Bioedge
Tuesday, September 02, 2014

If you are having trouble viewing this email, click here.

FROM THE EDITOR

Hi there,

BioEdge passed a milestone this week – our 10,000th subscriber. We are delighted that so many people receive the newsletter and pass it on to their friends. Word of mouth is the best advertising!

However, we feel that our potential readership is really many times this figure, so please encourage friends and colleagues to sign up. It’s free! If you are teaching bioethics at a university, why not suggest that  your students subscribe? It will give them lots of stimulating ideas to ponder.

Cheers,

Click Here to Comment on this letter
Michael Cook
Editor
BioEdge
  Find Us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter
 
This week in BioEdge
 
Subscribe

Donate
2014-08-26 9:53 AM
On the front line of the war on Ebola
by | Aug 30, 2014 |
Facebook   Twitter   Share
tags: Ebola, public health

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.”

Click here to comment on this article
Top


Is fear of nursing homes a reason for Dutch euthanasia?
by | Aug 30, 2014 |
Facebook   Twitter   Share
tags: euthanasia, levenseindekliniek, Netherlands

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. 

Click here to comment on this article
Top


More surrogacy abandonment stories emerge
by | Aug 30, 2014 |
Facebook   Twitter   Share
tags: surrogacy

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. 

"

Click here to comment on this article
Top


What’s the real issue with commercial surrogacy?
by Xavier Symons | Aug 30, 2014 |
Facebook   Twitter   Share
tags: surrogacy, surrogacy law, Thailand

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.”
Click here to comment on this article
Top


“Medicinal marijuana is bad medicine” - CMA president
by Xavier Symons | Aug 30, 2014 |
Facebook   Twitter   Share
tags: Canada, clinical trials, drugs, marijuana

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.

Click here to comment on this article
Top


Jimmy Savile meets bioethics
by Xavier Symons | Aug 30, 2014 |
Facebook   Twitter   Share
tags: moral bioenhancement, professional misconduct, UK

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.”
Click here to comment on this article
Top


When do we lose our human life?
by Xavier Symons | Aug 29, 2014 |
Facebook   Twitter   Share
tags: brain death, death, organ donation, professional ethics

The academic conversation over brain death continues, with the American journal of Bioethics publishing a special issue on the status of death determined by neurological criteria (DDNC).

The issue contains 20 articles offering different perspectives brain death. Most of the papers refer a recent legal battle in Texas over Marlise Munoz, a brain dead woman carrying a second trimester foetus.

The papers are highly technical and difficult to summarize in a short post. There are, however, a number of clear themes:

- The academics argue over the philosophical definition of death: is it the cessation of mental processes, the end of what is know as the ‘organism as a whole’, or the end of functions such as respiration, metabolism, and growth?

- They consider whether it is problematic to have a legal definition of death distinct from a ‘real’ (i.e. philosophically justifiable) conception of death.

- They discuss the need for educating medical practitioners and the general public about the legal definition of brain death. 

Bioethicist Thaddeus M. Pope says the issue is particularly timely as we may see a number of legislative debates about brain death in the near future.  

Click here to comment on this article
Top


Tough sanctions for a blind eye
by Xavier Symons | Aug 29, 2014 |
Facebook   Twitter   Share
tags: negligence, professional misconduct, UK

Doctors who failed to raise concerns about colleagues could be struck off, under new guidance being considered by the UK’s General Medical Council (GMC).

The GMC has launched a public consultation on the proposed changes. Current guidance for the fitness to practice panels of the Medical Practioner Tribunal Service (MPTS) states “it may be appropriate to remove a doctor from the medical register when their behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a doctor.”

The proposed changes would augment the MPTS’s scope for disciplinary action. New scenarios covered include cases where a doctor has “failed to raise concerns where there is a reason to believe a colleague’s fitness to practice is impaired” and cases where a doctor has failed to raise concerns “where a patient is not receiving basic care to meet their needs”.

The MPTS will also impose more serious sanctions where doctors have “used their professional position to pursue a sexual or improper emotional relationship with a patient or someone close to them” and where doctors have failed to work collaboratively, “including bullying, sexual harassment, or violence or risk to patient safety.”

Commenting on the proposed changes, Niall Dickson, the GMC’s chief executive, said, “The guidance on which we are consulting is vital for case examiners and the independent panels who decide on the sanctions doctors should face, both to protect patients and uphold the reputation of the profession”.

The proposed new objectives draw upon suggestions provided by the UK Law Commission

Click here to comment on this article
Top

Editor
Michael Cook
Office address: 75 Archer Street | Chatswood NSW 2067 | Australia
Phone: 61+2 9007-1187
Mobile: 0422-691-615
Email: michael@bioedge.org