There are calls for a change in birth certificate regulations after a woman conceived by sperm donation had her adopted father erased as parent.
Emma Cresswell, 26, has won a six-year legal battle to have the man who she thought was her father removed from her birth certificate. Cresswell only discovered as an adult that she was conceived by a sperm donation, following a heated argument with her adopted father. Incensed at being deceived by her parents and feeling increasingly distant from her mother’s partner, Cresswell fought to have her adopted father’s details taken off her legal documents.
“I had thought I was one person for so long and then I found out that a whole side of that wasn’t true”, She said.
Cresswell is now campaigning for biological parentage to be stated in addition to legal parentage on a child’s birth certificate. Dr. Marilyn Crawshaw of the University of York agrees:
“The birth certificate gives you nothing to go on. I know of people who believed they were at risk of genetically transmittable diseases because they thought the parents named on their birth certificate were their biological parents.”
Scientists from MIT say they have managed to manipulate ‘good’ and ‘bad’ memories in mice, in a study that may have significant impact on research into human memory alteration.
The study, published in a recent edition of Nature, examined the neuronal circuits thought to be responsible for triggering memory recall in mice. The researchers said they successfully used optogenics technology to activate circuits bearing specific memories.
Researchers created good memories in male mice by giving them time with groups of females, whilst bad memories were created by electrocuting the mice’ feet. The researchers then studied the way the mice reacted when the memories were activated in an empty space. When ‘bad memory’ circuits were activated, the mice ran away from the space, whilst when ‘good memory’ circuits were queued the mice stayed.
The results are said to indicate the existence of a precise physiological substrate for individual memories. This may mean that one day scientists will be able to ‘turn off’ particular distressing memories in patients suffering from conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
“Imagine you can go in and find a particular traumatic memory and turn it off or change it somehow,” said David Moorman, an assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “That’s still science fiction, but with this we’re getting a lot closer to it.”
Ashya, who recently had a severe brain tumour removed, has been at the centre of an international police investigation after his parents took him from a British hospital against doctors’ advice. Brett and Naghemeh King were concerned that he was receiving inadequate care in the UK and wanted him to receive proton beam treatment abroad. Mr. and Mrs. King were imprisoned in Madrid for 72 hours after British police issued a European Arrest Warrant. Charges of ‘child cruelty’ were dropped on Tuesday.
A Chilean priest is being investigated for coercing single women into give up their babies for adoption.
Fr. Gerardo Joannon of the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary (SSCC) was allegedly part of a network of priests and doctors that coerced single pregnant woman to agree to adoption arrangements after birth. It is alleged that the women who resisted had their babies taken after birth and were told they had died. An investigation conducted by the Catholic Church found that Fr. Joannon participated in at least two adoptions where mothers were anesthetised and told after labour that their baby had passed away.
The SSCC began the initial investigation into the matter. A spokesman for the group has condemned Joannon’s actions. “[his actions] were totally unacceptable. It was very important for us to speak out and speak with a strong voice”, said SSCC priest Fr. Sandro Mancilla.
The war on Ebola is creating heroes. The media have focused on Kenema Government Hospital (KGH) in Sierra Leone, where the country’s first case was diagnosed. More than two dozen of its doctors, nurses and support staff have been infected and died. Science, one of the world’s leading journals, published an early online paper on the Ebola virus on Thursday. Six of the authors are already dead, five from Ebola, all from KGH.
The New York Times highlighted the work of Josephine Finda Sellu, the 42-year-old deputy nurse matron, a brisk, cheerful and courageous woman. “There is a need for me to be around,” she told the New York Times. “I am a senior. All the junior nurses look up to me.” If she left, she said, “the whole thing would collapse.”
“There are times when I say, ‘Oh my God, I should have chosen secretarial,’ ” she says. But nursing “is the calling of God.” The Times describes the difficult and dangerous work of those who continue to serve:
“… the front line is stitched together by people like Ms. Sellu: doctors and nurses who give their lives to treat patients who will probably die; janitors who clean up lethal pools of vomit and waste so that beleaguered health centers can stay open; drivers who venture into villages overcome by illness to retrieve patients; body handlers charged with the dangerous task of keeping highly infectious corpses from sickening others.
“Their sacrifices are evident from the statistics alone. At least 129 health workers have died fighting the disease, according to the World Health Organization. But while many workers have fled, leaving already shaky health systems in shambles, many new recruits have signed up willingly — often for little or no pay, and sometimes giving up their homes, communities and even families in the process.”
The United Nations System Coordinator on Ebola, David Nabarro, says that people fighting the virus – healthcare workers and survivors – are to be commended:
“People who are battling Ebola virus disease are courageous people. People who are supporting them are courageous people. This courage is extraordinary. When I hear and see that people have survived Ebola virus disease, I see them as people who not only have demonstrated huge courage but also who have massive potential. Increasingly, these people are volunteering to serve to support the treatment of others who are actually still infected with the virus. Increasingly, they are becoming ambassadors for the community of people who are at risk of Ebola virus disease.”
A Dutch euthanasia clinic is being investigated for helping an elderly woman to die because she did not want to live in a nursing home. This is the second time in four months that the Levenseindekliniek (End of Life Clinic) in The Hague has been reprimanded.
Even in the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legal since 2002, the clinic is controversial. It was set up to cater for patients whose own doctors refused to perform euthanasia and is financed by private health insurance. (Click here for the Leveneindekliniek FAQ.) In the two years after it opened in March 2013, 322 people were killed there.
The official euthanasia monitoring committee says that the clinic had not observed the formal guidelines for euthanasia. In the latest case, a woman in her 80s had been partially paralysed after a stroke. Twenty years ago she declared that she did not want to live in a nursing home, a position she reaffirmed 18 months ago.
However, in order to qualify for euthanasia in the Netherlands, a patient must be ‘suffering unbearably’. The clinic’s doctors decided that this was the case, based on some of her gestures and her repeated use of the words ‘kan niet’ (a common Dutch expression meaning more or less ‘no way’) which they interpreted as ‘I can’t go on any longer like this’.
The commission disagreed. ‘The doctor has based his decision solely on the fact that the patient was in a nursing home,’ says its report. In fact, she seemed relatively happy there.
The clinic says on its website that it stands by its decision to euthanase the woman. ‘If we only have one percent doubt about a euthanasia request, we will not go ahead,’ says its director Steven Pleiter.
The authorities are studying whether to proceed with a prosecution – something which apparently has not happened since euthanasia was legalised. Euthanasia has many supporters in the Netherlands. This week the Dutch Right to Die Association, NVVE, announced that it has signed up its 150,000th member.
An Australian couple has copped a media bashing over their alleged abandonment of a Down syndrome twin born to a Thai surrogate mother. But with the enormous publicity given to the case, similar cases are beginning to emerge elsewhere. Aussies are not the only “heartless bastards” in the world of surrogacy.
In the UK, the tabloid press described the case of Amy, a child with congenital myotonic dystrophy, a rare inherited condition which causes babies to be “floppy” and developmentally delayed. She was the twin of a healthy boy. Both were born to “Jenny”, a British woman who had entered into a non-legally-binding contract with a couple.
But when the commissioning woman learned about Amy’s disability, she refused to take her. She told Jenny over the phone: “She’d be a ****ing dribbling cabbage! Who would want to adopt her? No one would want to adopt a disabled child”. She took the healthy boy.
In fact, Jenny – who is legally the mother under British law – has effectively adopted her and is raising her with her partner and their other children. She says: ‘Amy is 100 per cent our daughter. I love her as much as my other children.’
And in the United States, a lesbian couple, Keston and Andrea Ott-Dahl, have related their own story of a Down syndrome baby. Andrea agreed to become a surrogate for friends, a lesbian couple who were using sperm from a gay friend. However when tests showed that the baby had Down syndrome, her friends, Silicon Valley executives, asked Andrea to abort it.
She was reluctant to agree, as she had had a bad experience after a previous abortion. She describes the day when she and Keston decided to keep the baby and raise it with their other two children as “the happiest day of my life”. Some legal complications ensued, as the commissioning couple initially attempted to enforce an abortion clause in their contract.
Their daughter Delaney is now a year old and thriving. Keston has even written a book, "Delaney Skye: How One Formerly Ableist Lesbian Mother Opened Her Eyes When The Baby She And Her Partner Created Under A Surrogacy For Friends Is Diagnosed With Down syndrome" and is blogging about their experience.
In the wake of the recent Thai surrogacy scandals, commentators are debating how the practice of surrogacy should be reformed.
Many say that we should make commercial surrogacy legal in Western countries. In Australia, researchers from Surrogacy Australia, the Canberra Fertility Centre and Monash University are campaigning for compensation for Australia surrogates.
Fertility specialist Dr. Martyn Stafford-Bell says that overseas surrogacy arrangements expose both surrogates and babies to serious health risks. “Such adverse outcomes could be avoided if access to surrogacy was facilitated within Australia”, he commented in a recent interview. Australian Surrogacy lawyer Stephen Page agrees:
“The reality is if Australians are going in such great numbers to developing countries, such as India and Thailand, with the possibility of exploitation, sure it’s much better to have it here, where it can be regulated”.
But others are questioning the very practice of commercial surrogacy. Feminist Renate Klein sees it as “heartless, exploitative, capitalist enterprise”. Writing in the Canberra Times, Dr. Klein argued that we should get rid of commercial surrogacy all together:
“There is no right to a child; children are not commodities, and surrogates are not just "suitcases" or "angels" (depending on your point of view) … Introducing commercial surrogacy in Australia is not the answer. Reducing demand for all types of surrogacy is.”
The debate surrounding Canada’s marijuana laws has intensified, with the president of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) labeling medicinal marijuana “bad medicine”.
Dr. Louis Hugo Francescutti is skeptical about the benefits of the controversial treatment. He voiced his concerns at the CMA’s annual meeting in Ottawa on the 18th of August: “It’s just plain bad medicine to prescribe a product when we don’t know how it works, we don’t know when it works, who it works for, how it interacts or how much to prescribe….”.
Under current Canadian law, patients wishing to purchase medicinal marijuana need to obtain a prescription from a doctor. Many doctors are unsure about the treatment and hence reluctant to issue a prescription.
Dr. Francescutti is concerned about the effect of current legislation on doctor-patient relations: “It puts physicians in a very awkward situation and it strains the physician-patient relationship”.
Debate about the legalization of marijuana has become a central issue in the run up to the expected 2015 Canada federal elections. The Liberal Party supports a change in the law on the grounds that it would make it easier to control the drug and take power out of the hands of organized crime.
As details continue to emerge of Jimmy Savile’s horrific crimes, a bioethicist is questioning the complicity of healthcare workers in allowing for the abuses. Writing in the journal Bioethics, Professor Ruth Chadwick inveighs those who gave Savile access to vulnerable patients:
“Even if wrongdoing was not suspected, however, (and even the parents of abused individuals did not believe them, in the case of some celebrities who have now been exposed), patients should have a right to protection from the intrusion of non-healthcare personnel.”
When Savile died in 2011, he was fondly remembered as one of Britain's best-loved entertainers. For half a century he had been a slightly eccentric, but popular DJ, media personality and charity fund-raiser. Not long afterwards, however, allegations of sexual abuse began to emerge. It turns out that the manipulative Savile had used his position to rape and molest hundreds of people, mostly young girls. He even molested young patients in hospitals.
Chadwick suggests that the aura of Savile’s celebrity impaired the judgement of hospital staff:
“The whole sorry episode suggests a need to pay attention to something I have touched on before in editorials, the question of what people ‘see’. Do we have here a case of knowingly turning a blind eye, or simply not seeing what is in front of one?”
Her solution for the issue, however, may raise more eyebrows than her diagnosis. She suggests that research into biological ways of shielding people against star power:
“At a time when there is much discussion of moral enhancement, it may be pertinent and pressing to address specifically what strategies might be most effective in addressing the apparent power of celebrity to undermine moral judgment.”