British mother asks court to turn off her infant's machine
Nov 07, 2009
"Amicably separated" parents in Britain are at loggerheads over whether to let their disabled 13-month-old son die. RB, as the boy is called to protect the family's privacy, has congenital myasthenia syndrome, a rare neuromuscular condition that prevents him from breathing on his own and severely restricts his power to move his limbs. The British health service has applied to the High Court in London to allow life-saving care to be withdrawn.
His doctor, who cannot be named, has described the child as at the "most severe end" of physical disability. He lacks the ability to cough or swallow and must be moved every two hours to prevent pressure sores. The mother believes that her child will be better off dead. But the father contends that he should have a tracheotomy so that he can be cared for at home. Unlike many children with severe developmental disorders, RB may have normal intelligence. The father contends that he can see, hear, feel, and recognise his parents and deserves to live.
Although most of the media presented a very dark picture of RB's future, the Daily Mail published an open letter from the mother of a 10-year-old with a similar condition who went on to have a tracheotomy. He goes to school in a wheelchair and is a popular and well-loved child. "Today I look at my gorgeous, funny, cheeky little boy and I am endlessly grateful we gave him a chance to live," writes Niki Shisler. She says that doctors are normally cautious and pessimistic and speculates that they may be too concerned about the cost of care. -- BMJ, Nov 4
Aborted foetus cells used to make beauty cream
Nov 07, 2009
A San Francisco cosmetics company, Neocutis, has admitted that it used cells from an aborted male foetus as an ingredient in a beauty cream. The Swiss product is manufactured from patented processed skin proteins (PSP), and is used for conditions such as psoriasis and eczema, and, unsurprisingly, ageing. It is controversial because the proteins were obtained from a postage stamp-sized rectangle of skin taken from a terminated 14-week old male foetus in Switzerland.
Anti-abortion groups were particularly scandalised by the company's brazenness in defending the use of aborted tissue in beauty creams. Neocutis contends that harvesting the skin cells was responsible and ethical. "The small skin donation" taken to develop this cosmetic treatment "originated from a single terminated pregnancy that could not survive to term and that was deemed medically necessary by the attending physicians." The company compared this use of foetal tissue to the 1954 Nobel Prize, which was awarded to "researchers who utilized fetal kidney cells to develop the polio vaccine."
The PSP is used in Neocutis bio-restorative skin cream, Journée bio-restorative day cream, Lumière bio-restorative eye cream and Bio-gel bio-restorative hydrogel. The Neocutis website says that "Through years of research, physicians [have] discovered fetal skin has a unique ability to heal wounds without scarring."
The moral status of foetal material is widely disputed. For some, as an entry in the American Journal of Bioethics Blog suggests, "foetal proteins in a face cream aren't any different from animal or plant protein because for them the moral status of the aborted foetus doesn't have the moral status to give one concern if consent to both abortion and research took place."
On the other hand, the Vatican discussed the use of "biological material of illicit origin" in its recent statement on bioethics, Dignitas Personae. This insisted that "The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings." ~ Washington Times, Nov 3,
My genes made me do it, says Italian murderer
Nov 07, 2009
An Italian of Algerian descent who stabbed a man to death in 2007 has had his sentence reduced because he has a gene which predisposes him to violence. Abdelmalek Bayout originally received a relatively mild sentence of 9 years and 2 months because he had a psychiatric illness. But his lawyer succeeded in knocking another year off by pointing out that he had gene variants linked to aggression, notably the gene encoding the neurotransmitter-metabolizing enzyme monoamine oxidase A (MAOA). A molecular neuroscientist and a cognitive neuroscientist testified that this would make him more prone to violence when provoked.
This is not the first time that MAOA has been invoked as a defence in criminal law. In the last 5 years, it has come up more than 200 times in US trials, according to Nita Farahany, of Vanderbilt University. She specialises in the ethical and legal perspectives on neuroscience and is sceptical of the "my genes made me do it" defence. "The point is that behavioural genetics is not there yet, we cannot explain individual behaviour, only large population statistics," she told Nature News.
Genetic determinism is far from being a dogma amongst geneticists. "90% of all murders are committed by people with a Y chromosome -- males. Should we always give males a shorter sentence?" says Steve Jones, of University College London. "I have low MAOA activity but I don't go around attacking people." -- Nature News, Oct 30
Genetic tests used to prove nationality in UK
Nov 07, 2009
British immigration officials want to use genetic tests to determine the nationality of asylum seekers, a move which scientists have criticised as "fundamentally flawed science". "Genes are not aware of national borders," said Sir Alec Jeffreys, a geneticist at the University of Leicester. "Nationality is a legal concept, and it's got nothing to do with genetics at all."
And bioethicist John Harris, of Manchester University, commented: "Genetic testing may be able to tell you where somebody's ancestors started out, but it doesn't tell you where they're from. It won't give them anything worth knowing, and it's very likely that what it will give them is misleading."
The United Kingdom Border Agency launched a pilot project in September because it feels that many African asylum seekers are claiming that they have come from a dangerous and war-torn country like Somalia or Sudan rather than a relatively peaceful place like Kenya. The refugees are asked to give a voluntary cheek swab or hair or nail sample which the Agency says yields valuable, if not conclusive, evidence about their country of origin. So far the tests are only being used on people who claim to come from Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda and Sudan.
According to AP, the agency originally planned to use the tests as definitive proof of nationality, but retreated after scientists protested. Now the agency declares that they will only be used in combination with other ways of determining a refugee's nationality, such as language analysis and interviews. ~ AP, Nov 6
British IVF clinic makes worst mistake possible, says industry watchdog
Nov 07, 2009
A serious error in a British fertility clinic's screening processes has led to concerns about the safety of IVF procedures. The London Women's Clinic (LWC) was found this week to have produced a large quantity of embryos using unscreened sperm. The sperm had a serious chromosomal abnormality which could be passed on to any of the unborn children, the Independent newspaper found. The mistake led to a miscarriage for at least one of the couples to whom these embryos were donated. Twenty-two other embryos resulting from the sperm were destroyed.
The incident could spark more investigation into the practices of British IVF clinics and the industry's current regulatory system. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the UK's fertility industry watchdog, has stated that it will name and shame similar errors in future. The LWC's mistake has been described as the worst possible for a fertility clinic.
Current HFEA figures reveal that there have been 182 "incidents" in British fertility clinics in 2008, eight of them "serious". But lawyers are sceptical of these figures and say that the actual numbers could be far higher. A number of affected couples are initiating legal proceedings.
The LWC was pulled up earlier this year in an HFEA inspection, after the required number of "witnessing stages" crucial to correct screening procedures, was not carried out. However, the clinic was found still producing embryos using unscreened sperm in June, according to some prospective parents.
The couple later demanded compensation from the LWC. "It made us so aware that IVF is a business and it all comes down to money," the couple told the Independent. They were eventually remunerated; the LWC sent them abroad for fertility treatment; and they are now expecting a child. ~Independent (UK), Nov 1
Oklahoma abortion reporting law "misrepresented"
Nov 07, 2009
A new law affecting patient privacy has become the centre of political controversy in Oklahoma. As reported last week in BioEdge, abortion advocates complained that women could easily be identified using the information gained from a new questionnaire. But the state chairman of Oklahomans For Life, Tony Lauinger, says that this misrepresents the new abortion-reporting law.
He says that new law actually repeals the existing law's requirement for identifiable residential information. The legislation reads: "Nothing in the Individual Abortion Form shall contain the name, address, or information specifically identifying any patient." However, the form is highly comprehensive. Doctors are required to tick about 37 boxes, many of which are comprised of several (in one instance around 40) sub-questions about the patient's reasons for abortion, number and nature of past abortions, method of payment, as well as the mother's race, age, marital status and other details. The new legislation also requires information about abortion complications.
Lauinger points out that the abortion industry, particularly the Guttmacher Institute (formerly the research arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America) already collects and publishes demographic information through annual surveys.
Medical privacy is a major concern in the age of the internet. As the amount of publicly available information grows, medical information can be increasingly matched to demographic data. Latanya Sweeney, of Harvard's Center for Research on Computation and Society, says that "policies on data sharing are not very good, and the result is that data tend to flow around and get linked to other data." ~ BioEdge, Oct 30 , National Right to Life Committee Oct 21, Harvard Magazine Sept-Oct 2009
New suicide drug available next year, says Nitschke
Nov 07, 2009
A "peaceful pill" for people who want to commit suicide will be made available by mail order in 2010. The pill is a stable solid form of the barbiturate Nembutal. Developed by the euthanasia group Exit International, it is designed to withstand transport and can be stored for up to 50 years. Customers will only have to mix it with water. An activation kit with the chemicals for reconstitution and a test kit to check the strength of the resulting product are nearly finished so that the pill can be distributed.
Dr Philip Nitschke, a leading right-to-die advocate and director of Exit International, said "Exit believes that all seniors of sound mind should have the option of a peaceful death at the time of their choosing should this be their wish - this Exit Pill will go some way to ensuring this." Nitschke is set to hold instructional suicide talks in San Francisco this Sunday. ~ Assisted-Suicide Blog Oct 30, CBC News Nov 4
Next year, says Geron, embryonic stem cell trials will begin. We hope
Nov 07, 2009
One of the most convincing advocates of human embryonic stem cell research, quadriplegic actor Christopher Reeves, died without seeing any substantial progress towards a cure for spinal cord injury. However, he was buoyed up by the hope that hESC research at Geron Corporation might help him walk again. Geron has announced many times that it would soon start human hESC trials -- but so far no trials have begun. The latest announcement came last week when it announced that the trials would begin next year. Its share price rose 4.2% at the news.
Dr David Prentice, of the Family Research Council, a critic of embryo research, has been logging Geron's announcements since 2002 and found that trials were going to begin "next year" every year since 2004. He argues that "the obsession with embryonic stem cells has obscured the real hope for patients-adult stem cells. Peer-reviewed evidence of adult stem cell success for spinal cord injury patients has already been published by groups in Portugal, in Australia, in Ecuador,and in Brazil". The trials with embryonic cells have usually been delayed over safety concerns, as they could cause tumours. --Forbes, Oct 30
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The case of the aborted fetus cells that were used to create a beauty cream illustrates an interesting case. On face value, it seems horrendous that that the body parts of potential humans were being used for a beauty cream.
ReplyDeleteStill, overall this cream does have a positive effect and the taking of the fetal cells may offend some people but it does not really have any negative consequences to any of the people involved. The baby was going to be aborted ayways and the actions of the company did not affect the fate of the potential baby. Furthermore, people who are morally opposed to the use of the fetus cells can simply not use this specefic cream.
From a utilitarian perspective, the use of the cream for a product that does not produce scar tissue seems to be only good, with people who potentially will have scars leading happier lives due to scar-free skin.
The case of the suicide pill is also interesting. Disregarding any religious values placing the maintenance of life above all else, the suicide pill seems to be an easy way for people who wish to end their lives do so in a painless way. This conforms with the principle of authonmy because the patient wants to do and benefecience because the pain from life is obviously worse than the peace from death from the patient. Still, one has to consider the potential negaive consequences of such a pill. People who would normally want to live but have an especially bad day and take the pill could lead to a lot of needless deaths. Furthermore, one could argue that any person that wants to die is probably not mentally competent and should not have the autonomous right to decide whether he or she should be able to die.
In response to the suicide drug article:
ReplyDeleteWhen reading the article, I was appalled by the implications set by allowing people to take a pill in order to induce self assisted suicide. There are many issues that are raised by allowing such an act such as safety regulations, legal complications, and finally a basic moral infringement on Kantian Deontology.
From a safety regulation standpoint, how can teh government and pharmacies be sure that the drug is being purchased for the sole purpose of causing a peaceful self suicide. Regulation of such a drug would need to be intensive to insure the morality of releasing such a drug. Furthermore, it seems incredibly inhumane to put a drug for the sole purpose of killing people on the market. There is a large chance that it can be misused for more nefarious matters.
In congruence with the first point, there would need to be a large number of laws to regulate who is able to purchase such a drug. the legal lines between whether someone is able ot purchase the drug will become unclear. For example, what if a middle aged individual wants to commit suicide [around 40 years of age], should s/he be allowed to take the drug? He is not even at an age that would be considered normal for death. Thus, many problems resulting from impulsive decisions would further cloud the legal implications of being able to take the drug. Also, how can we determine whether the individual is "suffering enough" to be allowed to take the drug, as opposed to an irrational decision. These moral and legal issues would be created by the drug.
Finally, the creation for this drug is grossly in contrast to Kantian ideology. In Deontology, people and humans are goods to an end. Thus, it is immoral to take a life [including you own] no matter the circumstances. In relation to this idea, the production of the drug is completely unethical.
The first article, about the severely disabled boy and whether or not to withdraw life saving care is similar to the case of Terri Schiavo. One parent, the mother, wants to end what she considers to be her sons suffering, while the father believes that his son's life is worth living no matter what.
ReplyDeleteIt would be unethical to side with the mother in this situation. At what point is someone disabled enough that their life is not worth living? it is a very slippery slope.
The decision must be made in the best interests of the child. At only thirteen months, the most favorable decision is one that entitles him to some sort of life. After all, who are we to decide what life is worth living?
I’m writing in response to the British mother and her son RB who suffers from congenital myasthenia syndrome. This topic directly correlates to recent topics in class, who gets to play God and pull the plug on life? What is known in regards to congenital myasthenia is that one can live and prosper regardless of the diagnosis. The question that I believe most boggles the mother is what actually constitutes a substantial life? Is it the ability to independently perform tasks involved in immediate survival, or is it the ability to fell, think and process information? As seen by the 10 year old survivor with congenital myasthenia syndrome, “quality of life” is not derived from a textbook definition, but rather an individual feeling of self satisfaction. Having a surrogate decide when to pull the plug when the being can think and feel with the potential to grow and sustain life seems homicidal.
ReplyDeleteI do not judge the mother for having wandering thoughts in considering what’s best for her child, but ultimately her responsibility as a mother is to support RB in any which way in order for him to prosper. Even if reality proves RB’s abilities to only be within a small frame, then be it; but the mother has no right to predict events which are unforeseen to all. In the end, the real question ought to be, how committed is the mother? Because with true commitment one can defy any and all odds, as did the 10 year old survivor.
The moral dilemma in the given situation is whether the principle for respect for autonomy should be granted or does the baby’s inability to express thoughts remove such autonomy? At the moment, until both guardians come to a mutual decision about the future of the baby, the mother’s wills should not be granted more weight than the father’s. Personally, as it is apparent that one can live with the condition of congenital myasthenia and flourish (after a tracheotomy), the only thing negating RB’s potential is his mother. I think what the mother needs to learn is that perfection is unachievable and no child is built within a protective bubble, danger lingers for everyone. But as said in the words of Niki Shisler about her son Felix, “he is the happiest child I know and has brought more joy into my family than I have words to explain. He loves and is being loved beyond measure; he has a life worth living.”
In response to Ankit's post, I do not believe that the use of fetal cells within the skin cream is a moral choice. This is because on a face value, there seems to be something horrendously wrong about the issue. I believe that this initial feeling is an indicator of something that is inherently wrong with using the cream filled with aborted cells.
ReplyDeleteFrom a deontological view, the use of the cream is outright wrong. This is because human life is an end within itself, and it is our duty to respect the dead and life in general. Since teh cream is using aborted fetuses in something very trivial such as the treatment of skin, it seems almost silly to even question whether what the company is doing is right or not.
Ankit is correct in saying that from a utilitarian perspective, the use of the cream seems ethical because it is creating more good within the world. However, why does this seem wrong to us as individuals. Using "power of the majority", it seems to be that the utilitarian perspective does not adequately address the ethical issue in this case. Perhaps it is better to take a deontological viewpoint when dealing with the sale of this cream because it seems to be more relevant for this ethical dilemma.
In the end the probelm of the cream comes down to a comparison of which ethical ideology is more related and is a better argument for this question. I believe that deontology is a betetr indicator of the situation than utilitarianism simply because it matches our perception of the case itself. Furthermore, deonotology seems to address the issue of the sacred values we place onto the idea of life and death in general. It addresses these ideas to their full complexity.
There are many ethical issues involved in the article about the British IVF clinic. We know that the role of an IVF clinic is to help women who may have trouble conceiving a child naturally (through intercourse) become pregnant. If the goal of IVF is simply to become pregnant, then is it truly a mistake if the IVF clinic does NOT screen the sperm for abnormalities. In natural conception, one is not able to pick and choose which embryo's with which they would like to become pregnant based on the possible complications. Is it taking it too far to screen for abnormalities in sperm? Although one of the implantations of these embryos resulted in miscarriage, could it be seen as discrimination against those future fetuses that may have abnormalities.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, one may say that the IVF clinic has a duty to screen the sperm for abnormalities. A duty to the family, so they won't risk a miscarriage, or having a child with a potential disability. And a duty to the future child, who may have to live a life with a certain disease or disability.
On the other hand, is the IVF clinic taking it too far when they screen these sperm for abnormalities. They are dictating the futures of unborn children. By doing this, they are eliminating our culture of disease and disabilty, things that shape people's lives. They are creating a culture of people who may love a child less because of their disability or disease because they knwo that MAYBE they could have screened that faulty sperm and had a different child.
Although, the IVF clinic is primarily responsible for allowing women to become pregnant, it is unethical for them to not screen the sperm for abnormalities. They ought to screen every sperm for abnormalities because these families are paying large sums of money to become pregnant. It is more costly to not screen the sperm, which may result in miscarriages and then families spending more money for several more rounds of embryo transplantation. Additionally it is in the benefit of the woman and her fetus to ensure a healthy pregnancy. It is the duty of these clinics to do everything to make sure that the woman can have a healthy successful pregnancy. As the woman at the end of the article stated, it seems as though the IVF clinic has a conflict of interest when they do not screen the sperm for abnormalities. Are the more interested in making as much money as possible or aiding women in becoming pregnant and having healthy pregnancies?
The following is in response to the article about the “peaceful pill.”
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am also completely appalled that this pill is supposed to be available for distribution in the near future. Distributing a pill such as this one raises many issues. From this article, what we don’t know is if there will be any regulations on who gets access to this drug. Though Nitschke implies that the pill is for the benefit of the elderly, we don’t know if that means this pill is limited to solely the elderly. Nitschke says that he wants senior citizens to have the option of a “peaceful death,” but many other groups of people could claim the need for a peaceful death at different stages of their lives. This brings up right to life issues.
All people have the basic right to live. Until a person is 18, his/her parent or guardian is responsible for that person’s decisions (including medical decisions). Once a person turns 18 though, it is important for that person to have a living will which explicitly states that person’s choice of health care proxy. If this “peaceful pill” ever is really on the market, it will be entirely necessary for it to be written about on a person’s living will. This is because a person’s autonomy ought to ALWAYS be respected. Doctor’s have the ethical duty to make medical decisions for a patient once that patient is no longer competent; with a written living will, health care proxy’s can make sure that the patient’s autonomy is always respected. The reason I write about this health care proxy is because I think that if this pill is on the market, the government would NEED to make a law that ordered people to include a statement about the "pleasant pill" on their living wills. This is because when a person wants to commit suicide, they are usually in a depressive state or some other state that makes them no longer competent to make decisions. Before a person is given access to this pill, this law would ensure that the pill is in fact what the person would have wanted to take had he/she been competent.
That said, I am NOT AT ALL in favor of this pill. That is just a law that I believe is essential for a society that has such a pill on the market. Furthermore, from a deontological standpoint, this pill would be wrong, because it is wrong to kill, and in essence, giving someone this pill is also killing them. From a utilitarian point of view, the distribution of this pill is also wrong because it would not produce the best consequences for the greater number of people. When someone commits suicide, it is never beneficial and I think this pill should never be allowed to be distributed, from both an ethical and a legal standpoint.
The following is in response to the article “My genes made me do it”:
ReplyDeleteThe ethical issue in this is: should individuals with undesirable genes be granted privileges? This question is subjective and does not have a general answer. In the case of Abdelmalek Bayout, I do not think that he should have been granted privileges, which in this case meant a decrease in jail time. Privileges should be granted in people with conditions such as psychiatric illnesses, which is why Bayout originally did receive a mild sentence. Another year then also got taken off of his sentence because of his so-called gene variants. Bayout had gene variants linked to aggression, notably MAOA, which would “make him more prone to violence.” This defense is simply not a sufficient reason for the murder that Bayout committed. There is an ethical principle of justice, which corresponds to the virtue of fairness; ethically, this “gene variant” is clearly not something that should be granted privileges, as it is not fair at all. Many people have the MAOA gene, but that does not mean they have an excuse to be violent. Like all other people, Bayout has a moral right to not kill, and he violated that right. The judge in this trial violated basic ethical principles in his ruling for Bayout, as Bayout unquestionably violated his basic moral rights and the excuse of having the "MAOA-gene" is just not sufficient.
Also in response to "My genes made me do it":
ReplyDeleteI agree with Laura in that the subject, Abdelmalek Bayout, should not have had his sentenced reduced simply because he had a gene that made him prone to violence (MAOA),
I'm sure there are many people that unknowingly (or knowingly, for that matter) have the MAOA gene, and that does not give them a free pass to act out in violence without repercussions. People are responsible for their own actions, regardless of mental illness or genetics. We discussed this in class, and I believe that it is the duty of the individual to seek help or treatment if they have a mental illness. Using an illness as an excuse is an irresponsible and dishonest way to behave, similar to this man using the MAOA gene as an excuse to behave violently.
If he, or people around him, recognized that he was unnaturally violent, it is his own responsibility to do something about it (seek therapy, anger management, etc.) If he or others did not notice that he was unnaturally violent, the gene must not have that much of an effect on his behavior and therefore cannot be used as an excuse. Either way, his behavior is his own responsibility, and he should not be excused for his actions.
In response to Genetic testing to prove nationality:
ReplyDeleteI'm a little confused as to how these genetic tests will assist in proving nationality. I understand that it can prove your country of origin, but how can it prove what your current nationality is? Is it not possible for people to immigrate and assume a new nationality? My current roommate was born and is a citizen of Norway, but her heritage is Italian (Her parents both are of Italian descent). How would the genetic tests work in her situation? Clearly the system is flawed.
This seems like an extremely unreliable way to accomplish their goals. It is definitely important for them to use other tests in addition to (or in place of) this genetic testing in order to determine the nationality of these people.
At least the testing was voluntary, so hopefully that prevented some misleading test results from having a negative impact on someone.
In response to the suicide drug article:
ReplyDeleteThe question of whether the rights of people who want to control the end of their life is being respected may be answered, but the most important question is not yet answered: is it safe?
These suicide drugs give us no assurance that it will always be in the right hands. Are the people who are responsible absolutely sure that this will be the drug solely for the people making rational end-of-life decisions? Are they not neglecting the possibility of the drug landing in the hands of teenagers who have fairly radical mood swings, abuse this drug? Even the knowledge of this drug would give a big impact to society.
Dr. Nitschike says that "suicide is not a crime" but would that still apply if suicide and the fatal drug influence society by leading to an abuse of the drug such as murder or a simple misjudgment?
The case involving the fetus cells in skin care products demonstrates the ethical dilemma of whether it is morally right to use aborted tissue to benefit living humans. The company manufacturing this product, Neocutis, represents one end of this debate. They claim that the cells used in their product were derived from a pregnancy that was terminated because the fetus would not survive to full term. Religious and pro-life supporters lie at the other end of this debate. These people claim that the creation of this product was unethical because it is disrespectful to use the remains of a human, including those of an embryo or fetus, in a product.
ReplyDeleteDoctors did not purposefully terminate this pregnancy with the intention of using the fetal tissue in a product. Therefore, the fetus was not harmed by the creation of this product because Neocutis utilized tissue that doctors otherwise would have discarded. In addition, since the fetus cannot survive outside of its mother’s womb during the early stages of pregnancy (typically the time period when abortions are performed), one can argue that the fetus does not have the same rights as a fully functional, living human being. If the fetus is not considered a living human, then it is not entitled to the same inalienable rights, such as the right to life or the right to autonomy.
Although the pro-life and religious stakeholders feel that this company should not use tissue from an aborted fetus, that is a reflection of their personal beliefs and not an ethically defensible argument. A fetus is not entitled to the same rights as a living being. Neocutis should be allowed to sell this product as long as all of their fetal tissue originates from pregnancies that are terminated due to health reasons and not simply for use in this product. It may be more advantageous to humans if more research is put into the use of fetal tissue to cure degenerative human disorders that severely affect human life rather than researching the effectiveness of fetal tissue for cosmetic purposes that do not provide any actual health benefit.
In case involving the infant with congenital myasthenia, a mother and father are pitted against each other. The child cannot breathe on his own and has severe difficulty moving and swallowing. The mother would like to remove he child from artificial support and let him die naturally. The father wants to keep the child alive for as long as possible by performing a tracheotomy, which will allow the parents to bring the child home from the hospital.
ReplyDeleteThe mother wants to let the child die because she is concerned that the child will have a very low quality of life. It may be unethical to keep the boy alive if he is unable to live a full life and suffer, both mentally and physically, as a result of his disorder. If he is kept alive, then he will be dependent on medical equipment to breathe, eat, and move. His medical care will also be very costly and the article does not mention either of the parents’ current financial situations.
The father of this child wishes to take every measure possible to keep his son alive. The article references another child with a similar disorder who, according to his mother, seems to be leading a happy life. Because it is not clear whether the son has any brain damage, it may be unethical to terminate his life support solely due to his physical handicaps.
This is a very difficult case because no one can be sure of the quality of life this boy will have. The infant appears to have a low quality of life because he is severely disabled and dependent on medical equipment to survive. However, if this infant does not suffer from brain damage, then the boy is a fully competent being who is entitled to the right to life. At this time, the boy’s level of competency is unclear. The parents should wait until they can make a definite decision about their infant’s mental capacities. If the boy is mentally competent, then he should be given the right to live.
In response to "My Genes Made Me Do It":
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is ethical that Bayout received a decreased sentence because of the particular gene. Adjusting a sentence based on the presence of mental illness is fundamentally different than doing so based on the presence of an aggression gene. There is not enough scientific evidence to even prove that the MAOA gene is definitely linked to increased aggression. There are likely many people that have this gene that do not experience more aggression, let alone murder people. Although a molecular neuroscientist and a cognitive neuroscientist testified in this case, there have to be many professionals that disagree with their positions. We simply do not know enough about behavioral genetics to use this in sentencing criminals. Having this gene should not be an excuse for anyone to commit violent crimes, which are unethical no matter why they are committed. The individual is responsible for his actions, whether or not this gene is present. If the increase in aggression is so notable, he should have gotten help before anything serious happened.
In regards to the suicide article:
ReplyDeleteIn dealing with right-to-die autonomous decisions, the implications of ethical dilemmas fall not only with the individual but also with the distributors of such said “peaceful pill”. As stated by Exit International, "all seniors of sound mind should have the option of a peaceful death at the time of their choosing should this be their wish - this Exit Pill will go some way to ensuring this." The ethical dilemma falls in Exit Internationals definition of a “sound mind”. Who is responsible for deeming elderly individuals competent and/or therefore incompetent in regards to pursuing a peaceful death? In a contemporary society, stressors may be increasing for the elderly with increased technological advances and a change in every day life. So in a situation where one may still have a promising future to live out, but reaches a dark alleyway in his/her path to a generatively and a truly peaceful death, who deems that said individual is truly sincere in expressing competency while deciding to commit suicide?
In terms of judging one’s competency for withholding or withdrawing informed consent for a specific procedure while unconscious, one must have an advanced directive and/or a surrogate decision maker. This is designed to improve the truly competent and autonomous wishes of an individual expressed by his/her innate values and beliefs. When individuals are inserted into a situation that may seem too difficult or trying, one may seek an easier alternative. So as an individual faces a daunting obstacle in the course of his/her life, why isn’t this same policy of reassuring individual’s competent abilities enforced during this “peaceful pill” procedure? This is a sensitive issue in regards to end of life decision making, but it should be taken as seriously as those forced into life or death situations where the individual may not be able to provide his/her true competent decision.
I feel that there should be strict guidelines in regards to obtaining a “peaceful pill”, that would allow one to pass away painlessly. Also, I believe that if a decision is deemed competent by an efficient review board, than the drug should be legally distributed. It would be against deontological reasoning to not distribute a drug that is available. The community’s duties deal with determining whether an individual is truly competent and autonomous in any decision making, and also in not withholding any available treatment.
“My genes made me do it.”
ReplyDeleteThis article highlights the dangers that come with taking advantage of scientific advances. The research that has been performed since the first discoveries of the human genome has lead to astounding leaps in the medical/scientific field, however I do not believe that these advances were ever meant to be used in an unethical manner. I think that the court’s decision to lessen Abdelmalek Bayout’s sentence, based on genetic factors associated with the MAOA gene which is linked to aggression, undermines the justice system which the court is based on. If we were to begin looking at all the genetic factors that can possibly contribute to a person’s behavior, no one would ever be held responsible for their actions. No one can control their feelings, but everyone can control how they act upon those feelings. This is the bottom line. There are so many factors that can affect someone’s disposition, genetics is not the only facet and therefore should not be a deciding factor in a murder trial. The court should focus on the ethical principle of justice which was clearly disregarded in this case.
~Jenna Freitas
In response to the infant RB with congenital myasthenia:
ReplyDeleteJzee89 said that "it is ultimately the responsility of the mother to support RB in any which way in order for him to prosper." I disagree. I don't think the mother has a responsility to do whatever it takes to ensure her child's survival. I think she does have a duty to do what she believes is in her child's best interest, but this does not necessarily entail keeping him alive at all costs. If this involves ending the child's life, then I think the mother has a duty to do so. Of course, as jzee has already said, it is difficult to determine what is in the child's best interest when RB may have signs of normal intelligence and there is evidence that a tracheotomy can ultimately provide a chance at a relatively normal life.
Leslie F. said, "The parents should wait until they can make a definite decision about their infant's mental capacities." I agree, but this makes me question why a scan hasn't already been done to determine RB's mental capabilities. Is the child too physically damaged to perform a scan? I think jzee said it right, that the ethical situation here is whether RB's inability to express his thoughts, despite the fact that he may be at normal intelligence, cancel out the respect for his own autonomy, effectively creating the dispute between his mother and father.
I would also like to add on that I think there is an ethical dilemma here concerning what to do with someone in a physically vegetative state. There is obviously already tons of controversy over what to do with people who are mentally incapacitated and whose brains are in a vegetative state. There has not been, however, many cases regarding normal brain activity and complete physical incapacitation.
I am going to argue that if RB does have normal mental capabilities and it can be proven that he does, then he should be given the tracheotomy, only because I don't think physical incapacitation negates anyone's right to have a chance at life. This may be a stretch (and might be irrelevant...), but Stephen Hawking suffers from severe physical disability, yet it goes without saying that this does not discount his mental capabilities or his contribution to society. RB's mental capabilities may not be even remotely like those of Stephen Hawking's, but if RB does have normal intelligence, I think the mother has a duty to do what she can for him (especially since he's only 13 months old) that would help him have a chance at a longer, more substantial life.
- Crystal Yu
In response to the “My genes made me do it, says Italian murderer” article, I could not believe what I was reading was true. Given that he was originally given a reduced sentence because of a mental illness, the argument brought up of a gene linked with increased aggression is ridiculous. Of all the people in the world, Bayout could not possible be the only one with this gene variant, and I’m sure that not everyone with that gene goes about hurting or killing other people. Just because there’s a predisposition does not make up for the fact that he had done what he did. It wasn’t the gene that made him hurt or kill anyone, as an adult, Bayout made the conscious decision to take away the life of another individual. That gene may or may not have contributed to this action, but it does not excuse it in any way, including reducing his sentence for murder, which was already reduced, even further. Allowing genes to provide excuses for individual's actions only provides ways for people to remove responsibility for their actions from themselves. Blaming their actions on traits passed on generation to generation whether they want to or not. If this was justifiable then why not prove there is a genetic precursor for racism or stupidity. People could just go about doing every sick and evil thing in their mind and blame it on their genes.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to "My genes made me do it":
ReplyDeleteI think one of the most important aspects of this story that we do not know is what happened after he was let out of jail. I think it may be ethically excusable to have allowed the man out of jail earlier ONLY under the condition that he was then placed in therapy or even a mental instituition for his mental illness, plus the add on of him being prone aggression. It is completely ridiculous to let this man with a diagnosed mental illness, and maybe even more to worry about is his susceptibility to violent actsm which he has proven is a threat because he has already killed a man. I am curious on how common this gene variant is. I am sure there are thousands of people with this gene that do not kill people. I find it irresponsible of the judge to allow a man who is clearly a danger to society to rejoin society sooner than his incarciration is supposed to last, or even back into socity at all.
In response to the article about the use of fetal skin cells for a cream:
ReplyDeleteThe ethical dilemma in question concerns whether or not the company made an ethical choice when they decided to use the skin cells from an aborted fetus as an ingredient in beauty products.
I agree with previous posts above- at first the idea seems horrendous and unethical. I feel that the most important component of deciding whether or not the decision was ethical or not lies in the examination of human rights and if they were in fact violated
Were the rights of the Fetus violated?
I do not believe the rights of the fetus were violated for a number of reasons. One might argue that because the fetus was not an independently functioning person and could not live outside the womb at 14 weeks that it does not have the same rights as a living, breathing human being. Another key point in the argument is the fact that it had been determined that the baby would have not been viable had it been born due to medical complications. This being said, the fetus was therefore, not terminated with the goal of collecting the skin cells for the cream.
The life of the fetus already being compromised, is it still ethical to use the skin cells? Well, that has a lot to do with the decisions of the appointed ‘decision makers’ involved in the situation. Since the fetus obviously cannot make it’s own decisions, being that it is still in-utero and not a fully conscious being, decision makers would undoubtedly be appointed. Assuming that the parents were the decision makers in this situation and since the article specified that the skin cells were “donated” to the company, it can be determined that the use of the skin cells is ethical due to the fact that once donated the company may use the cells as they please.