As the Ebola outbreak grows in scale – with cases now reported in Spain and the US – experts are becoming increasingly concerned about public hysteria. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, two-thirds of Americans are now worried about an Ebola epidemic in the US, and more than 4 in 10 are "very" or "somewhat worried" that they or a close family member might catch the virus.
Some experts see the next few weeks as crucial to containing mounting anxiety. “Officials will have to be very, very careful,” said Paul Slovic, president of Decision Research, a non-profit that studies public health and perceptions of threat. “Once trust starts to erode, the next time they tell you not to worry — you worry.”
Denmark plans to ban bestiality – a practice that has long been illegal in other European nations. Danish food and agricultural minister Dan Jorgensen said that the practice was harming animals and damaging the country’s image. Speaking in an interview with Ekstra Bladet, a Danish tabloid, Jorgensen commented: “I have decided that we should ban sex with animals. That is happening for numerous reasons. The most important is that in the vast majority of cases it is an attack against the animals.”
“It is also damaging to our country's reputation to allow this practice to continue here while it is banned elsewhere”, he continued.
There has been a significant rise in underground animal sex tourism in Denmark since its neighbours Norway, Sweden and Germany outlawed bestiality. A recent Gallup poll revealed 76% of Danes supported a ban on animal sex.
With egg freezing rapidly becoming a fashionable reproductive option, the Harvard Law and Policy Review has published a survey article about the dangers of this form of fertility preservation. Barry University law professor Seema Mohapatra surveys the medico-ethical, legal and social complexities of egg freezing in an impressive literature survey entitled ‘Using Egg Freezing to Extend the Biological Clock: Fertility Insurance or False Hope?’.
Considering all the latest studies, Mohapatra argues that egg freezing needs to be treated with appropriate caution by medical practitioners and the general public.
Mohapatra discusses the scientific risks of freezing, emphasising that significant doubt remains about the safety of the procedure:
“Although the American Society of Reproductive Medicine ('ASRM') removed the 'experimental' label from egg freezing, ASRM was careful not to endorse the practice. In fact, ASRM actually found a 'lack of data on safety, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and potential emotional risks' associated…
click here to read whole article and make comments
Responsible doctors should not be recommending egg freezing to perfectly healthy young women who have no medically indicated need. The dearth of evidence-based safety and efficacy data, combined with low numbers of live births resulting from egg freezing, do not justify broadening the application of the procedure to the general public at this time.
There is no long-term data tracking the health risks of women who inject hormones and undergo egg retrieval, and no one knows how much of the chemicals used in the freezing process are absorbed by eggs, and whether they are toxic to cell development. In addition, even with the new flash freezing process, the most comprehensive data available reveals a 77 percent failure rate of frozen eggs resulting in a live birth in women aged 30, and a 91 percent failure rate in women aged 40.
Euthanasia cases in the Netherlands increased 15% in 2013 compared to 2012, according to the latest official statistics. There were 4,829 reported cases, although this almost certainly understates the number, as a significant proportion are not reported. The latest figures follow increases of 13% in 2012, 18% in 2011, 19% in 2010, and 13% in 2009. Most of the cases last year involved cancer, but there were 97 cases of dementia and 42 psychiatric cases. Euthanasia now represents over 3% of all Dutch deaths.
A persistent British critic of euthanasia, Dr Peter Saunders, claims the official statistics are somewhat misleading. “These deaths represent only a fraction of the total number of deaths resulting from Dutch doctors intentionally ending their patients’ lives through deliberate morphine overdose, withdrawal of hydration and sedation.”
Separating mothers from their babies has usually been regarded as a crime, but there are few instances more egregious than baby theft by the Argentine 1976-1983 military junta. Now in their 80s and in failing health, two doctors and a midwife have been put on trial for their role in this dark chapter.
They are accused of participating in a policy of ending the bloodlines of leftists in order to reorganise society. About 500 pregnant women were imprisoned by the junta. When they gave birth, their babies were taken and adopted by military families. The women were killed or were “disappeared”. About 115 of these children, now in their 30s, have been reunited with relatives. The rest have not been located.
Add paedophilia to the growing list of genetically-determined attractions, preferences and predispositions. In a New York Times op-ed, a law professor from Rutgers University contends that paedophilia is not a matter of choice. Margo Kaplan writes that:
“Recent research, while often limited to sex offenders — because of the stigma of pedophilia — suggests that the disorder may have neurological origins. Pedophilia could result from a failure in the brain to identify which environmental stimuli should provoke a sexual response. MRIs of sex offenders with pedophilia show fewer of the neural pathways known as white matter in their brains. Men with pedophilia are three times more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous, a finding that strongly suggests a neurological cause. Some findings also suggest that disturbances in neurodevelopment in utero or early childhood increase the risk of pedophilia.”
The only trailer for “Whistle Blower”, a just-released Korean feature film about the biggest fraud in the world of science in decades, lacks English sub-titles, unfortunately. However, with a tense soundtrack, grim faces and menacing crowds, the message is clear enough: a collective hysteria gripped South Korea when Hwang Woo-suk claimed to have cloned human embryos and produced live-saving embryonic stem cells.
The journalists who exposed Hwang’s unethical mendacity were regarded as heartless and unpatriotic. According to the Wall Street Journal:
“Ryu Young-joon, the real whistleblower, told science journal Nature in January this year that had his identity leaked online and he and his family went into hiding for six months after the first program was broadcast following threats from Dr. Hwang’s supporters.”
Let’s hope the producers make the film available with English sub-titles soon. (Thanks for the tip to Pete Shanks at Biopolitical Times.)
All Star Trek fans will be familiar with ethical dilemmas in deep space. However, they might not be aware that bioethicists have opened serious discussions as projects for the exploration of Mars advance. An American group called Inspiration Mars plans to launch a married couple to fly around Mars in 2018 and return to Earth. A Dutch group called Mars One is seeking two men and two women to establish a settlement on Mars in 2024. It will be a one-way trip.
In Slate, Patrick Lin and Keith Abney of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group discuss some of the ethical challenges which such expeditions will probably encounter – “a sort of Astronaut Bioethics 101”.
A new study in the Journal of Medical Ethics claims that the US public is in favour of waiving the dead donor rule in certain circumstances. The study, produced by researchers from Florida State University College of Medicine, examined the opinions of 1056 US citizens – a sample intended to provide a rough cross-section of US society.
The researchers asked participants to complete an online survey, presenting them with a vignette of a man in a vegetative state, and asking whether it should be legal for him to donate his organs even if it causes his death. Participants were also asked more general questions, such as whether it should be legal for doctors to remove organs from consenting vegetative patients despite it causing their death, and whether they themselves would donate their organs if they were in a vegetative state.