It's either a miracle...

...or medicine isn't half as good as it thinks it is.

Boy declared brain dead and ready for organ harvesting  hears declaration of death and makes recovery.

Great Moments in Science Educamation

Bill Clinton thinks its ethically acceptable to use human embryos for scientific research because they "are never going to be fertilized."

I kid you not.

See the video for yourself. Clinton repeats that point repeatedly, when he is not biting his lip and looking thoughtful.



Ed Morrisey points out that the sycophantic interviewer - a physician and Clinton's first choice for Surgeon General - never corrects Clinton.

Stimulate science, not ideology

There is something very disturbing in the haste in which the Obama administration is trying to take down as many barriers to the protection of human life as quickly as possible. It's as if having more abortions and more human embryos created and destroyed for science were a blood rite that will bring prosperity back by propitiating the Prince of this World.

According to the Investor's Business Daily, the embryonic stem cell research angle is a sucker's bet:

During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama said: "I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations."

With all due respect, that is nonsense. With Obama lifting the restrictions on Monday, we will now be federally funding research that has yet to produce a single therapy or a single treatment of an actual human being, at least one that works. It has generated a lot of hope but very little change. It is he who is putting ideology over science.

What has handcuffed our scientists is the difficulty of controlling embryonic stem cells and what they develop into. They're called pluripotent because they can develop into any type of human tissue, sometimes all at once.

Embryonic stem cells have a tendency to develop into one of the most primitive and terrifying forms of cancer, a tumor called a teratoma. Adult stem cells don't have that problem.

Recently the family of an Israeli boy suffering from a lethal genetic brain disease sought a solution in the form of injections of fetal stem cells. These injections apparently triggered tumors in the boy's brain and spinal cord.

It's in the area of adult stem cell research that new discoveries are being made every day. Fact is, there are now hundreds of conditions and diseases actually being treated using adult stem cells drawn from umbilical cord blood and other nonembryonic sources.

The typical reaction to Obama's move was represented in a Los Angeles Times sub-headline in its Saturday piece describing Obama's decision. It read, "Lifting Bush's limits on research will reopen a door for science." But no door had been closed.

Bush's executive order banned federal funding only of new stem cell lines. Neither federal funding of existing lines nor private funding was banned. In fact, Bush was the first president to spend any money on ESCR at all. Clinton spent zero.

The Times notes, as we have, that in 2006 researchers led by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Japan's Kyoto University were first able to "reprogram" human skin cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. But it claims the potential of these induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS) "is still unclear."

No, it's not. They can do everything stem cells from destroyed embryos can do, except without the moral baggage or the destroyed embryos.

This type of stem cell, according to the National Institutes of Health, offers the prospect of having a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, to name a few.

Last week, Canadian and Scottish researchers, led by Andras Nagy of the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute in Toronto, announced in the journal Nature a new and safer way to create IPS cells. The original method used genetically engineered viruses to coax the skin cells into a state biologically identical to embryonic stem cells.

The new method uses strands of genetic material, or DNA, which can safely be removed once it does its job. The technique builds on Yamanaka's advance when he electrified scientists by reprogramming ordinary skin cells into stem cells capable of growing heart, brain and other tissues.

Venture capitalists think IPS cells are promising and are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Last year, Kleiner Perkins, the veteran Silicon Valley venture capital firm that helped found the biotechnology industry, announced it was backing a new Bay Area company, iZumi Bio Inc., which will work on further developing the technology for creating and using IPS cells developed from adult stem cells.

If embryonic stem cells are so promising, why aren't venture capitalists lining up and why does ESCR need federal funding? Indeed, let's stimulate science, not ideology.

In the areas of global warming and stem cell research, the secular left has shown itself to be in the grip of magical thinking.

Remember, California, that you may be bankrupt, but your credit is still being used to underwrite $6 Billion in bonds to subsidize fatcat embryonic stem-cell researchers.

Remember how I said that sinking your money into a single line of research is a sucker's bet?

Remember how I said that if embryonic stem cell research was that promising, then the market would be funding it?

Remember how I used the analogy of Soviet superiority in vacuum tube technology?

But you wouldn't listen.

However, the president’s support of embryonic stem cell research comes at a time when many advances have been made with other sorts of stem cells. The Japanese biologist Shinya Yamanaka found in 2007 that adult cells could be reprogrammed to an embryonic state with surprising ease. This technology “may eventually eclipse the embryonic stem cell lines for therapeutic as well as diagnostics applications,” Dr. Kriegstein said. For researchers, reprogramming an adult cell can be much more convenient, and there have never been any restrictions on working with adult stem cells.

Members of Congress and advocates for fighting diseases have long spoken of human embryonic stem cell research as if it were a sure avenue to quick cures for intractable afflictions. Scientists have not publicly objected to such high-flown hopes, which have helped fuel new sources of grant money like the $3 billion initiative in California for stem cell research.

In private, however, many researchers have projected much more modest goals for embryonic stem cells. Their chief interest is to derive embryonic stem cell lines from patients with specific diseases, and by tracking the cells in the test tube to develop basic knowledge about how the disease develops.

Despite an F.D.A.-approved safety test of embryonic stem cells in spinal cord injury that the Geron Corporation began in January, many scientists believe that putting stem-cell-derived tissues into patients lies a long way off. Embryonic stem cells have their drawbacks. They cause tumors, and the adult cells derived from them may be rejected by the patient’s immune system. Furthermore, whatever disease process caused the patients’ tissue cells to die is likely to kill introduced cells as well. All these problems may be solvable, but so far none have been solved.

The good news is that UC Merced is going to research improvements in vacuum tube technologies.

Are moral obligations derived from function or family?

As Thomisticguy (aka Pastor Van Oosten) points out, we had a discussion on the issue of terminating life support for individual in a persistent vegetative state ("PVS") at the Thursday night Aquinas Circle. The thesis discussed based on the following syllogism:

1. According to the Catechism, the purpose of human life is to "seek, know and love" God.

2. Individuals who are in PVS are not able to "seek, know and love" God.

3. Therefore, such individuals are not - and we assume never will be capable of - living a human life.

4. Accordingly, there is no moral or human purpose in maintaining such individuals in such a non-human life, and it may be the case that moral harm is being done to such individuals by delaying their union with God.

I am not sure that the move from "3" to "4" is obvious, and it seems that the moral harm point may be countered by speculating that the person's final end is not Heaven, in which case, delaying their ultimate destiny does them a lot of good.

On his Blog, Thomisticguy has addressed from a Thomistic perspective whether we can be sure that people in a PVS are not capable of seeking, knowing and loving God and whether "purpose" can be narrowly defined as the individual's purpose, as opposed to the purpose of other people or the community itself. (See my comment on Thom's post here.)

This argument seems novel at first glance, but is really just a variation on the secularist argument that defines human "functionality" as the sine qua non for determining moral rights and obligations. The secular argument based on functionality usually argues that the ability to reason and experience is the essence of humanity, and that someone without those capacities has the moral status of animals, which lack those essential human capacities.

This is not an extreme position. I think that the intuition of most people is to feel a horror at the the situation of people in PVS. Those in PVS seem to have entered a "post-human" life devoid of everything that the sentient finds meaningful. The death of those in PVS naturally seems a mercy for the family, society and the individual himself.

On the other hand, there is another intuition that we have. We still see those in PVS as being "human." We would have to descend into a presently unrecognizable culture to countenance the medical experimentation on the PVS, or harvesting their organs, although that fits into the notion that function determines status. Moreover, while we are willing to remove feeding tubes and watch them die, we are not willing to smother them with pillows or expose them to the elements.

The intuition then is that even without their human functions, individuals in a PVS are still humans.

Obviously, this latter intution is premised on the buried notion that we are not humans because of what we do, rather we are human because of who we are: we are humans - and entitled to the rights of all other humans - because we belong to the human community as a matter of our birthright, which can't be taken away by the accident of disability.

On which point, Mark Shea points to a book by Robert George and Christopher Tollefson called "Embryo," which makes the same kind of family over function analysis as a matter of embriology. This review describes the argument of the book as follows:

This book is likely to make a lot of people crazy: It is a radical, even audacious, assault on the emerging technologies that would harvest living human embryos for medical research purposes. It is absolutist in its claim that human life begins at fertilization, when the male and female gamete, each bearing 23 complementary chromosomes, combine to create the single-cell zygote that will implant itself in the uterus and, in due course, become a man or woman. The argument's implications, not only for embryonic research but for abortion and some forms of contraception, are obvious: If it's human, you shouldn't kill it. That the argument relies on no sectarian religious tenet will only further aggravate those who disagree — it is much easier, these days, to dismiss religious scruple than scientific fact and logic.

And continues:

But once the embryo is defined as human — as the science of embryology clearly defines it — the sentience argument falls short. Why not also harvest organs from the severely retarded or the comatose? The history of assigning value to individual human lives based on perceptions of inferiority or inconvenience has not been a pretty one, and the "greater good" argument is undeniably stronger, provided that the extravagant claims made for embryonic stem cells are not exaggerated. (The authors and many others believe the claims are, in fact, exaggerated.) But it, too, falters when one considers the history of reckless medical experimentation — the notorious Tuskegee syphilis trials, for instance, or the radiation tests performed on the unsuspecting by the military.

Moral principles are imperialistic. They conquer the surrounding territory until they are checked by an equally strong principle. Grant that function determines moral status and it is not clear where the stopping point of that principle can be found.

Playing God in the Great White North.

The Manitoba College of Physicians and Surgeons has issued a statement endorsing the right of Canadian physicians to withdraw "life sustaining treatment" from patients over the objections of the patient's family.

"Life sustaining treatment" includes any treatment that sustains the life of a patient without curing the underlying condition. Thus, "life sustaining treatment" might include providing food and water, but might also include hygiene and shelter.

The physician's duty with respect to consulting with other doctors and the family varies on whether the "minimum goal of life sustaining treatment" is reasonably achievable. The "minimum goal" is defined as the "recovery of cerebral function" to a point where the patient is aware of the self or the environment.

A physician can decide to withdraw or withhold life sustaining treatment of patients for whom the minimum goal is not reasonably achievable. If that decision is made, the physician must consult with another physician and the family, however, if the conultation with the physician results in a concurrence in the decision to withhold or withdraw treatment, then the treatment can be withheld or withdrawn notwithstanding the family's objection, although the physician must give the family written and verbal notice of the time and date that treatment will be withheld.

A physician can also withhold treatment for patients who might achieve the "minimum goal" if the physician decides that secondary effects, such as pain and suffering, outweigh the benefits of achieving the "minimum goal." In that case, the family's objection to withholding or withrawing treatment requires the physician to transfer the care of the patient to another physician.

The College makes the following claim in its Statement:

3. The Manitoba Courts have recognized that physicians have the authority to make medical decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from a patient without the consent of the patient or the patient’s family.

Baldly stated like that, that seems a most unusual and far-reaching proposition.

It may not be correct, however, as noted in this Volokh Conspiracy" post, although one has to wonder about what is motivating the Manitoba College to grab of god-like power over life and death.

Perhaps Mark Shea has an answer:

The Manitoban College of Physicians has recently come out and said that doctors have the right to euthanize anyone above the wishes of the family.

Nothing's certain, of course, but given the *enormous* pressure that us aging members of Generation Narcissus are going to exert on the social system as we start getting old and sick, my money is on the rising generation learning the valuable lesson we taught them: Kill the Inconvenient. Barring something unforeseen like a car accident or a bullet from a torture zealot, I think the odds are very high that I will be murdered in my hospital bed at the order of a bean counter in order to cut costs. I'm at the tail end of Generation Narcissus (born 1958). Long before I get old and weak, the main demographic bulge will have worked its way through the collapsing Soash Security system and cost enormous amounts on a workforce feeling the full effects of demographic winter. Something will have to give, and it will not, in all likelihood, be the fallen human heart. So we Baby Boomers will reap the harvest of death we have sown in our covenant with death. Initially, euthanasia will be sold as "choice". Then it will become peer pressure. Then duty. And finally it will become obligation under law.

Note, incidently, how the "minimum goal" of self-awareness is ultimately a red-herring. Doctors can decide to remove life-support for patients who can be returned to awareness if the doctor decides that negative consequences justify death. Right now, the negative consequences might be "pain and suffering" but what does that mean? After the imperialism of logical development works its magic, could pain and suffering include the psychological distress of living a "life not worth living"?

How about cost and expense? How about efficient use of limited resources?

Care to bet against it?

Likewise, doctors who decide that the continued care of patients capable of the "minimum goal" is not worth the effort are to transfer their patients to other doctors. This seems like a concession in the direction of erring on the side of life, but how long with that policy stay in effect?

The fact is that such a policy should not be necessary - Once upon a time the Hippocratic Oath set the policy of doing no harm to any patient.

California, you were had.

David Freddoso at NRO points out:

Then there's California's Proposition 71 of 2004, to borrow $3 billion (with a b) for cloning research and to enshrine a right to do it in the state constitution. The proposition's boosters — many of them scientists — lied about the royalties the state could expect from the anticipated cures. Assuming that they can read, they knowingly lied about what dieases embryonic stem-cells showed promise in curing — for example, Alzheimers and juvenile diabetes. They lied about whether they were doing human cloning. They lied about whether they were banning human cloning.

All these lies plus a $35 million "investment" got them a $3 billion return from the taxpayers of a deeply indebted state whose bond rating had recently been teetering on junk status. Ten percent of the money — $300 million — was earmarked in the proposition for real estate purchases and the hiring of "real estate experts." (By the way, Robert Klein, who headed the campaign, is a developer, as were several of its contributors.)

I didn't know that last part about real estate development, but it makes sense: behind every political corruption, there's a real estate deal.

Well, at least we stuck it to the theocrats who want to spoil our fun.

That will show them!

A lesbian trapped in a man's body.

Due to a tangled web of book club/philosophy discussion groups I'm involved with, I received an invitation to listen to a talk by Angela Pettit on his/her experience with the transgender experience.

That's a picture of Angela, Angela's daughter and Angela's wife, from right to left. Angela's biography on the PFLAG site reads:

I am a post-op male to female transsexual. My SRS was with Dr. Brassard in January of 2002.

For those of you who care about such things, I was born October 27, 1942. (You can do the math.) I like to say that I now have three birthdays every year: my natal day; the day I started living full time as a woman – June 23, 2000; and the day of my SRS January 7, 2002. Strangely, my family only gets together to celebrate my natal day. No amount of advocacy seems to convince them that I really should have three birthdays each year.

Since the beginning of my transition in 1999, I have been very active in a variety of transgender organizations. I founded the Central Valley Transgender Support Group to serve the Fresno, CA area and began speaking at college campuses, churches, and business conferences. In addition, I am leader of PFLAG-Fresno, and was recently appointed TNET Coordinator for the Mid-Pacific Region. My personal philosophy is that the many battles that GLBT people face can best be addressed through education of the general populace.

I suppose that I am different from most transsexuals in that I have been lovingly accepted by my immediate family, my birth family, and my wife's birth family. My immediate family is composed of Jonni, my wife of 38 years, and our daughter, Audra, and her husband. All have been most accepting and understanding from the first time we notified them of my transition. I am truly blessed.

In 2001 I was notified that I, along with Jonni and Audra, had been chosen to participate in the shooting of a one-hour Discovery Channel special entitled, Changing Sexes: Male to Female. The footage was shot in December and January of 2001-2002 and was finally shown in the fall of 2002. (It is still being shown approximately every six weeks.)

I served in the U.S. Air Force as a navigator/bombardier on a B-52 from 1963 until I retired in 1984. I flew more than 280 combat missions over Vietnam. As a result, I hold 13 Air Medals and a Distinguished Flying Cross. After retirement from the Air Force, I became a teacher of high school math. More specifically, I was department head for both the math and science departments. I taught all levels of math but my greatest love was teaching pre-Calculus, and AP Calculus. Since I taught at a school in a small farming community, I elected to take early retirement when I started living full time as a woman.

It sounds like Angela has made a happy, succesful reassignment.

My sense is that on some level "gender reassignment surgery" is deeply compatible with the post-modern American ethical system. The highest value according to our highest Court is the aiblity to define our own value and seek the good as we find it. Certainly, as modern Americans, we deeply believe that we shouldn't be limited to the role defined by our history, or DNA, for that matter. GBLTism is an organized group that has a recognized place in the alphabet soup of minorities that Democrat politicians must recognize.

Is there, however, any wisdom to the now-distant conventional wisdom that human nature is not infinitely malleable?

Here is the controversial First Things essay by Paul McHugh. McHugh was the head of John Hopkins that shut down the "gender reassignment surgery" that Hopkins had become famous for. McHugh's decision was based on his conclusion that people claiming to be transgendered were not in fact being helped by the psychiatric profession through surgical intervention.

This passage is universally described by proponents of transgenderism as "hateful":

Their regular response was to show me their patients. Men (and until recently they were all men) with whom I spoke before their surgery would tell me that their bodies and sexual identities were at variance. Those I met after surgery would tell me that the surgery and hormone treatments that had made them “women” had also made them happy and contented. None of these encounters were persuasive, however. The post-surgical subjects struck me as caricatures of women. They wore high heels, copious makeup, and flamboyant clothing; they spoke about how they found themselves able to give vent to their natural inclinations for peace, domesticity, and gentleness — but their large hands, prominent Adam’s apples, and thick facial features were incongruous (and would become more so as they aged). Women psychiatrists whom I sent to talk with them would intuitively see through the disguise and the exaggerated postures. “Gals know gals,” one said to me, “and that’s a guy.”

For what it's worth, the same people who see hate in this description, also explain McHugh's putative hatefulness on his Catholicism, as if that dispenses with any need to intellectually engage McHugh's experience.

There is also sad site by a transgendered person for whom things did not go so well, it seems. One wonders how many others are not celebrating their new identity.

There is also the question of why others should be required to participate in what they think is a charade. Did Rene Richards, for example, really become a "women's" tennis player simply because they readjusted his genitalia?

Similarly, can a man formed into the likeness of a woman really understand the female experience of rape or sexual violence? That seems to be a real concern motivating this this post by a Canadian "rape relief center."