That is the title of an article I just published in the Summer 2010 issue of Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics (vol. 26.2).  (The title, if you have not noticed yet, is from a line in the Bob Dylan song, “Dignity”). Here’s how the article begins (endnotes omitted):

In March 2008, the President’s Council on Bioethics published a volume entitled, Human Dignity and Bioethics.  It consists of essays penned by council members as well as other scholars and practitioners invited to contribute. As one would guess, the idea of human dignity and what it means for bioethics, both in theory and in practice, is the theme that dominates each of the works contributed to this impressive volume. But for those who have been following or participating in the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary world of secular bioethics during the past fifteen or twenty years, the insertion of the idea of “human dignity,” or even the word “dignity,” as the anthropological foundation of bioethics is highly unusual.  Much of the cutting edge literature in bioethics, with few exceptions, tends to employ the language of modern political theory and contemporary analytic political philosophy and jurisprudence. So, for example, one finds in these cutting-edge works discussions about the meaning and implementation of the principles of autonomy, justice, nonmaleficence, and beneficence, as well as calls for the application of these principles to what constitutes physician neutrality, informed consent, and patients’ rights.  This project often goes by the name principlism. There is, of course, much that this project has contributed to the study and practice of bioethics.  For each principle and its application has a long and noble pedigree about which many of us hold a variety of opinions. But what distinguishes principlism from the concept of “human dignity,” and what makes this central concern of the council’s volume so astounding, is that advocates of principlism typically intend for it to be a means by which a physician, ethics committee, nurse practitioner, general counsel, etc., need not delve into the metaphysical question for which “human dignity” is offered as a partial answer, namely, “Who and what are we, and can we know it?”

(more…)

The propensity of embryonic stem cells to produce cancerous tumors after implantation is often swept under the rug. New research discussed at Science Daily suggests there are benefits to potential therapies derived from adult stem cells (the excerpt below did not use “adult” and “embryonic” labels for whatever reason so I added them):

Results showed that immature (undifferentiated) [embryonic] stem cells are more likely to form tumors than mature ones [i.e. adult stem cells]. The transplantation of “safe” [adult] cells into mice with spinal cord injuries resulted in the formation of new neurons, while “unsafe” [embryonic] cells sped recovery for a short period but ultimately formed tumors.

Proponents of embryonic stem cells tout the totipotency of ESCs as the decisive factor that renders ESCs of superior therapeutic value. Perhaps the mere pluripotency of ASCs will in fact allow be what ultimately allows workable therapies to be developed from stem cells.

(Originally posted at Underdog Soldier)

“We must deceive them so as not to hurt them, and in that way, we honor them.”

This logical gem was employed by Dwight Shrute in an episode of The Office (“Casino Night,” for fellow enthusiasts) to justify hiding the presence of one woman at a party from another and vice versa. Unfortunately, such logical travesties are not confined to sitcoms, but are all too frequently used to justify killing unborn children. (more…)

Peter Lawler has written a must-read account at The Weekly Standard of The Chosen One’s termination of the Bioethics Council.  Bush’s creation of the Council was the greatest indication of the President’s real thinking on science and the public good.  Far from ‘politicizing science,’ Bush brought together a group of broadly trained, highly intelligent people to debate the implications of various policy proposals under the leadership of Leon Kass of the University of Chicago.

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. It’s with that Socratic second mandate in mind that President Bush chose for his first chairman a man trained in medicine, natural science, and the wisdom about being human embodied in the Great Books from Plato through Shakespeare to Genesis–Leon Kass. For Obama, it would appear, there’s no need for such moral and political discussion or such “humanistic” guidance because the experts know the nonideological and objective answer to the key questions that face us in our high-tech and increasingly biotech world. Personal opinion is trumped by what the “studies show,” and public opinion should be guided toward a consensus based on those studies.

(more…)

Even more evidence of the inverse relationship between the number of successful trials implementing adult stem cells and the attention the trials receive.

In Australia, stem cells were taken from patients’ eyes, cultured and coated onto contact lenses. The lenses were then put on the eyes of patients who had corneal damage. The result? Improved vision from a relatively cheap and noninvasive procedure that did not require the destruction of human life!

Two of the patients had damage in only one eye so corneal stem cells were taken from their good  eye and placed on their eye with the corneal damage.

Most interestingly, a third patient had corneal damage in both eyes so stem cells were taken from his or her conjunctiva. These cells with the conjunctiva phenotype (the physical makeup of the cell) successfully switched to the cornea phenotype and dutifully repaired the corneal tissue. Precisely what adult stem cells are purportedly unable to do.

I have seen a good number of positive ASCR results from bone marrow, skin cells and umbilical cord blood. It will be interesting to see what else comes of conjunctiva/cornea stem cells.

See also Adult bone marrow stem cells repairs damaged heart tissue

The Church of “Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That.”

Or, Would You Mind Removing the Dagger of Christian Fellowship From Between My Shoulder Blades, Thanks?

America Magazine offers its diagnosis of the problem with Obama being given an honorary degree at Notre Dame. And, in a shocking twist, the real problem is the group of unwashed hooligans who made the Baby Jenkins cry.

(more…)

Here is the article, with the following caveat:

They must use cells culled from fertility clinic embryos that otherwise would be thrown away.

Is that supposed to make me feel better?

Yet another study showing more positive results from adult stem cell research.

Note that the headline reads: “Stem cell treatment effective in heart patients” (emphasis mine). What kind of stem cells? Adult stem cells – but you have to read the article to get that.

Here is a tip: whenever a headline talks about positive results of “stem cell research” – understand that it means “adult stem cells research”. Rarely do I read a headline that actually identifies adult stem cells as adult stem cells.

It seems that this is due to an effort to blur the distinction between ASCs and ESCs. It is done by the pro-ESCR crowd that the results of both ASCR and ESCR might be lumped together and the positive results of ASCR shared equally between the two camps. See The Little Red Hen.

The desired effect is to leave the reader thinking, “That stem cell research great stuff! Aren’t we glad our Obama lifted restrictions on stem cell research?” This impression is left despite that fact that the stem cells were from adults and Hopeful Leader’s lifitng of the ESCR did not contribute to this but actually discouraged such research.

This week, a British court ordered life sustaining treatment withdrawn from a baby – against the wishes of his parents. The writeup indicates that it was uncertain whether this was done for the best interest of the baby or the best interest of the hospital. Does this distinction make any difference? (more…)

U.S. News has a fascinating and informative discussion between Robert P. George and Douglas Kmiec discussing whether President Obama’s embryonic stem cell research policy really did prohibit human cloning (and for those wondering, it really did not). The exchange was initially via email between George and Kmiec, and U.S. News published it with permission.

HT: Justin Taylor.

Would you sign?

America’s favorite former President showing off his stellar scientific knowledge.

I have a lot to say about President Obama’s decision to fund embyo-destroying research, and little time to say it. So, I will simply start with one simple observation. President Obama is being praised for his insistence that human cloning will not be tolerated under his administration. That could, of course, be a silver lining in the otherwise dark cloud of his decision to devalue human beings. The problem is that President Obama’s carefully chosen words, as well as his past actions, reflect a definition of the word “cloning” that would allow embryos to be cloned, so long as they are not implanted. In other words, President Obama has absolutely no problem with cloning embryos, so long as the researchers kill the embryos rather than try and bring them to term. (more…)

When signing an executive order authorizing federal spending on ESCR today, Obama called human cloning “dangerous” and “profoundly wrong”.

While the order is still a major blow and it means that part of your paycheck will be used to destroy embryos, the “no cloning” caveat is at least interesting. Don’t get me wrong – this is a far cry from a pro-life victory. While the no cloning statement is good news, it does not redeem the day.

Perhaps though, at a minimum, it is a sign that someone somewhere in the administration has an inkling of an ethical standard. Or am I too optimistic?

Someone made a provocative comment on a previous post asking what, according to one who is opposed to ESCR, should be done with existing embryos.

For clarity at the outset, I believe that life begins at conception; thus each embryo is a human life. There are compelling economic arguments for ESCR. The most common one goes along these lines: since there are so many frozen embryos in storage, we might as well use them for scientific purposes rather than let them go to waste. If we were dealing with a commodity, this would be a winning argument. But humans are not, nor should they ever be, commodities. Each is created in the image of God and is accordingly endowed with dignity. Thus, this debate must rise above economics. (more…)

John Bivers at Champion News has an excellent piece on the relationship between ethics in government and opposition to abortion.

…about stem cell research

Recently, I have noticed a jump in the number of news articles about the latest results of stem cell research projects. The remarkable thing is, the majority (at least that I have seen) involve the use of adult stem cells rather than those derived from embryos (e.g. this one). Nonetheless, embryonic stem cell research still dominates the MSM.

It seems that from a scientific standpoint, the only substantial justification for pushing forward with embryonic stem cells is the fact that they are totipotent whereas adult stem cells are pluripotent. Totipotent cells could become any type of cell if the embryo developed normally and pluripotent cells can become almost any type of cell but they have undergone some irreversible differentiation. Ultimately, however, this could be what makes adult stem cells more effective for developing treatments. Embryonic embryonic stem cells have led to tragic results in some trials (beyond the tragedy of each destroyed embryo) because of their capacity to literally become any type of cell.

The news about advancements made with adult stem cells is encouraging to say the least.

I am most grateful that Feddie has graciously allowed me contribute to SA!

A little bit of background – I have lived in the Great State of Mississippi for my entire life  except for a  brief foray up north for college. Once I got my hands on a biology degree I headed back to Mississippi with my wife where I am now a first year law student at Ole Miss.

In college, I developed an interest in bioethics. My contributions to SA will mostly revolve around these issues, including but not limited to: abortion, stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, health care, and pre-implantation genetics.

More to the point -  I am a gun owning, church going, SA reading, pro-life Conservative with a libertarian streak and I am fired up about joining the folks here at SA.

The North Dakota House of Representatives has approved a measure that would “give[] a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being.” This is an interesting development in view of the news that President Obama is “considering” whether to reverse the Bush administration’s ban on supplying federal funding for embryo destroying research.

The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended abortion rights nationwide, supporters of the legislation said.

The bill declares that “any organism with the genome of homo sapiens” is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

(more…)

President Obama is now considering whether to reverse the Bush administration’s policy prohibiting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.  I have my doubts whether “considering” is really the right word here; I rather think that his mind was made up before assuming the office.

But allow me to remind all of us of the words of the President earlier this month:

There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.

The President who forcefully asserted that “there is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being” is now “considering” whether to throw federal funding behind research that necessarily takes the life of an innocent human being.  This much we know.

Here’s how you find out: if someone tells you that there are embryonic stem cells buried at ANWR, would you drill? If you answer “yes,” your inner liberal should have no problem if the embryos were replaced by oil.