It has been reported in the newspapers today that in many parts of the country smokers have been refused access to in-vitro-fertilisation treatment. This appears to be contrary to the national evidence-based guidelines for fertility treatment. Is this unfair?
A medicine for children that has been shown to be effective in a wide range of conditions is to be released soon in the UK and is already available in the US. It has been exhaustively studied, and has no side effects. It is extremely cheap to produce, and will be readily available. Yet GPs, academics and ethicists are up in arms about the new drug. What is all the fuss about?
The Daily Mail reports this morning that 8 clone-offspring cows have been born in the UK. Also today, the first survey of public opinion on ‘clone farming’ has been released indicating significant unease and opposition to the idea of meat products or milk from cloned sources.
There are strict prohibitions on reproductive cloning for humans in most countries (for example, the recently debated HFEA bill in the UK, and the Human reproductive Cloning Act 2001). However there are few, if any, constraints on the cloning of animals. Is this the start of a new era of animal exploitation?
MPs in the House of Commons will debate tomorrow whether the cut-off for legal abortions in the UK should be reduced. Currently abortions are permitted up to the 24th week of a pregnancy, and some MPs have argued that this should be reduced to 20 weeks or below. Advocates and opponents of the change have pointed to scientific evidence about the viability of infants born extremely prematurely at 22, 23 and 24 weeks. They seem to believe that if we can answer the scientific question of whether such infants are viable, that will resolve the question about whether or not abortion is permissible at that stage.
That might be the case if there were a consensus on what viability means, and why it is important in questions about abortion time-limits. But, as this article will highlight, there is no such consensus, and it is not straightforward why viability should matter. So far in this public debate there has been little or no mention of the important questions – what is viability, and why is it important in abortion law?
Read More »Viability and the abortion debate – what really matters?
A paper has been published online in the British medical journal today
suggesting that survival of extremely premature infants (less than 24
weeks gestation) has not improved in the last decade. This comes less
than a week before a debate in the House of Commons on the Human
Fertilisation and Embryo Authority bill. It has been claimed that this
paper “completely blows out of the water” the arguments of
anti-abortion MPs who hope next week to push for a reduction in the
cut-off for legal abortion (currently 24 weeks).
In the Scotsman this week there is an interview with a scientist who
has claimed that a loophole in the draft UK Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Bill is likely to lead to the creation of hybrid human-apes
or “humanzees”.
In essence this argument is a slippery slope objection to the proposed
changes in the powers of the UK regulatory authority for embryo and
fertilisation research.
Read More »The Apeman and the Scotsman: the slippery slope to humanzees
In the Guardian this weekend, it is reported that at least one UK football club has been contemplating using genetic tests to screen potential recruits,in the hope of identifying future star players. This comes only one day after legislation was passed in the US Senate prohibiting insurance companies and employers from using genetic information in hiring or insurance decisions.
Read More »Football screens and genes: Should genetic discrimination in sport be banned?
A BBC documentary screening this evening on the ‘Inside Out’ program reports on what it describes as a breakthrough for patients in a vegetative state. It is based upon research by a group of neuroscientists in Cambridge, who have used sophisticated brain scans (functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)) to look for signs of consciousness in patients who have previously been thought to be completely unaware of their surroundings.
A French woman, Chantal Sebire with a disfiguring and painful terminal
illness recently failed in her appeal for medical assistance to help
her to die. Before her death Chantal Sebire was quoted as saying “We
wouldn’t let an animal go through what I have had to endure”(1).
Euthanasia for animals is commonplace, and is widely accepted as a
morally acceptable response to animals whose suffering is unable to be
relieved. But, with the exception of a few places such as the
Netherlands, Belgium and the US state of Oregon, euthanasia for humans
is legally prohibited.
But is it speciesist to make a distinction between animal and human
euthanasia? In the case of terminally ill humans who request medical
assistance in dying we may have more reasons to permit euthanasia than
in the case of animals. If the arguments against euthanasia are so
forceful that it should not be permitted even in tragic cases like that
of Chantal Sebire should animal euthanasia be prohibited?
In a recently published book, ‘When the Bough breaks’, Julia Hollander
describes her difficult decision to give up her severely disabled
daughter Imogen to foster care. Her decision has been roundly
criticised by some, who have described her choice as ‘selfish’ and
‘monstrous’.
We have good reason to admire parents who are able to care for children
like Imogen. The challenges that they face are enormous, and the
personal sacrifices that they make are often extraordinary. But should
we demand parents sacrifice their own interests, those of their other
children and their partners? What weight should we put on the interests
of future children – who would not be born if the parents continue to
care for this child?
