Jonathan Cannon Installment 2

           In my previous post, I stated that I am in favor of organ transplant research and that I personally believe that studies that are done in organ transplant research should not be considered human subject research. In response to the presentation, other students were supportive of transplant research with some constraints. Concern was directed to the efficacy of the studies being done and experimentation should only be performed when there is a reasonably high probability of success. This was mostly due to the fact that there is such a high demand for organs and it would be too much of a risk if there was a chance for adverse effects that could result in damage to the organ making it unsuitable for a transplant.
            In the article posted be Zach Nix for his first installment on human exportation the author states, “Even in cases of studying particular conditions, such as childhood diseases, research is usually only seen as ethically justified if it imposes no real risk of harm or is likely to have some direct therapeutic benefit.” I thought this was particularly applicable to the subject of organ transplant research because organ donors could be considered unable to protect their interest. It is important to remember that these studies are not entirely left to the discretion of the physician leading the project. The research still has to be approved by an IRB before the study can even begin. If the IRB is able to determine that there is no real risk to either the donor or the recipient of the transplant than there should not be an ethical issue with the research.
            I believe that the social taboo of this kind of research lies in the public’s perception of medical experimentation. There is the perception that when studies are not considered human subject research, the members participating in the studies no longer have an advocate to protect their best interests, leaving them exposed to the ambition of the physician leading the research.
           The first step that could be taken to remedy this would be educating people on the process that and circumstances that are required to get approval by an IRB.
Another aspect that is not fully understood by many people is what exactly is at stake for the people that are on the organ transplant list. Even individual is fortunate enough to receive an organ transplant, they are not out of the woods yet. The success rate is only between 80-90% with some procedures having more risk associated with them than others. Research that is done for the preservation of the during the transplant process is one way that the success rate for transplant recipients can be increased.
            For the majority of us in this class, our intended profession will require us to educate people. Transparency goes a long way and all of us should be able to explain how research is done and the safeguards and oversight that individuals leading studies must adhere to. It is normal for people to oppose something they don’t understand and that is not necessarily a negative thing. If the general public had a better understanding of things like the function of an IRB this would go a long way in changing public opinion and provide more open-mindedness to organ transplant research.







I commented on both Joseph's and Clorissa's posts

Medical Complications by Ana (Installment #2)

Thank you all for your participation in my presentation. The video displayed, as Dr. Oliver stated, was clearly disturbing and I agree. Here are many of your thoughts that were captured that day:

Livid

Negligent

AAAAHHH!!

Rotten

Shock

Afraid

Pissed

Anxious

Livid

Terrified

Disbelief

Passive

Un-respondent

Lawsuit

Unaware

Evil

Distrust worthy

Panic

Enabling

Unsettling

Unconscionable

My initial thought when I viewed the show on TV was ignorance, followed by anger, followed by fear. The thought of ignorance did not rise from the ignorance of the surgeon or staff during the operation, but of the producers of the show. In my opinion, they are the group that is bringing anger, fear, and potentially paranoia to viewers. Sure! It makes for great TV and fills their pockets and bellies, but this is when my thoughts turn from ignorance to anger.

As I travel a pre-med path, I understand how extremely complex this journey is. The years dedicated to virtually one-self to gain the knowledge and skills to help as many as possible is blatantly disregarded in this display of entertainment. It frustrates me that our society now feels the need to “shop” for a doctor due to a few bad apples. As a mother, I am guilty of “shopping” for a pediatrician for my children. So, what does this say about me? Yet, I do understand both points of view, but it is still frustrating that that trust is the quintessential factor that is being lost. This loss of trust also reminds me of the recent shift we have all felt in how police officers are viewed.

Finally, I was filled with fear. A fear that made me realize I will need to work even harder as a doctor. Not only will we all be faced with a variety of complications, hopefully, nothing like the surgeons in the video, but instead with an invisible complication. A battle in trying to restore the trust and prestige of a doctor that TV shows like my example are stripping away layer by layer.

How can this be accomplished? Perhaps by doing one of the most difficult acts of valor and selfless -- publicly admitting to a medical complication, no matter the cost. Can you do it? If you were the surgeon in the video and had the ability to manipulate your team, would you? Or would you admit to the truth? A question I believe, we can answer easily in this safe forum, but would it be as easy in a real-life situation?

Ana



**********************************************
Posted comments on Kayla and Ilija's Installement #1's

Guided Evolution Second Installment

            

            To determine whether or not we should affect evolution’s path, we must understand the methods behind the ability to progress the evolution of our species. Genetic editing is one possible method of advancing human evolution. When we are finally able to conduct this method in our own species, we can ensure that our offspring do not have to endure problematic health issues. Yet, even with gene editing in the traditional sense, we would need a method to ensure that once we edit a trait that is initially unfavorable into one that is favorable this trait can be passed on to future generations. One popular gene editing tool is CRISPR-Cas9, which was invented by Jennifer Doudnaand Emmanuelle Charpentier to edit genomes. CRISPR is essentially a protein which allows scientists to cut DNA and replace it with new DNA. This method was tested recently with mosquitoes carrying the malaria parasite. While CRISPR-Cas9 not yet been implemented in humans, this method is currently being used in plants and animals. While the scientists could change the DNA of the mosquitoes they directly altered, they still had the issue of if this new gene would be favored in natural selection. However, scientist Kevin Esvelt managed to come up with the possibility of a gene drive which ensures that certain traits are passed to subsequent generations within the species. We could potentially use this to combat illnesses we carry genes for; not only for ourselves or our children and their children, but as a method of evolution for our entire species. We can also ensure that organisms who pass deadly diseases, such as malaria in mosquitoes, can have their genomes permanently edited in order to prevent those from ever being an issue in the future.

            However, the issue with this method is that some species can interbreed. For example, if we want to get rid of an invasive species, it is not always guaranteed that we will only affect that particular species; we could end up accidentally wiping out other species than the targeted species. This also presents a problem as to whether or not we should subject these invasive species to extinction. There are approximately 4,300 species that have been considered invasive. Should all of these species be subject to human-guided extinction? There also lies the issue of at what point would we stop gene editing and what would the regulations be? While the initial concern for gene editing is to prevent certain diseases from being passed on within our species. However, at what point do we suggest is too far? Before we begin the process of editing the human genome, we need to consider the regulations of this technology.

            Some scientists also speculate using such methods to evolve humanity not only for life on Earth but also life elsewhere. Assuming we as a species don’t allow our planet to deteriorate any further than it already has or that no natural disasters hit Earth which cause a mass extinction of humans, we have about 4 billion years left before our sun becomes a subgiant star, in which the star will expand, and Earth will be orbiting within the sun. While this seems to be a long time for our generation, this means that if we find no alternative as a species, that will be our extinction. Therefore, our only hope of surviving as a species, so long as we last that long to begin with, is by genetically modifying our species to handle conditions outside of Earth. While it may seem as though Earth is special and the only possible place where life can exist, this might not be the case. There are billions of stars and for each star, there exists the likelihood of there being a planet which orbits that star. While not all planets are guaranteed to be habitable, we may one day have access to the technology which allows us to one day adapt to more extreme environments. Perhaps we will find these answers through certain traits within bacteria who can be subjected to extremely high and low temperatures and elevated levels of radiation. Perhaps it is our duty as a species to speed up our evolution so that we can, eventually, see and be a part of other parts of our universe.

            One issue with this, however, is we have to ensure that humanity will survive long enough for these gene edits to be useful. Another issue is perhaps our knowledge of the conditions for other places in the universe. With the possibility of using gene editing technology for traveling to other places within our solar system and our galaxy, we need to consider the potential dangers for this technology. Perhaps we believe we understand at what point humans need to be modified in order to survive on other planets; but what if we were wrong? If we send humans out to other places believing they are prepared for these different kinds of environments and they are in fact not modified enough, we could be putting those people in danger.

My first installment can be found here.

Autism and Evolution (2nd Installment)

Edit: I commented on Tariq’s first installment and Iman’s second installment
         Installment 1

In my previous post, I gave a brief explanation of what I consider the Aspie Effect: Due to social comparison, we have created a standard that determines success and productivity by the output of the neurodiverse, in particular, those with Asperger’s syndrome. Now I’ll delve into what I think may be the consequences.

I think the use of stimulant medications is on the rise so that people may be able to reach the expectations they believe are normal (for the record, belief doesn’t always equate to truth). A lot of the conversation surrounding the abuse of drugs like Adderall and Ritalin focuses on teenagers or the over-prescription of them to children. I don’t think that there is enough focus on the abuse of these drugs in the professional setting. Roughly one-third of medical students in France abuse psychostimulants in order to meet the demands of their studies. It is not reasonable to assume that this misuse of prescription drugs stops once they graduate. An anonymous study of 1200 “German-speaking surgeons” found that 19.9% admitted to abusing prescription stimulant medication. That’s an incredibly small sample size, and it's logical to conclude that some probably lied out of fear of repercussion. Another independent study focusing on those just in the scientific community found that 62% of the respondents admitted to using Ritalin as a cognitive enhancer, which I think is probably a more realistic portrayal. It’s debatable whether or not the abuse of psychostimulants have the effect that those who are abusing them are looking for longterm,  but the ability to work longer and on task the individual finds uninteresting remains a reason for people to continue to turn to the drugs. Either way, a change needs to happen: We must accept the use of stimulant drugs like the use of coffee, or we must reevaluate our standards.

What would be the consequence of allowing legal, non-prescribed access to drugs like Adderall, truly respecting the autonomy of the individual? Stimulant drugs are Schedule II controlled substances due to their “risk of abuse and dependence.” Everyone doesn’t have the same vulnerability to addiction, which is supported by the diathesis-stress model. This is why some heavy drinkers become alcoholics and some do not. We can also argue against regulations on drugs based on the addiction argument by the legality and pervasive use of known addictive substances such as sugar that adhere to a substantial profit margin for the manufacturers. If the public is permitted to use addictive substances such as tobacco, sugar, and caffeine at their own discretion, shouldn’t we also have the choice to use pharmaceutical stimulants without a doctor’s recommendation? 

The legalization of stimulant drugs is highly unlikely given America’s sordid history with drugs, as evidenced by the term marijuana and this statement by John Ehrlichman when asked about former President Nixon’s war on drugs:

“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did."

This means that the only viable solution is to acknowledge where our standards come from, recognize they are unrealistic, and then change them. The existence of the circadian rhythm (and how much of our bodily functions are tied to it) is all we need to state with certainty that surgeons shouldn’t be required to work 36 hours shifts. The concept of the brilliant scientist frantically working in his lab for days on end seems to have become an image of what dedication to one’s work looks like, but that just isn’t reasonable. In fact, most people are more productive when they work shorter work weeks. It’s speculated that Henry Cavendish, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Sir Isaac Newton, Nicola Tesla, and even Ludwig Wittgenstein were all on the autistic spectrum, meaning that these role models for all of humanity have a completely different biological/neurological makeup than the majority of the population. Instead of turning to drugs in order to emulate the obsessive behavior that these individuals were consumed by, we should spend more time accepting the variations in humanity, not trying to make everyone adapt to one unachievable and unhealthy standard. 

We still don’t fully understand the origin of autism spectrum disorders. Is it fair to theorize that it was potentially man-made? Some theories postulate that stress has a teratogenic effect, inducing genetic mutations that cause autism. Could the stress of trying to adhere to society’s expectation be the cause of autism? If we continue to exist in such a high-stress environment, will autism become the default of the future human? Are we forcing our species to evolve into an autistic society?

Eugenics Installment 2

For my first installment, I will be discussing the ethics of Eugenics. Eugenics is the science of improving the genetic composition of the human species by selective breeding.  According to this science, humanity could be improved by encouraging the “most fit” to reproduce more often and discouraging the least fit members of society from reproducing. Eugenics believes that selecting the mating partners and controlling the offspring improves the quality of human life.

Before my presentation I was supporting eugenics because I believed that if people of good quality were to mate with each other and people of bad quality were not to reproduce, the result would be more people of good quality. I thought that eugenics eliminates hereditary conditions that lead to deformities, mental and physical problems so it protects children against the inheritance of genetic disorders from their ancestry. Eugenics helps to control gender of offspring this allows parents to choose whether to have a male or female child and this allows them to have a family gender variety . I believed that eugenics creates better Individuals. Studies show that bad behaviors are due to faulty mental processes found in the brain. By altering the DNA makeup of babies, these mental processes can be controlled and help create individuals that are better versions of themselves. Eugenics can make us stronger, faster, healthier, more generous, hardworking, smarter. Moreover, I believed that eugenics can help us control population growth in humans.

After my presentation, I recognized that there are many serious moral and ethical problems with eugenics so I became to a great extent against it. Eugenics can be abused by scientists and politicians to manipulate others. People can use gender screening to stereotype. When new generations of humans are controlled genetically, it eliminates diversity and creates a unified type of race that is deemed perfect and superior. It also creates extreme discrimination against natural born babies because they will be considered inferior to those engineered ones with healthier bodies, smarter minds and better looks. Eugenics can be used against races and minority groups.

Even though, I am against many forms of eugenics, I still accept some forms of it such as the abortion of children who have genetic defects, such as Down syndrome. This could be for the benefit of both parents and children as it could save both of them lots of pain and suffering. Recent research suggests that abortion after prenatal diagnosis has reduced the population of individuals living with Down syndrome in the United States by approximately 30 percent. 

Installment 1

For my first installment I will begin to discuss some of the many dilemmas surrounding the genetically modified foods issue and the upcoming dilemma about lab grown food. I will begin by discussing what’s actually being added to our animal and plant products. The FDA only approves the use of six hormones in agriculture. Three of the hormones on this list are naturally occurring hormones: estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone. The other three “hormones” on the FDA’s list are man-made chemicals that they “proved” are safe for human consumption: zeranol, trenbolone acetate and melengesterol acetate. The reason I put proved in quotation marks is because according to their website, “The FDA approves these drugs only after information and/or studies have shown that the food from the treated animals is safe for people to eat, and that the drugs do not harm the treated animal or the environment. The drugs also have to work as intended.” This statement seems to contradict many studies done on the effects of these hormones. Many studies show that prolonged overexposure to these hormones leads to cancers and other health problems such as diabetes and obesity. It makes me curious how their research findings seem to deem these hormones safe while numerous other researchers come to an opposite conclusion.

                Though the FDA deems these hormones and chemicals safe for human consumption while other researchers oppose these finding based off of their own findings, for now it is still unknown of what all long term effects that are caused by these hormones. Many researchers are beginning to link exposure to these hormones to many illnesses such as various forms of cancer, obesity, diabetes, and endometriosis. The main purpose of these studies is to get these chemicals listed as carcinogens, cancer causing agents, and therefore get them removed from the FDA approved lists. Such findings for estradiol has been discussed in Europe which has led to the substance being banned in Europe for years, yet it is still allowed for use in the United States. However, it is hard to find definitive evidence of the effects of the hormones on human because trials concerning this type of research is deemed, rightfully so, unethical.

                Two of the most prominent hormone/chemicals added to animals currently is estrogen and steroids. Two substances that are not even on the FDA’s list but it commonly in chickens and cows on many farms throughout the United States to increase growth and in cow’s case also to increase milk production. Many scientific investigations show that prolonged exposure to estrogen leads to breast cancer. While eating meats and drinking milk from steroid injected cows can lead to prostate and colon cancer. Though as of right now this is just speculation these outcomes could be caused by a third-party variable that we have not accounted for. Until it is proven one way or another we should play it safe and outlaw things that research linked to be unsafe.

                Another urgent concern to me is synthetic or artificial versions of these hormones that are used in the industry. For example, diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic version of estrogen, was found that it amplified the risk of vaginal cancer in women that were exposed to the estrogen variant.

                Though with various evidence that can lead one to question whether these hormones and additives are safe, the general public is not aware of the possible dangers in the grocery stores fast-food restaurants. When they go to their local grocery store and enter the meat section of the store they are greeted two prominent options. Option one is a FDA approved chicken breast while option two is an organic chicken breast. The organic option is advertised to be healthier for you, but the FDA approved option is twice the size and half the cost. Growing up I would always wonder why someone would rather pay double the price for a piece of meat that half the amount. For the average consumer it is becoming increasingly harder to eat natural food with the cost of organic foods rising, so the logical option for most people is to get the most out of their dollar and purchase the meat approved by their government.

Jonathan Cannon Installment 1

For my first installment, I will be discussing the ethics surrounding organ transplant experimentation. In all cases when working with other people as healthcare professionals it is essential that the respect is always to be given to the individual as well as the preservation of their dignity. Before diving into the subject, I want to provide a little background for organ transplants. Every year there are over 116,000 people are on the organ transplant waiting list and Every day 20 people die waiting for an organ transplant. One donor can donate up to 8 lifesaving organs. Around 1% of deaths in America occur in a way that individual able to donate their organs.

I was unaware of the controversy surrounding experimentation with organ transplants until I came across an article by Sarah Zhang in the Atlantic. In this article, the author highlights the ethical issue surrounding organ transplant experimentation specifically when dealing with brain-dead patients. The brain death can be defined as the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain, including the brainstem. The three essential findings in brain death are coma, the absence of brainstem reflexes, and apnoea.  Essentially the body is capable of living but the brain is completely unresponsive and the damage is irreversible. While physicians can use equipment to ensure that the lungs keep supplying the body with oxygen and the heart continues to beat circulating blood throughout the body, in the absence of hormonal regulation provided by the brain the body can no longer function properly and begins to experience organ and tissue damage.           

Researchers want to study drugs and procedures that could be used to slow down if not stop the damage that sets in minutes after brain-death in order to improve organ transplant success. These types of studies are nearly impossible to perform due to the ethical implications of performing human subject research. As we learned in our readings from Bioethics: The Basics by Campbell, The Nuremberg Code of 1947 laid down ground rules in order to protect subjects of medical experiments, stressed the necessity for fully informed and voluntary consent (p15).  This is the biggest setback to organ transplant studies, from whom does the researcher obtain informed consent? Is it necessary only for the donor to provide informed consent or do the recipients need to provide informed consent? It is on institutional bases whether or not a study is considered human subject research and IRB approval must be obtained before a study can begin. In a case where an IRB determined that brain dead individuals were not considered human subject research, removing the need for the researchers to obtain informed consent. Public opinion in response to this study was hostile enough to deter any future research on a promising procedure for improved kidney transplants.

It is my personal belief that it is ethically justifiable to perform studies for drugs or techniques to improve the potential for organ transplant success. These studies provide an outlet by which the donor can be honored by ensuring that the doctors performing the transplant are doing so in the best way possible.

Autism and Evolution (Installment #1)

Where do our expectations for one another (and ourselves) come from? I often see social media posts challenging standards for women, claiming that the media negatively influences our perception of feminine beauty and womanhood. There currently isn’t as much conversation regarding the portrayal of men in a negative or expectant way, but it certainly does happen as well. We all seem to notice that certain physiques or personality types are lauded as ideal or more advantageous, but the archetypes don’t change despite our complaints and calls for more diverse representation.

My question is: “Why”? Dr. Leon Festinger, an American social psychologist, attempted to answer this question with the social comparison theory. The social comparison theory states that humans naturally compare themselves to one another to determine what behaviors or attributes are correct to possess. I believe this ties into theories of physical attractiveness discussed by evolutionary psychologists, such as the bilateral symmetry of features and bone structure. Our genetic drive to reproduce viable offspring causes us to value certain traits over others, which then creates the desire to resemble those that are deemed most worthy of reproducing with.

Notice the similarity in the facial structure of popular actors

These things amount to nothing more than superficial physical characteristics. I’ve begun to wonder, though, if we have started to analyze personality characteristics in this same, unconscious manner. According to evolutionary psychology, both sexes really only look for partners that are “kind, understanding, dependable, sociable, stable, and intelligent”; everything else comes down to personal preferences. Even so, I’ve noticed a trend in the personality traits displayed in successful male protagonists. I’m going to call it the “Aspie Effect.”

Characters such as Dr. Gregory House, Tony Stark, and Sherlock Holmes all fit into this model of the Aspie Effect, in my opinion. Each of these characters possesses stereotypical male Asperger’s characteristics, such as: 

• An intense interest in and extensive knowledge of a certain subject that deviates from the norm
• Difficulty with interpersonal relationship
• Use of maladaptive coping skills due to emotional difficulties
• A pretentious attitude that comes from a lack of social skills
• A reliance on others to compensate for their social deficits

We also see traits similar to these in current successful businessmen, such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. TV shows such as Silicon Valley satire this phenomenon that seems to be occurring in the tech sector. Now, we have companies intentionally recruiting individuals on the spectrum. How does this affect the majority of the population who are neurotypical?

I believe that the admiration and over-abundant portrayal of an anomaly has created unreasonable expectations for human behavior. Inadvertently, we are both increasing the occurrences of autism spectrum disorders in our population, as well as setting ourselves up for failure. We have reshaped what it means to be a successful doctor, businessman or inventor into an unattainable goal. Essentially, we are metaphorically pointing at Einstein and telling everyone to work harder to be like him if they want to be taken seriously as a scientist.

Am I saying that individuals with high-functioning autism or Asperger’s are Einsteins? Absolutely not. I am stating, however, that it is not possible for a neurotypical individual to function in the same way as a person on the autistic spectrum. Autism is a developmental difference that begins in utero, not a personality type shaped through socio-environmental factors.

Source

So how do we meet these impossible standards? I think that the abuse of stimulants such as Adderall has been society’s answer. I’ll approach that theory and what I believe it means for the way we approach medication, as well as the possibility of autism becoming the new human archetype in post #2.

Life Extension Changes the Game, Part 2

I am most definitely not one of the top three run scorers in this class, so I'll go ahead and do this. Last time, we covered life extension and how it changes the whole bioethical conversation, especially in regard to body modification, speciesism and cryonics. To recap: 

Cryonics: Would become unpopular, possibly to where nobody does it. 

Speciesism: If it would help and not hurt, we have no reason not to. 

Body Modification: Would be cool, although our bodies would become a commodity like a car. 

While these are valuable and interesting things to consider, I feel like there's one other topic that would change as a result. It's a hot topic nowadays, currently illegal in 53 U.S. states (Hawaii legalized it recently), and it's something that I think won't stop being discussed, but will change in nature: 

Life Extension and Euthanasia 

Current wisdom holds that doctors must do everything in their power to keep someone from killing themselves. Everyone, however, has their own "gotcha" scenario that runs counter to this wisdom such as being fully immobile, being diagnosed with a terminal illness or suffering brain damage that basically makes you into someone else. There's at least as many counter-arguments as there are argumnets, but I think that living for an extra 620 years or so would change what both sides say about euthanasia. 

500 year old man added for visual flavor. Music image created by Pressfoto - Freepik.com

One of the effects of Aubrey DeGrey's theoretical treatment is to basically prevent aging, making it so that you'll still be in your prime at 20, 120 and even 620. One of the conventional arguments is that when a patient is old, there's no point to bring them back, if you can even take them off life support. After all, grandpa'd only be around for another ten years at best anyways, why break our backs to prolong his suffering until then? But if life extension works as proposed, that argument becomes less applicable. The part where they're stuck on life support holds water, but there's a much smaller window that can be considered "too old to bother".

Sorry, grandpa. Speaking of euthanasia...

Something that I'm concerned about is the fact that there's little wisdom to go on for coping with 700 years of being alive. There is some comfort in scaling up current wisdom about living a long time, but at best it's a circular peg for a bigger, square hole. Even if it happens to fit in, it doesn't fill out the proverbial corners. Most older folks dealt with the fact that they got old, but after age extension a lot of people are dealing with awful things while still young and while they're still fully capable of acting. In that event, it's a lot harder to wait for better times. Add in unnatural deaths you deal with for potentially hundreds of years, I think a lot more people might start feeling that they lived too long. If you can fill your life by 80 already, what do you do with the other 620? 

Oh yeah, become a cool cyborg.

This is barely even scratching the surface as far as I can tell, but I only have so much room to work with. I'm all for age extension, but I believe that we, as a society, need to be ready for the massive impact it will have. Heck, there's still the elephant in the room that is overpopulation, alongside medicalization and the unequal distribution of medical care around the world. 

There's a lot we need to know before we can safely live for centuries, but ultimately the wheel of time has already started rolling. You can't roll that back without sacrificing a lot, so the best you can do is keep ahead of it. 

Designer Babies: The Future Generation

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/agar.html

Quiz Questions

(From article)
1. What is the definition of a "Designer Baby"?

2. What was the result of introducing the gene NR2B into the mice genome?

3. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is used by _______?

4. What is another method that could be used to create a designer baby?

5. T/F    Some think we should reject genetic enhancement because of its connection with the eugenics programs promoted by the Nazis

(From video)
6. Someone with no genetic modifications would be called a _____.

7. What genetic modification technology was used to create "Jenna"?

8. T/F    GM kids would have lower medical cost.

9. Name an issue that a designer baby could have.

Discussion Questions

1. What impact do you think a community of genetically modified humans will have on society?
2. Should there be regulations on the genes that a parent can modify in an unborn child?
3. What effect do you think having a designer baby will have on parenting?

Medical Conscience: Katelyne Tatum

The "Medical Conscience" Civil Rights Movement by Wesley J. Smith

[https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/03/the-medical-conscience-civil-rights-movement]

Until recently, healthcare was not culturally controversial. Medicine was seen as primarily concerned with extending lives, curing diseases, healing injuries, palliating symptoms, birthing babies, and promoting wellness—and hence, as a sphere in which people of all political and social beliefs were generally able to get along.

That consensus has been shattered. Doctors today may be asked to provide legal but morally contentious medical interventions such as sex selection abortion, assisted suicide, preimplantation genetic diagnosis of IVF embryos, even medications that inhibit the onset of puberty for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria. As a consequence, medical practice has become embroiled in political and cultural conflict.

On one side, a coalition of establishment medical associations, pro-choice activists, gay rights organizations, the ACLU, the Democratic party, and mainstream bioethicists promotes a “patient-centered” medical paradigm. Under this view, patients have the right to obtain any legal and effectual medical intervention they desire (and can pay for). In the interest of avoiding discrimination, whatever religious or moral qualms medical professionals may have will take a back seat to satisfaction of the patient’s desire. Many advocates argue that if doctors can’t leave their own morality at the clinic door, they should get out of medicine.

Against such healthcare conscription, “medical conscience” advocates—doctors, nurses, and other professionals who believe in the sanctity of life, plus their supporters, such as conservatives and the pro-life movement—insist that as a matter of basic civil rights, medical professionals should be allowed to refuse participation in procedures and interventions to which they have a religious or moral objection (subject to certain limitations, such as when the patient’s life is at stake). This view is already supported to a limited extent in federal law regarding abortion and sterilization, as well as in most state-assisted suicide legalization statutes. The Trump Administration recently raised the stakes when it announced the creation of a special office in the Department of Health and Human Services to enforce existing federal laws protecting medical conscience. The secular left was not amused.

Now David S. Oderberg, a philosophy professor at the University of Reading in the U.K., has produced a “Declaration in Support of Conscientious Objection in Healthcare.” As the Declaration notes, Article 18 of the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” a statement that should not exclude healthcare professionals in the performance of their callings. From Oderberg’s Declaration:

If health care workers are not to be reduced to mere functionaries (of the state, of the patient, of the legal system), they must be free to exercise their professional judgment and to allow their consciences to inform that judgment. This freedom of professional judgment informed by conscience must translate into the freedom not to be involved in certain activities or practices to which there is a conscientious objection.

The Declaration acknowledges that people are free to access legal medical procedures from willing professionals. But their rights to do so “are not violated merely because they cannot be enforced against a person exercising their freedom of conscience and religion—for otherwise this freedom itself would be meaningless.” In other words, liberty is a two-way street. Patients may obtain medical care from consenting professionals, but they may not dragoon the unwilling into acting against their own moral views.

Oderberg’s Declaration also asserts that democratic societies “should not play favorites by choosing one system of morality to trump all others.” I would state it even more strongly: Civil liberties are most needed when protecting minority perspectives. This means that medical conscience rights are more crucial to liberty now—as Western societies are secularizing and faith is becoming a heterodox perspective—than when religious belief was society’s default setting.

Oderberg is aware that some might make ludicrous claims for protection—either as a wild hypothetical to disparage the right of medical conscience, or as a result of religious beliefs that society need not countenance. Hence the Declaration states:

Freedom of conscience and religion in a liberal society does not entail that “anything goes.” … For the protection to apply, a person must have a deeply held, sincere adherence to a tenet or doctrine of their code of ethics or religion that forbids—expressly or by necessary implication—the kind of act to which they object. Moreover, the relevant religious or ethical code must be one that has current or historic popular acceptance across some significant portion of the society in which the conscientious objector resides, or in some other society where the code is readily identifiable.

The Declaration warns that new fields of medical research and bioethical advocacy could lead to even greater conscience controversies within the healthcare sphere than are currently being experienced. These are not enumerated, but let me suggest a few examples to indicate the stakes:

• Some of the world’s most influential bioethicists advocate changing the law to permit organ harvesting from people diagnosed as persistently unconscious.
• Biotechnologists hope to develop treatments made from embryonic stem cells derived from human cloned embryos.
• New gene-editing technologies could allow the engineering of human gametes and human embryos in order to enable eugenic modifications of progeny.
• Advocacy has commenced to allow healthy limbs to be amputated or spinal cords severed as a “treatment” for people suffering from “body identity integrity disorder”—a mental illness in which able-bodied people identify as being disabled.
• There is even a growing movement to require the intentional starvation of dementia patients who willingly take food and water—if they have previously asked to die upon reaching a certain milestone of cognitive decline.

Do we really want to require doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and others to participate in such acts if they consider them to be immoral or grievously sinful? Should healthcare public policy declare lived faith to be non gratain the medical professions? I say emphatically, no!

There is also a practical consideration. If we force healthcare professionals to violate their moral beliefs, we could see a mass exodus from the medical professions. Older doctors and nurses will retire, taking their experience and knowledge with them. Talented young people who would make splendid doctors, nurses, or pharmacists may avoid the field altogether.

If you agree that protecting medical conscience is an important civil rights issue, I hope you will join me in supporting the Declaration in Support of Conscientious Objection in Health Care. For information on signing and to read the entire Declaration, hit this link.

Quiz:

1. Smith says, "Until recently, healthcare was not culturally controversial." What was medicine primarily concerned with?
2. (T/F) Many advocates against medical conscience argue that if doctors can not leave their own morality at the clinic door, then they should get out of medicine.
3. What is "medical conscience"?
4. (T/F) The Trump Administration created a special office in the Department of Health and Human Services to enforce existing federal laws protecting medical conscience.
5. What does Oderberg's Declaration say about patients rights to receive treatment from professionals?

Discussion Questions:

1. Should we force healthcare professionals to provide services they morally disapprove?
2. What could be the result of forcing healthcare professionals to perform procedures they morally disapprove?
3. With the constantly evolving technologies available in medicine and research, how can we prepare for the greater conscience controversies we will likely see?