sábado, 30 de abril de 2016

BioEdge: Dutch paediatricians seek child euthanasia

BioEdge: Dutch paediatricians seek child euthanasia



Dutch paediatricians seek child euthanasia
     


The Dutch Health Minister, Edith Schippers, has earmarked almost 400,000 Euros for a study of whether to expand eligibility for euthanasia to children between 1 and 12. At the moment, children under 1 may be killed with the consent of their parents following criteria set out in the Groningen Protocols. Children older than 12 are already eligible.

After neighbouring Belgium passed legislation in 2014 enabling child euthanasia, doctors and activists in the Netherlands are keen to catch up.

The Dutch Paediatric Association (NVK) kicked off a debate on the topic last year. It strongly supports a change. At the moment euthanasia of a child between 2 and 12 is only possible by invoking the doctrine of “force majeure” in the Dutch criminal code, which means that the doctor feels compelled to do it as an emergency measure. But this still leaves him open to prosecution. The NVK believes that age is an arbitrary criterion and that euthanasia should be available for anyone with mental competence. Some children, even if they are under and 12 and desperately ill, are astonishingly rational.

roundtable discussion at the Dutch Parliament amongst experts in medical care for children in January showed that there is a range of opinions on the topic, although most of the participants were broadly in favour of a change. The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) is in favour of studying the issue further.

Not all organisations at the roundtable wanted to amend the law. A Christian group, the NPV, pointed out that “the suffering of the parents should not be a justification for a request for termination of life of the child”. Their position was that “A society that does not protect its children loses its dignity. Let us commit to good palliative care and guidance to children - and their parents - in the last phase of life”.

A spokeswoman for the Dutch Association of Educationalists (NRC), Dr Miriam Vos, raised questions about what “hopeless and unendurable suffering”, the main criteria for euthanasia in the Netherlands, means for children. “Children younger than 12 rarely or never speak in terms of hopeless and unbearable suffering. Their verbal and nonverbal expressions may suggest this, but this is always interpreted by their doctor, parents and other health care workers.”
- See more at: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/dutch-paediatricians-seek-child-euthanasia/11857#sthash.GoxyY0UE.dpuf




Bioedge



Although it has been called the world’s most dangerous idea, transhumanism probably provokes more ridicule than fear. Uploading one’s brain onto the internet or talk of thousand-year life spans seems to defy common sense. 
Nonetheless, my theory is that transhumanism is the logical outcome of a lot of contemporary bioethical theory. So developments in transhumanism are worth paying attention to.
The biggest story at the moment is the quixotic campaign of the head of the Transhumanist Party, Zoltan Istvan, for president of the United States. He is a philosophy and religious studies graduate of Columbia University and has worked as a journalist for the National Geographic Channel.
Mr Istvan has been running a blog on the Huffington Post for a while about his campaign which aims to make the platform of his party more plausible. In the latest post he defines transhumanism as “the radical field of science that aims to turn humans into, for lack of a better word, gods”. So while transhumanism is resolutely atheistic, it has religious aspirations.
And unlike Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists, Istvan argues that our responsibility is to transcend evolution. He writes: “the human body is a mediocre vessel for our actual possibilities in this material universe. Our biology severely limits us. As a species we are far from finished and therefore unacceptable… Biology is for beasts, not future transhumanists.”
It’s a curious development. While many prominent scientific thinkers want to abolish God and treat man as one beast amongst many, transhumanists want to abolish evolution and recreate God (or gods). 


Michael Cook
Editor
BioEdge

This week in BioEdge

by Michael Cook | May 01, 2016
Government to fund study

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
What did Will have to say about medicine and health?

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
Let them choose for themselves

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
Suicide crisis in remote towns highlights need for caution

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
There are risks, but it could save lives

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
In a world first, the State of Kuwait will require all citizens and visitors to provide DNA samples to government authorities.

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
Criticism is mounting in Australia about the sale of low-evidence complementary medicines in pharmacies.

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
This week Nature published a strident editorial defending 'legitimate concerns' about contemporary AI research.
BioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
New Media Foundation | Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605 

BioEdge: Shakespeare and bioethics

BioEdge: Shakespeare and bioethics





Shakespeare and bioethics



Shakespeare may appear to be unimportant and irrelevant in bioethics. Yet the latest editorial published in The Lancet suggests the Bard is more significant for the discipline than some may think.

“Shakespeare has appeared in 1200 Lancet publications… A keen observer of people, events, and ideas, Shakespeare excelled in the ability to distil their essence into characters and situations that remain recognisable today. In such contexts, familiarity with the human experience overpowers the unfamiliarity of language, and invites audiences to interpret the situation based on personal experience: be that as politician, sociologist, or clinician.” 
Shakespeare, say the Lancet's editors, was a playwright with a profound grasp on human morality:

“At their heart, Shakespeare's plays and poems explore humanity. Tales told with empathy about the struggles of human nature and passions; how all can be lost by poor choices or calamitous circumstance or, sometimes, gained by fortuitous external intervention. Just like the tales at the heart of health care.”



Bioedge


Although it has been called the world’s most dangerous idea, transhumanism probably provokes more ridicule than fear. Uploading one’s brain onto the internet or talk of thousand-year life spans seems to defy common sense. 
Nonetheless, my theory is that transhumanism is the logical outcome of a lot of contemporary bioethical theory. So developments in transhumanism are worth paying attention to.
The biggest story at the moment is the quixotic campaign of the head of the Transhumanist Party, Zoltan Istvan, for president of the United States. He is a philosophy and religious studies graduate of Columbia University and has worked as a journalist for the National Geographic Channel.
Mr Istvan has been running a blog on the Huffington Post for a while about his campaign which aims to make the platform of his party more plausible. In the latest post he defines transhumanism as “the radical field of science that aims to turn humans into, for lack of a better word, gods”. So while transhumanism is resolutely atheistic, it has religious aspirations.
And unlike Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists, Istvan argues that our responsibility is to transcend evolution. He writes: “the human body is a mediocre vessel for our actual possibilities in this material universe. Our biology severely limits us. As a species we are far from finished and therefore unacceptable… Biology is for beasts, not future transhumanists.”
It’s a curious development. While many prominent scientific thinkers want to abolish God and treat man as one beast amongst many, transhumanists want to abolish evolution and recreate God (or gods). 

Michael Cook
Editor
BioEdge

This week in BioEdge

by Michael Cook | May 01, 2016
Government to fund study

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
What did Will have to say about medicine and health?

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
Let them choose for themselves

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
Suicide crisis in remote towns highlights need for caution

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
There are risks, but it could save lives

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
In a world first, the State of Kuwait will require all citizens and visitors to provide DNA samples to government authorities.

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
Criticism is mounting in Australia about the sale of low-evidence complementary medicines in pharmacies.

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
This week Nature published a strident editorial defending 'legitimate concerns' about contemporary AI research.
BioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
New Media Foundation | Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605 

BioEdge: UK judge sceptical of circumcision for boys

BioEdge: UK judge sceptical of circumcision for boys



UK judge sceptical of circumcision for boys
     


Boys should not be circumcised until they are old enough to choose for themselves, a British judge has suggested in ruling on custody of two sons of a Muslim man and his estranged wife.

Mrs Justice Roberts, of the Family Division, agreed with the British-born mother of the boys, aged 4 and 6. The Algerian-born husband argued that  "circumcision had both a religious and a social importance which overrode any slight risk which the procedure carried." He would feel devastated if his sons were not circumcised.  (The names of the people involved were not released.)

The judge’s reasoning echoes arguments made by some bioethicists that circumcision is an unjustifiable violation of a boy’s bodily integrity:

"First and foremost, this is a once and for all, irreversible procedure. There is no guarantee that these boys will wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith with the devotion demonstrated by their father although that may very well be their choice.

"They are still very young and there is no way of anticipating at this stage how the different influences in their respective parental homes will shape and guide their development over the coming years. There are risks, albeit small, associated with the surgery regardless of the expertise with which the operation is performed.

"There must be clear benefits which outweigh these risks which point towards circumcision at this point in time being in their best interests before I can sanction it as an appropriate course at this stage of their young lives."
The judge stated that she was not setting down a principle about whether Muslims should circumcise their children.

"I am simply deferring that decision to the point where each of the boys themselves will make their individual choices once they have the maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and longer term effects of the decisions which they reach.

"Part of that consideration will be any increase in the risks of surgery by the time they have reached puberty. I do not regard the delay between now and that point in time significantly to increase those risks. The safest point in time to have carried out the procedure has long since passed."
- See more at: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/uk-judge-sceptical-of-circumcision-for-boys/11855#sthash.h2qlhbm2.dpuf









Bioedge



Although it has been called the world’s most dangerous idea, transhumanism probably provokes more ridicule than fear. Uploading one’s brain onto the internet or talk of thousand-year life spans seems to defy common sense. 
Nonetheless, my theory is that transhumanism is the logical outcome of a lot of contemporary bioethical theory. So developments in transhumanism are worth paying attention to.
The biggest story at the moment is the quixotic campaign of the head of the Transhumanist Party, Zoltan Istvan, for president of the United States. He is a philosophy and religious studies graduate of Columbia University and has worked as a journalist for the National Geographic Channel.
Mr Istvan has been running a blog on the Huffington Post for a while about his campaign which aims to make the platform of his party more plausible. In the latest post he defines transhumanism as “the radical field of science that aims to turn humans into, for lack of a better word, gods”. So while transhumanism is resolutely atheistic, it has religious aspirations.
And unlike Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists, Istvan argues that our responsibility is to transcend evolution. He writes: “the human body is a mediocre vessel for our actual possibilities in this material universe. Our biology severely limits us. As a species we are far from finished and therefore unacceptable… Biology is for beasts, not future transhumanists.”
It’s a curious development. While many prominent scientific thinkers want to abolish God and treat man as one beast amongst many, transhumanists want to abolish evolution and recreate God (or gods). 


Michael Cook
Editor
BioEdge

This week in BioEdge

by Michael Cook | May 01, 2016
Government to fund study

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
What did Will have to say about medicine and health?

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
Let them choose for themselves

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
Suicide crisis in remote towns highlights need for caution

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
There are risks, but it could save lives

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
In a world first, the State of Kuwait will require all citizens and visitors to provide DNA samples to government authorities.

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
Criticism is mounting in Australia about the sale of low-evidence complementary medicines in pharmacies.

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
This week Nature published a strident editorial defending 'legitimate concerns' about contemporary AI research.
BioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
New Media Foundation | Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605 

BioEdge: Indigenous Canadians fear impending euthanasia law

BioEdge: Indigenous Canadians fear impending euthanasia law



Indigenous Canadians fear impending euthanasia law
     
Francois Paulette says that Canada's new euthanasia law is not part of indigenous culture.     
As southern Canada prepares to roll out euthanasia after last year’s Supreme Court decision, the Dene, an aboriginal group of First Nation people, are awaiting it with fear.

Francois Paulette, the chair of Yellowknife's Stanton Territorial Health Authority Elders' Advisory Council, told CBC news that euthanasia conflicts with Aboriginal culture. "We don't play God," he said. "God is responsible for bringing us into this world, and taking our life. It is pretty straightforward.

Mr Paulette is asking the federal government to consult with indigenous people in drafting the new legislation.

The president of the Indigenous Physicians Association, Dr Alika Lafontaine, agrees. "The worst thing we can do is start to implement a program that is designed in the city and just assume that is going to work in our Indigenous communities," he says.

He is concerned that lower standards of care will be offered to remote indigenous communities if euthanasia is requested. It is possible, for instance, that registered nurses, rather than doctors, will provide the service.

Dr Carrie Bourassa, an indigenous health studies professor at the First Nations University of Canada, says that the new policy could be overwhelming for struggling communities. "For some communities it may not even be possible. When we're trying to deal with suicide and multiple loss in communities, is this even a conversation that communities are going to want to have?"

Suicide in remote communities is a serious problem in Canada.

Earlier this month the Canadian parliament held an emergency debate on Aboriginal suicides after 11 people, nine of them minors, attempted suicide in one weekend in Attawapiskat, a remote community of 2,000 in northern Ontario. The community leaders unanimously declared a state of emergency. Of the four health care workers in the community, none is trained in mental health. “It’s shocking that conditions like this continue to exist in this day and age in Canada,” says Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler, of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents First Nations in northern Ontario.
- See more at: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/indigenous-canadians-fear-impending-euthanasia-law/11854#sthash.EoD51Uh7.dpuf







Bioedge



Although it has been called the world’s most dangerous idea, transhumanism probably provokes more ridicule than fear. Uploading one’s brain onto the internet or talk of thousand-year life spans seems to defy common sense. 
Nonetheless, my theory is that transhumanism is the logical outcome of a lot of contemporary bioethical theory. So developments in transhumanism are worth paying attention to.
The biggest story at the moment is the quixotic campaign of the head of the Transhumanist Party, Zoltan Istvan, for president of the United States. He is a philosophy and religious studies graduate of Columbia University and has worked as a journalist for the National Geographic Channel.
Mr Istvan has been running a blog on the Huffington Post for a while about his campaign which aims to make the platform of his party more plausible. In the latest post he defines transhumanism as “the radical field of science that aims to turn humans into, for lack of a better word, gods”. So while transhumanism is resolutely atheistic, it has religious aspirations.
And unlike Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists, Istvan argues that our responsibility is to transcend evolution. He writes: “the human body is a mediocre vessel for our actual possibilities in this material universe. Our biology severely limits us. As a species we are far from finished and therefore unacceptable… Biology is for beasts, not future transhumanists.”
It’s a curious development. While many prominent scientific thinkers want to abolish God and treat man as one beast amongst many, transhumanists want to abolish evolution and recreate God (or gods). 


Michael Cook
Editor
BioEdge

This week in BioEdge

by Michael Cook | May 01, 2016
Government to fund study

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
What did Will have to say about medicine and health?

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
Let them choose for themselves

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
Suicide crisis in remote towns highlights need for caution

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
There are risks, but it could save lives

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
In a world first, the State of Kuwait will require all citizens and visitors to provide DNA samples to government authorities.

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
Criticism is mounting in Australia about the sale of low-evidence complementary medicines in pharmacies.

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
This week Nature published a strident editorial defending 'legitimate concerns' about contemporary AI research.
BioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
New Media Foundation | Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605 

BioEdge: A pro-life case for altering the genome

BioEdge: A pro-life case for altering the genome



A pro-life case for altering the genome
     


Although many obstacles remain, genetic engineering is much closer to becoming a reality with the rapid development of CRISPR. On the horizon are both human enhancement and cures for genetic diseases. But one significant political obstacle is fear of altering the human genome. It is not just pro-life activists who object; a number of scientists also fret about the commercialisation of human life.

However, things could change. In the latest issue of The New Atlantis, Brendan Foht presents a “A Pro-Life Case for Therapeutic Gene Editing”. He acknowledges the risks of altering a person’s natural endowment, but points out that while most of the time somatic gene editing will be preferable to altering the genes of embryos, there will always be exceptions:

most forms of Tay-Sachs disease, for instance, begin to manifest early in pregnancy and are generally fatal for the child before it reaches the age of five. In such cases, correcting mutations after a baby is born may not be an effective way to reverse developmental problems caused by the mutations. Editing the genes of embryos would presumably be more effective, though also more dangerous, than postnatal gene-editing, since it would affect a much greater proportion of the body’s cells and will do so from an earlier stage of development.
Some scientists contend that using pre-natal genetic diagnosis with IVF would be preferable to using gene therapy on an embryo. However, Foht points out that there are substantial ethical issues with this “conservative” approach:

preferring PGD over genetic therapy represents a troubling attitude toward people with disease and disability. In selecting embryos to destroy (or fetuses to abort), doctors and parents are making a judgment that the life of someone affected by a disease or disability is not worth living — implying that those individuals affected by the disease would have been better off if they had never been born.

To put it another way, the judgment implicit in using gene editing to modify a disease-causing gene is that it is better to live without that disease than to live with it; the judgment implicit in using prenatal abortion is that it is better to die than to live with the disease. When both are options, preferring selective destruction over gene editing amounts to a preference for killing over curing.
This is an approach which is sure to provoke intense controversy in the pro-life camp. Stay tuned. 
- See more at: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/a-pro-life-case-for-altering-the-genome/11853#sthash.bSNg2uNl.dpuf







Bioedge



Although it has been called the world’s most dangerous idea, transhumanism probably provokes more ridicule than fear. Uploading one’s brain onto the internet or talk of thousand-year life spans seems to defy common sense. 
Nonetheless, my theory is that transhumanism is the logical outcome of a lot of contemporary bioethical theory. So developments in transhumanism are worth paying attention to.
The biggest story at the moment is the quixotic campaign of the head of the Transhumanist Party, Zoltan Istvan, for president of the United States. He is a philosophy and religious studies graduate of Columbia University and has worked as a journalist for the National Geographic Channel.
Mr Istvan has been running a blog on the Huffington Post for a while about his campaign which aims to make the platform of his party more plausible. In the latest post he defines transhumanism as “the radical field of science that aims to turn humans into, for lack of a better word, gods”. So while transhumanism is resolutely atheistic, it has religious aspirations.
And unlike Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists, Istvan argues that our responsibility is to transcend evolution. He writes: “the human body is a mediocre vessel for our actual possibilities in this material universe. Our biology severely limits us. As a species we are far from finished and therefore unacceptable… Biology is for beasts, not future transhumanists.”
It’s a curious development. While many prominent scientific thinkers want to abolish God and treat man as one beast amongst many, transhumanists want to abolish evolution and recreate God (or gods). 


Michael Cook
Editor
BioEdge

This week in BioEdge

by Michael Cook | May 01, 2016
Government to fund study

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
What did Will have to say about medicine and health?

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
Let them choose for themselves

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
Suicide crisis in remote towns highlights need for caution

by Michael Cook | Apr 30, 2016
There are risks, but it could save lives

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
In a world first, the State of Kuwait will require all citizens and visitors to provide DNA samples to government authorities.

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
Criticism is mounting in Australia about the sale of low-evidence complementary medicines in pharmacies.

by Xavier Symons | Apr 30, 2016
This week Nature published a strident editorial defending 'legitimate concerns' about contemporary AI research.
BioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
New Media Foundation | Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605