<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">

    <title type="text">BioEdge</title>
    <subtitle type="text">BioEdge:BioEdge &#45;&#45; the latest news about bioethics</subtitle>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/atom" />
    <updated>2012-01-27T22:57:32Z</updated>
    <rights>Copyright (c) 2012, Administrator</rights>
    <generator uri="http://expressionengine.com/" version="2.2.2">ExpressionEngine</generator>
    <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:01:27</id>


    <entry>
      <title>No conscience exemption for contraceptive coverage, says Obama Administration</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/no_conscience_exemption_for_contraceptive_coverage_says_obama_administratio" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9905</id>
      <published>2012-01-28T03:38:33Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-27T21:49:21Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Administrator</name>
            <email>mcook@mercatornet.com</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="professional standards"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C28"
        label="professional standards" />
      <category term="conscience"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C39"
        label="conscience" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p><img alt="Kathleen Sebelius" height="171" src="http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/xx_factor/2012/01/20/the_obama_administration_rejected_the_request_for_new_exceptions_in_the_mandatory_contraception_coverage_regulation_/136090284.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg" style="float: right;" width="280" />Church-affiliated institutions must cover free contraception for their employees, the Obama administration has announced. As a concession to outraged religious groups,&nbsp;Health and Human Services Secretary <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html">Kathleen Sebelius</a> said their hospitals, colleges and social service agencies will have an additional year to comply with regulations under President Barack Obama&rsquo;s health care overhaul. The plan takes effect on August 1, but institutions who have sought an exemption will not have to comply until August 1, 2013 &ndash; after the election in November.</p>
<p>Ms Sebelius said that access to contraception was a fundamental part of healthcare: &ldquo;Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Despite protests, the Obama Administration seems confident that this will not become a religious liberty issue. &ldquo;This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services,&rdquo; Sebelius said in a statement.</p>
<p>A number of important religious groups disagree strongly. A spokesman for an Orthodox Jewish group, <a href="http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/01/26/3091375/orthodox-groups-protest-hhs-decision-on-health-benefits">Nathan Diament</a>, complained about the &ldquo;underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its 'religious' character and liberties.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.nae.net/news/715-press-release-evangelicals-disappointed-with-white-house-decision-on-conscience-protection">National Association of Evangelicals</a> said that employers with religious objections to contraception will be forced to pay for services and procedures they believe are morally wrong. &ldquo;No government has the right to compel its citizens to violate their conscience.&nbsp; The HHS rules trample on our most cherished freedoms and set a dangerous precedent.&rdquo;</p>
<p>"In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," said Archbishop <a href="http://www.zenit.org/article-34161?l=english">Timothy M. Dolan</a>, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. "To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their health care is literally unconscionable. It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."</p>
<p>Politically, the move is puzzling. <a href="http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&amp;entry_id=4873">America</a>, a leading Catholic magazine, observed that &ldquo;the exemption will surely prove an election year headache for the Obama administration as it adds powerful fuel to the fire for those alleging that the administration's policies and practices often trample religious liberty&hellip; Clearly a lose-lose proposition in an election year.&rdquo;</p>
<p>On the other hand, supporters of the measure insist that it is a women's rights issue. Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, pointed out in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/birth-control-decision-defends-religious-liberty/2012/01/20/gIQAtY1kEQ_blog.html">Washington Post</a> that nearly all women, including many Catholics, use contraceptives at some stage. Furthermore, religious institutions employ many who do not share their faith and many states already require contraceptive coverage. Religious freedom &ldquo;does not give religious groups the right to impose their beliefs on others,&rdquo; she said.</p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>At last, some good news for embryonic stem cells</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/at_last_some_good_news_for_embryonic_stem_cells" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9909</id>
      <published>2012-01-28T03:37:33Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-27T21:43:25Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Administrator</name>
            <email>mcook@mercatornet.com</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="stem cells"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C15"
        label="stem cells" />
      <category term="embryonic stem cells"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C25"
        label="embryonic stem cells" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p><img height="250" src="http://www.wild-about-blueberries.com/images/macular-degeneration-prevention.jpg" style="float: right;" width="250" />In the first published results from a clinical trial using human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), 2 legally blind patients with macular degeneration who had been given an injection in one eye have suffered no harmful side effects and appear to have slightly better vision. The trial was sponsored by a Massachusetts biotech, Advanced Cell Technology.</p>
<p>This is a rare piece of good news for the stagnating hESC field and ACT&rsquo;s share price rose 23%. Two months ago another company, Geron, aborted the only other human trial with hESCs &ndash; a potential cure for spinal cord trauma &ndash; and announced that it was abandoning the field entirely. ACT is now the only company working with hESCs.</p>
<p>The results were widely reported, based on a study published in <a href="http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S0140673612600282.pdf">The Lancet</a>. However, the author of the paper, Steven D. Schwartz, a retina specialist at UCLA, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/business/stem-cell-study-may-show-advance.html">conceded</a> that it was &ldquo;extremely unusual&rdquo; to publish a paper with data based on only 2 patients --without a control group. He said that it was justified by public&rsquo;s huge interest in stem cells.</p>
<p>Since they were discovered 13 years ago, hESCs have shown promise for treating diseases, but they have also been shadowed by safety issues and ethical concerns, as the process destroys human embryos. ~ <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/business/stem-cell-study-may-show-advance.html">New York Times, Jan 23</a></p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>UK to consider three&#45;parent IVF</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/uk_to_consider_three_parent_ivf" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9908</id>
      <published>2012-01-28T03:14:33Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-27T21:18:14Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Administrator</name>
            <email>mcook@mercatornet.com</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="assisted reproduction"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C52"
        label="assisted reproduction" />
      <category term="IVF"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C8"
        label="IVF" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p><img height="281" src="http://www.gmdaw.org/images/mito-cell-diagram.jpg" style="float: right;" width="239" />The controversial practice known as &ldquo;three-parent IVF&rdquo; has drawn one step closer in the UK with the government&rsquo;s announcement of public consultation into its acceptability. The Wellcome Trust has also announced that it would allocate extra funds to expand research into the technique, which uses genetic material from 3 parents &ndash; 2 women and a man &ndash; to build a baby. The procedure, which currently banned, is a response to mitochondrial disease &ndash; defects in the small frameworks called mitochondria which surround the cell nucleus.</p>
<p>Mitochondrial diseases are inherited from the mother. They are rare &ndash; only about 100 affected children are born each year in the UK &ndash; but often very disabling. The proposed procedure involves extracting the nucleus from an affected woman&rsquo;s egg, transferring it to the shell of an egg supplied by a donor with healthy mitochondria, then fertilising it with the sperm of the affected woman&rsquo;s partner.</p>
<p>The ensuing baby would have genetic characteristics mainly from its mother and father, and some from the <a href="http://bit.ly/wWzz3q">third parent</a> &ndash; the donor. In another method, the woman&rsquo;s egg is fertilised with her partner&rsquo;s sperm and then transferred into the donor egg.</p>
<p>Strictly speaking, the procedure does not cure the disease at all and it will be of no help to current sufferers. Instead, it creates an embryo which lacks the disease. It is not clear whether the procedure itself is safe.</p>
<p>The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said: &ldquo;These macabre experiments are both destructive and dangerous and therefore unethical. Scientists should abandon the spurious field of destructive embryo experimentation and instead promote the ethical alternative of adult stem-cell research, which is already providing cures and treatments for the same conditions.&rdquo; ~ <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/threeparent-ivf-may-be-made-legal-in-uk-says-minister-6292254.html">Independent, Jan 20</a></p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>Leading UK surgeons call for ban on cosmetic surgery advertising</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/leading_uk_surgeons_call_for_ban_on_cosmetic_surgery_advertising" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9907</id>
      <published>2012-01-28T02:50:33Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-27T20:54:52Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Administrator</name>
            <email>mcook@mercatornet.com</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="enhancement"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C5"
        label="enhancement" />
      <category term="cosmetic surgery"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C6"
        label="cosmetic surgery" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p><img height="180" src="http://media.salon.com/2011/01/plastic_surgerys_wicked_triumph-460x307.jpg" style="float: right;" width="270" />Leading plastic surgeons in the UK have responded to the current crisis in cosmetic surgery by calling for a ban on advertisements for all types of cosmetic surgery, including breast enlargements and tummy tucks. They say the industry is an under-regulated &ldquo;wild west&rdquo;.</p>
<p>The surgeons are members of the British Association of Aesthetic and Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS), who work on reconstruction in the National Health Service and regularly perform cosmetic surgery in private hospitals. The group, based at the Royal College of Surgeons, has been concerned in recent years about standards in private cosmetic chains, which advertise aggressively in tabloids and women&rsquo;s magazines.</p>
<p>They have called for a ban as part of a six-point-plan with proposals for tighter regulation of the industry, including registration and audit of surgeons. &ldquo;Over the last decade the BAAPS has worked tirelessly to educate the public on the many aggressive marketing gimmicks that not only trivialise surgery but endanger the patient,&rdquo; said the organisation's president Fazal Fatah.</p>
<p>&ldquo;We have warned against the unrealistic expectations set by reality 'makeover' shows and against crass competition prizes promising 'mummy makeovers' and body overhauls. In no other area of surgery would one encounter Christmas vouchers and 2-for-1 offers &ndash; the pendulum has swung too far, and it is time for change.&rdquo;</p>
<p>According to the BAAPS, nose straightening and breast enlargement are medical procedures, and advertising should be banned as for prescription medicines. BAAPS says there should be a register for all types of implants, not simply those used to enlarge breasts but also those inserted into the buttocks, calves, pectoral muscles and other areas. Widespread calls for a breast implant register followed the <a href="http://bit.ly/yBXykp">scandal</a> of the PIP implants, which were made with industrial-grade silicone designed for mattresses. ~ <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jan/22/ban-advertising-cosmetic-surgery">Guardian, Jan 22</a>; <a href="http://bit.ly/yBXykp">BioEdge, Jan 21</a></p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>Hacking scandal executive has daughter via surrogate</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/hacking_scandal_executive_has_daughter_via_surrogate" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9906</id>
      <published>2012-01-28T02:41:33Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-27T20:43:33Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Administrator</name>
            <email>mcook@mercatornet.com</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="assisted reproduction"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C52"
        label="assisted reproduction" />
      <category term="surrogacy"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C35"
        label="surrogacy" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p><img height="146" src="http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58108000/jpg/_58108512_013820149-1.jpg" style="float: right;" width="260" />Former News International CEO Rebekah Brooks and her husband have become parents through surrogacy. Once the editor of the now-defunct tabloid News of the World, the 43-year-old Ms Brooks was in the business of headlining celebrities&rsquo; private lives. Now her own 5-year battle with infertility is fodder for her colleagues, along with her arrest on charges of alleged phone hacking and corruption. The surrogate mother of Scarlett Anne Mary Brooks, whose name has not been released, was pregnant with twins, but one of them died early in the pregnancy. The story is likely to boost the profile of surrogacy in the UK. ~ <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16737065">BBC, Jan 26</a>; <a href="http://bit.ly/wNOazF">BioEdge, Nov 19</a></p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>Research fraud troubles UK scientists</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/research_fraud_troubles_uk_scientists" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9904</id>
      <published>2012-01-27T06:50:33Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-27T00:57:36Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Administrator</name>
            <email>mcook@mercatornet.com</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="professional standards"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C28"
        label="professional standards" />
      <category term="malfeasance"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C42"
        label="malfeasance" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p><img height="285" src="https://img.skitch.com/20120127-kf8fmbjuw1tsjec6hdwmq43q1.jpg" style="float: right;" width="250" />&ldquo;Dishonesty is common and institutionalized in medicine and medical research,&rdquo; says a UK cardiologist, Peter Wilsmhurst, who has spent years trying to expose research misconduct and has reported more than 20 doctors to the General Medical Council.</p>
<p>Apparently the UK scientific establishment agrees with him. Earlier this month the <em>British Medical Journal</em> and the international Committee on Publication Ethics organised a meeting with representatives from universities, funding groups, journals and lobby groups to discuss the problem.</p>
<p>According to <em>Nature News</em>, Elizabeth Wager, of the international Committee on Publication Ethics, said that one American editor had told her that UK institutions were the worst to deal with if misconduct were suspected. &ldquo;Our reputation in the world is not looking good.&rdquo;</p>
<p>A number of factors are at work. The UK government, unlike the US, does not have an effective watchdog for research fraud. There can be conflicts of interest if a university detects fraud by one of its employees. It is much easier to dismiss an erring academic than to publicise his misdeeds. Whistleblowers can be sued for defamation.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The issue is serious enough for <em>Nature</em> to devote an <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/full/481237b.html">editorial</a> to it. It proposed more government oversight, collaboration between funders and universities, and reform of the English libel laws. &ldquo;Sounds ambitious? If the solutions were easy, there wouldn't be a problem to discuss,&rdquo; says Nature. &ldquo;But there is, so we must face it.&rdquo; ~ <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/british-science-needs-integrity-overhaul-1.9803">Nature, Jan 13</a></p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>European assembly slams euthanasia</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/european_assembly_slams_euthanasia" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9903</id>
      <published>2012-01-27T06:18:33Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-27T00:20:42Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Administrator</name>
            <email>mcook@mercatornet.com</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="end of life issues"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C4"
        label="end of life issues" />
      <category term="euthanasia"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C23"
        label="euthanasia" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p><img height="201" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/41/PACE_logo_75ppi.png/220px-PACE_logo_75ppi.png" style="float: right;" width="220" />The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has given a big boost to opponents of legalised euthanasia. This body, which (somewhat confusingly) is not part of the European Union, is an advisory body in Strasbourg with more than 300 delegates whose pronouncements on human rights are highly influential in the EU.</p>
<p>This week PACE passed <a href="http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta12/ERES1859.htm">a resolution on living wills (or advance directives)</a> which&nbsp; states as a fundamental principal:&nbsp;<em>&ldquo;Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.&rdquo;</em></p>
<p>Furthermore, an amendment was passed stating that&nbsp;<em>&ldquo;surrogate decisions that rely on general value judgements present in society should not be admissible and, in case of doubt, the decision must always be pro-life and the prolongation of life&rdquo;.</em></p>
<p>The resolution is not legally binding on members of the EU, but it may put hamper efforts of euthanasia campaigners to pass legislation like the Netherlands and Belgium. The Italian delegate who proposed the amendment was jubilant:&nbsp;<em>&ldquo;last year we have obtained a great victory reaffirming the right of medical practitioners to conscientious objection; today we have also fought a good battle and we have won, thanks God, against a real ideological tyranny of culture of death&hellip;&nbsp; now euthanasia is completely banned from PACE&rdquo;. ~ <a href="http://www.europeandignitywatch.org/index.php?id=43&amp;tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=250&amp;cHash=7a895ddcf5dfc07e6ec3d97017f8b8f8&amp;utm_source=Mailman&amp;utm_medium=Email&amp;utm_content=Subscriber%23423&amp;utm_campaign=Council%20of%20Europe%20Bans%20Euthanasia">European Dignity Watch, Jan 26</a></em></p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/is_is_morally_wrong_to_take_a_life_not_really_say_bioethicists" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9901</id>
      <published>2012-01-27T04:49:33Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-27T22:57:32Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Administrator</name>
            <email>mcook@mercatornet.com</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="end of life issues"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C4"
        label="end of life issues" />
      <category term="dead donor rule"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C66"
        label="dead donor rule" />
      <category term="organ donation"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C12"
        label="organ donation" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p><img height="270" src="https://img.skitch.com/20120127-ryii5k52qhy18ne3rkn4y82wqu.jpg" style="vertical-align: middle;" width="466" /></p>
<p>Is it morally wrong to kill people? Not really, argue two eminent American bioethicists in an early online article in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, of Duke University, and Franklin G. Miller, of the National Institutes of Health believe that &ldquo;killing by itself is not morally wrong, although it is still morally wrong to cause total disability&rdquo;.</p>
<p>Ultimately their aim is to justify organ donation after cardiac death (DCD). This is a state in which a patient is neurologically damaged and cannot function without a respirator. Within minutes of withdrawing this, the organs are removed. However, the authors state frankly that the patient is not dead at that point because it is possible that the patient&rsquo;s heart could start beating again. (Other bioethicists disagree, vehemently.)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&ldquo;[T]he criterion of irreversibility has not been satisfied; hence, these patients are not known to be dead at the time of organ procurement.&rdquo;</p>
<p>In view of well-publicised organ shortages, transplant surgeons are eager to increase the number of available organs. DCD is an important avenue. However, a nagging suspicion that these patients might not be dead is still a substantial stumbling block because the medical profession insists that donors must always be dead. But Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller have an solution:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&ldquo;[T]he dead donor rule is routinely violated in the contemporary practice of vital organ donation. Consistency with traditional medical ethics would entail that this kind of vital organ donation must cease immediately. This outcome would, however, be extremely harmful and unreasonable from an ethical point of view [because patients who could be saved will die]. Luckily, it is easily obviated by abandoning the norm against killing.&rdquo;</p>
<p>This radical conclusion may shock some readers, but the authors are not murderers. They want to bring greater precision to what we mean by killing. Rendering someone totally and permanently incapacitated is just as bad as taking a life, or so they contend. Killing totally disabled patients does them no harm.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&ldquo;Then killing her cannot disrespect her autonomy, because she has no autonomy left. It also cannot be unfair to kill her if it does her no harm.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Nor, they say, is life &ldquo;sacred&rdquo;. The only relevant difference between life and death is the existence of abilities &ndash; and a brain-damaged person no longer has these.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&ldquo;[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.&rdquo;</p>
<p><a href="http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/01/19/medethics-2011-100351.abstract">Journal of Medical Ethics, Jan 19</a></p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>Doctors call for a moratorium on donation after cardiac death</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/doctors_call_for_a_moratorium_on_donation_after_cardiac_death" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9902</id>
      <published>2012-01-27T04:37:33Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-27T21:57:37Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Administrator</name>
            <email>mcook@mercatornet.com</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="end of life issues"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C4"
        label="end of life issues" />
      <category term="dead donor rule"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C66"
        label="dead donor rule" />
      <category term="organ donation"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C12"
        label="organ donation" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p><em><img height="261" src="http://www.bigwoodshunting.com/bigwoods/images/bw_photos/671annieblind08.jpg" style="float: right;" width="280" />Is that rustling in the bushes a deer or is it my brother? What the hell. We&rsquo;ll sort it out later&hellip; BANG!</em> Most people would regard moral reasoning like this as potentially indicative of a deficit of ethical reflectiveness. Several paediatricians writing in the latest issue of <em><a href="http://www.peh-med.com/content/6/1/17/abstract">Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine</a> </em>apparently agree. They have called for a moratorium on donating organs after cardiac death (DCD) until a number of troubling issues have been resolved. The pre-press, peer-reviewed article offers a good summary of the ethical issues.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&ldquo;We have argued that DCD donors are not dead, and therefore that organ donation during DCD violates the dead donor rule.&nbsp; Our concerns with DCD include the following: irreversibility of absent circulation has not occurred and the many attempts to claim it has all fail; conflicts of interest at all steps in the DCD process are simply unavoidable; premortem interventions to preserve organ utility are not justifiable; and consensus statements by respected medical groups do not change these arguments.&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&ldquo;The truth, we believe, is that honesty requires that we face these problems instead of avoiding them.&nbsp; Until the concerns we describe are seriously considered, full public disclosure occurs, and fully informed consent is obtained from donors, there should be a moratorium on the practice of DCD.&nbsp; We believe that DCD is not ethically allowable because it abandons the dead donor rule, has unavoidable conflicts of interests, and implements premortem interventions which can hasten death.&nbsp; These important points have not been, but need to be fully disclosed to the public and incorporated into fully informed consent.&nbsp; These are tall orders, and require open public debate.&nbsp; Until this debate occurs, we call for a moratorium on the practice of DCD.&rdquo;</p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.peh-med.com/content/6/1/17/abstract">Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, Dec 29, 2011</a></em></p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>Massachusetts judge ordered forced abortion and sterilization of mentally ill woman</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/massachusetts_judge_ordered_forced_abortion_and_sterilization_of_mentally_i" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9899</id>
      <published>2012-01-21T11:23:45Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-21T05:34:16Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Administrator</name>
            <email>mcook@mercatornet.com</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="informed consent"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C31"
        label="informed consent" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p><img height="159" src="https://img.skitch.com/20120121-kwspm4byindt4kd1dksfsgi616.jpg" width="491" /></p>
<p>It is difficult to imagine a case better scripted for a discussion of informed consent than Mary Moe&rsquo;s Massachusetts abortion.</p>
<p>When Mary Moe, a pseudonym for a 32-year-old woman with schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder, visited a hospital emergency room in October, it was discovered that she was pregnant. This meant that she could not take her psychiatric medication as it would harm the foetus. So the state Department of Mental Health applied to have the woman&rsquo;s parents named as guardians so they could give consent for an abortion.</p>
<p>However, Mary did not want to have an abortion. Although she was not completely coherent, she insisted that she was &ldquo;very Catholic&rdquo; and would never do such a thing. She knew what abortions were, as her first pregnancy had been aborted. (She subsequently gave birth to a son, whom her parents are caring for.)</p>
<p>The case went before Judge Christina Harms, a Harvard Law School graduate and a former lawyer in the State&rsquo;s welfare services. Judge Harms ordered Mary Moe to have an abortion. If she were intransigent, she could be &ldquo;coaxed, bribed, or even enticed&rsquo;&rsquo; into the hospital. Furthermore, the judge wanted to put an end to these distressing pregnancies. She ordered Mary More to be sterilized &ldquo;to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future.&rsquo;&rsquo; Harms reasoned that Mary Moe was not competent to make a decision about an abortion, because of her &ldquo;substantial delusional beliefs.&rdquo; But if she were competent, she would choose to abort the child.</p>
<p>In the event, Judge Harms was overruled. &ldquo;The personal decision whether to bear or beget a child is a right so fundamental that it must be extended to all persons, including those who are incompetent,&rsquo;&rsquo;&nbsp;said the state appeals court. As for the sterilization, said one of the appeals judges, &ldquo;The judge appears to have simply produced the requirement out of thin air.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The publicity given to this unusual case has led mental health advocates to wonder how often women are forcibly aborted and sterilised. &ldquo;I didn&rsquo;t realize that forced sterilizations were going on anywhere,&rdquo; said Howard Trachtman of the National Alliance on Mental Illness Massachusetts, told <a href="http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-18/metro/30634486_1_previous-abortion-pregnant-woman-appeals-court">the Boston Globe</a>. &ldquo;If a precedent were set for that, then you could see a whole slew of people filing for it, or trying to get judges to order it.&rdquo; &ldquo;Simply having a diagnosis of schizophrenia or any other mental illness is not a basis for sterilization in and of itself. It&rsquo;s just sheer prejudice,&rdquo; Elyn Saks, of the University of Southern California, told the <a href="http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220118decision_blasts_judges_order_to_force_abortion_ruling_to_coax_mentally_ill_woman_sparks_outrage/srvc=home&amp;position=also">Boston Herald</a>. ~ <a href="http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-18/metro/30634486_1_previous-abortion-pregnant-woman-appeals-court">Boston Globe, Jan 18</a></p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>Cosmetic surgery industry under fire after implant scandal</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/cosmetic_surgery_industry_under_fire_after_implant_scandal" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9898</id>
      <published>2012-01-21T07:04:45Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-21T01:07:10Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Administrator</name>
            <email>mcook@mercatornet.com</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="enhancement"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C5"
        label="enhancement" />
      <category term="cosmetic surgery"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C6"
        label="cosmetic surgery" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p>&nbsp;<img height="300" src="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02109/br_2109156b.jpg" style="vertical-align: middle;" width="480" /></p>
<p>The UK&rsquo;s cosmetic surgery industry is under fire in the wake of the liquidation of a French company which made faulty breast implants. For a number of years Poly Implant Prothese had been manufacturing breast implants with industrial grade silicon instead of medical grade. Now the implants are rupturing at a higher than normal rate and a woman has died in France of a rare cancer which appears to be related to the leakage.</p>
<p>Earlier in the month, a few dozen women with PIP implants marched in London's medical specialist district to protest against clinics which are refusing to remove and replace the devices. Danni Starr, 33, an accounts clerk, told the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9015050/Cowboy-tactics-of-cosmetic-firms-to-come-under-fire-from-MPs.html">Guardian</a>: &ldquo;We feel totally fobbed off. I feel so angry that these companies can make all this money from doing this surgery, and then when there is a problem, they can&rsquo;t afford to help us.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Regulators in Venezuela, the Czech Republic and France have recommended removal, but other countries, including the UK, say that this is unnecessary. However, a British Parliamentary committee is to investigate the scandal and to ask whether lax regulation has led to a &ldquo;cowboy&rdquo; market amongst British clinics.</p>
<p>Dr Daniel Poulter, a member of the committee, told the Guardian: "We have an industry which has grown at a great pace over the last 10 years or so and the breast implants scandal has helped to shine a light on wider issues about the way the cosmetic surgery industry works. The current system leaves too much potential for cowboy surgery, and for women to be exploited."</p>
<p>Some of the issue to be considered are whether private clinics should be required to provide counselling for those seeking cosmetic changes, so that doctors do not take advantage of the vulnerability of women with deep-seated psychological problems. A culture which celebrates body image creates huge pressure on some women to conform to beauty stereotypes, he warned.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">"Programmes like [reality TV show]'The Only Way is Essex' and celebrity culture and glossy magazines have glamorised cosmetic procedures and the body beautiful - but in the same way that they have had an impact on anorexia, they are also linked with psychological problems, and obsessions about appearance and body dysmorphia."</p>
<p>According to the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons the number of operations has more than doubled in six years, to more than 38,000 operations.</p>
<p>Dr Poulter said: "One of the major concerns that has emerged is about record keeping in the private sector, and about the attitude of the companies, about the responsibility they hold to look after the women they treated. We are also concerned about whether the regulators have fallen behind the industry they are regulating." ~ Guardian, Jan 14</p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>Is pregnancy unethical? Yes, says UK bioethicist</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/is_pregnancy_unethical_yes_says_uk_bioethicist" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9897</id>
      <published>2012-01-20T12:07:45Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-20T06:15:40Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Administrator</name>
            <email>mcook@mercatornet.com</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="assisted reproduction"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C52"
        label="assisted reproduction" />
      <category term="bioethics"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C11"
        label="bioethics" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p><img height="263" src="http://www.mondolithic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/focus_artificial_womb-300x263.jpg" style="float: right;" width="300" /></p>
<p>Here is contrarian bioethics at its best. Pregnancy and childbirth are so painful, risky and socially restrictive for women that public funding should urgently be directed to the development of artificial wombs. This is the only way to achieve true equality between men and women for then neither women nor men would then be limited by having children and the burdens of reproducing the species would be shared equally.</p>
<p>This is the radical suggestion made by a leading British bioethicist, <a href="http://www.annasmajdor.me.uk/">Anna Smajdor</a>, of the University of East Anglia.</p>
<p>Artificcial gestation, or ectogenesis, &nbsp;is currently science fiction, but it may be possible. Dr Smajdor believes that in a truly liberal society pregnancy and childbirth should not be tolerated:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Changes to financial and social structures may improve things marginally, but a better solution needs to be found. Either we view women as baby carriers who must subjugate their other interests to the well-being of their children or we acknowledge that our social values and level of medical expertise are no longer compatible with &ldquo;natural&rdquo; reproduction.</p>
<p>Pregnancy is barbaric, Dr Smajdor contends &ndash; an illness so serious that it is comparable to measles, which is also occasionally fatal, but does not last nine months.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">I suggest that there is a strong case for prioritizing research into ectogenesis as an alternative to pregnancy. I conclude by asking the reader the following: if you did not know whether you would be a man or a woman, would you prefer to be born into Society A, in which women bear all the burdens and risks of pregnancy, or Society B, in which ectogenesis<span style="font-size: 8px;">&nbsp;</span>has been perfected.</p>
<p>Her article in the <em>Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics</em> is a reply to a critique of an article which she published in 2007, &ldquo;The moral imperative for ectogenesis&rdquo;. ~ <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0963180111000521">Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, January</a></p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>Surrogacy: nice work if you can get it</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/surrogacy_nice_work_if_you_can_get_it" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9896</id>
      <published>2012-01-18T09:48:45Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-18T03:52:58Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>michael</name>
            <email>michael@bioedge.org</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="assisted reproduction"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C52"
        label="assisted reproduction" />
      <category term="surrogacy"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C35"
        label="surrogacy" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p><img height="303" src="https://img.skitch.com/20120118-6b4152bn2fim19juxew9txjnw.jpg" style="float: left;" width="136" />More from the booming surrogate mother industry. A Philadelphia company is raising eyebrows by describing gestational surrogacy as a paying job. An email from Surrogate Services International says that "In this economy and particularly around the holiday season one would think a local business would not have any trouble filling job openings."&nbsp; It is offering "well paid, part-time positions" as egg donors and surrogate mothers.</p>
<p>The company&rsquo;s website explains: &ldquo;We understand that for many women assisting parents achieve their dream of parenthood is payment enough, however since we know this is a real job with immense responsibilities we believe the gestational carrier should be paid accordingly as such.&rdquo; The &ldquo;wages&rdquo; [sic] range from US$20,000 to $35,000.</p>
<p>Like similar companies in the US, SSI&rsquo;s services include a phalanx of lawyers to ensure that the mother relinquishes the child and that the intending parents, from both the US and overseas, can adopt the baby. It is an LGBT-friendly agency.</p>
<p>Professor Art Caplan, of the University of Pennsylvania, was incensed:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">"I thought it was most outrageous. What they are saying is that having a baby is the same as working at the perfume counter at Macy's or Bloomingdales for a part-time job. I don't know what planet these people are operating on but i don't think it is one that is distinguished by its ethics. These are major decisions and they shouldn't be treated in this trivial way.&rdquo; <a href="http://www.nbc33tv.com/news/national-news/agencys-plea-for-egg-donors-and-surrogate-mothers-sparks-outrage">~ NBC National News, Jan 4</a></p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>Is intellectual disability a reason to deny an organ transplant?</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/is_intellectual_disability_a_reason_to_deny_an_organ_transplant" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9895</id>
      <published>2012-01-18T09:19:45Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-18T03:23:16Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>michael</name>
            <email>michael@bioedge.org</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="disability"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C30"
        label="disability" />
      <category term="organ donation"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C12"
        label="organ donation" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p><img height="183" src="http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/01/17/kidneygirl_244x183.jpg" style="float: right;" width="244" />A 3-year-old girl who was allegedly denied an opportunity for a kidney transplant because she was &ldquo;mentally retarded&rdquo; has sparked a debate in the US media. Amelia Rivera has a rare genetic disease known as Wolf-Hirschhorn Syndrome that can cause mental impairment, seizures and kidney failure. However, her parents were told by doctors at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia&nbsp;that there would be no transplant. Her mother, Chrissy Rivera, was enraged and posted <a href="http://www.wolfhirschhorn.org/2012/01/amelia/brick-walls/">her version of a conversation with the doctor and a social worker on a blog</a>.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;&ldquo;So you mean to tell me that as a doctor, you are not recommending the transplant, and when her kidneys fail in six months to a year, you want me to let her die because she is mentally retarded? There is no other medical reason for her not to have this transplant other than she is MENTALLY RETARDED!&rdquo;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&ldquo;Yes, [said the doctor]. This is hard for me, you know.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Mrs Rivera says that she offered to find a matching kidney in her large extended family, but the doctor flatly refused: &ldquo;She is not eligible&nbsp; because of her quality&nbsp; of life. Because of her mental delays.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The hospital refused to comment on the incident but insists that it &ldquo;does not disqualify potential transplant candidates on the basis of intellectual abilities." However, children with developmental delays are complicated to care for and may have a greatly reduced life expectancy. Hence, hospitals may prefer to allocate scarce organs to children who have a greater chance of survival. The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-parenting/post/denying-an-organ-to-a-mentally-retarded-child/2012/01/17/gIQAR5i25P_blog.html">Washington Post</a> found that American hospitals had no consistent policy on allocating organs to children who are intellectually disabled.</p>
<p>The story went viral&nbsp; and prompted a column by leading bioethicist <a href="http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/17/10175611-bioethicist-transplant-denial-for-mentally-disabled-child-raises-questions">Art Caplan</a>, of the University of Pennsylvania. He pointed out that:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&ldquo;There are reasons why anyone with an intellectual or physical disability might not be considered a good candidate for a transplant.&nbsp; But those reasons, to be ethical, have to be linked to the chance of making the transplant succeed. Otherwise they are not reasons, they are only biases.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The issue is still not settled. The Riveras are to meet officials from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia&nbsp;next week. ~ <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57360505-10391704/mom-says-special-needs-daughter-denied-life-saving-kidney-transplant">cbsnews.com, Jan 17</a></p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>

    <entry>
      <title>Canadian journal calls for curbs on aborting girls</title>
      <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/canadian_journal_calls_for_curbs_on_aborting_girls" />
      <id>tag:bioedge.org,2012:index.php/4.9894</id>
      <published>2012-01-18T06:48:45Z</published>
      <updated>2012-01-18T01:00:14Z</updated>
      <author>
            <name>Administrator</name>
            <email>mcook@mercatornet.com</email>
                  </author>

      <category term="abortion"
        scheme="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/C14"
        label="abortion" />
      <content type="html"><![CDATA[
        <p><img height="215" src="https://img.skitch.com/20120118-rxaueacqh8s7repyhu29bki6j3.jpg" style="vertical-align: middle;" width="426" /></p>
<p>After a long legal and political debate leading up to a decision by its Supreme Court in 1988, Canada has ended up as one of the few nations in the world without an abortion law. About 100,000 abortion are performed each year. But now the Canadian Medical Association Journal is calling for strict limits on abortion &ndash; if the mother wants to abortion a child simply because it is a girl.</p>
<p>Gendercide has been imported into Canada with Asian migration. Census data show that there is an unusually high number of male births to women who are South and East Asian immigrants despite vastly improved socio-economic prospects. Most Canadians regard sex-selection as &ldquo;odious&rdquo;, says the CMAJ, but the practice persists.</p>
<p>In a ringing editorial, the CMAJ says:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&ldquo;Should female feticide in Canada be ignored because it is a small problem localized to minority ethnic groups? No. Small numbers cannot be ignored when the issue is about discrimination against women in its most extreme form. This evil devalues women.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Its solution for eliminating this &ldquo;repugnant practice&rdquo; is &ldquo;to postpone the disclosure of medically irrelevant information to women until after about 30 weeks of pregnancy&rdquo;. The assumption is that almost no one would have an abortion at 30 weeks.</p>
<p>However, the widely-discussed proposal has been criticised on several counts. From a practical point of view, it will soon be easy for women to test the sex of their unborn child at home, with commercially-available kits. Can a doctor refuse to perform an abortion even if he suspects the patient&rsquo;s motivation? He might get in legal hot water.</p>
<p>In fact, <a href="http://www.sogc.org/jogc/abstracts/full/201001_HealthPolicy_1.pdf">one of the papers on which the journal&rsquo;s stand was based</a> was more realistic. &ldquo;Our [30-week] proposal, then, would not prevent sex selection. Rather, we suggest that it would permit health care providers to navigate ethically the meaningful application of the SOGC policy of not supporting sex selection while maintaining patients&rsquo; rights to full disclosure of medical information.&rdquo; In other words, the 30-week rule is just a sop for doctors&rsquo; consciences.</p>
<p>And both pro-life and pro-choice supporters attacked the proposal as illogical. Why should doctors discourage aborting girls and acquiesce in aborting children with Down syndrome? &ldquo;Either the fetus has rights or not,&rdquo; said <a href="http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/17/internal-dissent-are-some-fetuses-more-equal-than-others/">Marni Soupcoff, of the National Post.</a> &ldquo;If not, then sorry, no &lsquo;good&rsquo; reason is necessary for an abortion. If yes, it gets complex.&rdquo; ~ <a href="http://www.cmaj.ca/site/earlyreleases/16jan12_sex-selection-migrates-to-canada.xhtml">CMAJ, Jan 16</a></p> {extended}
      ]]></content>
    </entry>


</feed>
