A Sign of the Eugenic Times

I was just reading last Sunday's New York Times Magazine. There, in all its eugenic glory, is an advertisement with the headline, "Donor Egg Immediately Available." The text tells us that the "fully-screened" egg donors come from women "in advanced degree programs," with other donors "with special accomplishments." But of course, "each donor is exhaustively screened" by the company's geneticists. And natch, the baby pictured in the ad with the happy mother is suitably blondish and fair skinned. After all, not just any baby will do for the rich and choosy.

No, prices are not given. If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

Canada Debating Wild Euthanasia

A Canadian bill to legalize euthanasia/assisted suicide demonstrates vividly where the "right to die" crowd wants to take society. The bill, C-407, does not require that the person who wants to be killed be terminally ill. It doesn't even require that the suicidal person be physically sick. Severe mental pain will suffice. This is logical: If euthanasia is primarily about honoring autonomy and eliminating suffering (by killing the patient), then what does terminal illness have to do with it?

The bill also does not require that a doctor do the killing. Someone who is not medically trained can terminate the patient so long as he or she is under the supervision of a medical professional, whatever that might mean. This also makes sense since killing is not a medical act. I mean, can anyone imagine a bill permitting a non doctor to perform surgery so long as the non physician was somehow supervised by a doctor?

This bill is unlikely to pass. But don't be surprised if it is used as the "bad bill" to make a bill that is more restricted appear like the moderate position.

Animal Liberationist Justifies Murder Against Those Who "Hurt Animals"--and It Goes Unreported

Last week, a senate committee held hearings on the terrorist war against Life Sciences Research (Huntingdon), by SHAC and other liberationists, which I have described in this blog and elsewhere. The New York Stock Exchange is the most recent apparent appeaser of SHAC, changing its mind at the last minute about listing Life Sciences on the Big Board, and refusing to explain itself to the senators. This story has been little reported here in the States, but was carried by the BBC, since SHAC has also been very active in the UK.

But even the BBC didn't report that Jerry Vlasak, the spokesperson at the hearings for the terrorists, asserted that animals and humans are "morally equal," and claimed that the "murder" of those "who hurt animals and will not stop after being told to stop" is "morally justified."

And the reaction of PETA to such hate and overt threats of violence? Silence. Utter silence. But it did issue a press release critical of Jennifer Lopez for wearing fur. Good to know it has its moral priorities straight.

My Column Criticizing Assisted Suicide

I wrote a column against AB 651, which would legalize Oregon-style assisted suicide, in today's Orange County Register. There is nothing particularly new in this piece. But repetition is the key to prevailing in today's public policy debates. And, I think, it is a good, succinct view of why opposing assisted suicide is the right course. If this issue interests you, check it out. (Registration may be required.)

More Evidence That Proposition 71 Was a Big Con

Gee, it looks like the taxpayers of California won't receive much of a return on their borrowed billions, to be given to Big Biotech and university research centers under Proposition 71, after all. This is in direct contradiction to the promises made by supporters of the initiative. Opponents tried to warn voters about this, but not having a budget it was difficult. And even though opponents tried to point out to the press that it was not at all likely that Proposition 71 would garner a profit for California, the media generally refused to investigate these concerns, preferring instead to harp continually on the "pro-life" attitudes of many of Proposition 71's opponents. Indeed, many editorials actually claimed that the money factor was a reason to vote for the measure.

In the nearly one year since the election, much evidence has accumulated to show that the opponents were almost surely right about the money issue. And since then, a lot of good reporting has been done. Here is just one more story, published on the front page of today's San Francisco Chronicle, reporting that Californians will almost surely reap few, if any, tax and licensing dollars from Proposition 71.

These stories could have and should have been reported during the campaign so that voters could have considered the issue when deciding how to cast their ballots. But before the election, the media was in the tank for Proposition 71. As good as the post-election reporting has been, it has been a day late and billions of dollars short.

An Example of Science as Quasi-Religion

One of the attractions of religion for many people is that it offers the promise of immortality, if not of the body, at least of the soul. Today, many boosters of biotechnology and transhumanism are offering the same thing--but not tending to believe in the soul, they suggest that it can be attained in the body. Here is a story about one such scientist, who claims people alive today can, through the magic of biotech, live for thousands of years. Such assertions offer a corporeal "new Jerusalem," and induce in some a faith in science as the source of salvation--sometimes called scientism--that can be as intensely devout as religious belief.

Hubristic Science May Be Undermining Public Trust

Another interesting poll result from the Virginia Commonwealth University (see previous post for link), has to do with the public's perception of science. "Question 3: Scientific research these days doesn't pay enough attention to the moral values of society." Fifty-six percent agreed strongly (25%) or somewhat (31%), versus only 37% who disagree--(23%) somewhat, (14%) strongly. What does that tell us? Perhaps, people are beginning to perceive science as a special interest rather than an objective source of information and advice. If so, those scientists and cloning advocates who spin and jive to win the ongoing political debates have only themselves to blame.

Majorities Oppose Therapeutic Cloning

This poll taken by the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) demonstrates that most people still oppose human cloning for biomedical research (and, of course, as a means of reproduction).

While majorities support embryonic stem cell research, which was sold successfully to the public as only involving the use of leftover IVF embryos due to be tossed out anyway. About therapeutic cloning, however, people are opposed. Even when the question is asked inaccurately, (leaving out the creation of a human embryo through cloning), a small majority opposes. "Do you favor or oppose using human cloning technology IF it is used ONLY to help medical research develop new treatments for disease?" The results were 43% support, 51% opposed.

Notably, when the question is asked accurately, to wit: "Do you favor or oppose using human cloning technology IF it is used to create human embryos that will provide stem cells for human therapeutic purposes?" The support diminished and opposition increased: Thirty-four percent favored cloning under these conditions and 59 percent were opposed.

This poll demonstrates vividly why pro cloners are engaged in a campaign of obfuscation to convince people that therapeutic cloning isn't cloning and that somatic cell nuclear transfer creates stem cells rather than embryos.

Stem Cell Imperialism

Woo-Suk Hwang, the Korean human cloner, is forming the World Stem Cell Foundation that intends to circumvent the bans some nations and U.S. States have on human therapeutic cloning. The idea is to do the cloning in friendly areas and then cell the cloned stem cells in locales where cloning is not allowed. As I write in this article, this is not only in stark contrast to those seeking to find a morally permissible way to obtain tailor-made stem cells, but could spark a backlash.

This is the conclusion: "Scientists and bioethicists often complain that society is becoming anti-science. But perhaps the real problem is that many biotechnology boosters increasingly act as if popular beliefs about the wrongness of human cloning are irrelevant, indeed, that only the views of the privileged caste of scientists should count. Defiant proposals such as the World Stem Cell Foundation only add to this perception."

Kudos to Chicago Tribune

I was flying home from a speaking gig in Kentucky yesterday and at Chicago/O'Hare, I purchased a Sunday Chicago Tribune. There, on the front page, was a great story on the power of umbilical cord blood stem cells to treat terrible diseases. Good for the Tribune. As I have written previously, too often, these amazing stories are either not reported, or blandly presented on inside pages, in the mainstream media. Perhaps the dam is beginning to break.

This being noted, a good story here and there is insufficient to break through the Big Biotech/Media propaganda blitz extolling the wonders of therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cells as superior to adult/umbilical cord blood stem cells. In my years of public advocacy, I have learned that repitition is the key to getting the attention of the mass of the population that are not news junkies and don't spend their lives focusing intently on various controversies. At some point, I believe, stories like the Tribune's will be the rule rather than the exception. The treatments most likely to come on-line sooner, and at less cost, are non embryonic--and all without the moral baggage.

Michael Fumento on Adult Stem Cells and Journalistic Malpractice

I posted an entry at Secondhand Smoke a bit ago about a tremendous breakthrough in which adult stem cells have apparently successfully treated serious liver disease in humans. Michael Fumento adds more details here. And, he points out, the mainstream media has all but ignored the breakthrough, since adult stem cells are "politically incorrect." He is so right. His kicker: "Therapeutic progress with adult stem cells will continue to come fast and furious. Just when the public will be allowed to hear about it is another thing entirely."

The media's refusal to fully report on the many successes of adult stem cells is journalistic malpractice with malice aforethought.

Los Angeles Paying for Security for Animal Control Workers

The threats from animal rights activists against animal control workers have grown so extreme that Los Angeles is paying for special security for them. For example, a smoke bomb was set off in the apartment complex where the head of LA's animal control department lives--a crime acknowledge by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).

A spokesman for the liberationists state that the better course for LA would just be give in and adopt a "no kill" policy for strays, and then all would be better. Of course, that would be giving into Brown Shirtism, resulting not in peace but increased demands made by terrorists emboldened by their success. Moreover, it is very interesting that these thugs seem to have no trouble with PETA, which has admitted to killing tens of thousands of dogs and cats, with two employees currently up on felony charges in South Carolina for killing animals and throwing them away in dumpsters. Apparently, it isn't the killing that is wrong. It is who is doing the killing.

Update on Bestiality Case in Washington

Readers may recall a disgusting case awhile back of a man who died while having sex with a horse. It turned out that there is no law against bestiality in Washington, and I was peeved because supporters and opponents of proposed legislation there to outlaw bestiality were missing the point that human/animal sex is intrinsically demeaning to human dignity.

Here's the latest on that story. The man who rented the farm and let people use the animals has been arrested on trespass charges. Since the horse wasn't hurt (he did the hurting), no animal abuse charges could be filed. Only in America.

And They Make Fun of Leon Kass For Warning That IVF Might Be Risky to the Child

Ever since the human cloning debates began, some bioethicists have chided the former chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics for having worried decades ago that IVF might pose risks to the children created thereby. Kass was wrong about IVF, they thunder, and he is wrong about cloning, too.

Well, lo and behold: Studies now show Kass was right. Betcha the deriders won't apologize.

Eliminating the Disabled Through Eugenic Abortion and Embryo Selection

The Washington Post deserves credit for running this thoughtful piece by Patricia E. Bauer, a journalist and mother of a disabled child who worries that we are seeking to eliminate the disabled by never permitting them to be born--all in the name of preventing suffering, of course. Bauer writes: "What I don't understand is how we as a society can tacitly write off a whole group of people as having no value...And here's one more piece of un-discussable baggage: This question is a small but nonetheless significant part of what's driving the abortion discussion in this country. I have to think that there are many pro-choicers who, while paying obeisance to the rights of people with disabilities, want at the same time to preserve their right to ensure that no one with disabilities will be born into their own families. The abortion debate is not just about a woman's right to choose whether to have a baby; it's also about a woman's right to choose which baby she wants to have."

I have noticed these attitudes increasing, too. As we tout the Special Olympics, we are wiping people with Down's syndrome off the face of the planet, not only through eugenic abortion, but even including infanticide in the Netherlands and medical neglect of Down's babies here in the States. Meanwhile, our futurists sigh in ecstasy at the thought "seizing control of human evolution" and making "better" babies enhanced for increased intelligence, beauty, or longevity. Yet, developmentally disabled people are some of the most "human" people I have ever met, most merely wanting to belong, contribute, love, and be loved. Somehow that point is lost on the Brave New Worlders, as is the very concept of unconditional love for children regardless of "characteristics."

We are told by "transhumanists" and others that the future will be an individualist's paradise, with all of us able to remake ourselves and our children into whatever form of life we choose. But the reverse seems true. As we claim to believe in diversity, in many ways we are actually well down the path to destroying it.

Progressive Bioethicists Want More Influence, Poor Babies

Good grief. "Progressive" bioethicists are whining that they don't have enough power. Nonsense. The utilitarian bioethics agenda, which is what the "progressive" bioethics movement really is, has tremendous influence in this country. Indeed, as is discussed in depth in Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, most bioethicists hew to the ideological lines of the "progressives," which is why bioethics has ceased to be a "discourse" and become more akin to an ideology and social movement. They are just irked that Bush is in power, which has temporarily prevented their sweeping the board. Of course, I find most of mainstream utilitarian bioethics to be not liberal at all, particularly given that most believe human beings can be separated into caste-creating distinctions between so-called persons and human non persons.

Here's a note from Bio-Edge on a recent meeting among the progressives with a Democratic Party think tank, with an interesting comment by Daniel Callahan. I often disagree with Callahan, but he seems right here. Note also the typical nasty comments by Art Caplan, who is the media go-to guy for sound bites on bioethics controversies. I read the transcript of his talk at the progressive soiree and he seems to be growing more demagogic with each passing day. The "progressive's" conference was also covered by Will Saletan in his own inimitable style. (I really enjoy how Saletan bemusedly goes back and forth between "conservative" bioethics/biotech and "liberal" camp meetings. He's a good journalist, even when I don't agree with his perspectives.)

Good Grief: There May Be CANCER Stem Cells

This interesting note picked up by Bio-Edge: There may be cancer stem cells. (This isn't the same as embryonic stem cells causing tumors.) The theory is that chemotherapy destroys cells that have differentiated into cancer cells, but not the cancer stem cells, which may explain why cancer recurs. Sometimes I think that disease is intelligent...

The Right Way To Handle Animal Rights Lawlessness

PETA has settled a lawsuit (perhaps to avoid discovery where its files would have been thrown open to lawyers), and agreed to a court order not to infiltrate a medical testing company it had been seeking to harm. The order lasts for five years. Suing animal liberationist harassers--but only when the suit is justified--could be an effective tool to keep the movement within proper parameters. In a free society, liberationists obviously have the right to try and persuade us to become vegans and stop animal testing. But they don't have the right to coerce that result. Hopefully, spankings by the law--civil in the case of PETA, criminal against terrorists like SHAC and the ALF--will convince animal liberationists to stay within proper legal parameters.

One post script: In 1997, Huntingdon Life Sciences obtained a similar non infiltration order against PETA. It wasn't too long thereafter that SHAC began its terrorist campaign of tertiary targeting--terrorism which PETA adamantly refuses to condemn.

Radio Interview Tomorrow

I will be on WIBA, Madison, WI, tomorrow about SHAC and tertiary targeting at 3:10 P.M. Central Time. If you live in the area, tune in. The host is Vicki McKenna

Update on PETA Killing Doggies and Kitties

The two PETA workers who were charged with killing dogs and cats and dumping them in trash cans have been charged with more crimes. The biggest news is that these new charges include three counts of obtaining property under false pretenses. The property are cats and dogs. The false pretenses are, allegedly, that PETA would find them homes when the intent was always to kill them.

This story reveals the underbelly of PETA. Animal liberationists' ultimate goal is to eradicate all domesticated animals (not by killing them but preventing further breeding--which we might call doggie and kittie eugenics). This desire could explain why clearly adoptable animals have apparently been killed by PETA rather than found homes, which I wrote about here. (Yes, I know that PETA also has adopted out pets. But the group's kill to adoption ratio is much higher than local humane society shelters.)

In any event, the facts of this case could get interesting.

Altered Nuclear Transfer May Work

William Hurbut has been the driving force behind alterned nuclear transfer (ANT)that seeks to create pluripotent stem cells through nuclear transfer technology without an embryo ever having come into being. The first animal tests have been tried and there is good indication that the technique might work, although this particular version might not be it.

Whether human life has intrinsic value simply because it is human is the question of the 21st Century, and is certainly germane to the therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell controversies. Some wish to wave it away. But the widespread coverage of this story and the ACT breakthrough mentioned in the last post, at least, show that the value of human life simply for being human remains an important part of this debate.

Embryonic Stem Cells Without Destroying the Embryo

Researchers at Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) have claimed publicly that they were able to derive embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. The story is international. Some of it is also clueless. The report in the the Guardian states that this purported breakthrough (I will explain why I use the word purported in a moment) "challenges" Bush. But the contrary is true. If there is indeed a way to derive embryonic stem cells without destroying an embryo it would validate Bush!

Here's the point: Bush's policy along with the arguments of ethicists such as Leon Kass, former chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics and Council member William Hurlbut (who is the driving force behind Altered Nuclear Transfer, another potential way to find pluripotent cells without creating or destroying embryos) have kept nascent human life from becoming widely viewed as mere fodder. Indeed, the reason this story is being reported so widely is that it could provide a way around the ethical problem with embryonic stem cell research. (Whether it would or not, I will leave for another day.) Indeed, there is much energy now being applied to find ethical ways to conduct this research on several fronts, which is all to the good.

Back to the reason I used of the word "purported." As I detailed at length in Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World, ACT is known for issuing press releases about their alleged successes in experiments and publishing them in peer reviewed journals later, if at all. For example, the company claimed to have made the first human cloned embryo, which was reported breathlessly in a cover story in U.S. News and World Report. It turned out that they hadn't. Similar breathless "behind the scenes at ACT" stories were later published in the Atlantic Monthly and Wired, with similar claims of wild successes never quite being verified.

So, when it comes to news of breakthroughs out of ACT, I hold to Ronald Reagan's old maxim: Trust but verify.

Courts Should Decide to Remove Life Support in Disputed Cases--Not Bioethicists

I am not going to comment on whether the court is right or wrong in ordering the removal of ventilator support (but not food and fluids) from a catastrophically brain damaged baby--over his mother's objections. (The child appears to have been abused.) But if there are times in which parent/family/patient desires to continue life-sustaining treatment are to be vetoed, the proper forum for such morally consequential decisions to be made is the courts--with the burden of proof on those who wish to remove care and an attorney made available to the family so that the fight is fair. In no case should the power to make decisions to remove wanted life-sustaining treatment be assumed by anonymous hospital ethics committees, doctors at the bedside, or other private parties with no public accountability--as is beginning to happen in hospitals throughout the country.

The mother in this case had the right to present evidence. The litigation is very public. The record can be reviewed. There is a right to appeal.

This is in direct contrast to Futile Care Theory (a.k.a. medical futility), in which decisions to withdraw or withhold wanted treatment are made by doctors and committees after private hospital administrative hearings. Then, if the committee votes to stop treatment, the onus to act is on the patient/family. Indeed, once futile care has been imposed, families have three difficult choices: acquiesce and most likely lose their loved one; find a new hospital, which isn't easy because these disputes involve expensive care; or, bring a lawsuit on their own dime, and as plaintiff, probably shoulder the burden of proof.

Futile Care Theory is a clear and present danger to patient autonomy and the equality of life ethic. It is a form of ad hoc health care rationing that is being quietly promulgated by many hospital ethics committees throughout the country with little public debate. (We don't even know how many hospitals have these protocols or their ideates in many cases.) This presents a clear and present danger that when it comes to the dying and the catastrophically injured, advance directives and family desires will be forced to take a back seat to the ideological beliefs and values of people who may never have even met the patient.

Web Site on Adult Stem Cell Treatment of Juvenile Diabetes

I was sent this WEB site about the potential for juvenile diabetes to be cured by adult spleen stem cells. Anyone interested in this promising research should hit this link.

PETA Refuses To Condemn Tertiary Targeting

PETA has responded to my column in the Weekly Standard about the thuggery of SHAC and animal rights terrorism in the cause of shutting down Huntingdon Life Sciences. Here is the letter in its entirety:

"Editor:

In his condemnation of the tactics of some British animal activists, Wesley J. Smith neglects to mention why these people are protesting some animal testing companies and their suppliers ("Wall Street goes wobbly," Oct. 17).Here's a sample of what he didn't explain: At Huntingdon Laboratories in Cambridgeshire, England, beagles were videotaped screaming as two technicians simulated intercourse with each other while one jabbed the dogs with a needle. At the Royal College of Surgeons a baby monkey was found with the word "crap" tattooed onto his forehead. One of the top animal experimenters in Britain had his license suspended by the Home Office when an animal rights activist secretly filmed him leaving a rabbit to burn under a surgical lamp while he chatted with another researcher.

Can Smith explain how this behavior can be called science, how it helps us find cures for disease and how he can possibly defend it?

Sincerely,

Kathy Guillermo

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA"

Such incidents of animal abuse have nothing to do with legitimate medical research and should be prosecuted. (Note that the undercover animal rights activist was apparently more interested in getting pictures than saving the burning bunny.) But isolated violations of animal cruelty laws do not justify lawless vigilantism. SHAC and other animal liberationist thugs (who operate in America as well as the UK) are not merely "protesting some animal testing companies and their suppliers." Tertiary targeting is terrorism. It victimizes innocent people who work for banks, insurers, and other companies whose peaceable lives are criminally disrupted by threats, vandalism, harassment, etc. PETA's response to my article demonstrates that the organization is not at all bothered by lawlessness in the cause of animal liberation, proving my concluding point that the animal rights movement is losing the right to call itself peaceable.

Amniotic Fluid Could Be Cornucopia of Stem Cells

Yesterday, the Chicago Sun Times reported that stem cells found in amniotic fluid have repaired organs in fetuses: "Boston doctors used cells taken from a pregnant lamb's amniotic fluid to grow a new trachea, then implanted the organ into the ailing fetus, an experiment that may pave the way for similar treatment in humans. [I quote the piece because the link doesn't work.]

"Using cells from amniotic fluid to repair or replace human organs may bypass some of the political and ethical obstacles doctors encounter with fetal cells, said Children's Hospital Boston pediatric surgeon Dario Fauza, who led the experiments. 'You avoid all the ethical dilemmas of the embryonic stem cell,' Fauza said. 'The cells are already there' in the mother's amniotic fluid. 'We are just harvesting it and making the tissue you want.'"

It would appear that these cells are pluripotent, that is, able to transform into any cell in the body. If so, it would open up yet another source of cells for use in regenerative medicine that would appear to carry no moral baggage (assuming you could get human amniotic fluid stem cells ethically).

I did a little checking, and it seems that this potential has been known for a few years.

Every day the case for embryonic stem cells as the primary thrust in research and the vacuum of public funding grows weaker. And, it was reported in a mainstream media outlet.

Must Reading: The New Task Force "Update" Is Out

The International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide is the best single source of information on assisted suicide and euthanasia that there is. Moreover, the good folks at the Task Force are responsible for persuading me of the overriding importance of euthanasia as a public policy issue. I was quite happy at the time working against tort reform and writing books with Ralph Nader. Then, a friend killed herself under the influence of Hemlock Society literature, which I wrote about in the My Turn section of Newsweek ("The Whispers of Strangers," 6/28/93). The Task Force contacted me for permission to reprint my piece in Update, the Task Force newsletter. And they began sending me information. The more I learned about the euthanasia agenda, the more alarmed I became. And soon I was working with the Task Force as an attorney and consultant, a relationship that continues quite satisfactorily to this day.

Returning to the Update: It is just a superb source of news about assisted suicide, food and fluids cases, bioethics, Futile Care Theory, and etc. from all around the world. The new edition is out. Among the stories: The latest news on Dutch infanticide; the Canadian legislation that would permit what I call "wild" euthanasia, (a term coined by author Robert Jay Lifton); and Missouri's change of the Medicaid law to call feeding tubes "optional," in many cases. Even though the Task Force is unequivocally anti-euthanasia, the reporting in the Update is straight. For anyone interested in the topic, whether pro or con, the Update is definitely must reading.

Here We Go Again: This Time Adult Stem Cells Treat Liver Disease

One day, you would think the New York Times would find this kind of story worthy of extended coverage. Bone marrow stem cells from patient's own bodies have improved liver disease in three of five patients in early human trials.

"Within two months, the liver function and general health of three of the five patients improved significantly, according to a report in the New Scientist magazine. The two patients who did not respond showed no ill-effects from the treatment...The stem cells appear to home in on damaged areas of the liver and make repairs, although the process involved is not yet fully understood.

Nagy Habib, a surgeon at Imperial College, London, who led the trial, said of one of the patients, in his 60s: 'At the outset, he had jaundice, vomited blood and had ascites - swelling caused by fluid around the liver.' Two months later the jaundice had disappeared, while levels of albumin - a marker of healthy liver function - rose to normal."

Pretty good stuff. If it were embryonic stem cells the front page headlines would be as bold as those that were seen on VJ-Day.

Animal Liberationists are Proving My Point That Their Movement is Ceasing to be Peaceable

I have an article (subscription required) in this week's Weekly Standard about the thuggery of some animal rights activists. It describes how a small cadre of animal rights terrorists called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) has undertaken a campaign of intimidation and criminal harassment to drive Huntindgon Life Sciences out of business. Their latest victory: In an act of craven capitulation to Brown Shirtism, the New York Stock Exchange reversed a decision to list Huntingdon's parent company, Life Sciences Research, on the Big Board.

"The NYSE fiasco is merely the latest triumph for ...SHAC," I write, "which has vowed to drive Life Sciences Research out of business because it tests drugs on animals. Toward this end, SHAC activists hit upon a vicious and brutally effective tactic known as "tertiary targeting." SHAC harasses and intimidates executives and other employees (and their families) of any company merely doing business with Life Sciences.

"The SHAC website identifies targets, providing their home addresses, phone numbers, and the names and ages of their children and even where they attend school. Even after the NYSE put off Life Sciences' listing, for instance, the SHAC website, according to Forbes, listed 'names, numbers and email addresses of 100 NYSE staff members.' Targeted people may receive anonymous death threats or mailed videotapes of their family members taken by SHAC activists. Companies have been bombed. Homes have been invaded and vandalized. In one recent case, animal rights activists broke into a lawyer's house and flooded it with a garden hose because his company once did business with Life Sciences and wouldn't be cowed into agreeing to never do so again. In a more recent case in the United Kingdom, a nursery school rescinded vouchers to Life Sciences employees in the face of violent threats."

This is an important story, I write. "The stakes in the war against Life Sciences are greater than the survival of one company. If SHAC and its co-conspirators succeed, they will validate terrorism as an effective means of accomplishing 'animal liberation.' And if Life Sciences succumbs, what animal testing enterprise will be safe? And what about other animal-using industries? Today, it is medical testing. Tomorrow it could be the fast food industry, zoos, the salmon fleet. The list is potentially endless. So is the list of potential imitators. Why wouldn't antiwar radicals, having noted SHAC's success, apply tertiary targeting against businesses that contract with the Defense Department?"

If Life Sciences abuses animals, it is a matter for law enforcement, not vigilantism. Otherwise, we lose the rule of law and the ability to resolve our increasingly bitter social and political disputes peacefully.

I end the article with the following observation: "And don't expect 'mainstream' animal rights leaders--if that is the proper word--to be of any help. Most have stood mutely by as their movement's fringe has grown increasingly ruthless. PETA has explicitly refused to condemn tertiary targeting and has even compared lawlessness in the name of animal rights to the efforts of the Underground Railroad and the French Resistance. Nor have the rank and file made an audible fuss about terrorism committed in furtherance of their cause. This general silence is beginning to sound an awful lot like cheering--calling into question the peaceable nature of the entire animal-rights movement."

A harsh assessment? I think not. I am already hearing from animal liberationists in reaction to the piece, and true to form, none has yet condemned SHAC, but rather, accused testing labs of being the real thugs--thereby proving my concluding point.

Debating Assisted Suicide on NPR

Two weeks ago I taped a debate about assisted suicide on the NPR program Talking Justice. It begins airing around the country on Saturday, October 8th, and can also be accessed at the show's WEBsite. My adversary was Kathryn Tucker, the lawyer for Compassion and Choices (aka Hemlock Society). It was a pretty good exchange. The show was taped the day Compassion and Choices issued their press release urging media not to call assisted suicide, assisted suicide, but instead a gooey euphemism such as "death with dignity," or "aid in dying," the subject of a recent Secondhand Smoke entry. And sure enough, right out of the box we got into the lexicon. Sigh.

The mainstream bioethicist Art Caplan also appears on the show, although I did not hear what he had to say. He once opposed assisted suicide but has taken a far more equivocal stance since passage of Measure 16 in Oregon in 1994. For example, he bitterly opposes the federal government striving to ensure that controlled substances are not used to intentionally end life, based on a state's rights argument. I, of course, disagree. Moreover, his breezy assertion in the article that there have been no abuses in Oregon is simply not true. Assisted suicide is itself an abuse. Beyond that point, there have been abuses of the law as written and here is one individual case.

My impression is that his whole take in recent years has been one of, "If you can't beat them, join them." But we are beating them (so far)--no thanks at all to Art Caplan.

Head of Physicians for Compassionate Care Responds to my "Policy of Privilege" Post

Wes, Your analysis [that assisted suicide is a policy of privilege] is right on. Diane Coleman of Not Dead Yet! [the disability rights organizatoin], wrote in 1998, "Who are the lead proponents of assisted suicide?--The Hemlock Society, who's members have a median income of $52,000 a year. They are the 4 W's: the white, well-off, worried, well."

A survey of dying Oregonians 2000-2002 reported that not one of 62 Blacks personally considered assisted suicide, whereas 18% of Whites considered it. [Tolle et al. "Characteristics and Proportion of Dying Oregonians Who Personally Considered Physician-Assisted Suicide." J Clin Ethics. 2004;15:111-118]

More Adult Stem Cell Successes

This stuff comes over the transom all of the time, so I thought I'd share some of it with y'all.

Israeli scientists report that umbilical cord blood stem cells can rejuvenate heart tissue.

Adult stem cell therapy quickly and significantly improves recovery of motor function in an animal model for a type of brain injury that occurs in about 10 percent of babies with cerebral palsy.

Heart failure patient treated with her own stem cells shows dramatic improvement.

Donor bone stem cells help grow new bone.

Bone marrow stem cells generate muscle cells and repair muscle degeneration.

Hat tip: Richard Doerflinger.

Assisted Suicide: A Policy of Privilege

I have been reading stories about the oral arguments in the Supreme Court yesterday in Gonzales v. Oregon. It is often said that predictions cannot be made based on oral arguments. Bunk. In every appellate case in which I have been involved or observed, it was easy to discern at least the general state of play. And from what I have read, it looks like a closely divided court. Indeed, the swing vote may be Justice O'Conner or her replacement.

Justice Ginsberg's response to the truth that non controlled substances could be used in assisted suicide thereby permitting Oregon's law to continue on, got me thinking about something. She responded that these other methods might not be so gentle. Whether true or untrue, that becomes a policy decision, not a judicial one.

Ginsberg is an elite member of the elite, as are most members of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. This is why, particularly with social or cultural issues, the courts so often reflect the cultural values of the upper strata. (Again, this is a general statement, not an all-inclusive one).

Assisted suicide is a policy of privilege. Contemporary proponents are relatively few, but very committed. They tend to be upper middle class or higher--often women. Barbara Coombs Lee, a former managed care vice president wrote the Oregon law. Kathryn Tucker, the attorney for the gooey euphemistically-named euthanasia group Compassion and Choices (formerly Hemlock Society), is an attorney for an elite corporate firm. Betty Rollins, the television journalist, has for years pushed assisted suicide after helping kill her mother is part of the Manhattan ruling class. Dr. Timothy Quill, qualifies. They also are almost always white and have social structures in place so they can be sure they will not be pushed out of the lifeboat. (The prime exception is Jack Kevorkian, who while non elite, was embraced wholeheartedly by the elites. For example, he was feted at Time magazine's 75th anniversary where Tom Cruise rushed up to shake his hand.)

Opponents, with some exceptions, are not elitists. Disability rights advocates, are prime examples. They understand that gaining access to quality health care is the real challenge for many Americans and that assisted suicide targets the disabled. Pro lifers are hated by the elites. The Catholic Church, while certainly wealthy, is under constant attack by the cultural elites, particularly in the media. Advocates for the poor who see a great threat to indigent, uninsured patients if we transform killing into a medical treatment are not part of the ruling class. Civil rights advocates, such as LULAC, the largest Latino civil rights organization in the country that advocates for farm workers and others, opposes assisted suicide.

I believe under the law, the U.S. Government should win this case. But assisted suicide litigation has always been steeped in the politics of privilege, leading to some overtly political results. So, I am taking no bets.

Another "Unconscious" Patient Awakens

Here we go again: A patient who supposedly had no chance of recovery has awakened. He states that while he was unable to respond, he could hear everything around him--verifying the article published in The Scientist that those in PVS may be able to hear, which I blogged on September 20 (available in archives).

Canadian Legislation Would Permit Wild Euthanasia

A private member's bill to legalize euthanasia will be heard this year in Canada. Demonstrating that euthanasia is not really about terminal illness, the bill would authorize a broad category of killing. My good friend, the Canadian disability rights activist and Christian apologist Mark Pickup, fillets the bill in this article in Canada's Western Catholic Reporter.

Media Keep Getting the Assisted Suicide Case Wrong

This gets so old: The media keep reporting that the Feds are seeking to invalidate Oregon's assisted suicide law. No, they are not, as I explained here years ago.

Here's another bit of wrong reporting: I just heard an ABC radio news report in which the correspondent asserted that Chief Justice Rehnquist ruled previously that states have the right to legalize assisted suicide, and now the question is whether Chief Justice Roberts will follow in his mentor's footsteps. No Rehquist didn't. In fact, a footnote in his majority opinion finding that states may outlaw assisted suicide, explicitly stated that the question of whether states could legalize it was not being addressed. This makes imminent sense since that issue was never been briefed or argued in front of the Supreme Court.

And here's a little known factoid about this matter: A federal trial court did rule that Oregon's assisted suicide law was indeed unconstitutional. But this decision was reversed on appeal based on a technicality, leaving the legal substance of that question undecided at the present time.

The media was wrong about so much that happened in New Orleans. And they are just as inaccurate here. Why is it so hard for these reporters to present the simple facts without fundamental errors?

The Woes of Proposition 71

What a debacle Proposition 71 is fast becoming. This article by the Christian bioethicist Nigel Cameron lays only part of it out. California is going billions in debt while our emergency rooms shut down for lack of funds, as we pay fat cat Big Biotech companies and their university collaborators billions for morally controversial research, that even if it does work, appears decades away. And now, Governor Schwarzenegger has vetoed a modest measure that would have protected women from exploitation for their eggs and permitted a state audit of how the billions of taxpayers' money is being spent. This would be funny, if it were not so painful.

Latest Kass Report is a Splendid Ethical Document

I was asked by the Weekly Standard to review the latest report of the President's Council on Bioethics, Taking Care: Ethical Caregiving in Our Aging Society. This will be the last released by the Council under the leadership of Kass, and it is outstanding. The report is a strong defense of the equal worth of all people, particularly the aged who suffer from Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. Here are a few paragraphs from my review:

"Taking Care serves as a powerful apologia for the "ethic of equality," arguing persuasively in favor of the equal worth of each human being regardless of health, ability, or cognitive capacity. This is important since many in bioethics seek to push our medical system into a more utilitarian direction and dehumanize people who have lost mental capacities as "nonpersons," of less value and moral worth than the rest of us. Such dehumanization could lead easily to euthanasia for the demented. Hence, the council argues that decisions made on behalf of those who cannot decide for themselves be based on what is best for them, not on what might be desired by the caregiver or be perceived as better for society..."

The report "sets forth moral boundaries to guide the decision-making of caregivers, such as "no active killing or assisted killing of another, no matter how painful or diminished a life has become." Caregivers should not aim "at death as a purpose of action, whether by acts of commission or omission." At the same time, there should be "no imposing excessively burdensome treatments on others" and "no obligation to do what we cannot do in the role of caregiver, but the obligation to see how much we can do without destroying or deforming everything else in our lives."

Taking Care is really worth a read--and it is free: Here is the URL.

Kevorkian Wants to Become Poster Boy for Assisted Suicide

Jack Kevorkian has stated publicly that if he is released from prison, he will campaign for the legalization of assisted suicide. He would be the perfect poster boy for that agenda. Most of the people he helped kill were not terminally ill. He once stated he couldn't remember their names. And he has stated he would have killed Terri Schiavo, which shows where such thinking leads.

Don't get me wrong. I hope he stays in jail. He has said he won't kill again, but he said that before.

But if he is released, there is no question he will put that agenda back on the front pages in blazing headlines since media love outlaws. Then, perhaps, we can get the truth out about the entire euthanasia agenda, not the gooey euphemisms and phony compassion that are the earmarks of such advocacy today.

My Inverview on Wisconsin Public Radio

I was interviewed by Kathllen Dunn on Wisconsin Public Radio last Thursday (9/29) for an hour on Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World. It was a very positive experience with some interesting questions from listeners. If you have an hour, take a listen. I think you will find it worth your time.

On a different note: I appeared with Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler at an event on Thursday night. He is doing fine and is developing into a powerful voice on behalf of the intrinsic value of all human lives.