http://www.bioedge.org/index.php BioEdge -- the latest news about bioethics en mcook@mercatornet.com Copyright 2011 2011-05-21T12:09:03+00:00 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Bioedge/~3/F_DjBbWN2DQ/ http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/is_this_the_worst_ivf_scandal_ever/#When:12:09:03Z Brazil’s best-known and most-successful IVF doctor is on the run from police after being convicted of sexually assaulting or raping 39 female patients between 1995 and 2008. Roger Abdelmassih, 67, was sentenced to 278 years in prison, but fled – apparently to Lebanon – while awaiting appeal. Brazil’s best-known and most-successful IVF doctor is on the run from police after  being convicted of sexually assaulting or raping 39 female patients between 1995 and 2008. Roger Abdelmassih, 67, was sentenced to 278 years in prison, but fled – apparently to Lebanon – while awaiting appeal. Abdelmassih helped the soccer legend Pele father a child and his website describes him as “internationally renowned”. He even claims to have had a 50% success rate in helping women under 35 become pregnant. But now an investigation by the Brazilian news magazine Epoca suggests that the babies that these couples took home may not be their biological children. DNA tests have already proved that three of the children are not related to one of the spouses. Epoca tells the story of a couple who approached Abdelmassih in 1993. After IVF treatment the wife became pregnant. The husband, however, had misgivings and told the doctor that he wanted a DNA test after birth. Abdelmassih became enraged and gave the woman abortion pills. However, the pregnancy went to term and twins were born. A DNA test confirmed that they were not the children of the father. Abdelmassih made an out-of-court settlement for US$600,000. The couple later split up. The magazine believes that the use of gametes unrelated to the couple could explain Adbelmassih’s extraordinary success rate, which is about 50% higher than other clinics in South America. Since he has treated 8,000 couples, authorities fear that many of the spouses may not be related to their children. ~ London Telegraph, May 16 assisted reproduction, IVF 2011-05-21T12:09:03+00:00 http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/is_this_the_worst_ivf_scandal_ever/#When:12:09:03Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Bioedge/~3/HGULWMAO9WA/ http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/score_one_for_the_patriarchy/#When:11:07:03Z In an ethically dubious medical specialty, “Aesthetic Vaginal Surgery” may be the most dubious of all its subspecialties.   In an ethically dubious medical specialty, “Aesthetic Vaginal Surgery” may be the most dubious of all its subspecialties. In the Atlantic Monthly journalist Marie Myung-Ok Lee describes a conference for about 60 practitioners at a luxury resort outside Tuscon, Arizona. The doctors cater for women who want elective surgery to “rejuvenate” and/or “beautify” their vaginas. The less said about the procedure the better, but in any case the doctors seems more interested in their wallets than in women’s health. It is a highly commercialised field. As one doctor put it: “Retail plus medicine equals ‘retailicine.’” “… one conference presenter left his computer’s wallpaper—rotating images of him with his red Porsche 911—up in the background during his PowerPoint lecture. The message was tough to miss: practice cosmetic-gyn, and you too can live the life of a plastic surgeon.” Over at the Journal of Medical Ethics blog, Iain Brassington was outraged at the tacky, patriarchal, exploitative commercialism of the conference. “If you want medically unnecessary surgery, then that’s fine; the onus is on you to persuade the surgeon.  But this reverses the situation: it’s the surgeon – and since this is the States, a surgeon with a financial interest (to which I’ll return) trying to persuade a patient.  This is nuts.  Brutally nuts.  It’d be dodgy enough in respect of therapeutic treatment, but here?  Surely any reasonably switched-on medic with a shred of respect for the profession would find that just a bit… well… repugn-…” enhancement, cosmetic surgery 2011-05-21T11:07:03+00:00 http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/score_one_for_the_patriarchy/#When:11:07:03Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Bioedge/~3/4MDa9b_13tE/ http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/donor_anonymity_disappears_in_british_columbia/#When:10:43:03Z IVF sperm and egg donors can no longer be anonymous in the Canadian province of British Colombia, a judge has ruled. It was a victory for Olivia Pratten, a 29-year-old journalist. IVF sperm and egg donors can no longer be anonymous in the Canadian province of British Colombia, a judge has ruled. It was a victory for Olivia Pratten, a 29-year-old journalist, who has been campaigning for years to have access to the records of the clinic where she was conceived. She contended that it was discriminatory that adopted children could access birth records but not IVF children. Madam Justice Elaine Adair agreed. “Anonymity is not in the child’s best interests,” she wrote in her judgement. Donor offspring and adopted children should be entitled to the same information. She described IVF children as a “vulnerable group” whose physical and psychological health is “too important to leave unregulated.” “I’m really happy,” said Ms Pratten. “It’s the end of donor anonymity in B.C. It’s the first time this has happened in North America. It’s a landmark decision and it’s about time.” Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the B.C. representative for children and youth, observed that the case could have implications for the rest of Canada. “This is a significant decision that suggests the rights of the child and the right to have health information and other things that are important to their well-being as they grow and become adults trumps the privacy interest of the system behind the anonymous sperm-donor program,” she said. ~ Globe and Mail, May 20 assisted reproduction, sperm donation 2011-05-21T10:43:03+00:00 http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/donor_anonymity_disappears_in_british_columbia/#When:10:43:03Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Bioedge/~3/eDgDy7qEGn8/ http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/researchers_question_research_ethics_regulation_system/#When:03:54:03Z Bioethics kills people. This, obviously, is not a conventional view of bioethics. It is supposed to protect and save people. However, an article in the Journal of Internal Medicine contends that ethical regulation for medical research “slows, discourages and stops life-saving research,” and that as a result, “lives are lost that would otherwise have been saved.” Bioethics kills people. This, obviously, is not a conventional view of bioethics. It is supposed to protect and save people. However, an article in the Journal of Internal Medicine contends that ethical regulation for medical research “slows, discourages and stops life-saving research,” and that as a result, “lives are lost that would otherwise have been saved.” The researchers, S.N. Whitney and C.E. Schneider, point out that regulation delays clinical trials by interrupting them, and then by delaying start dates and delaying progress. The lack of cost-benefit analyses of regulation is “disturbing, since regulation that does more harm than good is itself unethical.” Ethics regulation also has other negative effects: it “has sometimes prevented research altogether”, it “can affect the quality of research”, and it “may also have a chilling effect that causes researchers not even to attempt some kinds of research.” S.N. Whitney, of Baylor College of Medicine, in Houston, and C.E. Schneider, of the University of Michigan Law School, also argue that as many researchers are also members of review boards, ”ethics regulation reduces the time they have to do their own research”. In response, Søren Holm, editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, acknowledged that all regulation comes with a price tag. However, he writes, “performing... research without consent is not a trivial matter”. Furthermore, patients need protection from well-meaning researchers. “If we have learnt anything from recent studies of the effects of conflict of interest, it is that even the best educated and most upright researchers are not immune to the pernicious influence of such interests.” ~ Journal of Internal Medicine, Vol 269, Issue 4 2011-05-21T03:54:03+00:00 http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/researchers_question_research_ethics_regulation_system/#When:03:54:03Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Bioedge/~3/dzJL4AUp_lQ/ http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/somebodys_gotta_do_it/#When:03:53:03Z Doctors who participate in torture and capital punishment are unlikely to be hailed as role models for their colleagues. Doctors who participate in torture and capital punishment are unlikely to be hailed as role models for their colleagues. The American Board of Anesthesiology has even declared that it might decertify members who participate in lethal injections. However, two articles in the latest Hastings Center Report suggest that there is a place for complicity. Even in a torture chamber or on a gurney, people still need healing hands to staunch the blood or to palliate the suffering. Who else will do it? On capital punishment, Lawrence Nelson and Brandon Ashby of Santa Clara University argue: “Though there are good arguments against physician participation in executions, physicians should be allowed to make their own decisions about whether they will participate, and professional medical organizations should not flatly destroy the careers of those who do.” “We contend that, though the traditional ethical arguments against physician participation are not without merit, they are not persuasive enough to justify a total ban on physician involvement. When principled and morally serious arguments lead to different conclusions about what physicians as medical professionals may do, individual physicians typically are allowed by their colleagues to make their own decisions about the proper use of their medical knowledge and skills. “Hence, professional medical organizations should allow physicians to participate in executions on the basis of their own consciences; and although we do not oppose other forms of sanction, we believe they should not impose organizational sanctions that significantly impede or destroy physicians’ ability to practice medicine.” On the participation of doctors in torture, Chiara Lepora of the University of Denver and Joseph Millum of the National Institutes of Health argue: “Doctors sometimes find themselves presented with a grim choice: abandon a patient or be complicit in torture. Since complicity is a matter of degree and other moral factors may have great weight, sometimes being complicit is the right thing to do... “Medical complicity in torture, like other forms of involvement, is prohibited both by international law and by codes of professional ethics. However, when the victims of torture are also patients in need of treatment, doctors can find themselves torn. To accede to the requests of the torturers may entail assisting or condoning terrible acts. But to refuse care to someone in medical need may seem like abandoning a patient and thereby fail to exhibit the beneficence expected of physicians.” ~ The editor of the Hastings Center Report clearly felt uneasy about showcasing these views. “I want it clear that publishing the articles does not necessarily mean I or others at the Center think they are right,” wrote Greg Kaebnick. ~ Hastings Center Report,  May-June 2011 2011-05-21T03:53:03+00:00 http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/somebodys_gotta_do_it/#When:03:53:03Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Bioedge/~3/w1nrMIBOJ50/ http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/dubai_rejects_demands_to_legalise_euthanasia/#When:03:52:03Z Emirates 24/7 reports that a doctors’ group in the United Arab Emirates has called for “euthanasia”. Emirates 24/7 reports that a doctors’ group in the United Arab Emirates has called for “euthanasia”. Apparently they have in mind patients who are “clinically dead”. They argue that this already happens in many other countries. There may be some confusion in the local media, and perhaps amongst the doctors, about the distinction between euthanasia and withdrawing burdensome treatment. In any case, the Dubai Health Authority refused their request, saying that terminating a patient’s life is illegal. A spokesman, Dr Ramadan Ibrahim, said: “The Authority has notified the doctors that their request is not accepted even in cases of brain or clinical death.” ~ Emirates 24/7, May 11 2011-05-21T03:52:03+00:00 http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/dubai_rejects_demands_to_legalise_euthanasia/#When:03:52:03Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Bioedge/~3/ffs5IVTvCzk/ http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/death_still_a_taboo_subject_among_brits/#When:03:51:03Z Death is still a taboo subject in Britain, new research by the Dying Matters Coalition suggests. Death is still a taboo subject in Britain, new research by the Dying Matters Coalition suggests. While the majority of people think that talking about death is more acceptable than it was 20 years ago, two-thirds of people are still uncomfortable. The survey showed that while most people are afraid of dying, quality of life is viewed as more important than the length of life. Only 15% would like to live forever and only 9% would like to live to over 100. The most common age at which people would like to die is between 81 and 90 (27%). Younger people were found to be more likely than older people to want to live forever. Also, more people are scared of dying in pain (83%) than of being told they are dying (67%) or dying in hospital (59%). ~ ComRes, May 16 2011-05-21T03:51:03+00:00 http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/death_still_a_taboo_subject_among_brits/#When:03:51:03Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Bioedge/~3/BuzYT_KE6BE/ http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/top_fertility_doc_says_london_ivf_clinics_are_cashing_in_by_overchargi/#When:03:50:03Z IVF pioneer Lord Robert Winston has spoken out against IVF clinics that he believes are “cashing in” by overcharging patients who are storing frozen embryos.IVF pioneer Lord Robert Winston has spoken out against IVF clinics that he believes are “cashing in” by overcharging patients who are storing frozen embryos. Clinics are being advised to use only one embryo at a time in order to reduce health risks associated with multiple births, so couples freeze the others. Lord Winston said that some clinics were taking advantage of these “one at a time” regulations. He revealed that one clinic charged £915 for embryo freezing plus £325 for storage in liquid nitrogen which “costs a few pence a litre”.Speaking in a parliamentary debate on the future of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), Professor Winston said: "Embryo freezing will be increasingly required if we are to limit the number of pregnancies that result in multiple births by transferring just one embryo each time."Lord Winston also said that some clinics are providing treatments that are not supported by scientific evidence. These include immune therapy which costs as much as £3,000 and is based on the belief that a woman’s immune system may reject a pregnancy and lead to a miscarriage. “Where is the evidence that immune therapy actually improves the success rate of pregnancies?” Lord Winston asked.  “I do not know of that evidence and, indeed, the treatmentmay even be damaging or harmful to the patient's residual immune system.” ~ London EveningStandard, May 17 2011-05-21T03:50:03+00:00 http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/top_fertility_doc_says_london_ivf_clinics_are_cashing_in_by_overchargi/#When:03:50:03Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Bioedge/~3/LZZLgBlxJ3s/ http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/terminally_ill_could_get_right_to_hasten_death_under_law_approved_by_s/#When:10:48:03Z The Spanish government has approved a law that allows terminally ill patients to discontinue medical treatment even if it hastens their deaths. The Spanish government has approved a law that allows terminally ill patients to discontinue medical treatment even if it hastens their deaths. Health Minister Leire Pajin said the law would not change bans on assisted suicide or euthanasia, which prohibit actions that lead to the deaths of those who would otherwise have lived. In Spanish hospitals, withdrawing treatment in terminal cases is common practice but was not explicitly permitted. The bill must be approved by Parliament in coming months. Health officials have said the law would only apply to those with months at most to live, and also gives the right to sufficient palliative care. ~ AP, May 14 2011-05-20T10:48:03+00:00 http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/terminally_ill_could_get_right_to_hasten_death_under_law_approved_by_s/#When:10:48:03Z http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Bioedge/~3/ohiUVeRTtTE/ http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/zurich_voters_reject_suicide_tourism_ban/#When:10:42:03Z Zurich residents have voted to continue to allow assisted suicide for non-residents despite a campaign to ban so-called suicide tourism. Zurich residents have voted to continue to allow assisted suicide for non-residents despite a campaign to ban so-called suicide tourism. 78.4 percent of voters rejected a proposal to restrict access for foreigners to assisted suicide only to those living in the canton for at least one year. A second initiative, prompted by fringe conservative parties the Federal Democratic Union and the Evangelical Party seeking a national ban on assisted suicide, was rejected by a larger majority. The main parties on the right and left had campaigned against both schemes. ~ Swissinfo.ch, May 15   2011-05-20T10:42:03+00:00 http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/site/zurich_voters_reject_suicide_tourism_ban/#When:10:42:03Z