April-June, 2003
June
A study published in the June issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology
noted only a 1% difference in the pregnancy rates of women who took the
morning after pill within 72 hours and those who took it three to five days
after intercourse. While the results of the survey may have been affected by
small number of women who participated, the researchers assert that there is
no scientific evidence to support the claim that the pill must be taken
within 72 hours to have the desired effect. The study defined the beginning
of 'pregnancy' as implantation rather than conception, thus avoiding the
issue that is usually foremost for conscientious objectors. However, the
extension of the operative window for the drug by two days and lack of
evidence to support the 72 hour limit ought to relieve some of the pressure
to supply or refer for the drug on the grounds that it is urgently required.
A 33 year old British woman who has four boys but who wants to have a girl
has gone to Spain for an in vitro fertilization process that will
kill male embryos and select female embryos for implantation. Sex selection
is prohibited in Britain except in the case of genetically transmitted
disease, but the woman asserts that "freedom of choice" ought to be extended
to sex selection as well. She points out that abortions in Britain take
place up to the 24th week of gestation, and that it is inconsistent to
prohibit 'gender choice' when the embryo is only four or five days old. [BBC]
The case illustrates the fact that the approval of IVF in some situations
and not in others may involve moral decision making in public policy. It
also demonstrates how easily ethical goal posts can be moved, which can
cause moral conflicts for workers in the field.
A Draft Mental Incapacity Bill introduced by the British government is
generating concern that incapacitated patients may be legally killed by
dehydration and starvation, upon the direction of attorneys or court
appointed deputies. The bill is to be considered in committee and a report
is expected in October. [BBC, SPUC]
Despite what Health secretary John Reid described as "very real ethical and
social concerns", the government of the United Kingdom is proposing to
screen all newborns and provide eugenic prenatal tests to identify Down
Syndrome infants. [Financial Times, 25 June] The normalization of eugenic
screening is likely to create the expectation that health care workers will
participate in the procedures, causing problems for those who object to it.
Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle vetoed Senate Bill 658, which would have forced
even objecting denominational hospitals to provide the potentially
abortificaient 'morning-after pill' to rape complainants, or face $5,000.00
fines and revocation or suspension of institutional licenses.
In addition to extending Belgium's assisted suicide law to include those
under 18, political leaders assembling a coalition government plan to force
all hospitals to provide euthanasia teams. The move is reported to have been
sparked by the refusal of some Catholic hospitals to allow euthanasia on
their premises. [Expatica]
A bill that will require New York hospitals to dispense the potentially
abortifacient 'morning-after pill' has been amended so that the drug will
not have to be dispensed to women who may already be pregnant. As a result,
the New York State Catholic Conference withdrew its objection to the
legislation. A spokesman for the Conference explained that Catholic
hospitals already dispense the pill when there is no evidence that
conception has occurred.
A study by the University of Zurich suggests that Switzerland had the
highest rate of assisted suicide in Europe, and a substantial number of
cases of euthanasia. About 500 of 60,000 deaths in the German speaking part
of the country each year are assisted suicides. The news article about the
study distinguishes between what it terms "direct active euthanasia"
(deliberate lethal drug overdoses - illegal in Switzerland), "indirect
active euthanasia" ("giving the patient a palliative that could lead to
death" - legal) and "passive euthanasia" (withdrawing treatment in order to
cause death - legal). Of 3,350 deaths studied by the university in German
speaking Switzerland, half were cases of "active" or "passive" euthanasia,
with the latter accounting for about 1/3 of the cases.
The report illustrates the problem caused by terminology. Most
people who object to euthanasia do not consider it to include the
administration of pain relieving drugs that may have the secondary effect of
shortening life. On the other hand, they would define deliberate withdrawal
of treatment in order to cause death as euthanasia, and reject the qualifier
'passive'. Finally, they would not define euthanasia to include the
withdrawal of extraordinary treatment that is burdensome rather than
beneficial. The failure to make these distinctions in studies and reports
can create the impression that euthanasia is widespread, and lead to
suggestions that the purportedly widespread practice should be legalized. In
such circumstances, objectors may find themselves increasingly pressured to
participate in what they judge to be morally abhorrent practices. [News
report]
Surgeon David Shields has resigned from Oldchurch Hospital in East London,
claiming that the staff refused to resuscitate an elderly patient. He
rejects the hospital's claim that he had agreed to a 'do not resuscitate'
order and should not have operated on the patient. [The Times] The incident
demonstrates the potential for conflicts of conscience in decisions about
withdrawing or refusing treatment.
The Christian Medical Association
has issued a news release claiming that physicians are quitting the American
Medical Association "in droves" because of its support for ethically
controversial procedures. The CMA notes that the number of doctors in the
country belonging to the AMA has declined from about 90% in the 1960's to a
current level of about 40%.
The South African Department of Health plans to force all hospitals with 24
hour maternity service to provide abortions. The proposed bill is called the
Choice on
termination of pregnancy amendment bill, 2003. The government
appears to be ignoring the fact that significant problems have been caused
by its original abortion law because it failed to take into account
widespread conscientious objection to abortion among health care workers.
[See
South Africa Changes Abortion Law (1996-97);
Are State Doctors in the Western Cape willing to implement the Choice of
Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1996? An opinion survey conducted in the
Western Cape in November 1997;
Traumatised Health Care Professionals Forced to Take Part in Abortion
Procedures]
The bill would also allow all nurses to perform abortions,
which is likely to make things increasingly difficult for nurses who object
to the procedure. [See
No Place for Abortion in African Traditional Life - Some Reflections (2002)]
An additional but current problem for objectors is the use of the
abortifiacient drug cytotec (misoprostol). Physicians or health care workers
prescribe the drug to begin an abortion, but do not always make themselves
available to complete it. The patient may have to go to a hospital with an
incomplete abortion, causing significant problems for health care workers
who object to the procedure. Ironically, beginning an abortion and sending
the woman to the hospital to have it completed was once condemned by the
medical profession; the elimination of such practices was often given as a
reason for the legalization of abortion. It may be appropriate to consider
the present practice a form of abandonment of the patient when the attending
physician fails to ensure, in advance, that willing and competent personnel
are available to complete an abortion he has started with the drug.
The Massachusetts Abortion Rights Action League is supporting a bill that
would force hospitals to supply the potentially abortifacient
'morning-after' pill. not only to rape complainants, but to any woman
concerned that she might be pregnant. The bill would apply to denominational
hospitals, such as the Catholic Saints Memorial Medical Center in Lowell. A
spokeswoman for the Rape Crisis Services in Lowell, Mass., specifically
identified Catholic hospitals as a target for the bill. [Lowell
Sun]
A man who convinced a doctor to give a lethal injection to his mother, who
had cirrhosis of the liver, wants to die as his mother did. Wang Mingcheng
of Shaanxi Province was found not guilty of murder in the Supreme People's
Court in 1991. He now has cancer and says that he "cannot bear the
suffering." [China Daily] The policy of coercion that has been applied to
enforce China's 'one-child policy', which affects both health care workers
and patients, is likely to be applied to euthanasia if the procedure is
legalized. [See
Chinese health care workers and the
'one-child' policy]
Ryuichi Ida, a Kyoto University law professor who specializes in
international law, warns that Japanese do not understand bioethics and that
discussion is controlled by "a tiny minority of experts". He is concerned
about the government's 'biobank' gene data project and has called for more
public discussion of the issues. [The Japan Times] Similar concerns are
raised in several documents on the Project website. See
Is Bioethics Ethical?;
Which Medical Ethics for the 21st Century?;
Establishment Bioethics;
The Bioethics Mess.
Crucell, the Dutch company that was unsuccessful in securing tissue from
abortions in New Zealand,
is reported to be trying to obtain it in Australia through Parexel
International, a Sydney organization. The normalization of the harvesting
and use of organs and tissue from aborted infants is likely to cause
problems health care workers and others who object to such activity. [Wholesale
enterprise supplies researchers (Canada & U.S.A.) (1999)]
Lord Joffe's private member's bill to legalize euthanasia for patients
suffering from terminal or incurable illness was debated for seven hours in
the United Kingdom's House of Lords. The bill received second reading and
passed into committee, a procedure which is apparently customary and does
not necessarily signify the support of the House. It is reported to have
been stiffly opposed by peers from all parties, despite widespread media
support. [The
Telegraph] Among those seeking such legislation is Lesley Close, whose
brother travelled to Switzerland for assisted suicide at a clinic run by the
organization "Dignitas". On the other hand, hospice and palliative care unit
chaplains are opposed to the bill, insisting that patients should receive
'holistic palliative care.' [Church Times] The BBC is running a 'Kill or
Cure' series on the subject, and will be broadcasting the video diary of a
'right-to-die' advocate.
Meanwhile, in Australia, The Advertiser reported that over the
past seven years there have been five private members bills on euthanasia in
the South Australia Parliament; one is now at the committee stage. It also
noted that euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke was planning to display a
suicide machine at a workshop in Adelaide.
In the absence of sound protection of conscience legislation,
success by groups seeking legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia
would likely cause significant problems for health care workers who do not
wish to participate in the procedures.
Svend Robinson of the New Democratic Party has introduced a
motion asking the government to increase the proportion of hospitals
providing abortion from 17% to 33% in two years, and adopt measures to see
that it is available "on demand". Robinson is attempting to use the Canada
Health Act, which is the basis for Canada's state health care system, to
force hospitals to provide the morally controversial procedure. Robinson
also advocates legalization of euthanasia; he was present when a woman
suffering from motor neuron disease was killed by lethal injection in
British Columbia several years ago. He refused to disclose the name of the
doctor who gave the injection. [See
Chief Justice favours assisted suicide, willing to order assistance]
Wisconsin
Assembly Bill 67 has cleared the Assembly and passed to the state
Senate. Amendments that had been proposed in committee were rejected by the
Assembly. [See previous item:
Wisconsin pro-life groups at odds over protection of conscience legislation;
Wisconsin committee approves protection of conscience bill]
May
Lord Joffe's Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill is to be debated in the House
of Lords in England on 6 June. Catholic peers have been urged to challenge
the bill by Peter Smith, Archbishop of Cardiff and Chairman of the Catholic
Bishops' Department for Christian Responsibility and Citizenship.
The Supreme Court of the Australian state of Victoria has ruled that tube
feeding is medical
treatment that can be withdrawn from of a 68 year old woman who suffers
from a fatal form of dementia known as Pick's Disease.
Dr. John Fleming, director of the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute and
an advisor to the Project, warned that the decision "potentially affects all
the elderly, handicapped, and unconscious persons who rely upon such
assistance." The Project has issued a news release on the decision, pointing
out that it also has serious implications for health care workers. [The
Age;
Tube Feeding: Medical Treatment or Basic Care?;
News Release]
An attempt to restore protection of conscience provisions in AB67 has been
defeated in the Assembly. [See previous items:
Wisconsin pro-life groups at odds over protection of conscience legislation;
Wisconsin committee approves protection of conscience bill]
The Netherlands' euthanasia authority (NOS) has found that only 54% of the
cases of euthanasia in 2001 were properly documented, up from 41% in 1995
and 18% in 1991. The poor reporting record is blamed on 'excessive
paperwork'. Although the number of patients killed through euthanasia and
assisted suicide appears to have leveled off in 2001, physicians in the
Netherlands "end the lives of 900 people without the required request." [News
Report] There have been reports of pressure applied to physicians who
are unwilling to provide this service. [Refusal
of hospitals to perform euthanasia considered 'problematic';
Doctor in the Lions' Den]
The Dutch company Crucell will be unable to use tissue obtained through
abortions in New Zealand to develop stem cell lines or make vaccines. The
general manager of the Capital Coast Health Board, which withdrew its
support for the bid, noted that New Zealand had no guidelines on the use of
foetal tissue for research. It is not clear if the Board will change its
position if guidelines are established. The use of vaccines or other
products derived through abortion creates conflicts for some patients and
consumers as well as health care workers. [New
Zealand Herald]
A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicates that the number of
American women using the potentially abortifacient morning-after pill has
tripled in the past three years. The College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists recommends that women be given prescriptions for the drug in
advance. Such developments underscore the increasing pressure being felt by
pharmacists who object to dispensing the drug for reasons of conscience.
Independent Tasmanian Senator Brian Harradine has proposed that Australian
drug companies should have to state whether or not their products have been
developed using human embryos. The Therapeutic Goods Administration has been
instructed to consider and report on the suggestion. [Sydney Morning Herald]
It is not uncommon for companies to identify their products as not having
been tested on animals, for the benefit of those who object to animal
testing. It does not seem unreasonable to demonstrate the same respect for
those who object to the use of human embryos in research or product
development.
Vatican opposition to granting UN status to the National Abortion Federation
(United States and Canada) has been criticized by France. The French
representative claimed that the decision should not be made on moral or
religious grounds. However, the acceptance of the Federation would require
the presupposition that there is nothing morally objectionable about its
activities - itself a moral judgement. [For commentary on this type of
argument, see
There Are No Secular Unbelievers and
The Illusion of Moral Neutrality ]
Britain's Court of Appeal has approved a plan by parents to produce a baby
through in vitro fertilization and genetic screening to serve as a
bone marrow donor for their four year old son. They hope to cure the boy of
beta-thalassaemia using bone marrow from the donor sibling. Producing
genetically 'made to order' babies in order to supply tissue is ethically
contentious. Normalization of the practice may adversely impact health care
workers who object to such procedures. [BBC]
Bills to legalize physician-assisted suicide have been introduced
this year in Arizona, Hawaii and Vermont; a bill in North Carolina would ban
it. [American
Medical Association]
Continued pressure to legalize assisted suicide in the United Kingdom is on
a collision course with the majority of British doctors. It is reported that
74% of physicians surveyed would refuse to participate in assisted suicide
even if it were legalized. [BBC]
With the apparent approval of Health Canada, CIHR President Dr. Alan
Bernstein has announced that the Institute is unwilling to wait for
parliament to pass regulatory legislation and will fund stem cell research
that will result in the destruction of human embryos. In the absence of
legislation there are no legal restrictions on any form of embryo research
in Canada. Canada also has no laws to protect researchers who may object to
some forms of embryo research for reasons of conscience. [National
Post]
It is reported that no military physicians were willing to perform
abortions after President Clinton allowed abortions in military facilities
from 1993 to 1996. This needs to be taken fully into account in the
formulation of any policy applied to military health care workers.
By a 6-2 vote, the Wisconsin Assembly Labor Committee approved
Assembly Bill 63, which will now go to the full Assembly for approval.
The bill offers protection to pharmacists who object to dispensing drugs or
devices that they reasonably believe would be used to cause death. [News
Release]
Lord Joffe has introduced a bill in the United Kingdom's House of Lords that
would legalise euthanasia, while the House of Keys on the Isle of Man has
appointed a committee to study similar legislation proposed by two
parliamentarians there. The Isle of Man is a crown dependency in the Irish
sea.
A Catholic hospital system could challenge a bill now before the
governor of Hawaii which would require hospitals to provide abortifacient
morning-after pills to rape victims. The St Francis healthcare system says
the law would force them to go against their religious beliefs. Governor
Linda Lingle expressed surprise that the bill did not exempt religious
organisations. The measure would allow for hospitals to be fined $5,000 for
not co-operating and, if they offended twice, their licence could be
revoked. [Honolulu Advertiser, 12 May]
The Voluntary Euthanasia Society's poster campaign calling for
legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia is being supported by the
widower of Mrs. Diane Pretty. Mrs. Pretty died a year ago from motor neurone
disease following an unsuccessful attempt to challenge the existing law.
A former high court judge who now heads the human rights commission of
West Bengal, India, wants euthanasia legalized when requested by patients,
if relatives and doctors agree. [Hindustan Times, 9 May] Objecting health
care workers are particularly vulnerable to coercion when euthanasia is
advocated as a 'right'.
The Daily Yomiuri reports that the Japanese government plans to combat a
falling birth-rate by funding fertility treatments for married couples. The
funding would include morally controversial procedures like in vitro
fertilization, creating an expectation that health care workers will provide
the service.
Hundreds of e-mail messages from advocates for freedom of conscience and
religion have caused the Nevada senate to table a bill that would have
forced pharmacists to fill prescriptions for morally controversial drugs.
Planned Parenthood championed the bill because it wanted to prevent
pharmacists from exercising the religious freedom that one normally
associates with western democracies.
The supreme court in the Australian state of Victoria is being asked to
rule on whether feeding and hydration is medical
treatment or
care. The distinction is important because laws in common law countries
generally allow withdrawal or refusal of medical treatment. When nutrition
and hydration are classified as 'treatment', it is legally permissible to
cause the death of patients by starvation and dehydration, which some health
care workers find morally repugnant. The patient at the centre of the case
is a 68 year old woman with dementia who continues to live because she is
being fed artificially in a nursing home. [Courier-Mail, 5 May]
A decision by an English appeals court in 1997 that a woman could use
her dead husband's sperm to conceive a child now appears to have become a
precedent for a claim by another woman. A widow in Hampshire, who has two
sons, complains that public funding is not available to assist her in using
her dead husband's sperm to produce a daughter through in vitro
fertilization. The case illustrates the kind of expectations that can be
generated when health care is delivered chiefly by the state. Health care
workers in such a system may find themselves expected to participate in
morally controversial procedures because they have been 'paid for' through
taxation and guaranteed as 'rights'.
April
While two thirds of Hungarians are said to favour the legalisation of
euthanasia, the country's constitutional court has rejected a request that
mercy-killing not be treated as manslaughter. If the report of such broad
public support for euthanasia is accurate, the possibility that euthanasia
might be legalized should be of special concern to health care workers who
object to euthanasia and assisted suicide for reasons of conscience.
Over 1800 patients were killed by euthanasia in the Netherlands in 2002,
down from over 2000 in 2001 and 2100 in 2000. The accuracy of reports filed
by doctors has been a subject of contention.
The Catholic Church in Kenya is encouraging Catholic participants to resist
legalization of abortion in the country's constitutional conference
scheduled for 28 April, 2003. Failure to consider opposition to abortion
among health care workers has led to problems in South Africa. (See
previous report on Kenya, with remarks on the situation in South Africa)
Scientists in Gaithersburg, Maryland, claim to have produced human embryos
by parthenogenesis. They chemically stimulated a the human oocyte and caused
it to transform into an embryo which survived until the blastocyst stage.
The process is intended to be used to produce human embryos as a source of
stem cells. The article claims that parthenogenesis avoids ethical concerns
surrounding embryonic stem cell research; that opinion is sharply contested.
[Study]
The governor of Arizona vetoed Senate Bill 1089, which had been passed
in order to ensure that non-profit religious corporations or groups would
not be forced to violate their beliefs by being forced to provide
contraceptive drugs to employees.
The Hawaiian House of Representatives and Senate have passed a bill to force
hospitals to provide the potentially abortifacient 'morning after pill' to
rape complainants who request it. No exemptions were allowed for
denominational institutions. Failing to provide the information demanded by
the act or failing to provide the drug can be punished by a $5,000.00 fine
for a first offence. Later violations can lead to suspension or revocation
of licences to operate.
Pro-life groups are divided over Wisconsin Assembly Bill 67. The bill
was primarily supported by Wisconsin Right to Life, though Pro-life
Wisconsin, a different group, and Pharmacists for Life International both
expressed support for it in its
original form. The original bill was 'procedure specific', in that it
ensured freedom of conscience with respect to six explicitly defined
activities. Five of the six defined activities involved direct or indirect
participation in causing the death of human individuals; the sixth,
sterilization procedures, did not. The original bill made no reference to
contraception, so that no protection was afforded those with moral or
religious objections to contraception.
However, the bill was amended by its sponsor to specifically exclude the
possibility of protection for conscientious objectors with respect to
contraceptive drugs and devices as defined in Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter
450.155(1)(a): "Contraceptive article" means any drug, medicine, mixture,
preparation, instrument, article or device of any nature used or intended or
represented to be used to prevent a pregnancy.
Why exclude protection of conscience with respect to contraceptives in a
bill that did not purport to provide it in the first place?
The reason appears to be that a number of drugs or devices that are
marketed as
contraceptives do not always prevent
conception, but sometimes prevent the implantation of a human embryo.
Pharmacists and other health care workers who object to causing the death of
a human embryo may object to dispensing drugs or devices that have this
effect. In its original form, AB67 could have been interpreted to provide
for freedom of conscience for these people. The amendment appears to have
been introduced to exclude that possibility. As a result, Pro-life Wisconsin
and Pharmacists for Life International withdrew their support for AB67, and
PFLI publicly rebuked Wisconsin Right to Life and the bill's sponsor for
moving the amendment.
An ironic consequence is that the
amended bill continues to protect those who would not participate in the
destruction of a human embryo in vitro, but not those who would
object to the destruction of a human embryo in utero. In any case,
from the outset, nothing in the bill would have secured freedom of
conscience for those who oppose contraception per se.
It is not clear whether or not legislators in Mexico have actually made
conscientious objection a criminal offence by passing a law that makes it an
offence to "hinder women's access" to information about "reproductive
health", which is typically interpreted to mean abortion and contraception.
After New Zealand's High Court ruled that women need not remain in a clinic
after taking the abortifacient mifepristone (formerly RU486) the medical
director at Lyndhurst Hospital in Christchurch reminded the public that
chemical abortions are a lengthier process than surgical abortions, and that
a certain number of women who take the drug will have to have a surgical
abortions anyway. [News
item][News
item] What has been overlooked is the probability that physicians who
find abortion morally abhorrent will be confronted by women with incomplete
abortions who expect them to finish surgically what one of their colleagues
has begun chemically, even if the child might be saved by conservative case
management. The Project has received reports that this has become a problem
elsewhere.
The Scotsman reports that Professor Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute
in Scotland plans to request permission to clone a patient who has motor
neuron disease, and then destroy the cloned embryo to extract stem cells for
the purpose of research. Existing ethical controversy concerning the use of
vaccines derived from aborted fetuses illustrates demonstrates the
probability that research cloning will produce long-term, ongoing conflicts
for those who object to such procedures. [The Scotsman, 12 April, 2003]
Under the terms of a bylaw passed by New York city council over the veto of
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, hospitals that have contracts with the city must
provide the potentially abortifacient 'morning-after pill' to patients
complaining of rape. It is not clear to what extent the bylaw will impact
hospitals run by groups that are opposed to abortion. A second bylaw
requires pharmacies to post notices if they do not carry the 'morning after
pill'. Whatever the intent of the bylaw, it may actually reduce the
possibility of a conflict between pharmacists and patients.
70% of people surveyed in Britain are said to support destructive
research on embryos in order to study human fertility and find treatments
for serious diseases. The survey was jointly commissioned by several
organizations. If the survey results are accurate, and if they can be
applied to health care professions, 30% of health care workers may find
themselves under pressure to participate in procedures that they find
morally objectionable.
A family in England may now produce in vitro embryos and use eugenic
screening to identify a suitable bone marrow donor, who will be
brought to term to provide a transplant for their four year old child.
It is not clear whether genetically unsuitable embryos will be frozen,
destroyed or offered for experimental research. The procedure has been
approved by an appeal court ruling that overturned a lower court judgement.
[BBC News]
The Nevada Assembly has rejected a protection of conscience amendment in a
bill that is intended to suppress religious freedom among pharmacists in the
state. The bill is supported by Planned Parenthood, which wants to force
pharmacists to dispense contraceptive and abortifacient drugs even if they
have religious or moral objections to doing so. Assemblyman David Goldwater,
of Las Vegas claimed that refusing to dispense drugs could "put peoples'
heath at risk". Remarkably, Goldwater asserted that this purported health
risk was acceptable if it resulted from a business decision not to carry
drugs rather than a moral decision to refuse to dispense them. His argument
was supported by Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, also of Las Vegas,and a
Planned Parenthood representative. They did not explain why it was
acceptable to endanger someone's health for economic reasons.
The Minority Leader in the Assembly, Lynn Hettrick, rejected freedom of
conscience for pharmacists because, in his view, the physician, not the
pharmacist, makes the decision that the drug should be taken. The same
argument could be used to force pharmacists to dispense drugs for assisted
suicide, euthanasia, and execution by lethal injection. The protective
amendment had been moved by Assemblyman Joe Hardy of Boulder City, a
physician. [Review
Journal][Kaiser
Report]
The New York State Assembly has passed a bill that will allow cloning and
gestation of human beings as long as they are killed before birth. This was
accomplished by defining somatic cell nuclear transfer as 'reproductive
cloning' when it is intended to result in the birth of a child, and
'therapeutic cloning' when intended to produce an embryo for research or
treatment. The bill, called
The
Reproductive Cloning Prohibition and Research Protection Act, is
described as a "moral outrage" in a
news
release from the New York State Catholic Conference. While the act
purports to 'protect' research, it includes no protective provisions for
those who do not want to participate in human cloning.
The New York Supreme Court has ruled that a
child suffering from cystic fibrosis, conceived by in vitro
fertilization, may not sue for wrongful life. However, the court upheld the
right of parents to sue a fertility centre and hospital for punitive damages
on the basis of reckless conduct. The decision naturally encourages eugenic
practices, though this may not be a significant issue for those now involved
with in vitro technology. On the other hand, continued judicial
insistence upon a eugenic 'standard of care' has broader implications that
may indirectly impact conscientious objectors.
("Parents, not child, may seek damages over in vitro fertilization," New
York Law Journal, 4/4/03)
Senators Hatch, Feinstein, Specter, Kennedy, Harkin, and Miller of the
United States are attempting to ignore the moral controversy surrounding
human cloning by defining it out of existence. Their Bill S303 purports to
prohibit human cloning, but defines it as "implanting or attempting to
implant the product of nuclear transplantation into a uterus or the
functional equivalent of a uterus." The bill defines 'nuclear
transplantation' as "transferring the nucleus of a human somatic cell into
an oocyte from which the nucleus or all chromosomes have been or will be
removed or rendered inert"- a description of cloning by somatic cell
transfer. In effect, cloning will be permitted to produce human embryos as
long as the cloned embryos are not implanted, and those involved in cloning
embryos for research will be able to claim that what they are doing is not
'really' (ie, 'legally) cloning. Legislation or policy of this type is
particularly troublesome for conscientious objectors, who find themselves
accused of being 'unscientific' because they refuse to accept such
utilitarian re-definitions.
The Pontifical Council for the Family has published an 868 page document
containing an explanation of 78 phrases and expressions commonly used by
lobbyists, legislators and officials involved in international meetings. The
document is intended to expose the actual meanings that are often concealed
by the terms. The document is now available only in Italian.
Russia has opened its first ethical stem cell bank. A stem cell bank opened
in Russia bank will allow parents to store their children's umbilical cord
blood for up to 15 years. Umbilical cord blood is rich in stem cells and has
been shown to be therapeutically productive. The opening of the bank is a
reminder that moral controversy can often be avoided without causing
problems for patients.