I’ve slept an absurd 3 hours before waking up to watch my dog roll on his back and whine at me while reading the papers.
Vatican Condemns Human Cloning:
(most of this is lifted directly from the paper sitting in front of me. For the full story, read the Straits Times)
Yesterday, the Vatican released a hefty 32 page document condemning many practices of stem cell research, human cloning, and unnatural forms of impregnation. Condemned practices include:
- In-vitro fertillisation
- research in and use of embryonic stem cells
- post-fertilization birth control pills
- surrogate motherhood
- human cloning, both reproductive and therapeutic
- freezing embryos for use in artificial fertilisation
- pre-implantation diagnosis of embryos to avoid genetic defects, or select gender or other qualities
- reduction of implanted embryos to prevent multiple births
- intracytoplasmic sperm injection to overcome male fertility problems
- germ line cell therapy to modify genes transmitted to offspring
- use of human biological material of illicit origin, such as experimentation on human embryos
The Vatican is concerned with the gradual infringement that technology is making on greater moral issues with little regard for their impact on society and its inevitable degredation. “It makes it very clear that the Church is very closely watching scientific progress and favours that progress but wants ethis to be part of that,” said Mr Richard Doerflinger of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops of the Vatican statement. “The whole subject of misuse of technology to demean human dignity is a major concern.”
The 32 page statement named Dignitas Personae (latin for “the dignity of the person”) cites “the blithe acceptance of the enormous number of abortions involved in the process of in-vitro fertilisation vividly illustrates how the replacement of the conjugal act by a technical procedure… leads to a weakening of the respect owed to every human being.” The document also warns that the practice could help perpetuate the creation of more embryos outside the human body and outside heterosexual marriage.
The document is likely to spur debate among non-Catholics and play a role in current political debates.
US Prsident-elect Barack Obama has already promised to end restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. IVF supporters have also begun to voice their various forms of defense lines.
“It has contributed to the quality of life of patients and families through the improved ability to have children,” said Mr Robert Brzyski, chair of the ethics committee for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
“I continue to believe that stem cell research is a moral imperative because of the tremendous needs of our patients and our goal in medical research to cure disease and reliece suddering. Cells are not people and embryos are not people, and my first responsibility as a physicina is to patients – not cells in a petri dish.” – Dr George Daley of the Internation Society for Stem Cell Research.
My views on this? Stem cell research is the next step in medical technology, there being more than one way of obtaining stem cells. The culturing of organs and tissue for transplant in a host would be able to save countless lives. Why limit this technology that can potentially save millions of lives? I don’t agree though to the creation of “designer babies” where parents can choose traits for their unborn child, ingrained in their genetic information. Sounds like that film Gattaca. But then again, there are other practices which I feel should not be on that list. Perhaps the prevention of genetic defects would be a good option for parents who know they have a certain heriditary disorder, but would still like to be able to have children. Reduction of implanted embryos to prevent multiple births is also another I feel shouldnt be on that list. Multiple births is potentially harmful to the mother and the child and may lead to death of either or even both. It is a medical problem and can be solved by the removal of excess implanted embryos. I say why not? But of course… Who is to say which embryo is more deserving?
—————————————
Tissue Bank Seeks Donors:
The National Cardiovascular Homograft Bank was established in February of this year to accept heart valve and main artery donations. This caters to the folks who need transplants but are unable to receive the cheaper and more commonly used plastic or synthetic alternatives. About 10 cases every year require human donors. Heart valves are not covered under HOTA (the Human Organ Transplant Act which automatically allows hospitals to take your organs when you pass away) and Singaporeans would actually have to pledge to donate their heart valves.
My only opinion about this is that heart valves should also be included under the HOTA. Since they can already donate hearts, why not the valve while they’re at it?
—————————————
Subsidized Training in Healthcare:
To cope with the increased demand for health-care workers, the government declared yesterday the commencement of a new 3 year training course to pump more nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and radiographers into the economy. The Workforce Development Agency (WDA) sponsors a large chunk of the $50,000 tuition fee, bringing the total cost of the course of $6,600 per person. The course will be offered by Nanyang Polytechnic and caters to those who want to switch over to health care in mid-career.
Yay… Another option if I can’t get into med school. Be a radiologist like my parents would prefer me to be (“more stable working hours lah girl…”)
—————————————
Euthanasia:
The topic of the day in the world of health-care. The two camps seem to be in ethical deadlock over this no-man’s land. Both sides have their valid points and there is no right or wrong in this black and white of death. A full section can be found in today’s paper.
“In a secular, pluralistic society, the two institutions for medicine and law are responsible for maintaining the value and respect for human life. Euthanasia would serious damage their capacity to do so.” – Margaret Sommerville, head of Centre of Medicine, Ethics and Law in McGill University in Montreal Canada.
“If I were to keep a pet animal in the same condition I am in, I would be prosecuted. If you disagree with voluntary euthanasia, then don’t use it, but don’t deny me the right to use it.” – Robert Dent, the first patient of Dr Nitschke, doubted Dr. Death, who linked patients up to a Toshiba laptop that introduced a lethal injection following a series of commands the patient had to enter himself. Upon the illegalization of euthanasia, Dr Nitschke created Exit International which helped suffers of chronic diseases acquire lethal doses of barbituates from Mexico.
Angelique Flowers was a 31 year old in Melbourne Australia who battled Crohn’s disease, an inflammatory disease of the intestines since she was a teenager. In May of this year, she was diagnosed with colon cancer and was given an estimated few months to live. By then, Australia had repealed the previous legalization of euthanasia in the Northern Territories, prompting her to film a passionate appeal to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. In her video she speaks up for euthanasia.
“I don’t believe in stoicism. I freely admit to not being a brave soul who grins and bears the pain and soldiers on… I deeply admire people who rise above adversity and their suffering. but I haven’t grown from my illness of become a better person from its torments. All I want after 16 years of painful Crohn’s disease and now cancer is to die a pain free, peaceful death…Because euthanasia is banned in Australia, I am denied this right.”
She managed to secure a dosage of lethal barbituates (pento-barbital) from Exit International but did not get to use them when she suffered from bowel obstruction. She died on August 19, with her older brother Damian, 34, at her bedside. He held a bowl under his sister’s chin as she vomited faecal matter.
“If euthanasia is granted in order to end pain, it should then be granted to anyone who claims to be in agony because of a relationship break-up, loss of limbs or schizophrenia, and wants to end it all.” – Mr Seto Hann Hoi, guy really really against euthanasia. By the way, I really don’t agree with this guy. Physical and emotional/psychological pain cannot be associated so easily. That’s why we even have different fields of study for them, namely Medicine and Psychology. They’re not even under the same faculty. You can counsel someone who is in emotional or psychological pain. But you cannot counsel someone who is in physical pain.
Countries and states in which euthanasia, doctor-assisted suicide, and equivalents are legalized include Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg (kind of anyway. Their Grand Duke refused to sign the bill prompting the Prime Minister to push for the revamping of the constitution that the Duke merely signs the laws and doesn’t approve them. Lol…), Oregon and recently Washington.
In Orgeon, since the perscription of lethal doses of barbituates have been legalized in 1997, only 515 people have asked for and received prescriptions. Of these, only 341 have actually followed through taking the drug. Most of these patients suffered from cancer, and the most common reasons expressed were the loss of autonomy, loss of dignity and inability to participate in activites they enjoyed. These numbers contradict fears from the anti-euthanasia camp that there would be widespread and uncontrollable abuse of the system.
Most doctors are against the idea of euthanasia, citing it goes against the Hippocratic Oath, a pledge sworn by them to protect and heal.
Who is to say who lives or dies? Who can tell you that your right to die is less than another? How do we draw a clean line in this fuzzy battlefield of greys? In my opinion, this really isn’t an issue for the folks in health-care, but more so for those in the field of law. The topic of euthanasia has recently been brought up in Singapore following the statement earlier this year by Minister Khaw Boon Wan stating that we should begin looking to end-of-life issues, especially in our aging population where 1 in 5 Singaporeans are aged 60 and above. But in Singapore, only the Advanced Medical Directive is legal and/or encouraged.
And that’s the news today.
Pingback: Vatican condemns human cloning | Skillful Shepherds Blog