When the People are Caesar

Just a little politics and a hint of religion, here - and reactive at that:

Much fuss and bother about the new nominee to the Supreme Court, as we as the unusual withdrawal of the last nominee. With not a few blaming all on the "Religious Right" or the "Extreme Right."

I'd like to point the not-so-right to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. "We the People" are the government.

The visible influence of the nomination of Justices to the Supreme Court by backers of the elected Administration is simply representative democracy is at work.

Two sources of insulin, one gets the press?

Reports this week from Nature Biotechnology (sorry, full access is subscription only) give hope for future stem cell treatments for insulin dependent diabetes by the production of beta islet cells found in the pancreas. Both concern the production of endoderm, the cell line layer in the embryo which develops into visceral organs and tissues such as the thymus, the lining of the intestines and lungs, and both the tissues found in the pancreas which produce digestive enzymes and the Islets of Langerhans, which regulate glucose.


The first article details the dedifferentiation and immortalization of human adult beta islet cells to stem cells that then can be induced to develop into functional human beta islet cells. The second article describes a protocol for the development of a line of “definitive” endoderm human embryonic stem cells (hESC) after identifying necessary triggers and markers.

Both articles are highly technical and name all sorts of enzymes and cultural requirements and proofs that the cells are what the experimenters say they are. Neither group produced cells that would be fit for implantation into human subjects. The first involves retroviruses and telomerase, the second. However, the first group of scientists was able to produce cells suitable for implantation into immune deficient diabetic mice. The mice were cured of their diabetes by the cells and the diabetes returned after the cells were removed. In contrast, the second group produced cells that remained immature and non-functional when implanted in mice.

Another big difference is that the second article received more notice in the press. I found only two articles on the mass production of beta islet cells by the ethical method, but there were at least 15 stories about the results of the hESC research. Could it be the opportunity to call for more embryo destruction that made the difference?


As I've said before, I'm convinced that the ultimate result will be regeneration at the site - with the stimulation of growth factors or some enzyme, not transplantation and certainly not the destruction of at least one embryo per cure.

In the meantime, let's continue to limit the number of embryos we create and kill, okay?

Progressivist Moreno Named to Institute of Medicine

Jonathan Moreno took time out from selling his book and meeting with fellow progressives and Democrats to be named to the Institute of Medicine.

The IOM is one arm of the National Academies of Science.

Just one more reason we don't want the National Academies to make policy, especially on life ethics including cloning, stem cells, and human research subjects.

Connection between fetal, embryonic stem cells

Ultimately, there is a connection: So called "patient specific stem cells." (also known as cloned stem cells)

Note that the children who receive the fetal stem cells for treatment of their Batten's disease will also require anti-rejection drugs.

Housekeeping

The editors at the American Journal of Bioethics blog posted a comment in response to my remarks about the influence of the "progressives" on the Powers That Be in bioethics.

The Editors wanted to make sure that I understood that one of the progressives, Art Caplan, does not edit the Journal. However, let's all note that he is listed as a member of their Editorial Board. (You say "id-eology," I say "eye-deology.")

Also, I've made some changes to the blog. Let me know if there are problems. Programs tend to do what you tell them, and I admit to having occasional translation problems.

A.C. Green on abstinence education

A.C. Green has a letter in response to Art Caplan's remarks concerning abstinence on the Abstinence Clearinghouse Blog.

I highly recommend a look at the website and that everyone read the letter.

Arrogant, Unethical,Unnecessary: Post-abortion stem cells

Stem Cell, Inc., one of Irving Weissman's biotech companies, has been given clearance by the FDA to begin phase 1 trials of one of the company's proprietary stem cell preps - stem cells for brain tissue derived from aborted humans. The Boston Globe article on the announcement is here.

Weissman and his cohorts know that there are other probable sources for treatment for Batten's disease - umbilical cord and bone marrow cells. Way back in 2003, we knew that human umbilical cord cells functioned to repair spinal cord injury. We read about bone marrow derived neural cells in 2004. In this mongth's Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, there's more - free content - on the promise of HUCB stem cells in repair of neural disorders.

And last year, we also read about umbilical cord stem cells that crossed the blood-brain barrier to repair injury after strokes.

Phase 1 research trials are usually trials of therapies that have shown promise in animals, but have high risk compared to benefits for the human subjects. Remember the phase 1 trials of fetal and embryonic tissues in patients with Parkinson's Disease that left half the patients worse off than controls and which caused ethics to be reinvented in order to allow surgeons to perform sham brain surgery? Or those gene therapies that ended up causing leukemia and death? (The children with immune deficiency and many other children and adults with leukemia are now being treated with umbilical cord stem cells - living years without anti-rejection drugs.)

Weissman, et. al., are using already doomed babies and babies with a deadly disease for the same reason - and to advance that reason - that they give to use frozen embryos: "they are/were going to die, anyway."


It is never right to do evil to good. We all know this, and it is the very basic knowledge that drives the choice of this particular experiment: it's a test case to prove that people in the US will give in, as they did on IVF, abortion, and "assisted suicide," out of concern for visible victims.

It is good that we have sympathy and concern. It's wrong when we fail to restrain the ghouls who call themselves scientists, doctors, and bioethicists. (Remember those sham brain surgeries?)

Human Dignity - Why not?

Reader "Jimmy" made a comment dissagreeing with my definition of "human dignity" in my 10/20/05 post. Here's that definition:

Humans are the only species debating "dignity" and "rights," so all of our children, out of respect for the dignity of the species, are deserving of being treated with the "Golden Rule," as though they have "human dignity."

I know there was some circularity in that definition, and it needs some work before I publish my book (grin). But, I still like the idea that human dignity is whatever it is that makes humans treat one another according to the Golden Rule. I would probably add that part of the Golden Rule - beneficience - is the Silver Rule or non-maleficence. "Do to others what you would have them do to you" - or, to put it another way, "Do good to others, but first, do no harm."

It's pretty significant, I believe, that humans are the only species capable of art,intentionally recorded history, and purposeful manipulation of our environment and each other. We have empathy for our fellow humans and even for non-humans. There must be some reason beyond shear power for us to reason rather than use what ever power we can muster against our neighbors.

What will we call this "something"? How will we explain to our children why they're not allowed to take whatever they want from the other kids if they're able, or hit the other kids, or (to borrow the Kantian language that Jimmy mentioned) use other human beings as means to our ends? For that matter, why not torture animals - why not pull the legs off grasshoppers? Why not use up all the natural resources today, and forget about tomorrow?

"I want" is not sufficient to explain any of these observations, and I don't believe that "I'm afraid," is any better. There is more than these in the way we nurture not only our own children, but we have concern for victims of Katrina and the sunami victims on the other side of the world.

That "something" is human dignity - or what gives human dignity its function for the protection of others and our environment.

And, yes, Jimmy, I would universalize human dignity.

Bioethics/Human Rights Declaration Unanimously Approved by UNESCO

The United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization has unanimously approved a declaration on Human Rights and bioethics.


The bulk of criticism about the Declaration has been about the ambiguity of the term, "human dignity." Humans are the only species debating "dignity" and "rights," so all of our children, out of respect for the dignity of the species, are deserving of being treated with the "Golden Rule," as though they have "human dignity." In the US, especially, we are governed under documents based on our Declaration of Independence, which states that we are created with certain rights - no one can give or take away our rights.

As to "rights," I prefer the explanation by Bastiat, in his Law.


From the UNESCO press release:

The first principle established by the Declaration is the respect of human dignity and human rights, with an emphasis on the following two points: “The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.” and “If the application of the principles of this Declaration is to be limited, it should be by law, including laws in the interests of public safety, for the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, for the protection of public health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Any such law needs to be consistent with international human rights law.”

In these days of global concern about avian flu, when our pharmaceutical companies can afford to conduct experiments in third world countries where poverty and lack of access to medical care can come close to coercion in themselves, and when we are called to recognize the plurality of morals and cultures, I believe that it is vital to treat each human life without discrimination.

Disease specific cell lines (NEJM)

Forget "cloning." Forget "somatic cell nuclear transfer." Forget "patient specific embryonic stem cells." This week's New England Journal of Medicine's "Perspective," Susan Okie, MD (subscription required) uses the term that Irving Weissman told us about years ago: the goal is "disease specific embryonic stem cell lines."

Korea is offering a chance at never ending production of cell lines for research and poison, cosmetic and pharmacology treatment testing. And all the scientists have to do is provide private or State (rather than Federal)funding, the eggs, the donors, and give the South Koreans control.

The subject of the opinion piece is the offer from Korea to help US researchers obtain their own disease specific hESC lines:

Now, Woo Suk Hwang, the South Korean veterinarian and stem-cell biologist whose laboratory leads the world in the use of this technique, is planning to offer researchers in the United States and other countries a chance to work with such cell lines without having to make them themselves. Hwang's plan provides a possible strategy for accelerating international progress in the field and avoiding some of the legal and regulatory complications of deriving the cell lines in this country. But will U.S. scientists, ethicists, and research institutions embrace the proposal?

At the time of this writing, officials in three countries — South Korea, the United States, and the United Kingdom — were preparing to announce on October 19 the establishment of the World Stem Cell Foundation, an international consortium to be headed by Hwang and based at Seoul National University in South Korea. Under the current scheme, the consortium would operate a small satellite laboratory in the San Francisco area and another in England, and each laboratory would be associated with a nearby in vitro fertilization facility where donor oocytes would be collected. Scientists from various countries who wished to use embryonic stem cells to study a disease could apply to have cell lines created for their projects. Clinical researchers in Seoul, in England, and in San Francisco would recruit women to donate eggs and patients to donate somatic cells, after obtaining approval from the relevant oversight committees at their institutions.

Dr. Okie explains that there are no legal restrictions in most States that would prevent the research:

Under the administration's policy, federal funds may not be used for research on human embryonic stem cells created through somatic-cell nuclear transfer — which means that even if stem-cell researchers have grants from other sources, they may not conduct such studies using laboratory space, equipment, or supplies that were paid for by the National Institutes of Health. Five states — California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island — have passed laws explicitly permitting scientists to make human embryonic stem-cell lines by somatic-cell nuclear transfer (sometimes called research cloning or therapeutic cloning). The governor of Illinois has legalized the procedure by executive order. In seven states — Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and South Dakota — research cloning is prohibited by law. Virginia may also prohibit the procedure, but the wording of its law is unclear. Only South Dakota explicitly forbids the importation of human embryonic stem cells derived elsewhere, so it appears that researchers in most states, provided that they did not use federal funds, could legally study cell lines obtained through the international consortium, according to LeRoy B. Walters of Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute of Ethics.

Raising the bar on moral slavery

Wisconsin Governor Doyle has made slaves out of every medical worker in the State. He believes that the conscience of all Wisconsin citizens should be smothered until the Legislature is able to get a law past the Governor's desk or risk being fired or sued.


Doyle vetoed a bill passed by that State's Legislature which would have protected medical personnel - doctors, nurses, techs, and students - who had a conscientious objection to procedures. (See my October 17th note, "Governor has no conscience.")


The Governor objects to the use of conscience in medical care, research, and biotechnology. His position is that if a given act is legal, even when the act is new and goes against tradition, there should be no protection for those who object.In effect, the Governor's position is that when new techniques and procedures are developed, no matter what, participation is required until it is made illegal.


The new law would have expanded protection that already exists for those who do not wish to participate in abortions and and sterilization to include removal of feeding tubes, participation in the future activities of the stem cell bank in that State, and all future legal medical or biotech procedures.

It is perfectly legal in the Wisconsin to create human embryos for any purpose at all as long as the scientist has legal possession of the eggs and sperm he needs. In fact, only a handful of States have any laws concerning embryo research at all. There are no laws against cloning in the US.


The governor forgets that slavery was once legal in the US, and that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scot decision, made all citizens of the US responsible for returning slaves to their masters. I wonder if the Governor will be happy to be compared to Justice Taney or those who opposed the underground railway?

Robert P. George for US Supreme Court (My Wish List)

Here's an article from the Daily Princtonian 'way back before the nomination of Harriet Miers. Professor Robert P. George of Princeton explained why it would be difficult for the President to nominate a known conservative. Especially one like Professor George who argues so logically for the protection of human life at all ages and who gives one of the best philosophical explanations as to why a human embryo is a human being.

Professor George is even able to give a one sentence definition of "living organism:"

The question is, ‘Does it have the [biological basis] for self-construction and self-organization, or is it a fundamentally disordered growth?’”

As Professor George, a member of the President's Bioethics Council, says, professors aren't likely to be nominated for the Supreme Court. Professors write opinions as part of their profession: so a professor nominated by President Bush would be treated in the same way that Robert Bork was treated in 1987.

Although his theory doesn't explain Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Governor has no conscience.

The Governor of Wisconsin has vetoed AB 207, that would have allowed medical workers (nurses, techs as well as physicians) to exercise their right to free expression of religion if asked to administer a lethal dose of medication or pull a feeding tube with the intent to kill a patient. The governor is quoted by the Associate Press’ Todd Richmond:
"Because it puts a doctor's political views ahead of the best
interests of patients, this legislation ought to be called
the 'unconscionable clause,"' Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, said in a
statement.

Someone needs to send the Governor a copy of that great Greek political Statement, called the Hippocratic Oath. And let him know that Hippocrates was neither Republican nor Democratic. But the Greek physician's First Principle, "First, do no harm," and his oath to give no deadly medicine even when asked have stood 2500 years. On the other hand, when societies cull and kill - and when they force one citizen to kill another - those societies become sick, fail and die.

Governor Doyle is the one who is allowing his own politics to over ride the interests of Wisconsins who voted for the Legislators who drafted and voted in favor of the law. And, it's not really about end of life care for him - it's all about abortion according to this article that hides the protection from assisting in euthanasia in the last two paragraphs:

Armacost said the bill was intended to allow health care providers to opt out of participating in procedures related to abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, the destruction of embryos in stem cell research and in vitro fertilization, and fetal tissue research.

She added that the bill would not have allowed doctors to withhold information from patients, but would have allowed them not to recommend or counsel to undergo any of the procedures.

Responding to "Progressives"

A comment from "jimmy" notes that I failed in my stated intention to be proactive rather than reactive. But, I prefer to call the post a "response." Or rebuttal.


The reference was to self-identified progressives.

The Progressives' meeting was sponsored by John Podesta's organization.

They are not prolife at either end of life.

They are Chairs and Directors of University bioethics centers (the Universities at Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, Tuskegee) and Dr. Caplan helps edit the American Journal of Bioethics.

Moreno is the Immediate Past President of the American Society of Bioethics and the Humanities and Rita Alta Charo is on the Board of Directors of that organization.

One of the articles I referenced was from the journal, Nature.

The progressives do claim that

'It is important for progressive bioethics to enter the political fray,' says Arthur Caplan, an ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

(Um, he's the Director and Chair...)

I suppose that jimmy disagrees with my definition of an election as the "ultimate poll."

"Terri...difference between progressive and conservative bioethics"

"I am the left, I mean "Progressives," hear me, hear me, hear me! (Just try not to hear me.)" This is my summary of the reviews of the "Center for American Progress" conference titled "Is there an ethicist in the House?" (PDF file).


The title is a quote in Nature from Arthur Leonard Caplan, PhD, the current Chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania:

But the progressive group hopes to emulate the conservatives' success in influencing public policy. Conservative bioethicists have set up a network of think-tanks and journals that issue position papers, book media appearances and hold meetings with politicians.

Progressive bioethics has to talk about those who are left out.

These strategies have shaped the Republican response in debates over stem-cell research and the right-to-die case of Florida's Terri Schiavo. Caplan and others were outraged when Republican leaders fought to keep Schiavo on life support against her husband's wishes. 'Nothing could make clearer the difference between progressive and conservative bioethics,' says Caplan.

For more coverage, William Saletan has this on Slate

You can find links to the video and transcript of the conference (and praise!) at the American Journal of Bioethics blog.

Be sure and note the Chairs and Directors who self identify as "Progressives" and simultaneously complain of being powerless.

In fact, there is a very real divide between the left and the right in Bioethics: The left chooses to use the full potential of the field to decide who is worthy of life and who is not. And they claim to be powerless.

Unfortunately for those of us who prefer to choose life, and in direct contradiction to Caplan's claim, the left is firmly in control of the Academic and media forces of bioethics -- which is neither "ethics" nor "medical ethics." Currently, there is an Administration (due to an election, the ultimate poll of US opinion) that picks representatives of the "right," but the voices that we hear and the words we read in the science and medical journals and in the popular press.


More later on the actual power of the left in US Bioethics.

Dr.s as their own research subjects?

The New York times had an article the other day about doctors who experiment on themselves - an age old tradition. (Even Sherlock Holmes was said to have begun his addiction to cocaine this way.And most of us might remember Dr. Jekyll.) Knowledge and treatments that save lives have resulted from pioneers willing to die (or at least risk getting sick) for their investigations:

BACK when the two Australian winners of this year's Nobel Prize in Medicine suspected that the bacteria they were seeing in biopsies caused stomach inflammation and ulcers, critics insisted that the bacteria were just opportunists, not the culprits.

So one of the two, Dr. Barry J. Marshall, set out to prove the theory by following a traditional method of scientific research: he experimented on himself.

In 1984, Dr. Marshall gulped a potent cocktail of pure Helicobacter pylori bacteria. And promptly became ill. What's more, his breath stank. Biopsies showed he had developed stomach inflammation that was not there before. Treatment cured the infection and Dr. Marshall stopped the experiment short of getting a full-blown ulcer. But he had made his point.

How many other Dr. Marshalls are out there - scientists who become their own guinea pigs?

Dr. Willerson, the President of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston went to Brazil where it was at least easier to get approval to carry out his research in adult cardiac stem cells (harvested from each patient, her- or himself). But, before he tried his treatment on anyone else, he injected his own cells into a mouse with cardiac damage that mimicked a heart attack.

I'm grateful to those giants who have gone before me in medicine, but I'm concerned that today's manipulation of stem cells, viruses, and gene manipulation are much too dangerous for the world of our children and grandchildren. The discussion about recombinant DNA and gene therapy since the '70's should alert us all to the dangers.

I don't have any scheme for preventing private scientific research such as Dr. Willerson's. In fact, I believe that he is a man who is just as concerned as I am for our future children. I hope that there will be continued, reasonable discussion on the practice and risks of such experiments.

World-wide views on killing humans

One article in the Houston Chronicle is an editorial which covers physician assisted suicide and the current Supreme Court Case on the legality of using Federally regulated medicines to act with the intention of causing death. (It's worth the free registration.)

The second is from Crosswalk.com, and is a summary by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. (president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), of Peter Singer's recent OpEd describing ethics in 35 years (in an issue marking the 35th anniversary of the magazine, Foreign Policy , which is the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations). The last half of the discussion shows the relevancy to the the Oregon/US Supreme Court case.

For coverage from the Netherlands on their policies, here's a brief account from the "expats" newservice, and another from the US.

Consider that the Dutch only legalized what they were doing anyway. And that the estimate is that at least 1 in 32 deaths is now intentional, legally caused by doctors. But, most admit that the reporting and record keeping are poor.

This is not medical care or even a medical procedure. This is not "private," since so many people are involved in each death.


Very few citizens over the age of 65 "owns" his own medical care in the US. Most care for those "premies" or other babies in neonatal intensive care units is essentially at the State's expense.

How finite are our resources? How limited is our concern?

Protect clones or cloners?

I have to say, that I'm incredibly impressed with the writing in this piece. I have never seen such masterful dissembling.

The point of the article is to advertise a proposed Amendment to the Missouri State Constitution to protect

"a form of early stem cell research known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, in which the nucleus of an unfertilized egg is replaced with the nucleus of a cell from another body part. The altered egg then is stimulated to grow, and the resulting stem cells are harvested."

In other words, human embryos (the "altered egg" in the article) are created by cloning of the donor, destroyed to obtain human embryonic stem cells.

Once again: What part of "human" "embryonic" stem cells is unclear?

Eye-deology/ eh-deology: if you use the word, you've got one

Suddenly, every newspaper and anti-life, anti-family spokesperson is talking about ehd-eology. When did the pronounciation change? About the same time the definition came to mean "religious," "right-wing," or "Republican," I guess.

In the old days, before partial birth abortion became "D&X," and "human embryos" became "spare," the word was ideology, pronounced with a long "i." The dictionary contains both pronounciations, but I can't remember ever hearing the short vowel. And, as though it's spreading like a virus, the word is being used by proponents of abortion, "physician-assisted-suicide," alternative living arrangements, and clone and kill.


If we are talking about the "id," Freud's name for the child-like, "I want" part of our personality, I guess the pronounciation is correct.

If you use the word, you are exposing your own "ideology."

Miranda Rights for Osama? (this is degrading)

Since I believe that the primary function of government is to ensure the rights to life, liberty and and property of "We The People," I'm encouraging others to write letters to our Federal Congressmen and Senators. Unless we believe our soldiers are monsters and that "degrading" treatment is "torture."


Only 9 Republican Senators voted against and 90 ("R" and "D") Senators voted for, amendment SA 1977, to the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill (HR 2863), which goes too far in protections for suspected terrorists.

The Appropriations Bill was passed by the Senate, and the only hope is to fix it in Conference Committee, since the protections for terrorists are not in the House Bill.


SA 1977 gives every "individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government" 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendment protections. It goes beyond "cruel and inhuman" and prohibits "degrading" treatment.

Besides forcing the military to file charges or release combatants, it means no self incrimination, no double jeopardy, and equal protection under our United States Constitution and laws for people who are not citizens of the US when they are caught in battle, with bombs, those who train bombers, and those who are believed to be involved in conspiracies.

The soldiers I know are decent human beings who will not commit atrocities. The ones who have been found guilty of the much-publicised crimes in Iraq broke current military regulations. Will additional laws and regulations stop law-breakers? Or will they hamper the honest men and women who are attempting to protect our country?

Who's going to cite his Miranda rights to Osama Bin Ladin?


And, well, it means no more bombardment with loud rock and roll music or barking dogs any where around, no panties on the head (which seems appropriate and ironic treatment for misogynists). And, if the men come from a culture that considers women leaders as "degrading" to their men, i.e., Islamic men, no women guards, I guess.


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00249


Click here for the Roll call vote and links to the full Text of the Amendment.

S. Amendment. 1977 to delete in Conference:

[Page: S10909]

"(a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.

(c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.

(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984."




From THOMAS.GOV Historical Documents:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Caring for Our Parents

The President's Bioethics Council has called for more study on the care of our elderly. Since so many of us have hope of becoming elderly - and because we Boomers (ok, I'm a couple of years behind the official "Boomers" group) will make such a large impact, I agree that the issue disserves study.

I would hope that any advisory group would be made up of men and women who hold to the medical charge to "First, do no harm."

The US Supreme Court hearing on the Oregon euthanasia law (or perhaps, "self-elimination and determination" is a better name - but "Physician Assisted Suicide is an oxymoron) should be reason enough to alert all of us to the dangers of having the wrong leaders and advisors.


We should *cure* when possible - not control.

We should never act to prolong life by invasive means when it is an assault to the patient.

But it is always an assault to act with the intention or a reasonable expectation of killing.