According to the BBC News, researchers from Newcastle University and Kings College, London, have asked the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for permission to create embryos by fusing human DNA with cow eggs. These chimeric eggs would be used for embryonic stem cell research, destroyed after the stem cells are extracted. This appears to be their way around the short supply of human eggs to use in embryonic stem cell research, but the thing is, these would be chimeric embryos; they're saying 99.9% human. Does that other .1% matter?
While I can understand the idea of test runs before moving on to more valuable (rare) human eggs, I'm not necessarily convinced that this sort of test run needs to be done. We know the technology works, we know how to use it - what, entirely, is the point?
(Then again, I'm not convinced of the opposition argument by Calum MacKellar, of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, which basically says there is a line of separation between humans and animals, and to blur that line undermines the distinctions between the species, as well as running the risk of underming human dignity.)
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Food. Lies and Videotape (or whatever medium you prefer)
Do you want lies with that? I love it when Hollywood displays a conscience -- this time, Hollywood tackles the ethics of the fast-food industry in their flick, Fast Food Nation:
Inspired by the bestselling book that exposed the hidden facts behind America's fast food industry, the movie traces the birth of an everyday, ordinary burger through a chain of riveting, interlocked human stories - from a hopeful, young immigrant couple who cross the border to work in a perilous meat-packing plant, to a teen clerk who dreams of life beyond the counter; to the corporate marketing whiz who is shocked to discover that his latest burger invention - "The Big One" - is literally full of manure and how he deals (or doesn't) with the lack of ethics in this field -- it unveils a provocative portrait of what lies inside that America is biting into.
Inspired by the bestselling book that exposed the hidden facts behind America's fast food industry, the movie traces the birth of an everyday, ordinary burger through a chain of riveting, interlocked human stories - from a hopeful, young immigrant couple who cross the border to work in a perilous meat-packing plant, to a teen clerk who dreams of life beyond the counter; to the corporate marketing whiz who is shocked to discover that his latest burger invention - "The Big One" - is literally full of manure and how he deals (or doesn't) with the lack of ethics in this field -- it unveils a provocative portrait of what lies inside that America is biting into.
Imaging the Speaking of Tongues
The cat has my tongue this morning, so I'll let the NY Times say it:
A Neuroscientific Look at Speaking in Tongues
The passionate, sometimes rhythmic, language-like patter that pours forth from religious people who “speak in tongues” reflects a state of mental possession, many of them say. Now they have some neuroscience to back them up.
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania took brain images of five women while they spoke in tongues and found that their frontal lobes — the thinking, willful part of the brain through which people control what they do — were relatively quiet, as were the language centers. The regions involved in maintaining self-consciousness were active. The women were not in blind trances, and it was unclear which region was driving the behavior. To read more, click here...
A Neuroscientific Look at Speaking in Tongues
The passionate, sometimes rhythmic, language-like patter that pours forth from religious people who “speak in tongues” reflects a state of mental possession, many of them say. Now they have some neuroscience to back them up.
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania took brain images of five women while they spoke in tongues and found that their frontal lobes — the thinking, willful part of the brain through which people control what they do — were relatively quiet, as were the language centers. The regions involved in maintaining self-consciousness were active. The women were not in blind trances, and it was unclear which region was driving the behavior. To read more, click here...
Male Contraception -- an option in the works
All I can say is "Isn't it about time?":
Contraception as an Option for the Man
Contraception as an Option for the Man
Ben Kleinman plans to marry next year, and already he looks forward to starting a family. But he knows, too, that there will come a day when he and his wife do not want more children, and that she may grow weary of shouldering the burden for contraception. To read more, click here...
Monday, November 06, 2006
Are 'Partial Birth' Abortions Ever Medically Necessary?
On Nov. 8, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court revisits the Partial Birth Abortion issue again in the cases of Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood. The Supreme Court had addressed in this issue 2000, in Stenberg v. Carhart, where a 5-4 decision struck down a state statute in part because it contained an exception only in cases where a woman's life is in danger and did not allow a similar exception to protect a woman's health. Nebraska legislators have re-drafted the legislation to declare that 'partial-birth' abortions are never medically necessary, hoping that the Supreme Court will find this law to be constitutional. (Query: If a legislature declares something to be a fact, does that automatically make it true? Like if the legislature declared Omaha, Nebraska to be the center of the universe, does that make it so?)
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has done a thorough job of delineating all the background on the partial-birth abortion issue, if you'd like to download the 12 page document.
And NPR interviews Obstetricians who challenge the notion that so-called 'partial birth' abortion is never medically necessary.
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has done a thorough job of delineating all the background on the partial-birth abortion issue, if you'd like to download the 12 page document.
And NPR interviews Obstetricians who challenge the notion that so-called 'partial birth' abortion is never medically necessary.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Fox and Counter Fox revisited
Stephen Colbert on the Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox Affair
too funny to pass up -- The Last Word on shameless Fox hunting on The Colbert Report (pronounced 'rapport').
too funny to pass up -- The Last Word on shameless Fox hunting on The Colbert Report (pronounced 'rapport').
Saturday, November 04, 2006
We're afraid it's come to this
At first it was an occasional hurtful/racist/sexist/hateful comment. We would pull the comment and hope for the best. Then the "crazy" bloggers found us, posting wild rants. We moved to a "moderated" comment format. But while we were protected from inappropriate comments, we lost the immediacy of the back and forth exchange that makes our bioethics community so powerful. We went back to an “unmoderated” system. But alas, the Internet stalkers have found us - last night we had six random postings in the space of a few minutes. We are going to reinstate the "moderated" comment option. We aren't the only blog with this challenge - Bioethics.net implemented the same policy a few months ago. We'll do our best to "publish" comments quickly, but unfortunately, we are not always online. Thoughts?
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Should severly disabled kids be kept small, so that they are easier to care for?
I don't know what to think about this one -- I cannot imagine having to make such a decision and cannot imagine the tears and agony of these parents:
From Reuters:
6-year-old given hormones to stunt growth so parents can care for her.
New York - In a report published in a medical journal this month, two doctors describe a 6-year-old girl with profound, irreversible developmental disability who was given high doses of estrogen to permanently halt her growth so that her parents could continue to care for her at home.
The controversial growth-attenuation treatment, which included hysterectomy, was requested by the child's parents and initiated after careful consultation and review by an ethics committee.
In their report in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Drs. Daniel F. Gunther and Douglas S. Diekema, both at the University of Washington in Seattle, explain the reasoning behind what they hope will generate a healthy debate.
To read on, click here.
From Reuters:
6-year-old given hormones to stunt growth so parents can care for her.
New York - In a report published in a medical journal this month, two doctors describe a 6-year-old girl with profound, irreversible developmental disability who was given high doses of estrogen to permanently halt her growth so that her parents could continue to care for her at home.
The controversial growth-attenuation treatment, which included hysterectomy, was requested by the child's parents and initiated after careful consultation and review by an ethics committee.
In their report in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Drs. Daniel F. Gunther and Douglas S. Diekema, both at the University of Washington in Seattle, explain the reasoning behind what they hope will generate a healthy debate.
To read on, click here.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
No Kidneying Around
On the evening of September 26, 2006 I was sitting down to watch an episode of Nip/Tuck and the opening scene pertained to my ethics class. One of the characters was bought drinks, then drugged, and woke up to a phone call telling her she would be fine but that the medicine would wear off soon. As she looked down she noticed a large ice pack on her side, and sure enough her kidneys had been removed. Throughout the rest of the show they investigated other cases, stating that black market kidneys can often seel for as much as $200,000 or more. The kidneys were then shipped off to other countries such as India and Tokyo. Although, this seems very real it also lead me to think that they were playing up an urban myth. I researched it and found that there is an urban myth like this, and that the show might have been laying that up. However, kidney stealing is a SERIOUS issue...so I did my own research, and what I found didn't surprise me.
According to National Geographic News is 2002 doctors performed 24,900 life saving organ transplants. However, for every one person given a transplant another two people were put on a waiting list. Now, over 80,000 people in the US are waiting for organs. Every 14 minutes someone is added to that list, and in 2002 6,000 people died waiting for organ donations.
In December 2003, police broke up an international kidney trafficking ring. Brazilian police stated that people were being flown in S.Africa and having the removal surgery. Some of the participants paid up to an astounding amount of $100,000.
With Americans fearing death more than anything else it's not surprising the lengths that one would go to, to move their name up on that list. Or what they would do to come in contact with an organ in illegal ways. In the situation of money versus life, money doesn't appear to be a significant factor. People are doing what it takes, even going to other countries to have the surgery done. This makes me wonder, what about when it is our time to go? What if your body is saying no more? How do we take the natural courses of life into consideration when we can go out and buy more parts to fuel us? What about altruism? How are we to tell if people are really going to donate their organs for the joy they get in helping others or who is doing it for money? Prohibiting payment for organs allows allows us to ensure the quality of the organ and makes sure that it is a six out of six match. If we had every random person who needed the money donating organs who can tell what kind of "shape" they are in. Also, doesn't it make this society even less equal than in already is? The poor sell their kidneys or other organs and the rich pay absurd amounts for them, to save themselves or their poor children who may die inevitably due to their life plan. Are body parts not determining our net worth? There are so many questions that all have so many different answers.
I suppose I don't have a clear and concise answer to any of these questions that I posed, and although I have brainstormed an enormous amount and looked at many different angles of the situations, there is no right or wrong answer. How do you tell someone no, when they are dying? Or tell them "it is your time to go?" Or tell a loving father that because he doesn't make enough money he can't buy the kidney transplant for his daughter? You can't, just like I can't come up with an answer. All I can do is base it on the situation at hand. Each and every case needs to be looked at from every different angle and researched thoroughly. Each transplant needs to be done in a proper and ethical way. Selling kidneys for me only takes away from our self worth and makes us more of a piece of meat than society is already forming us into. If we can't do things the right way, why do them at all?
[Editor's Note: The BBC just published an article on Iran's Desperate Kidney Traders:
On streets and in town squares in Iran, young men and women can be seen holding signs offering their kidneys for sale.]
According to National Geographic News is 2002 doctors performed 24,900 life saving organ transplants. However, for every one person given a transplant another two people were put on a waiting list. Now, over 80,000 people in the US are waiting for organs. Every 14 minutes someone is added to that list, and in 2002 6,000 people died waiting for organ donations.
In December 2003, police broke up an international kidney trafficking ring. Brazilian police stated that people were being flown in S.Africa and having the removal surgery. Some of the participants paid up to an astounding amount of $100,000.
With Americans fearing death more than anything else it's not surprising the lengths that one would go to, to move their name up on that list. Or what they would do to come in contact with an organ in illegal ways. In the situation of money versus life, money doesn't appear to be a significant factor. People are doing what it takes, even going to other countries to have the surgery done. This makes me wonder, what about when it is our time to go? What if your body is saying no more? How do we take the natural courses of life into consideration when we can go out and buy more parts to fuel us? What about altruism? How are we to tell if people are really going to donate their organs for the joy they get in helping others or who is doing it for money? Prohibiting payment for organs allows allows us to ensure the quality of the organ and makes sure that it is a six out of six match. If we had every random person who needed the money donating organs who can tell what kind of "shape" they are in. Also, doesn't it make this society even less equal than in already is? The poor sell their kidneys or other organs and the rich pay absurd amounts for them, to save themselves or their poor children who may die inevitably due to their life plan. Are body parts not determining our net worth? There are so many questions that all have so many different answers.
I suppose I don't have a clear and concise answer to any of these questions that I posed, and although I have brainstormed an enormous amount and looked at many different angles of the situations, there is no right or wrong answer. How do you tell someone no, when they are dying? Or tell them "it is your time to go?" Or tell a loving father that because he doesn't make enough money he can't buy the kidney transplant for his daughter? You can't, just like I can't come up with an answer. All I can do is base it on the situation at hand. Each and every case needs to be looked at from every different angle and researched thoroughly. Each transplant needs to be done in a proper and ethical way. Selling kidneys for me only takes away from our self worth and makes us more of a piece of meat than society is already forming us into. If we can't do things the right way, why do them at all?
[Editor's Note: The BBC just published an article on Iran's Desperate Kidney Traders:
On streets and in town squares in Iran, young men and women can be seen holding signs offering their kidneys for sale.]
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
A Prescription for Trouble
Those of you who attended the ASBH conference in Denver last week may have come to the mock trial of the Law and Bioethics Affinity Group which included marvelous performances by Erin Egan, Judy Illes, Peter Cohen and Katie Watson. Also, a sense of courtroom decorum was greatly enhanced by our two judges, Terry Tomsick and Alice Herb, who did a wonderful job with the rulings, too! The fact pattern involved the use of neuroimaging for purposes of lie detection in a product liability case against a major drug company who marketed a COX-2 inhibitor that increased the chances of serious heart problems.
The irony is that just yesterday, the Managing Editor of Boston magazine, Jennifer Johnson, sent me a link to this article in Boston (about the Vioxx scandal) with an intriguing summary:
Its reports on new drugs put billions in pharmaceutical company profits and untold lives at stake. So it’s a very big deal when the New England Journal of Medicine gets something wrong. With the powerful publication still reeling from a scandal it can’t seem to shake, editor Jeffrey Drazen’s plan for fixing things is less a sure-fire cure than a leap of faith.
It just goes to show what a small world it is (especially when it comes to bioethics)! Thanks, Jennifer
The irony is that just yesterday, the Managing Editor of Boston magazine, Jennifer Johnson, sent me a link to this article in Boston (about the Vioxx scandal) with an intriguing summary:
Its reports on new drugs put billions in pharmaceutical company profits and untold lives at stake. So it’s a very big deal when the New England Journal of Medicine gets something wrong. With the powerful publication still reeling from a scandal it can’t seem to shake, editor Jeffrey Drazen’s plan for fixing things is less a sure-fire cure than a leap of faith.
It just goes to show what a small world it is (especially when it comes to bioethics)! Thanks, Jennifer
Friday, October 27, 2006
Universal Health Care Ethics
One of the largest health problems facing the nation today is access to medical care. With around 50 million people uninsured, our country struggles with providing health care to many individuals. Because the scope of this problem penetrates all facets of life, it needs to be tackled at many different levels. Deciding our values as a society about health care requires answering difficult ethical questions. The means by which we begin to create and implement a national health care system necessitate that we define what those values are. Addressing the challenges of providing national health care is inherently part of the discussion around this dilemma.
One initial question that must be asked is: How responsible is an individual for the status of their health? Factors that contribute to one’s health include their environment, genetics, socioeconomic status, behavior, and the actual health care obtained. Because of the variability of these factors for each person and the unpredictable nature of individual health, responsibility should ultimately be shared among families, communities and society. It is known that approximately 10% of the population accrues 70% of total health care costs. The financial burden this poses on individuals with acute, chronic, or terminal illness is substantial. Do we want to live in a society where access to health care is determined by socioeconomic status? Aside from social responsibility, we have personal interest in creating a system where the burdens of this financial risk are spread across the population; our health circumstances are just as uncertain as everyone else’s.
The costs of health care are significantly rising at an unsustainable rate. Maintaining a healthier population not only benefits the individuals but also the payers (insurance companies, employers, government) of the expenses. How do we incorporate individual responsibility into the equation? What financial contribution should individuals make? Should it be experience based; should individuals pay premiums based on their health care history? Or should the payments be based on a community rating, where everyone pays the same regardless of their health status? Or should it solely be based on ability to pay, a tax financed system? How do we promote healthier lifestyles while recognizing the injustices that exist? It is less likely that someone living in poverty would have access to a fitness center. This person may also live in an unsafe area, making it difficult to take walks after work. This person may not be able to afford healthier foods, relying on foods with less nutritional quality to feed him or herself. The more we recognize the barriers that exist, the more responsibility we feel to help create a system that provides for everyone.
Even once we recognize that universal health care is essential, there are more questions to be answered. How would we go about implementing universal health care? What role should government play? The current structure allows for minimal governmental regulation and relies highly on free-market economics to regulate the system. Increasing governmental regulation would inevitably decrease our choice (as it has been observed in countries where it has been implemented such as Canada). We must decide that we value access for all over choice for those privileged enough to have this conversation.
Increasing access of information to individuals, determining what values as a society we have, implementing a system that insures health care to all individuals, and deciding how to finance this system are significant challenges regarding this issue. However, recognizing that access to health care is an ethical issue is a critical step in the process.
For more information: http://www.everybodyinnobodyout.org/FAQ/fqIndResp.htm
One initial question that must be asked is: How responsible is an individual for the status of their health? Factors that contribute to one’s health include their environment, genetics, socioeconomic status, behavior, and the actual health care obtained. Because of the variability of these factors for each person and the unpredictable nature of individual health, responsibility should ultimately be shared among families, communities and society. It is known that approximately 10% of the population accrues 70% of total health care costs. The financial burden this poses on individuals with acute, chronic, or terminal illness is substantial. Do we want to live in a society where access to health care is determined by socioeconomic status? Aside from social responsibility, we have personal interest in creating a system where the burdens of this financial risk are spread across the population; our health circumstances are just as uncertain as everyone else’s.
The costs of health care are significantly rising at an unsustainable rate. Maintaining a healthier population not only benefits the individuals but also the payers (insurance companies, employers, government) of the expenses. How do we incorporate individual responsibility into the equation? What financial contribution should individuals make? Should it be experience based; should individuals pay premiums based on their health care history? Or should the payments be based on a community rating, where everyone pays the same regardless of their health status? Or should it solely be based on ability to pay, a tax financed system? How do we promote healthier lifestyles while recognizing the injustices that exist? It is less likely that someone living in poverty would have access to a fitness center. This person may also live in an unsafe area, making it difficult to take walks after work. This person may not be able to afford healthier foods, relying on foods with less nutritional quality to feed him or herself. The more we recognize the barriers that exist, the more responsibility we feel to help create a system that provides for everyone.
Even once we recognize that universal health care is essential, there are more questions to be answered. How would we go about implementing universal health care? What role should government play? The current structure allows for minimal governmental regulation and relies highly on free-market economics to regulate the system. Increasing governmental regulation would inevitably decrease our choice (as it has been observed in countries where it has been implemented such as Canada). We must decide that we value access for all over choice for those privileged enough to have this conversation.
Increasing access of information to individuals, determining what values as a society we have, implementing a system that insures health care to all individuals, and deciding how to finance this system are significant challenges regarding this issue. However, recognizing that access to health care is an ethical issue is a critical step in the process.
For more information: http://www.everybodyinnobodyout.org/FAQ/fqIndResp.htm
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Fox and Counter-Fox
[Hat tip to R. Alta Charo for the title]...
Making Stem Cell Issue Personal, and Political
Alessandra Stanley does a great job of teasing out the fact from fiction in her column in the NY Times this morning about the contentious comments of Rush Limbaugh regarding Michael J. Fox's ads about stem cell research:
The plea is as disturbing — and arresting — as a hostage video from Iraq. In a navy blazer and preppy Oxford shirt, the actor Michael J. Fox calmly asks viewers to support stem cell research by voting for several Democratic candidates in Maryland, Missouri and Wisconsin, while his body sways back and forth uncontrollably like a sailor being tossed around in a full-force gale...
In short, Mr. Fox’s display of the toll Parkinson’s disease has taken on him turned into one of the most powerful and talked about political advertisements in years.
Rush Limbaugh rushed in to discredit Mr. Fox, though he mostly hurt himself. Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host, told his listeners that the actor either “didn’t take his medication or was acting.” Mr. Limbaugh later apologized for accusing Mr. Fox of exaggerating his symptoms, but said that “Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democrat politician.”
Republicans cobbled together a response ad attacking the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, including testimonials by the actress Patricia Heaton (“Everybody Loves Raymond”) and James Caviezel, who played Jesus in Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ.” At least in the advance version shown on YouTube last night, Mr. Caviezel’s introduction seemed either garbled or to be in Aramaic.
Michael J. Fox
Fox Stem Cell Video
Making Stem Cell Issue Personal, and Political
Alessandra Stanley does a great job of teasing out the fact from fiction in her column in the NY Times this morning about the contentious comments of Rush Limbaugh regarding Michael J. Fox's ads about stem cell research:
The plea is as disturbing — and arresting — as a hostage video from Iraq. In a navy blazer and preppy Oxford shirt, the actor Michael J. Fox calmly asks viewers to support stem cell research by voting for several Democratic candidates in Maryland, Missouri and Wisconsin, while his body sways back and forth uncontrollably like a sailor being tossed around in a full-force gale...
In short, Mr. Fox’s display of the toll Parkinson’s disease has taken on him turned into one of the most powerful and talked about political advertisements in years.
Rush Limbaugh rushed in to discredit Mr. Fox, though he mostly hurt himself. Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host, told his listeners that the actor either “didn’t take his medication or was acting.” Mr. Limbaugh later apologized for accusing Mr. Fox of exaggerating his symptoms, but said that “Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democrat politician.”
Republicans cobbled together a response ad attacking the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, including testimonials by the actress Patricia Heaton (“Everybody Loves Raymond”) and James Caviezel, who played Jesus in Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ.” At least in the advance version shown on YouTube last night, Mr. Caviezel’s introduction seemed either garbled or to be in Aramaic.
Michael J. Fox
Fox Stem Cell Video
Live from Denver! ASBH
Kathryn Hinsch and I will be blogging from the annual ASBH conference in the Mile High City of Denver -- let us know what you'd like to hear about!
Friday, October 20, 2006
Genetic Guilt
There was an interesting article about genetic testing and breast cancer today in The Independent, profiling a family and their decisions to undergo mastectomies.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1880078.ece
Aside from the fact that this is an important tale of both the benefits and difficulties of discovering your own genetic susceptibility to cancer, what caught my eye was this quote:
As if “mommy guilt” wasn’t multi-faceted enough! It’s not hard to imagine that many women (and men) may feel compelled to do whatever it takes to eliminate genetic abnormalities in their children, provided the opportunity to do so.
(Thanks to Dr. Hsien Hsien Lei’s “Genetics and Health” blog for pointing me in the direction of this article.) Published by Emilie Clemmons.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1880078.ece
Aside from the fact that this is an important tale of both the benefits and difficulties of discovering your own genetic susceptibility to cancer, what caught my eye was this quote:
Despite all this, Julie was devastated when her 29-year-old daughter, Jenny, was found to have the mutated gene. She will undergo a double mastectomy in January. Julie says: "I feel guilty, which I know is not rational. But it is my fault. I passed it on to her."
As if “mommy guilt” wasn’t multi-faceted enough! It’s not hard to imagine that many women (and men) may feel compelled to do whatever it takes to eliminate genetic abnormalities in their children, provided the opportunity to do so.
(Thanks to Dr. Hsien Hsien Lei’s “Genetics and Health” blog for pointing me in the direction of this article.) Published by Emilie Clemmons.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Bioethics for the Rest of Us?
Can you recommend a good book on bioethics for a beginner? I am often asked that question and until now I haven’t had a very satisfying answer. As much as I love it, I don't feel comfortable recommending the American Journal of Bioethics with its grim graphics and complex cover stories (this month’s: “Damage Compounded: Disparities, Distrust, and Disparate Impact In End-of-Life Conflict Resolution Policies” and "Altruistic Discourse in the Informed Consent Process for Childhood Cancer Clinical Trials.") Not exactly layperson friendly. Fortunately, Art L. Caplan has come along to save the day. His recently published book titled “Smart Mice, Not So Smart People: An Interesting and Amusing Guide to Bioethics” is a great introductory book which covers a stunningly wide range of topics. It is easy to read, doesn’t pretend to be “objective” and helps the reader ponder the key bioethics issues of our time. I'll be giving it out as Christmas presents this year.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Calling all Bioethics Bloggers
Are you a bioethics blogger and attending the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities annual meeting next week in Denver? We are planning a special bloggers meeting to discuss, well, blogging and bioethics. Not sure of the time nor venue yet but we'll opt for an open slot in the conference schedule (and hopefully we'll scrounge up some pizza and beer.) Interested in participating? Please contact me for further details.
Friday, October 13, 2006
The Scientist & the Ethicists Podcast Series: Nerd Girrrrls Rule!
In an effort to help the public make sense of an escalating number of news stories about “designer babies,” genetic engineering and cloning, the Women’s Bioethics Project launchs it's first series of podcasts, titled “The Scientist & the Ethicists.” Check it out.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
The Breastfeeding Rodeo
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Office on Women’s Health have been actively promoting an ad campaign over the past few years to increase awareness about the benefits of breastfeeding.
http://www.womenshealth.gov/breastfeeding/index.cfm?page=adcouncil
Educating women about the benefits of breastfeeding—getting that information out there (because many were unaware)—is an extremely important endeavor and the DHHS and OWH should be commended for their efforts…for the most part.
Their print and radio ads are generally informative and amusing and (I feel) effective in that they provide important scientific information about the benefits of breastfeeding without criticizing the actions or choices of mothers.
Their TV spots, however, have generated some controversy. Each depicts pregnant women (fictionally) engaging in a dangerous activity, including log rolling and riding a mechanical bull, then equates the activity with failing to breastfeed your child.
This approach seems counterproductive on at least two fronts: 1) it falsely implies that feeding your baby formula is as dangerous to its health as bull-riding while pregnant and thus feeds misinformation to its audience and 2) it serves to criticize and alienate women who choose not to or cannot breastfeed for a variety of reasons.
Let’s give women the best information we have on breastfeeding and on other women’s health topics to help them make the best decisions for their families. Frightening them with false analogies is both unethical and counterproductive.
Lastly, if the U.S. government is truly interested in breastfeeding for our children and for public health, they need to encourage our workplaces and the general public to support breastfeeding and to provide women with comfortable places to nurse their children. Many moms I know (myself included) have plenty stories to share about breastfeeding or pumping while sitting on the toilet in a workplace or public bathroom, or stories about being heckled for discreetly breastfeeding in public.
Currently, the womenshealth.gov website information appears to address workplace breastfeeding solely by encouraging women to make it work. They say:
“Let your employer and/or human resources manager know that you plan to continue breastfeeding once you return to work. Before you return to work, or even before you have your baby, start talking with your employer about breastfeeding. Don't be afraid to request a clean and private area where you can pump your milk. If you don't have your own office space, you can ask to use a supervisor's office during certain times. Or you can ask to have a clean, clutter free corner of a storage room.”
Thanks for the tips, but I want to know: do DHHS and OWH have a plan to educate our workplaces or maybe that man on the airplane who was so “disgusted” by my breastfeeding that he asked to change seats?
http://www.womenshealth.gov/breastfeeding/index.cfm?page=adcouncil
Educating women about the benefits of breastfeeding—getting that information out there (because many were unaware)—is an extremely important endeavor and the DHHS and OWH should be commended for their efforts…for the most part.
Their print and radio ads are generally informative and amusing and (I feel) effective in that they provide important scientific information about the benefits of breastfeeding without criticizing the actions or choices of mothers.
Their TV spots, however, have generated some controversy. Each depicts pregnant women (fictionally) engaging in a dangerous activity, including log rolling and riding a mechanical bull, then equates the activity with failing to breastfeed your child.
This approach seems counterproductive on at least two fronts: 1) it falsely implies that feeding your baby formula is as dangerous to its health as bull-riding while pregnant and thus feeds misinformation to its audience and 2) it serves to criticize and alienate women who choose not to or cannot breastfeed for a variety of reasons.
Let’s give women the best information we have on breastfeeding and on other women’s health topics to help them make the best decisions for their families. Frightening them with false analogies is both unethical and counterproductive.
Lastly, if the U.S. government is truly interested in breastfeeding for our children and for public health, they need to encourage our workplaces and the general public to support breastfeeding and to provide women with comfortable places to nurse their children. Many moms I know (myself included) have plenty stories to share about breastfeeding or pumping while sitting on the toilet in a workplace or public bathroom, or stories about being heckled for discreetly breastfeeding in public.
Currently, the womenshealth.gov website information appears to address workplace breastfeeding solely by encouraging women to make it work. They say:
“Let your employer and/or human resources manager know that you plan to continue breastfeeding once you return to work. Before you return to work, or even before you have your baby, start talking with your employer about breastfeeding. Don't be afraid to request a clean and private area where you can pump your milk. If you don't have your own office space, you can ask to use a supervisor's office during certain times. Or you can ask to have a clean, clutter free corner of a storage room.”
Thanks for the tips, but I want to know: do DHHS and OWH have a plan to educate our workplaces or maybe that man on the airplane who was so “disgusted” by my breastfeeding that he asked to change seats?
Emergency Contraception for those under 18
Student blogger Kirti Shah comments on a previous post re emergency contraception:
Recently the Government of Chile announced that they are going to provide emergency contraception to any one over 14 at no cost. What a revolutionary idea from a Catholic country. We in theU.S.
Recently the Government of Chile announced that they are going to provide emergency contraception to any one over 14 at no cost. What a revolutionary idea from a Catholic country. We in the
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Vaccines on Trial
[Guest post by Amrita Desai]
I came across a very interesting article on One of the largest ever vaccine studies which is underway in Kolkata, India. Paroma Basu, who is a freelance writer based in Madison, Wisconsin, uncovers the benefits and difficulties of inoculating 60,000 people against cholera and typhoid fever out of population of 14 million. In the poorest areas of this city, residents live in homes jammed together along winding sewage-littered pathways and rely on shared toilets and drinking water. Typhoid fever and cholera are endemic in India, and are chronic problems in Kolkata. This state of West Bengal is often called as “homeland of cholera”.
The vaccine industry has always been reluctant to commit resources to the development of vaccine for world’s poorest people. But a grant of US$40 million from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is helping to introduce affordable vaccines to cities like Kolkata. The money has funded the five-year Diseases of the Most Impoverished Program (DOMI). DOMI is studying the social, economic, and clinical effects of introducing vaccines. Since 2000 it has launched two cholera studies, six projects investigating typhoid fever.
In a unique research effort 60,000 Kolkata slum-dwellers will participate this summer in phase III trials of an oral cholera vaccine. Last November researchers injected the same population with vaccine against typhoid fever. Typhoid vaccine was donated by GlaxoSmithKline and cholera vaccine by Dukoral.
The road blocks encountered during this trial in Kolkata are an example of the difficulties of caring out such a program from political and religious tensions and burocratic delays to mistruths spreading like wild fire among the largely illiterate trial participants. The institute had to get an endless list of clearances from National health ministry committee, local councilors, ethics and human right groups, Hindu priests, Muslim imams and community thugs. During the typhoid vaccine trials rumors were spreads that the scientists were injecting cancer cells in to people. Others believed that they were being sterilized. There was mass panic.
About 65% of the targeted study group eventually gave their consent and receive the typhoid jab. A big reason for this level of success was Dipika Sur, director of epidemiology who employed 250 slums, dwellers as community health workers, field supervisors and sample collectors. The strategy paid of largely because of staggeringly high unemployment levels in the slums. Today a health worker goes door to door sending patients with persistent symptoms of diarrhea or fever to one of seven “health outpost”, where patients received free blood test and medicines if diagnosed with cholera or typhoid. Here people can see a doctor and be treated right away. Families who share a room with 11 members are aware how important it is to keep the bathroom clean and not to drink polluted water.
India is becoming an increasingly appealing location for undertaking clinical trials. A trial in India costs half as much as in the United States, and India has a high prevalence of diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease, that predominantly affect the developed world. But India's future as a centre for 'outsourced' clinical trials could be in jeopardy. Despite its advanced hospitals, the country is struggling to find enough trained staff to run the clinical trials and lacks a central database to track them once they are underway. There are several recent cases where researchers did not comply with ethics regulations. Trial participants were, without their knowledge, given drugs that had not been approved by the health ministry or been tested adequately in animals.
If the government fulfils its promise to tighten regulations, India could benefit greatly not just from the revenue generated by these trials, but also from the new drugs being tested in its population. At least 2 million persons succumb annually to enteric infection, and in countless other patients, diarrhea disease aggravates malnutrition and susceptibility to other infections. Prevention of enteric illness by virtue of improved hygiene and provision of sanitation and water treatment is impractical in most developing countries, where morbidity and mortality rates are highest. For this reason my opinion is that development of vaccines against the most important gastrointestinal infections remains a high priority.
The biotech companies from whole world should unite and help each other by eliminating the spread of deadly diseases and bring awareness among people and live life in a clean environment.
I came across a very interesting article on One of the largest ever vaccine studies which is underway in Kolkata, India. Paroma Basu, who is a freelance writer based in Madison, Wisconsin, uncovers the benefits and difficulties of inoculating 60,000 people against cholera and typhoid fever out of population of 14 million. In the poorest areas of this city, residents live in homes jammed together along winding sewage-littered pathways and rely on shared toilets and drinking water. Typhoid fever and cholera are endemic in India, and are chronic problems in Kolkata. This state of West Bengal is often called as “homeland of cholera”.
The vaccine industry has always been reluctant to commit resources to the development of vaccine for world’s poorest people. But a grant of US$40 million from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is helping to introduce affordable vaccines to cities like Kolkata. The money has funded the five-year Diseases of the Most Impoverished Program (DOMI). DOMI is studying the social, economic, and clinical effects of introducing vaccines. Since 2000 it has launched two cholera studies, six projects investigating typhoid fever.
In a unique research effort 60,000 Kolkata slum-dwellers will participate this summer in phase III trials of an oral cholera vaccine. Last November researchers injected the same population with vaccine against typhoid fever. Typhoid vaccine was donated by GlaxoSmithKline and cholera vaccine by Dukoral.
The road blocks encountered during this trial in Kolkata are an example of the difficulties of caring out such a program from political and religious tensions and burocratic delays to mistruths spreading like wild fire among the largely illiterate trial participants. The institute had to get an endless list of clearances from National health ministry committee, local councilors, ethics and human right groups, Hindu priests, Muslim imams and community thugs. During the typhoid vaccine trials rumors were spreads that the scientists were injecting cancer cells in to people. Others believed that they were being sterilized. There was mass panic.
About 65% of the targeted study group eventually gave their consent and receive the typhoid jab. A big reason for this level of success was Dipika Sur, director of epidemiology who employed 250 slums, dwellers as community health workers, field supervisors and sample collectors. The strategy paid of largely because of staggeringly high unemployment levels in the slums. Today a health worker goes door to door sending patients with persistent symptoms of diarrhea or fever to one of seven “health outpost”, where patients received free blood test and medicines if diagnosed with cholera or typhoid. Here people can see a doctor and be treated right away. Families who share a room with 11 members are aware how important it is to keep the bathroom clean and not to drink polluted water.
India is becoming an increasingly appealing location for undertaking clinical trials. A trial in India costs half as much as in the United States, and India has a high prevalence of diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease, that predominantly affect the developed world. But India's future as a centre for 'outsourced' clinical trials could be in jeopardy. Despite its advanced hospitals, the country is struggling to find enough trained staff to run the clinical trials and lacks a central database to track them once they are underway. There are several recent cases where researchers did not comply with ethics regulations. Trial participants were, without their knowledge, given drugs that had not been approved by the health ministry or been tested adequately in animals.
If the government fulfils its promise to tighten regulations, India could benefit greatly not just from the revenue generated by these trials, but also from the new drugs being tested in its population. At least 2 million persons succumb annually to enteric infection, and in countless other patients, diarrhea disease aggravates malnutrition and susceptibility to other infections. Prevention of enteric illness by virtue of improved hygiene and provision of sanitation and water treatment is impractical in most developing countries, where morbidity and mortality rates are highest. For this reason my opinion is that development of vaccines against the most important gastrointestinal infections remains a high priority.
The biotech companies from whole world should unite and help each other by eliminating the spread of deadly diseases and bring awareness among people and live life in a clean environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
