One Day's Google Stem Cell Information

I hate to give away trade secrets, but here's what came up on the Google News Search Alerts this afternoon (My comments are in italics):

Google Alert for: stem cell cells

Stem-cell inquiry must be scientific and ethical
Seattle Post Intelligencer - USA
... Stem cell research is forging ahead, and funded by the feds. "Adult" stem cell research, using these amazingly versatile cells taken harmlessly from umbilical ...
This is an editorial by Dr. Nigel Cameron, who was the US representative to the UN's conference on cloning last spring. Dr. Cameron teaches Bioethics at Trinity International Univesity.

Health Northwest: Embryonic stem cell research might open door for ...
The Daily Astorian - Astoria,OR,USA
... Adult stem cells have been studied since the 1960s, and the use of adult stem cell transplants for certain illnesses is well established. ...

Poor reporting on the history as well as the ethics of embryonic stem cells. Human embryonic stem cells were described in 1979.

Governor Pushes for Funding Of Stem Cell Research in Va.
Washington Post - United States
... Embryonic stem cells are coveted for their potential to repair ... research because of the potential the cells hold for changing into any type of cell or tissue in ...

The Governor should read the next three articles.

StemCells, Inc. Receives Manufacturing License for Cell Processing ...
Genetic Engineering News - Larchmont,NY,USA
... These stem cells are expandable into cell banks for therapeutic use, which demonstrates the feasibility of using normal, non-genetically modified cells as cell ...
Stem cells from "normal human brains" poised for clinical trials. Ethically obtained, adult stem cells, that is.

Balto Star back in training after receiving stem cell treatments
Thoroughbred Times - Lexington,KY,USA
... "We employed some of this stem cell technology that ... They extracted the stem cells and sent back basically an injection that we injected into the tendon, and he ...
Adult stem cell therapy for a race horse - successful.

Human muscle stem cells fight incontinence
Science Daily (press release) - USA
Neck and shoulder stem cell origin found (July 21, 2005) -- Researchers say the discovery of how stem cells form the neck and shoulder areas of vertebrate ...
Another adult stem cell therapy - proven in animal trials - ready to be tried in humans.

More Debate on Adult vs. Embryonic Stem Cells
ProLife Blogs - USA
The fact remains that embryonic stem cells may develop into virtually every type of cell in the human body. That remains to be proven for adult stem cells. ...

This excerpt is the direct opposite of the message of the website, which is the clearinghouse for all things pro-life.

This once a day Google Alert is brought to you by Google.

Professor Chooses to Deny Free Will (at Cornell)

This is not a religious blog, although I would never deny my faith or that my world view is strongly influenced by the fact that I'm a Christian. I just believe that the big Truths are pretty evident, even for those without faith. This is the heart of ethics: there are rights and wrongs, "yeses" and "noes," times when we must say "I will," or "I won't."

However, the Cornell Daily Sun reports that the Bioethics Society of Cornell University hosted a discussion with Professor Willian Provine during which he denied the existence of choice or free will, and says that assigning blame to people for their actions harms them and society.

Yes, as I admit above, we are each a product of both our nature and our nurture. We are biological beings in a material world. On the other hand, people keep surprising us.

As Dr. Robert Spitzer has pointed out in his book, Healing the Culture, humans will sacrifice their lives for an idea, for people and creatures outside their tribe, and we hold unconditional love as our highest virtue.

We could give evolutionary justifications for each of the above. Like the Professor's denial of free will, all of those explanations would be convuluted.

Chimeras, animal research and Humans

The Scotsman has an opinion piece, "Genetic science alters war on animal rights," by Kirsty Milne, which expresses confusion about what is right and wrong regarding research using animals and human subjects. She focuses on the altering of physical characteristics of different species by genetic manipulation.

While the stealing of a family member's corpse from the cemetery to intimidate a family raising guinea pigs for science research subjects is horrifically fascinating (and I do apologise for the hyperbole, but really!), what really knocks me back is the fuzziness about the boundaries between people - human subjects - and animals.

As I say at the top of this page: "We are the only species having this conversation."

And that should be the guage by which we judge - and limit - scientific research: does it endanger our species, a member of our species, or change what it means to be human?

Not every member of the species and even the few who do are able to join the conversatin at all times. But in all the world, the only creatures who will discuss right and wrong will be members of the species, Homo sapiens.

None of us should be comfortable with causing unnecessary pain in the world - whether it be unpleasant nociception for "knock out" mice or apes, all of us should be very uncomfortable with the possibility of changing or ending the life of anyone who might or might have - or whose parents or children might - be able to judge us wrong. Or create a work of art. Or sacrifice themselves for an idea or love.

Texas: death penalty for abortionists?

I believe in incrementalism.

The Waco Tribune today reports that the local District Attorney believes that doctors who commit illegal abortions could face First Degree Murder charges and risk the death penalty.

We managed to change the law in Texas 2 years ago to include unborn children as "human." In order to mollify some members of the Texas Medical Association (especially a group of abortionist and their support staff, who were paying lobbyists and calling our Prenatal Protection Act the "fetal human rights act'), a provision was added that the mother and anyone who carries out a "legal" procedure intended to kill the child could not be prosecuted or sued for any harm to the child.

However, the new Parental Consent Law might have tweaked the case for protection of the child as well as his minor mother.

There are provisions in the law for judicial bypass and for-life-of the-mother and severe-neurological-defect emergencies.

But, if the doctor fails to obtain written, informed consent, cannot back any claims of danger to the mother/child's life or that the child was "going to die anyway" due to severe developmental problems, what kind of crime has been committed?


I want to say that I hate the death penalty. The 7 who broke out of the Connolly prison in South Texas and went on to kill a policeman, Officer Hawkins, swayed me back to the opinion that there are times when the only way to protect society is to end the life of the threat.

It should be rare, legal and humane.


Ironic, huh?

Morning after pill oxymoron

The Washington Post article on the delay of approval for Plan B, by Lauren Neergaard reminded me that the whole discussion is an oxymoron:


Most women hoping to buy emergency contraception without a prescription will have to wait awhile longer.


Who is going to be "hoping" for an emergency???

Ethics 101

Great editorial on World Net Daily, today.

Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D, a law and bioethicist and a member of Science Ministries, discusses four types of ethics.

I'd like to add to the discussion about Spock's statement about the "good of the many." The statement is used several times by Spock and other Star Trek characters, from the earliest shows, probably reflecting the views of Ray Bradbury, the creator of the series. (Dating myself, there.)

Spock could have ordered a subordinate to go into danger, but chose to risk himself instead. His justification of self sacrifice sounds like the mantra of Utilitarianism, but his actions reflect Natural Law (as in "you shouldn't kill other human beings") - or even Christianity (as in "no greater love than to lay down his life for his brother").

No pain, no harm?

In a comment on my post on prenatal pain,
Silent Rain Drops asked:

Physicians who treat pain often prescribe anti-depressants in conjunction with, or at times as the only, pain therapy - isn't this intended to affect more how the patient "feels" about his or her pain than the actual pain itself - or the nociception, if I understand you correctly?

If you don't remember pain, did you suffer pain?

Hypnotics are used because they relax the patient who will probably forget the painful event as a side effect of the medicine. But, think about people you know who are "happy drunks" and those who are "mean drunks."


When these protocols are used, we often have a very upset, difficult to control patient who cannot process or control his or her own responses to pain. They may not remember it later, but they do experience pain at the time.

The physiological effects are still there. The heart rate goes up, the adrenaline and cortisone and other chemicals are dumped in the blood.


We flat don't know the effects on the brain and development of pain inflicted on these babies. (the ones who aren't killed)

We discourage our children from pulling the legs off grasshoppers or torturing animals. Do we want history to look back on us as a society that systematically allowed the horrors of abortion at all - much less those of the second and third trimesters?

Backlash hurts (Fetal Pain article)

The fact that the editor in chief, Catherine D. DeAngelis, of the Journal of theAmerican Medical Association is receiving outraged emails is news. (And, they're mean and hateful, too, depending on how you define "hateful" doesn't it?)

After the AMA had to reverse its stand on harvesting organs from still living anencephalic babies in the early '90's, as well as face public and professional (and membership) disapproval after the Sunbeam deal and the political artical on whether teens believe oral sex is "sex," I would think that some one in that organization would learn.

But, I agree with Dr. Joe Pojman, that the whole fuss will actually help the prolife cause by educating the public that the early child has a brain, nerve fibers, and reacts in some way to being harmed.

Even if some don't call it pain, it hurts.

The uterus has stem cells!

I don't know why anyone would be surprised in light of the function of the uterine lining, with periodic (pardon the pun) turnover and the need to expand and nurture the infant.
Thanks to the Stem Cell Blog, I heard about this article which was published a year ago. The "LifeNews" website and a couple of medical newsletter sites published notes on the discovery and the plans to use the cells to repair pelvic damage.

I imagine that other tissues could be treated with these cells, also.

Previously, there was a report about women who had undergone bone marrow transplant who developed endometrial cells that matched the Donor. In other words, if a woman receives a bone marrow transplant from another person, those stem cells not only replace her bone marrow to regenerate all her blood cells, but some of the cells migrate to her uterus to become stem cells that regenerate her uterine lining each month. There are also reports that stem cells from the woman's children enter her blood cell and take up residence in the thyroid and other tissues.(Yes, even if the donor/child is a male.)

Prenatal Pain vs. "Nociception:" Psychological Construct?

The Journal of the American Medical Association (This link is to the abstract. Subscription is required for the full article) published an article this week claiming to definitively settle the problem of whether or not children feel pain before birth.

Some of you may have read that there are serious ethical questions about the authors, two of whom are involved in the abortion industry.

But, what you probably won't read in the popular press is that the definition of pain used by the authors is a little bit more convoluted that the one you and I might use. Specific and particular jargon is important for consistent communication within a profession, however it may complicate communication between specialties. And a difference in the understanding of the definition of "pain" is vital in this case, where the authors call pain a "psychological construct." I believe that their definition is constructed.

Here's the description of the definition of pain from the article:

What Is Pain?

"Pain is a subjective sensory and emotional experience that requires the presence of consciousness to permit recognition of a stimulus as unpleasant. Although pain is commonly associated with physical noxious stimuli, such as when one suffers a wound, pain is fundamentally a psychological construct that may exist even in the absence of physical stimuli, as seen in phantom limb pain. The psychological nature of pain also distinguishes it from nociception, which involves physical activation of nociceptive pathways without the subjective emotional experience of pain. For example, nociception without pain exists below the level of a spinal cord lesion, where reflex withdrawal from a noxious stimulus occurs without conscious perception of pain.

"Because pain is a psychological construct with emotional content, the experience of pain is modulated by changing emotional input and may need to be learned through life experience. Regardless of whether the emotional content of pain is acquired, the psychological nature of pain presupposes the presence of functional thalamocortical circuitry required for conscious perception, as discussed below."

In other words, does the child feel bad about being hurt?

The stimuli that the writers are describing are the same that you and I would describe as painful. The child's brain is stimulated, to varying degrees, depending on his stage of development. Using this definition, most children would not pass their test until they were over a year old.

Some have speculated that the children may experience *more* "nociception" than a child who is mature, since the nerve stimuli can't be processed.

In the case of prenatal surgery for a wanted child (which seems to be the definition far too many use for "human child") the fetal stress hormones (mentioned in the paper) and the stimulation of the nerves themselves will affected and will actually change the way those nerves and nerve pathways will develop. With consequences that we do not yet understand.

From an article on neurodevelopment and child trauma and the periodic sensitivity to stressors:

There is some evidence to suggest that prenatal or maternal traumatic stress has significant impact on neurodevelopment -- battering the pregnant mother is also battering the developing fetus (Amaro et al., 1980).

and

The abnormal pattern of stress-mediating neurotransmitter and hormone activations during development alters the brains of traumatized children. The specific nature of these fucntional alterations is seen in all of the brain functions which are directly or tangentially related to CNS catecholamine systems. Unfortunately, the CNS catecholamines (and likely other important neurotransmitter systems altered by these experiences) are involved in almost all core regulatory activities of the brain. The brainstem and midbrain catecholamines are involved in regulation of affect, anxiety, arousal/concentration, impulse control, sleep, startle, autonomic nervous system regulation, memory and cognition.

Of course, if the child is killed, there is no more development, is there?

For those of us who love science, one of the attractions is the fact that our knowledge increases as we develop better tools to measure, record, and repeat our experiments. Neuroscience is one of the most exciting fields today, because of techniques such as functional MRI and ever more focused and reliable ways to measure development, physiology and function. Within the last two years we found out that we were wrong about the old idea that no one develops new brain cells after the age of two. We also learn more each day about the effects of stimuli and "use it or lose it" on the development and function of the brain. In the last year, it was reported that infants as young as fifteen months old are able to tell the difference between false beliefs and those that are true, a cognitive skill that went against previous evidence and testing methods.

In light of these facts, shouldn't humane medical research and treatments be cautious in order to "First, do no harm?"

As noted in this blog, since when do we allow people to kill other people just because that person can't feel pain? Would a surgeon take an unconscious person to the operating room without anesthesia? Terri Schiavo was even given IV morphine while she was being starved to death.

Edited May 26, 2009 for "labels."

Embryonic stem cells - but organs are long way off

Here's more news on embryonic stem cells (from the BBC) pointing out that organ transplant from these cells are far in the future.

"However, much more work is needed.

Dr Bishop said: "Although it will be some years before we are able to build actual human lungs for transplantation, this is a major step towards deriving cells that could be used to repair damaged lungs."

Professor Stephen Spiro, professor of respiratory medicine at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and spokesman for the British Lung Foundation, said: "This is very exciting, but there is a lot more work to do."

He said there were many other cell types that make up the lung that would be needed to make new organs.

But he said the cells that the Imperial team had made were crucial for lung function. "

I'll bet that there might be a very short-lived trial of transplants like this - but the logistics of growing and supporting the normal development of a lung - with vasculature, matrix and the alveoli - and then the surgery sounds to convoluted and dangerous, to me. (Organs would also take a while to grow and might depend on cloning - especially if genetic manipulation is needed to correct a genetic disease.)

The ideal would be to cause the patient's own lungs to regenerate. Hopefully, the research is focused on the environment and factors that stimulate recruitment and development of stem cells in situ.

Even better, a rejuvenative treatment that causes the body to continually replace damage. Then, we'd just need supportive care in the case of acute trauma.

"cloning a human is easier than cloning a cow"

This article, "Someone, Somewhere is Trying to Clone a Human Now" is on Red Nova News, and requires free subscription, but it's worth reading.

The common myth is that there is some difference between so called "therapeutic" cloning and "reproductive cloning." This article continues that misdirection, as well as mentioning that embryonic stem cells can produce " virtually any type of specialised cell in the human body." Well, of course they can: that's how all of us began - as an embryo full of our stem cells.

But, the author details the history of cloning since the first tadpole was cloned in the '50's and describes the differences in cloning different species, as well as the special difficulties in some species. I was surprised at how many species have been cloned already.

But most importantly, he gives away several points that the embryonic stem cell lobby would rather we did not know. Among them are:

1.

"Bring me human eggs, the necessary social consensus and legal permission and I can get you your replica within a year," says cloning expert Park Se-pill of Korea's Maria Biotech. "In contrast to widespread public belief, cloning a human is much easier than cloning a cow or pig."

2.

[E]xtracting the stem cells sees the destruction of the embryo in question

3.

Cloning cows is commonplace already. Eggs are easy to gather from slaughterhouses and a cow's anatomy also makes embryo transfer relatively easy. Most animals, including cats, require surgery to transfer cloned embryos into the reproductive tract.

4.

Hematech, a US biotech company owned by Japanese brewer Kirin, is working on biomedical applications. The company's main project is a cow that has been genetically modified to produce human antibodies; the animal has been valued at $100m. The Department of Defence has given the company a grant to produce antibodies with "biodefence applications" - such as immunising against anthrax.

And,

5.

In practice most meat and milk would not come from clones themselves, which would be used to improve the agricultural gene pool, but from their progeny; clones are for breeding, not for eating.

This last underlines the benefit of cloning that scientists and venture capitalists are hoping for- it allows genetic manipulation that can be passed to offspring.

Mice are used for research on diseases because entire strains of mice can be produced with the same genetic defect or sets of defects. With the advent of cloning, genetic manipulation will produce more mice for research. The practical and immediate (and most likely to be realized) hope of embryonic stem cell and cloning advocates is not the popular idea of organs for transplant. Companies such as Genentech, ACT, and others are planning on vats of human cloned embryos will fill "greenhouses" where researchers will be able to test drugs and toxins.


As Park se-Pill says above,(and as all the successes in animal cloning shows) the technique to produce embryos for research is the same - and produces the same sort of embryo - that could result in a born infant.

Step away from the embryos

Multiple sources are reporting a story from Science Magazine's August 26th issue which will report on pluripotent stem cells derived by Eggan at Harvard from the fusion of skin cells and embryos. These results were reported in July, along with what I consider the vital piece of information, again in Science:

The perfect answer remains elusive, but many scientists believe that sometime in the coming decade, they will know enough about cellular "reprogramming" to bypass some of the steps required today. "In 10 to 15 years, we will induce transformation directly and will no longer need embryos or oocytes at all," predicts Kevin Eggan of Harvard University.

It may come even sooner, given mounting congressional support and recent scientific advances. At the June meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, Eggan presented his team's latest work using human ES cells to reprogram the gene expression of human fibroblast cells--moving toward the goal of creating genetically matched pluripotent cell lines without using oocytes or creating a new embryo. The team used polyethylene glycol to fuse the two kinds of cells, forming so-called tetraploid cells with twice the normal number of chromosomes. When grown into cell lines, the fused cells behaved like ES cells, Eggan reported, expressing characteristic genes, differentiating into embryoid bodies in culture, and forming so-called teratomas in immune-compromised mice--even forming patches of hair on the normally bald animals.

(Notably, the embryos used were not part of the federally funded group of cells. They were created for the purpose of being used in research by Melton, et al, at Harvard. - the researchers didn't need federal funds, after all. Now **that** goes against everything the embyronic stem cell advocates have been telling us all along!!)

Middle age is when your parents are old

Dr. Jerald Winakur, who lives a few miles from me, but whom I've never met, was interviewed last week for National Public Radio's "Fresh Air." The topic was the essay that he recently wrote for Health Affairs,, "What are we going to do with Dad?" which was re-published in the Washington Post early this month.

Dr. Winakur, as a geriatrician, specializes in the treatment of the elderly. He's also an associate with the Center for Medical Humanities and Ethics at my alma mater, the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. But he is just as surprised by the realities of having elderly parents as any of us would be. He notes that even though he has the advantage of knowing the system and understanding the medicine, he still has daily problems with handling the realities of a father with dementia and heart disease and a mother who can't read pill bottles.

My mother was diagnosed with a very rare cancer (thymic carcinoma) last year. The body fights the cancer by making antibodies that also affect the muscles and nerves of the body, causing pain, confusion, weakness, and the respiratory crisis that landed Moma in the hospital, and which probably saved her life because it led to an early diagnosis. We believe that she's cured of the cancer, but the nerve and muscle damage appears permanent.

Like Dr. Winakur, I believe that one of the most dangerous places for a patient is in the hospital. In addition, I worry that Moma had an added risk factor: her daughters are medical professionals (my sister is an R.N., as is her daughter.) Sometimes it seemed as though this knowledge caused special treatment - but I'm convinced that at times it just got in the way and caused delay and assumptions.

Dr. Winakur mentions the blessing of dying peacefully in one's sleep, and the probability of dying due to the long term consequences of a fall. His story skips very briefly and lightly over the subject of euthanasia ("and perhaps this is one way our society will ultimately deal with its flood of elders in this age of limits.") and even suicide in the face of our own debilitation.

These last themes should be condemned. It is acceptable to admit to wishing for a peaceful and swift death in the middle of crisis and while watching a loved one in pain or when anticipating our own vulnerability. However, it is never acceptable to fail to argue against euthanasia or suicide.

Moma took to jokingly referring to herself as "She" in the third person, since techs, nurses and other hospital personnel would as my sister, my father, or me, "Is she....?," even though Moma was awake and right there. In the case of delirious or demented patients, it becomes difficult or impossible to engage the patient in making decisions about his own care, but that does not mean that he or she is dehumanized. When families and caretakers begin discussing "do about" rather than "do for" we move dangerously close to "do to."

(Note about my title: until a year ago, I thought of my parents as middle-aged, so I was not. Then, they started to have the diseases I associated with the elderly. I may be middle aged, now.)

Embryonic stem cell timeline myth

This editorial from the American News from Aberdeen, South Dakota appears to me to contain all the current talking points of the pro-embryonic stem cell advocates. So, I had to respond;

To the editors in regard to the Editorial, "Some motives unclear on stem-cell research," by Ruth Wood:

I believe that Ms. Wood means well but does not understand the significance of changing 2500 years of medical and scientific research and treatment guidelines to abandon the principle of beneficence limited by nonmaleficence: "Heal if possible, but, first, do no evil." The embryos that she advocates destroying are the brothers and sisters of the babies in the arms of parents who desperately desired children.

She does not understand that researchers have been able to develop non-blood related stem cells not only from bone marrow, but from cord blood and umbilical cord and placental cells. We have techniques to create nerve cells from skin and liver cells from umbilical cord blood.

I, myself, have been confused about the differences of opinion as to how long embryonic stem cells have been researched, since I thought I could remember references to them back before I understood their significance. I can't figure out were that 1998 date came from - so I did a Medline search tonight. (Anyone can at the National Center for Emergency Medical Informatics )

Research on embryonic stem cells finds Pub Med/Medline references to chick embryonic clonal cell tissue cultures back in the early '60's. Human embryonic stems were clearly described in 1979 in this article:


Cytogenet Cell Genet. 1979;24(3):150-9. Related Articles, Links

Studies on isolated cloned populations from irradiated human embryonic cell cultures.

Lee CL, Lee SH, Kamra OP.

The recovery of substrains with stable chromosome aberrations from irradiated fibroblast culture are reported. Four human fetal cell strains were exposed to 600 rad of gamma rays at 200 rad/min. The efficiency of recovering viable cloned subpopulations was approximately 87%, and the frequency of clones with abnormal chromosomes was 40/100 colonies. G-band chromosome analyses for 34 abnormal substrains are described. Karyotypes of some of the clones with complex rearrangements are also presented. Analyses of a total of 47 aberrant events in the 34 abnormal substrains revealed at 7:1 and a 9:1 translocation-inversion and translocation-deletion ratios, respectively. Five of the abnormal substrains were continuously cultured; all except one showed signs of sensecence toward the end of 44 ± 10 doublings. Unusual prolonged proliferation capacity was observed in substrain FFS-1-9. The significance of this finding is discussed.


I believe that Ms. Woods has been misled and has inadvertantly passed on bad information to you. Please consider correcting the error.

Thank you,
Beverly B. Nuckols, MD

"Matters of Life and Death"

The Guardian Observer has it right in the title of this op-ed by Mary Riddell. But, then it falls all apart. Sort of like the ethics that is now "bioethics:" justification for whatever action is desired at the moment.

Ms. Riddell says that we shouldn't worry about the babies of the future, but rather for the babies we are and are not having today. I can't imagine that any adult cannot see that the babies of today will be the parents of tomorrow and that the ways we manipulate today's babies will most definitely affect tomorrow's.Neither set is "imaginary." And neither are the concerns which she parodies and warps in order to belittle them.

Yes, we should be concerned that the UK regulatory agency, The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, is loosening the criteria for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate from the ecological disasters due to decreased plant and animal diversity to the possible future problems of a species as complex as humans if we begin deleting entire populations based on diseases and syndromes. Just because we have new technology to measure for genetic defect does not mean that we have observed, much less measured, the actual mechanisms of any of those diseases.

However, the biggest problem of imagination and extrapolation of data that Ms. Riddell has is the ability to connect the embryos she so easily names as less than human and fodder for medical experimentation and use as spares for the people that she personally feels deserve to benefit from the death of others.

She ridicules the idea that UK citizens will practice gender selecton, or family balancing as she calls it. While noting that several Asian nations have abused the practice. And she propagates the notion that "therapeutic" cloning is distinct from "reproductive" cloning in any way other than that of the intentions of the cloners.

There's no therapy in destroying the younger, embryonic brothers and sisters of the very people she finds so worthy.

another thought/edit:

I've said it before: the very definition of "equal rights" is that they are ,uh, "equal."

There's absolutely no doubt that the embryos resulting from in vitro fertilization and cloning are human. Ms. Riddell mentions the first baby born of IVF. We just had yet another reminder in "Snuppy," the dog that veterinarian, Dr. Hwang, cloned in South Korea.

Orwell would be proud: even in our day - or more in our day than in his - Some of us are more equal than others. But, in Animal Farm, the line is actually, "Some animals are more equal than others."

Good example from AMA (I hope)

The President of the American Medical Association, Dr. J. Edward Hill urges a class of new medical students at his Alma Mater, the University of Mississippi Medical Center to follow the highest medical ethics and "save a life, make a life..."

The students participated in a "White Coat Ceremony" and recited the Hippocratic Oath. Unfortunately, the Oath is very rare these days. I wonder which version the students recited?

According to The Daily Journal, Dr. Edward Hill, is a Family Physician.

Both the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians encourage intentional elective abortion in their Ethics statements, as long as the doctor follows the law. There's conflict within the organizations as to whether conscientious objection to participate in elective abortion is actually abandonment of the patient.

The AMA even discourages parental consent for minors seeking an abortion.

(I'm not sure that last linki will work. Here's a quote:

Physicians should not feel or be compelled to require minors to involve their parents before deciding whether to undergo an abortion. The patient, even an adolescent, generally must decide whether, on balance, parental involvement is advisable. Accordingly, minors should ultimately be allowed to decide whether parental involvement is appropriate. Physicians should explain under what circumstances (eg, life-threatening emergency) the minor’s confidentiality will need to be abrogated.

Killing does not treat the killed

The Scotsman reports that embryo screening is being allowed in the case of families who have a history of retinoblastoma.

This is a horrible disease, but since when is it ethical and humane to kill in order to "cure" a disease?

Of course, Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis is not treatment or therapy -- the embryos which carry the disease are killed.

So much for "privacy"

From the Houston Chronicle:

The city of Austin, Texas not only pays for the "morning after pill" for the clients/patients who use its city health clinics, it forces the pharmacies with which it contracts to

to fill prescriptions for patients on Austin's medical assistance program "in-store, without discrimination or delay," even if an individual pharmacist declines to fill a prescription based on personal beliefs.

How is it that this is such a private decision and activity that the rights of so many other people - in large groups, as thought they give up their individual identities and rights - must be restricted in advance and by laws and regulations?

Granted, Walgreens as a corporation has decided to contract with the city, and evidently agrees with this new provision that the city has added. So, there is no infringement on the right to property of the individuals in the corporation.

However, as the article points out, Planned Parenthood (why isn't this corporation dispensing their own poison?) believes the city's actions could be a model for other cities and for larger venues.

I'm not sure of the exact action of Plan B or Preven. No one is: as far as I know, the studies have not been done with the proper methods - using serial ultrasound on ovulating women. There's no money in proving one way or the other whether or not the protocols act as abortifacients.

But, I know that even a morally neutral action is unethical if it is done with an immoral intent - such as when these pills are intended to kill any child that might come to exist.

Or, as in the case of PP and the city council of Austin, Texas, to further champion a world where the smallest human beings routinely have their ultimate right - the right not to be killed - infringed upon.

More on ethical stem cells

I found this article with the same title and published in The New Scientist, soon after I posted my last entry.

Texas Research Yields Ethical "Embryonic" Stem Cells

I'm from Texas, and I'm proud to say that our State has been a leader in medical research, including pioneering umbilical cord blood transplants since at least 2001 and this item, published in this month's Cell Proliferation.

These cells appear to have the characteristics of embryonic stem cells, but they are derived from cells harvested from cord blood and collected at Cesarean Section births. The research was conducted at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

You know, I've heard about the difficulties in getting enough umbilical cord blood for transplant in adults and larger children. The blood from one birth is enough for a baby or small child, but does not contain enough volume to provide the white and red blood cells for immediate needs and stem cells for long-term production needed for larger bodies. Last month there was an announcement about the use of two donor samples for transplant in adults being treated for some leukemias and lymphomas.

But, we never hear about the probable small volumes of embryonic stem cells from embryos produced by in vitro fertilization and cloning.

Genetic testing dangers in the workplace

Germany is moving ahead of the United States in the discussion of regulation of gene testing as screening for employment.

Germany is already ahead of the US in its legal and regulatory ban on cloning of human embryos and has strict laws against using any embryos created after 2002 in stem cell research. There is no regulation of gene testing procedures in the United States, although some States have attempted to prohibit discrimination based on such testing and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) are believed to offer some protection.

There are very few diseases that are directly related to a single gene or that are inherited - and expressed - by everyone that has that gene. Most diseases, such as breast cancer and diabetes are multifactorial, meaning that several genes and environmental factors and exposure influence the development of the disease so that testing for a single gene cannot tell us who will and who will not become ill. (See the Human Genome Project Information Web Site)

Bioethics Bias and Prejudice

Seems everyone in bioethics is discussing bias these days and accusing the "opposition" of prejudice.

Interesting discussion and comments over the weekend at Bioethics.net blog, with Glen McGee fussin' about Nigel Cameron's fussin' about him and Art Caplan. Be sure and read the comments from the 13th, where Dr. Cameron fusses back - with a response to the response by Dr. McGee. I wish we had more of this sort of discussion going on - maybe communication could yeild common ground.

Today's National Review Online includes a report by David Klinghoffer on what can happen when the biases overcome professionalism and even smart management. The story is about the harrassment charges from Richard von Sternberg against his bosses at the Smithsonian Institute. Dr. von Sternberg is making the case that he was subjected to a hostile work environment after reviewing an article which seriously mentioned Intelligent Design. Superiors and colleagues asked around about von Sternberg's religious affiliations and gossiped enough to risk damage to the biologist's professional reputation.

Speaking of religious and a-religious bias - this week's front page at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity features an article by Sarah J. Flashing, MA, on the impossibility of being without bias.

Stem cell centers (and money) everywhere

As pointed out in the article from the Michigan Daily, there's a competition for scientists and money for stem cells research. This month, there's plenty of news about money being spent on stem cell research centers around the world. Some from State funds, tax money and some from private donations.

The veterinarian, Dr. Wu Suk Hwang (cloner of dogs and people), announced plans for a government-sponsored "Stem Cell Hub" in Seoul, South Korea, according to today's Scientist, UK.

New Jersey, one of the first States which envisioned embryo "greenhouses," has announced that there is $5M available for stem cell research and grant applications are being accepted, even though the State Legislature has stalled funding for their $150M research center.

California is having trouble getting their $3 Billion stem cell research center off the ground due to lawsuits. Besides the efforts of pro-life advocates to prevent the killing of embryos, there are suits that challenge the proposed administration and control of the funds.

Florida is anticipating the new $800 M Scripts research center which has plans to conduct ethical stem cell research on adult human and embryonic and adult mouse stem cells. The new center is being used as a selling point by some legislators who wish to change Florida law to allow embyronic stem cell research there.

Texas has the Institute of Molecular Medicine, part of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houson. The Institute is nearing its goal of $200 M. for new facilities and faculty.

Michigan Daily explains stem cells

Here is one of the clearest explanations I've ever seen in the press about stem cells. I'm very impressed.

Immortal Cells

In every human body there are around 200 different types of cells, all performing their own specific functions and specially equipped to do so. T-cells circulate in the blood ready to engulf microbe intruders; neurons flash electrical signals back and forth inside the brain to communicate with each other. These cells do their jobs well, but age and eventually die.

A few types of cells, however, are more versatile and able to transform themselves into a few other types of cells. These so-called adult stem cells are scattered in isolated clumps around the body — in teeth, bone marrow, umbilical cord blood and other locations.

Research on adult stem cells is currently one of the areas pursued by scientists at the University. The hope is that these adult stem cells can be coaxed to transform reliably into the types of cells that a diseased patient lacks. Controlling this differentiation is a complex matter of balancing an equation of nutrients, growth factors and environmental conditions.

Sean Morrison, an assistant professor in the Department of Internal Medicine, has seen early success in his work with hematopoietic stem cells. These cells are found in bone marrow and eventually give rise to all red and white blood cells.

“We just published a paper in the journal Cell,” Morrison said. For a time, it was the most downloaded paper on Cell’s website. “This indicates we can do stem-cell research that has an impact nationally.”

Deputy General Counsel Edward Goldman said the controversy is centered on embryonic stem cells.

“There is no ethical argument about the use of adult stem cells. The scientific argument is that they are not as useful as embryonic stem cells,” Goldman said.

The rest of the article is just as informative, although it is full of scientist's pleas for more money for embryonic stem cell research.

These researchers need to understand that Science must be limited. And the standard that limits - prohibits - the intentional killing of human beings is a minimum standard.

Divided loyalties in National healthcare

I'd rather have health care savings accounts - the patient owns his own care and the doctor works for the patient and only the patient.




Patients left in the dark about life-saving drugs
By Martyn Halle
(Filed: 14/08/2005)

Hospital consultants are failing to tell patients about ground-breaking drugs, such as the colon cancer treatment Avastin, that could save their lives.


There is growing evidence that doctors are concealing treatment options that are not available on the National Health Service but can be obtained privately.

From BBC: one who passed the test

The BBC reports that the first known birth after Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) was used by the parents, even though there is no known family or maternal health risks.

"The test, called aneuploidy screening, involves checking IVF embryos for signs of genetic abnormalities by taking a single cell for analysis."

In the past, the rules in the UK have restricted PGD to those parents with a risk of a fatal genetic risk. The new rules allow PGD if mother is over 36 or if she's had a history of recurrent miscarriages.

See my post from yesterday (just 3 below) for my opinion on blindly thinning our human gene pool.

Popular Science on Artificial Uterus

For some reason, the article insists on calling the uterus a "womb." And for some reason, I'd prefer that they call it the uterus.

The artificial uterus is closer than I thought. The researcher, Dr. Liu, is using "spare" human embryos which she destroys after 10 days.

Very important for pro-life and pro-embryonic/cloned-stem-cell reader alike.

Imagine the uses for good and evil. I'm afraid the bad will come first - that veterinarian from South Korea, Dr, Hwang, is probably very interested.

The discussion about the interactive, complex environment of child in utero reminds me of some science fiction short story I read in 1981 or 1982, probably in Analog or Asimov's. I can't remember the title or the author, but I remember the conclusion of the fictional committee charged with developing the technology in the story:"Use original container."

Dedifferentiation of body cells to "create" stem cells

MSNBC reported on "reprogramming" of body cells to produce stem cells from a patient's own body to treat disease. Both MSNBC and the commenters at Betterhumans.com ( their motto is "Create the future," but the theme and attitude is more anarchic than creative) are surprised that Dr. Leon Kass would be excited about the research.

No big surprise: using the patient's own cells and body processes to heal is consistent with Dr. Kass' history. No human life would be created or killed, and the essential nature of the human wouldn't be changed.

I'm surprised that there has been so little talk about this idea in the press. To me, it takes much less imagination to believe that we can dedifferentiate cells to their precursor or progenitor cells than to believe it will ever be economically or logistically feasible to clone every patient to provide all the possible needed stem cells.

Even more likely to me is the probability that all the research will eventually result in the development of stimulating factors that can be used in all patients to recruit and stimulate our own stem cells to heal the body in situ.

Of course, Dr. Kass was discussing healing and regeneration. There's no mention yet of enhancement with these dedifferentiated cells. But, they're in the lab, anyway. Since they're changing one process, why not more. How long before someone tries to tweak the patient's natural abilities?

UK discusses embryo screening for possible cancer

Glasgow's Herald reports that the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority is considering regulation to allow pre-natal testing for cancers such as breast and colon cancer, including those cancers which don't have full "penetrance." (Meaning that, even if not everyone who has the gene will develop cancer, screening is allowed.)

I have to agree with a quote from this article,
"the move is a "slippery slope towards full-blown eugenics"."

One strong consideration should be the issues we've heard in the last half century concerning diversity in the environment and the experience we have with limiting the local diversity of plants due to hybrids and genetically modified plants, as well as the use of pesticides and herbicides in agriculture.

If we can't avoid unforseen consequences when we interfere with plants and insects, what makes anyone confident about culling the human genome?

(Beverly, a 30 year Organic Gardening reader)

Redefining Humans

My last post referred to getting ahead of technology.

But some of the Senators in Washington are doing their best to move us backwards with their false cloning ban, a repeat of legislation from the past. SB 1520 redefines humans as being implanted.

Which at least notes the humanity of the great majority of those babies aborted, but completely ignores human embryology, taxonomy and common sense.

But, history shows that we all grow when our definition of which members of our species is human, rather than when we limit that membership.

Necessary clarifications

Dr. Irving sent me the new article on Lifeissues.net by Dr. C. Ward Kischer, a human embryologist who has been speaking out about the terminology used by proponents of abortion and genetic engineering for years.

Dr. Kischer reminds us that the cells in the early embryo are totipotent. In fact, for a while -- and no one knows for sure whether the limit is at 2 cells or 100 -- the embryo can be divided into 2 or more embryos - each of which will develop just as their brothers and sisters - as each of us did in our early days.

(Not many people are aware of "identical" quadruplets and triplets. take a look here for names of some famous multiples.)


So, one point to be stressed is that those early embryonic cells are not simply "stem cells." Some or all of them may be destined to become individual human organisms. (i.e., "people")


By the time the embryo is identifiable as a "blastocyst," however, there's no doubt that the young human - who might be destined for "disaggregation," per the latest terminology, is more than a "clump of cells.

By definition, the blastocyst is an embryo and it is the stage of life when an embryo is spherical.

But, it's not really a "hollow ball." The "embryonic stem cells" that are being harvested (or undergoing "explantation" in the lab rather than "implantation" as they would in vivo) are the "inner cell mass" of the embryo. The external, spherical layer, the trophoblast (most simply and easily thought of as the future placenta) must be removed before the inner layer - already partially differentiated - can be harvested.

However, as I pointed out last week, there is now evidence that from the first penetration of the oocyte by the sperm, besides having a new, unique, genome, the embryo is already differentiating into "top" and "bottom."

So, the second clarification is that the embryo is never just an homogenous clump with interchangable spare parts. The embryo is always an individual organism - some of whom have the probability or tendency to become multiple individuals.

The last necessary clarification is one that philosophers, theologians and scientists - and ultimately, politicians - only need in light of cloning and further manipulations of human cells that will be the beginnings of new individuals - perhaps even new types or species of individuals.

How will we define those individuals who have some human DNA - when one of their parents is a human being, but the other is (or others are) not? When artificial genes, chromosomes and then cells derived from these constructs are used, how will we define the resulting organisms? Will they be human?

No one would call the genetically engineered E. coli bacterium which, by means of Recombinant DNA produces human insulin, a "human being." Nor is there any doubt about artificial chimera such as SCID-hu mice.

However, what will we call an upright hominid whose genetic parents include one of us?

NRO's Lopez on Feminists for Life

I mentioned Feminists for Life in one of yesterday's posts (please page down and see below - someday, I'll get those "Permanent Links" working). If you want to hear yesterday's show use this link. For some reason, On Point chose not to "Feature" this interview on their main web page.

Today's National Review Online published a piece by one of my favorite reporters, Kathryn Jean Lopez. As she says, Justice John Roberts and his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts have already made history.

What a problem Mrs. Roberts' involvement as legal advisor and some-times board member of FFL must cause. On the one hand, this is a woman with credentials in her own right, a family, and a successful husband. She could be an example that feminists everywhere could point to with pride. If only she weren't anti-abortion.

The New York Times has already admitted to investigating the circumstances of the Roberts' adoptions. During the On Point (NPR) radio interview, yesterday, the NOW representative couldn't resist pointing out that the Roberts children were blond. And every article I've read about Justice Roberts himself mentions his wife's affiliation with FFL - usually in conjunction with some pro-abortion "feminist" who implies that this somehow compromises the nominee.

Ms. Lopez mentions that younger girls and women are more likely to disapprove as a group of abortion than similar groups 20 years ago.

Perhaps that's because thanks to groups like FFL and all those brave women who are the giants upon whose shoulders we stand today have made real our hoped-for world where women can be both career women and mothers - where pregnancy does not mean the end of education and opportunity.

It's time for NOW and the other supposedly feminist "pro-women" organizations (whose main focus is actually ensuring that abortion is anything *but* rare) to recognize that theirs is not the only expression of feminism. And be happy for common ground on which to stand as we build on the past so that our daughters may have a better future.

Almost too small to mention

The media is full of stories about stem cells and the hope for curing disease and slowing or reversing aging. Some are concerned about how these technologies will affect our children. Science fiction is full of utopias and dystopias based on genetically manipulated descendents of Homo sapiens. The cloning of a dog by Korean veterinarian Hoo Suk Hwang was anounced last week, raising the concern of some and drawing a pained sigh from others.


As though we didn't have enough to worry about with intentional manipulation of the genes and bodies of our children's grandchildren:

This report, reports on early evaluations of nanoparticles ( objects that are measured on the scale of molecules, in nanometers or one billionth of a meter long) on stem cells. The researchers hope to show that mouse spermatagonia are suitable to test for the toxity of these tiny particles which are believed to be little remote probes of the future for testing, treating and monitoring biological and all sorts of chemical and physical processes.

Here's the abstract:

IN VITRO CYTOTOXICITY OF NANOPARTICLES IN MAMMALIAN GERM-LINE STEM CELLS
Laura Braydich-Stolle; Saber Hussain; John Schlager; Marie-Claude Hofmann. Toxicol. Sci. published 13 July 2005, 10.1093/toxsci/kfi256

Gametogenesis is a complex biological process that is particularly sensitive to environmental insults such as chemicals. Many chemicals have a negative impact on the germ line, either by directly affecting the germ cells, or indirectly through their action on the somatic nursing cells. Ultimately, these effects can inhibit fertility, and may have negative consequences on the development of the offspring. Recently, nanomaterials such as nanotubes, nanowires, fullerene derivatives (buckyballs) and quantum dots have received enormous national attention to create new types of analytical tools for biotechnology and the life sciences. Despite the wide application of nanomaterials, there is a serious lack of information concerning their impact on human health and the environment. Thus, there are limited studies available on toxicity of nanoparticles for risk assessment of nanomaterials. The purpose of this study was to assess the suitability of a mouse spermatogonial stem cell line as a model to assess nanotoxicity in the male germ line in vitro. The effects of different types of nanoparticles on these cells was evaluated using light microscopy, cell proliferation and standard cytotoxicity assays. Our results demonstrate a concentration-dependent toxicity for all types of particles tested, while the corresponding soluble salts had no significant effect. Ag nanoparticles were the most toxic while MoO3 nanoparticles were the least toxic. Our results suggest that this cell line provides a valuable model to assess the cytotoxicity of nanoparticles in the germ line in vitro.
Keywords: nanoparticles; toxicity; cell line; spermatogonia; stem cells.

Hateful cartoon link removed from PP site

But, you can still access it from the link below or from the website of the guy who did the soundtrack, Nick Vasallo.

(Thanks to Dr. Dianne N. Irving for pointing me to The Dawn Patrol for the link and information about the video, the model for the "hero" and more.)

(Ethical) Stem Cells donated by soldier

Sorry, free registration is required for this one.

Edit: Thanks to Joe Pojman, the Executive Director for Texas Alliance for Life, for alerting me to this article.

The Dallas Morning News tells the story about Army Spc. Sam Negus, who has donated his bone marrow to help in the treatment of his sister's non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma:

Ruth "Nicki" Young, 26, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in November 2003, but she went into remission last year after months of aggressive treatment. Recent tests, however, have revealed that her white blood cell count is dropping, worrying doctors and her family that cancer might be returning.

A stem cell transplant would bolster Ms. Young's immune system, which would be compromised by the illness and treatment if the cancer reoccurred.

"Our hope and prayers are that we won't need them," said Dr. Brian Berryman, the siblings' physician and director of the stem cell program at Medical City. "But if we do need them, we'll have them."

Spc. Negus' stem cells will be frozen and stored. Although doctors don't often order the procedure so far in advance, it is a technique used if the donor might not be available in the future, Dr. Berryman said.

The idea that this young man is willing to undergo the harvesting of his bone marrow stem cells before he leaves to serve our country in Iraq with the knowledge that he may not be alive to donate the cells when and if his sister needs them is overwhelming.

Planned Parenthood Hate Cartoon

Planned Parenthood Golden Gate in San Francisco has developed a violent, hateful cartoon aimed at teens. Pro-life activists are drowned, blown up and depicted as zombies.

Although I hate to give them the traffic (I'd much rather you visit my site at LifeEthics.org ) you should see it for yourself, since it's so ugly and hateful, and you may find yourself doing what I did: taking a closer look at the main website to make sure you weren't misdirected to a spoof or joke website, like the Onion.




Here's the link for the cartoon itself - you'll need Quicktime - to play the cartoon, "Superhero for Choice."

Feminists for Life On Point

Today, the NPR show, On Point interviewed Serrin Foster and other members of the pro-life, pro-woman and -child organization, Feminists for Life.

I'm proud to be a member and give my own mother a membership each year. I also give and own some of FFL's "covetable stuff," which includes a their great logos and slogans. (I'm not a master at webbing, so be sure and check their page for a look at the happy female stick figure that is their mascot.

FFL is a great example of consistent life ethics. The organization works to increase the public's knowledge of early feminist leaders and the importance of increasing opportunities that support (or are at least neutral toward) pregnant women, mothers, and children.

FFL does more than teach and spout their "on point" (and trademarked) slogans such as "Women deserve better" (than abortion)and "Refuse to Choose". FFL has a College Outreach Program which is making a difference for pregnant and parenting students all over our country.

You should be able to listen to the archived program at the On Point website. It's in the second hour.

Sure, but I wouldn't kill anybody for it.....

Today's American Journal of Bioethics column about Dr. Charles Krauthammer's August 5 Washington Post column, "Cell Lines, Moral Lines," does more than just show political bias. It looks like the anonymous editor over there has a reading skill deficit.

Dr. Krauthammer opens with

It is a good idea to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. It is a bad idea to do that without prohibiting research that uses embryos created specifically to be used in research and destroyed.

AJOB's post entitled, " The Right Wing's Attempt to Kill Stem Cell Research," opens with,

Krauthammer's column today in the Washington Post argues that the expansion of stem cell research using new lines of stem cells is bad. He's just plain wrong on the facts, so the column is pretty useless, which is no surprise given the tactics used these days by those who oppose embryonic stem cell research: confuse and redirect.

But what is clear here is that there is a political strategy in play - while the money for expanded stem cell research that is implicit in any Senate or House proposal thus far is small, the effect on state-based stem cell research under Castle-DeGette would be huge. In effect the Frist effort could clamp down on new state-based initiatives, restricting the amount and kind of research that states (read: California) could do with their own money. Hmm.


I don't intend to make this a negative blog or engage in one-on-one debate with Professors McGee and Caplan, but their post continues by quoting another columnist, who, like this anonymous editor, doesn't seem to understand that there are different types and sources of stem cells and the issue is not whether the President, Dr. Krauthammer or any of us want to ban all stem cell research. We'd just rather not kill anyone for it.


Anyone with a high school biology course should understand that the embryo is not some construct that can be separated from the later, adult being. The embryo is what that being (in this case human -- or why not use apes or mice in the first place?) is - the exact being who would/will be born, get a birth certificate, walk, talk, maybe learn to read and earn a Ph.D. in philosophy if he's so lucky. (We'll talk about why apes but not human beings, later -- but look at my tag line for one reason.)

However, the level of functioning isn't necessary for membership in the species, either. Otherwise, (with the right reasoning such as national security, happiness, wealth or health), we'd be justified in discriminating against those who can read and those who can't, those who can bear children and those who can't, or even based on ancestry, religion or the amount of pigment in the skin.



When we kill the embryonic human being, we may or may not cause grieving in the parents, but we have still caused the death of one of us. No one, even the most kindhearted person, could grieve for all the anonymous deaths of human beings that take place outside our knowledge or even for all those we know about but are not at least peripherally emotionally attached to. People are not human beings just because someone loves them, despite the croonings of Dean Martin.


Western medicine and humane [sic] research has been built on the ancient Greek concept often paraphrased as "Heal if possible, but, first, do no harm (or evil)." Even if there were no other way to cure 6 year old type I diabetics (or even if we could cure our particular, loved 6 year old tomorrow, rather than in 20 years), we can't justify the killing of another human being for the use of his parts and remain humane.

But, of course, it's not necessary and any cures are far in the future. In the meantime, we can currently treat over 60 diseases with non-embryonic stem cells. Scientists are finding stem cells in every organ, the umbilical cord blood, and even the the placenta.

The ideal would be to treat disease in situ by learning to stimulate factors, environments and genes that control the patient's own stem cells and regenerative powers. I'd rather have a shot than surgery to implant stem cells, wouldn't you?

Who we are and what we're doing and why

LifeEthics.org is "live," but still rough, since I'm the "webmaster."

I hope to reach those who would take part in protecting human life, but don't know how or where to start, or feel excluded by the conditions of membership of other pro-life organizations - or those who aren't ready to identify with "pro-life" groups. My intent is to be more proactive than reactive, and to hopefully find a niche in Bioethics that is fairly neutral on politics and religion.

The home page has a link to the weblog at the bottom. Come in and take a look, maybe give suggestions.

Soon, I hope to have the Blog as the front page. (My son promised to help and to teach me) I'm still working on the related links and on the calendar of events. All information on summits, conferences, association meetings and even the rules and conditions for participation in the above and in other venues and suggestions for activism would be appreciated.


Here's links to org's that I hope to balance:


This is the blog run by the editors of the American Journal of Bioethics , including Glen McGee and Art Caplan.


The AJOB posts are usually anonymous and there's a strong political bias. I do have to admit that I've learned about blogs from their example, though.

The attitude and focus are demonstrated by today's post about Charles Krauthammers' latest column

and the one from August 4th on James Dobson's comments about Nazis

and the one about "The Women's Bioethics Project" which is working with very big names in the bioethics and business community, specifically including those who want to "protect women's
reproductive choices."

Brain Death and Embryos

In the 8/3/05 US News interview between Betsy Querna and Dr. Michael Gazzaniga, the doctor makes several outrageously inaccurate statements in his comparison between brain death and the lack of neurological functioning of embryos. There is no homogenous "clump of cells" at any time in any human's life. Brain death is the verifiable cessation of the organization and coherent function which makes the difference between a living organism and a dead one.

First, he calls the embryo a "lump of cells," when the blastocyst, by definition has differentiated layers. In fact, the, inner cell mass as opposed to the outer trophoblast, is the part of the embryo that contains those cells we call stem cells. Another fact which we are only beginning to discover is that the embryo has polarity from the moments after the sperm penetrates the oocyte. By the time there are 16 or 32 cells, and most definitely by 150 cells are present, the stage embryonic stem cells when can be isolated and harvested, the probable future function of each cell appears to be determined.

Second, Dr. Gazzaniga discusses his idea of personhood and the concept of brain death. The human child could not meet his definition of person until after age one, if he truly believes that consciousness is the determining point. However, his most ridiculous comparison is that of the developing neural functioning of the embryo and the irreversible loss of function of the brain dead human, who has no blood flow to the brainstem.

Third, we do not kill brain dead people in order to harvest their organs. Again, by definition, they are dead already. "Brain death" is properly defined medically, and in most States legally, as cessation of function of the entire brain, including the brainstem as measured by electric activity and blood flow. In contrast to the patients with loss of function of their cortical brain, current medical technology is unable to support the heart and respiration of those whose brainstems have ceased functioning for more than a few days. Organ failure and breakdown is inevitable despite our best efforts and technology.