Appointed in November, 2001 by the Bush Administration, the Council has provided valuable input on some of the most difficult ethical issues in our modern culture. New technologies, both at the beginning and end of life, have challenged our understandings of what it means to be human, and what are the limits of medical science.

The Council was first chaired by Leon Kass of the University of Chicago, followed by Edmund Pelligrino of Georgetown University in 2005. Daniel McConchie (VP for Govt. Affairs with AUL) recently said: “This was the most balanced bioethics council in history, with two leaders . . . who went out of their way to ensure the council was reflective of all the major perspectives on the issues.”

The Obama Administration claims that the President’s Council was “a philosophically leaning advisory group” that tended to focus on extended discussion rather than consensus. Others were even more critical, calling it “more like a public debating society” than an advisory agency.

I have found the President’s Council Web site to be an excellent source of balanced articles on a wide range of subjects (the site is being archived, for which I am thankful). The Council’s outgoing Chair has said this:

To advance human good and avoid harm, biotechnology must be used within ethical constraints. It is the task of bioethics to help society develop those constraints and bioethics, therefore, must be of concern to all of us. (Dr. Edmond Pelligrino)

Granted, each presidential administration has the right to set its own priorities. President Obama has said that he will soon name a new commission that will focus more on “practical policy options.” I suppose that means that this body will be less focused on theory and more on tangible steps. Hmmm.

It has sometimes been said, not without justification, that university and hospital ethics committees are in place to rubber-stamp (and defend to the public) decisions that have already been made, rather than give true, independent ethical guidance. Could this also be said of the new Council under the Obama White House?

Perhaps the former “public debating society” will be replaced by a society where there is no debate at all. Stay tuned.

NY Times Article

That is why I am troubled by her June 5th piece, “The Myth of the Lone Gunman.” Her commentary on the recent shooting of late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller is mean-spirited, vitriolic, and unfair. Virtually all the pro-life groups in this country have disavowed and repudiated the use of violence to accomplish their aims. Most pro-choice advocates understand this, and have not attempted to use this terrible incident to discredit anti-abortion activism.

Not so with Ms. Goodman. In a subtle way, she casts about widely to find a wider circle of blame. Here are a few excerpts:

It is believed that the shooter acted alone. Surely, that’s true. No one else was standing beside suspect Scott Roeder when it is believed he murdered Dr. George Tiller in the sanctuary of his church.

But Michael Griffin also acted alone when he killed David Gunn in 1993. Paul Hill acted alone when he killed John Britton in 1994. John Salvi acted alone and so did Eric Rudolph and James Kopp. This suspect is hardly lonely in this murderous cast of lone actors . . .

The pro-life community reacted with shock. No doubt. But where was the shock at the fringe groups they forgot to disavow? . . . Were they also shocked by the everyday mainstream rhetoric that casually refers to abortion as murder? Did they worry about the movement strategy designed deliberately to target providers, the weak link of abortion rights, driving clinics out of 87 percent of our counties?

Pro-life leaders denounced the murder . . . [And] as a First Amendment absolutist, I don’t believe that words kill. But this week, I can’t help wondering whether rhetoric can justify a crime in the mind of a fanatic. Can’t words provide the sort of perverse moral platform that jihadists stand on and the alternate universe in which a “lone nut” can find a home?. . .

I don’t blame everyone who checks a pro-life box on the pollster’s chart. I know that ambivalence is the emotion often cast onto the sidelines of this debate. But it is well past time for the antiabortion movement to denounce those who are in the profession of inflaming passions: Those who call Obama the “most pro-abortion president ever.” Those who ratchet up the rhetoric on a Supreme Court nominee. Those who cull doctors from their honored profession by labeling them “abortionists” . . .

You see, this suspect was not such a lone gunman. And no, I am afraid, this was not an isolated incident.

Now, let’s be clear on a few things. The sudden loss of human life is always a terrible tragedy, whether that of a physician shot down by an unbalanced gunman, or that of an unborn child who dies as a result of abortion. Ms. Goodman is obviously more concerned about the former than the latter; that is her right.

I agree that our passions sometimes get carried away, and our rhetoric is sometimes “over-the-top.” That is surely true on both sides of the debate. Ms. Goodman specifically repudiates the use of inflammatory language, e.g., labeling those who perform abortion as “murderers.” She’s got a point.

But what would you have the pro-life movement do, Ms. Goodman? Should they tone down their rhetoric so much that they can no longer call abortion evil? Surely it is not extreme to say that abortion is “morally equivalent to murder,” if one believes that human personhood begins at conception.

The moral indignation of the pro-life movement is based on a passionate defense of the most vulnerable among us, those who cannot defend themselves. Trying to get pro-lifers to tone down their rhetoric will be difficult. Their emotions are understandable in the face of a society that wants to treat human life as a disposable commodity.

I sincerely regret that a few extremists have chosen to take matters into their own hands, rather than respecting the rule of law. Their actions diminish all of us. But Ms. Goodman, you should not blame us for our moral outrage against the evil of abortion.

Source: American Medical News Link

Theme Music: Gli Uccelli (The Birds), Part I. Prelude (Allegro moderato), by Respighi, courtesy of Shockwave Sound.

Except as noted, all additional music courtesy of The Podsafe Music Network.

To listen, just click on the player below (click on the “Audio MP3″ button if the player doesn’t appear).

Then came the news that the Commencement speaker would be President Barack Obama, and that he would receive an honorary law degree. Her reaction appeared in a letter to Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the President of Notre Dame University. Some excerpts:

I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions” . . .

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice. . .

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

Professor Glendon’s letter is a bold rebuke to to Notre Dame University for setting aside its historic pro-life principles. She should be commended for her strong stand on behalf of human life.

Newsweek Article

Full Text of Professor Glendon’s Letter

It’s ironic that the United Kingdom, one of the countries on the forefront of new biomedical research, (including embryo-destructive stem cell research), has no organized system for utilizing one of the best sources of stems cells: umbilical cord blood.

Miriam Gonzalez Durantez, the wife of Britain’s Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, found this out in February when trying to donate their son’s umbilical cord blood to a national tissue bank. Only a few public hospitals in Britain are capable of collecting cord blood, and a vast array of bureaucratic and monetary hurdles prevent potential donors from being able to give.

Cord blood stem cells, taken from the discarded placenta and umbilical cord after birth, have already demonstrated enormous potential in helping patients with diseases, including cancer, leukemia, and cerebral palsy. Best of all, these stem cells are readily available, and the are no moral or ethical dilemmas associated with their use. In spite of these attractive qualities, relatively few parents in the U.S. or the U.K. know about the life-saving potential found in their baby’s discarded umbilical cord, or of the options they may have to donate the cord blood for medical research and treatment.

Miriam Gonzalez Durantez was told by officials that donation of her son’s umbilical cord blood was “impossible.” She is now trying to raise awareness of cord blood donation in Britain, urging the British government to expand the capacity of the national blood bank to collect cord blood for treatment and research.

Americans should follow Durantez’s example, and educate the U.S. public about the amazing potential of cord blood stem cells to treat human disease. As demand for umbilical cord blood grows, so will the agencies that can accept and utilize cord blood donations. Human flourishing may be improved on both sides of the Atlantic, in an ethically responsible manner.

Article in The Independent

Here is the interesting wrinkle: In a move that was probably unexpected by Oprah herself, Dr. Oz rightly pointed out that embryonic stem cells are probably not going to help much in this kind of research, because it is difficult to make them become specialized brain cells, and because such cells often form tumors when injected into experimental animals. On the other hand, an exciting development from November, 2007 uses ordinary human skin cells to create the needed stem cells. Although Dr. Oz did not use the term, they are called induced pluripotent stem cells, and they are far superior to embryonic stem cells. Look at the short video segment from Oprah - you’ll be amazed at how soon Dr. Oz expects these cells to be in clinical use:

Video Link

Theme Music: Gli Uccelli (The Birds), Part I. Prelude (Allegro moderato), by Respighi, courtesy of Shockwave Sound.

Except as noted, all additional music courtesy of The Podsafe Music Network.

To listen, just click on the player below (click on the “Audio MP3″ button if the player doesn’t appear).

Although GCP protocols claim common themes with the Declaration, key ethical requirements contained in the Declaration are absent from the GCP. These requirements include: post-trial access to treatment for the patient; the condition that research, especially research done in developing countries, should benefit and be responsive to the health needs of the populations of that country; that the study design be publicly disclosed; and that investigators reveal their sponsors, funding, and potential conflicts of interest to research ethics committees and study participants.

Key tenets of ethical human research include the right of the patient to informed consent, and protection of those who are vulnerable. Both of these important qualifications may be lost in GCP-guided international research. It would be impossible for a patient to truly exercise informed consent if the researchers are less than honest about the study design, sponsors, and potential conflicts of interest in the study. In addition, historic evidence demonstrates that people with fewer educational opportunities and lower socioeconomic status are often more vulnerable to pressure to join medical research. Many populations in third world countries could be vulnerable to undue pressure to participate in research studies.

Sadly, many developing countries lack the financial and healthcare resources to offer their own citizens the benefits of new treatments, even when their citizens participate in research for the treatment. A long-held concept of research ethics contends that research should be conducted only on populations that would receive benefit from the research. Populations that will receive no benefit, even due to socioeconomic reasons, do not seem to be ethically sound sources for research participants.

Good ethics has a global outlook. What we consider impermissible in U.S. research should not be accepted in international research. The Bible teaches us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. We must stand up for our neighbors around the globe, and call for more accountability from the FDA in international medical research.

The Lancet Article

Fr. Neuhaus, a Lutheran pastor for 30 years, converted to Roman Catholicism in 1990, and was ordained a Catholic priest one year later by New York Cardinal John O’Connor. As a social conservative, he helped to shape the dialogue of the religious right in its opposition to abortion and to the devaluation of human life. In the 1990s, he worked closely with Chuck Colson to start the movement called “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” that formed the basis for common cause on pro-life advocacy and theological engagement between Catholics and Protestants.

Fr. Neuhaus wrote several books, including his best-known work: The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America. He also was the founding editor of the journal First Things, the only magazine I read cover-to-cover each month (I highly recommend it: go to www.firstthings.com).

Fr. Neuhaus was a powerful and clear writer, after whom I have often wished to pattern my own efforts. He somehow managed to be both passionate and eloquent at the same time, and had a razor-sharp wit. Some of his comments, though subtle, could make me laugh out loud. Always gracious, his irony and sarcasm never drifted into ad hominem attacks. Most of all, there was a spiritual ebullience that directed his readers toward the Savior. His deep faith lifted his prose to musicality.

Though I have never personally met Father Richard John Neuhaus, I will deeply miss him.

Associated Press

In a revolutionary treatment, doctors inserted a genetically engineered stem cell bundle into a stroke victim’s brain. The stem cells were taken from bone marrow, and the bundle was removed after 14 days. During that time, the cells repopulated the damaged area, and the victim regained the ability to speak and the use of his right arm. In a second instance, doctors transfused a child’s own stored umbilical cord blood to treat brain damage incurred at birth. Improvement in the victim’s coordination and concentration were evident just days after the treatment, and the child is now able to attend kindergarten on a regular basis.

Even if embryonic stem cell therapy posed no ethical issues for pro-life supporters, there are compelling utilitarian reasons for preferring non-embryonic stem cell research. No embryonic stem cell treatments have reached clinical trial stage in the U.S. or Europe, despite vast funding. In contrast, the potential of non-embryonic stem cells to treat medical maladies has already been demonstrated in numerous research and clinical applications.

The pro-life movement must be a strong voice to champion non-embryonic stem cell success. While not diminishing the importance of our belief that using embryonic stem cells is ethically wrong, we should also be educating the public about the ethical and practical benefits of non-embryonic stem cell therapy. In an increasingly utilitarian world, our voice might carry farther if we, too, get excited about ethically acceptable stem cell success.

Stroke Article

Brain Injury Article

Sources:

• BBC News Article
• Brave New Families: Biblical Ethics and Reproductive Technologies (by Scott Rae, Baker, 1996)

Theme Music: Gli Uccelli (The Birds), Part I. Prelude (Allegro moderato), by Respighi, courtesy of Shockwave Sound.

Music Bumpers:

• Hymn to Saint Magnus - Jane Valencia
• Celtic Mystic - Tigertail

Except as noted, all music courtesy of The Podsafe Music Network.

To listen, just click on the player below (click on the “Audio MP3″ button if the player doesn’t appear).

Critics point out that the test may produce misleading results, uncovering genetic markers that merely indicate an increased risk of disease. There is no knowledge of how severely a child would be affected by a particular syndrome, even if a DNA irregularity were detected. In the near future these tests could be used not only to detect disease, but to screen for a variety of genetic characteristics completely unrelated to heath, such as height, weight, and physical attractiveness.

What is at stake for human valuing with this new technology? Historically, “treatment” for known genetic disorders has included abortion of the fetus. The prevalent utilitarian thinking of our culture maintains that life is worthy and valuable insomuch as it contributes in a tangible way to human flourishing. This test gives us yet one more tool to assess the physical or mental fitness of an individual before birth. If that life is found to be deficient in some characteristic, why shouldn’t it be terminated before it becomes a burden to itself and to society? Arthur Beaudet, chair of the Baylor College Department of Molecular and Human Development, commented, ”Some of these disorders are quite burdensome… People say, ‘I wish you’d given me the opportunity to know ahead of time. It’s really destroyed our lives.’”

This is alarming to those of us who value life at all stages and abilities. Do we view another human life as a diseased and useless burden, or do we perceive that life as a God-given gift, valuable because it too bears the image of the Creator?

Article in the Washington Post

Lady Warnock has been called “Britain’s leading moral philosopher,” and is especially well known for directing the Warnock Committee that set government policy concerning reproductive technologies and embryo research in the early 1980s. Now 84 years old, she is well known as a secular humanist and utilitarian thinker, who does not believe that human beings in the womb are valuable or protectable.

Lady Warnock has now turned her sights on the elderly, especially those suffering from dementia. In a recent interview for the Church of Scotland’s magazine Life and Work, she claims, “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.”

Here on this side of the pond, these comments are especially chilling to those whose loved ones have Alzheimer’s, the most common form of dementia, affecting as many as 5 million Americans. Her comments are the ultimate expression of the rampant utilitarian thinking so common in our society. This view of human value derives entirely from functional productivity, viz., those who have mental defects are less valuable simply because they cannot contribute to human flourishing in a tangible way.

But of course Lady Warnock misunderstands where the real duty lies in patients with Alzheimer’s. The duty lies, not with them, but with their caretakers. And it lies with each one of us, who must remain committed to the intrinsic value of life, where worth is not a functional thing to be earned, but a given to be respected and honored.

Article in the Telegraph

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn died at the age of 89 of a heart ailment. This once unknown Russian high school teacher published his first book, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, in 1962, launching him from obscurity to international renown. He received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970 for his brave prose confronting the evils of the former Soviet state.

Exiled from his native land, Solzhenitsyn became an American citizen, and continued speaking out against the Soviet empire. But he was equally critical of the West. He gave the commencement address at Harvard in 1978, a speech the New York Times called a “hectoring jeremiad.” Yet his criticisms seem amazingly prescient and appropriate today, even 30 years later.

In his Harvard address, Solzhenitsyn’s most scathing complaint against American society was its moral poverty. Materialism has triumphed to such an extent that “it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, leading them to physical splendor, happiness, possession of material goods, money and leisure, to an almost unlimited freedom of enjoyment.” The pursuit of happiness as unalienable right, embedded in our founding documents, has (on his view) led us to see material happiness as our highest calling.

Along the way, the very rights guaranteed by our democratic system have gotten in our way. The “supreme solution” to moral matters is found in a legal remedy:

If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk: it would sound simply absurd.

This confusing of the moral with what is merely legal is at the heart of our distorted American ideal of freedom: “Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses.” This means that man has become autonomous in his humanism: “[H]humanistic autonomy [is] the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists.”

Is it any wonder, then, that individual preferences become the moral barometer of our social, political, and ethical life? The Russian dissident has said well: “To such consciousness, man is the touchstone in judging and evaluating everything on earth. Imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects.”

In condemning material happiness as ultimate moral good, Solzhenitsyn makes the observation: “If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature.”

Which brings us to the ongoing blindness of our modern culture. Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard remarks received a cool reception when they were delivered, and still fall on deaf ears today. Despite a glowing elegiac tribute to the fallen writer, the New York Times failed to even mention that he was a devout Christian.

Alexandr, rejoice now in union with the Heavenly Father you have so loved. I hope that we may yet listen to your prophetic voice.

NY Times Tribute to Solzhenitsyn

Harvard Address

My good friend Dr. Joy Riley, Director of the Tennessee Center for Bioethics and Culture, has produced a short video entitled “Who Am I?” It is a poignant exploration of what it means to be a donor-conceived child.

“Who Am I?” (Video from YouTube)

The Tennessee Center for Bioethics and Culture

Today, however, kidney transplants are routine, as are transplants of other major organs such as the liver and heart. Survival has greatly improved, and the complication rate has dropped dramatically with the advent of powerful new anti-rejection drugs (with few side effects).

The problem? Not enough donor organs. For whatever reason, many members of the public are reluctant to sign up as donors. In Australia, there are only 10 donors per million people - compare that rate to 15/million in Germany, 27/million in the U.S., and 35/million in Spain.

This has led one Australian doctor to suggest a fee for donating. Kidney specialist Kevin Garvey has suggested that $50,000 might provide enough incentive to increase to donation rate. Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon disagrees, saying:

Putting a price on somebody’s organs, and making it a economic proposition for people that might be financially vulnerable, we don’t think is the right way to go. We don’t want to open up that sort of exploitation.

In a recent post on this subject, I expressed concern over the dangers of commodifying our body organs. Are these concerns justified? After all, since there is such a critical shortage of donors, couldn’t paying for organs help meet our needs?

An amazing news story by BBC reporter Paula MacKinnon shows that concerns about exploitation are quite justified. Ms. MacKinnon is willing to donate one of her kidneys to a stranger in need, and she’ll do this as an act of selfless giving. Her justification is amazingly simple. She states, “I am donating one of my kidneys to a stranger. I don’t need two.”

Here’s where things get bizarre: While researching her story about kidney donation, Ms. MacKinnon secretly filmed people who tried to sell their kidneys. One woman wanted £250,000; another man wanted the price of a Mercedes, about £60,000 (note that at current exchange rates, the equivalent costs in U.S. dollars are $495,000 and $118,800, respectively). As part of her research, the reporter went to India, where she discovered a terrible legacy of butchered paid donors with long-term health problems (see our recent podcast which touches on this issue, as well).

Amazingly, Ms. MacKinnon is undeterred, trusting in the integrity of her own health care system to help her to carry out her altruistic plan safely. I’m impressed.

Financial incentives to make more organs available? It’s still a bad idea, with too many hidden dangers.

block quote source

BBC Report

Sources:

• MedAssist Web Site (includes Kevin Stewart video)
• Arthur Caplan Commentary

Theme Music: Gli Uccelli (The Birds), Part I. Prelude (Allegro moderato), by Respighi, courtesy of Shockwave Sound.

Special Music: “Dignity” by Green Druid

Music Bumper: “Medley of Scots Tunes,” by Rachel Barton Pine.

To listen, just click on the player below (click on the “Audio MP3″ button if the player doesn’t appear).

The term eugenics was actually coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, an Englishman and cousin of Charles Darwin. Galton, a brilliant statistician, anthropologist, and explorer, applied Darwinian science to develop theories about heredity and how to have “good offspring.” His original writings called for a “positive eugenics,” which would benignly guide young couples to find the “best” partners, in order to ensure that certain desirable traits would carry on.

Yet the legacy of eugenics has not been a good one for humankind. Galton’s ideas soon gave way to “negative eugenics,” which recommended the culling of defectives and degenerates from the population in order to promote and preserve the fittest. Eugenics movements in the United States, Germany, and Scandinavia favored the negative approach. “Genetically selected” traits included: pauperism, feeble-mindedness, alcoholism, rebelliousness, nomadism, criminality, prostitution — all due to “defective germ plasm.” On this idea, defective individuals should not reproduce, which led to compulsory sterilization. There was a strong racist element as well, which led to selective immigration restrictions.

The popularity of eugenics thinking waned in the U.S. and Great Britain with the extreme forms seen in Nazi Germany. So why are we seeing a resurgence of eugenics thinking today? Social Darwinism and human engineering is again on the rise, with a utilitarian calculus that desires to tinker with our traits in order to make men “better.” A recent post by Wesley Smith entitled “It Pays to be a Eugenicist” discusses the big money available to promote human neurological enhancement. This meddling with our birthright, our human givens, has Wesley Smith scared, and I’m right there with him. Isn’t there a saying about those who forget the lessons of history?

Eugenics Archive