Great Ape Project Poll

The pending success of the GAP has freaked me out. I have done radio and have articles to come. You know what I think, now it is time to find out what you think. Please take the following poll:

More "Anti-Science" McCarthyism

Good grief, there they go again. If you disagree with the progressive political view, er, I mean, the "scientific consensus," you are branded as "anti science." Another in a wearying series of cases in point is today's hysterical rant about global warming by Joseph Romm in Slate. From his column:

On a planet reeling from global warming and desertification, we will have billions more people to feed. We will be rationing food, all right. And water. And arable land. Most of our meaningless national political fights will be replaced by a very meaningful global fight for survival.

Conservatives can't stop the impending catastrophe with anti-government rhetoric. But they can prevent progressives and moderates from stopping it by blocking aggressive climate legislation. Progressives and moderates will need all their political skill and tenacity to overcome the obstructionism of the anti-science, anti-technology conservatives. This is unlike any previous political fight; it is a fight to save the health and well-being of the next 50 generations, a fight to preserve our way of life. Losing is not an option.

Oh baloney.

Don't get me wrong: I don't want to get into a discussion about the merits of the man made global warming hypothesis. (That is what it is, it isn't a fact.) I have an opinion about that, but it isn't an informed opinion and moreover, it is beyond the scope of SHS.

But misusing science by turning its name into a political bludgeon is something we do discuss here because I have seen it in the cloning and other debates in which I engage. Just as it is not anti science to oppose human cloning research, it is not anti-science to have a different opinion about global warming than Al Gore or James "jail the oil executives" Hanson, or indeed, having a different view than the international "scientific consensus." Moreover, holding onto and fighting to prove heterodox views is an essential part of the scientific process, and from what I have read, many very credible climatologists question global warming in general, and the Gore-type hype about 20 foot sea level increases in specific. And they have credible facts to back them up, such as no overall increases in temperatures for about ten years and a good Arctic freeze this year restoring ice levels to more normal levels. These heterodox thinkers might very well be wrong, but that is not the same thing at all as being anti-science.

But conflating the goals of progressive politics with science--as Romm does in his demagogic column--is an abuse of science, which ideally should be apolitical. And it is sheer demagoguery of the McCarthyite stripe.

Moreover, it doesn't work. You can't force people to believe you, particularly when the evidence is mixed. Screaming that the sky is falling and jumping up and down is not going to change any minds. Even the Brits, who have had this stuff shoved down their throats for many years just aren't buying. Does that make them anti-science too?

So a word of advice to Joseph Romm: Get a grip.

AMA Supports Palliative Sedation--As it Should

The AMA has officially supported palliative sedation. This should be able to go without saying. But due to assisted suicide advocates trying to turn palliative sedation into "terminal" sedation, confusion has arisen. In any event, from the story in the American Medical News:

When all else fails to control patients' pain at the end of life, it is appropriate for physicians to sedate such patients to unconsciousness, according to new ethical policy adopted at the AMA Annual Meeting in June.

The rarely employed practice of palliative or terminal sedation is sometimes perceived as speeding the dying process, leading critics to dub it a form of physician-assisted suicide. But evidence of such a hastening effect is lacking, according to a Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs report adopted by the House of Delegates. "These are unusual circumstances that require us to urgently relieve these symptoms by sedating patients to unconsciousness," said CEJA member H. Rex Greene, MD, a Lima, Ohio, oncologist and palliative medicine specialist. "This is not intended to end life."

Key words: "When all else fails," and "rarely employed process," and, "this is not intended to end life."

I know Rex Greene and he is a powerful voice against assisted suicide and euthanasia. And his quote is absolutely true. But the article should have added that any confusion that may exist about palliative sedation was not caused by opponents of assisted suicide. Rather proponents intentionally sowed confusion by--as in California's AB 2747 before it was gutted in committee--seeking to pass legislation that would transform it from a rarely used but legitimate palliative measure into a "treatment" available to all terminally ill patients on demand--whether their symptoms warranted it or not.

Palliative sedation, as described in the article, is proper and ethical. But if euthanasia advocates get their way, it would become a form of back-door assisted suicide/euthanasia--as now appears to be the case in the killer country the Netherlands where doctors increasingly use sedation so they don't have to be at the bedside when they euthanize the patient. They should cease and desist their redefinition attempts now for the benefit of all of us.

If Meat is Murder--So is Vegan

I grow weary of PETA's antics. Now, they are attacking actress Jessica Simpson for wearing a T-shirt that read, "Real Girls Eat Meat." From the story:

Alistair Currie, a spokesman for Peta, said: "Jessica Simpson might have a right to wear what she wants, but she doesn't have a right to eat what she wants--eating meat is about suffering and death.

Yeah? Well, so is going vegan. PETA won't tell you this, but I will: their vegan lifestyles also come at the expense of the deaths of countless animals. You see, mechanized plant farming for wheat, soy, and other vegan staples slaughters hundreds of millions of mice, rabbits, gophers, snakes, and other field animals. And then there is the chemical annihilation of rats and mice in silos and other grain and vegetable storage facilities. One study I found recounted how if all arable acreage in the USA were put to supporting veganism, 1.2 billion mice would be killed each year.

This is the way of the world: No matter what diet you choose to follow from steak 7 days a week to vegan tofu specials, animals died that you might eat. If meat is murder, so is vegan. That's the way it is and everything to the contrary is just noise.

I wrote a 1000-word piece on this today that goes into much more detail. (Yes, I know it's Sunday! Just be glad your not Secondhand Smokette.) If and when it comes out, I'll link it here. Oh, and in my book research I also just found out some interesting truths about fur trapping you also don't read in PETA literature. Stay tuned.

Muskrat Ignores Moral Duty to Other Sentient Beings

A muskrat has undermined a levee on the Mississippi River, leading to the threatened destruction of homes. From the story:

A heroic effort by hundreds of townspeople, volunteers and National Guardsmen to hold back the Mississippi River failed yesterday--undone by a burrowing muskrat. The furry rodent dug a hole through the earthen levee in the eastern Missouri community of Winfield, allowing water to penetrate the flood wall, which failed shortly before dawn.

Gasp. Undermining a human levee is as cruel as destroying a beaver's dam! Put that rodent in jail! This is a profound violation of the muskrat's duty to treat other members of the community of equals based on mere sentience, equally.

What? Oh, right. The muskrat owed the threatened homeowners nothing. It is not a moral being. It was merely doing what a muskrat does; dig. It was oblivious to the harm it was causing and couldn't have cared less if the whole town was swept away.

Duties only apply to humans--which is one of the things that makes us exceptional.

Canadian Health Care System Also a Mess

We hear much about the deficiencies of the American health care system. But things aren't well north of the border, either--according to Claude Castonguay,one of the architects of the Canadian system. From the Investors Business Daily editorial:

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."...

What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.

My confidence in "single payer" was rocked several years ago whilst in Toronto and I read in the paper of 900,000 Ontarians who couldn't find their own doctors because the physicians were refusing to take new patients. And everything I have read ever since has only served to further undermine my confidence in that approach. In fact, I am a big supporter of President Bush's Medicare prescription drug package as a model. What makes that work, it seems to me, is that it is a private system, regulated to ensure full participation, and subsidized to maintain affordability.

Read the whole IBD editorial. It should shake up anyone who thinks--as I once did--that Canadian style health care is the solution to the mess in the USA. Interestingly, both Senators Obama and McCain seem to recognize this as neither is calling for "change" that includes single payer health care for America.

"Ape Rights:" Not Taking it Seriously is Precisely the Wrong Approach

Begin rant:

The animal rights crowd has many allies in their fight to elevate animals to the moral equivalents of human life. One is the media, that almost always misses the big point and treats their advocacy as merely about being "nicer to animals." Another are all those folk in the media and out who hear about stories such as this and rather than really focusing on what it all means, instead roll their eyes and go about their business with a chuckle, dismissing the matter as just another example about how ridiculous some things have become.

The latter approach was taken by the NY Post, reporting the story under "Weird but True." From the story:

In Spain, all men and simians are created equal. The country's parliament approved a resolution extending the right to life and freedom to great apes. "This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades," said Pedro Pozas of the Great Apes Project. Hey, try "evolutionary comrade" next time you want to call someone a big ape.

This is utterly inadequate. And it helps their cause tremendously by allowing animal rights ideologues to continue their serious and subversive work unhindered by serious opposition, which puts human exceptionalism--the predicate to universal human rights--at extreme peril.

And I am sorry, but it frustrates the heck out of me. I see it so often in my speeches. I make a point of bringing this kind of threat up in almost every presentation, and the audience invariably titters and rolls their eyes. I feel like pounding the podium and telling them to take it seriously!

This isn't parody. Indeed, parody doesn't work anymore because as we saw in the "plants rights" story, they always catch up to us.

And it matters a lot because the very moral and philosophical bases of society are teetering. But people keep insisting that "it can't happen here." but IT--which covers a lot of ground and a lot of issues--is happening here. Now.

So please, if just to reduce my blood pressure, stop laughing. Thank you.

End rant.

"Ape Rights" in Spain: Merely "the Point of the Spear"

More reportage on Spain about to grant great apes "human" type rights--and a little candor from the revolutionaries. I have been saying that the GAP is not the goal but the initial means to attaining the goal, the catapault that first breaches the wall (to use another metaphor), that aims in the end to obliterate the sanctity/equality of human life ethic based simply on our being human.

Exactly the point, says the head GAP advocate in Spain the the Times of London. From the story:

Some critics questioned why Spain should afford legal protection from death or torture to great apes but not bulls. But Mr Pozas said that the vote would set a precedent, establishing legal rights for animals that could be extended to other species. “We are seeking to break the species barrier--we are just the point of the spear,” he said.

Interestingly, he used almost the exact phrase I did here at SHS when I first reported the story and analyzed what the GAP is really about:

Given that animal rights activists believe a rat, is a pig, is a dog, is a boy, one would think the GAP would be denigrated by them as speciesist because it values apes higher than other sentient or "painient" animals. But of course, they understand the game that is afoot. They know that the GAP is a spear between the ribs of the old order because it explicitly supplants human beings as the premier species. This is a disaster for universal human rights and human exceptionalism.

Well, at least we agree about something.

Gutted! AB 2747 Gets Chopped Up in Committee

Assemblypersons Patti Berg and Lloyd Levine's attempt to institute backdoor assisted suicide via "palliative sedation" just hit a big bump in the road: To get it out of a California Senate committee--they had to consent to their pet bill being gutted. From the California Catholic Conference press release:

The amendments in the revised bill included:
- Expansion and clarification of the definition of "healthcare provider"
- Removal of the definition of palliative sedation
- Removal of the definition of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking (VSED)
- Removal of the "one year or less to live" trigger for discussion of end-of-life "care" options
- Removal of palliative sedation and VSED [self starvation/dehydration]from the menu of end-of-life "care" options
- Recasting of the section requiring the transfer of a patient requesting a treatment his/her healthcare provider declined to offer—to allowing a transfer only when the healthcare provider did not comply with the patient's request for information on end-of-life care options.

This is a great win and congratulations are owed to the disability rights movement, the Northern California Oncologists Association, the California Catholic Conference, and all associated with Californians Against Assisted Suicide, among others.

However: If it passes the Senate the bill goes into a committee to have the original version that passed the Assembly and this innocuous version reconciled. Look for the bad guys to attempt a smoke-filled--room by reinstating most of the original bill behind closed doors.

More on Ape Rights

We are all apes now, as the Spanish Parliament will soon be granting "human" rights to apes, which is actually to say that human rights are being demoted into mere temporary protections. This story deserves greater coverage, and I intend to do something about that in the next few weeks. But for now, here's an excerpt from the Guardian's story:

Using apes in circuses, television commercials or filming will also be banned and while housing apes in Spanish zoos, of which there are currently 315, will remain legal, supporters of the bill have said the conditions in which most of them live will need to improve substantially

Of course the purpose of this isn't to merely improve the treatment of great apes--which could be accomplished as it already has been in some places via normal animal welfare statutes. Rather, the explicit point of the GAP is revolutionary--to demote human beings from the uniquely valuable species and into merely another animal in the forest. Once people accept that premise, Judeo/Christian philosophy goes to the guillotine allowing the utilitarian agenda to proceed unhindered, leading in turn to the moral value of the weak and vulnerable among us becoming archaic, resulting in their loss of the right to life and being used instrumentally for those deemed more valuable. (Lest you think I exaggerate, check out Peter Singer's writings, and who can deny that his values are triumphing?)

In the world being born out of the ashes of the sanctity/equality of human life ethic, value will be subjective and rights temporary--depending on one's individual capacities rather than humanity. And we will see apes--animals (and eventually other animals), which are completely oblivious about the hue and cry being mounted against human worth in their names--being viewed as more important than some humans.

This is all very dangerous and subversive to human thriving.

Yea, yea, yea. Yawn. What's on the tellie tonight?

Another Stem Cell Disinformation Alert

The promoters of embryonic stem cell enterprises continue to tout soon to come "breakthroughs" accompanied by supine media coverage and inaccurate statements by "the scientists" who twist and distort scientific definitions to win a political debate. Such spin in the name of science, actually corrupts science.

Latest example: Another company is claiming that "next year" it will start human ESC trials. From a column by Orange County Register "biomedical innovation" columnist Colin Stewart, who has apparently drunk the Kool-Aid. First there is his cruelly hyped headline: "ALS patients could get help from stem cells next year:" From his column:

A tiny start-up company in Irvine has a shot at becoming the first to gain federal approval to test an embryonic stem cell treatment in humans. Two degenerative nerve diseases are the first targets for California Stem Cell Inc.'s therapies. They are ALS, or Lou Gehrig's Disease, which kills adults, and SMA, a fatal disease affecting newborns. The company hopes to win Food and Drug Administration approval to begin clinical trials next year for both sets of patients.

Geron has been making the same "next year, human trials" claim for years. Yet, the FDA does not appear close to approving human trials.

And here comes the usual junk biology:

Those stem cells originated from newly fertilized eggs that were discarded by a fertility clinic after the egg donors no longer needed or wanted them, said Chris N. Airriess, the company's chief operating officer.

Sigh. They aren't fertilized eggs, they are embryos, and the "egg donors" may not even be the embryo donors since they--embryos--are donated by those who paid to have them created, not the woman whose eggs may have been used.

Of course, the real point of this story is to garner investments. Which is why it was touted by a business columnist. And only time will tell whether the touted trials will actually begin. But after all the years of such "next year" announcements, count me as dubious.

Oh yes, it is worth noting that early human trials have already begun using adult stem cells to treat ALS.

Americans with Disabilities Act: Missing the Elephant in the Living Room

The House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed an expansion of the ADA's protection against workplace discrimination. From the story:

In deciding whether a person is disabled, the bill says, courts should generally not consider the effects of "mitigating measures" like prescription drugs, hearing aids and artificial limbs. Moreover, it adds, "an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active."

The chief sponsor of the bill, the House Democratic leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, said the situation was now bizarre. "An individual may be considered too disabled by an employer to get a job, but not disabled enough by the courts to be protected by the A.D.A. from discrimination," Mr. Hoyer said.

Yes, that is an irony. But this one is even more acute. Because the ADA does not explicitly outlaw medical discrimination based on disability, we will see continued encroachment on the Hippocratic ethic of providing optimal care based on the individual's needs.

Thus, the bill passed, the woman in Oregon denied chemotherapy by Medicaid but offered assisted suicide might be able to sue for employment discrimination--say if she were denied a job--but not for refusal to pay for life-extending treatment.

Of course, I am not saying don't do the one. But please people, get to work on the other!

Spain About to Grant Human-Type Rights to Apes

Spain is on the verge of fully passing the Great Ape Project. Conceived by Peter Singer and an Italian philosopher, that which was unthinkable in 1993 when it began, has come to pass in a mere fifteen years.

Singer's overarching goal is to obliterate Judeo/Christianity as the reigning philosophy of society. And this is why the GAP is supported by people like Richard Dawkins. Now, we are merely one great ape among several others, each with minimum rights based on individual capacities rather than due to being members of the human species. Of course, only we will have the duty to honor these "rights"--but one-way streets are designed to push traffic in specified directions.

The GAP grants apes, chimpanzees, orangutans, and bonobos the rights to life, the right to be free from "torture," and to not be involuntarily confined. From the story:

Parliament's environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Apes Project, devised by scientists and philosophers who say our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans. "This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity," said Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project.

It will go down in history, alright. Pozas, it will be recalled once stated, "I am an ape." At the time, I wrote that he should speak for himself. But now, thanks to the Spanish Socialists and other left leaning members of Parliament, he speaks for Spain.

Given that animal rights activists believe a rat, is a pig, is a dog, is a boy, one would think the GAP would be denigrated by them as speciesist because it values apes higher than other sentient or "painient" animals. But of course, they understand the game that is afoot. They know that the GAP is a spear between the ribs of the old order because it explicitly supplants human beings as the premier species. This is a disaster for universal human rights and human exceptionalism.

More soon.

Samuel Golubchuck Has Died

The patient in the Winnipeg futile care lawsuit has died while on life support. From the story:

In the end, it wasn't a judge who decided Sam Golubchuk's fate--time ran out for the 84-year-old and his family who challenged the province's medical community over who gets to determine when someone dies.

Golubchuk died at about 11:30 a.m. Tuesday in his bed at Grace General Hospital, still connected to a life support system. "He simply died," family lawyer Neil Kravetsky said late Tuesday night.

The legal action launched by Golubchuk's children to prevent doctors from removing their father from life support system had fixated the community and drawn interest across the country. Golubchuk's children had won a temporary injunction to prevent doctors from removing him from life support and the issue was to be decided in court in September.

Kravetsky said that while Golubchuk's right wasn't sealed by a court ruling, he believed the Second World War veteran won his case just the same. "No one took him off life support--God did and that's what they were fighting for," Kravetsky

That's how I see it, too (the "win," not the "God" part: I don't get into religious issues here.) At least the family has the comfort of knowing that he wasn't allowed to be pushed out of the lifeboat. I have heard from those who believe that their loved ones were--and the burning pain they experience is excruciating.

I would not have made the decision the Golubchucks did. But I think they had the right to make it and the doctors acted imperiously in trying to force him off life support via coercion and resignations.

Bioethical Controversies Proof of Nearly Unbridgeable Cultural Chasm

To state the obvious, the USA is losing its common culture and moral values, creating an almost unbridgeable cultural chasm. This, in turn, is disintegrating our social cohesion and leading to the me-me/I-I consciousness of radical individualism.

But radical individualism is intended for only one side of the cultural divide until it becomes predominate and can gain control of society. When the other attempts to get in on the act--cohercion tends to rule. Case in point, the angry reaction against "pro life pharmacies" by some of the very people who yell the loudest about "pro choice" values, with some states outlawing the practice. From the story in the Washington Post:

When DMC Pharmacy opens this summer on Route 50 in Chantilly, the shelves will be stocked with allergy remedies, pain relievers, antiseptic ointments and almost everything else sold in any drugstore. But anyone who wants condoms, birth control pills or the Plan B emergency contraceptive will be turned away.

That's because the drugstore, located in a typical shopping plaza featuring a Ruby Tuesday, a Papa John's and a Kmart, will be a "pro-life pharmacy"--meaning, among other things, that it will eschew all contraceptives.The pharmacy is one of a small but growing number of drugstores around the country that have become the latest front in a conflict pitting patients' rights against those of health-care workers who assert a "right of conscience" to refuse to provide care or products that they find objectionable.

Such stories call for quotes from bioethicists!

Bioethicists disagree about the pharmacies. Some [me: very few] argue that they are consistent with national values that accommodate a spectrum of beliefs. "In general, I think product differentiation expressive of differing values is a very good thing for a free, pluralistic society," said Loren E. Lomasky, a bioethicist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "If we can have 20 different brands of toothpaste, why not a few different conceptions of how pharmacies ought to operate?"

Others maintain that pharmacists, like other professionals, have a responsibility to put their patients' needs ahead of their personal beliefs...Critics also worry that women might unsuspectingly seek contraceptives at such a store and be humiliated, or that women needing the morning-after pill, which is most effective when used quickly, may waste precious time. "Rape victims could end up in a pharmacy not understanding this pharmacy will not meet their needs," Greenberger said. "We've seen an alarming development of pharmacists over the last several years refusing to fill prescriptions, and sometimes even taking the prescription from the woman and refusing to give it back to her so she can fill it in another pharmacy."

Yet, in a seeming paradox, many of the anti pro life pharmacy advocates support futile care theory allowing doctor/bioethics committee values to trump those of patients by refusing wanted life-sustaining treatment, while pro life pharmacy supporters generally oppose medical futility on the grounds that doctors have no right to impose their values on patients.

But these seeming contradictions are not really paradoxical. Rather, they are in keeping with both sides' overarching world views. Thus, pro life pharmacy proponents generally oppose futile care because their first principle is supporting the overarching Judeo/Christian philosophical belief in the sanctity of human life and a restrained approach to sexual morality.

Similarly, pro futile care advocates who oppose pro life pharmacies act consistent with their utilitarian (quality of life) beliefs and hedonistic devotion to utter nonjudgmentalism about personal behaviors between and among consenting adults.

But nature abhors a vacuum and the kind of cultural chaos all of this breeds cannot long be sustained. Eventually, as Lincoln put it about the great cultural divide of his time, we will either become all one side or the other. The cats will eventually be herded--both through laws passed by the states and decrees about these laws (or even in the absence of them) issued by judges. And we know which way, at least for now, the tide is running.

Cancer Patient Commits Suicide When Told NHS Will Not Cover Chemo

This is a crucial issue involving the assisted suicide debate. We have already seen in Oregon a woman denied coverage for chemotherapy to extend her life, but told that Medicaid will pay for her assisted suicide. Now, that scenario played out in the UK. The melting down NHS denied a chemotherapy treatment and the man, in despair, killed himself. From the story:

A cancer patient killed himself a day after being told he had been refused a wonder drug by his local primary care trust.Terminally-ill Albert Baxter, 75, committed suicide hours after learning he had been turned down for a drug which could have prolonged his life and shrunk his tumour.

In desperation, the cancer sufferer offered to pay for the drug, only to be told that he would have to foot the bill for his entire treatment which he could not afford. The pensioner, who was diagnosed with renal cancer in January 2007, had been told by his oncologist, Dr Fiona McKinna that the drug Sutent was his only hope...

But when he learned that his appeal had been rejected he returned to his home in Eastbourne, East Sussex. He was found dead the next day by his partner with a bin liner over his head in June last year. His partner of 30 years, Barrie Curryer, 70, a retired nurse, hit out at the postcode lottery for cancer treatment.He said: "What really upset him was that he worked all his life and paid into the health system and was refused treatment."

What is amazing to me is that assisted suicide advocates would probably respond, "He should have had a doctor available to do it!" More to the point, this story again shows the money nexus between treatment denials and euthanasia, in which treatments needed by those with a low "quality" of life in order to stretch limited resources are denied--even if it would extend life--supposedly in order to allow greater access to the more deserving of care.

Look at the total picture that is emerging! Extending life is being redefined as medically inappropriate or not worth paying for, while at the same time, killing is being redefined into palliative care. This is abandonment: If we legalize assisted suicide, one consequence would be to make treatment denials more palatable--since we will always offer abandoned patients "death with dignity," which is really just another way of saying, "one-way street." Caveat emptor!

P.S. It is also worth noting that plastic bags used in conjunction with either drugs or helium are a favored method of "self deliverance" taught by fanatics such as Derek Humphry in books and on web sites. I wouldn't be surprised if such suicide counseling was involved in this case.

Adult Stem Cells: The New Plastic Surgery?

A new article in Live Science predicts that adult stem cells may replace silicone breast implants and other contemporary plastic surgery techniques. But first, a crucial admission you once would never see in a science-oriented journal. From the story:

Stem cells are cells that have the ability to make more of themselves and to differentiate into special types of cells, like skin or other tissue types. Some stem cells, called pluripotent or multipotent, are capable of turning into many different kinds of cells and growing wide varieties of tissues ranging from bone to neurons to organs and muscle. While embryonic stem cells are the most well-known type (and the type that raises controversy), not all pluri- and multi-potent cells come from embryos. Certain so-called adult stem cells, which we make in our bodies, also have these abilities and would most likely be the cells used in plastic surgery.

What? That can't be true. And don't tell Dr. Steven Teitelbaum of Missourians for Lifesaving Cures who I saw testify that adult stem cells are merely unipotent, that is, become the kind of cell they are precursors for.

But never mind. The old ESCR junk biology shoveled by propagandists like Teitelbaum and William Neaves is fast becoming irrelevant. Even the news blockade on these matters is breaking down.

But back to the story:

Today, as part of ongoing clinical trials and regular practice, doctors outside the United States are taking stem cells from liposuctioned fat and using them to make traditional fat grafts more effective.

Tom Baker, director of investor relations for Cytori, a San Diego-based company that makes machines for processing fat stem cells in the operating room, described how it works: First, a doctor liposuctions fat from a patient. Half that fat gets set aside, while the other half is processed to pull out a mixture of cells rich in stem cells. That mixture is then injected back into the reserved fat, which is grafted into place inside the patient. The result is a fat graft supercharged with stem cells.

Reconstruction surgery aside, I don't understand why women risk their lives and health for such procedures. But apparently adult stem cells are the next step forward.

Funny George Carlin Riff About Aging and Dying

I had decidedly mixed feelings about the late George Carlin: I didn't like him and I thought he was hilarious. The San Francisco Chronicle's obituary today had excerpts from his routines. This one cracked me up--particularly with my 59th birthday approaching fast:

"Older" sounds a little better than "old" doesn't it? Sounds like it might last a little longer...I'm getting old. And it's OK because thanks to our fear of death in this country, I won't have to die--I'll "pass away." Or I'll "expire," like a magazine subscription. If it happens in the hospital, they'll call it a "terminal episode." The insurance company will refer to it as a "negative outcome." And if it is the result of malpractice, they'll say it was a therapeutic misadventure."

There was always a terrible boiling rage behind Carlin's comedy. Let us hope he is now in a place where he has found peace and joy.

Shame on Drudge for "Dwarf Pimp" Story

This is such a non story in the broader scheme of things, that there seems no reason for it to be spotlighted on the world's premier news clearing house--the Drudge Report. A 15 year-old girl was apparently being pimped in New York. What a shock! It is awful, but alas, it--and far worse--happen every day.

So, why is this particular story about the arrest of an alleged pimp on the Drudge Report? Because the girl is underage? Hardly. The alleged pimp is diminutive. Thus, Drudge's headline screams:"

Dwarf Accused Of Pimping Runaway Teenager In NYC...

What does the accused's stature have to do with anything? Drudge's headline is a throwback to the old "freak" show mentality that once so oppressed people with disabilities. I thought we'd grown past such nonsense. But apparently Drudge believes such a headline will get him hits. But that's no excuse for highlighting a matter that is utterly irrelevant to the actual story about the abuse of an underage girl.

How's this for a Drudge-style post: Shame! World's Most Powerful News Clearinghouse Accused of Outrageous Pandering to Prejudice in Headline...

Ira Byock: "How to Die"

I did a radio show on WASU in Wisconsin this morning and we focused primarily on hospice care. The call-in response was strong: People were clearly interested and concerned.

Then, when I checked my e-mail, I a link to a video about "how to die," by my friend, the hospice physician and medical professor Ira Byock. Byock is a pioneer in treating patients with terminal illnesses. His book Dying Well is a must read for people facing the end of life. In this short video, Byock discusses issues that are important to people who are dying at this important time. Interestingly, there are responses by the courageous Ayaan Hirshi Ali of the AEI--the atheist former Muslim who is under death threat from jihadis, who--tying in our earlier discussion about how the reality of death focuses us and helps us live a better life--states that the threats against her have "paradoxically" helped her live better and more meaningfully.

The other responder is Pastor Rick Warren, who, unlike Ali is not an atheist, also responds, discussing how one confronts death is a test of what you personally believe, and that how faith in God and life afterwards provides great comfort.

Very interesting.

HT: John B.

ALS "Depression" About the Same as the General Public

ALS, called Lou Gehrig's disease in the USA and motor neurone disease in the UK, is the bloody flag often waved by euthanasia activists as a reason to legalize mercy killing. "Of course he wants to die," they will say. and then some will assert falsely and cruelly that death from ALS will agonizing by choking on saliva, even though patients receiving proper care do not die choking.

My last hospice patient died peacefully in his sleep from ALS. While I was with him, euthanasia was in the news with ALS patients featured on ABC Nightline as wanting euthanasia. Bob was fit to be tied! After being suicidal for more than two years--because he felt so abandoned by his friends, not due to the disease--he told me that his ending period was the best time of his life. (Yet, had assisted suicide been legal, he would have probably missed the good times--or so he told me. But people from Compassion and Choices say that people like Bob can't commit suicide because their lives are already over.) And he is not the only ALS patient I have known with that incredibly positive attitude.

Now, there is some journal evidence that ALS patients quality of life is not unremitting horror. From the story:

Although an outside observer would have expected ALS patients to be depressed, as the disease is so serious, this was only the case for 10% of patients. This means that the proportion of depressive disorders is only slightly greater than in the overall population.

In view of the public discussion on euthanasia and assisted suicide, the authors think it essential that there should be a scientific investigation of the quality of life, as seen by the patient. The present studies show that the quality of life of patients with a fatal degenerative disease does not necessarily have to differ from that of healthy subjects.

In an accompanying editorial, Professor Hans Förstl points out the significance of these studies for the discussion of measures to shorten life. These could no longer be simply justified by saying that the patient had to be freed from his suffering. Förstl commented that the suffering is seen by the observer and not felt by the patient.

Not that the pro euthanasia types will care. For them, it's an ideological quest, not an empirically driven cause.

HT: Raven

Scientocracy Alert: Either Accept the "Scientific Consensus" or Go to Jail

This is not a post about the realities--or lack thereof--of man-caused global warming. It is about the rising hubris of "the scientists" who seem to think they are entitled to rule the world.

NASA scientist James Hanson has called for the jailing of oil executives for "crimes against nature" for being global warming deniers. From the story:

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress--in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming--to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.

There's no such thing as a high crime against nature and crimes against humanity are defined by treaties. But why let that stop Hanson? He is being defied and it ticks him off. Moreover, he sounds like a theocrat urging that the leaders of the nonbelievers to be tried for blasphemy: Go against our beliefs, and you are a criminal. I sure know who I don't want in charge.

Thoughts on the "Teenager Pregnancy Pact"

It is tempting to put on my quavering old man voice and say, "In my day, teenagers would never get pregnant on purpose. Heck, in my day teenagers didn't even have sex."

Laugh if you will, but it was generally true. Most of us necked and petted almost to the point of frenzy, but we didn't "go all the way," and the few that did would be either from among the "hood" element or would soon become the talk of the school. Indeed, since back then a girl who "got in trouble" either got married or left school, I can recall only two pregnancies out of my class of about 500, well three, since a friend of mine got a girl from another school pregnant and married her secretly. Yes, there may have been a few secret abortions but abortion was illegal then and was generally considered to be wrong.

A primary reason for less underage sexual intercourse in that era: We were expected to refrain--indeed, that message was pounded nonstop and unequivocally into our hormone-addled brains. And being members of the exceptional species, we had the capacity to--and usually succeeded--in resisting. Indeed, every authority figure we had--from school teachers, to parents, to popular culture--supported teenage chastity. The magazines for young women, for example, told the girls how to say no, not how to please a boy the first time in bed. And we boys were told that if we got a girl with child, we would be expected to marry or or at least, get a job and support our family.

That was then (circa 1963-67), this is now. Apparently 17 teenage girls in Massachusetts got pregnant on purpose in a pregnancy pact. From the story:

The girls showed up repeatedly at the high school health clinic, asking for pregnancy tests. But their reactions to the test results were puzzling: high-fives if they were expecting, long faces if they weren't. School officials in this hard-luck New England fishing town say an alarming 17 girls--four times the usual number--became pregnant this year. And even more disturbing: Some of the girls may have made a pact to have babies and raise them together.

People are asking why. The reporter implies it was due to this:

City and school officials in this town of about 30,000 people 30 miles north of Boston have been struggling for months to explain and deal with the pregnancies, where on average only four girls a year at the 1,200-student high school become pregnant. Just last month, two officials at the high school health center resigned to protest the local hospital's refusal to support a proposal to distribute contraceptives to youngsters at the school without parental consent. The hospital controls the clinic's funding.

As if it is bad to believe that medicating children without their parents' knowledge is wrong. Besides, if the story is true, they got pregnant on purpose, not because they didn't have knowedge about or access to birth control.

Teenagers are not adults but in some of the most important areas of their development, we treat them as if they are. And they are being hurt. Badly.

C-562: Canadian Bill to Legalize Active Euthanasia

A private member's bill (C-562) has been introduced in the Canadian Parliament. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but our good friend Alex Schadenberg, head of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is on the case. From his blog:

• The bill legalizes euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.
• The bill does not restrict euthanasia and assisted suicide to citizens of Canada. Canada could become a haven for American Suicide Tourists.
• The person must be at least 18 years old.
• A person may refuse appropriate treatments and still obtain euthanasia or assisted suicide. How can a physician determine that there is no prospect of relief if the person refuses appropriate treatments?
• The person may be experiencing either physical or mental pain. The bill will allows death as a treatment for depression or other chronic mental conditions.
• The bill does not define terminal illness and it is not limited to people who are terminally ill.
• The bill measures competency based on appearing to be lucid. What does that mean?
• The bill requires the person to submit two written requests at least 10 days apart.
• The bill allows incompetent people to die by euthanasia if they have made the request within a valid advanced directive. It is not clear whether medical practitioners are the only ones who can carry out euthanasia on incompetent people...
• The definition of medical practitioner is not limited to a physician.

They are getting increasingly bold, aren't they? More later if the bill begins to move.

"Brain Dead" May Not Really Be Dead

The controversy over whether brain dead is really dead may have just heated up with a peer reviewed article in Spinal Cord ((2008) 46, 396-40. (I don't have a link.)

The author, a Greek physician named KG Karakatsanis, concludes that declaration of death by neurological criteria is not reliable and may not be dead. The authors' philosophical reaction with regard to organ donation is worrisome because, it seems to me, it would destroy the dead donor rule that requires vital non-paired organs to only be procured from dead bodies. Karakatsanis writes:

We consider that the interest of the organ transplantation program would be better served by 'openness and honesty'. The harvesting of vital organs for transplantation--from patients suffering from 'irreversible apneic coma' (an identical clinical condition to 'brain death1)--who had already given their informed consent for this purpose at an unsuspected time-would be socially and morally acceptable in societies which consider that the autonomy of the person justifies such a donation.

Again, we see hints that "choice" justifies everything, even potentially killing for organs. And if it is true for someone with a catastrophic brain injury, who may have decided ahead of time to donate in such a circumstance, why would it not be even more true of a person, say, who has become quadriplegic, is currently competent, believes their life is no longer worth living, and so asks to be euthanized and harvested? By the way, allowing just such scenarios have been proposed in respected bioethics journals.

This is very thin ice. If brain dead isn't really dead, then only "heart dead" patients should be used as sources of non paired vital organs. If we go the other way, not only will solemn promises made to the public about the ethics of organ donation be broken, but with the shattering of the dead donor rule it would be Katy bar the door.

Now It's "Autoeuthanasia" in the Netherlands, Proving That it is Never Enough for the Culture of Death

You have what almost amounts to death on demand in the Netherlands already with its euthanasia law, and it is still not enough. Now, some Dutch doctors have made detailed instructions for committing suicide available to the general public. From the story in the British Medical Journal (only link is Abstract):

A group of doctors and researchers has made its detailed advice on suicide available to the general public. The Foundation for Scientific Research into Careful Suicide [!!!] argues that "a requirement exists within society for responsible information about an independent and dignified ending of life."...

The Dutch Medical Association says that the book offers a balance to the large amount of unreliable information available on the Internet. It recognizes that doctors may refer patients to the book as part of their obligation to provide information.

And get this:

..there are about 4400 cases each year of what it calls "autoeuthanasia," where the doctor is not directly involved...The foundation's book is targeted at people who do not meet the legal requirements for assisted suicide...They include elderly people who who feel that their life is complete but have no fatal illness and patients with a serious physical disease and a longstanding wish to die.

What more does it take to see where euthanasia and assisted suicide leads? The evidence is irrefutable. But facts don't matter. Narratives do. And what have I got against "choice," anyway?

Golubchuck Futility Case: Can Wanted Life be a "Harm?"

After three doctors resigned rather than maintain--and thus, extend--the life of the catastrophically ill Samuel Golubchuk, an unnamed physician has agreed to provide the wanted care. From the story:

Three doctors at the city's Grace Hospital have refused to continue providing care to the elderly patient, Samuel Golubchuk, who they say has no brain function and should not be kept physically alive on a ventilator.

But another, unnamed doctor has come forward and agreed to be Golubchuk's physician of record, according to a report in the Winnipeg Sun that quotes a spokeswoman for the city's regional health authority. That will enable routine care to be provided to Golubchuk and his life support to be maintained, medical officials said.

Here is the nub of the controversy: Is extending the life of a patient when that is what is wanted a "harm?" Some ethicists say yes:

Arthur Shafer, a medical ethicist at the University of Manitoba, said the physicians were correct to follow their conscience once they'd formed a professional opinion on Golubchuk's case."They did morally the right thing," Shafer said. "As every first year medical student learns, the basic principal of medical ethics is 'do no harm.'"

But that more than implies that life itself can be a harm--even if it is what the patient wants. That moves dangerously close to the concept of "life unworthy of life." Very dangerous.

Losing Fight Against Malaria: Think DDT

Scientists are losing the war against malaria and are desperately seeking a new tactic. From the story:

Faced with a losing battle against malaria, scientists are increasingly exploring new avenues that might have seemed far-fetched just a few years ago.

"We don't have things we can rely on," said Andrea Crisanti, the malaria expert in charge of genetically modifying mosquitoes at London's Imperial College. "It's time to try something else."

Their desperate bid is genetic engineering. But that takes time with very uncertain results. But we do have something old we can--and should use starting today: DDT. It wiped out malaria in the USA and surely the human lives DDT could save are worth whatever perceived environmental harm spraying might cause.

The problem today, however, is that many environmentalists don't put human flourishing first. Heck, as we have noted here, some want us to be eradicated instead of the mosquitoes.

"Media Malpractice"

One of the joys of being a writer is that when something galls you, you can fight back. As readers of SHS know, I have been mightily irked by CBS and MSNBC swallowing whole the specious "study" that global warming is causing earthquakes. My friends at the Daily Standard saw it the same way, resulting in this column. I begin:

THERE IS A SURE-FIRE WAY to make the news these days: Just issue a press release beginning with the words, "New scientific study shows," and have it assert a conclusion that the MSM fervently want to believe--especially if the resulting story would serve to debunk or refute a Bush administration policy. Slam-dunk! Your press release will become news!

That is precisely what happened with the "global warming causes earthquakes" story run by CBS and MSNBC. I then point out that the originator of this nonsense, one Thomas Chalko, MSc, Ph.D., is hardly an expert on the issues of either global warming or earthquakes:

Chalko is best described as a pseudo-scientist--at least when it comes to the fields of global warming and earthquakes about which he was quoted by CBS and MSNBC as an authority. He is not a meteorologist. Nor is he a geophysicist or seismologist. His website reveals that he is into "self healing," "vibrations," and alien visitations

I discuss some of the issues I have addressed here previously and conclude:

The media love to repeatedly parrot the liberal meme that the Bush administration is scientifically ignorant. But the Chalko non story shows that many in the MSM are the true scientific ignoramuses--as well as true believers. Even if a story that is patently ridiculous comes across their transoms supporting their mass-think, and, better yet, purports to be based on a "scientific study," why bother with fact and source checking?

No wonder the public is fast losing faith in what the media tell them. File this debacle under Stupidity in Media.

Or to put it another way: Duh.