BioEdge 243 -- Wednesday, 4 April 2007

Home   |    Archives   |    Links   |    In the media
subscribe   |    subscribe my friend   |    to the editor   |    unsubscribe
BioEdge 243: Who needs ethics if you've got a brain?

THIS WEEK


bullet 
Who needs ethics if you've got a brain?
      Neuroscientists claim morality is just neurons
bullet 
Organ tourists create "medical apartheid"
      Poor countries exploited, says WHO
bullet 
A week of euthanasia anniversaries
      ... in the Netherlands and Australia
bullet 
IVF controversies in UK
      Doctors opposed free fertility treatment
bullet 
NEJM stirs up egg payment debate
      Why not a market in eggs for research?
bullet 
California's stem cell scandal
      Millions go to troubled institute
bullet 
Australia votes on therapeutic cloning
      Two states debate issue

WHO NEEDS ETHICS IF YOU'VE GOT A BRAIN?

One of the media's most astute observers of bioethical trends is William Saletan, chief national correspondent of the web magazine Slate. He recently surveyed a growing belief amongst neuroscientists that the source of morality is not God or transcendent reason but the brain. We are, so to speak, hard-wired to think morally. For instance, three years ago, a paper in the journal Neuron argued that morality reflects "an underlying tension between competing subsystems in the brain".

A recent study in Nature supports this view. If your ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the site responsible for emotion, is damaged, people become abnormally utilitarian in their moral calculations. The scientists conclude that their research can test whether "different philosophies are compatible with human nature". As Saletan observes, the translation of this is that "brain science has discredited religion and philosophy".

Whether or not this is philosophically true, scientists are hard at work learning how to tweak brains so that we can be good utilitarians whose thought processes are not contaminated with messy emotions. "Right now, we're discovering the seat of morality," warns Zack Lynch, of the Neurotechnology Industry Organization. "In 10 to 15 years, we'll have the technologies to manipulate it." ~ Slate, Mar 31   

ORGAN TOURISTS CREATE "MEDICAL APARTHEID"

A kidney donor in Pakistan -- BBC About 10% of all kidney transplants are a product of transplant tourism, says the World Health Organisation. About 66,000 kidneys were transplanted in 2005, with about 6,000 of the recipients or donors travelling to a different country to evade the law. The trend is for people in developing countries to sell kidneys to richer countries, in what some bioethicists are calling "medical apartheid".

Speaking at a WHO conference last week, Dr Farhat Moazam, of Pakistan, claimed that there were villages in his country where 40 to 50% of residents have only one kidney. And the donors receive very little for their trouble. Brokers promise about US$2,500, but the donors end up with about half that amount. Recipients pay far more -- between $12,000 and $20,000 for a kidney and a week in hospital. But this is still far cheaper than an operation in the US.

The background problem is the immense global shortage of organs as transplantation techniques improve. According to WHO, the 66,000 kidney transplants covered only about 10% of patients on waiting lists around the world. Dr Jeremy Chapman, of Australia, says that there is a "driving instinct for survival amongst people who face almost certain death. Their heart is failing, their kidney is failing, their liver is failing." But poor donors need cash. "The result is that in far too many communities of the world the rich prey on the poor."

For some observers, the solution is obvious: establish a market for organs: allow people to sell their organs to help others to live. This is fiercely opposed by others, who argue that body parts would turn into commercial commodities and altruistic donations would cease. The best-known critic is Nancy Scheper-Hughes, an American anthropologist who has written extensively about black markets in organs.

Coincidentally, this month the Journal of Medical Ethics featured a critique of her "mischaracterisation of the pro-market position" by a bioethicist from The College of New Jersey, James Stacey Taylor. He denies that buyers of organs think that they have a right to organs and want to preserve their lives at any cost, that transplant organs are luxury goods for the rich, and that markets are ghoulish. He contends that everyone is better off after the sale of an organ and that the transaction is not merely commercial, but virtuous. No doubt more ink will be spilled before this debate is shelved. ~ Journal of Medical Ethics, April; AP, Mar 30; Reuters, Apr 2   

A WEEK OF EUTHANASIA ANNIVERSARIES

It's a week for euthanasia anniversaries. The Netherlands is commemorating the fifth anniversary of the legalisation of euthanasia on April 1, 2002. Radio Netherlands interviewed some prominent figures. No big deal, says Dr Bert Keizer, author of Dancing with Mr D, a book about his work as a euthanasia doctor -- before it became legal. He comments that "I don't think that the law will have much changed the daily routine of death".

However, a member of the national euthanasia commission, bioethicist Evert van Leeuwen, suspects that Dutch doctors are not playing by the rules: "It is actually odd that a doctor firstly helps someone to die and afterwards sends on case notes to a commission which subsequently decides whether the doctor will be pursued for causing a death or murder!"

Because of the rubbery figures which this system produces, no one knows exactly how often euthanasia takes place in the Netherlands. Wesley J. Smith, an American expert, says that 1,000 patients are killed each year without requesting it. And terminal sedation, which many observers term "slow euthanasia", was responsible for between 4 and 10% of all deaths in 2001, according to recent figures. Everyone agrees that more clarity is needed.

The other occasion is the 10th anniversary of the quashing of the world's first euthanasia law in Australia. The Northern Territory legalised it in 1996 and several patients died with the help of a local doctor, Philip Nitschke. However, after an intense national debate, the Federal Government stepped in and effectively voided the law. Dr Nitschke, who subsequently became an internationally renowned euthanasia campaigner, marked the occasion by ceremonially burning 150 copies of his do-it-yourself suicide handbook in Canberra. It has been banned in Australia, although it is selling briskly on Amazon and can be downloaded from Google Books. ~ Radio Netherlands, Mar 30; First Things, Apr 2; Journal of Medical Ethics, April   

IVF CONTROVERSIES IN UK

British women can get free fertility treatment courtesy of their National Health Service, although it is rationed. Now a shock survey shows that three-quarters of British doctors oppose the NHS funding IVF. According to the survey, doctors still support their tottering health service, but are increasingly concerned about how to pay for it. If they had their druthers, cost-cutting would begin with gender reassignment surgery (84% opposed), vasectomy reversals (80% opposed) and IVF (76% opposed).

The British Fertility Society, the peak body for IVF specialists, deemed this "a surprising finding". A survey of 70,000 hospital doctors last year found that 60% thought that the NHS should continue to support assisted conception, a spokesman said.

IVF policy in the UK is changing, too. The government fertility watchdog, the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority, is to recommend that women under 40 have only one embryo fertilised and placed in the womb in an effort to lower the number of multiple births. The growing number of IVF twins is having a major impact upon neonatal care in hospitals. A number of European countries have already banned transferring multiple embryos. However, the proposal is controversial as it could diminish women's chances of a pregnancy. ~ London Telegraph, Mar 30; Independent, Apr 2   

NEJM STIRS UP EGG PAYMENT DEBATE

Is the New England Journal of Medicine supporting a campaign to allow scientists to pay for women's eggs for stem cell research? A number of states prohibit researchers from compensating egg donors for anything beyond reimbursement for reasonable costs. But Harvard Business School professor Debora Spar argues in an editorial in the latest issue of the NEJM that it is nonsensical to allow egg "donation" for as much as US$20,000 or more when the eggs will be used to produce babies, but to ban it for research. The commodification of embryos and the risk to the donors are the same -- why the double standard?

Dr Spar calls for a fresh debate on egg donation and new policies: "the politics of egg donation have blinded us to these real issues. We have not thought deeply about what makes sense for science, for women, and for society." What she favours is a regulated market for eggs in which donors are given full information about risks and full protection against them. ~ NEJM, Mar 29   

CALIFORNIA'S STEM CELL SCANDAL

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the tax-payer funded body which will dispense US$3 billion for stem cell research, is red-faced over a grant to a nearly unknown Los Angeles institute. Last month the Institute doled out $75 million in research grants, mainly to major universities. But it also awarded $2.6 million to Jang-Won Lee, of the CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute.

CHA was founded by a South Korean fertility speciality Kwang-Yul Cha. It turns out that Dr Cha is battling allegations of plagiarising a junior researcher's doctorate and publishing it in the journal Fertility and Sterility. Another problem faced by CHA is that its medical director, Dr Thomas Kim, has been accused of seducing a patient. He is also accused of lying to her about the number of eggs which were extracted, which prompted her to go on for further unnecessary treatment.

The Sacramento Bee pointed out in an editorial that neither allegation directly affects the researcher who received the grant. Calls to rescind it should be resisted, it said. But as Marcy Darnovksy, of the Center for Genetics and Society, observed, "Being that the CHA conglomerate has both a fertility centre and this experimental research arm, how are you going to make sure there aren't conflicts of interest there between the medical people who are actually extracting the eggs and giving the hormones and the researchers?" ~ Los Angeles Times, Mar 26, Sacramento Bee, Mar 28   

AUSTRALIA VOTES ON THERAPEUTIC CLONING

Victoria and Western Australia may become the first Australian states to legalise therapeutic cloning. The Federal Parliament authorised therapeutic cloning last year, but each state has to enact its own legislation. In both states, politicians will be able to vote according to their consciences, instead of along party lines.

Although the bills are sure to spark sharp debates, they will almost certainly pass. In the media, the discussion has been framed as a showdown between profit and scientific and medical progress and the Catholic Church. The detail of the legislation has not really been scrutinised by journalists or politicians.   

 

  

How to support BioEdge
BioEdge and ABI's other services rely completely upon the generosity of private benefactors and volunteer workers. ABI has no institutional backing. If you would like to support the best bioethics news service on the Web, you can do it painlessly through Paymate, a thoroughly reliable payment service which is affiliated with the internet auction site eBay.

Just access the Paymate website and follow the instructions. You will need to fill in our email address, which is bioedge@australasianbioethics.org. You will also have to give your credit card details and an amount in Australian or US dollars. Thanks!

  

 

To subscribe to our weekly email newsletter,
click here for the HTML version.
click here for the text version.
To cancel your newsletter subscription, click here.

Australasian Bioethics Information
ISSN 1446-2117
Website:www.australasianbioethics.org
BioEdge editor: Michael Cook
New Zealand Contributing Editor: Carolyn Moynihan


The BioEdge privacy policy
Your subscription information will be kept private and is not publicly accessible.
Your email address and other information will never be sold to a third party or given out
without your consent. You may cancel your subscription at any time.