Archive | Page 11

The “dead donor rule” (DDR) is a legal and ethical mandate that requires vital organ donors to be truly dead before their body parts are procured. A corollary to the rule holds that people cannot be killed for their organs. The DDR promotes trust in the system and protects the vulnerable — but is flexible enough to permit living donations of one kidney and parts of a liver from altruistic donors. Utilitarian bioethicists have long argued against the DDR and its corollary based on the notion that killing those who are dying or want to donate will relieve the suffering of people who want to live and need an organ. And here we go again. The Journal of Medical Ethics Read More ›

Is evil a metaphysical reality, or is it merely a word we use to describe intentionally destructive behavior or horribly painful outcomes? If evil is real, what is its nature? Can one believe in the existence of evil without having a religious understanding of reality? And if evil does exist, does that mean good must also? My guest today, a Read More ›

Work continues apace toward the goal of gestating babies outside a woman’s body. Scientists have now implanted human embryos in “organoids” made of tissues that mimic the uterine lining. From, “Researchers are Getting Organoids Pregnant,” published in the MIT Technology Review:

In three papers published this week by Cell Press, scientists are reporting what they call the most accurate efforts yet to mimic the first moments of pregnancy in the lab. They’ve taken human embryos from IVF centers and let these merge with “organoids” made of endometrial cells, which form the lining of the uterus.

The reports—two from China and a third involving a collaboration among researchers in the United Kingdom, Spain, and the US—show how scientists are using engineered tissues to better understand early pregnancy and potentially improve IVF outcomes…

In each case, the experiments were stopped when the embryos were two weeks old, if not sooner. That is due to legal and ethical rules that typically restrict scientists from going any further than 14 days.

First, a semantical point. The organoids weren’t “pregnant.” That seems unduly anthropomorphizing to me. They mimicked natural processes. If gestating machines ever are used to mature human embryos and fetuses outside a woman’s body, as mechanisms, they won’t be “pregnant” either.

I rise to second the opinion of neurologist and university professor Cory Miller, published here on NRO, opposing Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s apparent intention to end all research on primates at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Miller writes:

Reports that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) plans to end research involving monkeys — a move framed as modernization — strikes at the heart of America’s biomedical capacity at the very moment global competitors are expanding theirs.

This is the latest step in Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s plan to phase out animal research in the U.S., an ideologically driven effort that sidesteps scientific evidence by exploiting our understandable desire to reduce animal suffering. And make no mistake, ending research with monkeys is not the end goal. It is only the beginning.

Yes, we should reduce animal testing as much as is practicable. But we should use alternatives, as Miller puts it, as a “complement” to animal studies, not a total replacement. Sure, using animals to test cosmetics and the like can probably be eliminated safely. And by all means, use cell lines, AI computer programs, and other alternatives as much as possible to reduce animal use, consistent with protecting human safety.

What’s really happening to women and girls in China? In this episode, I sit down with Reggie Littlejohn, Yale-trained attorney and founder of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, to expose what many experts call the greatest crime against women in the world. Women’s Rights Without Frontiers is a global coalition fighting to end forced abortion, gendercide, and sexual slavery in China. Reggie is widely recognized as an international expert on China’s One-Child Policy—now the Three-Child Policy. Reggie is also the founder and president of the Anti-Globalist Alliance, an international counterforce to the Great Reset, and the co-founder of the Sovereignty Coalition, a non-partisan movement dedicated to defending U.S. national sovereignty and personal medical freedom against threats both foreign and domestic. For Read More ›

With a scribbled signature by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, the Land of Lincoln became the 12th state (plus the District of Columbia) to legalize physician-assisted suicide.

The new law, which takes effect in September, euphemistically describes assisted suicide as “medical aid in dying”—a pretense that prescribed poisonous overdoses are somehow equivalent to administering healing treatments. Give me a break. The point of “care,” is well, care. The point of assisted suicide is immediate death.

So, why do I insist on using “assisted suicide” instead of “medical aid in dying?” Because this issue is too important and too much is at stake to fall for propagandistic word engineering.

The term assisted suicide is both accurate and descriptive. “Suicide” means to take one’s own life. “Assisted” means to have help in performing an action, in this case, intentionally becoming dead. In other words, it describes what was done, not why.

In contrast, “medical aid in dying”—or MAID as it is usually called—is euphemistic and intended to deflect from the reality of what advocates seek to normalize. Ditto calling poisonous overdoses prescribed for suicide, “medication,” which these laws always do. How can we have a meaningful debate when one side hides behind terms that are designed to lull people into a dangerous complacency?

On Monday, December 15, Wesley J. Smith appeared on Ave Maria in the Afternoon with Marcus B. Peter to discuss the recent legalization of assisted suicide in Illinois.

Of course Governor Pritzker signed the assisted suicide bill. Was there ever any doubt? Assisted suicide has become part of the progressive policy agenda. The new Illinois law (SB 1950) contains many of the usual provisions and supposed safeguards. Once the law goes into effect next September, these putative protections will quickly be redefined as “obstacles” to a good death and the inevitable process of legal loosening will commence. This is the point at which I usually urge doctors to refuse participation in the killing of their patients. The law does permit doctors to refuse to actually prescribe poison (euphemistically called “medication”). But it still appears to require that all doctors assess whether a patient who has asked for assisted Read More ›

We live in an era when activists of various stripes argue that, well, everything should have rights. Animals, nature, plants, the moon, rivers, AI/robots, you name it.

Now, in Newsweek, the transhumanism popularizer and California gubernatorial candidate Zoltan Istvan argues that we should give robots rights so they will show mercy on us. Seriously. From his article, “Why Giving Rights to Robots Might One Day Save Humans:”

The discussion about giving rights to artificial intelligence and robots has evolved around whether they deserve or are entitled to them. Juxtapositions of this with women’s suffrage and racial injustices are often brought up in philosophy departments like the University of Oxford, where I’m a graduate student.

This is the problem with all non-human-rights activists. They continually compare their favored supposed rights-bearers with human beings who were denied equality in the past. But those denials were wrong — and in some cases evil — because inherent equals were treated as if they were unequal.