Working Wednesday: Research

Coming back from a vacation that spanned the holidays, I had quite a bit of email to absorb. I thought I'd share with you a few news stories that surfaced while I was away. They reflect the kinds of things that I collect and later write about in this space.

• Fire Marshall Closes Abortion Clinic Someone broke into Women's Medical Services of Muskegon on or around Christmas day. When police responded, they found conditions so deplorable -- and unrelated to the break-in -- that they called in building inspectors and the fire marshall, who deemed the facility unsafe for occupation and shut it down. Operation Rescue notes they have additional information about "serious violations" at the clinic, but are keeping mum for now. Apparently, someone who formerly worked in the clinic has provided evidence. Citizens for a Pro-Life Society has been keeping its eye on the clinic's doctor, Robert L. Alexander, MD, for many years; they report he has a "troubled and checkered medical career." You can take part in a poll that asks whether this clinic should reopen or not. UPDATE from Operation Rescue listing some of the abuses. TV station reports that clinic will not reopen.

• The Bioarchaeology Of Care. Don't be turned off by the academic-sounding title. It's a fascinating story about the discovery of the remains of a severely disabled pre-historic man in Vietnam. What's so interesting about that? The evidence shows he "survived from early adolescence into adulthood completely paralyzed from the waist down and with very limited use of his upper body." He had to have been "[d]ependent on others for meeting his most basic needs . . . only possible because of the high-quality, dedicated, and time-consuming care he received." That's a revelation to archaeologists, and perhaps a challenge to evolutionists since it belies "survival of the fittest." The author of the article notes that, "Looking after those who are unable to look after themselves is a behavior that defines what it is to be human." Here's a New York Times digest version of the article: Ancient bones that tell a story of compassion. 

Maddalena Douse with her
mum and dad.

• Scissors save premature baby's life. In the UK, babies born weighing less than a pound are not considered viable and are left to die. Little Maddalena Douse's life was spared, however, because someone left a pair of scissors on the scale during her weigh-in, causing it to tilt in her favor. She's home now, after being on a ventilator for six months, and is expected to be perfectly healthy.

• Finally, this also from the UK: A 'dad' is tenth most popular Christmas list request for children. That despite the idea that any kind of family will do. According to The Christian Institute, only 14% of children in the UK are born into families where dad is married to mum. One-third of American children (15 million) are being raised without a father (compared to nearly five million who live without a mother).

Postscript: Assisted Suicide’s Dangerous Illusion of Control. It never fails. I hit 'publish' and then something new comes along that prompts me to add to my post. I'd read this article about elder abuse earlier in the day, then received a related email from a concerned individual. She wrote to tell me about the group National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse. If you know someone who's vulnerable to this type of abuse, pay attention!

I guess if this post is about anything, it's taking care of life. If even "neolithic" societies could do it, so can we!

British Doctors Let Baby Born at 22 Weeks Die

LifeNews: British doctors are coming under fire for letting an unborn child born just before 22 weeks of pregnancy die. The National health Service, the government-run health system that Congress may replicate in legislation in the United States, is blamed for guidelines disallowing treatment.

Sarah Capewell told the London Daily Mail that doctors refused to see her son, who lived almost two hours on his own without any medical support before dying. She said Jayden was breathing on his own without any medical assistance and was moving his arms and legs, but medical staff refused to transfer him to a neonatal intensive care unit. The newspaper indicated Capewell said medical staff told her they would have been able to treat her son had he been born two days later.

Appeals court panel says federally funded embryonic stem cell research can continue

Appeals court panel says federally funded embryonic stem cell research can continue - The Washington Post: The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a lower court decision throwing out a lawsuit that challenged federal funding for the research, which is used in pursuit of cures to deadly diseases. Opponents claimed the National Institutes of Health was violating the 1996 Dickey-Wicker law that prohibits taxpayer financing for work that harms an embryo.

Americans United for Life analysis

'via Blog this'

Peter Singer: "It’s irrational to risk women’s lives for the sake of the unborn"

Bioethicist Peter Singer writes in The Scotsman  (emphasis added):

Opponents will respond that abortion is, by its very nature, unsafe – for the foetus. They point out that abortion kills a unique, living human individual. That claim is difficult to deny, at least if by “human” we mean “member of the species Homo sapiens.”

It is also true that we cannot simply invoke a woman’s “right to choose” in order to avoid the ethical issue of the moral status of the foetus. If the foetus really did have the moral status of any other human being, it would be difficult to argue that a pregnant woman’s right to choose includes the right to bring about the death of the foetus, except perhaps when the woman’s life is at stake.

The fallacy in the anti-abortion argument lies in the shift from the scientifically accurate claim that the foetus is a living individual of the species Homo sapiens to the ethical claim that the foetus therefore has the same right to life as any other human being. Membership of the species Homo sapiens is not enough to confer a right to life.

We can plausibly argue that we ought not to kill, against their will, self-aware beings who want to continue to live. We can see this as a violation of their autonomy, or a thwarting of their preferences. But why should a being’s potential to become rationally self-aware make it wrong to end its life before it has the capacity for rationality or self-awareness?

We have no obligation to allow every being with the potential to become a rational being to realise that potential. If it comes to a clash between the supposed interests of potentially rational but not yet conscious beings and the vital interests of actually rational women, we should give preference to the women every time.

Editor: I've highlighted some pretty startling concessions by this pre-eminent "enemy" of our cause. It is "scientifically accurate" to claim the embryo (and, therefore, fetus) is "a unique, living human individual." And it's a pretty big caveat on Singer's part to admit the it's difficult to argue for abortion "except when the woman's life is at stake." Life, not health. 

As to whether it's a leap to make the ethical claim that fetal (or embryo) life is the same as any other human being, we have only to argue that these are mere stages of life. Development of the human person goes on throughout life. It is wrong to arbitrarily attach conditions for one's right to life.

Later: In his essay, Singer cites a recent case in the Dominican Republic which -- he says -- proves his point about a clash of interests between the mother and her baby. Here's an article that refutes the case as he presented it: Dominican Pregnancy Death Sparks American Demagoguery over Life-of-the-Mother Cases. Dr. Patrick Johnston of the Association of Pro-life Physicians is quoted, explaining: “When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness, the preborn patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic.”

Peter Singer: a case study

Peter Singer: a case study | NRL News Today: When veteran pro-lifers tutor newcomers, we try to talk about the entire spectrum of pro-abortion opinion—from what appears to be the product of a genuine conflict to people who simply are unable to find any end point in their anti-life philosophy. The example of the latter that we most commonly use is Peter Singer, the Ira W. Decamp Professor of Bioethics in Princeton University’s Center for Human Values.

'via Blog this'

Love is the Antidote to Prenatal Eugenic Cleansing

Love is the Antidote to Prenatal Eugenic Cleansing | First Things: Unconditional love cuts against the current cultural zeitgeist of our times. Consider: About 90 percent of fetuses testing for genetic conditions such as Down and dwarfism are terminated to the moral support, if not outright cheering, of much of society. It may seem harsh to say, but it is true nonetheless: We are in the midst of a great eugenic cleansing in which diagnosed imperfection often favors abortion.

There may even be overt pressure on parents to terminate from friends, family, and the medical community. The anti “defectives” message is vividly clear. . . .

A cultural expectation is forming in which people believe they not only have a fundamental right to have a baby, but the concomitant right to have the baby they want—and by any technological means necessary. . . .

We claim to extol diversity and tolerance more than at any other time in human history—as we unleash a merciless reproductive pogrom to eradicate imperfection from the human condition.

That’s a crying shame. If I were to pick one human attribute to extol above all others, it wouldn’t be high intelligence, good looks, or athletic prowess—the usual targets for human improvement. Rather, I believe the most crucial human attribute is our capacity to love.

Editor: This is so good. I wish I'd written it.

'via Blog this'

IVF pregnancies terminated because of Down's syndrome

IVF pregnancies terminated because of Down's syndrome - Telegraph: Figures reportedly show that the genetic disorder was the most commonly given reason for terminating a pregnancy achieved [in the UK] through IVF-type treatment in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available.

Editor: This article is somewhat confusing, because it talks about babies conceived in test tubes (IVF) but tested during pregnancy. There's no mention of preimplantation genetic testing (PGD) which is routinely done with IVF to screen out abnormalities. In other words, defective embryos are discarded (I thought) so none are implanted in a woman's uterus. This story is disheartening, but an abortion prior to implantation is still an abortion. And genetic testing prior to implantation also yields "designer babies."

Related: Disabled children often victimized more

Prominent embryonic stem cell researchers leaving field

Prominent embryonic stem cell researchers leaving field, dimming prospects | Stem Cell Research Cures: As research progresses and alternatives to killing human embryos arise, the most prominent advocates and pioneers of human embryonic stem cell research are turning away from the field due to the scientific implausibility and monetary impossibility of the cells ever being used in large scale ways to cure diseases.

Related:
Human bones grown from fat in laboratory
First success for CIRM involves adult stem cells
Amniotic fluid offers alternative stem cell source
'via Blog this'

Is infanticide "madness"?

Washington Post: The pro-choice position for infanticide appears to be here to stay. In a move which will confuse those who think of this position as something new, editor Julian Savulescu is planning a special issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics devoted to infanticide which will have contributions from many of its defenders over the past forty years—including himself, Peter Singer, Michael Tooley, Jeff McMahon, and more. To his credit, Savulescu is also inviting pro-lifers like myself, Robert George, and John Finnis to contribute diverse and opposing views as well.

How should pro-lifers respond to the debate over infanticide? I have tried to convince public pro-life figures like George to resist using language like “madness” to describe the arguments of our opponents. For if one throws out the sanctity of life ethic as one’s moral guide—as we have already done in many aspects of our culture in the developed West—it seems perfectly reasonable to be pro-choice for both abortion and infanticide. In resisting this shift in defense of the sanctity of life, however, the correct strategy is not to insult or call names (or, God forbid, make threats of violence and murder), but instead we should respectfully engage pro-choice arguments for infanticide.

Australia Awards Infanticide Guru Highest Civic Award

Australia Awards Infanticide Guru Highest Civic Award - By Wesley J. Smith - The Corner - National Review Online: Peter Singer has won Australia’s highest civic award. He is best known for advocating the ethical propriety of infanticide. But that isn’t nearly the limit of his odious advocacy. Wesley Smith offers a partial list of some other notable Singer bon mots.

Here's a taste of his writing: The use and abuse of religious freedom

'via Blog this'

The Oral Contraceptive as Abortifacient: An Analysis of the Evidence

Dennis M. Sullivan, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith: Pro-life Christian ethicists and medical practitioners have been united in their opposition to abortion, but have sometimes been divided in their ethical approach to hormonal contraception. Even though many Christians believe that birth control may be a moral option, some claim that the “Pill” acts, at least some of the time, as an abortifacient. If true, Christians who hold that human personhood begins at conception would be morally opposed to the use of combined oral contraceptives.

This article examines the scientific evidence for an abortifacient effect of such contraceptive agents, and concludes that such an effect is yet unproven. Some of the ethical arguments are also examined, and the author suggests that further research on early pregnancy factor (EPF) may help to resolve this controversial issue.

For what it's worth, some Natural Family Planning websites:

• Couple to Couple League
• American Pregnancy Association
• Creighton Model Fertility Care System
• Cycle Beads

Alzheimer's Treatment: Scientists Turn Skin Cells Into Brain Cells

Alzheimer's Treatment: Scientists Turn Skin Cells Into Brain Cells - ABC News: A team of scientists has discovered what could be a novel source for researching and potentially treating Alzheimer's disease and other conditions involving the destruction of brain cells.

Related:

• Stem cells may preclude hip replacements
• UCLA stem cell researchers grow bone from fat cells
• Doctors Transplant Vein Grown from Patient's Own Cells
• Stem Cells From Corpses? Living Cells Can Be Harvested From Bodies Weeks After Death, Study Shows
• Heart disease linked to newly discovered type of stem cell

'via Blog this'

German doctors apologize for Holocaust horrors

MSNBC: The German Medical Association has issued a remarkably blunt and straightforward apology, more than six decades after the end of World War II, for the role it played during the Holocaust in the mass murder, sterilization and barbaric medical experiments done on Jews and many other groups.

Unanimously adopted by the delegates of the Physician's Congress, the declaration makes no excuses and says that contrary to popular belief doctors were not forced by political authorities to kill and experiment on prisoners but rather engaged in the Holocaust as leaders and enthusiastic Nazi supporters.

The apology notes that “outstanding representatives of renowned academic medical and research institutions were involved” in organizing and carrying out the mass extermination of millions. In the history of apologies for crimes and abuses carried out in the name of medicine this is the most important ever made.

Palliative Sedation Not = To Terminal Sedation/Euthanasia

Wesley J. Smith: The pro-euthanasia crowd intentionally and wrongfully conflates palliative sedation – that is sedating a dying patient at the end of life who is experiencing intractable pain or symptoms – with both euthanasia – fast killing the patient – and terminal sedation – slow killing the patient by inducing coma and withdrawing food and water. A good piece in the Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy (201 2;26:30-39) shatters that lie. First, it notes that in palliative sedation, the point is to use the least amount of sedative to accomplish the needed palliation. From “Review of Palliative Sedation and Its Distinction From Euthanasia and Lethal Injection:”

Ideally, the level of palliative sedation is provided in a fashion that is titrated to a minimal level that permits the patient to tolerate unbearable symptoms, yet the patient can continue to periodically communicate…The three most common levels of providing PS include mild, intermediate, and deep. When mild sedation is used, the patient is awake and the level of consciousness is lowered to a somnolent state, withverbal or nonverbal communication still possible. With intermediate sedation, the patient is asleep or stuporous and can still be awakened to communicate briefly. The third level is deep sedation, which refers to the patient being near or in complete unconsciousness and does not communicate verbally or nonverbally. Besides regulating the degree of sedation, palliative sedation may also be provided intermittently or continuously…

The points to take away from the above are 1) palliative sedation is individualized to the patient’s needs, 2) the point isn’t to end the life of the patient, and 3) levels of sedation may vary in the same patient from time to time. In contrast, euthanasia kills the patientwith a lethal injection. And “terminal sedation” is merely the imposition of coma and withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration, sometimes without actual medical need and/or to make it easier for care givers–as in the much abused Liverpool Care Pathway in the UK.

Why Did We Ever Start Calling Patients “Vegetables?”

LifeNews: The term “vegetative state” became popular at the “birth” of bioethics (1978 Belmont Report). It is traced to the “delayed personhood” arguments used at the beginning of life issues: first the vegetative soul is present, then later the sensitive soul is added, and finally (about 3-4 months) the rational soul is added. Then and only then is there a human being with a rational soul to be respected. St. Thomas (following Aristotle), as well as many religions today still follow that odd and scientifically/philosophically false dictum.

What bioethics did was also reverse this dictum to end of life issues — and this was taught in a major seminar at a Georgetown bioethics conference early on (about 1990). Those of us in the seminar on “euthanasia” were taught that — just as there is a series of souls at the beginning of life — at the end of life the reverse happens (supposedly adapted from St. Thomas): in the dying patient, first the rational soul leaves the body, then the sensitive soul leaves the body, and finally the only thing left there in the patient is the vegetative soul — and thus there is no “person” really present! Of course, that would also mean that with euthanasia, physician assisted suicide (PAS), and organ transplantation, the use of such “vegetables” in human research, etc., would be “ethical.”

Women and babies 'put at risk by aggressive IVF'

Women and babies 'put at risk by aggressive IVF' - Telegraph: There is increasing evidence that the standard method of IVF used in Britain, which involves stimulating the ovaries with high doses of drugs to produce large numbers of eggs for harvesting, was damaging to women's health and caused chromosomal abnormalities to resulting embryos.

Related:
The £25m IVF doctor: Clinic’s profits fuel criticism of the ‘human life industry’

Birth-Defect Risk Seen in Assisted Conception

'via Blog this'

Bone grown from human embryonic stem cells

Bone grown from human embryonic stem cells: The study, published in the early online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences during the week of May 14th, is the first example of using bone cell progenitors derived from human embryonic stem cells to grow compact bone tissue in quantities large enough to repair centimeter-sized defects. When implanted in mice and studied over time, the implanted bone tissue supported blood vessel ingrowth, and continued development of normal bone structure, without demonstrating any incidence of tumor growth.

'via Blog this'

Here's one I made earlier

Daily Mail: Making organ donation a thing of the past - the British lab growing human spare parts.

Reproductive Technologies and the Risk of Birth Defects

Reproductive Technologies and the Risk of Birth Defects — NEJM: Although the large majority of births resulting from assisted conception were free of birth defects, treatment with assisted reproductive technology was associated with an increased risk of birth defects, including cerebral palsy, as compared with spontaneous conception. In the case of ICSI, but not IVF, the increased risk of birth defects persisted after adjustment for maternal age and several other risk factors. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that other patient factors contribute to or explain the observed associations, our findings can help provide guidance in counseling patients who are considering treatment for infertility.

Translation please! Here are a couple articles that put the above in plain English:
Risk of major birth defects in fertility babies almost double, research finds
In vitro fertilization off the hook for causing birth defects
Related: 
Fertility treatment only partly responsible for increase in birth defects

Couple has children from different racial backgrounds following alleged IVF mix-up

First study of chromosome test suggests increase in IVF success - success by destroying some embryos

'via Blog this'

A University Professor’s Response to Sanctity of Life and Disability

Lausanne Global Conversation:  A response to Joni Eareckson Tada’s "Sanctity of Life and Disability."

Tyranny consists in the universal desire to dominate beyond one’s own station. . . . Our freedom becomes tyrannical when it is removed from the Christian tradition, for it is the tradition which gave us our freedom in the first place. We have no notion of freedom apart from this tradition. We can’t pick and choose at will because it is not our place to do so. For when we do, we become tyrants, picking and choosing who may live and who must die!

There is nothing wrong with the desire to have a child. . .  The problem is the message it sends about persons affected by disability. They are better not to exist at all. Nothing subverts a pro-life ethic more than such a pursuit.