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.