Health Secretary Alan Johnson wants to fluoride to be added to England’s water supplies to tackle tooth decay.
He wants health authorities to compel water companies to add the chemical.
Read More »Fluoride and the Future: Population Level Cognitive Enhancement
The Guardian and Telegraph, are today reporting that British scientists have created ten human embryos which each include DNA from one man and two women. This was done by taking a one day old IVF embryo and removing its pronuclei (the parts containing the chromosomes from the parents). These were then inserted into an egg cell from the second woman, which has had its nucleus removed. The result is a new embryo with its primary DNA coming from a man and a woman, and the body of its cell coming from the second woman. This is an amazing experiment, and comes hot on the heels of other multi-parent experiments, but why has it been performed and what are the ethical implications?
Read More »A child of many parents: a new way to have two mothers
The Daily Mail reports on a New Scientist article about the possibilities of same-sex reproduction. Researchers at Newcastle upon Tyne have coaxed stem cells in male bone marrow to developing into spermatogonia, which in turn have been coaxed to divide into sperm cells. According to New Scientist they may have succeeded in producing spermatogonia from female marrow, and are now working on the final step to turn them into sperm. In that case it would be possible for two women to be the genetic parents of a child. Other research aims at turning skin cells into eggs, which could allow two males to be genetic parents of a child (with the help of a surrogate mother). While the research aims at helping infertility the obvious possibility is same-sex parenthood. Is it a good idea to create kids with two or three moms, or two dads and a mom?
Read More »Meet Mom, Mom and Mom: is there anything wrong with same-sex genetic parents?
A new study from the US suggests that folic acid supplements may
substantially reduce the risk of premature birth. This has reinforced
calls for the fortification of flour with folic acid. Although this
reported effect on preterm births is new, there are well documented
public health benefits of folic acid.(1) The food standards agency in
the UK finally decided in May last year that folic acid would be added
to either flour or bread, after years of lobbying.
Supplementing bread and flour is an effective way of providing health
supplements on a population level. But how much should we add to food
staples in the name of public health? Should additives be limited to
those that prevent serious disease, or if available, should we add
things to food that enhance health?
The Guardian, Times and BBC are today reporting that National Heath Service funding for homoeopathy is on the decline. A survey conducted by Pulse has found that only 37% percent of the UK’s primary care trusts are still funding homoeopathy services, with more than 25% having reduced funding to homoeopathy in the last two years.
The real news, I would argue, is that more than a third of the UK’s funding bodies are still funding the alternative medicine.
The BBC
reported yesterday that the inability of
some people to get out of bed in the morning is genetically determined. A study at the University of Zurich
found that individual cells have ‘clocks’, which regulate body processes. The schedule of these clocks determines whether one is better suited to early mornings or late nights.
When a pattern of behaviour is found to be
biologically based, those who exhibit it often find themselves excused from
responsibility for it, particularly if it is correctable. It is not the fault of dyslexics that they
make mistakes reading and spelling, and it is not the fault of Tourette
syndrome sufferers that they make offensive remarks. As a result, medical help is provided for
sufferers of these conditions. Sometimes, however, the view that those who exhibit undesirable,
biologically-determined behaviour should be excused from responsibility for it,
and their behaviour medically corrected, is controversial. For example, many view the widespread
prescription of Ritalin to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) in children as suspect, in part because it encourages the view that
unruly but normal children are diseased, and therefore excuses those children
and their parents from applying discipline to reign in the offending behaviour.
Read More »I won’t be coming to work today – I’d rather go back to sleep
In the last month there have been a number of cases of patients with terminal cancer appealing for access to novel drugs that are not currently funded under the NHS. In Scotland yesterday a man with terminal bowel cancer succeeded in his battle to get NHS funding for a new and expensive drug cetuximab. This follows the recent publicity over two patients with breast cancer who have been fighting to be allowed to pay privately for another new drug bevacizumab.
These drugs are genetically engineered antibodies developed by a US biotech company to target growth factors commonly found in tumour cells. The drugs have been shown to improve survival of patients with some cancers, but evidence is lacking in other types of cancer.
This sort of dilemma is not unique to the UK. There is similar debate about access to bevacizumab in Canada and Australia. Some of the debate is about the science, and whether or not the drugs have been conclusively proven to be of benefit. However there are also ethical questions about the rationing of expensive treatments in public health care systems. It is generally accepted that there are finite resources available for healthcare, and that not all treatments can be afforded. But if public funding isn’t available for health treatment should patients be able to pay privately to access them?
Read More »Paying for better health: Should patients be able to pay for expensive cancer drugs?
Earlier this month, Gordon Brown, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, voiced his support for a presumed consent system for post-death organ donation in the UK. At present, organs may be procured from a dead body without the family’s consent if the deceased had actively opted-on to a national organ donation register. Under a presumed consent system, all would be included on the register unless they had actively ‘opted out’.
Objecting to Brown’s proposal, the economist and journalist Irwin Stelzer writes in the Telegraph this week:
90 per cent of us favour organ donation, but only 25 per cent make advance arrangements to become donors. From that, the opt-out advocates conclude that most of the non-donors are merely negligent: they forget to register. Really?
It is equally plausible that non-participants have no objection to the procedure, but simply do not want to participate, just as many (most) people have no objection to elections, but choose not to participate, for reasons sufficient unto themselves.
This objection strikes me as unpersuasive.
Research published this week in the British Medical Journal shows that babies born by elective caesarean section are more likely to have breathing trouble after birth. This is especially the case for babies who are mildly premature (1 to 3 weeks early).
These results are important, since the rates of elective caesarean sections are high in the UK (as in many countries). These rates are higher in middle class mothers, a group that has been labelled “too posh to push”. But how should doctors respond to a request for a caesarean section by a mother (where there is no medical indication)? Do the increased risks of caesarean section justify placing restrictions on maternal choice?
Read More »To push or not to push? Choosing to deliver by caesarean section.
An advisory body to the UK government, the Human Genetics Commission has called for more regulation of genetic tests that are available for the public to buy privately.
The completion of the human genome project, and the advances (and economies) in genetic technology have led to a burgeoning industry in private genetic tests. In the US especially, but increasingly also in Europe it is possible to order a wide range of tests for genes associated with risk of disease.
It is argued that tests with significant health implications should not be advertised to the public, and should be available only through a medical practitioner. But is this attitude to testing unduly paternalistic? Is greater regulation a realistic response?
Read More »Private genetic tests, and the case for ‘Genetic education’
