Tag: fathers

Bioethics Blogs

Ethics & Society Newsfeed: August 18, 2017

Image via 

Politics

Neil Gorsuch Speech at Trump Hotel Raises Ethical Questions
“Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s Supreme Court appointee, is scheduled to address a conservative group at the Trump International Hotel in Washington next month, less than two weeks before the court is set to hear arguments on Mr. Trump’s travel ban.”

Trump’s Washington DC hotel turns $2m profit amid ethics concerns
“Donald Trump’s company is said to have taken home nearly $2m in profits this year at its extravagant hotel in Washington, DC – amid ethics concerns stemming from the President’s refusal to fully divest from his businesses while he is in office.”

3 representatives want to officially censure Trump after Charlottesville
“In response to Donald Trump’s controversial remarks about the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, three Democrats want to censure the president.”

Does Trump’s Slippery Slope Argument About Confederate Statues Have Merit?
“NPR’s Robert Siegal talks with Ilya Somin, a professor of George Mason University, about President Trump’s warning that pulling down Confederate statues may lead to a slippery slope in which monuments to the Founding Fathers are torn down.”

Bioethics/Medical Ethics and Research Ethics

Vaccination: Costly clash between autonomy, public health
Bioethical principles in conflict with medical exemptions to vaccinations

CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Embryo Research
“Although scientists in China and the United Kingdom have already used gene editing on human embryos, the announcement that the research is now being done in the United States makes a U.S. policy response all the more urgent.”

Exclusive: Inside The Lab Where Scientists Are Editing DNA In Human Embryos
“[Critics] fear editing DNA in human embryos is unsafe, unnecessary and could open the door to “designer babies” and possibly someday to genetically enhanced people who are considered superior by society.”

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

Surrogacy in American male same-sex couples

Of the 594,000 same-sex couple households in the United States, 115,000 have children

In 2014, approximately 37,800 male same-sex couples in the United States had children, most through gestational surrogacy.   Little is known about the reasons these couples have for choosing this technique to have a child. A study has now been published (see HERE) that has evaluated the reasons why same-sex couples choose surrogacy.

Most do so because of the genetic links established. Just over half of fathers (55.74%) were satisfied with surrogacy. All this is apart from the objective ethical difficulties that surrogacy entails.

Men with children

There is one group whose incomes are far above the rest: same-sex “married” men with children. Their income is rough $275,000, more than double the pretax income for heterosexual couples and same-sex married female couples with children. This is a select group of people for whom the cost of children is particularly high. Using a surrogate can cost $250,000, and adoptions can cost upward of $30,000.

Of all the ART available to intending parents, surrogacy is arguably the most controversial (Jadva, 2016). Only 19 states in the USA currently allow commercial gestational surrogacy to married same-sex couples and in 15 states it is practiced because no statute or published case law prohibits it (Creative Family Connection, 2016).

La entrada Surrogacy in American male same-sex couples aparece primero en Bioethics Observatory.

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

In the Journals – June 2017, part two by Aaron Seaman

The first part of the In the Journals post for June 2017 can be found here. And now, for part two…

 

Medical Humanities

SPECIAL ISSUE: Communicating Mental Health

Introduction: historical contexts to communicating mental health

Rebecca Wynter and Leonard Smith

Contemporary discussions around language, stigma and care in mental health, the messages these elements transmit, and the means through which they have been conveyed, have a long and deep lineage. Recognition and exploration of this lineage can inform how we communicate about mental health going forward, as reflected by the 9 papers which make up this special issue. Our introduction provides some framework for the history of communicating mental health over the past 300 years. We will show that there have been diverse ways and means of describing, disseminating and discussing mental health, in relation both to therapeutic practices and between practitioners, patients and the public. Communicating about mental health, we argue, has been informed by the desire for positive change, as much as by developments in reporting, legislation and technology. However, while the modes of communication have developed, the issues involved remain essentially the same. Most practitioners have sought to understand and to innovate, though not always with positive results. Some lost sight of patients as people; patients have felt and have been ignored or silenced by doctors and carers. Money has always talked, for without adequate investment services and care have suffered, contributing to the stigma surrounding mental illness. While it is certainly ‘time to talk’ to improve experiences, it is also time to change the language that underpins cultural attitudes towards mental illness, time to listen to people with mental health issues and, crucially, time to hear.

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

Stakes of Life: Science, states, policies, publics and ‘the first thousand days’ by Fiona C. Ross

Welcome back to the “First Thousand Days of LifeSomatosphere series. Here we continue to explore the ways that a global health initiative driven by new findings in epigenetics and neuroscience and by a reframing of theories about health and disease in terms of developmental origins shape ideas about (global) health and population futures, invigorate campaigns, and take form and settle in localized contexts. Understanding the links between science, biomedicine, policy, population, well-being and relationship as simultaneously both meshed and contingent, our series posits questions about what affordances and limitations lie in new modalities of understanding human illness and well-being. It examines how policy is made and with what effects for its recipients, how states are implicated in health and its others, what forms of the everyday materialize under the lens of new findings in epigenetics and epidemiology, what modalities of knowing emerge and how they settle with older forms, and how ethnography might contribute.

Describing the research programme driven by the Thousand Days research group at the University of Cape Town, I noted that,

The emergent field both synergises a range of disciplines in the bio- and social sciences and develops new sites of humanitarian intervention, reframing current debates about population, well-being and ‘the best interests of the child’ in newly biological ways. As these findings are taken up in policy and practice, we are witnessing the making of a social object with material effects’ (www.thousanddays.uct.ac.za).

Our project has explored that making, its prior conditions and its effects.  As Michelle Pentecost noted in her opening to the Somatosphere series, the framing ‘offers fertile ground for careful thought about contemporary concepts of life, life-giving and care, offering spaces for critically assessing not only how states and people understand and enable health and well-being but also how life is conceptualized by different disciplines.’ 

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

Ethics & Society Newsfeed: June 2, 2017

Image via

Politics and World News
White House Waivers May Have Violated Ethics Rules
White House waiver allows all White House aids to communicate with news organizations, even if they involve a “former employer or former client.” Stephen K. Bannon, senior White House strategist, will be able to communicate with editors at Breitbart News.

A Vocal Defender of Ethics Has Fans — and Foes
Walter M. Shaub Jr., director of the Office of Government Ethics, is one of the few people in government willing to second-guess President Trump and his advisers.

New public ethics bill aims to repair France’s battered trust in politicians
French Justice Minister François Bayrou  outlined bill to promote probity in politics, a first major legislative initiative for President Emmanuel Macron’s government at a time where mistrust of elected officials is soaring.

South Korea’s Moon Struggles to Form a Cabinet Meeting His Ethics Standards
South Korean President Moon Jae-in, in an attempt to break with previous corruption and scandal with predecessor Park Geun-hye, is aiming for a “squeaky-clean government” with cabinet candidates.

Bioethics and Medical Ethics

Move over Hippocrates: Harm reduction as the new paradigm for health care
“Doctors routinely cause their patients harm. The oath we should be taking is, “Help others with as little harm as possible.”

Resurrected: A controversial trial to bring the dead back to life plans a restart
Scientists expected to launch a study that will use stem cells in an attempt to reverse brain death. Injection of these cells have been used in clinical trials to treat diabetes, macular degeneration, ALS, etc.

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

Ethics & Society Newsfeed: June 2, 2017

Image via

Politics and World News
White House Waivers May Have Violated Ethics Rules
White House waiver allows all White House aids to communicate with news organizations, even if they involve a “former employer or former client.” Stephen K. Bannon, senior White House strategist, will be able to communicate with editors at Breitbart News.

A Vocal Defender of Ethics Has Fans — and Foes
Walter M. Shaub Jr., director of the Office of Government Ethics, is one of the few people in government willing to second-guess President Trump and his advisers.

New public ethics bill aims to repair France’s battered trust in politicians
French Justice Minister François Bayrou  outlined bill to promote probity in politics, a first major legislative initiative for President Emmanuel Macron’s government at a time where mistrust of elected officials is soaring.

South Korea’s Moon Struggles to Form a Cabinet Meeting His Ethics Standards
South Korean President Moon Jae-in, in an attempt to break with previous corruption and scandal with predecessor Park Geun-hye, is aiming for a “squeaky-clean government” with cabinet candidates.

Bioethics and Medical Ethics

Move over Hippocrates: Harm reduction as the new paradigm for health care
“Doctors routinely cause their patients harm. The oath we should be taking is, “Help others with as little harm as possible.”

Resurrected: A controversial trial to bring the dead back to life plans a restart
Scientists expected to launch a study that will use stem cells in an attempt to reverse brain death. Injection of these cells have been used in clinical trials to treat diabetes, macular degeneration, ALS, etc.

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

Functional eggs obtained for the first time from mouse skin

Scientists in Japan have transformed mouse skin cells into eggs and have managed to obtain fertile offspring after their fertilisation (See Nature article HERE). This study represents the first production of eggs completely in vitro.

In 2012, mouse skin cells were reprogrammed into stem cells similar to embryonic stem cells and then induced into primordial germ cells (PGC). However, in order to get the PGC to derive into mature eggs, they had to be transferred to the ovaries of live mice (see HERE). The following breakthrough took place in July 2016, when a team of investigators from Tokyo reported the transformation of PGC extracted from mouse foetuses into eggs, without using a live animal (http://www.pnas.org/content/113/32/9021). Now, the cycle has been completed: from skin cells to functional eggs completely in vitro.

These findings come after investigators in China announced in February that they had produced rudimentary mouse sperm (spermatids) in vitro. Although spermatids are not fully mature cells, the investigators managed to obtain offspring.

Ethical assessment of artifical human eggs

If the protocol works with human cells, eggs could be obtained from the skin of a woman and also from a man, which could then be fertilised. For this reason it has been speculated that in the future, there is a possibility that same sex couples could have children with the genetic material of both fathers.

Among the ethical problems raised by this possibility are those inherent to in vitro fertilisation, the enormous number of human embryos that would be destroyed in researching and putting this technique into practice, the need to use a surrogate, using the woman as a mere incubator and the fact that the child produced in this manner would not be genetically linked to any woman, i.e.

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

Functional eggs obtained for the first time from mouse skin

Scientists in Japan have transformed mouse skin cells into eggs and have managed to obtain fertile offspring after their fertilisation (See Nature article HERE). This study represents the first production of eggs completely in vitro.

In 2012, mouse skin cells were reprogrammed into stem cells similar to embryonic stem cells and then induced into primordial germ cells (PGC). However, in order to get the PGC to derive into mature eggs, they had to be transferred to the ovaries of live mice (see HERE). The following breakthrough took place in July 2016, when a team of investigators from Tokyo reported the transformation of PGC extracted from mouse foetuses into eggs, without using a live animal (http://www.pnas.org/content/113/32/9021). Now, the cycle has been completed: from skin cells to functional eggs completely in vitro.

These findings come after investigators in China announced in February that they had produced rudimentary mouse sperm (spermatids) in vitro. Although spermatids are not fully mature cells, the investigators managed to obtain offspring.

Ethical assessment of artifical human eggs

If the protocol works with human cells, eggs could be obtained from the skin of a woman and also from a man, which could then be fertilised. For this reason it has been speculated that in the future, there is a possibility that same sex couples could have children with the genetic material of both fathers.

Among the ethical problems raised by this possibility are those inherent to in vitro fertilisation, the enormous number of human embryos that would be destroyed in researching and putting this technique into practice, the need to use a surrogate, using the woman as a mere incubator and the fact that the child produced in this manner would not be genetically linked to any woman, i.e.

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

Are Single Men in the UK Entitled to have a Baby using Fertility Treatment?

Guest post by Atina Krajewska, Rachel Cahill-O’Callaghan, and Melanie Fellowes

The World Health Organisation is currently considering a change in the definition of infertility according to which, it has been reported, “single men and women without medical issues [would] be classed as ‘infertile’, if they do not have children but want to become a parent.”  Although the WHO has not to date officially confirmed these reports, the possible changes have been considered controversial and provoked heated responses in other UK media.  One of the main points of contention was the possibility of opening fertility treatment to single men.  Before we engage in discussions about the new WHO standards concerning fertility treatment, which – it should be stressed – have not yet been officially announced or adopted, it is important to shed some light on the legal situation of single men in the UK, who wish to become single fathers using fertility treatment.   This entry is aiming to exactly that.  (In respect of single women, see this.)

 

A single man wishing to have a child will have to use a surrogate and will either use the surrogate’s ovum and his sperm, or she will carry an embryo created by his sperm and a donated egg.  The HFE Act 1990 (as amended by the HFEA 2008) and the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 will therefore be the two most relevant pieces of legislation governing the area.  Neither of these Acts expressly mentions single men as a separate class of patients.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 has never prevented single persons from accessing ARTs.

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

Ethical Implications of Victim Blaming in Cases of Police Brutality

STUDENT VOICES 

By Emily Jenab, M.A.

Another black man has been shot and, subsequently, another case of character assassination post-death has begun.  Alfred Okwera Olango, 38, was killed as he pulled out “a three inch long vape” and allegedly pointed it at the police of El Cajun, California. The shooting of Olango, an “emotionally disturbed” man who was shot after his sister called 911 for help, has already resulted in justifications of why he deserved to die. Yes, he was holding a vape, but why did it look like a gun? Why was he standing like that? Why did he hold his vaporizer between his hands? Efforts to legitimize another murder, and state implicated violence, will be taken. The cycle repeats and ethical and emotional discussions surrounding these murders, along with the issues embedded in police systems, will continue to be ignored.

Respectability politics are pertinent for people of color, and for marginalized persons, the respectability of their very identity is questioned when they are victims of police misconducts. There is, for our cultural purposes, no “good” black man; if he is unarmed, as Eric Garner was, he still deserves to die and his murderer will not be charged. If he is armed in an open carry state, as Philando Castle was, it is asked why he even had a gun, or what he was doing prior to being pulled over. These men – employed, fathers, worthwhile members of their communities – are reduced to “thugs” in the wake of their deaths.

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.