We're Not Monkeying Around (or are we?)

[Cross-posted from blog.bioethics.net]:

After what it calls "a series of detailed deliberative sessions", Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority gave the go ahead Wednesday for the creation of embryos that would contain both human and animal cells. Such research is banned in Canada and President Bush has called for it to be forbidden in the US*. Here's more from HEFA's statement:

Having looked at all the evidence the Authority has decided that there is no fundamental reason to prevent cytoplasmic hybrid research. However, public opinion is very finely divided with people generally opposed to this research unless it is tightly regulated and it is likely to lead to scientific or medical advancements.

This is not a total green light for cytoplasmic hybrid research, but recognition that this area of research can, with caution and careful scrutiny, be permitted. Individual research teams should be able to undertake research projects involving the creation of cytoplasmic hybrid embryos if they can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of an HFEA licence committee, that their planned research project is both necessary and desirable. They must also meet the overall standards required by the HFEA for any embryo research.

There are already two applications for human animal chimeric embryo research before the regulatory panel. The applications include proposals to inject human DNA into the embryos of cows or rabbits, ultimately in an effort to produce stem cells.

The May 2007 AJOB Neuroscience featured a target article about the proposed human neuron mouse. This summer Hank Greely, one of the target article's authors, and Francoise Baylis, who authored a peer commentary, both appeared on a bioethics.net podcast to talk about the ethical implications of human-animal chimeras.

-Greg Dahlmann

*Or, at least, we think he did. In the State of the Union Address, Mr. Bush used the term "hybrid" which isn't the same thing as a chimera. US Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) has proposed legislation to ban human animal chimeras (the bill actually uses the word) and apparently the President supports this legislation.

The Weirdness of Male Pregnancy

When I first heard about male pregnancy I didn’t even think it was true. The first thought I had was of Arnold Schwarzenegger or bizarre, far-fetched predications about how strange the world will be by in, say, 2275. After researching on the internet and reading articles on various websites, I discovered that it’s not only possible, it’s happening right now. I have tried to keep an open mind while researching and reading, but I really think it’s just a bad idea. It’s unnatural, risky, and wasteful of funds that could be spent researching more important medical issues.
My biggest issue with male pregnancy is that, obviously, the baby will have to be delivered via cesarean section. Cesarean section births can be traumatic for both the mother and the child, and disrupt the natural bonding process that occurs during regular delivery. In addition, because a male pregnancy would mean that there is no water to break or natural stages of contractions, the labor would inevitably be scheduled, again causing potential harm and disruption to the fetus. Also, the risk of severe hemorrhaging is a serious threat to a pregnant man. Because he obviously does not have a uterus, a placenta must be implanted in him, and hormones must be taken to ensure that the placenta binds to the wall of the abdomen. When the cesarean section occurs, the placenta must be essentially “peeled off” the tissue it is bound to, but unlike in female pregnancy, the body responds to this as an unnatural and damaging occurrence, rather than a normal part of labor and delivery. Even women are at risk of sever hemorrhaging during labor, and they’ve been having babies since the beginning of time!
I also truly believe that there is a reason only one sex can have children. It may be old-fashioned or too traditional, but I think that there must be certain important qualities in women that make them the “correct” or more appropriate sex for child-bearing. I think women are naturally more maternal, maybe only because I have been raised in a society that attributes these qualities automatically to females, but maybe because women have specific brain chemicals that allow them to bond to their children, especially during pregnancy. I understand that male seahorses can carry and deliver their babies, a fact pointed to frequently by many male pregnancy supporters, but does it really make sense to compare humans to sea life? Pregnancy is a gender-specific existence; if men were meant to have babies, they would have evolved to be able to do so.
My final argument has two parts. First, there are already enough children in the world. Second, the money that has been and undoubtedly will be spent on researching male pregnancy could be spent of far more pressing medical matters. There are millions of children in the world without parents, so why is it necessary to spend money on researching ways to create more of them? Men have equal rights to adopt children as women, and should consider it as a more realistic option compared with that of becoming pregnant themselves. It is frightening to think about just how much money has already been spent on male pregnancy that could have gone to cancer or AIDS research. This just seems like an unnecessary question of science. Just because we can doesn’t always mean we should.

Source: http://www.malepregnancy.com

EUTHANASIA

-Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. Another similiar word for it would be assistant suicid. Assistant suicide is when someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called "physician assisted suicide." Most of the cases of euthanasia have to do with patients who are terminally ill and want to end their pain by ending their life. Some of the arguments against euthanasia are euthanasia would not only be for people who are "terminally ill", euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment, euthanasia will become non-voluntary, and euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. With these arguments, it makes euthanasia illegal today in almost all of the united states. So what about those who are terminally ill who cannot endure anymore pain? I believe that people have the right to decide whether they want to live or not when it comes down to medical issues. What I don't understand is how could the court decide the life and death of a person if they don't know what that person is going through. A case study of Sue Weaver help explain my argument for euthanasia. Sue was sick through her life. She later developed Multiple Sclerosis, a disease which is caused by hard patches of tissue on the brain or spinal chord and results in partial or total paralysis. The disease is also accompanied by muscle twinges or jerks. Sue could no longer walk and was confined to a wheelchair. Physical and emotional struggle led sue to suicide. Sue was assisted by Dr. Kevorkian in May 15, 1993. Sue was able to pull her own lever which allowed her a peaceful and dignify death. There are arguments of physicians should never assist suicide because every life is valuable and it also violates the 6th commandment of not to kill, etc. I don't think it is up to the state to decide what a person wants to do with their life. As long as they don't harm others, I agree to authanasia if it helps the patient die a peaceful and dignifying death. No one should endure pain if they can help it.

Male Pregnancy: Reasons Not to Continue...

The topic of male pregnancy is such a hard concept to grasp for both genders. Then there’s the issue of how to define the term, male pregnancy; does that mean you have to be born 100% male for it to be considered a male pregnancy or a woman who went under incision to become a man? Although a bisexual transman was originally a woman and still has the physiology of a woman after the surgery, would they be considered a male pregnancy because they have a male appearance? There are cases that transmen have given birth but in my opinion, that is not considered a male pregnancy. But what I don’t get is why we don’t spend our much needed money to impregnate infertile women. Producing a baby with a man and a woman is hard enough with all the complications some have faced like miscarriages, now we’re storming up new ways to make life that more complicated. Male pregnancy in itself has a lot of complications and the fact that if it were possible, the male would have to have an ectopic pregnancy, which is deadly.

Male pregnancies are performed by using In Vitro Fertilization to induce an ectopic pregnancy, a gestation elsewhere in the uterus. This technique of implanting an embryo and placenta into the abdominal cavity could result in a severe risk of hemorrhage when the ectopic ruptures; the most common cause for women dying in pregnancy. Not to mention, the surgery process, when the baby is ready to be born. Cutting so close to the vessels or other organs near the abdomen wall is a very big risk. Aside from the risks to the father, what about the baby’s risks? So far, we have no information if the baby will be healthy or not. This procedure might increase the chances to developing birth defects in the baby.

Overall, ectopic pregnancies are very dangerous and the most common cause for women dying in pregnancy and we are now increasing the risk to men. Also, they are not focusing on the issue of infertility in men and women who want to conceive but aren’t able to due to complications, which may not be their fault. I support the fact that we are not trying to develop new techniques into the health care facilities but why should we move on to new issues rather than keep the money for other purposes we have not yet completed in succeeding?

Source: http://www.malepregnancy.com/science/

Mandatory Vaccination for HPV: A Potential Lifesaver

This month, February 2007, the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, passed down and executive gubernatorial order that eleven and twelve year old girls in the state of Texas must receive a vaccination for the human papilloma virus, also known as HPV. HPV is a virus that is transmitted through sexual activity. Studies have also shown that HPV can cause cervical cancer in women. There are different types of HPV, some that cause genital warts and some that cause cervical cancer. Twenty four million people in the United States have some form of HPV. HPV has not been seen to cause cancer in men, only women.

I feel that Governor Perry made vaccination for HPV mandatory was an essential step to protecting the health of the people of Texas. HPV is easily contracted and shows very few noticeable symptoms. Historically, mandatory vaccinations have been ordered because the particular virus has cause serious damage to public health and also because of how contagious or infectious the virus is. In 2002, 11,072 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer. On average, cervical cancer causes 4,600 deaths per year. In 1916, 9,000 people contracted the Polio virus. A mandatory vaccination was created for Polio to prevent a large scale epidemic from occurring and saving thousands of lives. The mandatory vaccination is an essential step to saving thousands of women’s lives from dying of cervical cancer.

The autonomy of the citizens was overlooked because vaccinations were in the best interest of the health and survival of the nation. I would hope that if a vaccination came out that prevented a cancer-causing virus in men’s bodies would be made mandatory.

Mandatory Vaccine for Children

Immunization is requiring in the United State for every school and job, especially jobs in the medical field. It is required for every child to get vaccine shots since they were little to prevent nasty disease like Hepatitis, Polio, and Pneumonococcal infection, etc. But is vaccination needed for children to get into school or is it really the parents’ choice?
I think it is the parents’ choice to have their kids vaccinate. A lot of parents are against to have their children vaccinated because some of them are worried that their children will develop reactions or infections from the vaccine. Of course the reaction are very rare and most of the time the vaccines prevent illness rather than causing illness. Some parents are against the vaccinations because of certain religions. For example, Jehovah’s witnesses are absolutely against vaccination because they believe that the vaccines are from animal’s blood injected into human so it is considering drinking blood. Even though we know these reasons are not true but it is their beliefs. So if vaccination is required for school then these children can not go to school. America would have many kids that would be home school or not get educated at all. I think vaccination should be everyone’s freedom because it is their own children’s health; they will decide which is good for their children and have the right to believe in what they believed. These children couldn’t get the vaccines but they are not going to cause other kids to get ill because other kids are already been vaccinated so why is it such a big deal to require every kids to have vaccine shots? This doesn’t mention that vaccination shot are expensive and most of the health insurance plans don’t cover immunization shots. Some people couldn’t afford for their kids to go get these kinds of shot so their kids couldn’t go to school either? These parents should have freedom to decide for their kids, not the governments.

Source: http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Children/Vaccine.html

http://www.halexandria.org/dward054.htm

Is Xenotransplantation the Answer?

Xenotransplantation is the transportation of cells, tissues, or organs from one species to the other. This procedure could save lives...but is surrounded with controversy. We haven't seen a lot of this happening, for example heart transplants from a pig to a human. The medical community has to be cautious when putting other peoples lives at risk, especially if they are going to rely on an animal to save a humans life. But this brings up the question of should we let people die when we may have the animal resources to save them because the medical communtity wants to keep there names clear of controversy? Stem-cell research, although providing a great future for medicine, seems to be costing a lot at present with little progress. At some point I think we need to take a chance. Either we try to quicken the progress of stem-cell research, or we find alternative ways in the mean time. They are considering this in Australia today, and we have taken some risks with human to animal transplants combined with stem-cells. "Xenotransplantation has the potential to treat a wide range of life-threatening or debilitating conditions. For example, it is possible that isolated cells could be transplanted to treat diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Huntingdon's disease or strokes." I don't know how we as a medical community can go to sleep knowing that humans are dying because we don't have the right cure. We need to find a way to save more lives and xenotransplantation could be the answer!

Sources:
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about/committees/expert/gtrap/xeno/index.htm
http://www.wikipedia.org

A Miracle: To Be or Not to BE?

Imagine seeing the world from half your height. Your whole life you have played lacrosse, whined about the gym, swam in the cold Atlantic waves in summer. And then one day you wake up from a long but routine back surgery to find that you can no longer move your legs. As you recover from the grogginess of anesthesia, the doctors kindly explain that by having this posture-correcting surgery, you took the small, seemingly insignificant chance of getting a paralyzing spinal chord injury, and lo and behold, your worst nightmare has come true. You became the rare case that went wrong, a tiny statistic, and suddenly you are wheelchair-bound for life. You are confined to elevators and ramps. You cannot hike to see firsthand the Parthenon in Athens or wander the rambling, green hills of New Zealand alone. You gradually grow accustomed to a handicapped life, and your quality of life is good, but still, you want nothing more than to stroll along the Maine shore at sunset or to climb the stairs to the top floor of the Metropolitan Museum. You do not want to run marathons- though you know you would try if you could- you just want to stand on your own.
Stem-cell research in the United States has the potential to solve the life-altering conditions brought on by spinal chord injury. However, with a conservative administration opposed to interfering with God's plans, such advances are impossible. Simply put, a stem cell is an undifferentiated cell with the capabilities to give rise to other, innumerable cells of the same kind. This simple definition goes much further, however; there are numerous ways that stem cells taken from a variety of places (often fetuses or umbilical cords) can help those who are gravely ill or injured. In Miami, scientists have been toiling for years in order to render a paralyzed mouse capable of walking again from the implantation of correct stem cells, and sure enough, in 2005, these scientists succeeded and the mouse, once paralyzed from a spinal chord injury, could walk again.
By viewing this information, it is easy to see that a large number of handicapped individuals with lives marred by spinal chord injury could benefit from stem cell research. Few examples of beneficence (health care providers demonstrating good and benevolent healing upon a patient) are greater or have been evidenced. If one argues for stem cell research in a utilitarian manner, it is possible to say that the benefits of stem cell research largely outweigh the cost in terms of "embryonic life." This life that is spoken of is often largely from unused IVF treatments (70,000 in Australia alone), so why let this great use of science go to waste? These cells can form almost any kind of body tissue and can help people not only with spinal chord injury but from serious disease. In addition, the personhood of these stem cells are not even defined by what kind of cells they are. They are so very far from even modern terms of personhood which change rapidly with technology. Blastocysts, often used in stem cell research, are a cluster of human cells not formed into a distinct organ's tissue, making the inner cell mass no more "human" or "personable" than a skin skill used in any common surgery. The ethical and social arguments for stem cell research are endless, but overall, isn't it obvious that the good that could come of this research is unparalleled? Wouldn't it be a miracle to have paralyzed children and adults walking again, living the lives they always dreamed of? As stated by one website, "The social, economic and personal costs of the diseases that embryonic stem cells have the potential to treat are far greater than the costs associated with the destruction of embryos."
Imagine you are that same lacrosse-loving person who has moved through their life lately in a wheelchair. Imagine that government policies have changed and you had the autonomy to choose to fix what went wrong in that surgery. Your injury is healed. Imagine that first step after years of sitting. Imagine the looks on the faces of your parents, your children, your siblings, your friends. Imagine the complete healing process your life would undergo. Stem cell research is capable of providing miracles for tens of thousands of people today; what do you YOU think is just?

-Elizabeth Schrader


Sources:
http://www.burnham.org
http://www.stemcells.nih.gov
http://www.wikipedia.com

Organ Donation fo' Shizzle

I am very interested in organ donation. When we talked about in class it peaked my
interest, if you will. However, it is difficult for me to understand why anyone would be
against this. (Peoples families, loved ones, etc.) In the situation that people have
displayed their consent towards it, organ donation and 'surgery' to insert the organ is
awesome. Especially in the case when it can save someones life. This also ties into the
idea of organ creation, and insertion via stem cells, and this new phenomenon. I'm also
for this, because it seems like a great technological and brilliant advance, which we
should always be improving. Some people argue that it is creating a fake race, or a
robotic society, but we all go to the dentist and get braces on our teeth, get plates put
in for bones, etc. To me, and I think for the majority of my generation, organ creation
would be sweet, and extremely proactive in battling the biological warfare. Another con
to this idea is that it could be expensive. It's expensive to 'set up,' however it will
pay itself off. I think of it as 'solar energy' because it is expensive initially, but it
just works the money off for years. So, for now, I am very into organ creation and
research involving this, because if you could make a pancreas that could recognize
insulin and function how a diabetic person would need it to, to erase the faults, and
work perfectly, then this would help hundreds of thousands of diabetics in the world. I
can't see how this is a poor idea at all, and I wanted to see how other people felt about
this more intimately, so this is why I chose it for my blog entry.

A Woman's Dream Come True? Or Not

Female pregnancy is a very natural thing. Male pregnancy on the other hand is not something that should normally happen. "Male pregnancy is the carrying of one or more embryos or fetuses by the male of any species inside their bodies," a definition from wikipedia. A man can only become pregnant by having an ectopic pregnancy. An embryo and placenta are implanted into the abdominal cavity just below the membrane that lines the cavity of the abdomen. Female hormones are given orally so the mans body doesn't reject becoming pregnant. However once the man becomes pregnant he no longer needs to take hormones because the pregnancy takes over. An topic pregnancy is one of the most common causes of death in pregnant women. The risk of massive hemorrhage when the ectopic ruptures is just a much for a man as it is for a women. Then to top it off the only way the baby can be born is through Cesarean section. The placenta is very difficult to remove because it forms connections with blood vessels which when removing can cause hemorrhage. Other organs such as the bowel could also become attached, and they may need to be removed in order to get the placenta dangerous procedure that I am not sure why any man would want to take part in. It is a wonderful thought that men would take over the role of mom for 9 months and or the father to feel what it is like, but that's all I believe it should be, a thought. I can't imagine my husband walking around with a baby growing inside of him. According to most of the message board posts on the RYT Hospitals website, many people feel that this is unnatural. One woman even said, "This is against God. Mr. Lee is a sick man. Repent now before it's too late. You sick, sick people. God will pay you back for this evil you have created. Repent! Repent!" There are many opinions out there on this topic; I tend to completely agree with most people that male pregnancy is just very unnatural at this point in time.

References:1.Male Pregnancy. March 18, 2007 Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy#ReferencesAccessed March 19, 2007.2.

The Science of Male Pregnancy.RYT Hospital Dwayne Medical Center. Available at: http://www.malepregnancy.com/science/Accessed February 27, 2007, March 19, 2007.

Spirituality and religion

I am always interested in knowing the difference between spirituality and religion. Many questions can be raised concerning this topic: How much are religion and spirituality linked together? Can we really draw the exact and neat differences between both? Why do some of us feel more spiritual or religious than others? Why we believe and what we believe? Obviously these questions can’t have straight forward answers. People’s opinions vary in that regard.

Spirituality and religion are so much involved in the bioethics world. In fact, the majority of the patients lying in the bed would turn to God and ask so many questions. That’s why they are starting to teach some spirituality courses to the medical students so they can be aware of some questions the patients might ask. It’s so important to be able to answer some of their questions because this would help them resting in peace and probably improving their medical status. The religious and spiritual experiences are topics of fascination for people around the world. It’s a hint at a person’s intense connection with God. Most people would agree the experience of faith is immeasurable. Thus, the debate in such topic is endless and everyone would approach it in different ways and thoughts.
Finally, some quotes caught my attention and would really help getting to a point where we can have a decent amount of understanding religion and spirituality: “When we think of religious and spiritual beliefs and practices, we see tremendous similarity across practices and across traditions.” , “The frontal lobe, the area right behind our foreheads, helps us focus our attention in prayer and meditation.”

Cosmetic Surgery for Children with Down Syndrome

I was born with my mother’s wide nose, my father’s small eyes, and my grandmother’s thin lips. It’s my face, thought, and it makes me look like me. I also have my grandfather’s skin. You can tell by looking at me that I burn easily and, will never have a flawless complexion. Although I know that people know this about me by looking at me, I accept myself the way I am, and it is my hope that others accept me the way I am too.
Personal and societal acceptance are the real issues when it comes to many forms of plastic surgery. If we were more accepting of ourselves as we aged, and the natural biological processes that accompany the aging process, then we would have no need for botox, or facelifts. These procedures do nothing to improve the health or functioning of the person undergoing the surgery.
Children who have Down Syndrome who undergo facial plastic surgery to change their appearance do not gain any health benefits from this type of cosmetic surgery either. The reasons for undergoing this type of surgery are purely cosmetic and are related to personal and societal acceptance. The first level of acceptance that needs to happen for these children is acceptance of the child’s diagnosis. The next level of acceptance that needs to happen is with the medical personnel, physicians, nurses, psychiatrists, and medical social workers. These people need to help parents understand their child’s diagnosis and provide the information and support to the parents to ensure that they understand the diagnosis and can find support from other parents who have children with Down Syndrome.
If this support and information was provided adequately it would be very unlikely that parents would consider plastic surgery for their children. Parents would understand that their children will grow into wonderful human beings, and do not need to undergo surgery to make them happy. It is often a lack of understanding that makes parents believe that this kind of surgery is necessary. They feel that their children will not be accepted and that their lives will not be as good if they look like they have Down Syndrome. This is simply not true. Even if a child’s face is altered to look less like a child with Down Syndrome, they will still have Down Syndrome. They will still have all of the physical, cognitive, and emotional characteristics of children with Down Syndrome. This is the reality of the diagnosis. There is no denying that children, and even adults, can be cruel based on physical appearance. This is a problem with society, this is not a problem with the child. Acceptance is the key, for the parents, for the medical staff, and for society. Children and adults with Down Syndrome accept themselves as they are, distinctive facial features and all. It is time for the rest of us to accept them for all that they are too.

Euthanasia

A great fear that exists in many people is that they are going to die a horrible and painful death. However, if the need were to arise there is an alternate treatment, euthanasia. The definition of euthanasia stems from the Greek words eu meaning good and thanatos meaning death. If the definition of euthanasia means good death, than why is it illegal?
Oregon is the only state in which euthanasia is legal, (under strict conditions). Other places in the world such as Australia have legalized it under certain conditions, and after the patient have met the prerequisites. I believe that the other forty-nine states in the U.S. should follow suit. Obviously guidelines would have to be made as to what exactly constitutes euthanasia and what the requirements a patient has to fulfill in order to receive it.
Right now a person looking to end their life but does not have the means must find a physician who is willing to risk criminal consequences in order to help them. The most famous example of this being Dr. Kevorkian. He aided hundreds of people in committing suicide. Society has deemed him as a murder, yet he never actually killed anyone. He set them up with lethal dosages of medication and the patients had to press a button in order to receive the dosage. After reading articles about him and the topic in general, I no longer see him as a killer, but as some providing what a lot of people want; a good death.

Physician Assisted Suicide: The ethical debate

Recently in Vermont there has been quite the ethical debate over physician assisted suicide. That is, a practice in which the physician provides a patient with a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient's request, which the patient intends to use to end his or her own life. Well, in my opinion, I believe there is a better way to leave this earth when one is chronically ill. Currently, if someone is critically and chronically ill and the doctors don’t have much hope for them, they are put on a high dose of pain medications to keep them comfortable. From there, if it is the patient and family’s wish, they will be taken off any life support or respiratory measures that they were currently on, and then left for do not intubate and do not resuscitate if and when they coded. This may not end their life as fast and may keep them alive a couple more days, but it keeps them comfortable and out of pain so they can die without suffering. Yes, there are always exceptions when people do feel pain, but how can one expect their physician or nurse to walk into their room and give them one dose of medicine that will terminate their life? I know that I as a future nurse would never be comfortable ending a strangers life, even if they did want it. I would want to know my patient died on their own time and that they were comfortable at the same time. Being a nursing student, the main thing we are taught is to give doses that are not lethal or in the lethal range. To ever think about giving a lethal dose of medication to me is crazy and seems unnecessary. As health professionals, we are not taught how to terminate a lives, we are taught to save lives and make our patients comfortable.

Should HPV Vaccines in Texas be Mandatory?

The Human Papilloma Virus, better known as HPV, is a common sexually transmitted disease. It has been estimated that approximately 70 percent of woman will be infected with one form of HPV in their life. Other than the usual visual outbreaks of HPV (which include warts or “papilomas”), this virus is also the cause of 90 percent of cervical cancers. Cervical cancer is second most common cancer in woman. A common laboratory procedure called a Pap smear is used to determine infection of HPV.
Just recently, the drug company Merck released an FDA approved vaccine for HPV virus strains 16 and 18 that cause 75% of cervical cancer (it has also proved effective against HPV 6 and 11 which cause genital warts). This vaccine is marketed under the name Gardasil.
The reason why this has been such a heated topic is because Texas governor Richard Perry issued an executive order on the 2nd of February 2007 to have all girls enrolled in school vaccinated. Because of this “executive order”, the governor was allowed to bypass all legislature and certain rights groups. Because this vaccine can cost an upwards of 500 dollars, Perry has directed Texas State health officials to make the vaccine free to girls 9-18 years of age.
I believe this idea to have every girl vaccinated from the HPV virus is ideal. This is very controversial due to the fact that this order seems to favor the act of promoting sex rather than abstinence. In this day and age, I feel the traditional act of promoting abstinence is not working. If the governor can vaccinate against HPV, he can use this opportunity to create a healthier future and promote safer sex. Maybe another idea could require all girls to attend a safe sex class and receive the vaccination in the completion of the course. All though this may seem sexist, this virus is affecting woman and would only help the cause through the course of educating the public.

Male Pregancy: Fact or Fiction?

Male Pregnancy

There are many speculations about male pregnancy, yet to this date none of them have been proven true. However, there is one website that actually claims that they have produced a pregnant male. His name is Mr. Lee Mingwei, he and his group of producers are very talented artists. The pregnancy is thought possible because female organs and hormones were placed within the male. I have varied opinions on the topic of male pregnancy. I feel that males were not meant to bear children, and therefore they should NOT try nor want to bear children. Although I find this topic very interesting, at the same time it is also repulsive.
All the current thoughts on male pregnancy are based on speculations and theory. There have been a few cases of female to male transsexuals who have become pregnant; they claim that they have produced the first proposed male pregnancy. I do not consider this a “male pregnancy”. Although transsexuals believe that they are male, they were born with perfectly functioning female organs and are genetically considered female.
While male pregnancy has become thought of as fact instead of fiction, I still believe that it is a terrible idea. Females were put on this earth to give birth and have natural instincts to care for their children. The human mind is an extraordinary device, yet we still don’t completely understand how it works. With that said, how does one know that everything involved in child birth has been considered? I believe that it hasn’t and the fact that people are willing to risk the life of a child is shocking.

Smoking: bad for your health and your bank account.

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/11/30/off_the_job_smoker_sues_over_firing/?page=2

In November of last year The Scotts Co. was involved in a controversial firing of one of its employees based on the fact that he was a smoker. Scott Rodrigues’ employment with the company was terminated after they found extremely high levels of nicotine in his urine during a drug test. The Scott Co. requires its employees be non-smokers for their tenure with the firm. This is an attempt to keep health insurance costs low. Since they purchase the policy privately, the lawn care company is offered incentives for keeping its workers healthy.

This brings about an interesting ethical question, is the company justified in making this requirement? Should people be forced to give up their autonomy in order to ensure employment? In the end the company was acting lawful in firing Rodrigues, but is it ethical for our employer to determine what we do with our body? One could argue that Scott Co. was simply acting beneficently, in the best interest of their employees by enacting the policy. Its workers would generally benefit from their improved health after they stopped smoking, but does this outweigh the fact that they are fired if they cannot comply? Scott is essentially acting in a maleficent manor by not hiring smokers. The sector of the population they are discriminating against could be some of their best workers. It certainly is maleficent to fire someone because they engaging in a common practice outside of work.

The sticky part of this issue is who is justified here. Both parties are acting legally. Rodrigues is partaking in a legal activity, which may be endangering his health, but under his own self-determination. The Scott Co. is acting under complete legality in forcing its employees to sign a document promising not to smoke during their employment. The question that I find interesting is where does this stop? Can you be discriminated against because you have diabetes, or if you develop diabetes? This is a very expensive condition, which could be caused by individual actions, and most definitely would raise health insurance costs. Is this the beginning of the end for workers autonomy?

Skin Deep? or Merely Shallow?

Recently I had the opportunity to watch “Skin Deep,” a program that was aired on the Discovery Channel in 1999. The show was about Michael Morris, a three year old boy with Down syndrome. Michael’s parents decided to have him undergo facial reconstruction in order to “normalize” the appearance of his face. The program captured the family before, during, and after the surgery.

Before the surgery, the family was very anxious. They looked at computer images of how Michael’s face could look after the procedure. His father commented on how he could look like a young Kevin Costner. It became obvious to me that the parents were ready to put their child through this surgery out of vain. They were very proud of their son, but it seemed as though they were ashamed of his facial appearance. When the parents saw Michael for the first time after his surgery his face was completely covered with bandages, many of them bloody. The father appeared to be in shock. I understand that they were trying to make their son’s life easier so that he wasn’t stigmatized in school, but going as far as to put their child through a gruesome surgery just doesn’t seem like the solution. Just about everyone gets ridiculed at some point in their lives. Why couldn’t the family have invested time and energy into something more productive (and less invasive!), like educating the public about Down syndrome to reduce the stigma? Personally, I think the child looked better before he had his surgery.

I found an interesting article that emphasizes how major plastic surgery on the faces of children with Down syndrome is extremely unnecessary. This article by Jones (1) a shockingly compares the surgery to female circumcision. I feel that the author went a little overboard with this comparison, but he makes a good point. The author also compares the importance of the surgery to the correction of cleft lips and palates (1). Jones explains that the surgery on the cleft palate has major social advantages because of the functional and cosmetic improvements while the surgery on the faces of the children with Down’s syndrome does not (1).

Overall, I oppose the reconstruction of the faces of children with Down syndrome when it is merely for aesthetic purposes. I support those procedures that are essential for improvement in function, such as tongue reduction to improve speech. I do understand that the cosmetic surgery is a personal decision, but I believe that parents should include their children in the decision making process even if that does require waiting a few years.

Reference

1. Jones RB (2000). Parental consent to cosmetic facial surgery in Down's syndrome. J Med Ethics 26:101-102.

Spirituality in Health Care

During an in class presentation, a representative from Fletcher Allen talked about spirituality in health care. Or rather, it was the lack of spirituality in health care. Statistics presented during this class lecture said that while the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God, only about 2/3 of their physicians do. This presents a staggering disparity in the beliefs of the people receiving care and the people providing this care. While it may seem that a doctor’s or a patient’s beliefs should not alter the care that is received, it does have an impact. For 1/3 of doctors, spirituality is not something that comes up for them in their daily lives, and they may see it as having little importance. But, for almost all of Americans, spirituality is not only something that comes up everyday, it is also something that plays an incredibly important role in their lives. Therefore, it is imperative that physicians are sensitized to this aspect of their patients’ lives.

I feel that this understanding is most important for those physicians that are working in life threatening fields, such as emergency medicine and oncology to name a few. The Fletcher Allen presenter brought up the concept of taking a spiritual history of a patient along with all the other information that is collected. I believe that a process that gathers the importance of spirituality to the patient should become routine and the doctor can use the information gathered here in the patient’s further treatment. It is important that the physician be comfortable discussing spirituality openly with the patient. As has been seen in cases of people with life threatening diseases, the patient’s mental wellness can play a huge role. The doctor being attentive to spirituality should become more commonplace, no longer a topic outside the scope of a physician.

Drugs are a Dime a Dozen…

Drugs are a Dime a Dozen…

by Amy LaCroix

We’ve all seen them, one TV advertisement after another for newly available drugs for every “syndrome” and “disorder” imaginable, ranging from ‘Restless Leg Syndrome’ to ‘Idiopathic Short Stature Disorder’. Nowadays, flipping on the television is becoming less and less about the entertainment and more of a review of what hot new medications we should be running to our doctors for that claim to be able to solve your everyday nuisances and worries. To think, in the past all we had to worry about was advertisers brainwashing our kids into thinking that the cool new snack on the market would make them popular in school. Now what we have are unethical appeals to our innate sense of helplessness as human beings with medications that are supposed to help us feel better about our unfulfilled lives.

Recently, artist Justine Cooper has designed a satirical website detailing her new miracle drug “Havidol”. The drug claims to treat “Dysphoric Social Attention Consumption Deficit Anxiety Disorder” or DSACDAD. A person with limited medical and educational background might see an ad for a similar drug on television and completely believe that this ‘newly discovered disorder’ is the cause of all their problems and immediately get an appointment for a prescription from their physician. Despite how hilariously entertaining the claims and side effects of this fakey drug are (one of these being possible inter-species communication), this spoof is not that far from the reality of how the pharmaceutical industry is medicalizing things that used to be just a part of life.

Where should the industry draw the line? Should doctors be asked to prescribe such unsubstantiated drugs to their patients, when news of the disorder has just been made available? Shouldn’t such “disorders” be more of a job for a psychiatrist and not another potentially harmful drug? Is it ethically responsible for the pharmaceutical industry to target a depressed and socially underdeveloped audience that might be watching infomercials at 2am? I believe it is time to investigate how the pharmaceutical industry is manipulating their consumers’ autonomy and whether they really have their best interests in mind…

Combating the Genetic Battle of the Bulge?

Its official, obesity is genetic. The gene, known as FTO, was recently discovered by scientists at Oxford University after several years of research.
In an article published on ScienceDaily.com titled “Eat to Live: Obesity’s officially genetic,” the research leading to the discovery of FTO is revealed. Scientists compared 2,000 genomes of people with type 2 diabetes to 3,000 genomes of health individuals and found an interesting link between one variation of FTO and obesity. As stated in the above article, “The scientists established that 16 percent of people had the weakest genetic composition. They were found to have two copies of the high-risk version and to carry an average of 7 pounds excess weight, with 15 percent more body fat. This percentage, one in six people, has a 70-percent greater risk of becoming obese” while those with one high-risk and one low-risk gene had a 30 percent chance of developing obesity.
It is important to emphasize the relatively moderate amount of excess weight associated with a high-risk genetic composition. Note: FTO does not account for the 20, 40 or even 100 pounds obese patients often struggle with. There comes a point where diet and exercise must be taken into consideration. Don’t waste your time waiting for the magic drug that will slim your figure in a matter of weeks, it just ain’t worth it. Go for a walk, even if it is to the local grocery store to get some Ruffles and dip for TBS’s M*A*S*H re-run marathon that you simply must watch all afternoon.
Why change your lifestyle habits now? Well, those living in Rio de Janeiro with obesity have been forced to share medical equipment with local racehorses because standard medical equipment doesn’t support their bodies. How humiliating is that? Wouldn’t you rather lose those extra pounds by making healthy lifestyle changes than be sent to the local horse barn to get weighed and essentially be treated like an animal? I certainly would, even if nature had already decided that I would never fit into a pair of size 2 genes….err, jeans.

For further information regarding the discovery of FTO, check out: http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070413-18385500-bc-eat2live-obesity.xml.
For learn more about being obese in Rio de Janeiro, go to:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17949176/

Stem Cell Implantation Equals Delivering Essentially Acquired Treatment to Promote Healing Not DEATH

By: Ashley Gagne

“You treat a disease, you win, you lose. You treat a person I’ll guarantee you’ll win,” (Patch Adams). In the health care system it seems as if people are more focused on not stepping over the boundaries then they are on treating their patients, and by doing so are limiting the healing factor their patients can achieve. Instead of merely focusing on what the patient needs or what the best possible treatments are for them, they rather infer to the ethics of the situation. I ask you something, is it ethical to refuse to give treatment that has a high chance of curing someone merely because of all the other twists and turns surrounding the legality of the subject matter? It is in my eyes unethical to allow a treatment to be ignored because of how a certain group of people feel on the matter. I am not saying that having a strong belief in something is wrong, but then why is it wrong for people to have a strong belief in the matter to see it pass and become apart of the health care system? To me there are a few horrible things in life that no one should have to bare or go through. No child should ever have cancer, a life-long disease with no cure, or a malfunctioning heart. And no one should ever have to go through life with a disease that is harming their body and inevitably affecting the time they have on this earth especially when there is outlet of hope, a possible cure, and a possible end to the genetic disease. This is why focus needs to be put only on the patient that way the idea of killing another can be put aside and instead viewed as a life helping another to live to the fullest. Death is just a beginning of something even more beautiful and what is better than a death that helps another live?

Stem cell research has been highly debated because it involves the process of using cells derived from embryonic tissues causing some to feel as though a potential life is being killed for the survival of another, making people feel that it is unethical and wrong. Stem cell research is in no way a death treatment. It does not kill potential lives it allows others to live to their full potential. It is unethical to force parents to give their newborn baby an insulin shot up to four times a day. That means that this child by the age of 10 with have had 14600 shots instilled in their body not including mandated shots by their pediatrician. As a little baby there are limited spots on the body into which a shot could be given which inevitably increasing the pain factor and the possibility of developing fat deposits at a young age because of the numerous inflictions. Yes these insulin shots allow the baby to live but at the same time what kind of life are they living. They will never enjoy being able to go to a slumber party and not worry about doing a shot at supper time and not eating too much sugar and remember to do a finger pick and shot before bed. It will prevent them from having that independence to try new things and not worry about spending the night at their friend’s house because their blood sugar goes hypoglycemic at night. A life is still a life and as a Type One diabetic I realize this but I also cannot get over the fact that the answer to a cure is right there is a hand reach away but people are not willing to extend that hand and grasp the possibility to end diabetes and other and much worse diseases. I did not ask for diabetes but I accepted it and made it part of my life, but at the same time why should I feel guilty for wanting it out of my life for good.

The disease is of course bearable and by no means limits your life as other atrocious diseases can, but the last thing I want is my brother further down the road to find out that he also has the disease for each case of diabetes is different for other people and with that variability comes different degrees of risks and seriousness. Overall my case has been tolerable but what about for those people who have to constantly check their blood sugar and give themselves shots of insulin just to keep their blood sugar at the high end of their blood sugar range? Should their lifespan be limited merely because they have a disease that has treatment measures even though the treatment measures don’t control their levels? Why limit this generation and the future from a life without disease? If we knock out that factor there will be less for doctors and researchers to focus on which may also open the door to further discoveries in cancer and its overall prevention as well as its cure. Following the mentality of Patch Adams who states that as a doctor “Our job is improving the quality of life, not just delaying death,” I say that it is not just up to doctors but it is up to us to help others improve their life and not just mask their upcoming death. There is nothing wrong with death, but there is a problem with a short lived life and a life filled with medicines and no experiences. The research answers are out there and new studies have found even more intrinsic answers to these heated questions of stem cells so why let one factor of ethics out weigh the massive potential to heal and resolve an increasing problem in the United States. Stop being selfish and look passed using cells as killing a person. You are slowly but surely killing us by ignoring the chance to find a cure because of your ethical standpoints. Progress has been made but it is limited because of how the topic is viewed in society. Please allow our children to live free of needles and free of lifelong problems associated with the genetic disease. It has now been found that Type One diabetes is caused by the immune system attacking the beta cells in the pancreas that produces the insulin which is dispersed by the pancreas causing the body to lack the amount sufficient to promote the metabolism of sugars from the food we eat. From this breakthrough a study has been completed which showed that maternal beta cells can replace the beta cells killed off in a diabetic person allowing new healthy cells to grow and remain stable and thus reduce or completely end the need for an outside source of insulin (Mother’s Stem Cell Passed to Baby - Suggests Possible Way to Treat Diabetes, NIH). So why end these discoveries because of the fear of killing a new life? Instead of viewing the issue in that manner see it as using the resources of a life that may have never gotten the chance to start to do things that no living person could ever accomplish and from these miraculous treatments change the course of the medical future and millions of lives around the world. People all around the world give their lives every day for this country and for things they believe in so why do we have to make this issue a war in order for others to see that lives are only being healed in this issue not risked.

~ Data was taken from the Stem Cell Information Website: http://stemcells.nih.gov

HPV Shot? Why in the World Not?

“But Moooooom I hate shots and I don’t plan on having sex- I’m only thirteen. What kind of person do you think I am!” My daughter, Isabella, was screaming and protesting, obviously insulted. Ah, to be that young and naïve again I thought to myself as I pointed toward the door and told her we were going whether she wanted to or not. It’s never easy talking to your young children about sex and all of the good and evil that can come of it. Some are more accepting than others, but my daughter is very strong-willed and quite stubborn. I imagine she gets somewhat of a kick out of fighting me about this and everything else but how could I blame her when I was exactly the same way when I was her age. In fact, I still apologize to my mother. A good parent wants nothing but the absolute best for their child and will do anything to protect them no matter what but there are never any guarantees that your child will be safe all the time and won’t make poor decisions. Their innocence cannot be preserved because children can’t be protected from life. However, I will do whatever I can to preserve her health and offer her all of the information she needs to make good decisions on her own when she is older and will be facing issues of sexuality and peer pressure and substance use head on. I would never send her into battle alone.
Now, as a thirteen year old girl, she understands the basics of sex but doesn’t consider all of the strains of diseases and ways of getting pregnant and the personal and medical decisions that must be made and the life one has to lead when living with a disease or a being a teenager with a baby. There are so many long-term, branching consequences to a brief sexual interaction. I couldn’t imagine her being pregnant as a teenager- she would have to drop out of school and I’d have to support them until she figured out how. Either way it would be a struggle for her to get ahead and finish school and go to college to be able to earn a decent living. Or if she contracted a disease that could cause cervical cancer or genital warts that will greatly inhibit her chances of a healthy marriage and family and a career in healthcare, in case she became interested. If I can prevent all of these things for her with a series of three simple shots over a six-month period you better believe that we got into the car and headed for her pediatrician’s office. There are so many sexually transmitted infections- why not immunize our children with the vaccines we do have? Because it’s unnatural? Because parents don’t believe in them? Avoiding having to talk to children, particularly girls, about sex or making them think it’s now safe to be sexually active? Religious beliefs? I repect religious practices but being religious will not protect or cure anything contracted from unsafe sex. Since HPV is one of many diseases, information is key in maintaining health and being honest with children about what consequences of unsafe sex are out there because abstinenence is obviously not practiced by the majority. This is a global problem- there are epidemics across the world- HIV is a prime example and our children need to know that. Sexually transmitted infections ruin millions of lives, causing terrible disease, a lifetime of medical care and death and our children need to know that.
The shot is said to last five years and a booster may be needed but the critical thing to remember is that it’s effective. I will not be able to monitor her every action or chaperone the parties she attends or sit inbetween her and her (future) boyfriend on the couch. But I can do everything in my power to inform and protect her and HPV is a serious disease with many strains and scores of brutal consequences. I know she may resist and resent me now but I know she will come to see that it is out of pure, unconditional love that I make sure that she is fully immunized. It can be a dangerous world and we must watch over our children in every and any way that we can- it’s our duty and responsibility as loving and concerned parents. With making the decision to have my child be given the HPV vaccine, I truly believe that the positives outweigh the negatives.

A Not So Smart Organ Market

Reading through Life Choices: A Hastings Center Introduction to Bioethics, I came across a mention of patients being compensated for donating organs or other body tissue; an organ market if you like. Part of the reasoning behind this seemed to be companies were making money off of removed tissue from patients. These patients were then filing lawsuits claiming that part of the profit should go to them, and if they were compensated beforehand this could be avoided. Now in a society were people would do just about anything for a little bit of money, a person being able to sell their own tissue is not such a stellar idea.

As soon as organs begin to be bought, people will be lining up at the clinics. “Sure, take my left kidney. Heck, take both; I’ll take an HD TV over my health any day.” Alright, so it probably wouldn’t be that severe, but if someone is in financial trouble, there is always a chance of them resorting to selling their bodies. Let us not forget, selling your body for profit is also a crime in this country in the form of prostitution.

There’s also the idea that once the tissue is removed from one’s body that it is no longer of use to that person, unless they’re thinking about mounting a removed appendix on their wall. Paying for this tissue would be like paying for one’s garbage that was being used to research new garbage renewal methods. Although if they are, sign me up, I need to pay off my tuition.

Autism: More than a disease

In the winter of 2004, I was working for a local ski area, teaching young kids how to ski. It was one of the best jobs I had ever had. I worked with a special organization, the Bromley Outing Club, who specialized in coaching ski racing, snowboard racing, and freestyle skiing. A small branch of this organization that not many people know about is their adaptive sports program. This allowed people with different types of disabilities to enjoy the thrills and excitement of this popular winter sport.

During that season, I had the opportunity to work with a young autistic boy. His family was here on vacation and they had gone skiing for the day. The clubs was short staffed in their adaptive sports program that day, and were looking for a volunteer for a private lesson. Not fully aware of what I was getting myself into, I volunteered. On the way to meet Steven, the young autistic boy, I was debriefed as what to expect, and I suddenly realized that this was going to be harder than I thought, and I became very nervous. I had no experience working with autistic children, or people with disabilities in general, not that I was aware of anyways.

Autism is a serious disability recognized by the World Health Organization, and the American Psychological Association. It results from a developmental disorder of the central nervous system. It is diagnosed using a specific set of criteria for impairments to social interaction, communication, interests, imagination, and activities. It usually manifests itself before the age of three and is marked by children’s delays in “social interaction, language used in social communication, or symbolic imaginative play” (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). There are many theories as to the causes of autism including, genetics, anatomical variations (i.e. head circumference), abnormal blood vessel function and oxidative stress. However, the causes, etiology, and treatment still remain controversial.

Some autistic children and adults remain opposed to attempts for treatment, because they see autism as part of who they are, and in some cases they perceive treatments and attempts of a cure to be unethical. It is seen as a “way of life” not a “disease.” Recently, some of the “anti-cure” autistic society members sent a letter to the government demanding to be treated as a minority group rather than a group with a mental disability.

With recent development in the autistic culture, there has been an increase in autism recognition and many new approaches to educating and socializing people who suffer from autism. The autistic culture is based more on accepting the belief that autism is a unique way of being rather than an incurable disease or disorder.

On the sunny winter day, I will never forget Steven. He had difficulty learning how to ski, but he never gave up. He never became frustrated or flustered when he kept falling. He would always get up, covered with snow, and a big smile on his face. If there is one thing that I learned from that experience, it was that no matter what you are like on the outside or inside, having fun looks the same all over. Also, I will never forget his perseverance and commitment to learning. Everytime I find myself frustrated and overwhelmed by academics, I just think back to Steven’s smile and that day when I learned one of the most valuable lessons in life from a sweet autistic boy.

Gardasil: The Chance to Prevent Cervical Cancer.

Cervical cancer is the world's second leading cancer in women. For the first time women and girls have the chance to prevent a cancer. The establishment of the new STD vaccine for cervical cancer, known as Gardasil, has led to at least 18 states debating whether to give the vaccine to young school girls age 11 or 12 before they enter in to the sixth grade. So far only Texas has added Gardasil as a required vaccine. The federal government is also trying to pass a law by making Gardasil one of the vaccinations young girls are to have in order to enroll in school.
Merck & Co. first discovered the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. It is helping to bankroll the efforts to pass state laws to encourage young girls to take the vaccine. Through the advocacy group made of female state legislators around the country, Merck was able to raise the money to advocate for requiring the vaccine. Most insurance companies have now covered the vaccine since it has no serious side effects. The New Jersey drug company could generate millions of dollars from the vaccine if only it was made mandatory in the country.
However, according to an article on MSNBC, “Drugmaker wants law to require STD shot” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16891832/wid/11915773/), some groups are concerned. “The relationship between Merck and women in government is too cozy” and “what it does is benefit the pharmaceutical companies and I don't want pharmaceutical companies taking precedence over the authorities of parents,” said Cathie Adams, the president of the conservative watchdog group Texas Eagle Forum. Once again the parents were left out in the decision making. Some of the parents felt this would encourage young girls to have premarital sex, and would affect the way parents raise their kids at home. According to Perry, the conservative governor of Texas, the vaccine is no different from that for polio. Even though it might be very expensive to the economy, it will make sense to help the individuals in the society who need it. I tend to agree with the governor.
I think it will be a good idea to include the vaccine as one of the vaccinations young girls should get. This will help prevent the virus and decrease the death rate from cervical cancer. Through education, parents can learn how serious and dangerous this virus is and that the vaccine has no side effects that are known yet. Even though the drug company will make lots of money from the vaccine, this will encourage other companies to increase research for vaccines for other types of cancer.
This new invention is one of the most fascinating things to be discovered in this country; people are dying everyday and the only chance to save one more life when it comes to cervical cancer is in our hands. Who cares if the drug companies make money if the vaccine saves lives? Also, the drug companies have spent a lot of money in producing the vaccine and doing research for the vaccine. So if it costs a lot of money, it’s still worth it. It’s like a CT Scan; we don’t prevent people from getting CT scans because they cost a lot of money; the scans save lots of lives. Also, people’s religious ideas prevent them from seeing that the vaccine could save lives. I am pretty sure most people would agree to give the vaccine to the young girls in schools because this would be like giving females a chance to make a choice or die. I don’t agree that the vaccine would encourage premarital sex because there are still lots of diseases one can get through premarital sex.
Here we are trying to debate about a vaccine that would put the smile on the faces of young girls in the future. As Perry said, we should consider this as a vaccine; that is the best way to look at it because in the past people died out of polio and now there is a vaccine that cures it, which means it was worth giving it a try.. Since life is too short why don't people make a big difference in the world for once to reduce the death rate of cervical cancer patients? Here we are in a world of technology and if we don't make good use of it then what is the use of having it at all. I speak for myself but if there is anyone out there who wants to save lives, the person should speak up or sit and watch many more die.

The Future of Health Care?

I recently watched a three part series, 2057, that was on the Discovery Channel. The series makes an educated projection on what life will most likely be like for in 50 years. The predictions are based on current technological developments that for the most part need only to be refined and expanded slightly. Part one of the series titled The Body focuses on potential medical developments in the near future.

Part one of the series predicts numerous advances that will benefit our lives and help us to live longer. Response times will be faster because of car sized VTOL or vertical take off and landing vehicles which are able to fly to and from the hospital in order to avoid traffic congestion. Responding emergency personnel will know all of your vitals, injuries, and medical history immediately. They will even be able to put you into temporarily suspended animation until and while they work on you and hospitals will be able to print you a new organ if necessary.

These advances sound incredible unfortunately, it comes at a price. In order to have all of your vital information immediately, everything you own from your refrigerator to your toilet will be connected to a computer system which not only the heath care system but also your medical insurance company will have access to. Urine and stool samples can be tested and the results supplied to your insurance company with each trip to the bathroom. They will know what is in your cupboards and refrigerator. So they will know what you have been eating and drinking, with particular interest in your not so healthy choices. There will be smart shirts and clothing that can supply private data including your location, heart rate, and breathing.

In this scenario privacy will be a thing of the past and we will all live in fear of our insurance companies. I believe that the best way to avoid this unfortunate consequence of advancement would be to enact some form of legal privacy protection limiting the access of insurance companies to our personal information and the creation of a universal heath care system. After all what would be the point of creating technologies to save countless lives when control of these technologies belongs to insurance companies. Do we all want to be slaves of the insurance companies?

I Hate You, You're So Skinny

When I was in ninth grade a classmate said to me, "I hate you, you're so skinny". She may not have intended to be mean, but I heard, "I hate you because you are skinny and thus we can't be friends". That experience taught me that people are judgmental and that I needed to be careful about what I said around people who weighed more than me.
I don't understand why society dictates that thin is beautiful but then criticizes women who actually are. I have heard many statments over the years and not one was actually complimentary. It bothers me that people feel it is okay for them to say truly negative things, such as, "What are you, a size 0?" or "Let me get that (big object) for you, you might hurt yourself." or "You're such a little thing". I have tried to talk to people about this and their response is just not satisfactory to me. They tell me that the people who say these things are trying to be nice and just don't know how to say so or that they have their own weight issues and what they say is a reflection of them and not to take it personally. My rebuttal is thus: we don't say mean things to fat people or atleast we know it is not socially acceptable to make critical statements to people who are clearly overweight, so why is it okay to say things to thin people?
Recently the media has had a field day with new pictures of Tyra Banks. She was a successful model and now we are tearing her apart for gaining an average amount of weight. She is reported to weigh 160 pounds, but she's 5'11" tall. Give me (and her) a break! Her body shouldn't be any of our business and if we are going to pay attention the least we could do is commend her for being healthy.
Another media field day surrounded the Terri Schiavo case. As this story made headlines, bigger issues became apparent, but the fact that Terri had an eating disorder was swept under the rug. Terri's control over food began long before she had a feeding tube in place. Her husband even won a malpractice suit against the doctors for not recognizing that she had an eating disorder. Maybe if society would stop obsessing with women's weight, healthy, thin people wouldn't need to defend themselves and the rates of eating disorders would decrease.

Will Womb Transplants Be The New Treatment For Infertility?

A new answer for infertile women may be soon on its way as the first womb transplant in
the United States may take place later this year. The idea of a womb transplant is
nothing new; research has been conducted for several years, including successful lab
experiments on mice born from transplanted wombs. Saudi Arabia in the year 2000 made an attempt at a womb transplant, but complications arose. Now seven years later doctors feel that they are ready to try again. Whether or not we are truly ready brings up a big debate. The entire process of a womb transplant would be far from simple. Even if the surgery were to go smoothly, the woman would need to wait 3 months before implantation. She also must give birth by caesarean section, have the womb surgically removed after birth, and take anti-rejection drugs throughout the pregnancy. Clearly there are many variables that may or may not have been heavily weighed in. Another factor to consider, as with all transplants, is the issue of immune rejection. One consideration that has been made is the thought of using family members, such as a mother or sister, because close relations are more likely to have good immune compatibility. While this may sound good, an unsettling thought is if a woman were to use her mother’s uterus, it means the womb where she carries a child is the same womb in which she was developed. One may question if this new technology is necessary. Yes, some women are born without the ability to conceive and have a child, but there are alternatives, such as adoption, that could be taken instead of this surgery. 40,000 eligible children remain unadopted each year, just in the United States. Instead of a risky surgery for a woman to give birth to a child, where there are risks posed to the mother and the baby, she could provide a loving family to one of the unadopted children in this world. Still, while some argue that womb transplants may be unethical, this would be an incredible advance in technology to allow infertile women the opportunity to give birth. And while many may be quick to judge whether this is right or wrong, I think it is the women with bodies that deny them the right to give birth who should have a strong vote in this case.

Sources:

http://www.rtc.pdx.edu/FPinHTML/FocalPointSP01/pgFPsp01Human.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3035628.stm

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3892