Slipping Through the Cracks

by Emily Stephens

Mike was an Army private stationed in Afganistan when it happened. TJ was in the Air Force, stationed stateside. Both soldiers were on the clock, working for their country when two acts of gross negligence changed their lives forever. Inhaling aircraft exhaust and other toxic fumes destroyed both men’s normal capacity to breathe.

TJ’s story happened almost eight years ago. Now he works as an Information Technology specialist for a research company who contracts with the government. A life once full of football, jogging, and motocross has been replaced by a face mask, nebulizer, and daily inhalations of the most powerful asmtha drugs on the market. That’s to say nothing about the pain. Nor the fact that at any minute he could lose the last 25% of his remaining lung capacity and, if lucky, wake up in an emergency room.

Every day is a struggle, especially during the spring when pollen pollutes Albuquerque’s usually clean air, thus making breathing unbearable. Has anyone ever apologized or even acknowledged the wrong-doing that led to his illness? Does the government subsidize TJ’s consistent loss of income when he is too ill to work? Does the military provide resources that will allow him to pick up the pieces of his life? The government “takes care” of TJ by offering him free medical care at the local veteran’s hospital. The buck stops there.

Mike’s story is disturbingly similar. He was subjected to unbearable amounts of toxic smoke without a mask. It wasn’t while he was fighting, or even out patroling the war-torn cities of Afganastan, but during his training. Army doctors insist he ‘developed asthma.’ It wasn’t until he visited a private practicioner that he learned he had lost almost 50% of his lung capacity. Now his days are spent with Albuterol close at hand and the constant fear that his inhaler simply won’t help. Last week, he and his wife spent 11 hours in the emergency room after steriods and his nebulizer failed.

These are just two individuals I met by sheer happenstance. It makes me wonder how big a problem there truly is about the gross negligence for the welfare of our soldiers. It bothers me that the military views human beings as “assets”. Words like “troops”, “soldiers”, and “warfighters” dehumanize these people. Body counts on the evening news have become almost meaningless, especially if photos and/or thoughts from their family aren’t included— anything to make them real now that they are gone.

According to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, “About 15 soldiers are wounded for every fatality in Iraq, compared with 2.6 in Vietnam and 2.8 in Korea. With those saved soldiers comes a financial price - one veterans groups and others claim the government is unwilling to pay. The Pentagon keeps 2 sets of books on injured GIs, and the VA will not request enough resources to care for the troops.”

CBS published an interview with Brig. Gen. Gary Cheek a few days ago (July 11, 2008). Cheek is responsible for organizing “Warrior Transition Units” or medical rehabilitation hospitals on various bases throughout the United States dedicated to treating wounded warriors so they can return home or back to the frontlines. After the government came under fire last year following the poor conditions exposed at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Army is going to great bounds to improve its overpopulated outpatient program. However, Cheek admits many soldiers aren't receiving the treatment they were promised. Much of the problem has to do with the sheer number of injured soldiers.

"About 12 percent were wounded in either Iraq or Afghanistan," Brig. Gen. Gary Cheek said. [Nonetheless], if you include those whose injuries could be called combat-related - a stressed-out soldier in a car accident after returning from Iraq, for instance - the percentage goes up to 48 percent. The rest have injuries or illnesses which have nothing to do with combat. As a result, the number of soldiers in Warrior Transition Units exploded from 6,000 to 12,000 - even as casualties in Iraq were going down. With the number of soldiers in transition units increasing by about 600 a month, the Army can't hire health care workers fast enough.

"By the time we got the ratio up to where it needed to be, we were probably 30-to-60 days behind what the population had already grown to," Cheek said. Last week the Army tightened the medical conditions that qualify a solider for a Warrior Transition Unit. And a new order requires all units to be fully staffed by Monday, but some aren't going to make it.

I hope the loyalty, which no longer seems to exist within the white and blue collar workplaces of today, is at least prevalent within our armed forces. Soldiers give their lives to organizations whose overall intent is noble, but something gets lost along the way, and so many slip through the cracks. Why must veterans fight for the care, respect, and benefits they have already earned? What happened to our loyalty and gratitude for their sacrifice?

Most absurd is the fact that TJ and Mike have no recourse. TJ admitted to signing his life away when he joined the Air Force. He agreed to never sue them. Never in his wildest dreams did he think he would ever need to. Like all enlisted soldiers, TJ believed the Air Force would take care of him. He believed they valued his life, and that he wouldn’t be viewed as an expendable ‘asset’. He never thought the meaningless orders to stand in an airplane hangar without a mask would destroy his hopes and dreams.

“I’m lucky,” he explains with persistant optimism. “I have an understanding employer. They are patient with me when I call in sick two or three times every week, or when I have to work from home.” There is concern in his voice, however. Every employer, no matter how kind, has limits to their flexibility, and his employer has been stretched thin on many occasions. “They try to understand, but I never stop worrying,” says TJ. “I could lose my job at any time, and they’d have every right to fire me.”

Fungi Makes for Fun Guys

by Leane Scoz

Psilocybin mushrooms, a.k.a. shrooms, magic mushrooms, boomers, can be traced back a million years, originating in East Africa. The fungi have been widely eaten by Europeans and Native Americans in Central and South America since the late 18th century. Psychedelic mushrooms eventually made their way to the United States and became a popular recreational drug during the 1960s with the advent of the hippie era.

The use of psychedelic mushrooms is subjective and unpredictable. The hallucinogenic experience can produce effects that are physical, sensory, emotional, and psychological. Although their consumption is illegal in most countries, including the United States, shrooms have been the subject of several psychedelic research projects in recent years.

A 2006 press release from Johns Hopkins University outlined a rigorous scientific study involving 36 college educated men and women and showed how the mushrooms produced mystical/spiritual experiences for research subjects. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the research marked a new systematic approach to studying certain hallucinogenic compounds and showed signs of therapeutic potential and value in research into the nature of consciousness and sensory perception.

A recent Associated Press article summarized a report published on July 1, 2008 in the Journal of Pharmacology that provided follow-up to the initial study. The report showed that more than 60 percent of the research subjects reported substantial increases in life satisfaction since the psilocybin experiment. The volunteers reported feeling more creative, self-confident, flexible, and optimistic. They also indicated that they felt more sensitive, tolerant, loving and compassionate since their hallucinogenic research experience.

According to a Newsweek article related to the same research project, the study of hallucinogenic compounds is and has always been controversial despite their potential to reveal secrets of the conscious mind. This is largely due to the federal government's decision to make hallucinogenic drugs, such as psilocybin and LSD, illegal in the 1960s after heavy persuasion by the media. Psychedelic research is not easily funded or sponsored and, until these recent published findings, this type of research has been difficult to legitimize.

Why do scientists continue to pursue this avenue of research? Because of the findings in research projects such as the Johns Hopkins experiment, psilocybin has shown promise in treating conditions including Obsessive Compulsive Spectrum Disorders (OCSD), anxiety in terminally ill cancer patients, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

A Cure fo MS: Caffeine

by Leane Scoz

Caffeine. The helper that gets people out of bed and out the door in the mornings. The best friend of college students pulling all-nighters. The co-worker that keeps the office staff awake throughout the day. The cure for multiple sclerosis (MS)?

According to a recent Web MD headline on CBS News, a new study involving mice found that large amounts of caffeine blocked key steps in the development of MS. A dose of caffeine, equivalent to six to eight cups of coffee a day, was effective in preventing the compound, adenosine, from getting into the brain and triggering the onset of the disease.

The study is the work of Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation scientist, Linda Thompson, PhD, and according to her, "the results were completely unexpected." The study's principal author, Margaret Bynoe, PhD, does not believe it is wise for people to start drinking more coffee due to these initial results. She acknowledges that caffeine has not been proven to be protective in humans yet and believes future studies may unveil other adenosine blockers that could be more useful. However, the results are still encouraging.

MS is a chronic, often disabling, autoimmune disease that attacks the central nervous system. Numerous physical and mental symptoms occur because of the disease and often progress to physical and cognitive disability. About 400,000 people in the United States have MS. These people are our family members, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. Since a cure does not currently exist for the disease, people suffering from MS rely on treatments, therapies, and research studies for hope.

It is crazy to think that a cure for MS could be in the kitchen pantries of most Americans right now. Hopefully, answers will be available in the near future since studies involving human subjects are in the planning process. Until then, let's all sit back and toast that great cup of java. Who knows...maybe Americans really do run on Dunkin!

URBAN LEGEND?

By Emily Stephens

Have you seen this YouTube video yet? It has well over a million hits. Three adults surround a few popcorn kernels with their cell phones, then dial each phone until--POP! POP! POP! POP!

Can cell phones really emit enough radiation to pop popcorn?

According to Cardo Systems CEO Abraham Glezerman, the answer is no. The video is a hoax. An illusion produced by his company, which manufactures and sells blue tooth headsets.

What’s interesting, though, is it came on the heels of some disturbing research that actually starts to link cell phone radiation with cancer (see the article Electrosmog, Cell Phones, and Cancer.... Oh My! below.)

So, how in the world did they do it?

Theories run the gamut: optical illusions, CGI, mini-microwaves beneath the table... The answer to the mystery is a kitchen stove and digital editing. Kernels were erased from the scene using editing software and real popcorn was thrown onto the table to steal away our attention.

Ah, the magic of technology—hopefully no brain tumors were acquired during the process.

This internet commercial circulated across the world wide web like a virus. I received it myself and wasn’t sure what do believe. Hoax or not, I look at my cell phone a little differently now. So, although highly entertaining, was this video “commercial” effective at selling Cardo Systems, or did it just scare a lot of unsuspecting, naïve viewers?

That's One Fat Baby!

by Emily Stephens

According to a recent study, child care may lead to rather chunky infants. A University of Illinois study collected data on more than 8,100 nine-month old babies, who were weighed and measured repeatedly between 2001 and 2002.

Fifty-five percent of the infants received daily care from someone other than a parent. Infants in part-time care gained 0.4 more pounds over nine months that those cared for by parents, and even those cared for by relatives gained 0.35 more pounds. Researchers believe this is primarily due to lack of breast-feeding and early introduction to solid food. In fact, other studies suggest breast-feeding for the first year of life may actually instill a physical protection against obesity.

Dr. David Katz, director of Yale’s Prevention Research Center warns that the threat of obesity is a new challege in America's nurseries. "Studies show obesity emerging as a problem even in the first year of life. This, in turn, results in a higher risk of diabetes in youth, and lifelong obesity and its many consequences."

Just how many infants are placed prematurely into day care? Back in March 1970, 24% of working mothers had children under two-years old enrolled in some form of care. By March 1984 that figure jumped to 46.8%. More currently, it is estimated that only 25% of infants are cared for by a parent in their own homes. The other 75% are watched by a baby-sitter or local family day care group (most often run out of a neighbor’s home). More startling is that only 6% of infants and 12% of children under two-years-old are enrolled in licensed center-based day care (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, June 1982). Furthermore, the choice of care is most often based upon affordability and convenience rather than quality.

After reading all those statistics, you can imagine how child care obesity could become a very real problem. Low-income families don’t necessarily have their pick’o’the litter when it comes to affording day care. Quality infant rearing can understandably take a back seat to making ends meet. Some studies do show, however, that average day care can benefit low-income children by preventing the IQ drop that typically takes place between the ages of 12 and 30 months for those living at home. At least these children have some room to benefit from the situation. The bottom line, however, is that the choice of care is more often determined by cost and availability, than quality.

Food choices served at day care also play a critical role in intellectual development of children. The July issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine reported a study where Guatemalan children were given a protein-rich enhanced nutritional supplement between 1969 and 1977, and other children received sugary beverages. Between 2002 and 2004, almost 1,500 participants were given intelligence tests. As it turns out, the adults who were given the supplement early in their youth scored better on intelligence tests regardless of how many years they spent in school.

A trio of thought-provoking articles this past week

In the U.K., Human-pig hybrid embryos given go ahead:

"A licence to create human-pig embryos to study heart disease has been issued by the fertility watchdog.

This marks the third animal-human hybrid embryo licence to be issued by Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the first since the Commons voted in favour of this controversial research last month.

An HFEA spokesman said it had approved an application from the Clinical Sciences Research Institute, University of Warwick, for the creation of hybrid embryos..." Full article accessible here.

From Uganda's leading website: Genital Mutilation - Women Grapple With a Deadly Tradition - "In the scorching afternoon sunshine, Philis Yapchemusto stands in the compound of a tiny building that houses the headquarters of Reproductive, Educative and Community Health (REACH) programme. The community-based programme was established in Kapchorwa to improve reproductive health conditions and stop female genital mutilation." Full article can be read here.

From Scientific American: What is self-awareness?
"Can a lobster ever truly have any emotions? What about a beetle? Or a sophisticated computer? The only way to resolve these questions conclusively would be to engage in serious scientific inquiry—but even before studying the scientific literature, many people have pretty clear intuitions about what the answers are going to be. A person might just look at a computer and feel certain that it couldn’t possibly be feeling pleasure, pain or anything at all. That’s why we don’t mind throwing a broken computer in the trash." Rest of the story here.

My Journey for the TMJ Miracle Cure

By Emily Stephens

Who the Heck Are You and What Did You Do With My Dentist?

The once amiable, “Good afternoon, Miss Stephens. You have no cavities. Just floss a little more, and we’ll see you in six months” has changed to:

“Ew, oh, my. Have you ever considered whitening? We do that here.” (Not covered by insurance.)

“People die from oral cancer. Would you like to save your life and take a ten-minute cancer screening test? It’s only $80…” (Also not covered by insurance.)

And…

“Has your jaw ever popped? You really need to get fitted for a $600 bite plate.” (Yup, you guessed it. Definitely not covered by insurance.)

During the last five years, I have waltzed in and out of countless dental offices dismayed by sales gimmicks. How in the world can I trust a dentist to give me responsible advice when their eyes are fixed upon my wallet and not my teeth? I’ve tolerated it, though. A good dentist is a good dentist, even if they act more like a used car salesman.

However, back in March, a neurologist at the Mayo clinic prescribed a bite guard to ease the stress endured by my TMJ, which was quite possibly triggering terrible migraines. You know, the really bad kind where you go blind, your arms and legs become numb, speaking is next to impossible, and that’s to say nothing of the pain. Unfortunately, migraines have a way of making its sufferers lose all perspective, and in desperation, sufferers will try or pay anything for a miracle cure.

A local internet search led me to Dr. Kavorkian (whose name was changed to protect his identity),a dentist specializing in TMJ disorders and migraines. His secretary scheduled a free hour-long consultation—at which point I should’ve known to run away—but after filling out a million forms and watching a 25-minute testimonial that turned Dr. Kavorkian’s occlusal treatment (bite modification) biteguards into a religious experience, I was still hopeful.

The skeptic in me was brimming with questions. How does it work? How long does it take? How much does it cost? To my surprise, it took the full hour and a few threatening staredowns to coax anything out of him. His device required weekly visits for an undetermined amount of time (for some patients it took years), and at the “meager cost” of $20,000.

Are you kidding me?

Unfortunately, I’m not. Even more regrettably, I must report that am not alone out there either:

“I have had TMJ since 1984. When I first got it, no one knew what it was. As of this date I have spent approximately $30,000 over the years having my splint adjusted.”

“I have had to stand by and watch people tell [my mother] that the pain she feels is all in her head and that it can't be that bad. I feel that I am watching her slowly give up. Now they told her she has to go through a complete joint replacement and that is going to cost at least $67,000+ and her insurance does not cover a dime if those three little letters are mentioned, ‘tmj’.”

“A dentist convinced me I needed to have all my teeth capped for $75,000 and then after that he said my teeth were perfect and I should go see a shrink and I did. She and I both couldn't figure out why if this was the problem he didn't tell me to see a shrink [during] the 3 years he was working on my teeth. Now I live my life with a bite guard on most of the time. I don't know who to trust or where to go.”

Over 10 million people suffer from poorly misunderstood TMJ diseases or disorders, characterized by severe joint and surrounding tissue pain. The temporomandibular joint (or TMJ) is the jaw joint, a highly complicated joint that allows movement up and down, side-to-side, and forward and back. TMJ is most likely not covered by medical insurance, unless the situation is so severe that the sufferer is incapable of eating, and therefore starving.

Before I left my consultation, Dr. Kavorkian added in the brief observation of how bad I looked, then finished with a story about a handicapped boy who could barely walk and who by some miracle found his way to Dr. Kavorkian’s office, received a biteguard, and is now completely healed. The dentist managed a tear.

Apparently, this life-saving, bioesthetic dentistry gadget is the newest rave in TMJ disorder treatment. Imagine fixing TMJ problems with a specially fitted bite guard that week-to-week is altered or ‘shaved down’ by the dentist until your joints fit together perfectly. Think ‘braces’, but for joints and muscles.

According to the TMJ Association:

“Bioesthetic dentistry is another name for bite modification. It is based on the idea that such diverse signs and symptoms as worn or cracked teeth, gum recession, a history of multiple root canal treatments, headache, TMJ problems, ringing in the ears, equilibrium problems, fibromyalgia, etc. are all related to a disharmony between the way the teeth meet and the correct position of the temporomandibular joint. The bioesthetic dentist has patients wear a bite appliance called a MAGO (Maxillary Anterior Guided Orthotic)…which is supposed to get the bite to match the correct jaw position. This position is then maintained by tooth grinding, bonding, crowns or braces. There is no scientific evidence to support the claims made by the bioesthetic dentists, and patients should be wary of having such irreversible changes made to their teeth and bite without such evidence. (Response by Dr. Daniel Laskin.)

The Good Ol’ FCA

False Claim Act (FCA) lawsuits are repeatedly brought against pharmaceutical companies whose marketing practices are questionable: kickbacks, artificial inflation of wholesale prices, giving doctors consultant fees, grants, and other inducements to recommend their product.

So why aren’t dentists held to the same ethical standards when it comes to marketing TMJ products? Furthermore, why aren’t TMJ disorders covered under medical insurance plans when so many suffer this debilitating problem? How do we weed through the gimmicks to determine the truth about the state of our oral health? Finally, what are the rights of TMJ disorder sufferers?

It is important to know that "recklessness and deliberate ignorance are enough. Under the FCA, a business can be held liable for a false claim even if it did not actually know the claim was false. Because it is often difficult to differentiate between innocent mistakes and "recklessness," an FCA allegation is easy to make and difficult to disprove."

Also know that "almost anyone can sue. The FCA authorizes whistle-blowers to file lawsuits for alleged violations of the FCA. As a reward, the whistle-blowers get a percentage of anything a business pays in settlement or as the result of a judgment. Aside from a few specific limitations, virtually anyone can accuse a business of violating the FCA, including disgruntled employees, former employees, and business competitors. Because of the large reward and the large number of potential plaintiffs, the risk of an FCA lawsuit is very high."

As a chronic tooth grinder, a miracle cure bite plate that guarantees restful nights and migraine-less days did sound appealing. I’ve gnawed through several flimsy $600 bite guards within months in the past and decided it would have been equally productive to stick rolled up $20 bills between my teeth at night. I must admit, the desperate part of me was ready to sink all my savings into the miracle bite guard, but after leaving Dr. Kavorikian’s office, reality caught up with me, as did anger. How can dentists, medical professionals bound by the hippocratic oath, ethically monopolize on the sick and afflicted by trying to convince them to go into incredible amounts of debt for something unproven?

Until next time, snap, crackle, pop—ouch.

Are Apes People Too?

By Jenny Walters

A recent article entitled Animal-Rights Farm: Apes rights and the myth of animal equality by William Saletan discussed a “resolution headed for passage in the Spanish parliament” that will be supporting the Great Ape Project.[1]

The Great Ape Project (GAP) is an organization whose founding declaration states apes “may not be killed” or “arbitrarily deprived of their liberty.” The Spanish proposal will treat great apes “like humans of limited capacity, such as children or those who are mentally incompetent and are afforded guardians or caretakers to represent their interests.” The passage of this proposal would, “commit the (Spanish) government to ending involuntary use of apes in circuses, TV ads, and dangerous experiments.1

Peter Singer, the co-founder of GAP, states: “There is no sound moral reason why possession of basic rights should be limited to members of a particular species.” Saletan went on to state: “To borrow Martin Luther King’s rule, you should be judged by what’s inside you, not what’s on the surface.”1

Opponents of the GAP view this proposal as “egalitarian extremism.” Spanish newspapers and citizens complain that ape rights are “distracting lawmakers from human problems.”

According to one anti-animal rights reporter: “Animal rights activist believe a rat, is a pig, is a dog, is a boy.”1 In contrast, GAP believes “great apes experience an emotional and intellectual conscience similar to that of human children.” GAP demands humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans are “members of the community of equals.” Singer adds: “GAP may pave the way for the extension of rights to all primates, or all mammals, or all animals.”1

The mission statement for GAP states, “great apes are entitled to rights based on their ‘morally significant characteristics.’”1 The mission reads as follows:

The idea is founded upon undeniable scientific proof that non-human great apes share more than genetically similar DNA with their human counterparts. They enjoy a rich emotional and cultural existence in which they experience emotions such as fear, anxiety and happiness. They share the intellectual capacity to create and use tools, learn and teach other languages. They remember their past and plan for their future. It is in recognition of these and other morally significant qualities that the Great Ape Project was founded.[2]

Saletan believes the GAP mission statement appeals to discrimination, not to universal equality; as most animals can’t make tool and don’t teach languages. He went on to compare the GAP mission to a “Moral Majority for vegans.”1

In a final note in the article, Saletan used a quote from George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “All animal are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.”1

This article was interesting in pointing out both sides of the argument for great ape rights. The article reports: “We are closer genetically to a chimp than a mouse is to rat.”1 The article also describes how some animal rights activists believe “a rat, is a pig, is a dog, is a boy.” Personally, I am not sold on this of being the same as a rat. However, I do feel there should be basic rights set on place for all animals and I do support the GAP proposal.

As a pet owner, I can tell each of my dogs have their own unique personalities. To me, they are just furry humans.

[1] Saletan W. Animal-rights farm: ape rights and the myth of animal equality. July 2008. Available at: http://www.slate.com/id/2194568/. Accessed on July 3, 2008.
[2] The Great Ape Project. Mission statement. Available at: http://www.greatapeproject.org/index.php. Accessed on July 4, 2008.

Bioethics: Finding Our Shared Moral Core

Under the direction and management of psychologist, author and founding member Valerie Tarico, Phd, the Wisdom Commons is one of the newest ethics initiatives of the Women’s Bioethics Project.

The purpose of the Wisdom Commons is to affirm, inspire, and shed light on humanity's shared moral core, meaning the convergence of our religious and secular wisdom traditions and emerging wisdom culture. Many times we define ourselves in terms of our differences. But the truth is that some of our deepest concerns and highest values transcend the boundaries of culture and tradition. Early in childhood, before we even can walk and talk, the moral emotions, empathy, shame, and guilt begin to emerge. They guide us as we take our first steps toward living in community with each other.

Around the world people recognize that the joy and pain of others are similar to their own joy and pain, and wisdom traditions express this through different forms of the golden rule. We also generally agree about what kind of qualities we seek in our friends, our leaders, and ourselves. These instincts, emotions, understandings and agreements form our moral core. This moral core in turn serves the well-being of the intricate web of life around us and, foremost, the well-being of humans within that web.

The Wisdom Commons belongs to all who use it and contribute to it. Members have the ability to create personal wisdom pages that include their favorite quotes, stories and so forth from the library. A personal wisdom page can also include content that is authored by that member. Over time, we seek to build a diverse community of stewards reflecting the various traditions of our users. These stewards will also create personal wisdom pages so that their core values are visible to our members and users.

The Wisdom Commons emerged out of two years of conversations among people who share a passion for these issues. It was catalyzed into existence by a five day event in April of 2008, Seeds of Compassion, the realization of a dream by the Venerable Tenzin Dhonden and Dan Kranzler of the Kirlin Foundation. Seeds of Compassion brought over 150,000 people together to discuss how best to nurture compassion in our children and communities. It was televised in 24 languages around the world.

It is impossible to acknowledge everyone who shaped or contributed to the project, but they include Valerie Tarico, Brian Arbogast, Jennifer Hobbs, Katherine Triandafilou, Porter Bayne, Kathryn Hinsch, Darcy Rubel, Yaffa Maritz, Lee Colleton, Clif Swiggett, Bruno Alabiso, Jonathan Mark, Kathy Washienko, Matt Lerner, Mike Mathieu, Laura Peterson, John Rae Grant, Brynn Arborico, Marley Arborico, Zuzana Nemcova, Iris Chamberlain, Jean Harrison, James Peterson, Ruth Lipscomb, and others.

The Wisdom Commons draws much inspiration and some of its structure and content from The Virtues Project International, which provides curriculum, training and inspirational materials that elevate virtues in every day life. Many thanks to Linda and Dan Popov and John Kavelin for their thoughtful, patient labor of love. The beauty and meditative feel of the Commons are the handiwork of Jody and Cynthia Baxter, who created WorldPrayers.org.

Please join us.

Who Gets Born?

aThe Bioethics Council of New Zealand has given its government a lot to think about.

The council issued a report in mid-June recommending that parents be given the right to choose the sex of their babies in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). New legislation would replace a 2004 law that bans gender selection except as part of treatment for rare genetic diseases.

The report, appropriately titled “Who Gets Born?,” issues a series of recommendations to the government on pre-birth testing and the challenging developments in PGD. With the hope of producing “better, longer-lasting, and wiser policy decisions,” the council used public deliberation to frame ethical issues before making its recommendations.

In its summary, the council concluded that there are “insufficient cultural, ethical, and spiritual reasons to prohibit the use of PGD for sex selection for social reasons such as family balancing.”

Critics of the recommendation include the New Zealand Catholic Bioethics Centre, which issued an immediate response to the council’s report. Taking the position of all embryos being created equal, the Catholic Bioethics Centre asks: “What stops parents from using the technology for nothing more than parental desires? [We believe] in welcoming the children we are given rather than ordering them according to specifications.”

The gender selection debate might be a fresh topic in New Zealand, but it’s nothing new in the United States. In contrast to New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom, there is no ban on sex selection in America. In fact, some foreign couples—those who can afford it, anyway—avoid national bans on sex selection by traveling to the U.S. for medical procedures.

As with other medical advancements, gender selection doesn’t float through the public consciousness without sparking a healthy dose of ethical debate. Is sex selection a dangerous path that leads to discrimination against “non-selected” individuals? Are parents using the technology to fulfill their own desires as opposed to respecting life? Or is sex selection an important individual right not to be regulated by government?

This summer, it’s up to the New Zealand government to decide.

Pharma and Philanthropy

By Randy Hendrickson

How do the major pharmaceutical companies compare in providing drugs, diagnostics, and vaccines to people in lower income countries? A new index (Access to Medicine Index) rates pharmaceutical companies in terms of how well they provide aid and outreach to poor, undeveloped countries with third world diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis, or malaria. The 2008 Outcome Index ratings are based on data in 8 areas, including management, influence, R&D, patenting, capacity, pricing, donations, and philanthropy. The index examines issues such as:

How cheaply products are sold to third world countries;
Which drugs or vaccines are sent to which countries;
Whether generic versions of patented drugs are used;
How much is actually donated; and
What research is done in the areas of third world diseases.

The Access to Medicine Foundation, based in Haarlem, The Netherlands, “aims to advance access to health care (in the widest sense of the word) in developing countries and, in particular, to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to accept a bigger role regarding access to medicine in pre-industrialized countries.” Their motto is “Engaging Industry Through Transparency”.

The top 5 industry leaders that were identified by Access to Medicine Index are:

1. GlaxoSmithKline (UK)
2. Novo Nordisk (Denmark)
3. Merck & Co. (NJ, USA)
4. Novartis (Switzerland)
5. Sanofi-Aventis (France)

The pharmaceutical companies have been permitted to verify the data in the index, and the methodology and data analysis has been reviewed by an independent panel of experts.

For a complete listing and data breakdown, see The 2008 Index Outcomes at:
http://atmindex.org/index/2008.

Daycare: The Strong Will Survive

By Leane Scoz

A recent article in Newsweek suggests that children who attend daycare are healthier than kids who do not by the time they enter kindergarten.

According to columnist, Claudia Kalb, more than 7 million children are enrolled in daycare. Everyone who has ever had a child in daycare knows that they and their child will probably contract a wide variety of illnesses within the first year of their child's attendance. The illnesses run the gamut, from the common cold and earaches to more sever infections such as RSV and the flu. With all of the pain and suffering parents and children have to endure, does the light really shine at the end of the tunnel after daycare?

Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, say yes. An analysis of their studies revealed that daycare children have a 30 percent lower risk of developing childhood leukemia due to the increased exposure to infections. University of Arizona scientists carried out research over the last 10 years and found that although kids in daycare get twice as sick as their non-daycare counterparts, they have a third fewer illnesses by the time they enter elementary school. The research also showed that daycare children are less likely to develop asthma.

However, parents of children who do not attend daycare should not be discouraged. By the time children are teenagers, researchers report that no difference exists in either group of children because their immune systems catch up with each other.

The bottom line--allow the circle of illness to continue and do not worry too much about children in daycare. Everyone equals out in the long run.

No More Monkey Business

By Randy Hendrickson

Do the advancement of science and the possibility of finding new therapeutic options for disease justify “offending the dignity” of animals?

According to Nature (June 12, 2008; 453(7197):833), the local administrative court in Zurich, Switzerland recently banned several research experiments on macaque monkeys that were being performed jointly by the University of Zurich and the Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETHZ). Macaques are the most widespread genus of primates and are found in northern Africa as well as parts of Asia. The brains of these monkeys are closely related to those of humans in structure, and they make an excellent research model for studying neurological function and dysfunction.

The aim of the experiments was to study how the cortex of the brain adapts to change. One experiment involved depriving the monkeys of water (or any other drinks) for long periods of time so that they would value the reward of apple juice more when they performed a task correctly. Another experiment required that the monkeys be sacrificed after the experiment in order to examine the microcircuitry of the cortex of the brain. These experiments were previously approved by the Swiss National Science Foundation; however, an external animal experimentation advisory board challenged the right to continue the research on the grounds that it would “offend the dignity” of the monkeys.

Swiss law mandates that the benefits to society must outweigh the burden to the animals. In addition, a new court interpretation of the law demands that there must be immediate benefits gained from the research. According to the court ruling, “society is unlikely to see the benefits of the research during the 3-year funding period approved, and thus the burden on the animals is not justified.”

Conversely, according to PETA, the British government automatically rubber stamps most animal research, even when the benefits are vague or intangible. The main difference between the Brits and the Swiss is that the Swiss require that the benefits be immediate, whereas the Brits only have to show that there may possibly be benefits further down the road. Unfortunately, this has led to more than 3 million animal experiments in Britain annually despite obvious scientific failings.

The Swiss researchers feel that the use of the “immediate benefit” requirement is completely unrealistic and will impede progress in preventing and treating neurologic conditions such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases. Both the University of Zurich and the Federal Institute of Technology Zurich are planning appeal the lower court’s decision in hopes that they can continue their research.

Electrosmog, Cell Phones, and Cancer.... Oh My!

By Emily Stephens

“The Earth is being engulfed in electrosmog!” Arthur Firstenberg is one of the growing number of electromagnetic hypersensitive (EHS) people who suffer physical and psychological symptoms reportedly caused by electromagnetic fields. Imagine terrible headaches, nausea, or heart arrhythmia whenever being near Wi-Fi, a computer, a cell phone, or electric lights. Firstenberg, along with a handful of others are fighting to stop a plan to install Wi-Fi in all Santa Fe public libraries and government buildings. His argument seems to be falling on deaf ears.

Santa Fe’s city attorney determined EHS is not covered by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Furthermore, there is no legal precedent where Wi-Fi has ever been identified as the cause of EHS. So far, the Santa Fe City Council remains undecided.

Proponents of Wi-Fi insist there is no proven, causal link between the medical symptoms and wireless technology. The World Health Organization agrees with them: although the symptoms of EHS "are certainly real" and disabling for those affected, "there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF (electromagnetic field) exposure." So, is the etiology of EHS simply psychosomatic?

In 1988, 60 Swedish employees of an Ericsson subsidary company developed EHS after a mobile phone base station was installed on their office building’s roof. At first, the company tried to keep quiet about the whole ordeal. After receiving a $1 million grant from the Swedish Working Life Fund, they decided to go public and change the working environment. Unfortunately, most of those who were affected are still hypersensitive.

Interesting to note, Sweden is the only country in the world that accepts electrosensitivity as a physical impairment. Over 2.4% of their population is registered as having some form of EHS. Apply that ratio to the US population, and one could extrapolate that as many as 6.5 million Americans experience wireless symptoms.

Nikola Tesla is the first person suspected of having EHS. Recognized as one of the greatest technological scientists of all time, Tesla developed a severe illness late in life that many believe was caused by repeated exposure to high levels of electromagnetic fields.

"To doctors [Tesla] appeared at death's door. One of the symptoms of the illness was an acute sensitivity of all the sense-organs. His senses had always been extremely keen, but this sensitivity was now so tremendously exaggerated that the effects were a form of torture. The ticking of a watch three rooms away sounded like the beat of hammers on an anvil. The vibration of ordinary city traffic, when transmitted through a chair or bench, pounded through his body." -The Life of Nikola Tesla by John J. O'Neill

Whether or not you believe in EHS, wireless technology has actually been proven dangerous. This last February, Dr. Seigal Sadetzki found a link between chronic cell phone usage and the development of benign and malignant tumors within the salivary gland. Those who used cell phones heavily on one side of the head were found to have an increased risk of 50% for developing main salivary gland (parotid) tumors, as compared to non-users. Sadetzki's study, which investigated nearly 500 people diagnosed with salivary gland tumors, also found those who live in rural areas have an increased risk for cancer. Rural areas typically have fewer cell phone towers and antennas, so cell phones must emit more radiation in order to work.

“While I think this technology is here to stay,” Sadetzki says, “I believe precautions should be taken in order to diminish the exposure and lower the risk for health hazards.” Her recommendations?

1. Use hands-free devices at all times.
2. When talking, hold the phone away from one’s body.
3. Call less frequently.
4. Shorten the length of your calls.

The moral of the story? Beware of electrosmog, cell phones, and cancer. Hmmm. I guess now we know. And knowing is half the battle, right?

There are Bugs in My Food

By: Jenny Walters

A recent report on National Public Radio (NPR) entitled “Getting the Goods on ‘Good Bacteria’” by Allison Aubrey and a recent article entitled “Eat Your Germs” by Sanjay Gupta, MD discussed the new trend of probiotics in yogurt.

“A probiotic is any substance containing live organisms that, when ingested, have a beneficial effect on the host by altering the body’s intestinal microflora.”[1] Probiotics are often referred to as the “good” bacteria and can be found in yogurt, kefirs, and in pill-form as dietary supplements. The “good” bacteria can include Lactobacillus reuteri, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, and Bifidus regularis.[2]

The theory behind probiotics is, “certain strains of these living organisms – or good bacteria—can displace bad bacteria in the gut.”1 One trial dealing with the popular Activia yogurt split healthy volunteers into two groups: one ate Activia and the other ate an inactive form of Activia product with no love bacteria. At the end of the study, the volunteers who ate the Activia with live bacteria experienced a 21% decrease in colon transit time (meaning food passed more quickly out of their bodies).1

According to Dr. Gary Huffnagle: “In the digestive tract the bacteria help to regulate and restore peristalsis, the rhythmic motion of he intestine that pushes digested food through…Doesn’t matter if you are constipated or the opposite…these bacteria can help make you regular.”2

In addition to aiding in regularity, the “good” bacteria can also battle numerous forms of allergies, irritable bowel, and pediatric diarrhea.1,2 In a recent study, researchers gave Lactobacillus GG, sold under the brand name Culturelle or VSL-3, to pregnant women with a history of allergies and then to their infants. The study revealed babies who received Lactobacillus GG developed a significantly lower rate of allergic eczema than the control group that did not take the product.1 However, in other studies in children with well-managed Crohn’s disease, probiotics did not reduce gastrointestinal flare-ups.1

Currently, because probiotics are categorized as dietary supplements, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not approve them.1 In addition, there are some people who should not take probiotics. According to Dr. Gupta, those with weakened immune systems and those who are critically ill should not ingest foods with live bacteria.2 Furthermore, probiotics can take some time to adjust to. If one suddenly began to ingest large amounts of probiotic products, there is a possibility of developing uncomfortable bloating.2

As Dr. Huffnagle reports: “You have just started a civil war in your intestines between good bacteria and bad bacteria….Fortunately the war is usually over in one to two weeks and the good guys win.”

Dr. Gupta suggests plain yogurt remains the best product for added bacteria because it has three things the bugs absolutely love: lactose, fat, and water. However, with more than $100 million in sales in Activia’s first year in the U.S. alone, the “good” bacteria idea seems to be paying off.2 Due to successful sales of Activia, other companies are beginning to market probiotic yogurt drinks, fortified beverages, and chocolate bars.

I am not yet sold on the idea of probiotics. Personally, I prefer to stick with plain old yogurt instead of the super infused bacteria yogurt.

[1] Aubrey A. Getting the good on ‘good bacteria.’ July 2006. Available at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5569230. Accessed on Jun 28, 2008.
[2] Gupta S, M.D. Eat your germs. May 2008. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1703763_1703764_1725938,00.html. Accessed on June 28, 2008.

The lives of children in unstable nations

By: Jenny Walters

A recent article posted on CNN.com entitled Kids’ lives are nightmares in unstable nations, UNICEF reports, focused on the emerging number of child related crimes taking place in unstable nations, such as Haiti.

According to a recent United Nation’s Children’s Fund report: “More than 50 children have been abducted in Haiti since the beginning of the year, adding to a trend of kidnappings in countries affected by violence.”[1]

Children in countries, such as Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Iraq, which are affected by war, food shortages and poverty, have become targets for armed groups who see them as commodities. In Haiti, UNICEF and local officials report that kidnapped children are being rapped, tortured and murdered. Currently, the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti is working with the national police force to try to put a stop to such crimes.

In the Dominican Republic as many as 2,000 children a year are trafficked, often with the parents’ support.1 Another 1,000 children are working as spies, messengers or soldiers for armed gangs in the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince.

In Iraq, children have been recruited by militia and insurgent groups. “Girls are increasingly subject to murder, kidnapping and rape, or are being abducted and trafficked within or outside Iraq for sexual exploitation.”1

In the Central African Republic, armed gangs terrorize farms and communities, kidnapping children and holding them ransom.1 Souleimane Garga, in Paoua, told UNICEF, “Bandits broke into his home nearly two years ago and kidnapped his wife, newborn, baby, and two other children, after killing older family members including an uncle and a grandfather.” For two-years, two of his children were held in bush camps, as he was “financially broken” after paying to free his wife and newborn and could not pay the ransom for his other two children. Souleimane’s children are home now, but wake with nightmares and cries remembering what they endured in the bush camps.1

Earlier this month, following the murder of a 16-year-old hostage and the rapping and lynching of other hostages, including infants, a demonstration was held in Haiti’s capital. UNICEF’s Haiti representative stated: “There is no acceptable motive or rationale for these crimes, as there is no acceptable excuse that they should be allowed to continue with flagrant impunity.”1

In July 2006, UNICEF’s report on child soldiers in the nation, reported “as many as 30,000 children may be associated with armed forces or groups as fighters.”1 Of those children, “30 to 40 percent of children associated with armed forces are girls.”

After reading this report, I was almost in tears. The thought that children and families are put through such unimaginable acts, is both disturbing and unsettling. Yet, this type of cruelty takes place in all parts of the world on a daily basis. I look in my daughter’s eyes everyday and could not imagine my world without her.

[1] CNN.com. Kids’ lives are nightmares in unstable nations, UNICEF reports. Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/06/21/unicef/index.html. Accessed on June 21, 2008.

If i were a rich man, could I buy a pancreas?

Our friend and colleague, Art Caplan, explains in his latest column why cash for kidneys is a scheme that won't work:

Need extra livers hearts or kidneys to transplant because the demand is greater than the supply? The answer, say proponents, is simple. Put a price on kidneys and livers and people will be falling all over one another to sell them. Set the price high enough and hordes will amble into hospitals, sign binding agreements to let themselves be sawed into transplantable bits for cash upon their demise, the thinking goes.

In fact, the American Medical Association recently called for pilot studies on financial incentives for organ sales.

Sounds good, right? Not so fast. Despite the AMA’s enthusiasm for testing a cash-for-parts scheme, it will never work in America.

The market of supply and demand has its place. When it comes to things like cars and paperclips, what we pay for them goes, in part, to helping make more. But when it’s impossible or difficult to create more of the item that’s in high demand, markets simply hike prices to ration access to whatever resource exists. If you don’t believe me, visit a gas station or a ticket scalper.

The supply of transplantable organs is very limited. Despite the AMA’s hopes, we are not going to get a lot more simply by putting a price tag on them.

Not so easy
Becoming an organ donor when you die is actually a very difficult thing to do. About 2.5 million people died in the U.S. last year. But only about 25,000 transplants were done using cadaver organs. While it may seem like there’s plenty of potential to get more organs if the price is right, which is what the AMA apparently is thinking, getting a big boost in the supply from cadavers would be very hard.

You can only be an organ donor if you die in a hospital on life-support. Very few of us do. And you need to be in fairly good shape except for a traumatic injury to your brain. Add to that the fact that donors cannot have any serious communicable diseases and the number of possible donors in that 2.5 million pool shrinks to a fraction.

Many of those who haven’t already signed up to be a potential donor probably have little interest in doing so. The prospect of legally auctioning off their useful remains to the highest bidder when their number is up is not likely to change their minds.

Money and body parts don’t mix
Whether for religious or cultural reasons, some Americans don’t like mixing money and body parts. Some just don’t trust the health care system and fear being rushed off to their maker prematurely if they indicate a willingness to be a donor — a fear not likely to be assuaged if paying for organs makes people worth more dead than alive. Others think markets in body parts smacks of treating bodies as property in a way akin to slavery — something this nation fought a horrendous war to eliminate. And still others know their religion does not permit treating the body as property — what is a gift from God cannot be sold but only stewarded.

If this country were to allow financial incentives for organs, the money would presumably go to the family or the deceased’s designee. But if these people have their hand on the life-support plug and know they stand to make good money as soon as the owner of the valuable body parts is dead, how hard are they going to try to keep that owner alive? While offering money for organs might persuade a few more to donate, it is more likely to turn off those now willing to consider giving out of fear or knowing there’s a reward for their death. Net result: A loss in the overall number of organs available.

The same story applies to using money to encourage living donations. Unless things take a really unethical turn, we are only talking about kidneys and parts of liver or pancreas. But having surgery to remove those organs, and living without them, carries real medical risks. Are there really lots of Americans who are going to line up to sell their parts knowing that potentially nasty complications and even a slight risk of death will follow? I doubt it. And even if some are willing, it won’t be long before prices start to inch up, opening a bidding war for scarce organs and leaving all but the richest with no shot at a transplant. Add in the incentive for potential sellers to lie about their health status as prices begin to climb and you have created a mess, not a solution.

A better way
Perhaps the best argument against markets is that there is another option that has yet to be tried in the U.S. In Spain, Italy and Belgium, laws creating presumed consent or what I prefer to call “default to donation” have been enacted. In those countries, people who don’t want to be organ donors upon their deaths have to register on a computer, carry a card or tell their loved ones they don’t want to donate. Otherwise, the presumption is that you want to be a donor.

No, this is not a socialist plot to give the state control over your body. Under “default to donation” no one’s rights are taken away. You don’t want to donate? Just say so. Default donation is basically the same system we have now except that instead of opting in using a card or drivers license you have to opt out using a card or a driver’s license.

Based on the European experience, we’d likely see a significant jump in the number of organs available to dying Americans. Spain has donor rates two times higher than in many parts of the United States. The default plan could bring a boost in organs for transplant without creating the headaches, fears and misdistribution of a financial market. Doesn’t it make more sense to try a low cost plan that has a chance of working then a high priced market that won’t?

Url Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25370851/

Do You Tip Your Doc for Botox®?

In the last few years, an increasing number of General Practitioners, Family Practitioners and OB-GYNs in the United States, Canada, and Australia have added revenue-enhancing cosmetic procedures to their core practice. Because 91 percent of cosmetic procedures are performed on women, OB-GYNs have a ready-made client base—but is the integrity of the physician-patient relationship, the practice of medicine, and ultimately the care of patients compromised when physicians offer cosmetic procedures and products that don’t increase the health and welfare of their patients?

“We are physicians who limit our practice to women,” writes David Levine, MD in the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, an OB-GYN and outspoken proponent of the practice, “and these same women are responsible for the bulk of the $6 billion per year spent on cosmetic treatments, it seems natural for us to consider offering these treatments.”

Levine’s argument seems logical on the surface, but in medicine, what makes sense financially is not always what makes sense ethically. We must face the fact that there are deep ethical implications of the rapidly increasing trend of General Practitioners (GPs) Family Practitioners (FPs) and OB-GYNs adding revenue-enhancing cosmetic procedures and products such as skin rejuvenation, Botox®, Radiesse®, liposuction, breast augmentation, and mesotherapy to their core practice.

As GPs, FPs and OB-GYNs continue to add cosmetic product lines and menus of cosmetic procedures to the general fare of PAP smears and annual checkups, they risk demeaning their profession by creating a public image that physicians are mainly businesspeople working to increase their income. This trend makes it easy for patients to wonder whether their health and safety is the priority or whether the physician’s income is the priority.

Daniel Frank, MD, an internist in Seattle, established his primary care practice in 2002. At the time other primary care practices were starting to offer cosmetic procedures, b