Embryo research: why not make it the “one month rule”?
by Xavier Symons | 11 Aug 2018 | 1 comment
Since the 1980s, research on embryos in vitro has been governed by what is known as the “14 day rule”. The 14 day rule is a legal and regulatory precept -- based on the consensus of experts from a range of academic backgrounds -- according to which embryos should not be grown in vitro for longer than two weeks. The notion of a 14 day limit on embryo research was first proposed by committees in the UK and the US, and later adopted in Europe and other countries such as Australia and Canada.
While the 14 day rule has remained in place for a number of decades, recent developments in embryology have led bioethicists to question whether there are any principled grounds for retaining it. Specifically, two separate studies have demonstrated that embryos can be kept alive, healthy and developing for at least up to two weeks. Furthermore, scientists suggest that augmenting the time-limit on embryo research would allow for new breakthroughs into research on the causes of miscarriages and genetic disease.
A new article in the journal EMBO Molecular Medicine argues that the 14 day rule “should not become a dogma in itself” and that “science is changing and regulations need to adapt”. The authors of the article, ethicists John B. Appleby (Lancaster) and Annelien L. Bredenoord (Utrecht), reject claims that the two weeks marks a morally significant moment in embryonic development. Rather, the authors propose 28 days as limit that accommodates for research possibilities while still acknowledging extant ethical concerns. They observe that a 28 day embryo has no proximate capacity to feel pain, and they suggest that we have no more reason to be concerned about the potential personhood of a 28 day embryo, particularly seeing as we already destroy 14 day embryos without any moral consternation. The authors write:
“...it is difficult to identify any compelling moral arguments against extending this limit to 28 days. In order for embryo research to fulfil its potential benefit to humans both now and in the future, we therefore propose that the current limit on research should be extended to 28 days or the equivalent developmental stage that is normally attributed to a 28‐day‐old embryo”.
In contrast, moral philosopher Dame Mary Warnock -- the lead author of a seminal report that led to the widespread adoption of the 14 day rule -- argued recently that the 14 day should remain in place. She wrote:
“Perhaps with the 14-day rule we erred on the side of caution. But you cannot successfully block a slippery slope except by a fixed and invariable obstacle, which is what the 14-day rule provided”.
Saturday, August 11, 2018
Every year, about 1.5 million cases of euthanasia take place in the United States. Does this have a negative impact on healthcare workers? Sorry, about 1.5 million cases of cat and dog euthanasia take place. But the question is still relevant. Veterinarians, veterinary assistants and shelter workers experience great stress at having to put animals down.
The emotional connection between the work of human doctors and animal doctors is closer than you might think. Owners often react to a pet’s death with the intensity of grief which appears equivalent to the loss of a beloved relative.
So the moral stress which vets experience is relevant. Suicide amongst vets has been the topic of several studies. “Veterinarians are four times more likely than members of the general population and two times more likely than other health professionals to die by suicide,” according to a 2012 study in the journal of The American Association of Suicidology, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behaviour.
Why? Performing euthanasia day in, day out, also appears to make some vets less able to resist the temptation to commit suicide. The authors of the 2012 study found that “... all else being equal, veterinarians may be more likely than members of other professions to enact a lethal attempt when they desire suicide because their exposure to euthanasia has rendered them less fearful of death."
Aren’t there lessons in these finding which are relevant to doctors who euthanize their patients? Sometimes doctors in Belgium or the Netherlands are quoted as saying that the death they helped was beautiful or peaceful. Could that be bravado masking their own nonchalance about human death?
How many times have we all heard the argument, “You wouldn’t let a dog suffer like this...” Its logic is that if the suffering of animals and humans is essentially the same, they both should be released from suffering in the same way. But if the animal-human parallel works for the patient, why not for the doctor? If we allow euthanasia, surely we can expect the same burn-out rates and the same suicide rates as veterinarians ... at least the same. That should scare us all – especially the doctors who will be responsible.
The emotional connection between the work of human doctors and animal doctors is closer than you might think. Owners often react to a pet’s death with the intensity of grief which appears equivalent to the loss of a beloved relative.
So the moral stress which vets experience is relevant. Suicide amongst vets has been the topic of several studies. “Veterinarians are four times more likely than members of the general population and two times more likely than other health professionals to die by suicide,” according to a 2012 study in the journal of The American Association of Suicidology, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behaviour.
Why? Performing euthanasia day in, day out, also appears to make some vets less able to resist the temptation to commit suicide. The authors of the 2012 study found that “... all else being equal, veterinarians may be more likely than members of other professions to enact a lethal attempt when they desire suicide because their exposure to euthanasia has rendered them less fearful of death."
Aren’t there lessons in these finding which are relevant to doctors who euthanize their patients? Sometimes doctors in Belgium or the Netherlands are quoted as saying that the death they helped was beautiful or peaceful. Could that be bravado masking their own nonchalance about human death?
How many times have we all heard the argument, “You wouldn’t let a dog suffer like this...” Its logic is that if the suffering of animals and humans is essentially the same, they both should be released from suffering in the same way. But if the animal-human parallel works for the patient, why not for the doctor? If we allow euthanasia, surely we can expect the same burn-out rates and the same suicide rates as veterinarians ... at least the same. That should scare us all – especially the doctors who will be responsible.
 Michael Cook Editor BioEdge |  |  |  |
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Xavier Symons | Aug 11, 2018
A new paper argues that PAD for psychiatric reasons may be indistinguishable from suicide. by Xavier Symons | Aug 11, 2018
Four in 10 people thought to be unconscious are actually aware. by Michael Cook | Aug 11, 2018
NHS caught between conflicting demandsby Xavier Symons | Aug 11, 2018
Two ethicists argue that we should jettison the 14 day limit on growing embryos in vitro. by Michael Cook | Aug 11, 2018
Lethal injections are becoming more difficult to administerby Xavier Symons | Aug 11, 2018
The vote means the country will retain its tight restrictions on abortion. BioEdge
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario