Tag: bioethics

Bioethics News

The Virginia Senate prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex marriage

On 9th February, the Virginia Senate approved a bill that would prevent people from being obliged to participate in “the solemnization of any marriage” and protect them from government discrimination for believing only in natural marriage between a man and a woman (same-sex couples, transgender people, single mothers). Senate law 1324, which was passed with 21 votes in favour to 19 against, strengthens the freedom of those who believe in natural marriage to live in accordance with their beliefs and prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex “marriage”. If it becomes law, non-profit organisations cannot be refused concessions or government funding solely based on their stance on marriage (see HERE).

La entrada The Virginia Senate prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex marriage aparece primero en Bioethics Observatory.

Source: Bioethics Observatory.

This article was originally published by the Bioethics Observatory of the Catholic University of Valencia. Up-to-date news and reports from the Bioethics Observatory at the Catholic University of Valencia (Spain), covering a wide range of bioethical issues including stem cell research, abortion, assisted suicide and much more. General interest and specialised topical articles with ethical implications, based on the latest research findings from some of the world's top medical and scientific journals.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

The Virginia Senate prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex marriage

On 9th February, the Virginia Senate approved a bill that would prevent people from being obliged to participate in “the solemnization of any marriage” and protect them from government discrimination for believing only in natural marriage between a man and a woman (opposed to same-sex couples, transgender people, single mothers). Senate law 1324, which was passed with 21 votes in favour to 19 against, strengthens the freedom of opponents same-sex marriage to live in accordance with their beliefs and prohibits the government from penalising them. The law states that non-profit organisations cannot be refused concessions or government funding solely based on their stance on marriage (see HERE).

View more HERE

La entrada The Virginia Senate prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex marriage aparece primero en Bioethics Observatory.

Source: Bioethics Observatory.

This article was originally published by the Bioethics Observatory of the Catholic University of Valencia. Up-to-date news and reports from the Bioethics Observatory at the Catholic University of Valencia (Spain), covering a wide range of bioethical issues including stem cell research, abortion, assisted suicide and much more. General interest and specialised topical articles with ethical implications, based on the latest research findings from some of the world's top medical and scientific journals.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Agreement and disagreement about experimental treatment. The Charlie Gard Appeal

by Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu

@Neonatalethics

@juliansavulescu

Tomorrow, the UK Court of Appeal will review the controversial case of a British infant, Charlie Gard. Charlie’s parents are appealing a recent High Court decision that gave doctors permission to withdraw his life support. They have raised money for Charlie to travel to the US for an experimental medical treatment.

 

Best Interests

The legal decision for Charlie will be based upon an assessment of his best interests. He has a rare genetic disorder affecting his muscles and his brain. He has been on life support since last October and has been progressively deteriorating. A neurologist in the USA has suggested that experimental nucleoside treatment might, in theory, offer some benefit, though it has never previously been tried in this situation.

The central ethical question is whether it would be best to provide the experimental treatment and continue intensive care for Charlie for several months more, or to withdraw treatment and allow him to die. How should we weigh up the risks and benefits of those two alternatives?

We have previously written about this difficult question. In a pair of editorials in the Lancet medical journal, we expressed different points of view. Dominic Wilkinson argued that the proposed course of treatment would do more harm than good. In his view, it is likely that Charlie would experience pain and discomfort from continued treatment; it is also unlikely, given what is known about it, that Charlie would benefit from nucleoside treatment. In contrast, Julian Savulescu argued that it is not clear that continued mechanical ventilation in intensive care is so terrible a life that it would not be worth living.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

The Very Early Embryo & Its Moral Signifiance

by Andrew J. Prunty

As technology and biological research continue to develop in the twenty-first century, it is necessary to address and further define the ethical considerations of embryonic research and the appropriate rights that may limit the extent of human research on zygotes, blastocysts, and fetal scientific advancement. Because the area of harvesting embryonic stem cells remains significantly undefined, both legally and morally, there are vastly different opinions between researchers and bioethicists, mainly because of ethical limitations, on the rights that should be granted to cells with the potential to develop into human beings and the consequences of neglecting significant scientific research or advancement.

Current laws in the United States differ at the federal and state level, but there is no consistency in recognizing human embryos as humans, or affording them the same legal rights granted to a child; in fact, legal precedent actually detracts certain rights from developing embryos, favoring a human’s ability to destroy a potential human being (i.e. Roe v. Wade[i]) or the categorization of embryos as property (i.e. Davis v. Davis[ii], A.Z. v. B.Z.[iii], Marriage of Dahl[iv], or Reber v. Reiss[v]). These case law samples suggest the courts’ inability to reach a conclusion as to what is the status of an embryo.

The debate is not only circumscribed to matters of research, but to fundamental controversial and intertwined issues of bioethics such as: when life begins, embryonic stem cells, fetal rights, abortion, et cetera. All these topics are contentious and when one topic arises, they begin to comingle.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Bill Aims To Loosen Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Dr. Leila Jamal is a clinical genetic counselor and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. She joins KJZZ to discuss “Trump-care,” and concerns about what will happen with pre-existing conditions cloud the new plan’s future, while a new bill aiming to loosen the regulations laid out in GINA is being considered in Congress

Source: Bioethics Bulletin by the Berman Institute of Bioethics.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

The Ethics of In Vitro Gametogenesis

Françoise Baylis comments on the ethics of using gametes derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells for future human reproduction.

__________________________________________

A recent New York Times article, provocatively titled “Babies from Skin Cells? Prospect is Unsettling to Some Experts,” has once again drawn attention to controversial research by scientists at Kyushu University in Japan who succeeded in making fertile mouse pups using eggs created through in vitro gametogenesis (IVG). This is a reproductive technology that involves creating functional gametes (sperm and eggs) from induced pluripotent stem cells. Induced pluripotent stem cells are cells derived from adult body cells (such as skin cells) that have the ability to become other body cells including reproductive cells (sperm and eggs).

Supporters of this reproductive technology eagerly anticipate similar research in humans. Indeed, enthusiasts are quick to trumpet the potential benefits of in vitro gametogenesis. These benefits fall into three general categories.

First, we are told that research to derive human gametes from induced pluripotent stem cells is important for basic science. It will advance our understanding of gamete formation, human development, and genetic disease. In turn, this increased understanding will create new options for regenerative medicine.

Second, we are told that this research will allow clinicians to improve fertility services. For example, with in vitro fertilization (IVF), women typically have to undergo hormonal stimulation and egg retrieval. This can be onerous in terms of the time required for interviews, counseling, and medical procedures. It can also be harmful. Potential psychological harms include significant stress and its sequelae.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Is it ethical to use asystole as a death criterion to obtain more organs for transplant?

About non-heart-beating death criterion, doubts are really more clinical than ethical, we believe that until these are resolved, the use of cardiac arrest to obtain organs could be questioned.

On 19th May this year, Europa Press presented a Report by Dr Rafael Matesanz (see HERE), director of the Spanish National Transplant Organization (see also HERE), to the Spanish Health Minister Dolors Montserrat, which included transplant data for the year 2016.

The Report made reference to asystolic – defined as the complete absence of electrical activity in the myocardium – as a death criterion for organ donation, the heart is at a total standstill  (non-heart-beating donation), stating that, “it is established as the clearest way to expand the number of transplants, with a total of 494494 donors, representing a 57% increase; it accounts for 24% of all deceased donors, or in other words, 1.4 donors are in asystole”.

 

In our opinion, however, using asystole as a criterion for potentially obtaining organs raises objective ethical questions, as there are still many critical points to resolve in relation to this issue. These include:

1.- For Maastricht III donors, i.e. those in whom controlled cardiac arrest is performed:

  • Is the limitation of therapeutic effort conditioned by the subsequent donation?
  • Is the dead donor rule violated (as death occurs at a determined time and place)?
  • Is it ethically acceptable to manipulate bodies before death (placement of catheters, etc.)?

2.- For Maastricht II donors, which refers to those others who suffer a cardiac arrest and who due to unsuccessful resuscitation are considered deceased patients:

  • Is the patient in cardiac arrest transferred to the best hospital for resuscitation?

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Silence = Death

May 18, 2017

by Sean Philpott-Jones, Chair, Bioethics Program of Clarkson University & Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Silence = Death

As Donald Trump fights for his political life following new revelations about wholly inappropriate disclosure of classified materials and potential obstruction of justice, he has quietly issued new orders that will condemn thousands of women and children around the world to death.

Largely overlooked given the media frenzy about the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Russian interference in the US Presidential election was an announcement that the TrumpAdministration will vastly expand the scope of the “Global Gag Rule”, the international anti-abortion policy first enacted by Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Also known as the Mexico City Policy, the rule prohibits organizations that receive family planning money from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) from providing or promoting abortion. This is true even if they do so with private money. In fact, if they take so much as a single dollar from the US, they can’t even mention the word ‘abortion’ regardless of whether or not these organizations actually provide such services.

Every time a Democrat is in the White House, the global gag rule is rescinded. Every time a Republican enters the Oval Office, it is reinstated. President Trump himself did so just three days after assuming office. Until now, family planning organizations around the world have largely learned to deal with this ebb-and-flow. That is all about to change.

On Monday, Trump announced a new policy called Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance. That policy expands the scope of the Global Gag Rule.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Stem cell research. The two sides of the coin

Science facing market

The “heads” of stem cell research

Stem cells today represent a great hope for the future of regenerative medicine due to their ability to differentiate into cell lines of almost any tissue, making them a promising therapeutic option for many diseases.

These pluripotent cells are found in embryonic and also in adult tissues. Their isolation and culture in specific media may lead to the development of tissues that are useful in regenerative therapies for conditions such as heart disease, myelopathies, diabetes, nerve injuries, retinopathies, etc. After their isolation, they are injected directly into the tissues to be regenerated, so that the stem cells differentiate into cells of these same tissues.

A third way of obtaining pluripotent cells is that described by Yamanaka 10 years ago, a finding for which he was awarded the Nobel prize in Medicine. Starting from a differentiated adult cell, Yamanaka managed to find a way of “dedifferentiating” it so that it returned to its pluripotent state, to then “redifferentiate” it into a particular cell line with therapeutic utility. These are known as iPS or induced pluripotent stem cells.

Similarly, tissues that simulate the function of certain organs have been reproduced in vitro from stem cells, and could, in the future, be an alternative to current organ transplantation.

The current state of the clinical application of stem cells remains uncertain. Although successful outcomes have been reported in some fields, such as cardiology and haematology, many clinical trials and therapeutic applications have failed due to problems arising in the differentiation processes and the appearance of tumours.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.