Another Suicide Machine Makes News

The media is abuzz about the creation of a "suicide machine" by a Swiss doctor that let's people kill themselves at the push of a button. Amazing times in which we live, no? But this is hardly new. Even though he sought a license to engage in human vivisection, Jack Kevorkian broke through to international celebrity with his suicide machine. Why, the media so loved Kevorkian in his prime that Time invited him to its 75th anniversary party where Tom Cruise rushed up to shake his hand!

Phillip Nitschke, Australia's "Dr Death," also invented a suicide machine where the despairing pushed a button on a computer. He has also invented the "peaceful pill," a concoction of common household ingredients that can be used to end life. (The media has quivered over this, but they don't ask how it was tested. Did Nitschke kill animals, for example? Inquiring minds want to know.)

Then there is the Nu Tech crowd led by Derek Humphry with their suicide machines such as the "debreather" and his instruction in the use of helium and a plastic bag to plunge into the great beyond.

And who can forget the Church of Euthanasia? And the ongoing Internet suicide pacts?

So, this suicide obsession is hardly news. But it should cause us all to ponder why there is so much interest and fascination with self destruction. I think the Canadian journalist Andrew Coyne put it best years ago when he wrote in the Globe and Mail in 1994:

A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured.

Or to put it another way, paraphrasing the Buffalo Springfield classic: Nihilism strikes deep/Into your heart it will creep...

Ron Coronado Expresses Regret for Terrorist Past

Rodney Coronado, previously imprisoned for committing arson, is going to jail again. Unlike his previous defiance, this time at his sentencing he expressed regret. From the story:

Coronado was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison after pleading guilty to demonstrating how to use a destructive device during a speech in Hillcrest in August 2003.

Before Miller sentenced him, Coronado said those days were behind him, that he wanted to be a family man, a good husband to his wife of eight months and a father to his two children. "My life, I see going in a completely different direction," Coronado said. Coronado, 41, accepted responsibility for his words and said he was ready to serve his sentence and then "be allowed to move on with my life."

"I have said and done things in my past which I regret," Coronado said, adding later that he realized those words could have inspired others to go out and commit destructive acts in the name of protecting animals and the environment.

I hope he is sincere. There is one way to tell: If he works as hard to convince his former terrorist colleagues to restrain their criminality and pursue the animal cause through legal means as he has in the past to engage in and promote felonious conduct, and if he cooperates with law enforcement to bring other terrorists to justice, I will believe him. If he joins the Gary Francione "abolitionist" approach in advocating for animal rights--and urges his followers to join him--I will believe him.

Coronado could actually do a lot of good. He is idolized for his willingness to act criminally by the ALF and SHAC types and their supporters in the movement. If his heart is truly changed, he could lead them out of the badlands and back to working through democratic processes. Persuasion isn't an adrenalin rush like coercion, but it is the only way to affect change in these matters without causing the roof to fall in.

If he's sincere...

Language Enginieering: Joel Connelly Gets It on Initiative 1000:

The Seattle PI columnist Joel Connelly is a refreshing exception to much of the media that continue to see assisted suicide as a modernistic "choice" issue rather than one founded in abandonment and inequality. He has a column today (for which I was interviewed) properly critical of the word engineering in which the "Death with Dignity" crowd engages to persuade people that hemlock is really honey. From his column:

If you are campaigning for the "right" of people to kill themselves, the first challenge is finding a nonlethal definition: Soft, reassuring terms must be substituted for the off-putting phrase "assisted suicide."...

Apparently Gardner and political consultants advising him never met Derek Humphrey, plain-spoken co-founder of the Hemlock Society."As the author of four books on the right to choose to die, including 'Final Exit,' I find the vacillation by (Oregon's) Department of Human Services on how to describe the act of a physician helping a terminally ill person to die by handing them a lethal overdose--which they can choose to drink (or not)--an affront to the English language," Humphrey wrote to The Register Guard newspaper in Eugene, Ore. " 'Physician' means a licensed M.D.; 'assisted' means helping; and 'suicide' means deliberately ending life. "The department's cop-out choice of the words 'death with dignity' is wildly ambiguous and means anything you want. Let's stick to the English language and in this matter call a spade a spade."

That would be the approach for those respectful of democracy. But assisted suicide activists want to win, and are not about to let a little language deconstruction get in the way of their goal.

Then, there is the money:

Among local political consultants, I-1000 is becoming a cause to die for. The Yes-on-1000 Committee has shelled out more than $333,000, in increments of $10,000 to $50,000, to 12 consulting firms and consultants.

Prominent Democratic consultants are on the receiving end. J. Blair Butterworth, chief political adviser to former Gov. Gary Locke, has received $15,000. And Northwest Passage Consulting, headed by Sen. Maria Cantwell's former campaign aide Christian Sinderman, has received $21,789. The list is growing. "Signature Gatherers Needed Immediately. Great $$$!" read an ad on Craigslist.com last week. A company, National Ballot Access, seeks paid signature gatherers for assisted suicide, promising 75 cents for each voter that signs the petition.

Gardner's letter referenced by Connelly, which I discussed here at SHS, whines about all the money the opponents will spend to prevent "compassion." But the reverse is actually true. Assisted suicide is primarily an elitist agenda. The primary advocates are almost all among the well tailored. Millions are being poured into the effort internationally, and hundreds of thousands from around the country into the Washington campaign--and that's before Gardner opens his own wallet.

I have predicted that this measure will fail in the end. Perhaps that is my heart overruling my head. But there is so much bad about assisted suicide that it can be defeated, as it has repeatedly been in legislatures and voter initiatives since Oregan's law passed in 1994.

The key, though, is getting the message out. We'll see how it goes.

"Hypsokilia:" Are Our New Doctors Poorly Trained?

A very interesting and disturbing article, written by medical school professor Dr. Herbert L. Fred, has been published in the Texas Heart Institute Journal. Dr. Fred warns warns that our medical students have a "laboratory oriented" rather than a "patient oriented" mindset due to poor training. From his article:

I call this malady hyposkillia--deficiency of clinical skills. By definition, those afflicted are ill-equipped to render good patient care. Yet, residency training programs across the country are graduating a growing number of these "hyposkilliacs"--physicians who cannot take an adequate medical history, cannot perform a reliable physical examination, cannot critically assess the information they gather, cannot create a sound management plan, have little reasoning power, and communicate poorly. Moreover, they rarely spend enough time to know their patients "through and through." And because they are quick to treat everybody, they learn nothing about the natural history of disease.

These individuals, however, do become proficient at a number of things. They learn to order all kinds of tests and procedures--but don't always know when to order or how to interpret them. They also learn to play the numbers game--treating a number or some other type of test result rather than the patient to whom the number or test result pertains. And by using so many sophisticated tests and procedures, they inevitably and unwittingly acquire a laboratory-oriented rather than a patient-oriented mindset. Contributing to this mindset, incidentally, are the health maintenance organizations that force physicians to care for a maximum number of patients, in a minimal number of minutes, for the lowest number of dollars.

That ain't all:

The bottom line is this: While modern medical technology has greatly enhanced our ability to diagnose and treat disease, it has also promoted laziness--especially mental laziness--among many physicians. Habitual reliance on sophisticated medical gadgetry for diagnosis prevents physicians from using the most sophisticated, intricate machine they'll ever and always have--the brain.

Tough stuff, but I think it is important for all of us to read the whole thing. Dr. Fred says, in essence, that the art of medicine is being tossed overboard. He goes into some of the societal causes of the problem about which he is warning and suggests some remedies.

I thank him for his courage in bringing this cause for concern to the attention of his colleagues and through the wonders of computer-downloading and linking, to all of us.

HT:Gerry Sotomayor

Animal Rights Threats of Violence and Sexual Assault Close "Art" Exhibit

Why this was ever considered "art" I will never know, but there was supposed to be a film shown at the San Francisco Art Institute that depicted animals being bludgeoned, with a discussion to follow. Stupid and cruel. But we have seen other deeply offensive "art" presented before by institutes and museums--and protests pressuring to shut them down. But those protests are usually for naught because the "arteests" and the First Amendment Crowd always go into high dudgeon about the importance of the free expression, even if it profoundly offends. Which is right, although one wishes these people would be more considerate of their neighbors' sensibilities.

Protests over this junk would have been very appropriate, but the thuggish method by which animal rights activists closed down the exhibit was definitely not. From the story:

"We've gotten dozens of threatening phone calls that targeted specific staff people with death threats, threats of violence and threats of sexual assaults," said Art Institute President Chris Bratton. "We remain committed to freedom of speech as fundamental to this institution, but we have to take people's safety very seriously."

Raping "for the animals?" If this were a "Piss Christ" kind of exhibit and "conservative" threats shut it down in this manner, the media, the First Amendment Crowd, the artist community would never stop screaming. But mark my words, this particular offensive free speech will be squashed by threats of violence with nary a peep.

But this is the point: I know of only two movements that so readily and consistently resort to violence and threats of violence to promote their fundamentalism, and so frequently get their way because of it: Extremist jihadists and extremist animal rights activists. The first are more dangerous, but at least they don't pretend to be peaceable.

NHS Meltdown: Voucher System Experiment

The NHS is continuing to implode, and apparently some have seen that perhaps a private/public system is the answer. From the story:

Tens of thousands of NHS patients will be given money to pay for their own health care in a controversial "voucher" scheme under new government plans. Patients with a range of illnesses will have direct control of "individual health budgets", allowing them to decide how to spend money at present allocated for them by the NHS.

It will be the most radical part of a wider policy, to be launched this week, to give patients more choice over their health care. From Tuesday, most of those referred for hospital treatment will be given a choice of more than 500 hospitals, including 160 private units, across the country. Under the "voucher" scheme, patients will not be given money directly, but will decide themselves how to spend sums normally administered by the NHS.

Well something had to be done. This is the first breath of hope I have seen for the NHS in some time.

This Scratches My Naderite Itch

Our hyper commercialization of science and medical research is both a great strength and a great weakness. The profit motive certainly stimulates innovation and risk, but it can also stymie advances that don't fit easily into the prospective bottom line. And so I worry that universities, now totally in bed with big commercial interests, may lose some of their innovative drive and inquisitive spirit. Corporate welfare in research is also a problem. I am not opposed to the government funding experiments, but I agree with Ralph Nader on this: When such research provides a profitable boon, there should be some kind of payback to the public for the assistance provided. In short, with so many in science hoping to become the next Bill Gates, the direction of research can be distorted when subjected to filtering through a commercial colander.

That is why I find the concept of "venture philanthropy" so refreshing. From the story:

After four years of research with Silicon Valley backing, Scott Johnson's outfit is preparing for the trial by fire faced by most biotechnology startups. It's time for the road show.

Young companies routinely go on the road to present their best ideas for new drugs to big pharmaceutical and biotech companies. They hope to land a rich licensing deal. But Johnson's organization is not a biotech startup. It's a nonprofit charitable foundation with a uniquely hands-on scientific program. And its upcoming road show will be a key test of Johnson's theory that a small charity with the right rules can be a formidable force to bring new treatments to the world--and speed up the process of drug development.

The story describes how such nonprofit research enterprises may be a new trend:Charities can help bridge the funding gap that often prevents promising early stage science from being developed into medicines, said Johnson. The Myelin Repair Foundation wants to advance studies to the point where it makes financial sense for drugmakers to pick it up, he said.

Basic research can receive short shrift when commercial benefit is the top priority, and that is where such ventures can provide benefit:

"It was just so inefficient and crazy," he said. Drug companies are doing less of the basic research that can lead to novel drugs, because it's expensive and risky. Those who conduct basic university research could tackle big medical problems if they worked in collaboration, Johnson said. But they compete with each other for government grants, so they keep their work under wraps until they can publish in scientific journals, he found. Only then do they hear comments from other experts.

By contrast, members of his collaborative group of university researchers recently brainstormed on a proposed experiment during a conference call. "In four minutes the experiment was completely redesigned," Johnson said.

One of America's strong suits is our philanthropic sector. This kind of imaginative approach could produce a lot of good.

Adult Stem Cells from Uterus Treat Parkinson's in Mice

Well, the old days of "the scientists" such as some of the people over at Amendment 2 in Missouri telling reporters and legislators that adult stem cells are merely "unipotent," that is, that they can only create their own kind of tissue, are beyond defending any more. Uterine stem cells have been injected into mice--and they grew new brain cells helping to ease the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. From the story:

The injection of uterine stem cells trigger growth of new brain cells in mice with Parkinson's disease, Yale School of Medicine researchers report in an abstract presented at the 2008 Society for Gynecologic Investigation (SGI) Annual Scientific Meeting held March 26-29 in San Diego, California. "Previously, we were able to coax these multipotent stem cells to differentiate into cartilage cells," said lead author Hugh S. Taylor, M.D., professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences at Yale School of Medicine and section chief of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at Yale School of Medicine. "Now we have found that we can turn uterine stem cells into neurons that can boost dopamine levels and partially correct the problem of Parkinson's disease." ...

The stem cells in this study were derived from human endometrial stromal cells that were cultured under conditions that induce the creation of neurons. These cells then developed axon-like projections and cell bodies with a pyramid shape typical of neurons. "The dopamine levels in the mice increased once we transferred the stem cells into their brains," Taylor said. "The implications of our findings are that women have a ready supply of stem cells that are easily obtained, are differentiable into other cell types, and have great potential use for other purposes."

A few years ago, I watched,my mouth agape at the baldness of the mendacity, as a scientist in Missouri testified to a legislative committee that adult stem cells were merely unipotent. It wasn't true then, and it is beyond any repeating now.

Dutch Doctors Turning to Terminal Sedation Over Euthanasia

Demonstrating the subversive nature of the euthanasia/assisted suicide movement on proper medical care, Dutch doctors are switching from lethally injecting patients to sedating them into a permanent coma so they die by dehydration over a period of days or weeks. This is the angle being taken in new proposals in CA and Vermont, demonstrating that what we are really dealing with here is a form of euthanasia. From the story:

Terminally-ill patients in the Netherlands increasingly receive drugs to render them unconscious until death, according to a study that suggests people are substituting deep sedation for legal euthanasia. The researchers found that 1,800 people--7.1 percent of all deaths in the Netherlands in 2005-- were drugged into so-called continuous deep sedation shortly before dying. This compares with 5.6 percent of cases in 2001.

At the same time, the use of euthanasia fell from 2.6 percent of all deaths to 1.7 percent, representing a decrease of 1,200 cases, the researchers reported in the British Medical Journal on Friday. "The increased use of continuous deep sedation for patients nearing death in the Netherlands and the limited use of palliative consultation suggests that this practice is increasingly considered as part of a regular medical practice," Judith Rietjens of Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam and colleagues wrote.

I suspect that Dutch doctors are switching euthanasia methods because in formal euthanasia, they have to be present at the bedside at death, meaning they watch as the killing actions they take terminate life. With terminal sedation, they don't have to be present.

This intentional co-opting of a proper palliative measure, rarely needed, at the very end of life--known as palliative sedation--in which the disease causes death, not dehydration, is scandalous. But why should we be surprised? The killing agenda corrupts all it touches.

In California Assisted Suicide Advocates Again Undermine Medicine

For shame! Assemblywoman Patti Berg and Assemblyman Lloyd Levine are at it again in the California Legislature. Soon to be term limited out of office, desperate to pass a bill--any bill-- that will open the door to assisted suicide/euthanasia, thwarted in their desire by a powerful and diverse strange political bedfellow coalition including disability rights activists, medical professionals, activists for the poor, pro lifers, and the Catholic Church, they have found a new way to undermine the delivery of proper medical care.

In place of assisted suicide, they now want to legalize doctors placing their patients into drug-induced comas and dehydrating them to death. Just as bad, they co-opt the good and proper medical practice of "palliative sedation," which they redefine as a method of killing.

The bill is AB 2747. First, Berg and Levine define terminal illness as having one year or less to live--an extremely problematic matter since at that distance from death it can be very difficult to determine expected lifespan.

Then, comes the disgraceful redefinition of palliative sedation, which is properly used in rare cases at the very end of life for irremediable suffering such as agitation, at a time in which the patient generally dies of the disease, not denial of sustenance.

442 (d) "Palliative sedation" means the use of sedative medications to relieve extreme suffering by making the patient unaware and unconscious, while artificial food and hydration are withheld, during the progression of the disease leading to the death of the patient.

Then, this is tied with a diagnosis of terminal illness, which you will recall is now a 1 year window:

442.5 (5) The patient's right to comprehensive pain and symptom management at the end of life, including, but not limited to, adequate pain medication, treatment of nausea, palliative chemotherapy, relief of shortness of breath and fatigue, VSED [voluntary self starvation and dehydration], and palliative sedation.

So, what this bill would do is allow people with a one year life expectancy to request to be put into a coma by their doctors for the purpose of being dehydrated to death. Proving the intent of the bill, AB 2747 requires that if a doctor doesn't wish to comply with request, he or she must assist in transfer to a doctor who will:

442.7. If a physician does not wish to comply with his or her patient's choice of end-of-life options, the health care provider shall do both of the following: (a) Refer or transfer a patient to an alternative health care provider. (b) Provide the patient with information on procedures to transfer to an alternative health care provider.

The medical profession should be up in arms. These petty politicians are corrupting medicine by establishing a false political definition for a proper palliative technique that, if passed, would result in terrible public confusion and distrust in palliative medicine overall. I repeat: For shame!

Humans Can Smell Danger: My Dad Proved It

Scientists have conducted a study indicating that human beings can smell danger. From the story:

Scientists found volunteers who were previously unable to differentiate between two similar scents learnt to tell them apart when given electric shocks alongside just one of them.They said the findings demonstrate how experiences help sharpen our senses to keep us clear of danger...

Lead study author Dr Wen Li, of the Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, in Chicago, said: "It's evolutionary. This helps us to have a very sensitive ability to detect something that is important to our survival from an ocean of environmental information. It warns us that it's dangerous and we have to pay attention to it.

"The ability to discriminate between biologically meaningful cues such as the smell of a 175kg lion and similar but irrelevant stimuli such as the smell of a 3kg cat maximises an organism's response sensitivity while minimising hyper-vigilant and impulsive behaviours."

I found this interesting because some of my family history gives anecdotal validation to the concept. My father was a decorated veteran who fought in the Pacific Theater in WW II, primarily in New Guinea. He didn't talk much about his war experiences, but he did tell me a story that validates this study.

He was leading a patrol when a squad of Japanese soldiers sprang an ambush. It was a terrible fight, and during the battle Dad was knocked unconscious by an explosion. (He turned down a Purple Heart so as to not worry my mother at home.) Thereafter, he swore he was able to tell whenever the Japanese were near and that enabled him to avoid many dangers.

"How could you know?" I asked. "It was a jungle." He swore he could smell them, and whenever he had that sense, he was always right.

So, I believe the study. It worked for my dad in real life and that amazing ability to "smell" the enemy may well be why he survived the war and indeed, why I am here.

CIRM to Pay for Eggs?

The CIRM has a policy against buying eggs for cloning and other biomedical research. But...I warned a bit ago that some bioethicists and bioscientists were agitating to change that policy. Now, the new head of the CIRM, Alan Trounson, has apparently dropped hints that he would like to see eggs bought and sold. From the story in The Scientist (no link available):

Recent comments by California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) President Alan Trounson imply that the agency may be looking for ways to pay women for their eggs for stem cell research.

Currently, laws in California and Massachusetts — two leader states in stem cell research — prohibit compensation for eggs. But with a shortage of available human eggs for research purposes, the issue remains a national sticking point to the progress of stem cell research and cloning science.

At a meeting of CIRM's Standards Working Group (SWG) on February 28, Trounson called on the CIRM to explore ways to reimburse women for eggs, according to the transcripts of the meeting.

"The demand for oocytes may be way beyond what we can possibly deliver," said Trounson, in response to the growing number of applications to use human eggs in research. He cited the failure of many researchers to obtain eggs through donation without financial reward. "Women are not prepared to go through those procedures without some form of compensation," he said.

This would just be one more method by which human cloning technology dehumanizes and leads to exploitation. It would not be the well off who would go through the onerous egg extraction procedure for relatively little money, but the poor. And that could cost women their lives, their fertility, or their health.

At least one CIRM board member recalls the promises made in the campaign:

Jeff Sheehy, a CIRM board member, said he reacted "viscerally" to Trounson's announcement. "It seemed to fly in the face of Proposition 71," he said. Sheehy told The Scientist that Proposition 71 was approved following a campaign that promised a no-compensation policy for CIRM-funded research. "Why go against the will of the legislation in what voters thought they were approving?" he said.

Perhaps because in some people's minds, the wants and desires of "the scientists" trumps all. Paying for eggs for biomedical research should be outlawed. For more information, see Hands Off Our Ovaries.

Animal Rights "Medical" Organization Wants to End Use of Pigs in Surgical Training

Contrary to its name, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is not an organization of doctors. In fact, the PCRM is an outright animal rights advocacy organization that approaches animal issues through its ideological prism, not the science.Indeed, contrary to its name, the PCRM is not a group of physicians advocating for better medical practices, at all. According to Newsweek, less than 5 percent of its members are actually doctors. During the PCRM’s formative years, PETA donated more than a million dollars to support the group—not because it supports objective science and the best medical practices, but because it promotes animal rights in the name of responsible medicine—including vociferously arguing on behalf of vegetarianism.

This is fine--if it would admit it. But the PCRM pretends to be objective and evidence driven, which it most decidedly is not. Well, now it wants to stop medical students from practicing surgical techniques on pigs. From the story:

Taking aim at one of the last bastions of live-animal training for medical students, a physicians' group that champions animal rights has called upon the Johns Hopkins University to stop using live pigs to teach operating room techniques. Calling the practice inhumane and unnecessary, the Washington-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine notes that Hopkins is one of just two top-tier medical schools still convening live-animal labs."The ethical argument is that you should not use sentient creatures to our purposes unnecessarily," said Dr. John J. Pippin, a Dallas cardiologist affiliated with the group. "The reasons to use live animals, whatever they were, are no longer valid."

Hmmm. The thing is, I can't think of one current animal research use that the PCRM has admitted is necessary. (The aforementioned Dr. Pippin has commented here, perhaps he can enlighten us on this matter.)

I don't want to use animals in research without good purpose, either. But this arguments seems persuasive to me:

"I can't change their feelings, but we'd want them to understand that we really do think it's important in surgical training," said Dr. Julie Freischlag, director of surgery at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Like most of their peers nationwide, Hopkins students practice basic surgical skills on computerized simulators, mannequins and dead animal tissue. Although they watch surgeons work on human patients and may pass instruments or snip sutures, they're not allowed to operate on people.

Freischlag said pigs give students the feel of live tissue - and help students decide whether they really have the interest or dexterity to become surgeons. "Simulators have no feedback as to texture and touch," Freischlag said. "That's where it's so important to use animals, to feel all the right tensions and strengths."

Many medical schools no longer use this teaching approach. But I doubt it is based on science, but politics and political pressure.

We use pig valves in human heart surgery. We use animals in necessary research. I don't see how training our surgeons of tomorrow in a realistic milieu is any different--particularly given that the pigs are fully anesthetized and don't suffer any pain.

P.S. The photo above is of a medical student practicing the implantation of a pace maker into the heart of a pig. Sure makes sense to me that he do that before working on a human being.

PETA's Word is not Its Bond

PETA is trying to destroy the Australian wool industry via boycott because, as I wrote here a few years ago, of an unpleasant but necessary animal husbandry practice called mulesing needed (at present) to prevent an awful maggot infestation known as fly strike. The Australian wool industry eventually sued PETA, and as is often the case in such suits, eventually PETA and the industry settled, as a part of which it agreed to call off its boycott while attempts were made to find an alternative to mulesing. Naturally, PETA soon broke its word.

Well, it has done it again, only this time announcing a boycott from a manufacturer that doesn't even use wool from the merino sheep in question. From the story:

Matalan, a discount chain with about 200 stores across Britain, agreed to the boycott after meeting with animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). "We have instructed our suppliers they must not source Australian merino wool for any future orders," Matalan spokesman David Mellett said in an email to PETA.

But the Australian Sheep and Wool Industry Taskforce said on Thursday the boycott was a joke because Matalan had never sourced wool from Australia. "This is just another PETA beat-up," the taskforce's secretariat manager Norman Blackman told AAP. "Obviously, any
retailer coming out with a public statement like that is not what we like to see."But this retailer has not been using Australian wool and, given the nature of their product range, they are unlikely to do so in the future."

PETA's word is obviously not its bond. But this is the thing: Industries should know by now that PETA isn't interested in compromise, or in finding a reasonable accommodation, or in middle grounds. It will settle cases to keep itself out of hot water or to advance the agenda, but may or may not keep its word depending on how its leaders perceive the situation as promoting the overall cause.

Industries keep thinking that by settling with PETA or accommodating animal rights activists they can find some peace. What leaders clearly don't yet get--perhaps because they don't yet understand the zealous mindset and ideology of animal rights isn't about being nicer to animals--is that these groups are their implacable enemies who want to obliterate all animal industries. Activists understand that they can only accomplish their goals incrementally, but every time an industry shows weakness--or acts irresponsibly as with the recent beef recall--they strengthen the very forces who live to see them gone.

The sooner industry and animal researchers look at this with a clear eye, the sooner they will adopt a more aggressive and effective advocacy strategy to combating animal rights, while at the same time, ensuring proper standards of animal husbandry and welfare.

"The Culture of Death is Heroin"

I have a piece in the new Center for Bioethics and the Culture Newsletter, expanding on my earlier SHS comment about a new "how-to-commit-suicide" book in the Netherlands. It is a pretty good nutshell summary of the collapse of Dutch medical ethics and what happens when euthanasia is is accepted as a legitimate answer to the problem of human suffering. Check it out.

Mouse Study: Alzheimer's Could be Helped with Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cells

This is a proof of principle experiment, with a long way to go for human application (if evern), but this is a very encouraging experiment. UCB stem cells may open a door to treating Alzheimer's disease. From the story:

A novel strategy based on targeted immune suppression using human umbilical cord blood cells may improve the pathology and cognitive decline associated with Alzheimer's disease, based on the results of a study in a mouse model of this currently untreatable neurodegenerative condition, as described in a groundbreaking report in Stem Cells and Development.

Following a series of low-dose infusions of human umbilical cord blood cells into mice with Alzheimer’s-like disease, the amount of amyloid-ß and ß-amyloid plaques--hallmarks of Alzheimer's pathology in the brain--was markedly reduced. Amyloid-ß induces an inflammatory response in the brain associated with the interaction of CD40and CD40L, two pro-inflammatory molecules.

Human umbilical cord blood cell therapy was associated with suppression of CD40-CD40L activity, suggesting that this therapeutic approach modulates the activity of the immune system, offering the potential to target the pathogenic inflammatory response that may contribute to a variety of degenerative conditions, including Alzheimer's disease.

There are 4 million or so live births in the USA each year, each coming with stem cells of astounding medical potential. Bueno.

Belgium Pushes for Teenagers to Decide on Euthanasia

As I often say, euthanasia consciousness leads to the bottomless pit. Latest example: There is now pressure in Belgium to open euthanasia to children and people with dementia. From the story:

Teenagers should be given the right to medically assisted suicide and the parents of terminally ill younger children should be able to choose euthanasia under proposals from members of Belgium's coalition government...Under existing Belgian laws, in place since 2002, patients, other than newborn babies, must be over 18 to qualify for assisted suicide, a situation that Bart Tommelein, leader of Belgium Liberals, wants changed.

Mr Tommelein, whose party is a key member of Belgium's coalition government, has pledged to bring forward new legislative proposals extending euthanasia to children and old people suffering from such severe dementia that they are unable to choose for themselves.

So, we see that under euthanasia consciousness, even "choice" eventually takes a back seat to death as the answer to human suffering. It's as plain as day: In the words of the late Dutch euthanasia opponent, Dr. Karl Gunning, once killing is seen as the answer to one problem, it soon becomes the answer to 100.

The indefatigable Alex Schadenberg, the head of Canada's Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, has more analysis here at his new blog.

Nat Hentoff Lays Into Obama on Schiavo

My buddy Nat Hentoff has been dealing with the issues covered here at SHS long before I was even a writer. An atheist and civil libertarian, Hentoff sees his advocacy on behalf of the equality of all human life--including in opposition to abortion--as consistent with his belief in human rights and dignity.

In this article in the Forward, Hentoff takes Senator Obama to task for his (cynical, says I)"admission" of a mistake allowing the Federal Terri's Law to pass through the U.S. Senate with unanimous consent, writing in part:

Obama added: "I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."

When he was a professor of constitutional law, Obama probably instructed his students to research and know all the facts of a case. The reason Congress asked the federal courts to review the Schiavo case was that the 41-year-old woman about to be dehydrated and starved to death was breathing normally on her own, was not terminal, and there was medical evidence that she was responsive, not in a persistent vegetative state.

One of the leading congressional advocates of judicial review was staunchly liberal Democratic Tom Harkin of Iowa, because he is deeply informed about disability rights. By contrast, in all of this inflamed controversy, the mainstream media performed miserably, copying each other's errors instead of doing their own investigations of what Terri's wishes actually were. Consequently, most Americans [Me: Due to media bias and malpractice] did not know that 29 major national disability-rights organizations filed legal briefs and lobbied Congress to understand that this was not a right-to-die case, but about the right to continue living.

Among them were: The National Spinal Cord Injury Association; the National Down Syndrome Congress; the World Association of Persons with Disabilities; Not Dead Yet; and the largest American assembly of disability-rights activists, the American Association of People with Disabilities.

Nentoff closes with a wholly justified swipe at Judge George Greer, who ordered a helpless woman dehydrated to death without once bothering to visit the helpless woman whose life he held literally in his hand:

Five witnesses testified on whether Terri would have refused artificial nutrition, including water, in the condition she was in. Her mother and a close friend of Terri testified she had said clearly she would want these essential life needs. The other three witnesses said Terri would have approved the removal of her feeding tube.

These last three were in alliance on what became a death penalty: Michael Schiavo, his brother and his sister-in-law!

It was on the basis of that 3-to-2 vote that Florida state judge George Greer ruled that "clear and convincing evidence" allowed him to remove her from life--and then 19 judges in six courts, including federal courts--agreed. Like the press, those judges did no independent investigations of their own. And those careless judges are now joined by the equally irresponsible robot-like judgment of Sen. Barack Obama. He should be proud of the Senate vote he now recants--and learn a lot more about the disabled.

Right on, Nat!

SHS Funnies

Je comprends.

"Pregnant Man" Isn't a Man

There has been some twitter about a "man" who has become pregnant. Assuming the story is genuine, and I have my doubts, the man isn't a man. Biologically, she's a transgendered woman who became a man under the law and is married as a man under the law. Because his wife has had a hysterectomy, he decided to become artificially inseminated, and the child will be biologically his because his female organs remain intact.

He claims to have been discriminated against by doctors. If true, that is wrong. His health and that of the baby depend on good prenatal care. Doctors should not deny necessary treatment based on their moral disdain of their patients' lifestyles.

The pregnant husband told his story to the gay newspaper, The Advocate, writing:

How does it feel to be a pregnant man? Incredible. Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man that I am. In a technical sense I see myself as my own surrogate, though my gender identity as male is constant. To Nancy, I am her husband carrying our child--I am so lucky to have such a loving, supportive wife. I will be my daughter's father, and Nancy will be her mother. We will be a family.

They will be a family, but he is not really a man. She is a woman, biologically. That's why she is capable of having a baby. So, the facts are that a woman, who identifies as a man, is having a baby. That's not the same thing at all as a man having a baby. We can redefine all we want, we can say that legally she is a he, but that doesn't change biology. A woman is having a baby and that is not remarkable at all.

Nebraska Rejects Human Cloning Research

Nebraska has easily passed into law a ban on any state funding of human cloning research and banning any state facility from doing human SCNT. From the story:

The measure prohibits the use of state money or facilities for creating or destroying embryos for stem cell research using a technique commonly referred to as therapeutic cloning. At the same time, the new law allows research using existing lines of stem cells to continue. As part of the compromise brokered by Senator Steve Lathrop of Omaha, groups opposing the destruction or creation of embryos for research agreed not to push for further cloning legislation under three conditions:
- if there are no attempts at private-sector research involving cloning;
- if advancements in cloning do not raise new ethical dilemmas;
- and if there are no violations of the new law.

Of course, any existing stem cell lines would not be from cloned embryos since they have yet to be created successfully.

My sources told me that this was going to be a hard sell. The fact that it went through so easily, it seems to me, is an indication of the profound political changes in this field wrought by the IPSC breakthrough.

Congratulations to Nebraska. More of this kind of law, please.

Brown Allows Free Vote Over Embryo Bill

Under intense pressure from the Catholic Church and others, Prime Minister Gordon Brown is allowing a free vote on the notorious embryo bill, that we first discussed the here at SHS a few days ago. From the story:

Mr Brown agreed to let Labour MPs vote according to--conscience, rather than the party whip, on the three most controversial clauses of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. These involve creating animal-human embryos for medical research before discarding them; removing the requirement for a father in IVF treatment, thus opening the way for more single women and lesbians to have children; and so-called 'saviour siblings', where a child with the correct tissue match is created to save a sick brother or sister.

I was asked to comment on the bill by a UK advocacy group opposed to many of the bill's provisions. Here is what I said:

The United Kingdom is in danger of becoming "Brave New Britain." Heedless of the intrinsic value of human life, swooning for the siren song of "CURES! CURES! CURES" the government apparently believes that scientists should have a blank check--both ethically and financially. But proper ethics are crucial to excellence in science. A science sector that treats human life--even at its nascent stages--as mere malleable clay or akin to a corn crop ripe for the harvest, will be likely to also lose respect for human life at other stages of existence. We tempt the whirl wind when we permit the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos. We objectify procreation when we accede to creating new babies to be used for body parts. Some might say, so what--if the body part baby is also a wanted baby in his or her own right. But what if the baby is not wanted, but only created for his or her parts? What then?

The crucial point upon which to focus is that we can progress as a world society into the biotech century without sacrificing human dignity. We can achieve proper treatments without instrumentalizing the most vulnerable among us or eschewing the equality of human life ethic for a dystopian utilitarianism. It is the wise government that promotes science, indeed lauds it—but wiser still is the government that also always ensures that proper checks and balances are placed around this most powerful enterprise.

The current embryo bill utterly fails in this crucial task. It is my great hope that the government will agree to substantial amendments. If not, it should be defeated.

Don't know what, if any of that, will be used publicly.

SHS Funnies

The Crocs get the hang of health benefits American style.

My Very Abridged Letter to the NEW YORK TIMES

Readers of SHS will recall my disgust at the appalling column by Jane Brody referring her readers to groups that promote and indeed, may also assist in suicides.

I wrote a letter in response to that column and spent a very frustrating morning yesterday trying to keep it from being eviscerated in the editing process. The editors (of the Science Times section, I think) claimed that I was wrong to refer to "assisted suicide" in the letter (quoted in full, below) since, under their definition "assisted suicide occurs when a third party gives drugs or some other assistance to someone who would otherwise be incapable of taking their own life." This is ridiculous as it would mean, for example, that since none of Jack Kevorkian's victims were unable to take their own lives that he never assisted a single suicide--a point I made in our exchange. Needless to say, all of my attempts to prove that the editors' definition was false and unduly constrained went for naught.

Anyway, here is my original letter:

I was stunned and appalled that Jane E. Brody would write a column--and that the New York Times would publish it--referring people to groups that apparently assist suicides. Not only did Brody promote assisted suicide, including for those who are not terminally ill, but she explicitly discussed one technique of self destruction, assuring potentially suicidal readers that it does not cause unpleasant sensations. Brody and the Times have crossed the line from advocating a change in the law about assisted suicide, to promoting the act itself even where it is currently illegal. That was hardly responsible journalism.

Now here is the letter that as it appeared in today's paper:

Re "Terminal Options for the Irreversibly Ill" (Personal Health, March 18): I was stunned and appalled that Jane E. Brody would write this column, and that The New York Times would publish it. She explicitly discussed one technique of self-destruction, assuring readers that it does not cause unpleasant sensations. That was hardly responsible journalism.

I appreciate the Times running my letter, and I gave my permission for this abridged version to appear because I was a faced with either saying very little or saying nothing at all. But this minor event illustrates the pronounced problem that people with views like mine have getting our perspectives presented fully and fairly in the MSM. Indeed, it is a classic example of how we are continually constrained in what we are allowed to say in such venues, when, that is, we are allowed to say anything at all.

Opposing Robert Latimer's "I Did the Right Thing" Defense

Robert Latimer, who murdered his daughter Traci because she had cerebral palsy, is out on parole (alas) and vowing to clear his name. Polls in Canada show much sympathy for him. But Tom Oleson, has Latimer's number in this column published in the Winnipeg Free Press:

Robert Latimer has a problem with the truth. He has a problem telling it, a problem grasping it and a problem understanding it. When he murdered his 12-year-old daughter Tracy in 1993, Latimer initially lied to the police about it, saying that she died in her sleep, in her bed. In truth he carried the girl out of the house, placed her in his pickup truck, ran a hose from the exhaust pipe and filled the cab with poisonous gas until she was asphyxiated.

Then he carried her back in the house and put her in her bed. It was only when an autopsy revealed that she had been murdered in this cold and calculated fashion that he confessed.

So? He was motivated by compassion, and in our unprincipled time, compassion justifies all evils.

Latimer sure thinks so. He wants a new trial with a jury to decide not whether he murdered his daughter but whether he was right to do so. Oleson isn't buying:

I don't think I'm hysterical, but I do know what I and many other Canadians -- particularly disabled Canadians -- are afraid of. We're afraid of Robert Latimer and people like him who think that they have the right and should have the authority to judge the quality of our lives and to decide whether those lives should continue, as Latimer did with his daughter.

The Latimer case is a warning: Millions of Canadians support a man who murdered his child because she was disabled. I can't say the same attitudes would not be expressed widely here in the USA. We are well on the way of recreating the "useless eater" category of human life. Oleson understands:

...[T]he day that Canadians come to consider it as the "right" thing to do, as Latimer asks us to, will not only be a dark day for Canadians who are disabled, but an even darker one for those who are not.

A Miracle or a Mistake?

Zack Dunlap was apparently killed in an auto accident and his organs were going to be procured, when he "came back." From the story:

Natalie Morales: What did the doctors tell you at that point?
Pam Dunlap: She just said it wasn't good.
Doug Dunlap: She said brain matter was coming from Zack’s ear.
Pam Dunlap: All I can remember is just being down on my knees saying, you know, "No. No, God, no. This isn't going to happen." Zack was Medivac’ed to a hospital 50 miles away, in Wichita Falls, Texas--one equipped to deal with traumatic brain injury...

Natalie Morales: Were the doctors giving you any sense of hope?
Doug Dunlap: They were already saying he was brain-dead. (Looking at brain scan)
Natalie Morales: So, when you see this, I mean, he was in a permanent vegetative state?
Dr. Mercer: No, he was dead. He meets the legal, medical requirements for declaring a patient brain dead. Tough as it was, the Dunlaps decided against keeping Zack on long-term artificial life support.

The Dunlaps agreed to organ donation. But they also turned to God and prayed for a miracle. That's when Zack's condition appeared to change. A nurse scraped his foot and he reacted. From the story:

Natalie Morales: As a trauma surgeon and seeing this 21-year-old coming back to life, do you have any sort of medical explanation that you know of?
Dr. Mercer: I don't.
Natalie Morales: Were any mistakes made, or was the process rushed along in any way to declare him brain dead because the family made you aware that he was an organ donor?
Dr. Mercer: No. We didn't rush anything along. We certainly don't do that.
Pam Dunlap: We saw the test. We saw it. They followed every procedure. He was gone.
Natalie Morales: So there is no blame?
Pam Dunlap: There's no blame in a miracle. And there never will be for us.

I understand why Pam Dunlap would embrace the miracle, but we should be more skeptical. This much is sure: Either it was a miracle--which raises interesting issues in itself--or Zack wasn't really and truly dead.

Which it is matters a whole lot. Thus, Zack's "miracle" should not be left as a wonderful and heart warming television story. It needs a deep and meticulous investigation to ensure the public that a living man was not prematurely declared dead. Or, if he was legitimately declared dead, we need to be assured that the criteria used were appropriate. If they were appropriate, we also need to know whether they need to be reviewed. For example, was enough time allowed to pass from initial declaration of brain death until a second confirming test? Was there a second test?

In any event, leaving it as a "miracle"--even if it turns out to be true--just won't do. Answers based on the records and the scientific knowledge of this matter are clearly required to make sure that if God was not involved, that what almost happened to Zack doesn't happen again.

"Politically Correct Eugenics"

As promised, I have a piece in this week's Weekly Standard about the laudable legislation authored by Senators Kennedy and Brownback to reduce the number of eugenic abortions and post birth cut offs of medical treatment (first discussed at SHS here) by ensuring that parents receive accurate and nondirective information about the prospects of their children with genetic disabilities. From my article:

It is a bitter irony that even as we are enlarging our commitment to human equality in many areas, we are turning our backs on it in others. In particular, we may be about to eliminate from our society people with Down syndrome (DS) and other genetically caused disabilities.

With the development of prenatal genetic diagnosis, the drive toward eugenics has returned with a vengeance. Americans may heartily cheer participants in the Special Olympics, but we abort some 90 percent of all gestating infants diagnosed with genetic disabilities such as DS, dwarfism, and spina bifida. Not only that, but a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2005 found that of the approximately 5,000 babies born with DS annually, only about 625 were born to mothers who knew of their baby's condition before birth. Together, these figures suggest that under the regimen of universal prenatal genetic testing urged upon us by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the number of DS babies born each year could plummet below 1,000.

I point out that Kennedy and Brownback are the strangest of political bedfellows, and how a study showed that 23% of mothers of babies with Down said that the counseling they received after prenatal genetic testing was either negative or pushed the abortion option. And then I illustrate how the "Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Condition Awareness Act" might work were it to become law:

The case of cystic fibrosis is suggestive. After a prenatal genetic test was recently developed to detect this disease, the number of CF live births in Massachusetts plunged by about 50 percent. No one knows why--no studies have been done. But if this drop is due to eugenic abortion, perhaps some of these children would have been carried to term if their parents had been required to be informed that great progress is being made and CF is no longer a certain early childhood death sentence.

I quote the Times of London columnist on the joys of parenting his Down syndrome son (covered here at SHS), and conclude:

A famous columnist once opined that only people who have the "moral authority" earned by hard experience should express opinions about such difficult matters. What Kennedy and Brownback hope to provide to parents of genetically disabled babies is the legal assurance that they will be provided information that is complete and informed--rather than counseling tainted by prejudice, ignorance, or fear. The Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Condition Awareness Act may have a clunky name, but it is a noble and practical bill that deserves the support not only of those ideological opposites Kennedy and Brownback--but also of everybody in between.

Therapeutic Cloning Proof of Principle in Mice

Scientists have created mouse cloned embryos, derived stem cell lines from them, and injected them into the Parkinson's diseased mice from which they were taken. From the story:

It is the first time "therapeutic cloning" has been used to treat the devastating disease. Cloned cells are so useful because they are genetically identical to the patient, and are not rejected. Although carrying out the procedure on humans is a long way off, in the short term scientists hope to test new drugs on brain cells from Parkinson's patients grown in the lab...

The study, published in the journal Nature Medicine, suggests the same method of cloning used to create Dolly the sheep can be used to grow a patient's own brain tissue and repair damage done by the debilitating disease.

Well, that's overstating it a bit, but never mind. It is worth noting, however, that human cloned ESC lines have not yet been created. Moreover--and the Telegraph did mention this in the story--IPS cells, taken from Parkinson's patients, could do the same thing for drug testing--and far easier, more efficiently, and without the controversy associated with human cloning.

But beyond that little point, there was much in this study that would make any direct human clinical application a very long way off. This from a scientist friend (and opponent of cloning) who has studied the original paper:

- The mice did show improvement. They were only allowed to live 11 weeks after transplant.
- They note that this procedure is "technically complex,"
which is a huge understatement. This still requires a HUGE number of oocytes to get a single cell line! In total, 187 ntESC lines were produced from 5099 oocytes, for cloning, 24 mice total. [Me: At present, human eggs in that quantity are extremely difficult to find, and the efficiency would likely be far less.]
- Most of the cells produced that they tested showed chromosomal
abnormalities.
- 1 out of every 6 mice showed "graft overgrowth." "Graft overgrowth" is reminiscent of the problems experienced by Parkinson's patients treated with fetal tissue. 15-25% of the patients had worsened, even
uncontrollable symptoms. Characterized by NYTimes as "devastating"; "the patients writhed and jerked uncontrollably"

And that's with mice. It would be even more "complex" with humans.

Dutch Prove that the Culture of Death is Like Heroin

Not content with thousands of euthanasia and assisted suicide deaths a year, the Dutch are about to have access to a suicide guide. From the story:

A scientific guide to DIY suicide is to go on sale in the Netherlands to help people end their lives quickly and painlessly...It contains detailed information on using drugs as well as committing suicide by starvation, including the quickest and least painful way to do it.

The author is a true villain in the modern story of euthanasia and assisted suicide, a psychiatrist who assisted the suicide of a grieving mother--leading to the Dutch Supreme Court's ruling that validated assisted suicide for the depressed:

Author and psychiatrist Boudewijn Chabot said: "Doctors learn little about this subject during their training. This book is for people who want to make their own decisions about ending their own lives."

The Dutch have a high suicide rate already:

There are about 4,400 suicides a year [which I assume excludes the thousands of euthanasia deaths] in Holland, broadly the same as in England and Wales, even though it has barely a quarter of the population. Euthanasia is now legal there but with strict rules.

Strict rules!? Oh, my head hurts.

And the moral of the story? The culture of death is like heroin: Once you start to mainline, it is never enough.

Huge Political Row Over Legalizing Brave New Britain

The British Government is finding the road to passage of its new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill extremely controversial. One would hope so. Consider some of its provisions as described by the Telegraph:

Hybrid embryos: The Bill permits the creation of hybrid or "chimera" embryos, where human DNA is inserted into an animal cell for research. Implanting them into a woman or animal will be forbidden and embryos must be discarded after use. Pro-life campaigners and Catholic leaders are bitterly opposed.

Embryo screening: Embryos created in fertility treatment can be screened for certain genetic diseases but parents will not be allowed to choose embryos that will develop an abnormality, a clause that has angered deaf parents who want a deaf child. Sex selection is also banned, except to avoid serious gender-related disabilities.

'Spare parts' babies: Embryos can be tested for compatibility with that of a child suffering from a serious medical condition then implanted into a woman. Stem cells from a new child's umbilical cord, bone marrow or "other tissue'', but not a whole organ, could then be used to treat the sibling.

The bill also might reduce the time within which an abortion can be obtained and formally allows for gay/lesbian families.

Yup. It's going to be a hot time in Jolly Olde England. Party discipline is cracking and there is great demand for a free vote. The outcome, is thus, uncertain. But I am betting it passes. They (that is, I) don't call it Brave New Britain for nothing.

SHS Funnies

Revisionist history, transhumanist style:

When tree huggers take over the world:

Living with ALS

Receiving a diagnosis of ALS is emotionally devastating and riding the usually fatal disease to the grave is an experience that tries men's souls. But as I once heard Rabbi Harold Kushner (When Bad Things Happen to Good People) say in a speech, while there may not be a cure, there is always opportunity for healing. And indeed, I have known two people with ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease (called motor neuron disease in the UK), and I witnessed first hand the triumph of the human spirit they both achieved as they fought through their physical and emotional losses to embrace life.

Today's San Francisco Chronicle features a clear-eyed front page story, byline Sabin Russell (who I know a little), about an ALS researcher who now has the disease--and, like my friends before him, is keeping on keeping on. From the story:

From the living room of Dr. Richard Olney's Corte Madera home, sliding glass doors offer a wide-open view of the tidal marsh in front of his house, of passing clouds and of the shorebirds that fly in and fly out.From the story

Inside, the man who once rode mountain bikes and ran triathlons sits nearly motionless in his wheelchair. He watches the world with the same intense intellectual curiosity that made him one of the nation's leading experts in ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - popularly known as Lou Gehrig's disease...

Before he lost the ability to walk, Olney arranged to equip his home with ramps and a hospital bed. He bought a special van from the family of a patient who had died. The Olneys bought a big-screen television and rented lots of video, but they still go out to movies, live theater and music concerts. "We've settled into our lives," Paula Olney said. "The first six months were terrible, because I noticed some new deficit every week. This plateau makes it easier to adjust."...

While Olney cannot work in his old lab, he keeps up with the literature in the field of ALS research, and he continues to publish. In January, the Journal of Life Sciences published his latest article: "When the Doctor Becomes the Patient."

"I became anxious a few times when thinking about how disabled I would become," he wrote - using a modified computer mouse and specialized software. "My anxiety was relieved when I followed my own advice. I focused on what I was able to do today and realized that more disability would come on gradually, meaning that I would have time to adjust to it."

Olney has a close-knit and caring family, which surrounds him with love and support. He said he is relieved that he has had time to prepare them for a future when he is no longer there. "Prepare for the worst, but hope for the best," he said.

This is precisely how my friends also coped--and indeed, overcame. How refreshing to see a story that doesn't treat the subject as if people with ALS don't have lives worth living.

Booth Gardner's Disingenuous Fundraising Letter for Assisted Suicide

Yes, I know that political fund raising letters are well known for hyperbole and stretching the truth. And Booth Gardner's 4-page letter (no link available) to raise money for "I-1000" the assisted suicide initiative, is of a kind. Space doesn't permit a full deconstruction, but here is just a sampling of the manure Gardner shovels: He writes:

When we or a loved one are experiencing unbearable suffering--past the point where there is hope for recovery--there is a grace inside our humanity that is capable of saying, "It's time."

Well, yes. A time comes to allow nature to take its course. But the idea that assisted suicide is about "unbearable suffering" just isn't true. Even the useless annual report from Oregon makes it very clear that most people asking for a lethal prescription are not in unbearable suffering. Indeed, a recent medical journal article--ignored as I knew it would be by the press--found that some Oregon patients weren't even experiencing significant symptoms when receiving assisted suicide.

Gardner continues:

Opponents of the right are vehement and determined. Their reasons range from well-meaning to appallingly invasive. In their zeal, they distort the truth, raise false alarm, and denigrate our souls with their fear.

Far be it from me to "denigrate" anyone's soul, but opponents are not nearly exclusively of the "right." Indeed, disability rights activists are the most effective opponents of legalizing assisted suicide and they are overwhelmingly people of the Left. Medical professionals are also opponents, and most of them are not of the "right" either. Indeed, a recent book I reviewed by the liberal public intellectual Robert P. Jones, demonstrated convincingly that legalizing assisted suicide is decidedly illiberal.

Gardner references living wills and states:

A Living Will does not, however, address the right to make a choice about ending our lives when we are terminally ill and in unbearable pain or anguish.

Of course, there is nothing in I-1000 requiring that a suicidal patient be "in unbearable pain and anguish."

Then, he gets to the wearyingly predictable, focus group tested, word engineering:

Death with dignity is not suicide. Nor is it assisted suicide, or physician-assisted suicide. By its very nature, suicide is the irrational act of a person choosing to end their life before it's time. For the terminally ill, death is already a reality...A Death with Dignity law simply enables a patient with less than six months left to live to make a rational decision to end unbearable suffering.

That's all nonsense, of course. Even Derek Humphry, founder of the Hemlock Society, acknowledges that, well, assisted suicide is assisted suicide. Moreover, there are many people who suffer far more profoundly, and for longer, than people with a terminal illness. Which, of course, is why we now see advocacy for assisted suicide for the mentally ill.

But never mind facts. Gardner, like most demagogic campaigners, prefers to conger Bogey men to pass his agenda. It's going to be a long campaign.

Stem Cell Reality Check

A big confab of Big Biotech bigwigs has resulted in some candor and a proper warning about the prospect of CURES! CURES! CURES! From the story:

In an elegant hotel overlooking the Pacific Ocean, more than 30 of the world's leading stem cell researchers gathered on Wednesday to strategize on the most effective means of developing novel stem cell medical treatments, while keeping public expectations in line with the actual state of scientific research..."One has to be realistic. Cures take a very, very long time," [Dr. George] Daley said.

Too bad realism and accuracy weren't a high priority during the Proposition 71 campaign, and still isn't for the Amendment 2/Stowers propagandists in Missouri. That has led to a backlash, I think. Slowly, it may be dawning on the public that they were had.

This warning against medical tourism, however, is very apt and important:

"One has to be very suspicious if a patient is asked to fly to a distant location and pay tens of thousands of dollars (for treatment). This is an invitation for exploitation." These unproven treatments, dozens of which are offered online, could also pose medical hazards, Daley said.

Supposedly, the organization will create new guidelines:

The panelists devoted much of their discussion to guidelines the International Society for Stem Cell Research will issue later this year for identifying or developing credible stem cell research initiatives.

"The guidelines are not to prevent the development of stem cell therapy," Lindvall added. "They're actually to help and guide those that are working in a serious way."

I can hardly wait. As I wrote in the Weekly Standard, the last time the Society issued "ethical" guidelines, it approved creating embryos for use in research--both natural and cloned--and opened the door so wide to Brave New World, there were few restrictions with any teeth.

Secondhand Smoke on the Air Saturday

Well, not the blog, but me. I will be doing Bobby Schindler's radio program America's Lifeline on Saturday at 3 PM Eastern. For those interested, it can be streamed over the Internet. Here is the press release.

Organ Surgeon Faces Felony Trial

That horrible case in San Luis Obispo, in which Dr. Hootan Roozrokh, an organ transplant surgeon is accused of attempting to hasten the death of Ruben Navarro, a dependent adult to harvest his organs, is going to trial. From the story:

A judge dismissed two charges against a Bay Area transplant surgeon Wednesday but ordered him to stand trial on one felony charge related to the failed harvest of a disabled San Luis Obispo man's organs at a local hospital in 2006. A jury will decide whether Dr. Hootan Roozrokh is guilty of dependent-adult abuse.

I believe in the presumption of innocence in criminal cases, and so I won't comment on whether Dr. is criminally liable. But seems undisputed that he utterly violated the most important organ procurement ethical protocols and should face professional discipline. And he's not the only one who should face such consequences, as described by the defense attorney M. Gerald Schwartzbach:

No transplant surgeon in the world, he said, has ever been in similar circumstances, in which the hospital had no cardiac-donation protocol; its staff hadn’t been trained; the attending physician didn't understand her role; and the surgeon and coordinator had only observed one such donation. "This is a situation where the entire system failed," Schwartzbach said.

No doubt, but that doesn't excuse abuse. And this comment from Schwartzbach seems outrageous to me:

"Nothing this man did, nothing this man said, adversely affected the quality of Mr. Navarro's life," Schwartzbach said, gesturing to Roozrokh.

Trying to speed death up so the patient can be an organ donor--and perhaps not coincidentally, Roozrokh would not be paid otherwise--is abuse regardless of the patient's condition. Otherwise, no dying person is safe.

NHS Meltdown: Birthing Mothers Turned Away From Hospitals

The news at the NHS goes from crisis to crisis. Now, women in labor are being turned away from hospitals. From the story:

Almost half of NHS hospitals were forced to turn women in labour away last year because they were full, according to new figures that reveal the "shocking" state of NHS maternity services. Patient groups said the capacity crisis was putting many mothers and babies at increased risk, by increasing anxiety and forcing them to travel further at a crucial time.

If that happened here--particularly, if Bush were still President--can you imagine the screaming? But this isn't a right wing plot. It is socialized medicine.

Death Pusher: Don't Let Your Grandparents Near Peter Singer

Peter Singer once again wants to shove human "non persons" out of the life boat. Not content with advocating infanticide, he also promotes futile care theory and suggests that patients with dementia be denied antibiotics and that other patients be denied life support based on doctors' desires. He also comes out--quite predictably--against the Golubchucks in their futile care fight. From his column "No Diseases for Old Men":

Pneumonia also has not been able to play its friendly role for 84-year-old Samuel Golubchuk of Winnipeg, Canada, who for years has had limited physical and mental capacities as a result of a brain injury. Golubchuk's doctors thought it best not to prolong his life, but his children, arguing that discontinuing life-support would violate their Orthodox Jewish beliefs, obtained a court order compelling the doctors to keep their father alive.

So, for the past three months, Golubchuk has had a tube down his throat to help him breathe and another in his stomach to feed him. He does not speak or get out of bed. How much awareness he has is in dispute. His case will now go to trial, and how long that will take is unclear.

Normally, when patients are unable to make decisions about their treatment, the family's wishes should be given great weight. But a family's wishes should not override doctors' ethical responsibilities to act in the best interests of their patients. Golubchuk's children argue that he interacts with them. But establishing their father's awareness could be a double-edged sword, since it could also mean that keeping him alive is pointless torture, and it is in his best interest to be allowed to die peacefully

Singer may be an atheist, but even he should see that Mr. Golubchuck would hardly see violating his religious beliefs to be in his own best interests. Singer says that in Canada's nationalized health care, taxpayers shouldn't have to support the family's religious beliefs. But a decision based on religious belief is no different than one based on philsophy or other method of determining one's values. We certainly don't want Singer's amoral utilitarianim to dominate society. Perhaps he is only illustrating why many utterly distrust nationalized health care.

Of course, we shouldn't be surprised that Singer would promote death for those he deems less morally valuable than "persons." In other venues, Singer has promoted non voluntary euthanasia for people with dementia, so there is no reason to think he wouldn't also support forced imposition of Futile Care Theory.

Funny thing though: When his own mother had Alzheimer's he took good and proper care of her--even though she had stated she did not wish to be maintained. When asked about this and why he and his sister were spending tens of thousands of dollars caring for her (and no doubt, not refusing health care for her from Australia's nationalized system), he told a reporter for the New Yorker,:

Perhaps it is more difficult than I thought before, because it is different when it's your mother.

I have an idea: Now that his mother is dead, Singer should let other people love their parents just like he loved her.

The Bottomless Pit of Dutch Euthanasia

Not content with doctors killing the terminally ill, people with disabilities, the chronically ill, the depressed, and babies born with disabilities--not to mention the seriously ill who did not ask to be killed--the Dutch Parliament will now debate allowing doctors to euthanize the elderly who want to die. From the story:

Elderly people who "are finished with life" should be able to get help to die, Femke Halsema, leader of the left wing GroenLinks party, says in Wednesday's Volkskrant. Halsema plans to raise the issue during todays parliamentary debate on euthanasia law, which currently only applies to people with terminal illnesses.

A poll by TV programme Rondom 10 at the beginning of March showed 63% believe that old people should have the right to assisted suicide.

The media can't even get this brief story right. There is absolutely no restriction in Dutch euthanasia law to the terminally ill. Do they do it on purpose or are they just plain ignorant?

See Me Talk and Talk and Talk

I gave four hours worth of lectures last weekend at Trinity University Law School in Santa Ana and some kind blogger has posted the first two hours of video here. The blog entry reacting to my presentation, from a blog called "Jus Me Blogging" authored by a Christian disability rights advocate, quite gratified me. Its author wrote in part:

Does life have absolute value simply because it is human? We have to answer that question. We have to. We have to. We have to realize that bioethicists today, SAY NO. We have to become educated, at the very least aware, of what the consequences have been and will be of them saying no! We have to.

I quite agree, obviously, and think the author's passion is abundantly warranted. In my talk, I speak about human exceptionalism, eugenics, the Buck v. Bell Supreme Court ruling, personhood theory, and the threat to human rights posed by saying no to the essential question: "Does human life have ultimate value simply and merely because it is human."

Voice of America Puff Piece on Ingrid Newkirk

If you wanted to know why so many people misunderstand the subversive, anti-human nature of the animal rights movement, just look at this ridiculous puff piece of Ingrid Newkirk, byline Faith Lapidus, that appeared--your tax dollars at work-on the Voice of America. From the story:

She founded PETA--People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals--in 1980, with a mission much larger than vegetarianism. The organization fights to end the suffering of animals on factory farms, in the clothing trade, in the entertainment industry, and in laboratories. Some of PETA's first campaigns targeted research labs where monkeys and chimps were used as test subjects.

Yes, well PETA doesn't just want to end suffering, it wants to end all human use of animals--a point that Lapidus somehow missed in her reporting. Moreover, the targeted labs where monkeys were test subjects involved the Silver Springs Monkey case, which falsely accused Dr. Edward Taub of animal abuse and almost stopped a tremendous rehabilitation technique for stroke victims and children with cerebral palsy from being developed. (Hit this link for details.)

And this junk from Newkirk gets swallowed whole:

"We don't need to, in the 21st century, test our shampoos and our floor polish on animals in these crude ways," Newkirk stresses, adding "but it will take a public outcry before we stop." PETA scientists have talked to the U.S. Environmental Protecting Agency about promoting modern, non-animal tests, which, Newkirk says, "are far quicker, far more efficient, and they apply--because you use human data--more accurately to the human condition."

Readers of SHS know that we can't do away with scientific testing on animals--which is not about floor polish. Human trials, are of course, necessary in emerging research. But you can't start there and you need to test various matters on living organisms to move forward--and that is often too dangerous to peform on people. If we want scientific and medical advancement, we need to research on animals.

Notice also the cutesy pictures accompanying the piece, such as the one I uploaded here of Newkirk feeding the pigeons in the park. All in all, this reads more as if it were written by Newkirk's PR agent than a reporter. But make no mistake: Newkirk is a profoundly misanthropic radical. The VOA should have at least included some indication of that fact.

Oregon Assisted Suicide Prescriptions on the Rise

The Oregon Department of Human Services has issued its virtually worthless annual report for 2007. (Hit this link for details about the empirical unreliability of this yearly charade.) Based on what the Department was told by prescribing physicians--that is where almost all the information comes from--here is a sampling of the information reported to the public:

- During 2007, 85 prescriptions for lethal medications were written under the provisions of the DWDA compared to 65 during 2006 (Figure). Of these, 46 patients took the medications, 26 died of their underlying disease, and 13 were alive at the end of 2007.

- As in previous years, the most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns were: loss of autonomy (100%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (86%), and loss of dignity (86%). During 2007, more participants were concerned about inadequate pain control (33%) than in previous years (26%). [Note, the report doesn't let us know if any patient actually had inadequate pain control.]

- As in previous years, the most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns were: loss of autonomy (100%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (86%), and loss of dignity (86%). During 2007, more participants were concerned about inadequate pain control (33%) than in previous years (26%).

The report also said that 88% were enrolled in hospice. But part of hospice care is supposed to include suicide prevention when a patient expresses a desire to commit suicide. Wanna bet that didn't happen in these cases? How do we know? The attached statistical data indicates that there were zero referrals of suicidal patients to mental health professionals.