[Tip of the hat to Rachel Walden over at Women's Health News Blog for alerting us to these headlines]
7 Things Obama’s Win Could Mean for Women’s Health
Condoms Trump Abstinence in Obama Global AIDS Policy (Update1)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Obama election signals change in stem cell fight
A commentary by friend and colleague Art Caplan in his MSNBC column:
'Change' was the horse that Barack Obama's presidential campaign rode to victory. Indeed the 2008 election will be remembered not only for Obama becoming the first African-American president, but also for its impact on core bioethical topics that have long dominated American domestic politics.
The past eight years of the Bush White House have seen stem cell research and the status of embryos at the center of the moral values debate. Obama's election has brought the fight over embryonic stem cell research in the U.S. to an end.
One of the main arguments against embryonic stem cell research is that all embryos are persons from the moment of conception. The voters of Colorado were given the chance to put that view into law with the proposed Amendment 48. The so-called "Personhood Amendment" sought to define fertilized eggs as human beings, extending them constitutional rights. Coloradoans defeated this amendment by a margin of three to one.
Many, including myself, would argue that the ongoing debate over the morality of stem cell research is really just a stalking horse for the abortion debate. But efforts to further restrict abortion did not fare well at the ballot box, either. California voters rejected a proposition that would have required doctors to notify parents before performing an abortion on a minor. The initiative also would have required a two-day waiting period before minors could get abortions.
In South Dakota a measure that would have banned abortions - except in cases of rape, incest and serious health threat to the mother - also lost. An even tougher version, without the rape and incest exceptions, was defeated two years ago. The 2008 initiative went down to a resounding defeat of 55 percent to 45 percent.
Taken all together this series of votes represents an important moment in public bioethics in America. Like it or not - and I am well aware that many are not ready to let go of these issues - the nation may be starting to move past the endless battles over stem cells, embryos and abortion. Stem cell research in all forms is proceeding. Embryos are not going to be given legal status as persons. Further restrictions on abortion are unlikely.
Original article here.
'Change' was the horse that Barack Obama's presidential campaign rode to victory. Indeed the 2008 election will be remembered not only for Obama becoming the first African-American president, but also for its impact on core bioethical topics that have long dominated American domestic politics.
Divisive issues such as abortion bans failed to gain traction on state ballot initiatives, while newer bioethical concerns that are likely to dominate American politics for years to come, including physician-assisted suicide, emerged.
The past eight years of the Bush White House have seen stem cell research and the status of embryos at the center of the moral values debate. Obama's election has brought the fight over embryonic stem cell research in the U.S. to an end.
Loosening stem cell research
The state of Michigan passed Proposal 2, loosening restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. This means that in Michigan - whose universities such as Michigan State in East Lansing are major biomedical research powerhouses - scientists will be able to use the excess embryos created at in-vitro fertility clinics as a source of stem cells for research, as long as they have the written consent of the parents who sought treatment.
There are now 10 states that have laws permitting embryonic stem cell research. These 10 are likely to be the recipients of an executive order that the new president will undoubtedly sign shortly after taking office, freeing up federal funds for embryonic stem cell research while laying out new regulatory guidelines.
The state of Michigan passed Proposal 2, loosening restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. This means that in Michigan - whose universities such as Michigan State in East Lansing are major biomedical research powerhouses - scientists will be able to use the excess embryos created at in-vitro fertility clinics as a source of stem cells for research, as long as they have the written consent of the parents who sought treatment.
There are now 10 states that have laws permitting embryonic stem cell research. These 10 are likely to be the recipients of an executive order that the new president will undoubtedly sign shortly after taking office, freeing up federal funds for embryonic stem cell research while laying out new regulatory guidelines.
One of the main arguments against embryonic stem cell research is that all embryos are persons from the moment of conception. The voters of Colorado were given the chance to put that view into law with the proposed Amendment 48. The so-called "Personhood Amendment" sought to define fertilized eggs as human beings, extending them constitutional rights. Coloradoans defeated this amendment by a margin of three to one.
Many, including myself, would argue that the ongoing debate over the morality of stem cell research is really just a stalking horse for the abortion debate. But efforts to further restrict abortion did not fare well at the ballot box, either. California voters rejected a proposition that would have required doctors to notify parents before performing an abortion on a minor. The initiative also would have required a two-day waiting period before minors could get abortions.
In South Dakota a measure that would have banned abortions - except in cases of rape, incest and serious health threat to the mother - also lost. An even tougher version, without the rape and incest exceptions, was defeated two years ago. The 2008 initiative went down to a resounding defeat of 55 percent to 45 percent.
Taken all together this series of votes represents an important moment in public bioethics in America. Like it or not - and I am well aware that many are not ready to let go of these issues - the nation may be starting to move past the endless battles over stem cells, embryos and abortion. Stem cell research in all forms is proceeding. Embryos are not going to be given legal status as persons. Further restrictions on abortion are unlikely.
There will still be plenty to fight over! The most important topic to emerge from this election is how Americans die and treat painful medical conditions.
Michigan became the 13th state to enact an amendment legalizing marijuana use for medical purposes. Proposal 1 passed by a margin of 63 percent to 37 percent. It allows patients with "debilitating medical conditions" to register with the state and, with the permission of a physician, legally buy, grow and use small amounts of marijuana to relieve pain, nausea and appetite loss, among other symptoms. Massachusetts decriminalized possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, shifting the penalty to a $100 fine.
Help for terminally ill
Americans are clearly telling Washington that they want dying people to have access to whatever helps make that process less burdensome. It will be interesting to see how the new administration grapples with that message. If no one listens, then a much more controversial option may emerge - physician-assisted suicide.
Americans are clearly telling Washington that they want dying people to have access to whatever helps make that process less burdensome. It will be interesting to see how the new administration grapples with that message. If no one listens, then a much more controversial option may emerge - physician-assisted suicide.
Perhaps the most startling measure to pass at the state level was in Washington's Initiative 1000, offering terminally ill people the option of physician-assisted suicide. Washington voters decided that adults who are deemed competent and have been given less than six months to live by a physician can legally request and self-administer lethal prescription medicine. The measure passed by a margin of 59 percent to 41 percent.
This surely will not be the last state-level effort to legalize physician-assisted suicide if other policies aimed at minimizing the suffering of the dying are not enacted. While I have my doubts about the wisdom of offering help in ending one's life before offering them health insurance, I suspect it will become a political hot potato in a number of states in the next few years.
An aging population, the increasing cost of medical care and a lack of high-quality palliative and nursing-home care almost guarantee it.
The pundits will spend the next few months analyzing the election, pontificating on what led to the Obama victory and the Democrats taking greater control of Congress. They won't find the answers if they do not pay attention to the clear messages Americans sent concerning critical bioethical questions.
This surely will not be the last state-level effort to legalize physician-assisted suicide if other policies aimed at minimizing the suffering of the dying are not enacted. While I have my doubts about the wisdom of offering help in ending one's life before offering them health insurance, I suspect it will become a political hot potato in a number of states in the next few years.
An aging population, the increasing cost of medical care and a lack of high-quality palliative and nursing-home care almost guarantee it.
The pundits will spend the next few months analyzing the election, pontificating on what led to the Obama victory and the Democrats taking greater control of Congress. They won't find the answers if they do not pay attention to the clear messages Americans sent concerning critical bioethical questions.
Original article here.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Life begins at....
In light of the recent defeat of the embryos-are-full-persons amendment in Colorado, this article from New Scientist from a few days ago sheds some interesting light on the spectrum of thought on when life (or more specifically moral and/or legal status) begins:
[Whether the legal rights enjoyed by citizens in the state of Colorado should extend to embryos from the point of fertilisation will be decided by its voters on 4 November. A "yes" decision could pave the way for anti-abortion legislation. But an online poll of people with a range of nationalities and religions shows opinion varies widely on the age-old question of when life begins.
The poll was part of a questionnaire compiled by the IVF clinic Reproductive Biology Associates in Atlanta, Georgia, to see how people might view new reproductive technologies.
[Whether the legal rights enjoyed by citizens in the state of Colorado should extend to embryos from the point of fertilisation will be decided by its voters on 4 November. A "yes" decision could pave the way for anti-abortion legislation. But an online poll of people with a range of nationalities and religions shows opinion varies widely on the age-old question of when life begins.
The poll was part of a questionnaire compiled by the IVF clinic Reproductive Biology Associates in Atlanta, Georgia, to see how people might view new reproductive technologies.
The Colorado ballot will ask voters whether they think an embryo becomes a person when the sperm and egg fuse. Of the 643 poll respondents, just 22.7 per cent believe this is when life begins. The most popular answer was "when the fetal heartbeat becomes detectable", garnering 23.5 per cent of answers, while "when the embryo attaches to the womb lining" got 15 per cent.
"It demonstrates that this question doesn't have a right or wrong answer," says Jackie Friedman of Reproductive Biology Associates, which will present the survey results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in San Francisco next week.
Unsurprisingly, among Roman Catholics sperm-egg fusion won. In contrast, Jews, agnostics, atheists, Muslims and IVF recipients gave fetal heartbeat the most votes. In North America, 27 per cent chose sperm-egg fusion, 24 per cent heartbeat detection and 18 per cent womb attachment.]
From issue 2680 of New Scientist magazine, 29 October 2008, page 6
A New Day...
Now that the numbers are in, here are some of the election results that our readers might be interested in:
South Dakota's Measure 11, aimed at triggering a Supreme Court showdown on Roe vs. Wade, has been defeated.
The ban on gay marriage is leading.
Colorado 'Personhood' Amendment Defeated.
The next American President is an advocate and steward for the environment.
Michigan became the 13th state to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, with 63 percent of the vote.
Voters in Massachusetts approved an initiative to decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.
South Dakota's Measure 11, aimed at triggering a Supreme Court showdown on Roe vs. Wade, has been defeated.
The ban on gay marriage is leading.
Colorado 'Personhood' Amendment Defeated.
The next American President is an advocate and steward for the environment.
Michigan became the 13th state to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, with 63 percent of the vote.
Voters in Massachusetts approved an initiative to decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.
British GMO Protests Highlight Global Divide
Our weekly guest post by Jonathan Javitt, author of Capitol Reflections:
In July, Malawi became the second African country to approve biotech crops, and as food prices continue to rise, this is a trend that will doubtless be continuing. More countries are turning to genetically modified crops for agricultural assistance.
In Britain, opposition to these types of crops is quite prevalent - nearly all of the 54 U.K. pesticide-resistant crop trials attempted in the past eight years have been attacked, according to media reports. Protesters are destroying the experimental crops to prevent biotechnology companies from spreading genetically modified organisms (GMOs) more widely in Europe and the developing world.
Thanks to this bio-vandalism, research of GMOs has been forced to come to a near-halt. European Union legislation requires research groups and facilities to let the public know the location of the trials, making it easier for opponents to locate the research sites.
GMO protests go beyond the US and the UK - 200 South Koreans protested GM crops in May, and 300 Brazilian activists attacked a farm owned by global agribusiness company Monsanto, a developer of biotechnology products, in March.
But are people getting as carried away as it might sound? One analyst believes extreme protests are overemphasized by the media, in part due to efforts by the biotech industry to discredit the opposition.
In my novel, Capitol Reflections, I note that many people are concerned that new GM techniques are developing so rapidly that there isn't an extensive enough screening process to weed out potential hazards before products hit the market. They're concerned that long-term assessments of environmental and health effects are lagging behind discoveries. This could mean – as is the case with genetically modified coffee in the book – that products are introduced to the market that appear to be beneficial, but can end up having unforeseen detrimental effects.
In July, Malawi became the second African country to approve biotech crops, and as food prices continue to rise, this is a trend that will doubtless be continuing. More countries are turning to genetically modified crops for agricultural assistance.
In Britain, opposition to these types of crops is quite prevalent - nearly all of the 54 U.K. pesticide-resistant crop trials attempted in the past eight years have been attacked, according to media reports. Protesters are destroying the experimental crops to prevent biotechnology companies from spreading genetically modified organisms (GMOs) more widely in Europe and the developing world.
Thanks to this bio-vandalism, research of GMOs has been forced to come to a near-halt. European Union legislation requires research groups and facilities to let the public know the location of the trials, making it easier for opponents to locate the research sites.
GMO protests go beyond the US and the UK - 200 South Koreans protested GM crops in May, and 300 Brazilian activists attacked a farm owned by global agribusiness company Monsanto, a developer of biotechnology products, in March.
But are people getting as carried away as it might sound? One analyst believes extreme protests are overemphasized by the media, in part due to efforts by the biotech industry to discredit the opposition.
In my novel, Capitol Reflections, I note that many people are concerned that new GM techniques are developing so rapidly that there isn't an extensive enough screening process to weed out potential hazards before products hit the market. They're concerned that long-term assessments of environmental and health effects are lagging behind discoveries. This could mean – as is the case with genetically modified coffee in the book – that products are introduced to the market that appear to be beneficial, but can end up having unforeseen detrimental effects.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
So Little Time, So Much Damage To Do
In a quick and dirty driveby post, it's worth taking note that the current administration has 77 days left to change rules and regulations on the environment, civil liberties and reproductive rights (mind you, not in a progressive way)- and, according to an editorial in the NY Times, they are not wasting any time, intending to leave a series of little "surprises" (a euphemistic word for....well, I'm sure you can fill in the blank) for the next administration.This will surely keep the watchdog groups busy...
Saturday, November 01, 2008
The Week in Review
- Does your heart good: Don’t forget to “fall back” this weekend. Apparently, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, turning clocks back in the fall lowers incidence of heart attacks on the Monday after the change! The opposite effect is seen on the Monday after we “spring ahead.”
- “Hallway medicine” is seen as way to unclutter ERs. Instead of stackin’ ‘em in the ER, stack ‘em in the halls elsewhere. Hmm. Kind of like how I clean off the top of my desk. Shift a pile here, shift one there. Looks better, but is anything really solved?
- Irish university approves use of human embryonic stem cells in research.
- A cancer drug which could prolong the lives of thousands of patients is ruled not cost effective by the NHS drugs watchdog in the UK.
- Erectile dysfunction—best predictor of heart attack in men. How about a stress test and EKG with that Viagra?
- New minimally invasive technique zaps fibroids using MRI-guided ultrasound. Zip. Zap. Gone.
- A sad silver lining: Alzheimer’s sufferers might have lower blood pressure thanks to decline in memory. Less anxiety, less worries. (What, me worry?)
- Scientists restore movement to monkeys’ anesthetized arms through artificial brain-muscle connections. Possible hope for stroke victims.
- Purple GM tomatoes may ward off cancer. Loaded with gorgeous purple antioxid
ants! But will people eat them?
- Artificial antibodies—could be used in cheap, field-ready toxin sensors. But what tells them to stop once they’re let loose inside the body?
- Fully implantable, totally artificial heart could be available in 2011.
- Split the FDA into separate food and drug agencies? Opinion piece discusses the possibility in light of recent regulatory snafus.
[Thank you to Lisa von Biela, JD candidate, 2009, UMN, Editor of the BioBlurb, from which this content is taken and edited. BioBlurb is a weekly electronic publication of the American Bar Association's Committee on Biotechnology, Section of Science & Technology Law. Archived issues of the BioBlurb, as well as further information about the Committee on Biotechnology, are available here.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
