Science Friction: Stem Cell Research Review

After watching the Stem Cell Research video my thoughts on embryo stem cell research became more adamant. Embryo stem cell research should be allowed. Someone that stood out to me in the video was Lisa O’Callaghan who actually went through multiple IVF treatments and finally gave birth to a girl. Lisa stated that she had some frozen embryos left over, and she clearly stated that she was against embryo stem cell research because it is destroying an innocent potential baby. Lisa went on to say that she did not want to become an old woman whom still had frozen embryos yet she disagreed with donating the embryos to stem cell research and did not mention donating the embryos to other couples. So what does she wants to do with the embryos?  The reason why this is problematic for me is because Lisa sees no problem with the embryos being kept frozen for years and it seems clear that she doesn't want to have more children. Therefore, what will be the issue with giving the embryo to research instead of it being cryopreserved and stored away for years?  My reason for this perspective is because the video explained that IVF procedures only fertilize the sperm and egg. Therefore, it is not until the embryo is successful inside the mother’s womb that it becomes a fetus. 

This video allowed me to see that in cases as in the male who was paralyzed and was restrained from doing simply daily activities was not allowed to because there is no research to cure him, but that can change if scientist find a way to use stem cells to actual regenerate the cells that were destroyed for this male.  Embryo stem cell research can change save many lives one day if it is successful which is why I support this research. 

Stem Cell Research Video Responce

After watching that video today in class my view on stem cell research changed slightly. After seeing and learning more about the different laboratory methods being used to create both embryonic stem cells from embryos as well as skin cells, I can easily say that I am entirely for stem cell research. I have come to understand that even if you have an embryo that is fertilized in a test tube, it still needs a womb in order to mature and develop into a fetus. I do not believe that there is any evil intention behind the research methods being used, and I do not see how helping people with fertility issues and trying to develop cures for some of the worlds most deadly and horrible diseases is unethical. I just simply do not see it that way. I think that it is great that new stem cell methods are being developed, but embryonic stem cell research must not be forgotten. If we can use the frozen embryos from IFV treatments for experimentation to help learn more about how to treat diseases, that would be fantastic. I believe that as long as there is good intention and no harm is coming to an individual, than I see nothing wrong with stem cell research whatsoever. I believe that it can be used to help millions of people in the future. If stem cells can give a person with a terrible disease, a second chance at life, I am all for it.

Is human cloning unethical ?

In early 1997 a Scottish scientist Dr. Ian Wilmut showed the world that he successfully cloned an adult sheep, by the name of dolly. With Ian revealing this invention, the world realized that cloning wasn’t just a myth or a pipe dream that they see happen very often in Sci-Fi movies. Since then, human cloning has become one of the most widespread debated topics around the world just like abortion. Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning, which is the reproduction of human cells and tissue, cloning is the process in which the DNA of a female egg cell is replaced with different DNA from another cell. This technique is also called “Nuclear Transfer” or “Nuclear Substitution. In the operation, the nucleus which is the part of the cell that contains the DNA molecules from the unfertilized female egg cell, is carefully removed and then replaced with the nucleus from a cell of another person. Then, “the cell is manipulated into believing that it has been fertilized and is then implanted into the mother’s womb. What this means is that the cloned baby only differs from other babies in that they share the same exact DNA with another person, just like identical twins, only the clone is much younger than its twin. The child will grow up to be no more like their twin than natural identical twins are alike. Therefore, some peoples’ beliefs that human cloning is a complicated process,

 There are issues surrounding human cloning whether it’s unethical/immoral. The opponents of human cloning believe that it is immoral and unethical to human beings due to both religious and humanitarian reasons. And other opponents view human cloning as a luxury for wealthy people or as a tool for market development. Most people fear cloning not because it is unnatural, but because they fear abuse. If given the choice, many humans would realign their own DNA to remove a gene here, add a gene there. Others may use cloning for their racial, militaristic or labor goals.

I am not saying that I disagree with human cloning but I also do not agree with it. I agree with human cloning in certain situations such as in reuniting a parent with a daughter or son that had been taken away from them because of a harsh of situation such as death.  I disagree with human cloning because separates reproduction from human sexual activity. What is your opinion on human cloning ?

Steam cell Research

Imagine a case in which a person who has been paralyzed waist down from because they had an accident like playing a game of football. This person had been walking all their life until this accident. Don’t you think this person deservers to walk again? Or take another example were a child was born with a disability that make the child paraplegic. Doesn’t this child deserve to walk for the first time? Steam cell research can be used as a solution. After watch the documentary in class about Steam Cells research I had one thought why isn’t this research better known and why isn’t it being used to help lives. Yea I know that steam cell research is very premature but the procedure has many positive effects for society. It can heal many untreatable illness and disease that couldn’t be treated before. It helps people with condition like paralysis now but it could possible cure disorders and conditions like deafness and blindness. These conditions have no cure now but imagine what can be done with steam cell research. It can bring hope to ones who don’t have it. So what is wrong with the way we obtain these cells yea it is from a developing embryo but it isn’t human yet it just a cluster of cells. Apparently from what I got out of that video there is an abundance of embryos in many fertility clinics. So why not use them for the sake of science. I mean science made possible for many of the services provided by these clinics so why not give back to science. The stigma’s surrounding stem cell research doesn’t really help progress for better medical health/procedure, instead it holds it back. People need to see this research as a way that can dramatically improve our lives and our future generation. The stigma that this process isn’t natural should be thrown out of our head. Because to be honest, we as human are getting far from being natural to being unnatural. As technology advances so do we. We are accustomed and evolving with every new technological advances. So instead of looking at steam cell from a very negative standpoint it should be looked at a positively. Because I see steam cell as a procedure does a greater good for all and the first step towards a healthier future. So what do you guys think about steam cell research?

IVF and Multiple Births

     About a year ago, a husband and wife became pregnant with twins from in vitro fertilization.  They made many disgusted with their anonymous blogposts about their unhappiness stemming from their new family.  Like many couples who decide on in vitro fertilization, they had been trying for years to become pregnant, with no success.  During the process, the parents were given the choice between implanting one or two embryos -- two increasing their chances of having a baby.  It worked so well that they got pregnant with two babies instead of one.  Many would assume that the parents would be thrilled with their successes doubling; however, this wasn't the case.  "We were hoping for one girl, instead we got two boys.  My initial reaction was full of disappointment, anger, fear, and guilt," the father blogged.  The mother wrote that in her mind, "[she] had done nothing more than ruin [their] family".  Of course, the parents were made aware by doctors the risks and increased chances of having twins, and the parents were required to sign a consent form.  It seems that many couples are so eager to finally have children, they may not completely think out the long-term struggles of having twins.

     In some states, it is the parents' decision whether to implant one or two embryos.  In states with mandated healthcare coverages for fertility treatments, some insurers are requiring doctors to only implant one embryo at a time because additional IVF treatments typically cost less than medical care for twins.

     Aside from insurance companies' influence in certain states, there is little to no government involvement in in vitro fertilization.  Should government regulate the process of IVF?  Should doctors no longer give patients the option of implanting more than one embryo?  Does the cost and payment of IVF cause the government's lack of involvement?  It is interesting to consider just what percentage of IVF parents of multiples "regret" having more than one child.  Even if the percentage is a very small amount, should the chance of preventing even one unwanted child take precedence?  One could argue that this is not the place of government intervention, but what makes in vitro fertilization different than adoption or abortion?  The future of a potential life seems to always warrant government involvement -- without completely threatening a person's autonomy.

Selective Abortion

In class we talked about the case on abortions and prenatal testing, where the case was introduced with a story of an eleven year old girl named Sarah who, despite having Down syndrome, lives a fairly normal life.  Sarah’s story shows just how precious life can be.  This story is not unlike others, in fact Sarah’s parents started this campaign of sharing many stories just like Sarah's to help more people, who worry about the future of having a child with Down syndrome, have a better understanding of what it is like to have a child with Down syndrome.

There is one thing about this case that I found to be truly heart breaking. Recently women have started to receive prenatal testing to discover if their child is positive for Down syndrome or not. With the predominance of this test being more readily available to more and more pregnant women, the greater the fear of having a child with Down syndrome becomes.  As this test becomes more popular and the greater the fear of having a child test positive for this disorder, the rate of abortions of these fetuses due to the anxiety of the parents.  In fact 90 percent of women who tested positive for having a Down syndrome child, opted for aborting the fetus. This is a truly upsetting statistic, each and every one of those fetuses had the potential of living a beautiful and healthy life that would bring so much happiness into the world.

I think that abortions in general are not right, but the fact that someone would rather lose their baby, because they are afraid of what they believe to be a bad thing, than get to experience having such a precious opportunity, is completely irrational to me.  This abortion of fetus tested positive for Down syndrome is a kind of selective abortion, where parents decide to abort the fetus on the basis that the child will be different in some way than they had wanted or planned on them being.  In these kind of selective abortions, parents seem to be trying to “play God” in the sense that they want to have control over something that is not theirs to control, such as deciding the fate of their child.  Although it may seem as if these parents are trying to do what is best for their child, it is quite the opposite, they are only being selfish by expressing the belief that they view their own lives to be more important than that of a child, who may be viewed as being different by the world.  

Why Abortion Should Be Legal

I feel that although abortion is the removal of a child from this world it is morally permissible and should be legalized. First and foremost I think that it is absolutely not the governments job to dictate whether an abortion is permissible or justified. I think that the choice to have an abortion is a private matter between the woman and her doctor, and I would like to think that if I became pregnant and had any reason why i would not want to be pregnant that I would have safe, qualified doctors who could help me. I do not think that because abortion is "murder" it should be illegal, because just because something is illegal does not mean that it is eradicated(look at illegal drug trade, child trafficking, stealing, embezzling, or any number of illegal things that still happen regardless of their legal status). Making a risky medical procedure illegal is an absolute nightmare. Abortions are still going to be performed, making them illegal is guaranteeing that the women who choose that alternative are going to be void of safe and responsible medical help. It has been reported that 47000 women die yearly from unsafe abortions, just imagine how this already high number would sky rocket if the means for a safe abortion was taken away. Additionally, if you look at instances where a country had made abortion illegal it is obvious that it is just a bad idea. For example, Romania banned abortions in 1966 for just under fifteen years. During fifteenish years in ONE country over 9,000 women died from unsafe abortions and countless others were permanently injured. That’s around two women dying every day. When the policy was reversed, maternal mortality rate plummeted to one-eighth of what it was at its peak under the no-abortion policy.Also, if women couldn't have a safe abortion, the obvious thing to do with an unwanted child would be to adopt the child out. Romania’s abortion caused a nationwide orphan crisis, as roughly 150,000 unwanted newborns were placed in nightmarish state-run orphanages. Many of those orphans now suffer from sever mental and physical health problems, including autism, reduced brain size, schizoaffective disorder, and sociopathy.
Ultimately I think that abortions are the right of the mother and have many instances where they are a necessity and not just a luxury. Also i feel that if it has been tried before and the results were very very bad and irreversible we should probably not repeat history.

Sex-Selection Abortions

Sex-selection abortions are sadly performed alot in India, as discussed in class. Indian families think its a big burden to have a female mainly because, of financial issues. A girl needs much more things than boys do. In the old days, if one wanted their daughter to be married to a good family, the family would have give a big dowry. The better and richer the family is the bigger the dowry. Now, the Indian government has made dowry and sex-selection abortions illegal. All ultrasound machines have to be registered and the doctor can not tell the sex of the baby. According to the article I have attached, a stat shows that for every 1000 men there are only 618 women. The article then states that this ratio can be very hazardous socially and economically.

All Indians, including me, know how serious this issue is in India. My parents always wanted a girl, and were blessed to have me. They were excited for my arrival, but my grandmother was not. She refused to talk to my mother, because I was the first girl born into the family. My grandmother wanted nothing but boys, so they can carry on the legacy of the family, while girls would be married off to another family. I think that sex-selection abortions are very wrong. I think that this is discrimination to females. These types of abortions make the society seem like it is ale dominate. Why should it matter if the baby is a boy or girl? They family should be happy for the baby regardless of the gender. What are your thoughts about this type of abortion? Do you think it is discriminating? 

http://www.newsrecord.co/answering-for-indias-missing-girls-sex-selective-abortion-in-india/

Rape and Abortion

Kathleen DeZeeuw is a mother of a child that was conceived from rape. In an article on lifesitenews, Kathleen disagreed with pro-choicers who argument is that abortion should be legal because of the victims whom became pregnant through rape. Kathleen states, “I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child ‘conceived in rape’, feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we’re being used to further the abortion issue, even though we’ve not been asked to tell our side of the story.” She goes on to say that she is not saying that being rape is not traumatic because it really is; however, she felt that women that keep their babies after being raped are not supported by this decision. 

In class this week we talked abortions and situations where having abortions are acceptable for “very important reasons.” We also learned that almost half of all pregnancies are unintended. This statistic alone caused me to ponder about horrific cases where becoming pregnant was unplanned, one of the first situations I thought of was when a victim is raped. I felt that this situation alone was of course a very important reason to get an abortion. I thought to myself: Who would want to keep a baby conceived through rape? Wouldn't that be unbearable for the women to have to live with? 

One thing however that we didn’t cover in class is the percentage of victims that actually keep their babies after being raped. Sarah Terzo stated in her article, that in a study done about pregnant rape victims 70% of women decided to keep their babies. This statistic was very shocking to me. Mainly because I ignorantly assumed that most women will actually want to abort their baby in a situation like this in order to cease the physiology pain that it will actually cause by carrying the baby and also after the pregnancy always being a mother to the child. However, I learned that women who actually kept their babies have a better psychological outcome then women who abort their babies. Check out a few minutes of the video below to actually hear from pregnant rape victims that kept their babies. 

My question to you is: Is it right for women to have abortions to avoid raising a baby conceived in rape? Would you support a mother who actually gave birth to a baby conceived through rape? 

Why Abortion should be mostly illegal.

Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. Abortion should be illegal in all situations except when the pregnancy puts the woman in danger or rape situations. A common argument for illegalization is that the baby is simply a group of cells but humans on the most basic level are also just a large group of cells. Many say that it should be the mothers right to choose because it is her body but the baby is not her body; she is sharing with the baby. If I have a conjoined twin and decide to murder him/her that does not make it morally acceptable even though we are sharing a body. 

Abortion can also cause medical complications later in life: psychological, internal   injurgies, cervical laceration, and a failed abortion. The psychological which can result in suicidal thoughts and feelings, sense of shame and isolation, guilt, regret, anger, depression, sleep disturbances, eating disorders, anxiety, and self destructive behavior. It is common for these women to not be able to feel or express their feelings much like the results of Shell Shock. Approximately 28 percent have actually attempt suicide after the experience with half of those women attempting suicide two or more times. National statistics on abortions show that 10% of women undergoing this procedure had an immediate complication. With all of these factors it seems more healthy for the woman to go through the pregnancy.

MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE

Click here to view or download a copy of the Midterm Study Guide.

Informed Consent.............

Informed Consent is the process by which the treating health care provider discloses appropriate information to a competent patient so that the patient may make a voluntary choice to accept or refuse treatment. It originates from the legal and ethical right that the patient has the right to say what happens to his or her body. An informed consent can be said to have been given based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and consequences of an action. In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given.  The physician has to involve the patient in their health care. It is usually in the parents’ rights to decide what type of treatment their child or children receive. But there is an exception to this doctors do have patient confidentiality for teens.

Confidentiality is defined as a set of rules or a promise that limits access or places restrictions on certain types of information. In so many words it means privacy. It means that when you, as a young person from 12-17 years of age, talk with your health care provider about certain issues like sex, drugs, and feelings, he or she does not feel comfortable talking with parent or guardian about. Also, the doctor does not tell your parents what you told them unless you give the physician permission. So my question is should a doctor tell a parent if their patient has a STD. Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are infections that can be transmitted through sexual contact with an infected individual. These are also termed sexually transmitted infections or STIs. STDs can be transmitted during vaginal or other types of sexual intercourse including oral and anal sex.

For example there is this rare case were a teen by the name of Jessica and she is 17 years old. Monday morning she woke up with nausea. She goes to the restroom to vomit and she also has diarrhea. She has to miss school because she can’t leave the bathroom. Her mom decides to take her to the doctor because Jessica doesn’t look very well. They went to their family’s personal health care physician and the mom told the doctor to see if her daughter has a bad case food poisoning. The physician couldn’t detect food poisoning so he gave her another test and he tells her that she has HIV. Jessica told the family doctor she went to frat party 6 weeks ago and had gotten really drunk that night and had sex with this random guy she met that night. Jessica wasn’t supposed to be at a party, she told her parents she was spending the night at a friend’s house that night to study for a big test that was coming up for her class. From her parents knowledge Jessica was still a virgin. Jessica asked the doctor if he could not tell her parents.  The big problem is Jessica has to get treated for this right away but there is no way to that she could get the medicine for it without it showing up on their insurance statement. Now she has a dilemma so should the physician tell the parents or let Jessica get sicker?

What would you tell his Mother?

I am writing my post today on the case study that we didn't get to talk about in class on Tuesday September 30th. The case involved a concerned mother and a teenage boy who was showing symptoms of increased lethargy, dizziness, and confusion. The boy and his mother visited the doctor due to his mothers fear that the son had been bitten by mosquitos recently while being outside. The mothers concern is understandable due to the fact that at the time West Nile Virus, which is carried by mosquitos, was becoming a problem in the area. After extensive blood work and multiple diagnostic tests, all the results came back normal and more tests were going to be run to find out what was wrong. The doctor orders was preparing another round of tests which included a spinal tap. The doctor is asked by the boy to tell him of his condition only when the mother is out of the room. The boy confides to the doctor that the reason of his confusion is due to him and his friends over consumption of Dextramorphan (cough medicine). He tells the doctor that his mother cant find out about what is causing his condition. The mother is still convinced that her son has West Nile Virus and asks the doctors if any other tests can be done. What should the doctor do?
       This situation has to be quite common in the medical field and is most likely handled on a regular basis. As a doctor you are obliged to not tell the mother due to doctor patient confidentiality between the doctor and the boy. If I were the doctor, I would either do one of two things. I would try my best to convince the boy to be honest with his mother and tell her that he has been taking Dextramorphan with his friends. If the boy doesn't do this, the mother will most likely ask the doctor about the private conversation. The only response the doctor can really say is that the patient has informed me that the information discussed cannot be shared with others. If the doctor says this, he is basically saying that the boy the boy is hiding something from his mother that she doesn't need to know. In a way the doctor is violating patient confidentiality without actually violating it in the sense of the definition. The mother will know the boy is hiding something.The other option would be for the doctor to convince the mother that the spinal tap and more tests don't need to be done because nothing seems to be physically wrong with the boy, other than confusion and dizziness. The likelihood of this working is slim because the mother wants to find out what's wrong with her son and by any means will want to get her healthier, even if that includes a spinal tap. This most likely would not work, but it would uphold the doctor to patient confidentiality between the doctor and the boy. Either way, the doctor knows now of the boys condition and is obliged to keep their conversation between them. More extensive procedures are not needed at this point so the situation is now between the mother and son and not the doctor. In my opinion the best way is for the boy to come clean to his mother and accept the punishment that will most likely follow. The boys mother will find out one way or another.  What would you do in this situation? Would you tell the boys mother? What would you do if you were in the boys shoes?

Consent Forms

I was reading an article about consent (consent forms) and what I read was really interesting. The article talked about the consent forms which we sign each time we are in the doctor’s office. Consent forms are signed when one gets certain procedures done like chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or surgery. This article focused on how much a patient can recall the information in each form they sign. Basically it is an experiments of sort were the patients were to recall major portions of the information on consent forms and also give an oral explanation about their consent. Within one day of signing the consent forms, 200 patients completed a test of their recall of the material in the consent form. They filled out a questionnaire regarding their opinions of its purpose, content, and implications. Only 60 per cent understood the purpose and nature of the procedure, and only 55 per cent correctly listed even one major risk or complication. There were three factors that led inadequate recall: education, medical status, and the care with which patients thought they had read their consent forms before signing. Only 40 per cent of the patients had read the form "carefully." Most people believed that consent forms were meant to "protect the physician's rights." Although most thought that consent forms were necessary and the information on it is easily comprehensible. Most don’t see these forms with complete thought they just glance and have look at the major or bold points. Also the physicians and other medical professionals don’t really engage with the patients they do not give all the info that they should be given. So the patients just assume. Also many just don’t understand the lingo and terminology that is used in medicine. So why is it that there is a problem with consent, there should be a change in the medical system. There seems to be a lot of case that involve a physician being sued by a patient just because the patient didn’t understand what was on the form they were signing. I think it is in the best interest of the doctor that a patient is completely aware of the procedure they are getting done. It not only helps the medical professionals but the patients as well. That means the doctor must completely go over the procedure and make sure the patient understands the information. Also make sure the patient has the read the consent form with complete thought and understands the form. So what do you guys think about this issue? 

Informed Consent - Must It Remain a Fairy Tale?

     In article, Informed Consent-Must It Remain a Fairy Tale?, Jay Katz offers some suggestions for a new way for doctor and patient to work together to achieve the full benefits of ‘informed consent’.  He states:  Physicians must come to see that they have a “duty to respect patients as persons so that care will encompass allowing patients to live their own self-willed ways”.

       This term “self-willed ways” is intriguing.  It seems to encompass the essence of the spirit and letter of informed consent.  This blog will discuss another aspect of the article “uninformed consent”.  In essence this means, patients signing forms that they do not understand and/or which do not have a full disclosure of all aspects (medical care, surgery, testing, etc).   Barbara Coombs Lee presents more on this topic in the link below.

     Katz suggests that possibilities of this (uninformed consent) happening could be reduced by a new healthcare model along the lines of that in ethics of care moral theory.  He advocates a fusion of doctors not only practicing medicine (testing, bio-technology, diagnoses, surgery) but care for patients and their families.  He says this is the only way to ensure that patient and doctor relationships provide a moral and ethical base to respect autonomy and informed consent.

     Is this model a reasonable possibility? Or is Katz’s idea just another “fairy tale”, too?  

https://www.compassionandchoices.org/2012/09/05/uninformed-consent-unshared-decision-making-in-the-icu-2/