientific insights and medical benefit from such research. However, the real question with regard to stem-cell research is whether the potential medical benefit and scientific knowledge outweigh any harm done to the embryo. The answer depends strongly on the value assigned to the embryo, which is not a scientific question. Thus, instead of being an example of science versus anti-science, this is a case of competing ethical claims. Replacing an advocate of stem-cell research on the President's Council on Bioethics with someone morally opposed to it reflects support for an ethical position (although the fact that this particular example involved replacing a biologist with a political philosopher does also raise the possibility that science was getting less say).

By invoking science as supporting a particular position on ethical questions, which science cannot directly answer, critics are making an error of logic similar to the one made by the Bush administration itself."

Or to put it another way, to "invoke science as supporting a particular position on ethical questions" is to politicize science, which is to actually corrupt it.

The Dutch Suicide Problem

The Dutch apparently have a real problem with suicidal desires. According to this story, there are nearly 100,000 suicide attempts each year, with about 1,600 resulting deaths. From the story: "The official figures from Statistics Netherlands (CBS) indicate that 1,600 people actually commit suicide each year--a number that has remained stable for a long time. This figure puts the Netherlands at number fifty in the world for incidents of suicide, and somewhere in the middle when compared to the rest of Europe. But the Trimbos institute suspects that the actual figure is much higher, since many suicides in the Netherlands are registered as traffic accidents or industrial accidents."

Ah, but that isn't the only manner in which the Dutch suicide statistics are skewed. Euthanasia and assisted suicide deaths are also not counted in the suicide statistics. If they were, the number of suicides each year in the Netherlands would exceed 5,000--and even that figure would be low since it is widely acknowledged that the number of euthanasia/assisted suicide deaths each year is dramatically under-reported. Including Dutch euthanasia/assisted suicide statistics in the count--which would make it more accurate--would place the Dutch suicide rate among highest in the world.

HT: Alex Schadenberg

Death Hastened for Organ Donation?

This is a disturbing story in the Los Angeles Times: A doctor is under investigation for overdosing an organ donor with pain medication to hasten his death in order to procure organs. If so, it is a terrible breach of organ donation ethics and a profound act of wrongdoing.

We should not prejudge the case, of course, although the doctor's lawyer whining that his client wasn't the only one who did things wrong does not give great grounds for confidence. But let us instead look at the bigger picture.

There are many proposals out there to increase the number of transplantable organs. One is presumed consent. The idea is that society will presume that everyone wants to be an organ donor unless the person explicitly opts out in writing. In other words, rather than filling out an organ donation card, you would be a donor unless you filled out a form stating that you do not wish to be a donor.

Presumed consent might work in a medical milieu unequivocally devoted to the sanctity/equality of human life. But we don't have that system. Health care, under the influence of the bioethics movement, is now sometimes practiced under the "quality of life" ethic, in which some patients are presumed to have greater value than others.

This being so, presumed consent would not succeed because patients and their families would reasonably worry that what the doctor in the Times story is suspected of doing would become standard procedure. At the very least, presumed consent could, over time, impact the way that very ill or injured patients--particularly those with head injuries--would be cared in a system in which medical personnel perceived that their patients are prospective organ donors.

We should all want there to be more organ donations, of course. But the only ethical way to get from here to there, in my view, is to increase medicine's devotion to the sanctity/equality of life of all patients. Only then will more people have confidence that their organs will never be perceived as having greater value than their lives.

Post Script: As I published this post, this story was sent to me about a hospital scuffle over the removal of life support from a patient in Singapore, where presumed consent is the law.

Media Bias on Display: Attacking Adult Stem Cell Research--The Sequel

I reported earlier on the mainstream media's jumping to over blow a story of process mistakes made by Dr. Catherine Verfaillie, with regard to the potential that she derived pluripotent adult stem cells from bone marrow. My point was further verified today when the San Francisco Chronicle carried a New York Times piece reporting on the story--again. That's two stories about an arcane matter involving procedural mistakes that did not affect Verfallies' conclusions--which were in mouse studies. Can we spell media bias?

More on California Forced Complicity in Assisted Suicide

Some doubts (and aspersions) have been cast about my interpretation of A.B. 374, which I detailed in a Secondhand Smoke post and over at First Things. One commenter called my interpretation "convoluted." Well, true--but only because of the way the legislation is written.

Here it is again in a nutshell: First: No health care worker or provider can be forced to actually participate in assisted suicide. At the same time, no health care provider or worker who does can be punished for it in any way. Meaning, that if a doctor who visits a nursing home assists the suicide of a resident, even if it is against the policy of that nursing home, he or she cannot have any sanction, nor could the patient be asked to vacate.

Second: Acute care hospitals are expressly permitted to opt out of having assisted suicides performed in their facilities. Since this is a specific category of health care provider, the effect is that no other providers can similarly opt out since they are not given that right in the legislation.

Third: There is a strict construction clause, meaning that the terms cannot be expanded. Hence, only acute care hospitals will be able to opt out of assisted suicides on their premises.

If the authors didn't want this consequence, all they had to do was permit any health care facility refuse to permit assisted suicides to be conducted on site. This is what H. 44, the Vermont assisted suicide legislation does, to wit: "5294. HEALTH CARE FACILITY EXCEPTION: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a health care facility may prohibit an attending physician from writing a prescription for medication under this chapter for a patient who is a resident in its facility and intends to use the medication on the facility's premises, provided the facility has notified the attending physician in writing of its policy with regard to such prescriptions."

California's legislation contains no such blanket exemption. (I know, I know: There are potential loopholes in the Vermont wording, but let's leave that be for now.) Hence, if the California legislation passes as is, Catholic nursing homes, in-patient hospices, and other such health care providers would be powerless to prevent assisted suicides from taking place in their facilities.

Hughes: Smith "Burned Bridges" with "Reality Based Community"

The transhumanist guru, James Hughes, grouses about an essay apparently written by Rich Hayes of the Center for Genetics and Society. Hayes and the Center are definitely and firmly on the political and pro choice left. But since he and it oppose the new eugenics of transhumanism, Hughes accuses Hayes and the Center of opposing true procreative freedom, a typical paranoid rant of the transhumanist crowd. Hayes' essay (which I have not read) must have drawn blood because Hughes brings out the biggest supposed gun in his advocacy arsenal, accusing Hayes and the Center of being in league with the dreaded religious right. As if. Hey, J: The religious right opposes the genocide at Darfur. Does that mean good liberals should support it?

Hughes goes on to "compliment" me for having the courage to supposedly break with the "reality based community" due to my being part of the DI. I'm not part of the reality based community??? Hughes believes that humans will one day be made immortal and that we will all be able to upload our minds into computers where we will spend eternity enjoying group consciousnesses with our fellow post humans. Of the two of us, I hardly think I am the one who is reality challenged.

California Latinos Oppose Physician-Assisted Suicide

In a poll taken last year, but there is no reason to think it still isn't valid. By 65-23%, California's Latino's oppose assisted suicide. So does LULAC, the nation's largest Latino civil rights organization. Let's hope that the California Assembly and Senate pay heed and reject A.B. 374.

Dutch Politician: Don't Put Too Much Emphasis on Palliative Care

The Dutch continue to demonstrate how euthanasia pushes a country's ethics into a moral free fall. The current government apparently plans to stress palliative care. No, says Mark Rutte, the leader of one of the primary opposition parties! From the story: "Rutte says the new government puts too much emphasis on palliative care in the stance it has now taken on euthanasia. He fears that the government will try to somehow make palliative care into an full-fledged alternative that will make euthanasia superfluous."

We wouldn't want that, now would we?

More About Forced Cooperation in Assisted Suicide

I have written some more about the requirement in California's A.B. 374, which would legalize physician-assisted suicide, that Catholic nursing homes, in-patient hospice facilities, and other health care providers permit assisted suicide to take place on premises. It is over at the First Things blog.

A Case of Suicide Tourism in Oregon?

A story in the San Francisco Chronicle today inadvertently disclosed what may be a case of assisted suicide tourism in Oregon. The story is about a pagan memorial service for a woman named Heather MacAllister, who was notable locally for promoting fat burlesque. (Remember, this is San Francisco.) Here is what caught my eye: "On what would have been MacAllister's 38th birthday, members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community gathered to say goodbye to the performer and activist who ended her life Feb. 13 in Portland, Ore., through assisted suicide after a battle with ovarian cancer...MacAllister, a Michigan native, moved to San Francisco in 2005 to create the Big Burlesque and Fat Bottom Revue, featuring and celebrating large women." No indication she ever moved to Oregon.

If she was not a resident of Oregon, the assisted suicide was illegal there. But the state's regulators would almost certainly never find out about it since virtually all they know about individual assisted suicides comes from information supplied by the death doctors, who would almost certainly not disclose that they assisted the suicide of a non resident. And even if the state regulators were informed, they don't have the authority to investigate. All they could do is refer it to a district attorney, who, if past irregularities that have come to light in Oregon are any indication, would not give the matter a high law enforcement priority.

The residence requirement "safeguard" in Oregon is a total joke, of course. If I wanted to become a resident of Oregon today, all I would have to do is fly there, take out a motel room, and claim Oregon as my home.

I am going to see if I can find out more about this. But even if my suspicions are right, don't expect the Oregon authorities to do anything. The entire program there is run on the principle of hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil. The guidelines aren't actually intended to protect, but merely give false assurance.

Continued Meltdown of UK National Health Service

The NHS is continuing to disintegrate. Now, it is intentionally delaying surgery as a way of husbanding resources. From the story in the Telegraph: "'Minimum waiting times' have been imposed by at least 43 per cent of Acute NHS Trusts, a survey for Channel 4's Dispatches programme found. Treatments are often postponed for more than 20 weeks, despite staff and equipment being available."

Can you imagine needing your whatzit removed and having to wait until the NHS allows doctors to get around to it? What a disaster.

Vermont Media Bias on Assisted Suicide

"Lawmakers at Statehouse Open Debate on Death with Dignity," screamed the headline in the Rutland Herald. The term "death with dignity" isn't even put in quotes. No bias there. And note the story: "MONTPELIER--As so often happens on difficult, emotional debates, lawmakers and observers could tell at a glance Friday where visitors to the Statehouse stood on what some of them described as 'death with dignity' and others called 'physician-assisted suicide.'

So, the headline writer chose sides, and indeed, decided to use the term that is euphemistic rather than accurate and descriptive. But let's let Derek Humphry, the co-founder of the Hemlock Society, decide which term is right. He wrote in a Letter to the Editor in the Register Guard on November 7, 2006: "'Physician' means a licensed M.D.; 'assisted' means helping; and 'suicide' means deliberately ending life. The [Oregon Dept. of Health's] cop-out choice of the words 'death with dignity' is wildly ambiguous and means anything you want. Let's stick to the English language and in this matter call a spade a spade."

Indeed. Beware movement's that need gooey euphemisms to further their agendas.

Media Bias on Display: Attacking Adult Stem Cell Research

I am sure many of you saw the story that Dr. Catherine Verfaillie's study--indicating that a type of bone marrow stem cell might be pluripotent--had flaws. (Can't you hear "the scientists" cheering?) The flaws were not in the conclusion of her research, but in the process of identifying the cells. Never mind. The media have jumped to blow this story into a bigger deal than it is as a way of generally tarring adult stem cell research.

And get this quote from the Seattle Times:"Her study had concluded adult stem cells taken from the bone marrow of mice could grow into an array of biological tissues, including brain, heart, lung and liver. So far, only embryonic stem cells, which are commonly retrieved by destroying embryos at an early stage of development, are known to hold such regenerative promise."

Garbage. ES cells have not shown such regenerative promise. In theory, they might. But it hasn't been actually done yet. Usually ES cells morph into many different types of cells in the Petri dish, and moreover, it might be their potential pluripotency that leads to their propensity to cause tumors. Beyond this, other types of adult stem cells have demonstrated multipotency, that is the potential to be developed into several different types of tissues. For example, a paper was recently published demonstrating this capacity in stem cells found in fat.

In fact, Verfaillie's study in mice has little to do with the tremendous gains being made in adult/umbilical cord blood stem cell research which is progressing in many areas into early human trials. That the media decided to highlight this arcane story, (page 4 in the SF Chronicle), which may or may not have scientific significance, far beyond the barely reported peer reviewed paper showing adult stem cells restoring feelings in human patients paralyzed with spinal cord injury, vividly illustrates the game that is being played.

OF COURSE Reproductive Cloning is on the Biotech Agenda

Nature (no link) says so: "Meanwhile, the main debate [over human cloning] still focuses on making cloned embryos for research. 1997 was just three years after the Washington Post declared that it would be 'unconscionable' to create embryos for research; and in 1997 itself the European Convention on Human Rights and Bioethics was opened for signature, which turns the the Post's repugnance into international law by prohibiting signatories form creating embryos for research.

"In contrast, what has been universally deemed as unacceptable is the pursuit of human reproductive cloning - or the production of what some have called a delayed identical twin. Here, the two issues that have dominated the discussion have been dignity and safety. There is a consensus that dignity is not undermined if a human offspring is valued in its own right and not merely as a means to an end. But there is no consensus that we will eventually know enough about cloning for the risks of creating human clones to be so small as to be ethically acceptable.

"The debate may seem to have been pre-empted by prompt prohibition. But as the science of epigenetics and of development inevitably progresses, those for whom cloning is the only means to bypass sterility or genetic disease, say, will increasingly demand its use. Unless there is some unknown fundamental biological obstacle, and given wholly positive ethical motivations, human reproductive cloning is an eventual certainty."

HT. Nigel Cameron

Brave New Britain Strikes Again--Opening Door to Genetic Engineering

Having just allowed women to risk their lives, limbs, and fecundity by selling their eggs for use in cloning, authorities are now about to open the door to genetic engineering. No one should be surprised. Brave New Britain is merely more open about where all of this cloning and embryonic stem cell research is heading. Indeed, it is where Big Biotech and its advocates want it to head. They just aren't honest and candid enough to tell us here in the USA, because some of us haven't gotten the "Borg's" message that resistance is futile.

Doerflinger on the Iowa Pro-Cloning Vote

In today's NRO, Richard Doerflinger, who acts as the hub of the wheel for forces opposing human cloning, weighed in about Iowa's pro cloning vote (and the AP's bad reporting about it), demonstrating in his usual rapier fashion how it was based on misleading hype and the cruel raising of false hopes. From the article: "For as the bill went from [Iowa]senate to house, Governor Chet Culver declared that 'it's really up to the 100 state representatives now to decide if they want to give hope and opportunity to tens of thousands of people.'

"Who are these tens of thousands of people? A hint of an answer is that Culver said this at a press conference surrounded by parents of children with juvenile diabetes, who spoke about a 'cure' for their children's illness.

"It is worth asking: Have these parents ever read anything about cloning and juvenile diabetes--or are they being misled and used? Even the most vigorous proponents of human cloning for research purposes, such as Ian Wilmut (head of the team that created Dolly), admit that stem cells from cloned embryos will not treat juvenile diabetes. The reason is simple: Any embryo cloned from a child with juvenile diabetes (and any stem cells from that embryo) would be an exact genetic match to the child, and thus have exactly the same genetic profile that provoked the illness in the first place.

"The AP reporter, gamely coming to the governor's aid, adds that 'many scientists' hold that embryonic stem cells from cloning also promise new therapies for Alzheimer's disease. But, in fact, it is difficult to find any competent scientist who holds this. When some members of the Reagan family were pushing that line in 2004, the Washington Post reported the consensus among experts on Alzheimer's that this is almost certainly not the kind of illness that embryonic stem cells can ever treat. When asked why there is nonetheless a widespread public perception that embryonic stem cells may treat this illness, National Institutes of Health expert Ron McKay famously noted: 'To start with, people need a fairy tale...'"

As Doerfinger often says in response to McCay's assertion, "No! They need the truth!" Don't hold your breath, Rich. Don't hold your breath.

The Stampede of the Cloning Herd

Score another big victory for Big Biotech's disingenuous and obfuscating propaganda campaign in favor of human cloning. Iowa has revoked its complete ban in order to permit research into SCNT in the state. And, as happened in Missouri, California, and ever other state that has debated the issue, the argument often was swayed by the scientifically false assertion that human cloning does not create a cloned human embryo.

Interestingly, in countries such as the UK where human SCNT is less controversial, scientists readily acknowledge that SCNT creates an embryo. (Maybe its a different SCNT than the American version.) But what do facts matter when the bovines are being stampeding off an ethical cliff?

Tens of billions are going to be spent worldwide trying to learn how to clone human life. Whichever way the science goes, there seems no way for this to end well. If it "works," we will move quickly toward creating human life like an Iowa corn crop, and harvesting it for processing, just as corn is turned into ethanol. Cloning success will also move into genetic engineering, fetal farming (for which we will hear the same junk biological arguments of purported non humanity and the potential for CURES! CURES! CURES!), and finally, cloning to birth.

If it doesn't work--which is certainly a distinct possibility--there will be a financial loss of epic proportions, akin to the dot com bust. Only this time most of the losses will be tallied in the public's money. But by then, we will be on to the next stampede.

But what the heck. The great god science (as a perceived end, not the method) must receive its sacrifices. Full speed ahead to the brave new world!

Forced Participation in Assisted Suicide Under A.B. 374

Under A.B. 374, nursing homes, hospices, group homes, rehabilitation centers, and other facilities (except acute care hospitals) cannot prevent assisted suicide from taking place in their facilities. This would include those with religious objections, since only acute care hospitals are authorized to refuse assisted suicide on their premises.

The key sections are 7198 (b) and (e):

"(b) No professional organization or association, or heath care provider, may subject a person to censure, discipline, suspension, loss of license, loss of privileges, loss of membership, or other penalty for participating or refusing to participate in good faith compliance with this chapter." (My emphasis.)

Now, here's where (e) comes in. It permits acute care hospitals to refuse to permit assisted suicide in the facility. "(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a general acute care hospital, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 1250, may prohibit a licensed physician from carrying out a patient's request under this chapter on the premises of the hospital if the hospital has notified the licensed physician of its policy regarding this chapter."

Under 1250 (a) an acute care hospital is defined as, " a health facility having a duly constituted governing body with overall administrative and professional responsibility and an organized medical staff that provides 24-hour inpatient care, including the following basic services: medical, nursing, surgical, anesthesia, laboratory, radiology, pharmacy, and dietary services."

This would appear to mean that assisted suicide could not be prevented from occurring on the premises of nursing homes, hospices, rehabilitation facilities, group homes, etc.--whether or not they have a religious or moral objection to assisted suicide--and staff doctors or those with privileges cannot be sanctioned in any way for participating in the assisted suicides of patients in these objecting facilities.

The culture of death brooks no dissent!

HT: Rita Marker

A.B. 374: The Usual Assisted Suicide Crock

I have started to dig into A.B. 374 and it is the usual smoke and mirrors beloved of assisted suicide advocates. For example, I am sure we will hear about the safeguards against the mentally ill from being assisted in suicide. But the actual wording of the legislation belies this soothing notion. For example, with regard to mental state, the suicidal patient needs to be "capable," to receive assisted suicide. Capable is merely the ability to communicate health care decisions, which is not at all the same thing as not being mentally ill.

7195(5)(c)"Capable" means that in the opinion of the patient's attending physician or consulting physician, a patient has the ability to make and communicate health care decisions to health care providers, including communication through persons familiar with the patient's manner of communicating, if those persons are available.

And here is another example of the usual word games assisted suicide promoters like to play: The legislation states that if a prescribing doctor believes that a patient's depression might impair his or her judgment (fat chance, given the ideological beliefs of pro assisted suicide mental health care professionals, he said cynically), the patient is supposed to be referred for "counseling." Now, most of us would consider counseling to be sustained treatment to alleviate or correct the cause of the perceived impairment. But under the legislation, it really only means a consultation, which might merely be a brief conversation:

7195 (5)(e) "Counseling" means a consultation between a state licensed psychiatrist or psychologist and a patient for the purpose of determining whether the patient is suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder, or depression causing impaired judgment."

Wait, there's more. I will post details in a separate entry: But A.B. 374 would not permit Catholic nursing homes or most other health care facilities with a policy opposed to assisted suicide to refuse to allow assisted suicide to take place on their premises. "Choice" my right nostril.

An Interview with Rita Marker

Rita Marker, the head of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide was my mentor, after dragging me kicking and screaming getting into this line of work. Having read her wonderful Deadly Compassion, I was shocked to my shoes, and offered to give ten percent of my time to the work fighting assisted suicide. Well, you all know how that story went.

I consider Rita to be one of the giants. In the eighties, when nobody else was paying attention, she saws the storm clouds looming and got to work. Without her prodigious efforts, I am convinced that euthanasia and assisted suicide would have spread far and wide by now.

Rita's comments are always worth attending. Here is a short Q and A interview with her that I thought y'all might enjoy. And, heeere's Rita.

Ashley's Case: Disability Rights Groups Keep Up the Pressure

Disability rights groups and others have met with the AMA in an attempt to prevent "Ashley's Treatment" from becoming an acceptable practice in cases of children with profound disabilities. This is an important issue. Before another child is given what would normally be considered abusive and non therapeutic medical and surgical therapies, this matter needs to be thoroughly thought out.

Viability Now at 22 Weeks

A baby has been born at one day less than 22 weeks gestation, has survived, and is doing well. This birth may have significant ramifications for abortion law because it reduces the time of viability to just over half a normal gestation period. It may impact futile care theory and the occasional attempts to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment for prematurely born babies. The birth could affect personhood theory, at least for those who refuse to depersonalize born infants, because it could materially alter their moral view of the moral worth of later stage fetuses. So, welcome to the world Amillia Sonja Taylor. Your birth might become a significant event for expanding the perception of who qualifies to be in the human family.

Twisting Ourselves Into Pretzels Over Embryonic Stem Cells

Scientists keep looking for ways to obtain ES cells without destroying embryos. One potential source that some are now discussing is from the process known as parthenogenesis. This process stimulates an egg (which has 46 chromosomes before losing half during fertilization) to divide for a period--perhaps to the point that ES cells could be created. (The story I linked claims that the product of parthenogenesis would be an embryo. But I am not convinced. But let's not get into that for the moment.)

This seems an unlikely ehtical source of ES cells regardless of whether an embryo is created: You would still have to get an awful lot of eggs to make the tens of thousands of cell lines scientists claim to want to avoid tissue rejection during stem cell treatments. (If memory serves, all frozen leftover IVF embryos in the USA that might be available for use in ESCR--some 12,000 out of the total of 400,000 in cold storage--would only result in the creation of about 200-300 ES cell lines.) And once again, as with human cloning research, it would most likely be poor women who would be paid to bear the burden of providing all those eggs.

Perhaps the best approach would be to stop turning ourselves into pretzels over ES cells, when there is so much promise from sources that are uncontroversial, both as to source and derivation.

PETA: It's About the Money

PETA has had trouble lately because its true colors have been showing. For example, this little story: Heather Mills, Paul McCartney's estranged wife, has apparently been cut off by PETA from participating in its work because Paul McCartney's family wants no part of her. McCartney is in the midst of a bitter divorce and gives a lot of money to PETA--which says a lot about his judgment, but we won't go there for now. Faced with the potential loss of a cash cow, PETA cut Mills off without the courtesy of a phone call, letter, or thank you for past services. For PETA, it's all about the money.

Brave New Bioethics On the Air Nationally

I have just learned that my Brave New Bioethics podcast has gone on the air in the nationally syndicated radio program Al Kresta in the Afternoon. (Kresta is also on satellite radio and streams live on the Internet.) This is terrific news. In doing the commentaries, I had hoped to reach people who might not read my articles and visit here at Secondhand Smoke. As I understand it, the commentaries are played on the air, Kresta reacts, and the issue becomes the subject of call ins. I am thrilled. Hooray for the new media!

Eugenics Equals Murder and Death

India has discovered grisly evidence of what happens when eugenics consciousness takes hold. In this case (as in China), it is a belief that boys are better than girls. As a consequence, female infanticide and abortion based on sex is rampant in India.

Now, a mass grave of murdered girl infants and aborted fetuses has been found behind a hospital. From the story in the Times of London: "Police in central India have found 390 body parts from foetuses and newborn babies--thought to be unwanted girls--buried in the backyard of a Christian missionary hospital.

"Separately, the Government said that it was setting up a network of girls' homes--dubbed the 'cradle scheme'--in an effort to stop poor Indians from killing their daughters. Both announcements threw a spotlight on female infanticide and foeticide in India, where an estimated ten million baby girls have been killed by their parents in the past twenty years."

Ten million! This is a holocaust caused by the kind of laisez faire eugenics thinking that the new eugenicists and transhumanists seem to think will not be a problem, not being state sponsored and all of that. (The government of India is trying to fight these atrocities, apparently with little success.) But the problem isn't the sponsors. It is eugenics.

The warning signs are everywhere in large, blazing letters, if we will but heed. Either human life has ultimate value simply and merely because it is human (sanctity/equality of human life ethic) or the devalued become fodder for murder, exploitation, and oppression--perhaps even commoditization.

"Ethical" Fois Gras

Animal rights activists have tried to shut down the fois gras business in many paces around the world because it allegedly abuses ducks and geese to force feed them, the purpose of which is to fatten up their livers, creating the richness of the fois gras product. Of course, the force feeding is not the true issue for animal rights/liberationists. It is the killing of the birds. But hey, any port in a storm.

Well, Spain of all places (I say of all places because Spain might grant great apes legal personhood), has turned the table. A company there has found a way to fatten the geese without force feeding.

Needless to say, the liberationists are unassuaged by "ethical" fois gras.

Egg Donors Risk Paralysis, Limb Amputation, and Death

As I just posted, the UK will permit poor women to be exploited by selling their eggs--all in the name of promoting the great god science, of course. Inconveniently, a study just was just published illustrating the pronounced risks that these poor women will face. As the Telegraph reported:"Women who donate their eggs for research are at risk from life-threatening side effects, scientists warn in a new study. They say that the powerful drugs given to the volunteers to help increase the number of eggs they produce can cause paralysis, limb amputation and even death.

The story points out that at least three women died in the UK alone last year from egg donation for IVF treatments: "Gita Nargund, the head of reproductive medicine at St George's Hospital, London, has campaigned for the use of alternative treatments to the strong hormones used to stimulate women's ovaries to produce more than the one egg normally released in each monthly cycle. She said that, in addition to those reported in the Italian study, there have been two deaths from OHSS in the UK, and a further death of a woman during an egg collection procedure in Leicester last year."

Feminists and pro-life groups should ally on this issue and create an advertising campaign in the UK warning women, "Donating Eggs for Research Could Kill You!"

Brave New Britain: We Never Say No

The UK Human Fertility and Embryology Authority, which has become a rubber stamp for Big Biotech, has approved paying women to sell their eggs for use in human cloning research. From the story: "Women who go through the medical procedure to harvest the eggs from their ovaries, which doctors describe as 'invasive' and possibly dangerous, will be paid £250 plus travel expenses, the existing maximum compensation for any egg or sperm donor. Anyone agreeing to donate will have to show that they are acting for altruistic reasons, for example because they have a close relative suffering with one of the conditions scientists are trying to develop new treatments for with the aid of human eggs."

What a load of cow patties! Two hundred fifty pounds (about $450) will only entice the poorest, most desperate, and most ignorant of the potential consequences to their lives and well being. Women could die because of this decision, and they will not be the rich or middle class. But nothing, I repeat, nothing, must get in the way of human cloning agenda and the emerging Brave New World. After all, what are the lives, health, and fecundity of a few poor women when the advance of science is at stake?

The (Gene) Devil Made Me Do It

Some scientists think we have no real free will, that our behavior and beliefs are dictated by our genes. (Then, they cannot be upset with me for thinking they are just so full of beans; my genes prevent me from seeing the light.)

This theory is just one of many avenues to deny human exceptionalism, of course, because it makes the claim that we are not moral beings, but merely so many gene-dictated automatons. And, ironically it opens the door both to "anything goes" morality, and also, the imposition of a terrible tyranny against those perceived to have a predisposition to heterodox beliefs and behaviors that those in power disdain.

Along this line, some public intellectuals believe that we may one day prevent crimes before they occur by analyzing brain scans and gene make up. This could mean that people are detained and "re-educated" who have done nothing wrong. This Wired commentary, byline Jennifer Granick, (too) mildly objects: "Looking at scientific advances like these, legal scholars are beginning to question the foundational principles of our criminal justice system. For example, University of Florida law professor Christopher Slobogin, who is visiting at Stanford this year, has set forth a compelling case for putting prevention before retribution in criminal justice. Two weeks ago, Slobogin gave a talk based on his book, Minding Justice. He pointed to the studies showing that our behavior is predetermined or strongly influenced by biology, and that if we can identify those biological factors, we can predict behavior. He argues that the justice system should provide treatment for potential wrongdoers based on predictions of dangerousness instead of settling for punishing them after the fact.

It's a tempting thought. If there is no such thing as free will, then a system that punishes transgressive behavior as a matter of moral condemnation does not make a lot of sense. It's compelling to contemplate a system that manages and reduces the risk of criminal behavior in the first place.

"Yet, despite last week's announcement from the Max Planck Institute, neuroscience and bioscience are not at a point where we can reliably predict human behavior. To me, that's the most powerful objection to a preventative justice system--if we aren't particularly good at predicting future behavior, we risk criminalizing the innocent."

That would just be the beginning of our problems if we decided to let "the scientists" cast aside the concept of free will.

Why The Texas Futile Care Law Must Fall

This correspondence is from Texas lawyer Jerri Ward, who has proved worthy of the honorific, attorney at law for fighting tooth and tong against futile care impositions in Texas (Andrea Clarke, for example). Jerri asked that I post it here at Secondhand Smoke. I do so because I trust Jerri. She has never steered me wrong:

"I attended an ethics committee meeting yesterday concerning a 15 month old baby. The baby is suspected of having Leigh's disease-although that is only the best guess of the neurologists and neuro-radiologists and not a medical certainty. The results of the tissue biopsies are not all back.

"According to the mother, the hospitalist pediatrician had refused to write an order for the insertion of a peg tube and trach so that the baby could be transferred to a pediatric snf (skilled nursing facility). The pediatrician pretty much admitted to this during the meeting.

"The neurologist spouted the usual nonsense about the baby's life not really being a 'life' and made the burden argument. He tried to express that it's not in the baby's interest to continue life--but immediately segued into an argument about how hard the situation is on the care-takers. I called him on that and said that we needed to transfer the baby to the pediatric snf where they care for children in similar situations day in and day out and the caretakers don't consider it a burden upon them to give care to such children. The hospital lawyer interjected with some calculated coaching to keep the doctor from descending further into a utilitarian argument.

The pediatrician, who has been very rude according to the family-slamming doors in the mother's face and the like, was an appalling woman. She openly admitted that the trach and the peg tube would not be complicated because the baby has no co-morbidities that would cause problems. She admitted that it was probable that he would be readily admitted to a pediatric snf-yet she tried to justify obstructing all that and removing life-support because of the benefits burden argument--and she argued that point like an impassioned parrot of current futility faddism. In order to counter that, I was able to open up the mother in an equally impassioned description of how the baby responds to the love and attention of the family and how important it was for her to continue giving all that until Jesus takes the baby into his Arms.

This baby could live months or even years longer with good--but simple care. All he needs is a respirator, ventilator and the attendant care, anh, and a vitamin regimen--along with daily custodial care.

The ethics committee decided not to invoke the 10 day period. As of now, I am uncertain if the pediatrician will write the order for the trach and the peg tube. It is imperative that these orders be written so that the baby can be transferred away from doctors who believe that he should die right now...

"Would you please blog about this. I don't want to reveal the hospital name until I know whether or not the fight is over. If it's not--I will reveal this information.

Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D."

I post this, realizing it presents only one side, because it vividly illustrates the hostility that some families face in some hospitals merely because they wish to keep their loved ones in the land of the living. (I had a similar experience when I represented pro bono the wife of an Alzheimer's patient. She had agreed to a DNR and no antibiotics, but would not agree to dehydrate him to death. The doctor's ultimate goal was to remove tube feeding. He was literally white with rage for being defied.)

Texas Legislation to Prevent Futile Care Impositions

New legislation (HB 1094) has been filed in Texas to overturn its unjust and cruel futile care law. If the law passes, rather than patients only having 10 days to find another institution if a star-chamber ethics committee rules that treatment shall not be provided, the wanted life-sustaining treatment will be required to continue until a new institution is found. Excellent. (It should also prevent hospitals from honoring the futile care determination of other institutions, but that can wait.)

Expect the bioethicists and medical intelligentsia to come out of the woodwork to fight this one. If they do, it will confirm my long held suspicion that the ultimate agenda of mainstream bioethics is not honoring patient autonomy. Rather, it is utilitarian-based health care rationing and the creation of at least an implied duty to die.

Stay tuned here at Secondhand Smoke for details as this important legislation moves forward.

HT: Jerri Ward

Viagra Saves Baby 's Life

As everyone knows, Viagra is used (and sometimes abused) as a treatment for impotency. It works by expanding blood vessels. Apparently, a prematurely born baby was on the verge of death and, in connection with heart surgery, some enterprising doctor prescribed Viagra--opening the child's lung blood vessels, allowing better oxygen absoroption, and saving his life. It was experimental, but it worked. It will be interesting to see if this opens a whole new use for the drugs currently used to help sexual dysfunction in men.

Moving Increasingly Toward Medical Puritanism

The drive to impose a new medical puritanism continues in the UK. Some doctors are apparently denying surgery to smokers and obese patients, not based on the exigencies of a their particular case, but because of disapproval of their unhealthy lifestyles. This is pure political correctness. You can bet every pound or dollar in the bank that such restrictions would never be countenanced for other unhealthy lifestyle participants, e.g., the promiscuous, drug users, the emaciated, etc.

What is really going on, of course, is saving money in health care on the backs of the "new lepers," smokers and the obese, who are unpopular. This of course, violates every medical ethical precept in the book. The response in this quote, is right on: "Colin Waine, chairman of the National Obesity Forum, said he feared the government was using its war on fat as an excuse to cut costs in the ailing NHS. Waine told Cybercast News Service that two "health trusts"-- organizations that operate a set number of hospitals and clinics--had already stopped all operations for patients with a BMI of 30. He said that there was no scientific basis for denying surgery to people with that level of obesity, particularly when it came to former rugby football players and other naturally bulky men. 'If you make a decision on clinical grounds, that's fine,' he said. 'But if you make it for political reasons, then that's unacceptable.'"

Indeed, unless we want to turn access to health care into a club to force people to live certain ways. But if we open that door, there are a lot of people beyond smokers and the overweight who could be affected.

Irresponsible Headline: "Organ Harvesting Begins Before Brain Death"

The headline on this story is irresponsible because it implies that organs are being harvested before the donor is really dead. Not so. This organ procurement protocol, known as "non heart beating cadaver donor" removes organs from people who died from irreversible cardio/pulmonary arrest. (For ease of discussion, let's call this "heart death.")

The problem, I think, arises from the ubiquitous use of the often misunderstood term "brain death," a popular description for "death by neurological criteria." DNC does not require that every cell in the brain be dead, but rather, that the brain has irreversibly ceased functioning, both in whole and in each and every constituent part. (The term is also sometimes misused as a description of persistent vegetative state.) As one neurologist once described it to me, the experience of brain death (properly diagnosed) is akin to a headless body being animated by machine. (As I have written previously, some bioethicists claim brain death is not really dead, not to prevent organs from being procured from living people, but as an argument to gain permission to expand the pool of