Man Who Died in Accused Final Exit Network Assisted Suicide Had Beaten Cancer

John Celmer, the man whose death is the subject of the Final Exit Network assisted suicide criminal charges, was not terminally ill. Indeed, he had apparently beaten his cancer. From the story:

John Celmer was making what his doctor considered “remarkable progress” last spring after two surgeries to reconstruct his jaw.

The 58-year-old Cumming man faced hip replacement surgery for arthritis, but he appeared to have won a battle against head and neck cancer. Then, he was found dead.
"His doctor was shocked," said Forsyth County Coroner Lauren McDonald III. "He said he shouldn’t have died." McDonald said an autopsy confirmed that Celmer, who smoke and drank, was cancer-free at death; the man had died from asphyxia suffocation resulting from the inhalation of helium. The death was ruled a homicide.

Repeat after me: Assisted suicide is not about terminal illness, it is about near death on demand.

Lawyer for Final Exit Network Slanders Hospice

Assisted suicide advocates pretend that they support hospice, but their work undermines the entire concept, or at least, twists it into something that would be unrecognizable by its creator, Dame Cecily Saunders. But now a lawyer named Michael Kaminkow, who is defending two of the Final Exit Network assisted suicide defendants, has gone so far as to slander hospice. From the story:

"Whatever happened here is no more than what happened in a hospice," said Michael Kaminkow, an attorney representing two of the network members arrested Wednesday. "In reality, a hospice is a suicide. It's just a little slower."

Shame on Kaminkow. First, hospice isn't about causing life to end. It is about alleviating suffering and promoting human community and dignity for people with terminal illnesses and their families. Second, in 1997 the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that refusing unwanted life-sustaining medical treatment, which is part of the hospice program, is not the same thing as suicide or assisted suicide. Third, sometimes people in hospice don't die, but get better. Finally, the man who his clients are accused of assisting in suicide was not terminally ill. He had previously had jaw cancer, but he had not experienced a recurrence of the disease.

Perhaps this is ignorance talking. But it is a cruel ignorance.

Fear Mongering for Assisted Suicide

There she goes again--meaning Compassion (Hemlock Society) and Choices head Barbara Coombs Lee--pushing the baloney that assisted suicide is only about preventing unalieviable suffering for the terminally ill. Worse, she engages in irresponsible demogoguery about proper care of dying patients. From her Huffington Post article:

Let's be clear. The policies on end-of-life decisions in every state except Oregon, Washington and Montana are merciless and irrational. Dying patients are abandoned to their agonies and any talk of assistance in their dying occurs in hushed, confused tones. A decent society must do better.

Well, that's not only fear mongering of the worst kind, but it is also a slander to the good work of hospice professionals, who most definitely do not abandon patients "to their agonies." Moreover, it completely glosses over the important public policy reasons for resisting legalized assisted suicide as well as the real experience of Oregon, touted by Coombs Lee in other venues, where patients commit assisted suicide for reasons such as worries about being a burden, fear of losing dignity, or worries about losing the ability to engage in enjoyable activities. These are important existential issues that often require professional intervention to alleviate. But assisted suicide interferes with that process, and hence, proper hospice care, by definition. And, in fact, patients receive lethal prescriptions in Oregon who are not experiencing significant symptoms.

Plus, C and C believes that unbearable agony is whatever the patient says it is, meaning that there are no principled standards in this regard that can apply. Plus, the Oregon guidelines are often not followed, as exposed by Kathleen Foley, the country's most prominent palliative care physician, and psychiatrist Herbert Hendin, an expert on suicide prevention. Plus, about Montana, which Coombs Lee also mentions, C and C's Kathryn Tucker has opposed the state enacting many of the very guidelines that Coombs Lee claims protect patients in Oregon and Washington.

This piece is a defensive one that seeks to put some distance between C and C and Final Exit Network, due to the recent arrests. It might work, but it shouldn't. It is worth noting that Coombs Lee never condemns FEN in her article. More to the point, FEN is as mainstream in assisted suicide advocacy as is Compassion and Choices. Where they really differ is in tactics. In this regard, Coombs Lee has the more cagey approach, I think, but FEN the more honest.

Obama to Revise or Rescind Bush Conscience Clause?

It was a given that the Obama Administration would attack the "Bush Conscience Clause." And that process has begun. But it may a revision rather than a rescission, and indeed, perhaps one I could support. From the story:

The administration took the step because the regulation was so broadly written that it could provide protections to health care workers who object not only to abortion but also to a wide range of health care services, said the HHS official, who asked not to be named because the process had just begun.

"We've been concerned that the way the Bush rule is written it could make it harder for women to get the care they need. It is worded so vaguely that some have argued it could limit family planning counseling and even potentially blood transfusions and end-of-life care," the official said. After a 30-day comment period, the regulation could be lifted entirely or it could be modified to make the protections more specific, the official said.

"We support a tightly written conscience clause. We recognize and understand that some providers have objections about abortion, and we want to make sure that current law protects them," the official said. "We want to be thoughtful about this."

I too thought that the Bush Regulation was too broadly written--for example, it could be construed to apply to futile care impositions--and was disappointed in its lack of nuance. Thus, if the rule were revised, rather than rescinded, so as to protect health care workers who refuse elective procedures, e.g., not needed to protect the life of or to prevent serious harm to the physical health of the patient, and moreover, to ensure that it is the procedure (such as assisted suicide) and not the patient that is objected to, a better federal conscience clause could come out of this.

However: I think there is a more than even chance that the reasonable tone is all politics and will not survive the actual rule revision process. I will keep an eye on this as the bureaucratic process grinds slowly forward.

I Am Now Associate Director of International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

I was recently asked to assume more responsibilities for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. I agreed and am now its associate director. This new gig will include speaking, writing, and media on the specific topic of euthanasia/assisted suicide. It will not affect nor limit my broader work on bioethics, animal rights, and human exceptionalism as a Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics with the Discovery Institute, which is not connected with the Task Force. Nor will it impact my consultancy with the Center for Bioethics and Culture. How fortunate I am to be affiliated with such good people and organizations.

And please remember to keep in mind that SHS is my personal blog. The views I express here are my own and not necessarily those of the organizations with which I am affiliated.

This is the first real job I have had since 1985! As my first official task as associate director, may I suggest that you check out my Task Force boss Rita Marker's appearance on Fox News yesterday regarding the Final Exit Network assisted suicide arrests? Here is the link.

The Neo Inquisition: Stifling Freedom of Thought

Jet lagged from my recent journey to Ireland/UK, where there is an 8 hour time difference, and up at 3:30 AM, I decided to see what I had missed at The Corner and ran across an entry by Jonah Goldberg discussing a debate between two philosophers, Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett. Plantinga apparently claims that Darwinian theory is compatible with faith and theism, while Dennett is one of the new atheists who believes science has proven religion to be wrong.

I don't know the work of either man, and since that is not my field and is beyond our scope here at SHS, and I don't want us to get into the religion versus science, science versus religion controversy here. But what caught my eye was a plea made by a "live blogger" of the event who is terrified at being identified by peers and colleagues as someone who tends to sympathize with Plantinga's approach. From the account of the anonymous blogger:

I was at the talk. It was packed with professional philosophers and graduate students in philosophy, most of whom sided with Dennett. I wrote live comments on the debate/session. I prefer to remain anonymous for various reasons, in particular because I am inclined towards Plantinga's position over Dennett's and were this to become well-known it could damage or destroy my career in analytic philosophy. This is something I prefer not to put my family through. I almost didn't publish these comments at all, but as far as I could tell, this would be the only public record of the discussion.

Friends, if you can identify me, I request that you keep my identity secret. I am sharing my thoughts as a service to the philosophical community and all those who have an interest in such debates. But I prefer not to suffer at the hands of my ardently secular colleagues. This is not to say that all secular analytic philosophers are this way; they most certainly are not. But enough of them are that I cannot risk being known publicly.

If the blogger is correct about the impact of colleagues knowing his or her world view--and can there be any doubt that his or her fear of consequences is reasonable in the current atmosphere?--we are in an era of the neo Inquisition. There may not be burnings at the stake, literally, but the careers of anyone straying from certain Orthodoxies will be subjected to searing pain and being reduced to ashes. And the perpetrators will always find some other excuse than their utter intolerance of diversity of opinion and lack of respect for truly free thought.

We have seen the same kind of McCarthysim that the blogger worries about in analytic philosophy directed at life scientists who oppose human cloning and ESCR for ethical reasons. Ditto the screeds against climate change skeptics, etc. And imagine what would happen to the most erudite and astute bioethicist seeking tenure at a major university if it became known she she was pro life.

The Left still screams about McCarthyism and the blacklist, and that's fine. A lot of injustices were perpetrated in that era based on what people believed or on their past associations. If that was wrong--and I sure think it was--how is this any different?

The atmosphere of fear on our campuses and within our professional societies hurts freedom and undermines intellectual integrity by making the open exchange of ideas too costly for those holding minority views to speak out. And the irony is that free thought is being snuffed out by the very people who call themselves free thinkers and who screamed the loudest about the importance of free speech and respecting dissident views in the 60s when they were the in the minority.

Holding Plastic Bags Over the Heads of People in Final Exit Network Assisted Suicides

I have been following various aspects of the FEN activists' arrests. But this aspect of the story really caught my attention. SHSers will recall that I mentioned the book A Chosen Death in a previous post, and how its author Lonny Shavelson watched a Hemlock operative kill "Gene" by preventing him from tearing off a plastic bag she had put over his head.

Well now, it appears that the FEN activists may have done the very same thing! From the story:

At the Dawson County residence on Wednesday, [Ted] Goodwin [head of FEN and vice president of the World Federation of the Right to Die Societies] allegedly walked the undercover agent through the steps and demonstrated how he would hold the agent's hands to stop him from removing the exit bag, Bankhead said.

The GBI said that after the death occurs, "all evidence is removed from the scene by the 'guides' and discarded, as evidence indicated happened in the Cumming case."

Can you imagine holding someone down as they suffocate to death?

Kevorkian Against Final Exit Network Assisted Suicide Method!

Jack Kevorkian, who painted the delightful picture above, helped kill people--other than Thomas Youk, who he lethally injected--via an assisted suicide machine in which the client flipped a switch opening the valve of a canister containing carbon monoxide. Yet, he has come out against the alleged approach to assisted suicide taken by the arrested Final Exit Network assisted suicide practitioners. From the story:

Southfield attorney Mayer Morganroth said Kevorkian, once referred to as Dr. Death, believes a doctor should always be involved in any type of assisted suicide.

"Other than that, he's not allowed to express any views about the methods they use," Morganroth said Thursday. "That's a limitation on his parole. The only thing he can say is that he disagrees with the methods and one of the reasons is that there should be a doctor present."

FEN activists didn't use carbon monoxide: They allegedly used helium. I can see why Kevorkian would object!

As to having a doctor present for assisted suicide, he wasn't one for most of his assisted suicides since he had lost his license to practice. Moreover, he was a pathologist and had not treated living patients since his medical training in the 1950s. Moreover one more time, Switzerland doesn't require a doctor's presence, and doctors in the Netherlands now give a book to patients who don't qualify for euthanasia on how to commit "auto euthanasia," which is their euphemism for suicide.

Finally, FEN activists may be fanatics, but unlike Kevorkian, they never advocated conducting human experiments on the people they were helping to kill.

Resisting "Assisted Suicide Guidelines" in Montana

Compassion and Choices (formerly the Hemlock Society) has played a crafty game of pretense about the ultimate goals of its assisted suicide campaign. In debates (including those in which I have participated), in media interviews, in press releases, etc., its representatives have claimed that C and C wants only a very narrow legalization of "aid in dying," and that to be under strict regulatory control to ensure against abuse.

Well, now that the drive to legalize assisted suicide has gained some traction, the ideological zeal of the group's leadership has caused them to go off that carefully tailored script. Kathryn Tucker is the legal director of C and C who got a sympathetic judge to impose a state constitutional right to "die with dignity" on Montana. As I noted in the Weekly Standard--contrary to her assertions made in the story quoted below--the ruling is audaciously broad, to the point that it could be read as opening the door to near death on demand and a license for doctors to lethally inject patients. Nevertheless, Tucker is now on record against creating any regulations to govern assisted suicide in Montana in the wake of the court ruling. From the story:

Kathryn Tucker, a lawyer for Compassion and Choices, an advocacy group for what members prefer to call "death with dignity," said lawmakers shouldn't feel the need to pass any legislation. "There are some guidelines (in the ruling). It's not a free-for-all," she said.

The guidelines set in McCarter's ruling mirror the "most significant" aspects of Oregon and Washington's laws allowing physician-assisted suicide. There are extra restrictions in those states, but Tucker said those aren't necessary. It's very unusual that a physician would be governed by a statute telling them how the (sic) practice medicine," she said. "Montana doesn't need to import these laws."

This kind of brazen two-faced advocacy epitomizes the C and C approach. Remember, this is the group behind AB 2747 in California, a statute that explicitly instructs doctors how to practice medicine by prescribing what they must tell patients diagnosed with one year or less to live! And in its original version, it required doctors to do in that regard whatever the patient instructed--such as sedate and dehydrate--or refer to a doctor who would.

Moreover, the laws she doesn't want imported are the very laws C and C helped write and create--arguing all the while that such a careful and regulated approach was necessary to proper "aid in dying" practice to protect against abuse.

The reason Tucker, her boss Barbara Coombs Lee, and others in the movement can exhibit such chutzpah is that they know that ignorant or biased reporters won't hold them to account for the paradoxes of their arguments. But they are letting the cat out of the bag as to their actual goals.

And that is good. Wouldn't it be nice to have an honest debate about what the assisted suicide movement is really all about instead of this pretense of a limited safety valve for the terminally ill?

Arrested Final Exit Network Activist Part of Assisted Suicide Establishment

In the wake of the arrests of four assisted suicide activists from the Final Exit Network, I believe an effort will be made to cast them as fringe characters within the movement.

Don't believe it. One of the four is Ted Goodwin, who is the head of the FEN. Goodwin has been a stalwart in the movement for many years, to the point that in 2008 he was elected vice president of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies, the international umbrella organization to which most euthanasia/assisted suicide organizations belong. That means, unless he resigns in the meantime, he is next in line to be elevated to the chair of president in 2010. (Goodwin resigned as head of FEN. In an earlier version of this post, since corrected, I erroneously stated he resigned as VP of the WFRTDS.)

The World Federation of Right to Die Societies doesn't advocate for restricting assisted suicide to the terminally ill. Its 2006 "Toronto Manifesto" states:

The World Federation of Right to Die Societies (an international non-governmental organization) is aware of the increasing concern to many individuals over their right to die with dignity. Believing in the rights and freedom of all persons, we affirm this right to die with dignity, meaning in peace and without suffering.

All competent adults--regardless of their nationalities, professions, religious beliefs, and ethical and political views--who are suffering unbearably from incurable illnesses should have the possibility of various choices at the end of their life. Death is unavoidable. We strongly believe that the manner and time of dying should be left to the decision of the individual, assuming such demands do not result in harm to society other than the sadness associated with death.

The voluntarily expressed will of individuals, once they are fully informed of their diagnosis, prognosis and available means of relief, should be respected by all concerned as an expression of intrinsic human rights.

What constitutes unbearable suffering is whatever the suicidal person decides is unbearable suffering--as Compassion and Choices stated in its Seven Principles--meaning in the context of the Manifesto, it could be just about anything from cancer, to disability, to mental illness, to an elderly person being tired of life.

Along similar lines, in 1998 the WFRDS issued the Zurich Declaration, signed by some medical professionals within the movement--including Philip Nitschke who in another context advocated that troubled teenagers be allowed access to suicide--again illustrating the nearly open ended license that is the end goal of the movement. From the declaration:

We believe that we have a major responsibility for ensuring that it becomes legally possible for all competent adults, suffering severe and enduring distress, to receive medical help to die, if this is their persistent, voluntary and rational request. We note that such medical assistance is already permitted in The Netherlands, Switzerland and Oregon, USA.

"Severe and enduring distress" is so loose and broad a definition you could drive a hearse through it.

Remember this: The soothing assurances that assisted suicide is merely a last resort choice for the terminally ill only when nothing else can be done to alleviate suffering is demonstrably false. Goodwin's beliefs in this regard are well known, and he never advocated for a terminal illness limitation. Most people on both sides of the issue knew what the FEN was doing and that their dark work was not limited to people who were dying. In other words: He wasn't elected to high leadership in the international euthanasia movement by accident.

More Declarations of Non Cooperation with Washington Assisted Suicide

Right is right and wrong is wrong--regardless of legality: Another hospital has opted out of Washington's assisted suicide law. From the story:

Sunnyside Community Hospital will not participate in the state's new Death With Dignity Act that takes effect next week, a decision likely to be followed by other hospitals in Yakima County...In announcing the hospital's decision Wednesday, chief executive Jon Smiley said members of the board, medical personnel and local residents felt that "this act does not meet the standards of a majority of people in our community."

Assisted suicide shouldn't meet the standards of any physician or community. That realization will take time to reestablish after decades of "death with dignity" advocacy. But this is a good step in that direction. If enough health care facilities and physicians follow this leadership in Washington, Oregon, and Montana, perhaps it will sink in that prescribing poison is not a legitimate medical practice.

Then, the "choice" crowd will try and force participation, which will bring a huge clash over conscience clauses.

Final Exit Network: Search Warrants Issued in Phoenix Case

I wrote earlier today about the arrest of Final Exit Network operatives. I mentioned in that post about the Phoenix case in which a mentally ill woman--it was contended--was assisted in suicide by a group representative. I had reported that matter previously here at SHS, and now search warrants have apparently been issued in the case. From the Phoenix News Times that, unlike the MSM, covered the story previously:

This just in: Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas is about to announce the issuance of search warrants in the 2006 assisted suicide of a mentally ill Phoenix woman.

The case, which involved volunteers coming to town to help 58-year-old Jana Van Voorhis kill herself, was first reported by New Times staff writer Paul Rubin in this cover story. The volunteers were part of the nonprofit Final Exit Network, an offshoot of the now-defunct Hemlock Society--one of them was a senior citizen who'd traveled all the way from Colorado to "help" with the suicide.

The case was particularly troubling to the experts interviewed by Rubin because Van Voorhis suffered from chronic mental illness--and the volunteers apparently tried to stage the suicide as if Van Voorhis had killed herself without their assistance. It was only thanks to detective work from the Phoenix Police Department that the Final Exit Network's involvement came to light.

Again, this isn't compassion or the facilitation of liberty. Participating in serial assisted suicides is crass abandonment of the vulnerable to fulfill one's own obsessions.

The Power of Love is the Power of Life

Day after day we are assaulted with the idea, fundamental to the assisted suicide movement, that some lives are not worth living and hence, not worth protecting from suicide. This advocacy, I believe, does not really promote liberty and freedom, but rather, endangers lives--of the elderly, people with disabilities and mental illnesses, and those with terminal or chronic diseases--by confirming their worst fears about their futures and their human worth.

Contrary messages are sometimes made, as I strive to report here at SHS and elsewhere, but do not seem to penetrate as deeply as the "death with dignity" meme, perhaps because they require a deeper empathy and lack the power of repetition. Along this line, I think it is important to acknowledge the death of Christopher Nolan, a man profoundly disabled by cerebral palsy who wrote about the power of love in his life. From Raymond Arroyo's blog:

He published his first book at 15, a collection of poems appropriately titled Dam-burst of Dreams. His second book won Britain's prestigious "Whitbread Book of the Year:" in 1988. It was called Under the Eye of the Clock, a biographical work in which he refers to himself as Joseph Meehan. At one point in the book Nolan writes of crying upon the realization that he is not like other children: "Looking through his tears he saw [his mother] bent low in order to look into his eyes. '... Listen here Joseph, you can see, you can hear, you can think, you can understand everything you hear. You like your food, you like nice clothes, you are loved by me and Dad. We love you just as you are.'

Pussing still, sniveling still, he was listening to his mother's voice. She spoke sort of matter-of-factly but he blubbered moaning sounds. His mother said her say and that was that. She got on with her work while he got on with his crying. The decision arrived at that day, was burnt forever in his mind. He was only three years in age but he was now fanning the only spark he saw, his being alive and more immediate, his being wanted just as he was....

It important to note that Nolan gained the insight of the sheer equal worth of his life before the the assisted suicide movement and medical utilitarianism, with which we are now badly infected, had metastasized to the point that many people approve people like Christopher going to Kevorkian or being flown to Switzerland for a dose of suicide tourism.

During the Q and A session after my recent speech at the Parliament Building in London, a representative from Not Dead Yet UK dramatically described the increasing fear and anguish he feels as a man with serious disabilities at being viewed by many in society as having a life not worth living. "The despair is hard to combat," he said.

We must all strive against the devaluing message he reported and with all of the energy we possess. One way is to point to Christopher Nolan's vivid life and its clear illustration that the true answer to the difficulties of human suffering isn't killing, it is love.

Final Exit Network "Ring" of Suicide Assisters Arrested

The Final Exit Network is dedicated to assisted suicide. More honestly than some in the euthanasia movement, its members openly acknowledge that the "ultimate civil liberty" should not be limited to the terminally ill.

It has long been suspected that some members of the FEN are not willing to wait until the law changes to assist in suicides. Some old time SHSers may recall the case in Phoenix in which it seemed pretty clear that a FEN member helped assist the suicide of a woman with a mental illness.

Nothing came of that case in terms of criminal culpability, but now some arrests have been made in a series of assisted suicides in several states. From the story:

Four members of an alleged assisted suicide ring were charged Wednesday with helping a 58-year-old Georgia man end his life, and investigators in eight other states were looking into whether the group was involved in more deaths.

The FBI is also probing the Final Exit Network, an organization whose Web site said it is "dedicated to serving people who are suffering from an intolerable condition." It wasn't immediately clear how many deaths were being investigated. On Wednesday, investigators raided the homes of the group's volunteers in seven of the states, a group office in Georgia and a company in Montana that authorities said supplied items used in suicides, according to a news release from authorities in Arizona, where another death was being investigated...The four were charged with assisted suicide, tampering with evidence and a violation of Georgia's anti-racketeering act.

The victim's mother says her son was depressed but if he had the "courage" to kill himself with help, she doesn't want to see any arrests.

Well, it isn't up to her. I know other cases apparently involving the FEN in which bereaved family members were horrified at what happened and yearned to see justice done.

When we ponder this matter, I think it is important to understand that people who are this deeply involved in helping make other people dead are what I call "death fundamentalists," that is, they are not just selfless altruists, but act on a deep ideological belief and an odd form of twisted desire. Lest you think that judgment harsh, allow me to quote from A Chosen Death, written by Lonny Shavelson, who is pro assisted suicide and observed "Sarah" from the Hemlock Society as she plied her trade. On page 75, she tells Shavelson that after assisting her first suicide of a good friend, she came to relish--one is tempted to say "get off"--on the experience:

I firmly believe now that the most intimate moment you can share with a person is their death. More than sex. More than birth. More than anything. I was at the deliveries of my four grandchildren, and my experience with Naomi's death was above that.

Later in the book, Sarah murders "Gene," who tries to back out of his assisted suicide after swallowing the poisonous concoction Sarah prepared, but is prevented by Sarah who brutally holds a plastic bag around his head as she croons, "The light Gene, go toward the light." As I noted in Forced Exit, Shavelson writes of witnessing this involuntary killing, but did nothing to stop it and never called police.

So, let's see where this case leads. If they did the deed or deeds, I hope the judge throws the book at them. But don't count on serious punishment. The idea of suicide as a "necessity" for people in difficult circumstances is gaining traction, putting the most vulnerable among us at a terrible risk.

Memories of Ireland and London

I am back in California sinking with my fellow citizens beneath the waves of red ink, jetlagged and scratchy from a persistent chest cold, but gratified that the speaking trip to Ireland and London was (I think), quite successful. Here are a few photos I took for your (hoped for) enjoyment. Thanks to all SHSers for your continuing support. We are growing, but more about that another time.

Here is a light pole in Dublin. I like the color matching with the (rare) blue sky:

I play with my face and the dome at the Dublin City Hall.


Not your typical staid statue in Dublin.


A foggy morning in Maynooth.

Pub food!

Isle of Wight


There is only one London.

"Scientific Studies" Whiplash: Wine Causes Cancer! Wine Prevents Cancer!

I have concluded that too much money is being spent to pay for "scientific studies," which after all, have to find something to report to earn their keep. This often leads to much confusion. Take for example a new study that looked into the life-course of women, reports that drinking even one glass of wine a day can increase cancer, to the tune of 15 extra cases per 1000. From the story:

Consuming just one drink a day causes an extra 7,000 cancer cases--mostly breast cancer--in UK women each year, Cancer Research UK scientists say. The risk goes up the more you drink, whether spirits, wine or beer, the data on over a million women suggests. Overall, alcohol is to blame for about 13% of breast, liver, rectum, mouth and throat cancers, the researchers say.

But wait! A similar study published a few years ago showed that drinking moderately has no impact on cancer. Moreover, according to studies relied upon by the National Cancer Institute, drinking red wine can reduce cancer. Except a different study said even one large glass of wine increases cancer risk. I'm getting whiplash.

The moral of the story is that we have too many studies.

We are all going to die, and if we live moderately, the time of that great passing will be postponed. Or maybe not. I think we should give some academic a $5 million grant to conduct a study on the question.

"Politics in the Guise of Pure Science "

I have been warning for some time that ideological advocacy often masks as objective scientific reporting--both in the media and the journals--allowing political activists to promote various agendas by bootstrapping their views to the widespread respect society has for the scientific process. Now a much bigger fish than SHS has expressed the same concern. John Tierney, science columnist for the New York Times (of all places, since some of its stories are classics in conflating politics/ideology and science) ponders the problem, riffing off of a book by Roger Pielke Jr. called The Honest Broker. From Tierney's column:

Most researchers, Dr. Pielke writes, like to think of themselves in one of two roles: as a pure researcher who remains aloof from messy politics, or an impartial arbiter offering expert answers to politicians' questions. Either way, they believe their research can point the way to correct public policies, and sometimes it does--when the science is clear and people's values aren't in conflict... But too often, Dr. Pielke says, they pose as impartial experts pointing politicians to the only option that makes scientific sense. To bolster their case, they're prone to exaggerate their expertise (like enumerating the catastrophes that would occur if their policies aren't adopted), while denigrating their political opponents as "unqualified" or "unscientific."

I am afraid this phenomenon reflects the toxic cultural times in which we live. Science, like everything else in society is going show business--by which I mean it is driven to a fairly large degree by the desire for money, hope for fame, and ideological stridency. The field increasingly reminds me of the cruel social pecking order we often see develop among high school kids, in which the cool or hep students--to use the terminology of my time--have all the fun while the nerds find themselves socially rejected, or even, targeted for bullying. Indeed, scientists who dare to challenge the "in" view about publicly provocative issues are often viciously attacked and even driven from their careers--as I have certainly witnessed happen to more than one friend because they took the anti-cloning/ESCR view in the stem cell debates.

Tierney mentions a different example of trying to shoot the messenger of unpopular views from Pielke's book. Several years ago, the John P. Holdren, now President Obama's science adviser, pulled a Torquemada when Bjorn Lomborg became an apostate to the Science Establishment's ideological view about the environment:

Dr. Holdren called it his “scientific duty” to expose the “complete incompetence” of the book’s author, Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish political scientist. Dr. Holdren was one of the authors of an extraordinary 11-page attack on the book that ran in Scientific American under the headline, “Science defends itself against 'The Skeptical Environmentalist'"--as if "science" spoke with one voice. After reviewing the criticisms, Dr. Pielke concludes that a more accurate headline would have been, "Our political perspective defends itself against the political agenda of 'The Skeptical Environmentalist.'"

I think Tierney completely understates McCarthyite atmosphere that stifles free thinking and intellectual freedom within the scientific community. But good on him and Dr. Pielke for noticing that science is being corrupted by politics and ideology. It is one thing for an outsider to sound the alarm. But when a respected voices from the choir loft speak up, perhaps "the scientists" will find the courage and humility to change.

What's It All About Alfie? Coup de Culture Hitting UK Hard

It has been a very dispiriting experience to see how things are in the UK. The country's leadership seems lost in a fog of relativism and intent to destroy many of the cultural attributes of society that made the country great.

There is the Brave New Britain, oft written of here, of course. But the subject of this post, I think, is a very good example of how the "hedonism" aspect of the coup de culture causes terrible problems--and the leadership that should be striving to reverse things instead keep pushing the very devolution of standards that led to the moaned about problem in the first place.

The country is all atwitter because a 13-year-old boy named Alfie Patten (pictured left) became a father. The lad and his 15-year-old girl friend have had their pictures all over the place with their baby. People are demanding to know how things have come to this pass that children are giving birth, etc.. (There is speculation that Alfie might not be the actual sperm provider since the girl was apparently sleeping with several boys and money is exchanging hands about the story, illustrating another aspect of the problem. But that is no matter to the point of this post.)

With the widespread upset about Alfie in mind, consider the story in the Sunday Times of London yesterday, in which a front page story reported about how the government is urging parents not to teach their kids right from wrong when it comes to sex. From the story:

Parents should avoid trying to convince their teenage children of the difference between right and wrong when talking to them about sex, a new government leaflet is to advise. Instead, any discussion of values should be kept "light" to encourage teenagers to form their own views, according to the brochure, which one critic has called "amoral"...

It advises: "Discussing your values with your teenagers will help them to form their own. Remember, though, that trying to convince them of what's right and wrong may discourage them from being open.

How do they think that is going to help reduce the phenomenon of 13-year-old fathers and 15- year-old girls with several boy friends at once all enjoying "privileges"? If they wanted to produce a society that scratches every itch, indulges every desire, and casts responsibility to the wind, like we increasingly have today, I can't think of a better way to make it so than for parents to stand back indifferently and let children in heat from the hormonal explosion of puberty decide on their own what is right and wrong in sexual ethics. They sure don't do that about smoking tobacco!

It isn't just the sex. It is the symbolic importance of this story, which I think illustrates vividly the collapse of moral and critical thinking in which we are being engulfed. Insanity.

SHS in the Telegraph:"Right to Die Can Become Duty to Die"

After three rousing speeches and media appearances with David Prentice in Ireland on cloning and ESCR, I am off today over the Irish Sea to London, where I will speak Monday night in the Parliament Building about assisted suicide. Ahead of the event, I was asked by my sponsors to write a piece for placement in the UK Media. I was delighted that it made today's Telegraph. From my column:

Imagine that you have lung cancer. It has been in remission, but tests show the cancer has returned and is likely to be terminal. Still, there is some hope. Chemotherapy could extend your life, if not save it. You ask to begin treatment. But you soon receive more devastating news. A letter from the government informs you that the cost of chemotherapy is deemed an unjustified expense for the limited extra time it would provide. However, the government is not without compassion. You are informed that whenever you are ready, it will gladly pay for your assisted suicide.

Think that's an alarmist scenario to scare you away from supporting "death with dignity"? Wrong. That is exactly what happened last year to two cancer patients in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal.

I opened with that story--oft discussed here at SHS--because of the rationing that is taking place in the NHS: It's use in the UK as a form of resource preservation is a threat that I hope will be considered in the latest round of emotionalized assisted suicide agitation that appears almost daily in the media.

For example, MS patient Debbie Purdy sued to ensure that her husband could take her to Switzerland for assisted suicide without legal consequence. She lost--technically--but the court all but said that the authorities would not pursue the matter should that event take place. Her campaign is being used by advocates--among other "suicide tourism" deaths--as reasons to legalize in the UK on the premise that people who want to die should be able to kill themselves with the help of a doctor at home, rather than be "forced" to fly overseas. (Rarely mentioned, is that Purdy not terminally ill.)

But that could place sick and vulnerable people at considerable risk of feeling duty-bound to put themselves out of their families or society's misery. I point out that Oregon studies show that most patients receive poison prescriptions in Oregon for existential reasons rather than pain:

Much as I sympathise with her [Purdy's] plight, such a guarantee would lure us on to the slippery slope where the old and the sick come under pressure to end their lives. A study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine last year, for example, found that doctors in Oregon write lethal prescriptions for patients who are not experiencing significant symptoms and that assisted suicide practice has had little do with any inability to alleviate pain--the fear of which is a chief selling point for legalisation...

When a scared and depressed patient asks for poison pills and their doctor's response is to pull out the lethal prescription pad, it confirms the patient's worst fears--that they are a burden, that they are less worth loving. Hospices are geared to address such concerns. But effective hospice care is undermined when a badly needed mental health intervention is easily avoided via a state-sanctioned, physician-prescribed overdose of lethal pills.

I conclude:

Oregon has become the model for how assisted suicide is supposed to work. But for those who dig beneath the sloganeering and feel-good propaganda, it becomes clear that legalising assisted suicide leads to abandonment, bad medical practice and a disregard for the importance of patients' lives.

I am convinced that assisted suicide can be stopped in the UK, as opponents have there before. I hope this column contributes to that continuing struggle.

Hawaii Shows Backbone Against Assisted Suicide

The passage of assisted suicide in Washington is not yet causing a major revamping of the political field. Hawaii's assisted suicide legislation looks like it isn't going to make it this year. From the story:

The Hawaii Legislature will not take up a proposal to allow assisted suicides in the state. House Judiciary chairman Jon Riki Karamatsu said Wednesday he will not hear a bill that would allow terminally ill adults to get a lethal dose of medication to end their lives. Karamatsu says advocates of the measure haven't pushed strongly for the bill to be heard this year. He says he's open to considering it in the future.

The apparent lack of energy by advocates is a surprise. Perhaps, they had counted the votes and realized it wasn't in the cards. In any event, Rep. Karamatsu deserves congratulations and thanks.

Another IVF Tragedy Illustrates How "Assisted Reproduction" Increasingly Epitomizes an "Entitlement Culture"

In Japan, a woman underwent IVF and was implanted, seemingly a happy pregnancy. Then, things proved to be terribly wrong. From the story:

A Japanese woman was likely impregnated with the fertilized egg of another woman by accident during an in vitro procedure last year, hospital officials said Thursday. The woman, who is in her 20s, aborted the pregnancy when she was told of the potential mix-up at the government-run hospital in Kagawa prefecture, about 330 miles (530 kilometers) southwest of Tokyo. She is now suing the local government for 20 million yen ($222,000), according to news reports.

Hospital officials apologized for the mistake at a news conference Thursday. "She was very happy after undergoing such a difficult procedure and becoming pregnant, but unfortunately a mistake had been made," said Yuzo Matsumoto, director of the Kagawa Prefectural Central Hospital.

This is an example of the hedonism I have been warning against in discussing the coup de culture. People believe they have the right to obtain whatever they want, however they want it, and then reject it if they are not fully pleased. In this case, the woman wanted a baby. But she was implanted with a baby she did not want so she had it destroyed in utero. And then she sues.

Another woman may want a baby and use a sister's, or even a stranger's egg in the fertilization process, happy to carry a baby that is not hers biologically, but is in love. But the child's mother is really her aunt, and perhaps even a stranger. We have seen the potential cost of such "novel" arrangements in the desperate yearning of the adopted to find their natural parents.

Another woman has five embryos implanted and three destroyed through "selective reduction," thrilled to have "twins," when she really had two of five quintuplets, and the two living babies will eventually know that they are only in life through the luck of where the abortionist's tools happened to land.

Another want-to-be mother hires a poor woman to be her substitute womb because she has health problems, or doesn't want stretch marks or her career track affected by the pregnancy, and then contractually forces the woman to give up a child she gestated and bonded with for 9 months--potentially impacting the child as well as the birth mother since mother/child bonding begins before birth. Another couple go through IVF, have their embryos tested, and toss out those that might get adult onset cancer, for all we know destroying the person that might have found cancer's cure.

None of us is allowed to comment about any of this because the rules of the modern age tell us we may never moralize about or judge a woman's "reproductive choices." But then another woman upsets that particular applecart by having 8 children, added to 6 she already has, all through IVF. Finally the choice-is-everything crowd gets upset about something (other than the loathed pro lifers.) But by what right? They have profoundly undermined the power of society to expect people to adhere to reasonable norms.

As for me, I think it is all upsetting, and--yes I will say it--the field increasingly epitomizes a society that thinks we are all entitled to everything we want, regardless of the moral costs in the lives harmed or sacrificed in the obtaining. But wisdom tells us that sometimes we have to live within limits and make do as best we can. That hurts individuals, and we should all be there to empathize and help ease the pain. But it also helps build a healthier society. It is a forgotten lesson that is costing us dearly.

Fetal Stem Cells Cause Tumors in Human Patient: Should Geron ESCR Human Trial License be Reconsidered?

This story is disturbing and raises questions about whether the FDA's license to Geron to conduct human embryonic stem cell experiments should be suspended pending further studies. In Israel, a child treated with fetal stem cells developed tumors four years after receiving fetal stem cell treatments. From the story:

The boy, now 17, received the stem cells in 2001 at a Moscow hospital and four years later scans showed brain and spinal tumours, PLoS Medicine reports. Israeli doctors removed the abnormal growth from his spine and tests suggest it sprouted from the stem cells...

The boy in question was treated for a condition called Ataxia Telangiectasia--a genetic disease that attacks the brain region controlling movement and speech. He received three courses of foetal stem cell injections to the brain and the fluid surrounding the spine. Four years after his first injection he was investigated for recurrent headaches and his doctors at the Sheba Medical Centre in Tel Aviv found two tumours--one in the spine and one in the brain at the same sites the injections had been given.

A year later, when the boy was 14, the doctors removed the non-cancerous tumour from his spine and it was found to contain cells that could not have arisen from the patient's own tissue and had in all probability grown from the donated stem cells. Although they were unable to sample the growth in the boy's brain, the scientists believe this probably arose from the injected stem cells too.

It is worth noting that this particular condition impairs the immune system. Nonetheless, a reason embryonic stem cells cause tumors in animal models is their hyper activity,which makes their proliferation hard to control. Adult stem cells don't seem to have this problem. Fetal stem cells are less "youthful"than embryonic, but more than adult, and thus this tumor finding raises renewed questions about using ES cells in humans at the present time--a worry expressed by supporters as well as opponents of ESCR:

They [commenting scientists] say the findings "do not imply that the research in stem cell therapeutics should be abandoned." Nonetheless, they say more work should be done to assess the safety of this therapy.

Which brings us to the Geron license from the FDA. Geron's work with its product has been exclusively with mice, which were not kept alive nearly the four years it took for this patient to develop stem cell-caused tumors. This raises a question of whether, in light of this report, the FDA should revisit its go ahead to Geron to use ES cell-derived cells in human beings,particularly since it might take years to learn whether the product causes tumors.

And while we are on the subject, it is important that the patient-subject consent forms that will be used in these experiments--which have not yet been made public--be carefully reviewed. The paralyzed patients who will participate in Geron's safety trials are full ambulatory at this moment. But these unknown persons will be seriously injured sometime soon. Within a week or two of their injuries, facing potential paralysis from spinal cord injury, they will be approached by Geron to be test subjects, since the product designed for acute cases, not people with long-term paralysis. This will be a very emotional time in which these patients will be in deep emotional distress at the prospect of never walking again. In such an urgent crisis situation, it will be particularly important that all participants be made unequivocally aware of the potential risks, that these adverse events might take years to develop, and indeed, that being the subjects of such potentially risky experiments, that they might have to be monitored for the rest of their lives. Or to put it more succinctly: the consent, when given, must be fully informed.

More Proof That Assisted Suicide Activists Will Seek to Force Doctors to Participate

The culture of death brooks no dissent, I have repeatedly warned. That means the assisted suicide agenda, if it is widely successful, will one day seek to force all doctors to participate in the mercy killings of their patients--either by doing the deed personally, or referring them to a death doctor they know will write the poison prescription (or eventually, lethally inject the curare).

More proof: Barbara Coombs Lee of Compassion and Choices (formerly Hemlock Society), is in a dither about the Bush conscience clause regulation that prevents employers from discriminating against medical professionals who refuse to participate in assisted suicide (as one example) on moral grounds. From her blog:

That meddlesome regulation encouraging healthcare workers to obstruct needed treatment considered offensive to their personal beliefs, went into effect January 19. It's still in place. I'm determined to continue blogging about this issue until it is repealed.

Congress, the administration, or both must act to restore the needs of patients to their rightful priority over the morality of providers...We're in a clash between ideologues and pragmatists--people who place their own dogmatic beliefs above all, and people inclined to rely on pragmatic solutions in times of need or crisis.

So, doctors who believe in the orthodox view of the Hippocratic Oath, who understand that assisted suicide is not a medical treatment regardless of how it is redefined, are to be told to get with the program or go sell shoes for a living. There are to be no opt outs.

Then Lee goes paranoid:

But the stated purpose of this rule is to urge ideologues into action. It encourages them to go to work where they can impose their beliefs on the maximum number of medical patients.

Yea, like people want conflict. Besides, she has it exactly backwards: The purpose of the rule is to protect doctors and nurses against the those who seek to reduce medicine from a profession governed by rigorous ethical standards and unyielding principles of patient protection, into a technocracy of highly trained service providers--exactly the devolution, it is worth noting, that will be needed to effectuate a regime of socialized health care.

Dennis Turner Adult Stem Cell Success for Parkinson's now Peer Reviewed

Dennis Turner was treated for Parkinson's disease with his own neural stem cells, taken from his brain, nearly ten years ago. He went into a significant remission that lasted for about four or five years before symptoms returned, that as I wrote in Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World, allowed him to go on photo-safaris at a time he expected to have to use a wheelchair.

But whenever those of us who argue that ESCR is not "the only hope" for treatment of Parkinson's and other conditions tried to use his case as an illustration of the potential of adult stem cells, we were pooh-poohed by "the scientists" because his case had not been peer reviewed, and of course, ignored by the prominent media. Well, now the case has been peer reviewed and published. From the story:

The researcher reports that the publication of the article, "Therapeutic Microinjection of Autologous Adult Human Neural Stem Cells and Differentiated Neurons for Parkinson's Disease: Five-Year Post-Operative Outcome" in the Bentham Open Stem Cell Journal heralds an important moment in regenerative and personalized medicine. "Our paper describes how we were able to isolate patient-derived neural stem cells, multiply them in vitro and ultimately differentiate them to produce mature neurons before they are reintroduced into the brain's basal ganglia. This is performed without the patient requiring immunosuppressants. Of particular note are the striking results this study--for the five years following the procedure the patient's motor scales improved by over 80% for at least 36 months. A word of caution must be added however, since this is a single case study, a larger clinical trial is needed to replicate these findings," says Levesque

That last point bears repeating: As I have said repeatedly about Turner and other such cases, one success does not a cure make. But the time has come to recognize this potential treatment of Parkinson's as a bona fide hope. Stage 2 trials are in the works.

UK Govt. Fights to Keep Eugenic Abortion Information Safely Sealed Away

Pro lifers in the UK are seeking transparency--that's the big new buzz word, isn't it?-- about eugenic abortion in the UK, and apparently the government is trying to squelch the news. From the story:

They have accused officials of using restrictions that are more heavy-handed than those used in terrorist trials, to exclude them from a tribunal which will decide whether statistics on foetuses aborted because of disabilities will be published.

The hearing next month will decide whether figures on the number of babies aborted for disabilities such as cleft palate and club foot should be published.

While abortion is only legal in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy if carried out on social grounds, it is legal to abort a foetus which has a serious risk of physical or mental abnormality, right up to birth. In 2005, after a public outcry over the termination of a foetus with a cleft palate at 28 weeks, the Department of Health (DoH) stopped publishing abortion statistics if fewer than 10 cases were carried out. Details of abortions on foetus with club feet, cleft lips and palates and webbed fingers and toes were no longer published.

The Information Commissioner has ordered the release of the figures, requested by the Pro-Life Alliance campaign group, but the DoH is resisting, claiming that the data could lead to women who have late abortions being identified.

That's always the excuse. But they just don't want the truth out--to the extent that the government doesn't even want them allowed in the hearing:

During discussions about restrictions at the hearings, Government lawyers referred to procedures used in terrorist trials, when lawyers are not allowed to discuss the most sensitive evidence with their clients, before going further, to request that the alliance are entirely banned from proceedings.

Julia Millington, from the alliance, accused the Government of a "serious misuse" of the judicial process to shield the debate from scrutiny.

Well, such acts are best done in secret. It keeps the collective conscience from being disturbed and the national self image from being tarnished.

I'm Off to Ireland and London

I will be debating cloning, stem cells, and lecturing on assisted suicide for the next ten days. I have no doubt the term "human exceptionalism" will come up. In the meantime, I will check in here, too, with posts and reacting to what SHSers have to say. So please stay tuned and keep those comments coming. Onward!

British Medical Journal Study: "Secondhand Smoke Linked to Cognitive Impairment"

Well, you can't say you weren't warned: A scientific study has found that too much exposure to SHS is bad for the brain. From the story:

The research, published today in the British Medical Journal, highlighted a 44% increase in risk of cognitive impairment when exposed to high levels of second-hand smoke.

Not my blog! Tobacco.

Chimpanzee Exceptional Dancing!

As I get ready to fly to Dublin, I learn that chimpanzees are dancers too!

Eluano Englara's "Gentle Death"

We keep hearing from those who support dehydration that taking food and water away from cognitively disabled patients leads to a "gentle death." I have written debunking this fallacy, but here is a reporter's take on Eluana's death so you can judge for yourself. From the story:

Twenty-four hours later came the first complications. On Saturday afternoon, Eluana had difficulty breathing and her mucous membranes were dry. Nurses sprayed water with a nebuliser. On Sunday, the situation got worse. The nurses turned her over every two hours and sprayed her mucous membranes with more water. Marinella Chirico, a RAI journalist who saw Eluana, reported that she was "unrecognisable, there are abrasions on her ears". Eluana was already under sedation with Delorazepam, injected subcutaneously. On Monday, her condition deteriorated rapidly. The distress log opens at one o'clock in the morning. "Eluana is lying on her left side"; "at 4 a.m. on her right side"; at 8 a.m. she "is again supine". "At 10.15 a.m., the mucous membranes are again dry" and the nurses moistened her lips with water droplets. Sedation continued. That afternoon, Eluana's temperature rose. She was weak, breathing with extreme difficulty and still under sedation. She had no more urine. At 7.35 p.m., Eluana's heart stopped beating. The clinic declared cardiac arrest caused by renal failure.

Gentle. Peaceful. Dignified.

Compassion and Choices "Seven Principles" to Death on Demand

Compassion and Choices (formerly Hemlock Society) is the abundantly funded, prime mover and shaker for the assisted suicide movement in the USA. It unquestionably had a good year in 2008 with the passage of I-1000 in Washington and the imposition of a fundamental state constitutional right to "die with dignity" in Montana. It has now issued its "Seven Principles" to "improve end-of-life care and expand patient choices." A clear and literal reading of these "principles," demonstrate that the goal is an essential death on demand. From its press release:

Our Seven Principles can help guide lawmakers and policy experts to remember what’s important, and make sure our health care system and its providers are putting the patient first:
1. Focus. End of life care should focus on the patient’s life and current experience.
2. Self-determination. Individuals vary in their tolerance for pain and suffering.
3. Autonomy. Decisions about end-of-life care begin and end with the autonomous patient.
4. Personal Beliefs. Patients should feel empowered to make decisions based on their own deeply held values and beliefs, without fear of moral condemnation or political interference.
5. Informed Consent. Patients must have comprehensive, candid information in order to make valid decisions and give informed consent.
6. Balance. Patients should feel empowered to make decisions based on their own assessment of the balance between quantity and quality of life.
7. Notice. Patients must have early, forthright and complete notice of health care providers’ institutional or personal policies or beliefs that could impact their treatment wishes at the end of life.

If the Seven Principles prevail, it is the end of medical professionalism as it has always been understood, as the reigning--and only real standard--would be what a patient wants for whatever reason a patient wants it. It is also a prescription for death on demand. Why should anyone have to put up with "political interference" if they believe their suffering is so bad that they want to die? Moreover, since it becomes unprofessional to gainsay the patient's "own assessment of the balance between quantity and quality of life," it is the end of free speech and true communication, since not a negative word can be uttered. (The movement has already destroyed the right of free association in jurisdictions in which it has prevailed, since the law in Oregon and Washington prevent medical organizations from excluding those who assist suicides based on ethical principles. I think these provisions beg a lawsuit--but I digress.)

I also note that the Seven Principles do not require the diagnosis of a terminal illness--even though C and C will continue the charade that end of life is the limitation for assisted suicide for as long as is politically necessary. I mean if you apply the Seven Principles seriously and literally, who could be denied assisted suicide? It is up to the patient to decide between "quantity and quality." Let's just set up the euthanasia clinics and be done with it.

As to # Seven: Physicians and institutions that wish to adhere to Hippocratic orthodoxy will be hard pressed in the new world of non medical professionalism, and will definitely need to publicly proclaim themselves "assisted suicide free zones" and pledge total non cooperation with the culture of death. When that happens, look for efforts to be made by C and C types to coerce complicity in assisted suicide via "duty to refer" requirements--which are already appearing in some legislation--as we have discussed. The answer will be conscience clauses, which will be fought against tooth and tong every step of the way.

Remember, the culture of death brooks no dissent and is not interested in any meaningful limitations. If you do that, the apparent contradictions in death culture advocacy won't drive you crazy.

All You Need is Love

I just happened upon a good opinion piece by New York Times editor Dana Jennings. He is fighting prostate cancer with all of its difficulties and inconveniences--and through it all, his wife Deb has vividly exemplified why, as the Beatles so quaintly put it, all you need is love. From the column:

Right now, I'm not quite what you'd call "a catch."... Even so, Deb has taught me that love is in the details. Humid professions of undying love and tear-stained sonnets are all well and good, but they can't compete with the earthy love of Deb helping me change and drain my catheter pouches each day when I first came home from the hospital.

Yes, in the details. She measured my urine, peered into places I couldn't (literally and figuratively), and strategically and liberally applied baby powder, ice and Aquaphor to my raw and aching body. She battled our intractable insurer, networked, tracked down the right doctors--and took thorough notes all the while.

I was wounded. She protected me. She chose to do these things.

But what about people who don't have their own "Deb?" She can be there for them, too, if enough of us do our jobs. Deb was there in the care my friend Tom gave his great aunt,who he barely knew, as she neared her end. I have seen her in the selflessness of pro life couples who put their own lives where their mouths are by adopting developmentally disabled and at risk children. She is the hospice nurse making that extra house call to make sure her patient isn't in pain. That hospital chaplain who recently lost a night's sleep to hold my friend's hand in the midst of a catastrophe, no doubt looked just like Deb. And weren't those her tears the ICU nurses shed when they couldn't save a life?

I guess what I am saying is that we all should, in ways big and small, be "Deb." In that way when any of us need her, she will always be around.

Eluana Englaro Died of Cardiac Arrest--The Young Support her Dehydration

The autopsy of Eluana Englaro shows she died of cardiac arrest. From the story:

An autopsy performed on the controversial 'right to die' woman, Eluana Englaro, who died in Italy on Monday has shown she died of cardiac arrest, provoked by dehydration after her feeding tubes were removed last week. The fate of 38-year-old Englaro, who had been in a vegetative state since 1992, provoked a euthanasia debate that has divided Italy and caused a constitutional crisis.

The life of Eluana is over, but the controversy has just begun in Italy:

"It is wrong to insult others and it is equally wrong to accuse Catholics of fundamentalism when they fight for life," said Fisichella in an interview with Italian daily, La Repubblica. "There is a great reversal of values. Freedom is good, but there should also be freedom to decide against death and not in favour of death. "Analysing the latest polls, we can see that the 18-25 age bracket asked for the death of Eluana, while the older the age, the more people were in favour of allowing her to live. This should ring some alarm bells."

Recent opinion polls showed Italians were clearly divided over the issue with 47 percent of those surveyed in favour of Englaro's right to die and 47 percent opposed to it. Six percent were undecided.

People who are my age (nearly 60) and above should be very afraid. The majority of the young seem to have rejected the sanctity/equality of human life. That bodes ill for us when we become dependent upon others for care and support.

Why Isn't This Just "Aid in Dying" Too?

A Canadian man is under arrest for assisted suicide in the death of his wife. She had no apparent illness. The couple were apparently suffering from very hard economic times, but precise details are not yet known. From the story:

A 46-year-old Waterloo, Ont., man is scheduled to appear in provincial court Tuesday to face an assisted suicide charge after police found the body of his wife in a Thunder Bay motel Friday.

Peter Bernard Fonteece has also been charged with criminal negligence causing death after his wife Yanisa Fonteece, 38, was found dead in a room at the motel shortly after 6 a.m. Peter Fonteece called 911, police said. Thunder Bay police released the name of the couple after it failed to locate Yanisa Fonteece's next of kin. The couple was unemployed and travelling west, possibly to B.C., when their car broke down in Thunder Bay, police said in a statement.

Let's assume for the moment--to illustrate what is happening in our culture, not to prejudge this case--that Yanisa was just sick of living because of hard times and asked her husband to help her die: If it would be okay for him to do the deed if, say, she had ALS, why not in this hypothetical situation, too? After all, isn't the "right to die" about a purported sacrosanct liberty to determine the time, manner, and place of one's own death? Once that principle is accepted, the details become minutia, because one person's bearable difficulty is another's unbearable suffering.

The blah-blah-blah non statement about the situation by a Canadian assisted suicide affectionado would sure seem to point in that direction:

Martin Frith, a spokesman for Dying with Dignity, a group lobbying for law reform, said it is difficult to gage the number of assisted suicides in Canada each year since they happen "below the radar" because of fear of criminal proceedings. "It's really problematic that in the absence of a law that would actually allow for assisted dying we have situations where well intentioned family members who are supporting a mature, competent adult runs the risk of being charged with assisted suicide," he said, noting he was not referring to one particular case.

Alex Schadenberg has his head on straight:

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition said the law is there to protect vulnerable people. "Nobody should ever be allowed to directly and intentionally be involved in taking another persons life," Schadenberg said. "That is a line we should never cross."

I don't understand why that simple point is so hard to grasp by so many today. Perhaps it is just that we live in profoundly nihilistic times in which the importance of human life itself has become lost in the gray. As Canadian journalist Andrew Coyne put it once so succinctly:

A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it must be endured.

Rita Marker and I with Faith Abbott McFadden and Maria McFadden

This photo was taken last October on the night the Human Life Foundation honored Rita Marker and me as Great Defenders of Life for our work fighting assisted suicide and euthanasia. Rita (on my right as you look at the photo) mentored me in this work so standing next to her at the podium was a real thrill. We both deeply appreciate the support of the HLR, Faith Abbott McFadden and Maria McFadden, whose husband and father respectively, the late James P. McFadden, created the Human Life Review. He saw it all coming long before I caught even a whisp of the first dark cloud on the horizon.

The old man and three blonds: Nice photo, don't you think?

Eluana Englaro Autopsy Ordered

There has been a lot of off stage speculation about the actual cause of Eluana Englaro's death--in which I intentionally did not engage--inspired by her death coming within days after the beginning of dehydration, a process that usually takes about two weeks. Now, an autopsy has been ordered and so we'll know soon enough whether these worries have any basis in fact. From the story:

The prosecutor's office here on Tuesday ordered that an autopsy be performed to determine the exact cause of death of a 38-year-old woman who had been at the center of a highly controversial right-to-die case. Eluana Englaro died Monday evening four days after feeding tube, which had kept her alive in a permanent vegetative state for 17 years, was removed in accordance with a high court ruing and the wishes of her family. She is believed to have died from kidney or heart failure...

At the time of her death the Senate was in the middle of a debate on an emergency government bill which would have made it illegal for carers of people "unable to take care of themselves" to suspend artificial feeding. On the news of her death the Senate observed a minute of silence but this was then followed by a near floor row with members of the government People of Freedom (PdL) party saying Eluana had been "murdered", while the opposition Democratic Party accused the PdL of "politically exploiting" a personal tragedy.

The only plus I see in this tragedy is that at least there remains a sufficient residual of belief in the sheer importance of human life that her death--and how it happened--still matters.

In any event, I hope she died of natural causes. If not, hold onto your hats!

The Myth of Canadian Health Care Nirvana

For years we have been told--and I sure used to believe--that the Canadians had the best approach to health care. Single payer funding, privately employed doctors--seemingly, a good mix. Except it's not. From a column by Nadeem Esmail in yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

Canadians often wait months or even years for necessary care. For some, the status quo has become so dire that they have turned to the courts for recourse. Several cases currently before provincial courts provide studies in what Americans could expect from government-run health insurance.

In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor. Ontario's government system still refused to provide timely treatment, offering instead a months-long wait for surgery. In the end, Mr. McCreith returned to Buffalo and paid for surgery that may have saved his life.

Some Canadians have had enough and are suing the government, claiming these long waits are constitutional violations.

And talk about age-based rationing!

Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a "Birmingham" hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was "too old" to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no.

In Canada, patients are not allowed to pay for their own health care--egalitarianism run amuck. That's why those who can, come to the USA: Even the Provinces sometimes send women here to give birth!

He concludes:

Canada's system comes at the cost of pain and suffering for patients who find themselves stuck on waiting lists with nowhere to go. Americans can only hope that Barack Obama heeds the lessons that can be learned from Canadian hardships.

We need reform here, no doubt. But centralized control leads into a labyrinth.

Corruption in Legislating: Sneaking National Health Care Into the Stimulus Bill

This is why people are so jaded and cynical about their own government. The economic stimulus bill that we are told is too important to really debate and must be passed NOW! NOW! NOW! contains sneak provisions opening the door to national health care. From a commentary by Betsy McCaughey:

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version). The bill's health rules will affect "every individual in the United States" (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and "guide" your doctor's decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis." According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and "learn to operate less like solo practitioners."

We discussed that proposal here earlier, and how it smells an awful like the utilitarian ethics board NICE that controls the UK's NHS. And this control would apply to private heath care too. Think of HMOs being given a good excuse by government bureaucrats to say no to treatment. Why the Left isn't howling is beyond me.

Apparently research would come under the authority of a "czar" too, with the intent to limit advances in the name of cutting costs:

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Aren't these the same people screaming the loudest about increasing embryonic stem cell research? There's no rhyme nor reason. And doesn't this lead, at least implicitly, to the "duty to die?"

I tried to write in more detail about this yesterday and went nosing through the bill, but it is so long and Byzantine, I gave up. That's the corruption of these omnibus bills. No one knows what is in them--not even the legislators!

The fact that our betters in government want to sneak matters of this import into law without a debate tells us all we need to know about how the people would react to these provisions. And their attempt to use the economic crisis as cover, tells us all we need to know about their integrity and respect for the democratic process. This isn't an issue about whether these government controls should be passed or defeated. For now, the issue is that they should be debated. Otherwise, we are losing the right to call ourselves free.

Good for McCaughey for being the one who broke this into the public eye, and good for Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report for turning it into a high profile story.

Eluana Englaro Dies

Eluana Englaro has died. From the story:

Eluana Englaro, the 38-year-old comatose woman at the center of an Italian right-to-die case, died Monday night despite efforts by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to order doctors to feed her, the clinic said.

She had been in a coma since a 1992 car crash. A moment of silence was observed in the Senate, which was debating a law that would have forced the clinic in northern Italy where she was hospitalized to resume feeding her through a tube after nutrition was stopped at the request of the family.

This was too fast to have been caused by dehydration. Perhaps her body just gave out.

I hope the Italian government looks into this issue in depth and with sobriety. Removing sustenance based on a patient's quality of life is too important to be left to rushed legislation pushed forward in a sensationalist media milieu. But I do think that food and fluids needs to be looked at differently than other forms of care--for reasons I laid out in the wake of Terri Schiavo's death. The law should reflect that.

RIP.

Heading to Ireland and UK to Speak Next Week

For SHSers in Ireland or London, I will be on your side of the pond next week. I don't have a fully detailed itinerary, but David Prentice and I will appear in either speech or debate formats at several Irish universities, including in Cork on the 17th, a university in Maynooth on the 18th, and at University College in Dublin on the 19th. The issues addressed will be stem cells, cloning, and the brave new world.

In London, I have one public event that I know of: I will speak against legalizing assisted suicide at the Parliament Building on Monday the 23rd I think the time is 7:15 PM. This will be the fourth time I have been honored to present in that venerable symbol of democracy.

I would love to meet anyone who wishes to come.

Have laptop, will travel, so I will strive to keep up with SHS as I can during that time.

Italian Parliament Debates Eluana Englaro Bill

As Eluana Englar is being dehydrated to death, the Italian Parliament is debating a proposed law that would prohibit causing cognitively disabled people to die in this manner. From the story:

Italian senators raced Monday to discuss a bill designed to keep a woman in vegetative state from having her feeding tube disconnected, the latest twist in a right-to-die case that has consumed Italy. The bill aimed at keeping Eluana Englaro alive is expected to win quick approval. It is supported by Premier Silvio Berlusconi, whose conservative forces have solid majority in Parliament...

In line with the high court ruling, medical workers on Friday began gradually suspending food and water for Englaro. Citing privacy rules, they have not given updates on the procedure. But Italy's center-right government, backed by the Vatican, has been pressing to keep her alive, racing against time to pass legislation prohibiting food and water from being suspended for patients who depend on them.

Her father testified she had not wanted to be maintained in such a condition. Even so, I wonder if she specifically mentioned being dehydrated to death, and if she did, whether she knew what that really entails, as I posted about here. It seems to me that it is wrong to hold people to what may have been casual statements or oral assertions about their desires that were made without all of the details. After all, shouldn't truly informed consent on such a vital matter be the minimum standard?

Scientists Accused of Cooking Books to Connect Vaccine with Autism

Just last month, I reported about a cancer study that was found to have manipulated data. Now, according to the Sunday Times, a scientist cooked his data to create a seeming connection between autism and a vaccine. From the story:

THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine [measles, mumps, rubella] for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found. Confidential medical documents and interviews with witnesses have established that Andrew Wakefield manipulated patients' data, which triggered fears that the MMR triple vaccine to protect against measles, mumps and rubella was linked to the condition.

The research was published in February 1998 in an article in The Lancet medical journal. It claimed that the families of eight out of 12 children attending a routine clinic at the hospital had blamed MMR for their autism, and said that problems came on within days of the jab. The team also claimed to have discovered a new inflammatory bowel disease underlying the children's conditions.

However, our investigation, confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children's ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease [sometimes associated with autism], reported in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal.

The scientist denies the charges, but if they are true, good grief. The study scared enough parents away from the vaccine, that it led, according to the Times, to a "return of the measles."

What are we to make of these kind of stories? Perhaps the problems have always been there but get more airing now. Or has a problem developed because science has become, in a sense, show business--with big bucks made and potential major celebrity status gained for big discoveries or findings of intense danger? Then, there is the issue, oft mentioned here, of some sectors of science becoming intensely ideological, leading some to use the "study" is merely a tool for advocacy. Still, we must keep our perspective: There is no question, that most scientists are honest, ethical, and care a great deal about accuracy, and that such apparent skewing is the exception, rather than the rule.

But something sure seems wrong. There are too many of these kinds of things happening lately. And some are really big: Think of the charlatan Hwang Wu suk, and how far he got with his fraudulent claim, published in Science, that he had created the first ESC cell line from cloned embryos. Perhaps the peer review process is in trouble--some have worried about that before. Perhaps it is global warming, I don't know. But this kind of thing has the potential to badly undermine the public's faith in scientific findings.

The Transformation of Medicine Into a Tool of "Liberation"

I have posted on the Nadya Suleman matter and her having eight children via IVF. I have also done several radio interviews and have made the following points. First, this is an unregulated field and doctors can basically do just about whatever they like legally. Second, why should we be surprised? We have created a culture steeped in terminal nonjudgmentalism where moral judgements about the "choices" of others are deemed out of bounds and literally hateful. This is leading us toward an anything goes culture. Third, to accommodate the fulfilling of all desires and urges--the "hedonism" aspect of the coup de culture I have been warning about--we are literally transforming medicine beyond its roles of healing and palliating, into an industry of "liberation "to fulfill on-demand lifestyle choices.

And to make sure that no one gainsays these decisions, doctors now face potential consequences for saying no--as Secondhand Smokette points out in her excellent piece on this matter in today's San Francisco Chronicle. From Debra's column "Dysfunctional Familymaking":

Doctors' understandable desire to help infertile couples conceive children has led to medical advances that are not necessarily healthy for children. The new order is great for adults, who now can have children without a partner and in defiance of age limits, but it is not necessarily in the best interests of the children they bear. We have created a society that dictates that all reproductive wishes should be answered. Then we criticize an over-her-head mom--whose own mother fretted that she was "obsessed" with having kids--when the inevitable horrors happen...

You can say her fertility doctors--whoever they are--should have refused to impregnate an overburdened single mother. They should have. However, in August, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a San Diego fertility clinic had no right to refuse to inseminate a lesbian in a partnership on religious grounds. What happens if doctors refuse a single mom, who can sue based on state law banning discrimination based on marital status?

We can either have a society based on reasonably enforceable norms in which we can obtain much of what we desire--but probably none of us can have everything we want. Or, we can focus obsessively, as we do now on radical individualism, in which the most important value is allowing everyone to indulge nearly every personal desire--and no tyranny of the majority to inhibit their personal choices. But that leads to the end of society because eventually there is no commonality. That is one of the fallacies with transhumanism: The idea is for ever individual to recreate themselves into their own designed radical self image--but in all that "me," where does that leave the "us?"

Moreover, now that we have unquestionably opened that door, we are finding no solid philosophical ground for inhibiting "choices" that many would see as destructive. (For example, we have already seen deaf parents use IVF and genetic testing to ensure that they had a deaf child. Their response to criticism was that a deaf child was the kind they wanted, and who is anyone to assume that it is better to hear than not to hear.In the current milieu, that's a hard argument to rebut.) In fact, the Oprahfication of culture often celebrates decisions made far outside the mainstream--as with the "man" (really a woman) who gave birth.

Some of the people squawking the loudest about Suleman's choice to have fourteen children are the most vociferous howlers for unfettered lifestyles. I have one question for them: What do they expect?

Eluana Englaro: Dehydration Begins

When the President of Italy refused to sign a decree delaying the dehydration death of Eluana Englaro--who some call the Italian Terri Schiavo--it seemed to seal her doom. But now the Prime Minister has moved up an emergency session of the Parliament.

We'll see how that plays out. But the point of this post is the attempt, yet again, to make death by dehydration seem benign. From the story:

Doctors quoted in the leading daily Corriere della Sera said the process leading to Englaro's death would become irreversible within five days. Englaro, now 38, has been in a coma for 17 years as a result of a traffic accident. Her family lawyer Giuseppe Campeis told Corriere: "We are continuing with our (medical) procedure" aimed at ensuring a "gentle death."

It always fries me when they call dying by dehydration a "gentle death." It reminds of of when Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, told reporters when she was on the verge of dehydration:

Frankly when I saw her . . . she looked beautiful...In all the years I've seen Mrs. Schiavo, I've never seen such a look of peace and beauty upon her.

Then Terri's anguished brother Bobby Schindler told the world blood was pooling in his sister's eyes because her tissues were so dry.

The public is always kept from seeing these deaths in the name of patient privacy. But this is how the late Dr. Ronald Cranford--an enthusiastic supporter of dehydration, who testified in support of ending the lives of Nancy Cruzan, Michael Martin, and Terri Schiavo, among others--described the process in sworn testimony in support of dehydrating Robert Wendland, (as quoted from the trial transcript in my book Culture of Death):

After seven to nine days [from commencing dehydration] they begin to lose all fluids in the body, a lot of fluids in the body. And their blood pressure starts to go down.

When their blood pressure goes down, their heart rate up...Their respiration may increase and then the patient experiences what's called a mammalian's diver's reflex where the blood is shunted to the central part of the body from the periphery of the body. So, that usually two to three days prior to death, sometimes four days, the hands and the feet become extremely cold. They become mottled. That is you look at the hands and they have a bluish appearance.

And the mouth dries a great deal, and the eyes dry a great deal and other parts of the body become mottled. And that is because the blood is now so low in the system it's shunted to the heart and other visceral organs and away from the periphery of the body

A pro life neurologist named William Burke, who opposes dehydration, told me about what happens when patients are dehydrated (again, from COD):

They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the dryness of the mucus membranes and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining

(Hit this link for a longer article on this topic that I wrote for the Weekly Standard.)

One thing is sure: No one can say anymore, "I didn't know."

Important note: The above quotes refer specifically and only to people who are not otherwise terminally ill and are dying from being intentionally deprived of sustenance due to cognitive disabilities. They do not apply to the situation in which a patient is dying naturally and the body is shutting down as part of the dying process, at which point people often stop eating and drinking. In those cases providing tube-supplied sustance can be medically inappropriate and cause unncessary suffering.

SHS Funnies

My kind of furniture!


A look into the future unless the bias stops.

Born Alive Infant "Botched Abortion" Doctor Loses License

I wrote yesterday about a terrible 2006 Florida case, in which an infant allegedly survived an attempted abortion only to be put in a medical waste bag by the owner of the clinic. The doctor didn't show up in time--resulting in the live birth of a baby girl at 23 weeks. Well, today he lost his medical license. From the story:

The Board of Medicine revoked the license of a Florida doctor on Friday accused of medical malpractice in a botched abortion in which a live baby was delivered, but ended up dead in a cardboard box. The board found Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique in violation of Florida statutes by committing medical malpractice, delegating responsibility to unlicensed personnel, and failing to keep an accurate medical record.

The doctor did not kill the baby--well, his pre-abortion treatment led to the premature delivery, but that is legal--so I don't know if he faces any potential direct criminal culpability. Probably not. But it should not end here. The co-owner of the clinic who allegedly failed to call for help for the infant when she was born and instead just threw her away, and any staffers who conspired in the act and the subsequent apparent cover up, must face justice.

President Obama's New "Regulatory Czar" a Believer in "Quality of Life" Health Care

This could be bad. Cass R. Sunstein, just appointed by President Obama to be "regulatory czar," is a big "quality of life" guy in determining the cost/benefit ratio of government regulations. This is the executive summary of a paper he wrote back in 2003 for the Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, entitled "Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay." From the paper:

In protecting safety, health, and the environment, government has increasingly relied on cost-benefit analysis. In undertaking cost-benefit analysis, the government has monetized risks of death through the idea of "value of a statistical life" (VSL), currently assessed at about $6.1 million. Many analysts, however, have suggested that the government should rely instead on the "value of a statistical life year" (VSLY), in a way that would likely result in significantly lower benefits calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children. I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people. The hard question involves not whether to undertake this shift, but how to monetize life-years, and here willingness to pay (WTP) [what one would pay to obtain a good] is generally the place to begin...In fact, a focus on statistical lives is more plausibly a form of illicit discrimination than a focus on life years, because the idea of statistical lives treats the years of older people as worth far more than the years of younger people.

The paper dealt broadly with how to measure the cost/benefit aspect of government regulations generally, and illustrates how bureaucrats and their enablers are the real kings now. But that aside, its applicability to regulations in a regime of national health care law are obvious and frightening: If regulatory policy is to be based on granting the lives of elderly people a lesser value, it begs for health care rationing that would be supported by terms such as "value of statistical life year," "willingness to pay"--and other such euphemisms that will no doubt be coined--as bureaucrateze cover for blatant medical discrimination.

First "Pharming" Drug Approved

Dolly the sheep was cloned because the administrator Ian Wilmut, and the team that did the deed, hoped to create a herd of genetically altered sheep through cloning and inserting human genes that would result in the sheep producing milk containing properties that could be extracted and turned into medicine--a process dubbed "pharming." That enterprise failed financially and Wilmut went onto human cloning research before quitting that--good for him--to pursue induced pluripotent stem cell (IPSC) investigations.

Where Wilmut and team failed, a different group succeeded. The first medicine derived through pharming has received FDA approval. From the story:

U.S. health officials on Friday approved the first drug made using genetically engineered animals despite lingering concerns over health and environmental implications. The drug, GTC Biotherapeutics Inc's anti-clotting therapy Atryn, is an intravenous therapy made using a human protein gathered from female goats specially bred to produce it in their milk...

GTC's goats are bred using cells injected with human DNA in a process that it says is a cost effective way to produce human antithrombin, a natural protein to prevent blood from clotting. The company has a herd of about 200 at its Massachusetts facility that it says is otherwise normal and healthy.

The FDA looked at the impact of goats as they aged and reproduced. "We have looked carefully at seven generations of these (generically engineered) goats; all of them are healthy and we haven't seen any adverse effects," said Bernadette Dunham, head of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine.

Some worry that the goats could get into the food supply and object on ethical grounds to genetically engineering animals. I get the concern. However, it seems to me that if efficacious medicine can be obtained in this way more efficiently and productively than is otherwise available--assuming that proper safety precautions have been taken--it is a positive achievement. It could reduce the cost of medicine and make therapies available to relatively small patient groups because drug companies would find it easier to make a profit. I know many will disagree, but that sound you hear is me applauding.

Kevorkian Speech Shows US Flag with Swastika

This says a lot that is wrong at our universities--where social outlaws are celebrated and given huge speaking fees--and with the murderer Jack Kevorkian. At his recent speech at Nova Southeastern University in Florida, he had an American flag behind him with the Swastika in the field of stars. From the story:

On Thursday night, Jack Kevorkian pulled another stunt in front of an audience of thousands at Nova Southeastern University: "Let's all say the Pledge of Allegiance," he said, then flipped a U.S. flag to reveal a replica on the other side with a swastika where the blue and stars would have been.

Since Kevorkian's obsession was to conduct human experimentation on people he was euthanizing, perhaps he was speaking about himself with the flag stunt.

That thousands of people turned out to see him shows the decadent power of celebrity that is rotting decency and virtue in our culture.

Here We Go Again: Italian Government Stops the Dehydration of Eluana Englaro

We have discussed the case of Eluana Englaro, who has been unconscious since an auto accident in 1992. Her father won a court order to remove her feeding tube. But for awhile, all hospitals and nursing homes refuse to participate in her dehydration. Mr. Englaro then found a facility that would, but now the Italian Government has passed a 60-day reprieve preventing the dehydration. From the story:

The Italian government today passed a decree to force-feed a woman who's been kept alive artificially since a 1992 car accident, ignoring a letter from the country's head of state, who said he will not sign the law.

A failure to intervene "would make me feel responsible for not coming to the rescue of a person whose life is in danger," Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told reporters in Rome after a Cabinet meeting. Berlusconi said that even if President Giorgio Napolitano doesn't sign off on the decree to make it binding, he will present the same motion as a bill in parliament and pass it in "two or three days."

Berlusconi's unprecedented action means Eluana Englaro, 38, cannot be disconnected from a feeding tube even though her father won a legal battle to have her treatment suspended. Italy's highest court ruled in his favor Oct. 16.

The reporters sure showed their cards with the term "force-feed," didn't they? Be that as it may, this story is going to get very big. Important principles and values involving human freedom and moral worth are at loggerheads; the intrinsic value of life, the right to make medical decisions for loved ones, etc.

I am with the Italian government. Unless the patient explicitly stated in writing that in these kinds of circumstances they wanted no food and water through a tube, no one else should ever be able to decide that they should be dehydrated to death. Otherwise, we could easily see situations--and I am explicitly not saying this is the situation here--in which the patient is put out of the family's or society's misery. (This situation is not to be confused with cases of people who are dying and can no longer assimilate sustenance, at which time the intervention would be medically inappropriate.)

Standing against dehydration of people with profound cognitive disabilities makes some people very angry. They accuse those of us who take this stand of interfering with family decision making, being vitalists, pushing religion, and as the worst sort of busybodies.

But I see it differently. Dehydration is not like withdrawing other forms of treatment such as antibiotics or CPR since the outcome is certain: The patient is going to slowly dehydrate to death over about a two week period. And the symbolism of the thing is most pressing, speaking volumes about the moral worth and intrinsic equality denied to these people--since if you did such a thing to a dog or a jihadist terrorist, there would be a justifiable and righteous outcry.

So, I hope the Italian government prevails, although I am not hopeful. The judiciary today is mostly on the other side of the road, steeped in utilitarian "quality of life" thinking and justifying their decisions as "choice"--even though in this case Eluana isn't deciding anything. Or to put it succinctly, I see the Terri Schiavo and Eluana Englaro cases as part of the coup de culture moving us away from human exceptionalism and the sanctity/equality of human life.

Update: The President of Italy refused to sign the decree so Eluana begins the long journey to death by dehydration today. More news as it happens here.

AP: Infant Survives Late Term Abortion--Killed by Staff

This is an awful, awful story: The photo at left is of a 22-week prematurely born infant. According to the AP--no pro life outlet--a more developed infant survived a late term abortion in Florida only to be put in a plastic bag and thrown out by a staffer at the abortion clinic. From the story:

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure. Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out. Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

While in the Illinois Legislature, our president said that a proposed state law to protect the lives of such babies was unconstitutional and unnecessary, even referring to babies that survive abortions as "a previable child or fetus, however you want to describe it."If this story is true, she was a born infant--and she was murdered. President Obama should be asked for a comment. Moreover, he should be asked about the Freedom of Choice Act, that would eliminate the Federal Infant Born Alive Protection Act and similar state laws--like the one in Illinois that passed despite his "present" vote--designed to protect babies such as this.

This matter should be investigated thoroughly. If the coroner finds that the baby was indeed alive when she was born, the abortion clinic owner should be prosecuted for murder. If Florida won't act, the Feds should enforce the still-in-effect Infant Born Alive Protection Act.

The Continuing Problem of Advocacy Masking as Objective Studies Published in Professional Journals

I have written about this before--the phenomenon of political or ideological advocacy masking as objective scientific studies and then published in prestigious medical and other professional journals. (So have others who I admire.) Ironically, in the post I link above, I quoted an article published in the Lancet complaining about biased studies in the UN, the very journal which this post concerns. Apparently, it published a "study" claiming very high Iraqi civilian casualties. (No comments about the Iraq War please.) Now, a polling organization is trying to find the bases for the claims but the authors are refusing to cooperate. From the story:

A prominent group of polling researchers has accused the lead author of a 2006 study suggesting massive civilian deaths in Iraq of violating the polling profession's codes and ethics. The Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research said Dr. Gilbert Burnham, a Johns Hopkins University professor, had repeatedly refused to cooperate with an eight-month investigation into his research on the Iraqi death toll that made headlines in October 2006 when it was published by the Lancet, a British medical journal.

The widely publicized study headed by Burnham contended that nearly 655,000 Iraqis had died because of the U.S.-led invasion and war in Iraq. "When asked to provide several basic facts about this research, Burnham refused," the council said. It noted that the group's Code of Professional Ethics and Practices calls for researchers to disclose their methodology when survey findings are made public so they can be independently evaluated and verified. "Dr. Burnham provided only partial information and explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research," said Mary Losch, chair of the association's Standards Committee.

Wait a minute! Didn't the editors at the Lancet require Burnham to provide this information before publishing the article as part of the peer review process? This was a widely reported story and everyone assumed that the Lancet would have required the authors to provide proof of their claims. Indeed, its appearance in a venerable journal gave the media the justification to run with the story.

Here's the point: If the peer review process was corrupted somehow, we need to know. If it was short-circuited or ignored, it means the editors published the "study" because they wanted it to be true or for a political reasons. If so, it was a stark betrayal of professionalism and a further corruption of science by ideology that is all too prevalent today. The Lancet owes its readers a full investigation of the article's accuracy and a retraction if the authors cannot emperically justify their conclusions.

Universal Health Care Meltdown in Japan?

Japan's system of health care boasts of universal coverage and free screenings. But there seems to be trouble brewing in the Land of the Rising Sun exemplified by the tragedy of a patient with serious head injuries dying after he was refused care by 14 hospitals because there was no room for him at the inn. From the story:

After getting struck by a motorcycle, an elderly Japanese man with head injuries waited in an ambulance as paramedics phoned 14 hospitals, each refusing to treat him. He died 90 minutes later at the facility that finally relented--one of thousands of victims repeatedly turned away in recent years by understaffed and overcrowded hospitals in Japan...The Jan. 20 incident was the latest in a string of recent cases in Japan in which patients were denied treatment, underscoring health care woes in a rapidly aging society that faces an acute shortage of doctors and a growing number of elderly patients.

Such problems in Japan have apparently been brewing for the last several years:

Similar problems have occurred frequently in recent years. More than 14,000 emergency patients were rejected at least three times by Japanese hospitals before getting treatment in 2007, the latest government survey showed. In the worst case, a woman in her 70s with a breathing problem was rejected 49 times in Tokyo. There was also the high-profile death of a pregnant woman in western Nara city in 2006 that prompted the government to establish a panel to look into the hospitals' practice of refusing care.

As we move into the upcoming health care debate, I hope the MSM will look into stories such as these as well as the pluses of such socialized systems. But I am not holding my breath.

"How to Save Your Newspaper:" Another Journalism Biggy Misses the Bias Part of the Story

Yet another media biggie has written an article about the crisis in newspapers--which is all too real--and missed a huge reason for the problem. There must be a template circulating for these kind of articles, because it reflects the media's notorious "group-think" by focusing solely on technology as the cause of the problem. From the column by Time's Walter Isaacson:

There is, however, a striking and somewhat odd fact about this crisis. Newspapers have more readers than ever. Their content, as well as that of news magazines and other producers of traditional journalism, is more popular than ever--even (in fact, especially) among young people.

The problem is that fewer of these consumers are paying. Instead, news organizations are merrily giving away their news. According to a Pew Research Center study, a tipping point occurred last year: more people in the U.S. got their news online for free than paid for it by buying newspapers and magazines. Who can blame them? Even an old print junkie like me has quit subscribing to the New York Times, because if it doesn't see fit to charge for its content, I'd feel like a fool paying for it.

That last statement reminds me of the politicians who tub thump about the patriotism of taxpaying--and then avoid every dime they can, and even some they legally can't. But I digress:

Newspapers and magazines traditionally have had three revenue sources: newsstand sales, subscriptions and advertising. The new business model relies only on the last of these. That makes for a wobbly stool even when the one leg is strong. When it weakens--as countless publishers have seen happen as a result of the recession — the stool can't possibly stand.

Those first two tools wouldn't be so short if journalists would get a clue! As I wrote here in "We Need Newspapers," it isn't just the technology. That alone would be a big problem, but the MSM have also alienated about 1/3 of their potential reader base by repeatedly insulting their intelligence with a highly biased and condescending attitude--even viciousness--toward people with a more conservative or less cosmopolitan bent. Often stories on crucial social controversies only give one side and are clearly trying to drive the way people think. Pertinent facts are ignored. Stories that matter go unreported. Blatant falsehoods spread. And people know they are being spun.

Isaacson concludes:

I say this, too, because I love journalism. I think it is valuable and should be valued by its consumers. Charging for content forces discipline on journalists: they must produce things that people actually value. I suspect we will find that this necessity is actually liberating. The need to be valued by readers--serving them first and foremost rather than relying solely on advertising revenue--will allow the media once again to set their compass true to what journalism should always be about.

Exactly. But that is good, even-handed reportage--not advocacy for the liberal political and cultural POV. Perhaps if newspapers and news magazines quit spitting figuratively in the face of tens of millions potential customers they wouldn't have to worry about shuttering their doors.

The New Definition of Love: Help Your Parents Commit Suicide

A San Francisco man named John West has alerted the media--in a book--that he helped his parents commit suicide. From the story:

For attorney and author John West, his parents were lifelong sources of comfort, wisdom and pride. But West has been keeping a 10-year-old secret about his parents from everyone, including his two sisters, which he is revealing for the first time in a memoir called "The Last Goodnights." West helped his terminally ill parents commit suicide, a crime in the state of California, where the deaths took place. In revealing his actions, West acknowledges he could face prosecution

Ten years later? Unlikely. In fact, the statute of limitations has passed.

And here's some compassion:

Though his parents had been active for most of West's life, their health deteriorated dramatically in the 1990s.
In 1998, Jolly West was diagnosed with cancer and given six months to live. Kathryn West, meanwhile, learned she had Alzheimer's disease.
Jolly West was the first to approach his son about "the plan" -- he wanted to end his life.

John West agreed to assemble a deadly cocktail of pills that he helped his father, who was 74, take on the evening of Jan. 2, 1999. By morning, Jolly West was dead, his death attributed by everyone except John West to cancer.

Months later, his mother, who was 75, asked him to help carry out a plan of her own. With a heavy heart, he agreed, telling no one of his role in his parents' deaths, not even his two sisters. John West said that his mother was depressed at the time and on anti-depressant medication but that she was mentally capable of making the decision. "As she put it to me, 'I have a right to be depressed. I just lost my husband of 50-some years. I'm...my mind is turning into mush. What's not to be depressed about?'" John West said.

Of course he was interviewed on Good Morning America! Most politically correct outlaws are feted by the biggest of big time media.

Perhaps West can be charged with practicing medicine without a license.

Man Interferes with Choice of Suicide, Cooperates With Police State

Can you imagine? A New Jersey man named Jesse Coltrane was communicating on-line with a friend in California when he found out the young man was apparently killing himself. Instead of respecting his friend's autonomy, he became judgmental and interfered! From the story:

During an online conversation Monday night, 22-year-old Jesse Coltrane realized his friend was distraught and even suicidal."At one moment he was cutting his arms," Coltrane explained. Jesse said he only knew the 18-year-old's first name and phone number and tried to convince his friend not to kill himself. The conversation lasted well into the evening while his friend continued cutting his forearm with a razor.

Jesse decided to call a police department in Sacramento and officers were able to track down where his friend lived in California.

Who does Coltrane think he is: His brother's keeper? And now his friend has been hospitalized for observation! Tyranny.

What It Means to be Human: Plant Rights in Switzerland

In this edition of my podcast What It Means to be Human, I return to Switzerland's Constitution declaring plant "dignity," and what that all means according to a government-appointed ethics committee. It takes really big brained people to worry about the "decapitation" of wild flowers.

Media Malpractice: Miami Herald Still Unable to Report Accurately About Kevorkian

Another university is paying Jack Kevorkian to speak, and once again the media--in this case the Miami Herald--can't even report the basic facts about him correctly. From the story, byline Julie Levin:

Dr. Jack Kevorkian will speak from 7 to 8:30 p.m. Thursday at Nova Southeastern University in Davie. Organizers expect a large crowd to hear the longtime advocate for a terminally ill patient's right to die. "He represents a very important perspective on the issue of life and death through assisted suicide," said Don Rosenblum, dean of NSU's Farquhar College of Arts and Sciences. The school is hosting Kevorkian as part of its Distinguished Speakers Series that corresponds with its theme of ``Life and Death."...

He eventually served eight years in prison in Michigan on a second-degree murder conviction for an assisted suicide in which he, not the patient, turned the device on. Released in 2007, he continues to advocate for a terminally ill person's right to choose suicide.

Such a short story and the only thing the Herald reported accurately--we assume--was the time and place of the speech! First, the issue isn't "suicide" but assisted suicide. Second, he didn't "turn a device on" in the murder of Thomas Youk: He lethally injected him--and then took the video of the killing to Mike Wallace for airing on 60 Minutes. Finally, he has never advocated limiting assisted suicide to the terminally ill. Indeed, most of Kevorkian's clients were not dying, but were disabled. Five weren't even sick upon their autopsy. In fact, in his 1991 book Prescription Medicide, he looked forward to eventually establishing euthanasia clinics that would even be open to people who felt morally duty-bound to end their own lives.

And let us not forget that Kevorkian's ultimate goal was a license to practice "obitiatry," that is human experimentation on living people he was euthanizing.

Is it really that hard to report accurately, Miami Herald?

Failure of Human Animal Hybrid Cloning Could Spark Human Egg Market

A few weeks ago, I posted about bitter complaints being made by scientists in Brave New Britain that the government had not yet funded the creation of human/animal hybrid cloned embryos. The scientists charged that morality might have played a part in the non funding--a terrible thought that was later laid to rest by the assurance that morality has nothing to do with science funding in the UK.

But now, the scientists at Advanced Cell Technology are claiming that using animal eggs to make human cloned embryos doesn't work. From the story:

Researchers who tried to use mouse, cow and rabbit eggs to make human clones said on Monday the effort failed to produce workable embryos but added that they showed human cloning should work in principle. Mixing human and animal cells does not appear to program the egg properly, said Dr. Robert Lanza of Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology.

But using human cells did reprogram the egg cell or oocyte and activate the genes needed to make a viable embryo, Lanza and colleagues reported in the journal Cloning and Stem Cells.

It isn't surprising that animal eggs don't work, since even ennucleated eggs (those that have had their nucleus removed) are more than mere empty shells. And it remains to be seen whether the intricacies of cloning will ever work reliably in humans.

What this does seem to mean, however, is that there is no immediate way around the egg dearth that is materially impeding the development of human cloning technology. With each cloning attempt requiring one human egg, tens of thousands of eggs will likely be needed just to perfect the technique--assuming it can be perfected. To ever use cloning as a treatment modality could take many times more. Thus, look for pressure to increase from "the scientists" for the creation of an egg market in which women would be paid to produce eggs for science--with potential devastating health consequences to the sellers.

"Abolitionist" Gary Francione Laments State of Animal Rights Movement

Gary Francione, who argues that to be authentic all animal rights believers must be vegan and lead by example (I agree with him on this), is unhappy. He worries that the animal rights movement is falling backwards because of the "humane meat" campaigns that, in his mind, have made carne respectable to consume for some who were once abstainers. As evidence, he points out that the Food Standards Agency in Britain has found that the number of people eating a partly or completely vegetarian diet fell from 9 per cent in 2007 to 7 per cent in 2008. As evidence that the humane meat movement is undercutting animal rights, properly understood, he quotes from an article by former vegetarian Tessie Williams. From his column:

The reason for Williams' return to meat: "I see my decision to return to meat as part of a bigger change in Britain's food culture. We've shifted away from the old-school "meat is murder" approach, and now well-sourced meat is seen as healthy and natural.

I agree with Williams that meat is a natural food for human beings. And I have often criticized equating animal slaughter for food with the murder of human beings as misanthropic. But, Francione is absolutely right about the impact of humane meat: If it becomes widely accepted among animal advocates, it will devastate the pure animal rights concept, which asserts that human beings have no right to use animals for any instrumentalized purpose, no matter how beneficial to us:

This is where the happy meat/animal products movement is leading. And it is certainly not confined to Britain. In the United States, animal protection organizations promote initiatives such as California's Proposition 2, which will do nothing to help animals but will falsely reassure humans that animals are being given significantly improved "humane" protection.

The underlying premise of the modern "animal protection" movement is that it is acceptable for humans to use animals as long as they are treated "humanely." Those who support this position may want better treatment than the welfarists of the 1940s or 1950s sought, but the principle is the same: use does not matter; only treatment does. That is a fundamental difference between the abolitionist approach and the approach adopted by the large new-welfarist organizations. The abolitionist position rejects all animal use and sees creative, nonviolent vegan education as the primary strategy to employ.

Francione is also upset with PETA's oft-utilized stunt of using soft core porn to sell vegetarianism:

It is unclear to me why PETA and those who think that this sort of thing is acceptable do not recognize that sexism and speciesism are very closely linked. As long as we continue to commodify women, we will continue to commodify nonhumans. Sexism is not only inherently objectionable; it is a most ineffective way to increase consciousness about nonhumans. PETA has been promoting its sexist anti-fur campaign for over almost 20 years now. Has it had any effect? The fur industry is stronger than it has ever been.

Yes, well PETA's first and foremost rule is to garner attention for itself. Sex sells and ads such as the one not played on the Superbowl are guaranteed attention-getters--particularly from the teenage boy crowd.

Gary Francione is an idealist and a principled advocate. But in promoting veganism he is both pushing against nature and a society that is increasingly geared toward indulging desires rather than promoting virtue. I understand his pain.

American Journal of Bioethics Review of Secondhand Smoke: The Negative

This is the second post on the review of SHS in the current American Journal of Bioethics. We have already highlighted the positives that Yale University bioethicist found with SHS, and now I would like to reply to his criticisms. Latham writes:

To be clear: This [human exceptionalism] is a world-view, not an argument. Smith is not a philosopher. Do not come to SHS for a clear statement of the justification for his human exceptionalism, or for a rigorous discussion of the methods by which we can ground human rights without consideration of human capacities. Smith is a polemicist, and like any polemicist, he can be maddening.

Well, Secondhand Smokette would agree with that last point. And yes, I am a polemicist, although I hope in the best sense of that term. But that isn't all I am and I don't just make assertions, nor do I tub thump and name call. Indeed, I have argued often for the reasons why human exceptionalism is both right philosophically and morally compelled, as well as the necessary predicate to universal human rights. I devote a whole chapter on that issue in the new book on animal rights that will be out in the fall. But Latham is right: I don't do philosophy per se. I do policy and ethics.

Here I think Latham is completely off base:

Someone could oppose, on principle, the dehydration of Terri Schiavo without minimizing the extent of her disability and without demonizing Michael Schiavo—but Smith is not that person. Someone could oppose the destruction of embryos in research even while recognizing that research's exciting and unique medical potential—but that is not Smith, either. On SHS, the messy world of facts always magically lines up with the core moral theory.

That's just not true. First, I never said she wasn't catastrophically devastated. I wrote there were good reasons to believe that she wasn't PVS, but more to the point, that it didn't matter whether she was unconscious or not. Moreover, I didn't "demonize" Michael Schiavo. I was sarcastic about him, yes. But I pointed out many facts that in my view made him unworthy to be her guardian and in charge of her care. These ranged from his living with another woman he called his "fiance" and having children with her--while still claiming all the rights of a husband--to telling a malpractice jury he would care for her the rest of her (naturally long) life--only to refuse antibiotics so she would die within months of the money being deposited in the bank in 1993, money that he would have inherited. I was more critical of the terrible handling of the case as I saw it by the courts. For facts on what I wrote about this tragic matter, do a search at the Weekly Standard site, where most of these articles were published.

As to ESCR, I never denied that scientists were excited about the field. Indeed, I have always written that this was an ethics debate not a science debate. I have also posted about the advances that have been made in ESCR. I have, however, been very critical of the hype in which the pro side has engaged and focused on advances in human trials with adult stem cell research and otherwise that the MSM and many bioethicist advocates for ESCR tend to downplay or ignore. I have also deconstructed the nonsense that the field has been starved for funds and exposed the junk biology and term redefinition utilized ubiquitously by ESCR proponents to win a political debate, which I have justly called a corruption of science.

Latham then makes a very common complaint made by bioethicists:

Smith's second-most maddening attribute is his tendency to slap the title "bioethicist" onto people who take positions he disagrees with. If they are really bad, they’re "elite bioethicists" or "utilitarian bioethicists." Smith normally talks about bioethicists: in more or less the same tone that Charles Dicken's Mr. Micawber used in describing Uriah Heep.

That's a good line about Uriah Heep, but this complaint is typical of the way in which I believe mainstream bioethicists--another term I use--seek to avoid being nailed to the wall. As I wrote about a similar complaint made by a reviewer of Culture of Death in the Hastings Center Report:

I must say that I am growing weary of my critics' constant whine that my book paints with too broad a brush. In my view, that is merely a way of insulating bioethics from any meaningful or systemic criticism. But just as one can criticize the general belief system of, say, Republicans -- even though there are differences among those in the GOP -- it seems fair to me to mount a macrocriticism of bioethics.

The only way to do that, it seems to me, is to find terminology to identify those with whom I disagree. Many bioethicists have certainly used labels to describe me: I have been called a "conservative" (as does Latham), "anti-science" a "bio-Luddite," even an advocate for "the endarkenment," etc. In fact, it seems to me that Latham's attitude demonstrates that the default position of bioethics as what, Progressive, and it shows. Look at the vituperation and uttter disrespect directed against Leon Kass by many in the field when he--a heterodox thinker in the field--was named to head the President's Council on Bioethics. Besides, what's wrong with calling a bioethicist, a well, bioethicist?

Latham concludes with a good criticism and a pointed question that deserves an answer:

Finally,the "links" section is fairly lame, including only websites of the institutions with which he is officially affiliated. Both the Hastings Center’s Bioethics Forum and the American Journal of Bioethics's own blog.bioethics.net link to him, but he does not link back. Why not?

I plead guilty to having a lame links section. I used to have a better one that did link to AJOB's blog. But when I changed the look of the blog, I accidentally erased the old template,which included links that allowed readers to buy my books. I don't have a student assistant or an intern to do such things for me, and I simply haven't had the time to reconstruct the site as it was before.

Thanks again to Latham for taking the time to review SHS and to the AJOB for publishing it. I really appreciate it.

American Journal of Bioethics Review of Secondhand Smoke--The Positive

This blog has received a formal review by Yale University bioethicist Stephen R. Latham. I am most pleased that it is a mixed review with some very nice compliments as well as pointed criticisms, and I very much appreciate Latham's even handedness. (When Culture of Death came out, I recall one bioethicist reviewer called it the book that should never have been published!)

A thoughtful review deserves a respectful response. I will divide my reaction into two parts. The first--this one--will highlight the positive comments he made. I'll discuss what he found objectionable about SHS (and my work generally) in the next post.

Latham "gets" a lot of what I am attempting to accomplish here. From the review (AJOB: 9(2): 65–66, 2009):

...Smith’s beliefs are not religiously grounded, but are based in a secular view of the intrinsic worth of all humans as such, regardless of developmental stage or capacity. He is a staunch advocate of what he calls "human exceptionalism"--the view that the human species is unique among living creatures in the degree to which it should command respect and enjoy rights. Or, as Smith summarizes it in the intro to his blog: "Human life matters." [Credit to my wonderful friend Mark Pickup who coined that slogan.]

On Smith's "human exceptionalist" view, a great range of bioethical theory improperly undermines human rights by coupling rights not to our humanity simpliciter, but to our possession of certain capacities—consciousness, perhaps, or "moral personhood," or mere sentience...Thus Smith's critique runs in two directions: against those who, like embryonic stem-cell researchers and assisted-suicide advocates, use capacity arguments to justify what Smith regards as the immoral destruction of humans; and against those who, like animal rights extremists, use a different sort of capacity argument to extend rights--in his view, improperly--to non-humans, even at the expense of humans (as when People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] activists seek to shut down medical experimentation on animals).

This core critique gives SHS an unusual combination of variety and unity. [He then gives several examples of my posts too long to reproduce here.]

That's a pretty good summary of why I see mainstream bioethics, animal rights, radical environmentalism as threats (in their own ways) to vulnerable human beings and universal human rights.

Latham further writes:

Smith actually covers a fair bit of bioethics-related news from all around the world. [Me: That's in no small part due to the many SHSers who take the time to send me stories.]... For another, he is a serious and vocal opponent of disability discrimination--something that a number of liberal bioethicists fail culpably to talk much about. Smith has also been a hospice volunteer, and has worked hard to advance the cause of better pain control at the end of life.

I think the "quality of life" ethic that so many mainstream bioethicists embrace lead toward thinking less about discrimination based on disability. But be that as it may, protecting people with disabilities--regardless of whether they are physical, developmental, or cognitive--is part of the very point of human exceptionalism.

Latham continues:

And finally, Smith is entertaining. He is a good enough writer that you can share his humor and feel his anger from one post to the next. He is that guy you always used to argue with in college. His rhetoric drove you nuts, but he made you think—and it was fun even when the disagreements were serious.

I really appreciate that. I work hard to make this blog informative, interesting, and persuasive. I think being entertaining promotes all of those ends.

In the next post, we'll discuss Latham's criticisms of SHS.

Euthanasia Blues

I first posted this disability rights protest song about euthanasia a few years ago. Given the flow of events, and the many new SHSers who might not have seen it, I decided it was worth
repeating.

Radical Environmentalism: Moving Us Toward a Eugenic Culture of Death

China's notorious one child policy has led to eugenics, sex selection abortion, female infanticide, and other horrors. Now, we are being pushed in that same direction in the West by radical environmentalists in the name of going Green. From the story:

COUPLES who have more than two children are being "irresponsible" by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government's green adviser has warned. Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government's Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population...

A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning. "I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate," Porritt said. "I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don't really hear anyone say the 'p' word."...

Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

The last time I heard Europe was experiencing a terrible birth dearth that is leading to all kinds of demographically caused social problems. But why allow facts to interfere with neo-religion?

More to the point, "saving the planet" could come to be seen as so urgent as to justify a plethora of pernicious policies--euthanasia, required eugenic infanticide, mandated futile care theory--we wouldn't want the planet burdened with useless carbon dioxide exhalers would we? And we could teach our kids that they should die young to save the planet. Oh, right--the Australian Broadcasting Company already does that.And while we are at it, how about a human extinction movement? Oh, right: That already exists too.

And think about the eugenic possibilities! Brave New Britain is already well into weeding out those with undesirable genetic propensities through IVF and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Perhaps the Greenies will seize on these developments and begin to select out embryos with a genetic propensity to be tall or heavy. Indeed, why not pull out all the stops and redesign our species to be no more than four feet tall? After all, if our population numbers were drastically cut and we were all diminutive, think how much better the earth would feel!