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.

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.

"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)

AmP Exclusive: Sen. Browback on John McCain's support of stem cell research + an overview of his true position

This week I attended a book launch hosted by InsideCatholic in Washington DC that included a Q&A with author Deal Hudson and Senator Sam Browback.

I posed a queston for both men which went like this (according to my memory, their responses are also according to my memory):

Recently, in a conference call with Catholic representatives, John McCain restated his support embryonic stem cell research, but also said that he was open to further dialogue on the topic. Do we know if this dialogue is in fact taking place, and is there any chance McCain will change his position before the general election?

A paraphrase of Hudson's response:

I believe McCain is hoping that scientific progress [on alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells] renders the question academic [in other words, irrelevant in terms of policy]. One of the things about McCain is that once he takes a position he's very persistent about keeping it.

A paraphrase of Senator Brownback's response:

I can personally assure you that dialogue is ongoing with McCain about this issue [i.e., he is one of the persons doing it], but it is true that right now McCain supports the research.

The video of my question and the two responses it received will be aired on C-SPAN in the next 2-3 weeks. When it is aired, I will provide a link to it and update this post with the exact quotes.

More research on John McCain and federal funding of embronic stem cell research:

It is important to note that, from my research, McCain supports the use of fetal stem cell lines that would otherwise be discarded but opposes the creation of new fetal stem cell lines.

Pew Forum on the issues:

McCain opposes embryonic stem cell research that uses cloned human embryos, but supports research using human embryos left over from fertility treatments. In 2006, McCain supported a trio of Senate bills designed to increase federal funding for adult stem cell research, ban the creation of embryos for research and offer federal support for research using embryos slated for destruction by fertility clinics.

McCain's all-important statement on the question at the May 3, 2007 GOP primary debate:

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.

CNN provides video of his expanded response, in which he again states that he hopes new scientific breakthroughs make this question "academic." He also mentions his 24-year pro-life voting record.

John McCain's position from an article published on his official campaign website last year:

"John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of 'fetal farming,' making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law. As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos. Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines."

To recap:

• From what I've found, John McCain opposes federal funding for the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines, but supports the use of embryonic stem cell lines already in use.

Readers should not take this post to necessarily mean that I support McCain's position on this issue, nor that I support John McCain for president, but these remain the facts, as I've discovered them.

I've often heard the claim made by some that "McCain supports embryonic stem cell research." That claim, however, ignores the distinction between killing further unborn human life through the creation of new stem cell lines, and using stem cell lines derived from embryos already destroyed.

Both forms of research are objectionable, but the former kind is far more objectionable because it entails the willful killing of human embryos, which one can never do nor support.

The use of already-derived embryonic stem cell lines, on the other hand, is closer to the moral category of using vaccines derived from research done on embryos, which can (I would argue) be legitimately done in some circumstances, but in general should be avoided, if possible, as a witness to the dignity of human life.

Keep Planned Parenthood funding in VA cut off!

This is an important story. I don't have time at present to pursue it fully, but briefly:

• The Virginia Senate voted yesterday to cut off state aid to Planned Parenthood
• PP, in response, is now mobilizing their significant resources to fight the decision
• LifeSiteNews reports and points to this site in Virginia: http://familyfoundation.org
• ProLifeBlogs has coverage, and notes that PP has sent an action notice to its supporters
• An example of the misinformation being spread available in this post at RH Reality Check

People more directly connected to this situation than I are welcome to continue coverage in the comment box.

New Missouri bill proposes tax deductions for stillborn infants

STLToday:

Lawmakers have proposed a measure that would allow parents of stillborn children to claim them as dependents for one year when filing tax returns.

... "This bill recognizes that the person was a child of this state, a child of a family of this state," he said.

Dempsey noted that the Legislature passed a measure in 2004 that allowed parents of stillborn children to receive a birth certificate. The state tax deduction, he said, is the next logical step.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, has a 100% rating from Missouri Right to Life. Missouri Family Network, similarly, is associated with many pro-life causes.

I'm all for inventive ways to work around Roe v. Wade. And it is interesting to note that Missouri already grants birth certificates to still-born children. I wonder if they would grant a birth certificate to a child that survives a botched abortion attempt only to die soon after? Sadly, the law has already demonstrated a sustained ability to ignore paradoxes like that one presents.

[ph/t: feministing]

One small step for the little small ones in Italy

CNA reports:

The directors of obstetrics and gynecology clinics at four universities in Rome have signed a declaration expressing their commitment to use all means to save babies who survive an abortion.

The statement, which is seen as one of the first fruits of the Day of Life recently held in Italy, says, “In response to the chance that a fetus survives an abortion, the life of the individual must be protected and given all of the medical means necessary to stay alive, with or without the consent of the mother.”

Experts assure that in the case of pre-mature babies, “The doctor must revive the baby, independently of his parents, unless it is not obvious that it is a case of therapeutic aggression.”

The signing of the statement comes as Italy debates the possible liberalization of abortion.

I simply cannot fathom how one debates and passes legislation such as this one without logically and necessarily being faced with the contradictions it poses to all abortion practices.

And then you come across as being ungrateful for what has been done. Well, it's not enough.

Once again, progresses in "viability" create contradictions in abortion legislation

The arbitrary time markers assigned to when fetuses can no longer be legally terminated more and more often are lagging behind the ability of modern science to preserve these lives even ex utero:

A long-running debate over age limits for abortions was renewed last week in England. Current law allows abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy, but improvements in survival rates for babies born prematurely have led to pressure for the limit to be lowered.

The Abortion Act of 1967 originally set at 28 weeks the legal limit for abortions. Then, in 1990, Parliament agreed to lower the time limit to 24 weeks.

As a result of this logical and legal incongruity, you end up with people feeling legitimately torn: "I feel pretty appalled at the idea that we abort normal babies and most of them are born alive and most of them are allowed to die" the article quotes one person as saying.

Again, such heinous crimes against nascent human life are exacerbated psychologically when such children, if they spontaneously miscarried (for instance) could more and more often be saved.

Zenit has good coverage: "Aborting Viable Lives: British Parliament Launches Inquiry on Age Limit"

Update: Exemption included in new Pennsylvania law on Plan B *for now*

Good reporting from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Hospitals in Pennsylvania must provide women who have been raped or sexually assaulted with emergency contraception, according to state regulations approved yesterday.

The rules, adopted by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission, are the first statewide for how hospitals must deal with emergency contraception, long a touchy subject in Pennsylvania and other states.

But supporters of emergency contraception said yesterday that the regulations gave hospitals an easy out by allowing them to apply for an exemption due to religious or moral objections. "We certainly think more work needs to be done to make sure that every victim of rape is given the complete care that she should get as a matter of course," said Larry Frankel, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union in Pennsylvania. "It should not matter which hospital she goes to, because she doesn't get to choose that. There are better ways of accommodating those with religious objections."

A state law that would prohibit such exemptions is pending.

Papist QOTD

Rep. Daylin Leach (D., Montgomery), the sponsor of a new bill that would require every hospital in Pennsylvania to immediately administer Plan B to all victims of rape (underlining mine):

"Some people believe AIDS is punishment for sin ... but we would never allow doctors to withhold treatment from anyone struck with the illness. We are all free to practice our religion, but if we put ourselves in a position to provide emergency medical care, our right to practice religion ends when we start making life-changing, adverse decisions for other people." [source.]

You're welcome to read the entire article, focusing on the similarities/dissimilarities between what it describes and what we've been covering in CT. There's much at stake here, and plenty of misinformation being spread.

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.