Bioethics: "Pregnant mother forced to give up IVF baby after doctors gave her wrong embryo"

A small example of the problems caused by In Vitro Fertilization:

A pregnant mother will have to give birth to another couple's baby after a blunder by an IVF clinic.

Carolyn Savage had the wrong embryos implanted into her and will have to give the boy up to his biological parents as soon as he is born.

... Mrs Savage learned she was pregnant with a boy in February after deciding to try again with the last of her frozen embryos.

They learned about the mix-up after Mr Savage received a phone call at work and returned home to tell his wife.

She said: 'I was upstairs in my bedroom and he came to the door and said "I have some really bad news".

... You're pregnant,' he told her. 'But they transferred the wrong embryo.'

Mrs Savage said she just kept repeating: 'You're joking.'

But when she looked at her husband 'he was as white as a sheet'.

The couple decided not to have an abortion because of their religious beliefs, and have met the other couple and arranged a handover. (UK Daily Mail)

While I am happy to see that they have not chosen abortion, if they practiced according to Catholic "beliefs" they would never have found themselves in this tragic situation.

"Badethics": Obama Plans to Replace Bush’s Bioethics Panel

Piece by piece, the group of ethical, biomedical policy advisors that Bush assembled is being dismantled by Obama's administration:

Members of the President’s Council on Bioethics were told by the White House last week that their services were no longer needed and were asked to cancel a planned meeting, a council staff member said Wednesday.

The council was disbanded because it was designed by the Bush administration to be “a philosophically leaning advisory group” that favored discussion over developing a shared consensus, said Reid Cherlin, a White House press officer.

President Obama will appoint a new bioethics commission, one with a new mandate and that “offers practical policy options,” Mr. Cherlin said. (New York Times)

Call me a realist, but I'm pessimistic about the new council Obama will appoint. It's extremely telling what Cherlin had to say about the current members of the council: the replacement of "consensus" over philosophical "discussion", to my mind, means that Obama is not open to discussion on biomedical issues when he's already decided what his policy is going to be. 

However, such a mode of operating renders a bioethics council meaningless - in other words, a council that does not conduct rigorous philosophical discussion is nothing more than a rubber-stamping beauracracy.

This shift of emphasis and vision by Obama is especially troubling considering what promises he has made previously about having a more "ethical" administration that takes into consideration the wisdom of the "experts."

So are experts merely consensus-takers, in Obama's mind?

update: Peter Augustine Lawler, one of the council members who was just given his notice, has published his "Reflections on my Termination". A sample:

I was assured that "President Obama recognizes the value of having a commission of experts in bioethical issues to provide objective and non-ideological bioethics advice to his Administration." It's hard to deny that three shots were being taken here at the Bush Council. It was non-expert, unobjective, and ideological. I couldn't help but think that I, in particular, was being called an amateur faith-based ideologue, as I was by various Democrats and techno-libertarians during the election of 2004 when I was appointed, although it's doubtful that the man who signed the letter actually knows much of anything about me in particular.

There's actually a fourth shot, I think. For Obama, a valuable Council does nothing but offer advice to the administration. The Bush Council was actually given the additional mandate of public education, of developing a national dialogue on controversial bioethical issues.

How much notice was the council given to cease-and-desist? Oh, about 24 hours.

Related: "A Dim Future - After disbanding the President’s Council on Bioethics, what kind of advisory body will Obama put together?" in Catholic World Report online.

Full disclosure: the founder of the American Principles Project, which I recently joined, was founded by Dr. Robert George of Princeton, who served as a member of the President's council.

Probably not.

The Onion strikes again.

(Perfect timing considering.)

Ph/T: AmP reader James.

Permanent birth control through intentional self-mutilation

It's the latest and trendiest in the contracepting world - "Essure coils" (one pictured at left):

Getting your tubes tied is not the most appealing phrase, but it's way more user-friendly than sterilization. Maybe that's why the maker of Essure--a newer, cheaper, faster, scalpel-free alternative to tubal ligation--is marketing the procedure as "permanent birth control."

... The 1 1/2-in.-long (38 mm) coils--which are like pen springs but smaller and softer--contain fibers that irritate the tubes and prompt scar tissue to grow into and around the tiny loops. After three months, the Fallopian tubes are blocked, preventing eggs from reaching the uterus to be fertilized.

... Unlike some tubal-ligation methods, Essure cannot be reversed. (Time)

What an idea: insert a foreign object into your body, lacerating the Fallopian tubes until scarred tissue clogs the passage (graphic images: an Essure coil in operation). Gee, that doesn't sound like medicine to me.

To be fair, Time is well aware this procedure could raise questions in some people's minds:

Of course, there is another choice for couples who don't want to take any chances--right, gents?

Hmm, that's not actually one of the questions I had in mind.

Released: Dignitas Personae (full text, etc.)

As discussed previously, the follow-up document from the CDF to Donum Vitae (1987) and Evangelium Vitae (1995), both landmark statements from the Church on the literally life-and-death importance of bioethics, has been released: the instruction Dignitas Personae ("The Dignity of the Person"):

The Vatican's introduction [I've summarized some sections in brackets, important parts in bold]:

Aim "In recent years, biomedical research has made great strides, opening new possibilities for the treatment of disease, but also giving rise to serious questions which had not been directly treated in the Instruction Donum vitae (22 February 1987). A new Instruction, which is dated 8 September 2008, the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, seeks to provide some responses to these new bioethical questions, as these have been the focus of expectations and concerns in large sectors of society. In this way, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith seeks both to contribute “to the formation of conscience” (n. 10) and to encourage biomedical research respectful of the dignity of every human being and of procreation."

Title [Dignity of the Person = "from conception to natural death"] This fundamental principle expresses “a great ‘yes’ to human life and must be at the center of ethical reflection on biomedical research” (n. 1)."

Value "The document is an Instruction of a doctrinal nature, published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and expressly approved by the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. The Instruction therefore falls within the category of documents that “participate in the ordinary Magisterium of the successor of Peter” (Instruction Donum veritatis, n.18), and is to be received by Catholics “with the religious assent of their spirit” (Dignitas personae, n. 37).

Preparation [this is an update of Donum Vitae, framed by Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae]

Intended recipients of the document [not only Catholics, but "all who seek the truth"]
Structure The Instruction has three parts: “the first recalls some anthropological, theological and ethical elements of fundamental importance; the second addresses new problems regarding procreation; the third examines new procedures involving the manipulation of embryos and the human genetic patrimony” (n. 3).

Important links:

• Read Dignitas Personae here (PDF format)
• Read the accompanying 2-page Q&A here (PDF format)
• Read the USCCB news release here (HTML page)

Busy day...

update: William Saunders of the Family Research Council has penned a short explanation and commentary of this new document over at The Catholic Thing. John Allen also helpfully weighs in at length.

Initial mainstream media reactions:

• WaPo: "Vatican Condemns Cloning, Embryonic Stem Cell Research"
• USA Today: "Roman Catholic Church updates code on reproduction"
• AFP: "Vatican condemns cloning, stem cell research"
• NYT: "Vatican Issues Instruction on Bioethics"
• Reuters: "Vatican condemns embryo stem cell research, cloning"
• AP: "Vatican issues major new bioethics document"

update 2: good thoughts from Yuvel Levin, speaking as a non-Catholic who likes the document:

"One of the great ironies of the stem cell debates of the last few years has been that some of the most serious attention to scientific detail and reality has come from Catholic circles, while some of the most wide-eyed messianic faith-healing talk has come from liberal political (and sometimes even scientific) circles." (NRO)

I wouldn't say this is exactly a case of irony.

CDF to release important bioethics document on Dec. 12

We've been waiting awhile for this one:

A new Vatican instruction on bioethics, prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is scheduled to be published Dec. 12, informed sources said Wednesday.

The document, under discussion for at least two years, is expected to examine ethical issues in biological research and health care that have emerged in recent years, including the cloning and freezing of human embryos, stem cell research and new therapeutic possibilities.

Pope Benedict XVI was head of the doctrinal congregation when both those documents were published. Addressing the congregation in January, the pope said the new problems included the freezing of human embryos, the selective reduction of embryos, pre-implant diagnosis, research on embryonic stem cells and attempts at human cloning. (CNS)

This document will be a follow-up to Donum Vitae (1987) and Evangelium Vitae (1995), both landmark statements from the Church on the literally life-and-death importance of bioethical decision and practice.

The short road to modern eugenics...

... is upon us in the form of a "one-stop" genetic test for embryos:

A gene mapping test could tell parents-to-be if embryos are affected by almost any inherited disease, UK scientists have claimed.

The team from London's Bridge Centre say the £1,500 test could detect any of the 15,000 inherited diseases in weeks.

Current tests are either focused on a specific gene mutation, or take a lot longer to give results.

But other experts warned the fertility regulator would have to ensure there were strict limits on the test's use. (BBC)

.... because British courts have been so careful about imposing strict limits on embryonic procedures.

Britain Approves Animal-Human Embryos

Bad, bad news:

British plans to allow scientists to use hybrid animal-human embryos for stem-cell research won final approval from lawmakers Wednesday in a sweeping overhaul of sensitive science laws.

The House of Commons also clarified laws that allow the screening of embryos to produce babies with suitable bone marrow or other material for transplant to sick siblings.

It was the first review of embryo science in Britain in almost 20 years.

The legislators voted 355-129 to authorize the proposals after months of sometimes bitter debate that has pitted Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government and scientists against religious leaders, anti-abortion campaigners and others anxious about medical advances. (AP)

We're really losing badly here. And just to make the obvious connection: A liberal president and democrat-controlled House will in all likelihood introduce and sign similar legislation in the U.S.

Breaking: Has McCain "softened' his position on embryonic research?

Deal Hudson points out this Wired article published yesterday claiming that McCain has taken a "Sharp Right Turn on Stem Cells".

Hudson credits McCain's "shift" to the tireless work of Senator Sam Brownback. I directly asked Sen. Brownback about these ongoing efforts earlier this year, and wrote-up his answer here.

I think the jury is still out on this one, but judging by the reaction of pro-embryonic stem cell research scientists, I think there are more encouraging signs than before.

Therefore when someone from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute says that he reads McCain's statement as a "bad omen," I hear "good omen."

The substance of the Wired article is based on a single paragraph response that McCain recently made to the Sciencedebate 2008 forum on the question of stem cells (scroll down to question #8).

In a nutshell, McCain's position remains that he opposes the creation of new embryos for research purposes, but supports the use of already-existing embryos (for instance, "discards" from IVF-treatments).

What is new in McCain's position, or at least features prominently, is this language: "clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress." That's the qualification that has all the scientists skittish, along with McCain's reminder that he voted to outlaw a form of cloning currently allowed (SCNT).

Again, when the pro-ESCR scientists say stuff like this...

"McCain cannot be trusted to be a supporter of embryonic stem cell research," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Art Caplan. "He is moving toward a straight pro-life stance and this sort of answer can only be read as such."

... I hope to heaven they're right.

Honesty: Researchers Question Wide Use of HPV Vaccines

I (and others) have been raising red flags about Gardasil since early 2007, today the New York Times notices:

Two vaccines against cervical cancer [Gardasil by Merck Sharp & Dohme and Cervarix by GlaxoSmithKline] are being widely used without sufficient evidence about whether they are worth their high cost or even whether they will effectively stop women from getting the disease, two articles in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine conclude.

...“Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer,” Dr. Charlotte J. Haug, editor of The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, wrote in an editorial in Thursday’s issue of The New England Journal. “With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious.”

Hopefully it is more evident now why I disagred with making Gardasil and Cervarix mandatory.

Reprogramming, not embryos, is the fast track to cures

An extremely significant medical breakthrough, reported many places, including the New York Times:

Biologists at Harvard have converted cells from a mouse’s pancreas into the insulin-producing cells that are destroyed in diabetes, suggesting that the natural barriers between the body’s cell types may not be as immutable as supposed.

"Money" second paragraph quote:

This and other recent experiments raise the possibility that a patient’s healthy cells might be transformed into the type lost to a disease far more simply and cheaply than in the cumbersome proposals involving stem cells.

Pause. When was the last time you can remember a mainstream article admitting that stem cell proposals are "cumbersome"? I thought they were the be-all & end-all of medical technology? And embryonic stem cell treatments are often even more cumbersome than adult stem cell therapies.

I'm not trying to make an argument against embryonic stem cell research because they are "cumbersome", sometimes cumbersome solutions are the only ones available. No, I'm saying that, pragmatically, it makes more sense to pursue reprogramming techniques like the one described above.

And no embryos have to die.

Finally: "Complaints cause cervical cancer vaccine scrutiny"

In February 2007 I did a story on Gardasil, a vaccine for certain STDs that cause cervical cancer. What upset me most about the story at the time was that Texas had decided to mandate this drug for all school-age girls, even those who did not intend to engage in sexual activity.

Such a decision is outrageous because this vaccine can cause serious side effects. Quite simply: why inoculate girls for an STD they have no chance of contracting (if they practice abstinence) and thereby put them in danger of suffering the vaccine's own harmful side effects?

Texas is not alone in this quest to mandate Gardasil. As recently as June 18th, Alberta was trying to force Catholic schools to give the vaccine to girls in pre-sexual activity age groups.

In January of this year, two instances of Gardasil-related deaths finally made it into the mainstream: "Alert over jab for girls as two die following cervical cancer vaccination" (UK Daily Mail).

By June, the FDA had refused permission for Gardasil to be marketed among women age 27-45. This decision came as a blow to its pharmaceutical producer Merck, because Gardasil "has been one of [its] most successful newer products and has helped the company recover after the 2004 withdrawal of its Vioxx arthritis treatment." Again, to put it simply: Gardasil is big business for Merck.

Today, it caught my eye that even CNN thinks there could be a story here:

A vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer is coming under fresh scrutiny amid thousands of complaints linking it to a range of health problems.

Gardasil has been the subject of 7,802 "adverse event" reports from the time the Food and Drug Administration approved its use two years ago, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Girls and women have blamed the vaccine for causing ailments from nausea to paralysis -- even death. Fifteen deaths were reported to the FDA, and 10 were confirmed, but the CDC says none of the 10 were linked to the vaccine. The CDC says it continues to study the reports of illness.

It's nice to see the mainstream media finally noticing a story that I (and many, many others) have known about for about 16 months. So why did it take them so long?

I would argue that this is only getting reported now because their fixation on eliminating the harmful side-effects of promiscuous sex often causes them to turn a blind eye to the drawbacks of mandatory universal vaccination. And the sad thing is that even young women trying to live a chaste lifestyle, in these situations of mandatory vaccination, are in danger of the vaccine's own harmful side effects.

Now whose freedom is being violated?

OSV construcively calls attention to unethical practices in Texas hospitals

In its July 13th issue, Our Sunday Visitor magazine has undertaken a full court press to make it known that all six Texas Catholic hospital systems have been performing thousands (9,684) of unethical direct sterilizations. You can read the article by Ann Carey on the OSV website.

OSV's reporting originates from a group of whistle-blowers operating under the cover of anonymity to safeguard their jobs. The lapses of ethics documented in Texas, however, are most probably not limited to just that state. The report is quite comprehensive and makes it clear (as I understand it) that these sterilizations were performed with a contraceptive goal.

The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs), issued by the U.S. Bishops, clearly prohibits these types of sterilizations being offered by Catholic hospitals (#53 & #70). As a side note and to put it simply: what is prohibited is direct sterilization for contraceptive ends as opposed to indirect sterilization where sterilization results from a separate procedure.

What is not so clear, and remains a problem, is the phenomenon of Catholic hospitals merging and sharing resources with non-Catholic hospitals. In such situations, the ERDs are often ignored. Though not all these sterilizations can simply be blamed on institutional haziness. Part of the problem, an interviewed OB-GYN says, is an "excessive focus on the bottom line."

In an accompanying interview with Dr. John Hass, President of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, he stresses that oftentimes these lapses in following the ERDs are a result of ignorance and confusion. Well, OSV has done us all a wonderful service in exposing a serious problem, which is the first step to addressing it systematically. Hospital audits would be a logical next step, and those are happening in some cases.

Realistically, refusing to offer sterilizations simply will not sink the average Catholic hospital financially. If anything, it allows them to honestly go to Catholic donors and tell them they are fully in line with the Church's teaching on health care policies. There should also be little doubt that offering these direct sterilizations undermines the identity and mission of a Catholic hospital. Sterilizations, of the procedures prohibited by the Catholic comprehensive vision of human dignity, is the easiest one to hide, and it should not be surprising that it has often slipped through the cracks in the past. Well, hopefully no more.

CWNews, CNA and CNS, I'm proud to see, have all reported on OSV's findings, helping spread awareness.

You can read the original WikiLeaks report here. I'm also personally thankful to editor John Norton who notified me of OSV's reporting and provided me with a copy of the issue for my reporting.

In situations where ignorance and confusion are the main obstacles that have to be overcome, a prudential publication of information (as OSV has done) is the best path to a speedy solution. May that hold true now.

Pfizer gives adult stem cell research a chance

A story you won't see picked up and spread around:

The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has announced that it is funding a new adult stem-cell treatment that could treat diabetes-induced retinal damage, a leading cause of blindness.

.... In animal experiments, adult stem-cells have shown a remarkable ability to target and repair damaged blood vessels in the eye, which are a key problem in diabetic eye disease and macular degeneration. (CNA)

Adult stem cells: they work.

Breaking: Britain to allow human-animal hybrids

The details are a bit complicated, but it appears that Britain is going to allow the fertilization of fully human-animal hybrids, reports the UK Times Online:

The main type of admixed embryo permitted by the Bill are “cytoplasmic hybrids” or “cybrids”, made by moving a human nucleus into an empty animal egg. These are genetically 99.9 per cent human. As well as true hybrids, it also allows chimeras that combine human and animal cells and transgenic human embryos that include a little animal DNA.

The most immediate implication of the Commons vote will be to allow teams at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and King’s College, London, who already hold licences to create a particular type of admixed embryo, to continue their research.

The bill does not rule out, however, the creation of "'true hybrids' made by fertilising an animal egg with human sperm, or vice-versa." This is another step beyond the previous permissions given.

More details:

• UK Indipendent: MPs vote against ban on hybrid embryos
• Daily Express: MPs warned over hybrid embryos
• Sky News, MPs Allow 'Frankenstein' Embryos

I don't have time at the present to see if the local Catholic bishops have said anything about this development, but I'll try to find that out this evening if I get the chance.

"Bill to Ban Human-Animal Hybrid Creation Introduced in Congress"

An AmP shout-out to Rep. Chris Smith:

Yesterday, Rep. Chris Smith introduced the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act, H.R. 5910, to ban the creation of part-human, part-animal hybrid beings. The legislation is timely as researchers are already tinkering with human-animal hybrid technologies. British scientists are actively perfecting the hybrid technique. On April 1, 2008 the BBC reported that, "Scientists at Newcastle University have created part-human, part-animal hybrid embryos for the first time in the UK." (LSN)

Bioethics: British team makes mixed human animal embryos

UK Times:

Embryos containing both human and animal material have been created in Britain for the first time, a month before the House of Commons is to vote on new laws to regulate the controversial research.

A team at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne announced tonight that it had successfully generated “admixed embryos” by adding human DNA to empty cow eggs, in the first experiment of its kind in the UK.

The achievement will heighten debate over the ethics of human-animal embryos, as the Commons prepares to debate the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill next month.

... [This research], however, has been vociferously opposed by religious groups, particularly the Roman Catholic church. Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the head of the Catholic church in Scotland, described the work last month as “experiments of Frankenstein proportion”.

My bioethics essay on this research: Human-Animal Hybrids and the Catholic Response (9/20/07)

My previous report on this story: Human/animal hybrid embryos will be created 'within months' (1/18/08)

Levada confirms CDF working on bioethics document

Briefly, from CNA:

"This morning, Pope Benedict XVI asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to focus on "the difficult and complex problems of bioethics." More specifically, the Pontiff drew the teaching body of the Church’s attention toward issues associated with reproductive technologies, explaining that some of them violate human dignity."

...

Among the "new problems" that require a re-evaluation are "the freezing of human embryos, embryonal reduction, pre-implantation diagnosis, stem cell research and attempts at human cloning," Benedict XVI said.

CWNews expands:

The Pope defended the Church against critics who treat the faith "as if it were an obstacle to science." In fact, he said, "the Church appreciates and encourages progress in the biomedical sciences." The pastoral task for the Church, he explained, is to "enlighten everyone's consciences so that scientific progress may be truly respectful of all human beings."

John Allen reports that this document will essentially be a follow-up to Donum Vitae (1987).

Allen also notes that the document may resolve a long-standing debate in bioethics:

Levada’s reference to frozen embryos suggests that the congregation may take up the controversial question of so-called “embryo adoption,” which has been much debated in pro-life circles in recent years. Essentially, one side believes that even though these embryos should never have been created, now that they exist, women should be encouraged to bring them to term, allowing them to develop as human beings. Another party, however, regards that as cooperation in a fundamentally immoral act, and worries that promoting adoption may simply encourage artificial creation of embryos.

The full text of the Holy Father's speech is available here on the Vatican website, in Italian.

California scientists create clones, earn swift Vatican rebuke

Associated Press:

Scientists in California say they have produced embryos that are clones of two men, a potential step toward developing scientifically valuable stem cells.

...

"I found it difficult to determine what was substantially new," said Doug Melton of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. He said the "next big advance will be to create a human embryonic stem cell line" from cloned embryos. "This has yet to be achieved."

Dr. George Daley of the Harvard institute and Children's Hospital Boston called the new report interesting but agreed that "the real splash" will be when somebody creates stem cell lines from cloned human embryos.

"It's only a matter of time before some group succeeds," Daley said.

CWNews covers Bp. Sgreccia's response:

Reports of the first successful human cloning have drawn a quick protest from the Vatican.

Responding to a claim that the California-based Stemagen Corporation had produced a cloned human embryo, Bishop Elio Sgreccia said that such as step would be "the worst type of exploitation of a human being."

Speaking on Vatican Radio, Bishop Sgreccia, the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that human cloning would "rank among the most morally illicit acts" possible.

...

Samuel Wood, the chief executive of Stemagen, said that his company's research was aimed exclusively at stimulating medical research. Wood-- whose skin cells were combined with an ovum in the cloning process-- said that he is opposed to any research that would allow the cloned embryos to be born. "It's unethical and it's illegal, and we hope no one else does it either," he said.

The reported success of the Stemagen cloning experiment has not yet been confirmed by other scientists.

I've said before and I'll say again, it would certainly be helpful in these situations if the Catholic response to these announcements was more than "this is unethical" and went onto explain the exact reasons - however briefly - why cloning is wrong. There is an answer and it deserves to be communicated.

Related links:

• Catholic Culture: Human Cloning
• Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference: Human Cloning
• Sr. Terese Auer: Cloning, A Catholic Moral Evaluation

Report: "Human/animal hybrid embryos will be created 'within months'"

UK Times:

Experiments to create Britain’s first embryos that merge human and animal material will begin within months after a Government watchdog today approved two research teams to carry out the controversial work.

Scientists at King’s College London and the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne will now inject human DNA into empty eggs from cows, to create embryos known as cytoplasmic hybrids that are 99.9 per cent human in genetic terms.

Related:

• Bioethics essay: "Human-Animal Hybrids and the Catholic Response"
• Sep 06: Pres. of Pont. Acad. for Life reacts to UK hybrids
• Sep 03: Human-animal chimeras given go-ahead in the UK
• June 27: Stem cells and Chimeras/Embryos; Legislation and Papal/Episcopal witness

Ed Peters asks some questions about Coriden's "Rights of Catholics in the Church"

There are some rather glaring problems in the monograph, it seems. Ed Peters writes:

Dr. James Coriden, professor of canon law at Washington Theological Union, is a prominent American canonist. His publications address many topics in Church law and I have invoked his authority often in support of points I wished to carry. Having just read, however, his 2007 monograph The Rights of Catholics in the Church (a work intended for a popular audience), I think some comments are in order. While Coriden's treatment of several topics raises questions in my mind, I'll limit these remarks to two with special interest to me, annulments and pro-life.

[Read the rest.]

Claim: "Embryo-friendly technique produces stem cells"

This bioethics story has been getting a fair amount of coverage today so let's take a look at what it claims.

"Embryo-friendly technique produces stem cells", the Reuters headline reads.

The procedure:

Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology has been working with a method sometimes used to test embryos for severe genetic diseases. Called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, it involves taking a single cell from an embryo when it contains only eight or so cells.

The method usually does not harm the embryo, which is frozen for possible future implantation into the mother's womb. The ACT team also froze the embryos and used the single cell that was removed as a source of human embryonic stem cells.

This process doesn't appear to be anything new, and the article admits that this method is already "sometimes used to test embryos for severe genetic diseases." The embryos that provide the stem cells in this process are brought about through in vitro fertilization, which is unethical in itself.

Also, the admission that the process "usually does not harm the embryo" implies that sometimes, in fact, it does. Experimentation cannot be done on an innocent embryo if it does not have that particular embryo's best interests at heart - you cannot sacrifice individual human lives for scientific progress.

So why are the proponents of this process claiming it is better than current techniques?

Dr. Robert Lanza, ACT's scientific director, said it provides a way to create mass quantities of embryonic stem cells without harming a human embryo. Current stem cell technologies require the embryo's destruction.

True enough, but the new process still involves bringing a human being into existence in a petri dish, possibly killing it by removing 1/8th of its cell mass, and dooming it to a frozen existence with - realistically - only a slim chance of ever being implanted at a future date into a womb.

The article also features a typically superfluous and needlessly inflammatory quotation:

"If the White House approves this new methodology, researchers could effectively double or triple the number of stem cell lines available within a few months. Too many needless deaths continue to occur while this research is being held up," Lanza said.

"I hope the president will act now and approve these stem cell lines quickly."

You know what also causes needless deaths? Hunger. But that doesn't mean every person who isn't actively fighting to eliminate hunger somehow intends or is complacent with starvation.

Reading through the rest of the article and the people it quotes, its continuous language of urgency and dogmatism ("scientists must continue to study true embryonic stem cells.") belies to me another example of researchers slightly tweaking an already-ruled-out technique and then rushing it through the examination process in hopes that the legal and ethical scrutinizers will miss what is actually happening.

Say what you want, my money is still on induced pluripotent stem cells (derived from adults).

Related: my Bioethics essay "Direct Reprogramming & the End of Embryonic Research"

O'Rourke and Hardt fail to make a canonical case against providing nutrition/hydration to PVS patients

From my father Canon Lawyer Ed Peter's blog, In the Light of the Law:

Bio-ethicist Dr. John Hardt and canonist Rev. Kevin O'Rourke are trying to use canon law against a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Responsum that upholds the basic right of patients in a "persistent vegetative state" to nutrition and hydration. I think their arguments are flawed. Here I summarize the events leading up to the CDF Response and then assess Hardt and O'Rourke's attempt to minimize its impact. [Read the full text.]

Related: "CDF releases clarification (confirmation) re: nutrition & hydration" (Sep. 14th)

Breaking: New ethical source for stem cells discovered

It's very important news, and is being widely reported.

Updated: As promised, my commentary: "Direct Reprogramming & the End of ESCR"

Fr. Thomas Berg in NRO on Monkey Cloning

The world of stem-cell science was rocked Wednesday by news that researchers at Oregon Health & Science University, led by Dr. Shoukhrat Mitalipov, had cloned embryos from rhesus monkeys and derived embryonic stem cells from the clones. Their work was published online in the journal Nature. For those opposed to embryo-destructive research, some might be thinking of yesterday as a kind of “black Wednesday.” I am inclined to disagree. In fact, history may well show us that November 14, 2007, marked a turning point in the battle against embryo-destructive research. [Click here for full text.]

Fr. Berg is the executive director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, which has issued a press release in response to the news. Media coverage from CNA and the AP.

November Mtg. of President's Council on Bioethics

... I'll be at tomorrow morning's session:

9:00 am
Session 5: Response to the Council’s White Paper, “Controversies in the Determination of Death” D. Alan Shewmon (Olive View- UCLA Medical Center)

I've read a draft of the PCB's statement on determination of death and it will be interesting to see what Dr. Shewmon has to say. There are still many issues that need to be resolved.

The state of Plan B and the CT bishop’s decision

This post will provide two services:

• As promised, it will present recent medical findings which make a compelling argument that Plan B does not, in fact, act abortifaciently
• Additionally, it will cite examples of a growing consensus among reasonable commentators that the recent decision of the Connecticut bishops was still not in the best interests of Catholic hospitals in the U.S.

Before I continue I must make this very clear: I am not claiming definitive knowledge about what I discuss. I am in the process of coming to decisions about the moral issues involved here, and I present below my current position on the questions - albeit a position that I have been researching and thinking through at some length. The main purpose of this post is to keep this debate in the public eye and not rest until we are satisfied with the conclusions that have been reached. That said....

First, the medical findings:

I have been corresponding with a practicing family physician who has reviewed the medical literature and concluded that levo-norgestrel as dosed in Plan B is probably not abortifacient, granted that it is very hard in this case to prove a negative. However, what is required here is moral certainty, not absolute certainty. There is the possibility, as yet undiscovered, that Plan B could act against an already-conceived human being. I think one of the problems in this debate is that previous reports, now contradicted, did claim to detect an abortifacient side-effect to Plan B in some cases. If those reports were in fact false, and had never been issued, we would be in a very different frame of mind when viewing this situation now.

First, some summarized background on the medical situation (and several facts you might not necessarily take into consideration immediately without prompting):

• A pre-implantation embryo is invisible, which means absolute moral certainty regardings its presence and survival is difficult to obtain
• While most oral contraceptives, when taken regularly, do in fact reduce the endometrial lining (typically from 5mm to even less than 2mm), Plan B apparently does not have enough time to begin reducing the lining of the endometrium. And since it is only administered once, nor does it have a chance to reduce the endometrial lining after implantation.
• There is also increasing evidence that Plan B operates primarily by preventing ovulation
• Furthermore, its secondary effect of thickening cervical mucus and altering uterine pH levels are also demonstrable
• One of the frequently-cited sources for the claim that Plan B acts abortifaciently has since been shown to have relied on unscientific methods for determining its findings
• Often people claim something to the effect that "clearly Plan B is an abortifacient because it says so on the label!" However, there is plausible reason to believe that this warning was placed on the label to avoid legal complications because the manufacturers did not know (and admittedly, probably did not care) whether the chemical effects the endomitrium.
• Other research into the effects of Plan B [like this notable one] seem to ignore the fact that Plan B, while similar to the contraceptive pill, does not have the same duration of time than the contraceptive pill has to deplete the endometrium.

Here is an extract of the physician's findings:

Plan B, levo-norgestrel does not appear to cause abortion by damaging the endometrium. A 1974 article and extrapolation from daily oral contraceptives have contributed to this common misperception.

Some “emergency contraception” such an IUD’s and mifepristone most likely do prevent implantation.

There is now good evidence that Plan B does prevent ovulation in some women. Plan B, given after ovulation has occurred, may still prevent some conceptions by making the uterine environment unfriendly for spermatozoa.

You can read the two-page summary of the medical findings (as well as a note regarding ovulation testing) in a Word Document here.

I think this short summary reveals that a very serious study of Plan B's effects needs to be undertaken to provide the Catholic medical community with the scientific data it needs to evaluate the morality of proscribing it to rape victims.

As a side-note, I'm also hearing reports than Plan B's effectiveness is drastically below the near-100% figures claimed by the manufacturer (as low as 60%). We can probably expect pharmaceutical companies to eventually develop a "99%" effective pill that may include endometrial thinning as one of the mechanisms for preventing sustained pregnancy. Such a pill, on principle, would have to be resisted once it is scientifically demonstrated that it in fact has the ability to act against an already-conceived human being.

Now, a look at the the emerging consensus:

Having analyzed the recent medical findings on Plan B, we must now take a look at the prudential nature of the CT Bishop's decision from the standpoint of legal precedent, and therefore, within a wider context. After all, this decision did not occur in a vacuum.

As I said at the time, I believe the National Catholic Bioethics Center statement on this question is best. I will re-iterate here the conclusion that I came to in my commentary on the document:

While the NCBC understands the judgement of the CT bishops regarding the claimed moral neutrality, as such, of allowing Plan B, the NCBC also brings up the point that because a) it is immoral to violate one's conscience and b) this law does not allow an exemption of conscience therefore .... c) this law immorally legislates that people violate their consciences.

Simply put, a law which requires Catholic hospital employees to violate their conscience in the practice of their medical profession is unjust. Numerous commentators have agreed.

Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International had this to say:

"Acts of blatant coercion of Catholic consciences are already far advanced and will only continue unless the church is willing to stand up and rebuke the arrogance of these coercive measures and carve out strict realms of conscience which are unreachable by activist courts and corrupt politicians." {Source.}

The Catholic Media Coalition has been especially vocal about reversing the situation of compliance.

More recent related stories:

• Connecticut bishops' stand on emergency contraception draws criticism (CNS)
• Colorado Springs Bishop Says He Does Not and Would Not Permit Plan B in Catholic Hospitals (LSN)
• American Life League Urges Connecticut Bishops to Rethink Plan B at Catholic Hospitals (LSN)
• An Open Letter to the Bishops of Connecticut by Michael Augros of First Things
• A very illuminating historical look at this situation was published in The National Catholic Register.

From the proceeding I conclude:

• Medically speaking, it appears that prior claims regarding the abortifacient properties of Plan B, when administered once, are unable to be substantiated. Indeed, the best review of current research would seem to suggest that Plan B, when administered once, does not render the uterus inhospitable to new human life.
• That said, legally speaking, it is unjust for the Connecticut State Legislature to enact a law that a) contravenes the consciences of Catholic employees, b) legislates restrictions upon what testing may or may not be administered to rape victims and c) withholds pertinent information from these victims at a crucial time in their decision-making process.

As such, and in times such as these, we need to support the CT Bishops in reversing this unjust law.

Previous AmP coverage of this story - starting the day it happened - available here.

Constructive comments are always welcome. Emails receive greater attention and priority.

HPV Vaccine, as expected, results in unnecessary deaths

The story was covered in-detail back in February here. Today, almost 4,000 adverse reactions reported.

"Sperm donor, 72, to father his own grandchild"

The UK Daily Mail:

A man of 72 is to donate sperm to try to father his own 'grandchild'.

He has been cleared to provide the sperm to his daughter-in-law to allow her to become a mother.

Any baby born will be its grandfather's genetic child and a halfbrother or half-sister to the man it takes to be its father.

The case - believed to be the first of its kind in the UK - raises ethical questions about how well the child will cope with such unusual family circumstances.

How did the the Women's Clinic go about analyzing the morality of this decision?

Peter Bowen-Simpkins, codirector of the London Women's Clinic which is carrying out the procedure, said the couple and the grandfather had undergone extensive counselling.

"[She said]: ... advancements in fertility treatment have overcome a lot of taboos in science which means that people are prepared to consider all sorts of options."

"Obviously, the wife's mother-inlaw also had to be included in all of the conversations but she has no objections.

"Society has also changed its perceptions of what is and what is not acceptable."

Ah yes, society might not any longer find this kind of thing unacceptable. Full steam ahead!

And little by litte, that tune sung by Ray Stevens, "I'm my own Grandpa" becomes a little bit more feasible.

Claim: "Assisted Suicide Won't Up Deaths for Vulnerable Groups"

HealthDay reports:

Legalizing doctor-assisted suicide does not lead to a "slippery slope" of excess deaths among the vulnerable poor, uninsured, elderly or other patients, according to a U.S. study in the October issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics.

A long treatment of the question of euthanasia by the American Psychological Association concludes: "Given the current state of the discourse on assisted suicide, it seems premature for the discipline of psychology to take a stand supporting or opposing assisted suicide."

Yes, some questions are much more difficult to answer without universal moral principles.

I think it would be beneficial to devote next week's bioethics essay to the topic of euthanasia. Stay tuned.

NCBC publishes statement on Connecticut Bishop's Plan B decision (with commentary)

The National Catholic Bioethics Center has published a statement on the Connecticut Bishops' decision to allow the use of Plan B without an ovulation test in cases of rape. The NCBC is, in my opinion and many others, the foremost institution on Catholic bioethics in the United States. Their quarterly journal is widely-read and highly regarded. I have read this journal extensively for various courses and have drawn on it heavily for bioethics papers and research.

I have always agreed with their positions and reasoning. I further take this statement to be normative for my own opinion about this matter, with the comments I include below. To fast-forward and summarize my conclusion: I believe that this document both a) is willing to admit the validity of the Bishops' prudential decision while simultaneously b) claiming that the law is essentially immoral because it requires health care workers to violate their conscience.

That said, I would encourage anyone who has been following this story closely to read the statement in its entirety.

I'll now excerpt the most important passages [my comments in brackets]:

... This is a complex moral matter and does not lend itself to brief explanation. This difficulty was rendered all the worse by inaccurate reporting and inappropriate, indeed misleading, terminology.

These are good initial observations, which I have previously voiced.

... The state does allow a pregnancy test. However, this test can have nothing to do with the sexual assault. This test only identifies a conception that had taken place before the assault. It takes an embryo 5 to 7 days to make its way down the oviduct and implant in the womb.

Correct. The pregnancy test does not provide the information needed by the health care workers or victim to make a fully-informed ethical decision.

... In other words, [under this new law] the physician would have to administer a drug preventing ovulation even if ovulation had already occurred. Frankly, that makes no medical sense. The state was preventing a physician from exercising his or her best medical judgment about a procedure he or she was considering.

Yes. The new law requires that health care workers not perform a scientifically-relevant and morally-necessary simple test.

... A second objection centered around the fact that the medication(s) might prevent an implantation if a conception had occurred. To intend and to do such a thing is immoral. However, there was considerable debate among medical and drug experts whether or not the drugs actually had that effect. And everyone agreed there was no test even to know whether a new life had been conceived.

In a situation of doubt, it is not prudent to forgo testing which might aid an honest decision-making process.

Finally, attention should be drawn to the fact that the Federal Drug Administration includes the intra-uterine device as “Emergency Contraception” which is a misnomer since it is known to have an abortifacient effect.

I had not heard this before, but I have heard that the FDA protocols often fall well-below standards acceptable to Catholics.

Unlike the state of Colorado, for example, the state of Connecticut would not allow physicians to exercise their best medical judgment and provided no conscience protection to physicians or hospitals to refuse to administer the drug when requested.

The crux of the matter: this law inhibits Catholic hospitals and workers to exercise good medicine and their conscience. This is a very dangerous precedent to allow in general.

The Connecticut Catholic bishops and hospitals, under strong protest, have allowed a new protocol to be used that was developed by Catholic health care institutions. Furthermore, they made it clear that if a test were ever developed that allowed one to detect a conception after an assault, and if it became clear (as is not yet the case) that the medication(s) would work as an abortifacient, they could no longer accept the protocol. Finally, the Connecticut bishops pointed out that the Doctrine Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had studied this matter for years and could not come to the conclusion that the protocol previously allowed by the Connecticut bishops (the ovulation test protocol) would have to be used by all Catholic institutions.

I'm not sure here that it is necessary for the Connecticut protocol to be universally-applicable to other hospitals for it to constitute the moral course of action. The logic of the document in this paragraph is not quite clear to me. Just because the USCCB did not endorse the details of the previous CT protocol does not mean that the protocol was deficient. It simply meant that their prudential decision was well-founded enough, at the very least, to avoid challenge.

In matters that have not yet been decided definitively by the Holy See, The National Catholic Bioethics Center has refrained from adopting one or another position on a disputed question. However, in the matter of protocols for sexual assault, there is virtual unanimity that an ovulation test should be administered before giving an anovulant medication. The protocol the NCBC has supported requires the ovulation test because it provides greater medical and moral certitude that the intervention will have its desired anovulatory effect.

I think it is clear from this paragraph that the NCBC would have preferred the CT bishops to not abandon their previous requirement of an ovulation test (i.e., language such as "virtual unanimity"), but they do not state this explicitly here. Furthermore, their reasons for thinking the law is unjust are a bit more nuanced and the grounds for their reservations are more novel than the discussion have taken into account up to this point. But let's read on....

The NCBC objects strongly to state mandates, such as those passed by Connecticut and Massachusetts, that do not allow health care professionals and facilities to exercise their best medical judgment and which do not protect the consciences of all parties. We also object to state mandates that do not allow the victim of sexual assault to have all the information necessary for a medical intervention so that she might make an informed judgment.

This argument also seems to tend towards resisting the law. Indeed, what they are proposing here is that one might resist the law on principle alone, because it violated the consciences of Catholic hospital doctors and employees and furthermore acts against the interest of the victim.

However, the NCBC understands the judgment of the Connecticut bishops that the administration of a contraceptive medication in the absence of an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act. However, it is immoral to violate one’s conscience, including the corporate consciences of health care agencies, and the unwillingness of the state to allow an exemption of conscience makes the law unjust and onerous.

Back-to-back "However's" tend to set off warning bells in my mind that an author is trying to have it both ways. I think the first line here about the CT decision is acknowledging, for instance, that strictly-speaking the CT bishops have not acted against any specific moral norm. However, the second line formulates a premise upon which the law could be challenged because "it is immoral to violate one's conscience" ... and as such, the law is "unjust and onerous."

Conclusion: While the NCBC understands the judgement of the CT bishops regarding the claimed moral neutrality, as such, of allowing Plan B the NCBC is also bringing up the point that because a) it is immoral to violate one's conscience and b) this law does not allow an exemption of conscience therefore .... c) this law immorally legislates that people violate their consciences.

This conclusion prompts the next question, which this statement does not address: is it moral to accept a law that is immoral for the proportional good of allowing Catholic hospitals to continue treating rape victims? I think that's what the discussion must now explore.

As I've promised before in previous posts, I still hope to publish a summary of the medical details regarding Plan B by the end of this week (waiting for more input). Previous coverage of this issue can be found here:

• Bp. Lori issues clarification on CT Plan B decision
• Follow-up: Connecticut Plan B Bill goes into effect today
• Statement: Connecticut Bishops On Plan B and Catholic Hospitals
• Breaking: Catholic Bishops in CT to allow Plan B?!

Moving farther still from normal human reproduction

What, removing slices of ovarian tissue, freezing them for years, then stimulating them with hormones into growing ovum to be fertilized in a petri dish sounds a bit unnatural? Well, you have a few years to decide.

Pres. of Pont. Acad. for Life reacts to UK hybrids

CWNews:

The president of the Pontifical Academy for Life has said that the British decision to approve creation of "hybrid" human-animal embryos is "a monstrous act against human dignity."

Speaking to a Vatican Radio audience, Bishop Elio Sgreccia said the British government had "crumbled with confronted by requests from a group of immoral scientists." The government had backed away from plans to outlaw the research on hybrid embryos under heavy pressure from researchers.

In England, meanwhile, the director of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship charged that decision to approve hybrid-embryo research, made by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), was "shocking abuse of power." Andrea Minichiello Williams observed that Parliament had been studying the question, and preparing for a vote, when the HFEA "completely usurped the democratic process" by claiming the authority to approve the research.

Human-animal chimeras given go-ahead in the UK

Update: As expected, this procedure has been given the go-ahead:

Animal-human hybrid embryos could be created in British laboratories within months after the fertility regulator gave the controversial research its blessing.

Two teams of scientists are poised to start making cow-human hybrids for research into incurable diseases - with at least one project starting by the end of the year.

Reuters has found the story.

The UK Daily Mail reports:

The creation of part-human, part-animal embryos looks set to be approved by the fertility regulator tomorrow.

These "hybrid" embryos would be used for research into incurable diseases such as Alzheimer's.

The news follows a surprise Government decision not to ban the controversial research.

A shortage of human eggs has led two groups of scientists to appeal to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for permission to make hybrid embryos from human skin cells and animal eggs.

Cows' eggs are most likely to be used, because they are in plentiful supply.

[here, a graphic reproduced from the article:]

My summary: scientists say they do not have access to enough human eggs to support their research, so two teams from the UK are asking permission to use eggs from cows that have been killed for meat. They will remove the genetic material from these eggs and insert a complete human genetic code. This is a very similar to the technique used in cloning. Most countries, with the exception of China, have banned these types of techniques.

Back in late June, I posted on this same topic and would recommend reading that post if you want to understand the witness and teaching of the local bishops on this topic, which I summarized to be "Don't create human/animal hybrids, but if you do, treat them as humans if they have a preponderance of human genes." (I also posted several related links.) As I mentioned in my prior post, this pattern is similar to the Church's teaching on IVF, i.e., don't do it, but if you do, the embryos created are truly human and deserve to be treated as such.

Some context: Embryos with 99.9% human genetic code are still presumed to be human, and in keeping with human dignity do not deserve to be killed at fourteen days to have their cells harvested. Also, this kind of research still has no cures to its credit, and is undertaken despite the far better and demonstrable results obtained through adult stem cell research. Third and finally, there are several promising techniques being developed to "dedifferentiate" adult cells to a state of functioning like stem cells, which is what these scientists are attempting to produce through the unethical "forward process" of allowing normal embryonic growth, which begins with the creation of a human being that will eventually be killed for its stem cells.

So why the intense lobbying here and now?

Because scientists know that if you want to cook a frog, you put him in warm water first ....

[For those interested, here are the important details I came across in the current media coverage:]

• Like all embryonic research, this procedure will result in the creation of living embryos that will be destroyed.
• In May, Labour ministers "dramatically changed their minds" and refused to outlaw this research after initially-proposing a pan (which sparked a revolt among the scientific community).
• The final decision still rests with the license committee, due to meet in November.
• Dr David King, who works for research watchdog Human Genetics Alert, said: "We are not a pro-life group but creating embryos purely for the purpose of research turns the embryo into nothing more than a research tool and a source of raw biological material for experiments."
• "The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [HEFA] is an independent regulator which oversees fertility treatment and embryo research. Its members include ethicists, churchmen and lay people, as well as fertility doctors and scientists." [the article concludes with brief bios of some of the people - I don't see any Catholic "churchmen" listed.]
• From the UK Telegraph: the embryos created will "contain about 99.9 per cent human material and 0.1 per cent animal". I have no idea how they compute that.
• "Meanwhile the Government has published a draft Human Tissues and Embryos Bill which would allow the creation of hybrids, but not so-called "true hybrids" - created by fertilising a human egg with animal sperm or vice versa. But a joint House of Commons and Lords committee scrutinising the draft Bill last month said all forms of hybrids should be allowed for research if regulators thought it beneficial."
• The majority of the article is concerned with analyzing the results of a 2,000 person poll, which evidently influenced the decision-making process.
• From the UK Daily Mail: "Dr Steven Minger, of King's College London, who heads one of the two teams, accepts that there is a "yuck factor" to the proposed work - but says the embryos would be human. The only remaining fragments of "cowness" would exist in machinery called mitochondria that provide the energy for the body's cells."
• Another explanation of the proposal: First, his team would take a single skin cell from the volunteer and inject it into an egg whose own nuclear DNA had been removed. After being kickstarted with an electric current, the egg would develop into a human embryo genetically identical to the human donor. Around six days after its creation, when it is still a cluster of around 150 cells - the embryo would be destroyed and harvested for embryonic stem cells."

Stem cells and Chimeras/Embryos; Legislation and Papal/Episcopal witness

Several stories today on the bioethics front.

First, Pope Benedict re-endorsed adult stem-cell research in no uncertain terms at today's Wednesday audience:

During the weekly Wednesday audience held earlier today, Pope Benedict expressed his approval for adult stem cell research, distinguishing adult stem-cell research from destructive embryonic stem-cell research, which the Catholic Church strongly condemns.According to ABC News, the Pontiff made the remarks while greeting members of a conference organized by La Spaienza University about the use of adult stem cells to treat cardiac problems." On this matter the position of the Church, supported by reason and by science, is clear," said the Pope." Scientific research must be encouraged and promoted, so long as it does not harm other human beings, whose dignity is inviolable from the very first stages of existence." [LifeSiteNews]

Pope Benedict has spoken in favor of valid forms of research before:

"In the face of the frequent and unjust accusations of insensitivity directed against the Church," said Pope Benedict in September of last year at a conference organized by the Pontifical Academy for Life, "I would like to underline the constant support she has given over the course of her two thousand-year history to research aimed at the cure of illnesses and at the good of humanity." [LifeSiteNews] [(CWNews.)]

CNS reports on the recently-introduced legislation that would allow the creation of human/animal chimeras (which I blogged about yesterday):

"Josephine Quintavalle of the public lobby group Comment on Reproductive Ethics told Catholic News Service June 27 that the bill is very likely to pass through the houses of Parliament in the fall. She said that it was also structured in such a way that the government could approve new advances without recourse to Parliament."

This support for ESCR and chimera creation, even as their medical utility is dubious at best:

Part of the problem, she added, was that science had become a new "fundamentalism" in Britain."

Politicians are increasingly reluctant to engage in genuine scrutiny of the claims made by scientists, particularly in the field of embryonic stem cells," said Quintavalle. "The evidence base presented in this field has been particularly inadequate. A colossal amount of time has been wasted justifying the creation of interspecies embryos without robust scientific counterarguments.

"The debate has been presented erroneously as simply a battle between pro-life or religious absolutists and a united secular scientific community of the highest integrity," she added.

...

McGuckin said there was "no evidence whatsoever" that interspecies research would lead to a single cure.

...

He asked: "What is there to show for the millions of pounds that have gone into embryonic stem-cell research in recent years compared to the small amount of funds for adult stem-cell research, which has been delivering the results?"

CNA has more on this story, and also reports that Australia went ahead and approved of embryonic stem-cell research for the first time (despite Cardinal Pell's outspoken opposition):

"Despite opposition from the Catholic Church and a prayer campaign by Christian MPs, the NSW Upper House passed a law that lifts the ban on embryonic stem-cell research in the Australian state. The Bill passed by a vote of 28 to 13.Cardinal George Pell of Sydney had warned Catholic MPs who supported the bill that "their voting has consequences for their place in the life of the Church".Despite the warning, a number of high-profile Catholic MPs, including Premier Morris Iemma and his deputy, John Watkins, voted in favor of the Bill."

Putting all these pieces together, I think we're seeing the debate between pro-life, Catholic, pro-adult-stem-cell-research defenders and scientific establishment, secular, pro-embryonic-stem-cell research advocates becoming much more heated, even coming to a head.

I wonder about the chances of seeing excommunications handed out to Catholics who vote for embryonic stem-cell legislation (and here Cardinal Pell is the prime candidate for doing so), or again about the possibility of more pointed words on this subject being put forward by Pope Benedict or one of the Congregation heads (in document form or spoken).

One of the factors that makes the position of these pro-ESCR folks so untenable is the objective incommensurability of ESCR hopes with the cures already provided by adult stem-cell research. In this kind of environment, it's easy to see how ESCR advocates aren't arguing science or reason, but rather forcing their own agenda and bias. Face it: ESCR just isn't good science, and chimera creation is even less prudential. ESCR advocates deserve to be reprimanded not only for taking human lives, but also for wasting medical resources in a backdoor attempt to further erode societal respect and political legislation for human dignity.

English, Welsh bishops speak out on newest bioethics threats

The English and Welsh bishops are doing a good job defending human dignity in the wake of proposed legislation on human/animal chimeras and a host of related procedures:

LONDON (CNS) -- Human embryos injected with animal cells, or chimeras, should be accorded human status under proposals to be considered by the British Parliament in the fall, said the Catholic bishops of England and Wales.

...

In their submission, the bishops said that most of the procedures covered by the bill "should not be licensed under any circumstances," principally on the grounds that they violate human rights.

However, they said, "at very least, embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings and should be treated accordingly," they said. [More...]

The bishops' basic point to the lawmakers is two-staged: 1) Don't do it ... but 2) if you're going to do it anyway, do it this way. In other words: don't create human/animal hybrids, but if you do, treat them as humans if they have a preponderance of human genes. This pattern is similar to the Church's teaching on In Vitro Fertilization: don't do it, but if you do, the embryos created are truly human and deserve to be treated as such.

Amy links to the full bishop's document (PDF) which is hosted by the Linacre (Christian bioethics) Centre in London. It is a very good, concise expression of the Church's position on several important medical procedures and practices. The Linacre Centre has also written their own statement (PDF) addressed to the governmental committee involved in these proposals, which focuses exclusively on the specific ethical and scientific questions related to the creation of chimeras.

I'm happy to see the Linacre Centre working closely with the bishops to provide an informed voice of opposition (in defense of truth and human dignity) on these contemporary medical issues. It's an excellent combination of hierarchical authority and lobby (the bishops of England/Wales) supported by medical and professional acumen (the writers at the Linacre Centre).

Update: LifeSiteNews has published its coverage of this story here, and in a related vein, the National Catholic Bioethics Center has announced some upcoming educational opportunities. CNA has that story and more info.

The Linacre Institute's fine work in Bioethics

A Zenit interview gives me an excuse to mention it (and them):

Faith, Reason and Bioethics

Interview With Director of Linacre Center

LONDON, JUNE 18, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Rational arguments need to take priority in the debate on bioethical issues, says the director of the Linacre Center for Healthcare Ethics.

Helen Watt, of the only Catholic bioethics center in the United Kingdom and Ireland, recently spoke to ZENIT about the opportunity Catholics now have to engage modern Europe in an authentically grounded ethical debate.

The Linacre Center's International Conference is being held July 5-7 on the topic of "Incapacity and Care: Moral Problems in Healthcare and Research."

[Click here for the full Zenit interview.]

[Click here for a PDF with more details on the conference - last minute, I know...]

Irish teen at center of abortion-rights controversy chooses life!

I had seen headlines related to this story before, and now today the wonderful news that the Irish teen at the center of an abortion-rights victory ... has decided to choose life instead.

LifeSiteNews reports:

DUBLIN, May 15, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The teenaged mother of an anencephalic child, known in the press as “Miss D,” has told the Irish Independent that she has changed her mind about aborting her baby. She said today, “I feel this is just a normal human being, I want it to have its own (burial) plot.”

A week after winning a court decision allowing her to travel to Britain for an abortion, the pregnant mother has announced that she will give birth by medical inducement of labour and intends to bring the body of her child home for burial.

She explained. “I'll bury my child here. I have clothes bought for my baby. I'll be pregnant next year”. In an interview, Miss D said she will always see the baby as her first child and has chosen the name of the baby. She said that she will buy doll’s clothes for the child’s burial.

The news media emphasized repeatedly that an anencephalic child can live only a short time outside the womb. Miss D has responded, “I think most people think that I must be very silly and that this baby is not much. But this baby means the world to me.”

Miss D credits pro-life websites for her change of heart. “There were pictures of babies who had been aborted,” she said. “I didn’t want that, my baby deserved to live, it deserved more than that.”

[The rest of the story details a bit of the complex international legal battle that took place over her right (now discarded) to abort her infant.]

Embryonic stem cell breakthrough?

You may have seen the headline, "Embryonic stem cells can repair eyes, company says..."

AMDG notes some things in the article, and catalogues all the "might's, maybe's and probabaly's" that the scientists must include, even as they promise spectacular results.

[A few of my comments in brackets]:

Stem cells made from human embryos can home in on damaged eyes, hearts and arteries of mice and rats, and appear to start repairs, a U.S. company said on Monday.

[notice the verb "make", human embryos are material for production. Like one would "make" cookies out of dough.]

... companies working with private funding, such as the over-the-counter listed ACT, may do as they please [regarding embryonic stem cell lines].

Working with embryonic stem cells is not easy. For medical uses, researchers would like to partly differentiate them -- start them down the road toward becoming a specific cell or tissue type.

[This is a euphamism for "letting the embryo develop as it would normally." Starting down the road toward becoming a specific cell or tissue type is what embryos naturally do as they mature. In other words, they let the embryo live long enough to start creating "pluripotent" (or more specified) stem cells and then take those cells, in most cases killing the embryo in the process.]

... The researchers killed the mice to check the cells' progress, so they do not know the long-term effects.

[Not to iterject, but I'm sure they intend to let some mice live before they begin human testing. embryonic stem cells, when operated upon, often become cancerous because cancer means the cell's normal activities have been compromised.]

They want to begin human testing by the end of next year.

Update: And in the same vein, eugenics takes another timid step forward in Britain.

The first casualty? Squinting!

Magister: "Two New Documents in the Works: On Bioethics, and on Natural Law"

Mentioned elsewhere, it's important and exciting news. Sandro Magister reports:

Two New Documents in the Works: On Bioethics, and on Natural Law

They are being prepared by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. It is the continuation of the "Ratzinger style," explains the secretary of the Vatican dicastery, archbishop Angelo Amato.