High doses of drugs used to stimulate the ovaries of older women undergoing fertility treatment may result in failed pregnancies and babies with conditions such as Down's syndrome. Research by a UK team, presented at the annual European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) conference in Stockholm, suggests that eggs produced after fertility treatment have more chromosomal abnormalities than would be expected in untreated women of the same age group.
"What this paper shows is that a lot of the chromosomal abnormalities are not those that are conventionally age-related," said Stuart Lavery, of the IVF clinic at Hammersmith hospital in London. It raises concerns, he said, that the treatment itself might be responsible for the abnormalities - possibly by allowing eggs to develop "that nature would have excluded". If a pregnancy went to term, these could lead to the birth of a baby with Down's syndrome. ~ Guardian, Jul 4
Thinking about ethics and current events (Began 1 April 2008)
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
100,000 Christian Victims in 2010
On January 5, 2011, I took on the role of personal representative of the chairman-in-office of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) on combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination and intolerance against Christians and members of other religions. That makes, at least, for a long business card. I am the third such representative after the office was established, and the first scholar. My two predecessors were politicians.
Headquartered in Vienna, the OSCE has 56 participating States including the US, Canada, all the states of Europe and these resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of which are in fact located in Asia. A number of non-participating states have signed partnership agreements, and also maintain embassies to the OSCE in Vienna. Representatives’ positions are honorary. Translated from diplomatic jargon, this does not mean that we only pretend to work, but that we do not receive any monetary compensation.
Although the other parts of my mandate are also interesting – for instance, I devote a substantial portion of my time at OSCE to Roma and Sinti (Gypsy) issues – I will focus in this speech on intolerance, discrimination and persecution against Christians, a subject of great magnitude and concern.
Read it all here.
Massimo Introvigne is an Italian sociologist of religion. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR).
Headquartered in Vienna, the OSCE has 56 participating States including the US, Canada, all the states of Europe and these resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of which are in fact located in Asia. A number of non-participating states have signed partnership agreements, and also maintain embassies to the OSCE in Vienna. Representatives’ positions are honorary. Translated from diplomatic jargon, this does not mean that we only pretend to work, but that we do not receive any monetary compensation.
Although the other parts of my mandate are also interesting – for instance, I devote a substantial portion of my time at OSCE to Roma and Sinti (Gypsy) issues – I will focus in this speech on intolerance, discrimination and persecution against Christians, a subject of great magnitude and concern.
Read it all here.
Massimo Introvigne is an Italian sociologist of religion. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR).
Thursday, July 7, 2011
France's New Bioethics Law
France will soon have a new bioethics law. After months of debate, by a vote of 170 to 157, the Senate approved a bill which offers something for each side of the debate.
Anonymous sperm donation will be allowed. Posthumous reproduction is banned. Surrogate motherhood is banned. Research on embryos and embryonic stem cells is permitted in exceptional cases, subject to approval by the "Agence de biomédecine." Researchers may use only surplus embryos from IVF treatment.
Organ donors have to have had a strong emotional attachment to the recipient for at least two years. Doctors will have to inform pregnant women of tests for prenatal defects.
IVF is permitted for any couple which suffers from real infertility, not social infertility. Hence - to the disgust of many deputies, homosexual couples have been banned from creating IVF children. One left-wing deputy described the law as "regressive and even dangerous". The law is to be revised at least every seven years. ~ Genethique, June 24, AFP, June 23
Anonymous sperm donation will be allowed. Posthumous reproduction is banned. Surrogate motherhood is banned. Research on embryos and embryonic stem cells is permitted in exceptional cases, subject to approval by the "Agence de biomédecine." Researchers may use only surplus embryos from IVF treatment.
Organ donors have to have had a strong emotional attachment to the recipient for at least two years. Doctors will have to inform pregnant women of tests for prenatal defects.
IVF is permitted for any couple which suffers from real infertility, not social infertility. Hence - to the disgust of many deputies, homosexual couples have been banned from creating IVF children. One left-wing deputy described the law as "regressive and even dangerous". The law is to be revised at least every seven years. ~ Genethique, June 24, AFP, June 23
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Quote of the Week - Pope Shenouda
Coptic Pope Shenouda remarked of the Islamic fundamentalists to the secular Egyptian press: “Be careful. They will have us for lunch and you for dinner.”
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Utilitarian Euthanasia and the Question of Dignity
Facebook can be useful. Browsing through its weekly birthday update, I learned that Nick Tonti-Filippini, a bioethicist who serves on various Australian government committees and teaches at a Catholic institute in Melbourne, turns 55 today. Some of those years must have gone slowly for him, as he is chronically ill. Fortunately, he has the training to analyse his difficulties with critical detachment. So his reflections on euthanasia, whose publication in the local media today coincides with the celebration, are worth passing on.
He begins with a description of his condition:
I am chronically ill with a progressive rheumatoid auto-immune disease that destroyed my kidneys and causes inflammation around the lungs, inner chest walls and heart, ischaemic heart disease and peripheral neuropathy. I have been dependent on dialysis for 20 years and I have undergone 15 angioplasties and the placement of eight stents to recover some blood flow after the failure of coronary bypass surgery.
Nonetheless, he says, euthanasia and assisted suicide are not the answer to his illness. In support of his contention he offers three arguments. First, Nick says, fear of being dependent can be a powerful motivation to seek euthanasia:
The fear of being a burden is a major risk to the survival of those who are chronically ill. If euthanasia were lawful, that sense of burden would be greatly increased, for there would be even greater moral pressure to relinquish one's hold on a burdensome life.
Second, the existence of a euthanasia option would undermine the development of better palliative care facilities. This notion is supported by many disability activists. They say that it spreads subtle and widespread expectation that death must be better than disability. "If the legalization of assisted suicide continues, I believe the rank and file will some day see nothing wrong with hastening the deaths of many people," writes disability expert Dr Carol J. Gill. "They will stand by and do nothing to stop it and will endorse the policies and institutions that advance it – not because they are evil people but because it will no longer be evil in our culture to do so. It will be compassionate, respectful, routine."
Third, Nick argues that no legislation will ever ensure that there can be no abuse. “Legislation that permits euthanasia could never be made safe for those of us who have serious chronic illnesses, because the essence of such legislation is to make respect for our lives contingent upon the strength of our will to survive.” The fact that euthanasia has been rejected in six countries over the past year (by my count), supports this. Committee after committee, in the UK, the UK, France and Australia has found that it is impossible to reconcile legalised euthanasia with the government’s responsibility to defend the disabled, aged and disadvantaged. Since Oregon legalized assisted suicide in 1994, other American states have it debated it again and again. Between January 1994 and March 2011, there had been 122 legislative proposals in 25 states. All bills that are not currently pending were either defeated or languish in committees.
Three solid arguments from a well-informed academic with personal experience. You’d think that his insights would be treated with respect.
They weren’t. Comments on his article were running about 5 to 1 in favour of legalised euthanasia, and nearly all of them were passionately, gut-wrenchingly, venomous.
Coming to grips with his arguments was not on his readers’ agenda. They just wanted to make their own choice. As "Dreamer" put it,
“I don't see it as anyone’s business but mine if I chose euthanasia. Religious ratbags and goodie-two-shoes included. Mind your own bloody business and keep your noses out of my affairs.”
Although Nick’s arguments were entirely secular, he was repeatedly slammed for being a Christian. In one all-too-typical comment, "Susan" noted:
“What a nerve to commit people to absolute agony in the name of your religion. And the slur against good people who want to end their terminal suffering is abhorrent. Why should the terminally ill be put up on your cross and made to suffer your torment? You have no right to choose the death or torture for others. If you want a death on a cross, well climb up yourself, but by God do not put others on it, especially the dying.”
The underlying philosophy was a rough-and-ready utilitarianism – that the value of life is the sum of its pleasures. As "Claudius" put it,
“Quality of life is more important than quantity of life, and euthanasia is a superior outcome to ineffective palliative care.”
And on and on and on.
No one expects internet comments to be balanced and thoughtful, but the vituperation in today’s comments was unsettling. They reveal four things about euthanasia and assisted suicide. First, that support for euthanasia is so visceral that it defies reasoned discussion. Second, that it is so me-centred that every argument about its community impact will hit a brick wall. Third, from a utilitarian point of view, Christianity is a abominable force for evil. Fourth, that the notion of meaningful suffering is incomprehensible.
All this suggests that clashes between traditional human dignity and the debased utilitarianism which characterises public debate in Australia are all but insoluble. Ultimately the problem is that the side which sees meaning in suffering is willing to reason it out. The other side isn’t.
Solving conundrums like this is why people like Nick Tonti-Filippini are needed in public life. Happy birthday, Nick. Many more of 'em.
Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.
He begins with a description of his condition:
I am chronically ill with a progressive rheumatoid auto-immune disease that destroyed my kidneys and causes inflammation around the lungs, inner chest walls and heart, ischaemic heart disease and peripheral neuropathy. I have been dependent on dialysis for 20 years and I have undergone 15 angioplasties and the placement of eight stents to recover some blood flow after the failure of coronary bypass surgery.
Nonetheless, he says, euthanasia and assisted suicide are not the answer to his illness. In support of his contention he offers three arguments. First, Nick says, fear of being dependent can be a powerful motivation to seek euthanasia:
The fear of being a burden is a major risk to the survival of those who are chronically ill. If euthanasia were lawful, that sense of burden would be greatly increased, for there would be even greater moral pressure to relinquish one's hold on a burdensome life.
Second, the existence of a euthanasia option would undermine the development of better palliative care facilities. This notion is supported by many disability activists. They say that it spreads subtle and widespread expectation that death must be better than disability. "If the legalization of assisted suicide continues, I believe the rank and file will some day see nothing wrong with hastening the deaths of many people," writes disability expert Dr Carol J. Gill. "They will stand by and do nothing to stop it and will endorse the policies and institutions that advance it – not because they are evil people but because it will no longer be evil in our culture to do so. It will be compassionate, respectful, routine."
Third, Nick argues that no legislation will ever ensure that there can be no abuse. “Legislation that permits euthanasia could never be made safe for those of us who have serious chronic illnesses, because the essence of such legislation is to make respect for our lives contingent upon the strength of our will to survive.” The fact that euthanasia has been rejected in six countries over the past year (by my count), supports this. Committee after committee, in the UK, the UK, France and Australia has found that it is impossible to reconcile legalised euthanasia with the government’s responsibility to defend the disabled, aged and disadvantaged. Since Oregon legalized assisted suicide in 1994, other American states have it debated it again and again. Between January 1994 and March 2011, there had been 122 legislative proposals in 25 states. All bills that are not currently pending were either defeated or languish in committees.
Three solid arguments from a well-informed academic with personal experience. You’d think that his insights would be treated with respect.
They weren’t. Comments on his article were running about 5 to 1 in favour of legalised euthanasia, and nearly all of them were passionately, gut-wrenchingly, venomous.
Coming to grips with his arguments was not on his readers’ agenda. They just wanted to make their own choice. As "Dreamer" put it,
“I don't see it as anyone’s business but mine if I chose euthanasia. Religious ratbags and goodie-two-shoes included. Mind your own bloody business and keep your noses out of my affairs.”
Although Nick’s arguments were entirely secular, he was repeatedly slammed for being a Christian. In one all-too-typical comment, "Susan" noted:
“What a nerve to commit people to absolute agony in the name of your religion. And the slur against good people who want to end their terminal suffering is abhorrent. Why should the terminally ill be put up on your cross and made to suffer your torment? You have no right to choose the death or torture for others. If you want a death on a cross, well climb up yourself, but by God do not put others on it, especially the dying.”
The underlying philosophy was a rough-and-ready utilitarianism – that the value of life is the sum of its pleasures. As "Claudius" put it,
“Quality of life is more important than quantity of life, and euthanasia is a superior outcome to ineffective palliative care.”
And on and on and on.
No one expects internet comments to be balanced and thoughtful, but the vituperation in today’s comments was unsettling. They reveal four things about euthanasia and assisted suicide. First, that support for euthanasia is so visceral that it defies reasoned discussion. Second, that it is so me-centred that every argument about its community impact will hit a brick wall. Third, from a utilitarian point of view, Christianity is a abominable force for evil. Fourth, that the notion of meaningful suffering is incomprehensible.
All this suggests that clashes between traditional human dignity and the debased utilitarianism which characterises public debate in Australia are all but insoluble. Ultimately the problem is that the side which sees meaning in suffering is willing to reason it out. The other side isn’t.
Solving conundrums like this is why people like Nick Tonti-Filippini are needed in public life. Happy birthday, Nick. Many more of 'em.
Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Shamsi Air Base Highlights US-Paki Tensions
WASHINGTON, July 2: The US State Department said on Saturday that it was not aware if the United States still had military personnel at Shamsi air base and has not seen a specific request from Pakistan to vacate the base.
The Washington Post reported that the US had halted drone strikes from Shamsi three months ago after the Raymond Davis dispute. Since then all strikes that were launched from bases in Afghanistan.
The Post, however, noted in its Saturday report that the US still occupied the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan.
Commenting on Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar’s statement that Islamabad had asked the US to vacate the base, Mark Toner, the State Department spokesperson, said he could not speak for a foreign official, but as far as the State Department was concerned, there were no American military personnel at that base.
“We remain committed to our continued cooperation with Pakistan, and that includes counter-terrorism cooperation,” he said. “But as to the specific question about Shamsi air base, I’d refer you to the Pakistanis.”
“So you don’t have any military personnel or military equipment at Shamsi?” he was asked again.
“I’m not aware that we have any military personnel on that base,” he replied.
A journalist also referred to media reports that the US was ignoring Pakistan’s request and was not willing to vacate the base.
Mr Toner noted that these comments were attributed to Pakistani officials and they should be contacted for “comments and clarification of their comments.
“I’m not aware that we have any military personnel on that base. I’m going to leave it there.”
“Since the defence minister has gone public saying that, have you received any requests from them?” he was asked.
“That’s a question I can take. I don’t know if we’ve received any formal requests,” Mr Toner replied.
Earlier this week, reports in the US and Pakistani media claimed that Pakistan had forced the United States to stop using Shamsi for launching drone stikes after the May 2 raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound and is now asking Washington to vacate the base.
US officials told the Post that the launches were halted in April after a dispute over the CIA contractor who killed two Pakistani citizens in Lahore in January, weeks before the Abbotabad raid.
The report said that the decision to suspend the launches was part of a US effort to “pay attention to the sensitivities” of the Pakistanis.
US officials also told the Post that there was no plan to evacuate the base. “That base is neither vacated nor being vacated,” said a US official familiar with the matter.
At the State Department, Mr Toner said since the Abbottabad raid, the US had remained engaged with Pakistan at high levels, from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Director CIA Leon Panetta.
Besides discussing ‘difficult issues’ with Pakistani officials, the Americans also have made clear to Islamabad that they were committed to working with Pakistan in a constructive way on counterterrorism.
“Pakistan is touched — in a significant, profound way – by the threat of terrorism. They’ve lost a lot of people to terrorism in Pakistan,” he noted.
Mr Toner said the US also has continued to encourage dialogue between India and Pakistan because it saw it as “a very constructive” step.
“We think it’s important that that continue, and we want to see cooperation on many fronts, including counterterrorism, between the two countries,” he said.
The US, he said, was trying to build better democratic and other institutions within the country as its interests went beyond counterterrorism.
From here.
Related reading: US Vacates Paki Bases as Relations Chill
The Washington Post reported that the US had halted drone strikes from Shamsi three months ago after the Raymond Davis dispute. Since then all strikes that were launched from bases in Afghanistan.
The Post, however, noted in its Saturday report that the US still occupied the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan.
Commenting on Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar’s statement that Islamabad had asked the US to vacate the base, Mark Toner, the State Department spokesperson, said he could not speak for a foreign official, but as far as the State Department was concerned, there were no American military personnel at that base.
“We remain committed to our continued cooperation with Pakistan, and that includes counter-terrorism cooperation,” he said. “But as to the specific question about Shamsi air base, I’d refer you to the Pakistanis.”
“So you don’t have any military personnel or military equipment at Shamsi?” he was asked again.
“I’m not aware that we have any military personnel on that base,” he replied.
A journalist also referred to media reports that the US was ignoring Pakistan’s request and was not willing to vacate the base.
Mr Toner noted that these comments were attributed to Pakistani officials and they should be contacted for “comments and clarification of their comments.
“I’m not aware that we have any military personnel on that base. I’m going to leave it there.”
“Since the defence minister has gone public saying that, have you received any requests from them?” he was asked.
“That’s a question I can take. I don’t know if we’ve received any formal requests,” Mr Toner replied.
Earlier this week, reports in the US and Pakistani media claimed that Pakistan had forced the United States to stop using Shamsi for launching drone stikes after the May 2 raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound and is now asking Washington to vacate the base.
US officials told the Post that the launches were halted in April after a dispute over the CIA contractor who killed two Pakistani citizens in Lahore in January, weeks before the Abbotabad raid.
The report said that the decision to suspend the launches was part of a US effort to “pay attention to the sensitivities” of the Pakistanis.
US officials also told the Post that there was no plan to evacuate the base. “That base is neither vacated nor being vacated,” said a US official familiar with the matter.
At the State Department, Mr Toner said since the Abbottabad raid, the US had remained engaged with Pakistan at high levels, from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Director CIA Leon Panetta.
Besides discussing ‘difficult issues’ with Pakistani officials, the Americans also have made clear to Islamabad that they were committed to working with Pakistan in a constructive way on counterterrorism.
“Pakistan is touched — in a significant, profound way – by the threat of terrorism. They’ve lost a lot of people to terrorism in Pakistan,” he noted.
Mr Toner said the US also has continued to encourage dialogue between India and Pakistan because it saw it as “a very constructive” step.
“We think it’s important that that continue, and we want to see cooperation on many fronts, including counterterrorism, between the two countries,” he said.
The US, he said, was trying to build better democratic and other institutions within the country as its interests went beyond counterterrorism.
From here.
Related reading: US Vacates Paki Bases as Relations Chill
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Sequel to Spain's Stolen Children
A painful chapter of Spain's 1936-39 Civil War - the removal of children from mothers who were political opponents to be adopted out or even sold - has an even more painful sequel. As many as 30,000 children may have been removed from women identified with the politics of the losing side under the regime of Francisco Franco.
The surprise for Spaniards has been that the practice of removing and even selling babies continued into the mid 1990s. "A great many Spaniards" had been affected by the scandal, which took place "over a prolonged period of time," Attorney-general Candido Conde-Pumpido told the media. Activists claim that of the 2 million adoptions in Spain between 1940 and 1980, 10%, or 200,000 involved false documentation. In June Conde-Pumpido announced that prosecutors are investigating 849 cases of stolen children; 162 cases have been referred for trial and only 38 have been dropped for lack of evidence.
Anadir, a lobby group for people searching for lost children or parents, says that baby-snatching began as a punishment for Republican women but became an underground money-spinner even after Spain became a democracy in 1978. The founder, 41-year-old Antonio Barroso, discovered only three years ago that he had been purchased for 200,000 pesetas (the Spanish currency that preceded the euro). Other tragic stories have emerged from recent investigations. Mothers who brought flowers to their baby's grave for 30 years discovered empty coffins when the child was exhumed. Hospital paperwork about "deceased" twins has turned out to be fraudulent. The investigations are just beginning. ~ AP, June 17
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)