Bioethics

Resources are being invested at an astounding level in radical reproductive technologies. Now, researchers have created human eggs from skin cells and successfully fertilized some of them with IVF. From the Guardian story: Researchers have created human eggs from skin cells, potentially transforming IVF treatment for couples who have no other options. The work is at an early stage but if scientists can perfect the process it would provide genetically related eggs for women who are infertile because of older age, illness or medical treatment. The same procedure could be used to make eggs for same-sex male couples. The effort involved a cloning-like technique: The Oregon team took a similar approach by collecting skin cells from women and removing the Read More ›

On this very first episode, I’m joined by Dr. Joseph Meaney, Past President and Senior Fellow of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, to discuss the foundations of bioethics, the principles of good medicine, and why it matters when making daily health decisions for yourself and your family. For more information, the latest episodes, and additional resources, visit www.bioethicsbabe.com. Thank you for tuning in! Follow BB on social media: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@BioethicsBabe Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61576554667052 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bioethicsbabe X: https://x.com/bioethicsbabe Listen to BB on Your Favorite Podcast Platform: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0sk6pK4vYfvkdyQh3vVO5m Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bioethics-babe/id1841776855 Amazon/Audible: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/168b2504-9269-4910-b3da-6e0b954da9de/bioethics-babe iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-bioethics-babe-296039682/ RSS: https://rss.com/podcasts/bioethicsbabe/

The public-health intelligentsia and bioethics movement are determined to become the primary policy decision makers internationally. For example, back in 2020—at the height of COVID—Anthony Fauci wrote that the UN and WHO should be empowered to “rebuild the infrastructure of human existence.” You don’t get much more expansive than that. In the years since, others among that ilk have pounded the same drum furthered by an international agreement known as “One Health” (without US involvement) establishing an international bureaucracy aiming “to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems.” Toward that end, writing in The Lancet, a gaggle of international technocrats and academics reject the WHO’s current definition of human health as “a state of complete physical, Read More ›

The ambition of the bioethics movement continues to inflate. Now, we are told, humanity and endangered species need rescuing.

Writing in The Lancet, 22 (count ’em) bioethicists argue that there is a planet to save and they are just the experts to do it! From “Bioethics for the Planet“:

Severe threats to the health of humans and other species derive from degradation of Earth’s life-support systems, particularly the impacts of climate change. Researchers and practitioners in clinical medicine, public health, global health, and One Health are increasingly focusing on these risks to planetary health, which include (but are not limited to) rising temperatures, extreme weather disasters, intensified wildfires and flooding, biodiversity and species loss, expansion of vectors of infectious diseases, reduction or arable land alongside growth of intensive and factory farming, a proliferation of microplastics, antimicrobial resistance, and chemical contamination of the environment.

Consequently, the authors argue, the field should no longer be limited to health care, public health policy, clinical controversies, and medical ethics:

There is a move afoot among bioethicists to allow written directives by dementia patients, signed before the patients have become incompetent, to force caregivers to withhold spoon-feeding and liquids from those patients. Now, one of the country’s most notable and oft-quoted bioethicists, Arthur Caplan, has taken a position in favor of such a policy, in an article in the online publication Medscape.

First, Caplan discusses the potential withholding of feeding tubes (artificial hydration and nutrition, or AHN, in medical parlance), which is unquestionably legal because AHN is a medical treatment that involves surgery and medically prepared nutrients and — like other treatments, ranging from surgery to chemotherapy — can be ordered through advance directives to be withheld or withdrawn. Right or wrong, that’s a done deal. (He brings up the Terri Schiavo case, about which he and I significantly disagree, but let’s not relitigate that here.)

Then, however, Caplan takes the next step — which is currently on the cutting edge of bioethical discourse. From “Artificial Hydration and Nutrition in Dementia: Ethicist Weighs In”:

Is feeding by spoon the same as medical intervention with artificial forms of hydration and nutrition? I believe it is. I believe that when you say “no more food and nutrition,” it isn’t just the equipment. I’ll put it simply: It’s who’s on the end of the spoon. If nurses or doctors are feeding, it’s medical. It’s professional care, and you should be able to say no to that.

Good motives sometimes lead to terrible places. Such is the case with the understandable desire to increase the organ supply, which for years has tempted some bioethicists to stretch the ethics of transplant medicine beyond the breaking point.

Now, in the New York Times, three doctors promote the idea of “redefining death” to allow patients to be killed for their organs. First, the authors lament the difficulty of obtaining healthy organs from people whose hearts stop irreversibly after the removal of life support. They also bemoan the shortage of “brain-dead” donors. Then, after discussing a controversial approach that restarts circulation after cardiac arrest (but not to the brain) — which I have posted about before — they get down to the nitty-gritty of redefining death. From “Donor Organs Are Too Rare. We Need a New Definition of Death“:

The solution, we believe, is to broaden the definition of brain death to include irreversibly comatose patients on life support. Using this definition, these patients would be legally dead regardless of whether a machine restored the beating of their heart.

So long as the patient had given informed consent for organ donation, removal would proceed without delay. The ethical debate about normothermic regional perfusion would be moot. And we would have more organs available for transplantation.

This is not a parody. Two bioethicists have argued in the prestigious professional journal Bioethics that we should breed ticks to cause more infections of a condition that causes an allergy to red meat. Seriously.

Why would anyone want ticks to become more dangerous? Meat-eating is wrong, and so anything (apparently) that causes fewer of us to eat meat is “beneficent“:

1. Eating meat is morally wrong.
2. If (1), then eating meat makes people morally worse and makes the world a worse place.
3. So, people would be morally better and the world would be a less bad place if people didn’t eat meat.
4. If an act makes people morally better and makes the world a less bad place than it would otherwise be, then that act is morally obligatory. [Corollary of consequentialism]
5. Promoting tickborne AGS [a tickborne syndrome that causes a meat allergy] makes people morally better and makes the world a less bad place.
6. So, promoting tickborne AGS is morally obligatory.

Notice that this isn’t a claim about factory farming, but an all-inclusive argument that we have a positive duty not to consume animal flesh.

Biotechnology is like Star Wars’, “Force”: It has a dark side and a light side. CRISPR, the gene-editing technique that can alter any cell and life-form on the planet, exemplifies the point. It can be deployed to alter a bird flu virus to kill multitudes. It can be used for eugenics manipulations. And, in theory, it can save the lives of people afflicted with genetic diseases. That seems to have just happened. Baby KJ’s life was apparently saved or extended — at least for now — using the technique to treat a genetically caused liver condition. From the Stat story: For the first time, scientists say they have reached into the genome of a severely ill child and rewritten the Read More ›

The field of bioethics was established to work through the proper parameters of medical ethics and to grapple with the vexing public health policy questions that arose in an increasingly technological age. The field’s primary (but not only) contribution to the public good (in my opinion) came early, through the work of the late theologian Paul Ramsey. In his seminal work, The Patient as a Person, Ramsey argued that forcing patients to be hooked up to “machines” against their will treated them as less than equals. The resulting bioethical discourse resulted in the legal right we all have to informed consent and to refuse unwanted medical treatment, even if that could lead to our deaths. Alas, in the decades since Ramsey’s heyday, Read More ›

“Futile care” is a bioethics theory in which doctors are authorized to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment based on their belief about the quality of a patient’s life. It can be cruel — and on occasion, mistaken. Prominent medical journals usually support futile-care theory. But the New England Journal of Medicine just published a contrary column by a compassionate doctor who rejected that approach in order to keep hope alive for his terminally ill patient and her family. The oncologist, Dr. David N. Korones, placed a young terminally ill cancer patient named Zoha in an experimental drug trial. At first all seemed well, then her condition worsened. From, “The Last Dose”: Although the rules of the trial allowed Zoha to remain Read More ›