CedarEthics

The President’s Council on Bioethics has been disbanded. The White House has told the members last week that their services are no longer required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NY Times Article

Ellen Goodman is an op-ed columnist for the Boston Globe. Her nationally-syndicated column is usually thoughtful, well-written and balanced. As a liberal, she often critiques social conservative positions. I usually disagree with her, but she always gives me something to think about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a radio interview, Center for Bioethics Director Dennis Sullivan discusses the elimination of the Ethics Department at the University of Tennessee School of Medicine.

Source: American Medical News Link

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

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

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

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Prestigious scholar Mary Ann Glendon is the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard, and former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. She was informed last December that she was to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal at the university’s annual Commencement exercises, a great honor that she was looking forward to.

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

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

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

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

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

Newsweek Article

Full Text of Professor Glendon’s Letter

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

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

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

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

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

Article in The Independent

Sometimes the truth has a way of getting out. On March 29th, Michael J. Fox and Dr. Oz were guests on the Oprah show. The topic, of course, was stem cell research. The medical expert used a real preserved brain to show the area of the midbrain affected by Parkinson’s Disease, called the substantia nigra. He went on to describe how stem cells might one day be used to regenerate the cells in this region.

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

Video Link

On March 9th, President Obama followed through on a campaign promise and issued an executive order. His signature overturned the ban, established in August, 2001, on government funding of embryo-destructive research. His speech at the signing ceremony was remarkable, not for his action (which was expected), but for what he didn’t say. Here’s an excerpt:

Today, with the Executive Order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research.

This speech was all about vague promises of medical cures that will come about with the help of stem cells. So what are stem cells? The president doesn’t tell us. Where do these cells come from? The president doesn’t tell us. How are stem cells obtained? The president doesn’t tell us.

There’s an elephant in the room, and the the president is ignoring it. He never talks about the entity that must be destroyed to produce stem cells. These are embryonic stem cells, which means they must come from the destruction of embryos. What are embryos? The earliest stage of human life.

Honest people may differ on the moral issues involved in embryo-destructive research, but to have a meaningful conversation they must understand the issues at stake. Unfortunately, on March 9th, President Barack Obama didn’t tell the American people what he was really talking about.

New biomedical technologies, combined with our current economic crisis and growing skepticism over values in our society, have formed a “perfect wave” of ethical challenges. The coming bioethics tsunami threatens to overwhelm our historical commitment to human value and dignity. This month’s podcast is based on an address Dr. Sullivan gave in the Cedarville University Chapel.

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

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

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

 

 The Coming Bioethics Tsunami: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

February’s podcast is about the seemingly wide chasm between pro-life ideals and environmental activism. Why is it so difficult to advocate for the two ideas at the same time, especially when the value of human life and stewardship of natural resources are both biblical themes?  My guest is Dr. John Silvius, Senior Professor of Biology at Cedarville University.

Sources:

• Bald Eagles and Babies
  
• Creation Care and the Great Commission

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

Feature Music: Ocean - Iona Leigh

All music courtesy of The Podsafe Music Network.

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

 

 Pro-Life or Pro-Environment: Poles Apart? (16): Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The Declaration of Helsinki has long been regarded as the leading international standard on human research ethics. Drafted in 1964, the Declaration upholds basic patient rights and governs the business practices of clinical researchers. In spite of the Declaration’s widely accepted ethical authority, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration terminated its reliance on the Declaration for international research in October 2008, and instead adopted the International Conference on Harmonization’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (GCP).

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

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

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

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

The Lancet Article