Ruling on Health Care Needs to Be Judged in Light of Truth

WASHINGTON, D.C., JAN. 24, 2012 (Zenit.org ).- There is a lot of anger over the Obama administration's recently announced decision to require religiously-affiliated employers to cover contraceptive services in their insurance plans, and rightly so. On Friday, the secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Kathleen Sebelius, announced that institutions such as Catholic universities and hospitals have one-year to "adapt" their policies to ensure employee coverage for all FDA approved contraceptives, including the abortion drug Ella, no copays, no deductibles.

In the September 2011 issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry, Priscilla K. Coleman, of Bowling Green State University in Ohio, published an influential statistical analysis of the existing research on the question of abortion and mental health (reported to be the “largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion available in the world literature”; see my Sept. 14 Zenit article ).  Her study concludes that women who have induced abortions because of unwanted pregnancies suffer an incredible 81% increased risk of mental health problems across a variety of categories.

Background and Introduction
In September 2010 Culture-of-Life.org posted on this website my article, “Clarification of GIFT and IUI: Assisting or Substituting the Conjugal Act?” Dr. José Florez had kindly corrected me for an article in Zenit in which I confused GIFT or Gamete Intrafallopian Tube Transfer with IUI or Homologous Intrauterine Insemination. He informed me that GIFT is seldom used today in the U.S. because IUI is simpler and apparently more effective.

Procedure
I will first describe GIFT/IUI, identify the moral issue, summarize arguments given until 2011 pro and con the moral rightness of these procedures, summarize a somewhat new argument in opposition to them advanced in 2011 by Helen Watt, briefly reflect on the way “the language of the body” relates to their morality, and offer a Conclusion.

Translating Theory Into Treatments More Difficult Than Expected

WASHINGTON, D.C., NOV. 30, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: Now that Geron has discontinued its embryonic stem cell research, while at the same time adult stem cell experiments have had a number of successful trials, what does this mean for the stem cell debate? - FJF, Australia.

E. Christian Brugger replies:

Two weeks ago a bombshell exploded on the field of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) medicine. The undisputed leader in clinical research on hESCs, Geron Corporation, announced that it was immediately ending its clinical trials using hESCs and pulling out of the embryonic stem cell business altogether to focus on cancer research.

WASHINGTON, D.C., NOV. 16, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: My friend has a 21-year-old daughter who suffers from a developmental disorder that makes her behave significantly younger than she is. I too have a daughter with a similar disorder (she's 12). Because some people prey on girls who do not understand what is going on or do not have the reasoning skills to stop a situation, my friend put her daughter on "birth control" to protect her. She has, of course, talked to her daughter about what is appropriate touching and what is inappropriate. But she still fears for her daughter's safety. I know from my experience that my daughter often does inappropriate things unknowingly. I understand this mother's worry, but I wonder if there are any moral concerns with doing this? -- D.U., Wichita, Kansas.

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

If Mississippi’s Initiative 26 (the “personhood initiative” or “PI”) passes next Tuesday, its state constitution will be amended to read : “Person defined. “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”

DENVER, Colorado, OCT. 10, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- The journal Nature announced last Wednesday that scientists had for the first time successfully derived "patient specific" stem cells from a cloned human embryo. The last time such a claim was made was by the now discredited Korean researcher Hwang Woo Suk, who alleged in a 2005 paper in the journal Science that his team had procured stem cells from cloned human embryos. Subsequent investigations found that Hwang had fabricated the data.

WASHINGTON, D.C., OCT. 5, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- Most are familiar with the infamous "Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment" carried out on black sharecroppers in Alabama between 1932-1972. U.S. government health officials withheld effective treatment (penicillin after 1947) for syphilis from 400 infected men for nearly 30 years in order to observe the disease's progression.

Fewer know about the even darker Guatemala Affair. This should change now that Obama's bioethical advisory commission published its recent study, Ethically Impossible: STD Research in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948 . You might recall that shortly after taking office, the president sent a letter to the members of his predecessor's bioethics advisory council informing them that their appointments were being prematurely terminated. That council, fairly balanced between defenders of traditional values and social progressives, was not progressive enough for the new president. He appointed his own slate, which, of course, he is entitled to do since advisory councils serve at the pleasure of the sitting president.

WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPT. 14, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- Does induced abortion increase a woman's risk of mental health problems? The question has been asked continually over the past several decades with dozens of studies indicating a positive correlation [1], but a few well-publicized studies are arriving at the opposite conclusion.

An example of the latter is a widely quoted report in 2008 by the American Psychological Association Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion. The report confidently concludes that there is "no evidence sufficient to support the claim" of a positive link between a woman's abortion and increased mental distress. Abortion advocacy groups eagerly jumped on the report to announce that abortion posed no threat at all to a woman's mental health.

DENVER, Colorado, AUG. 24, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- A problematic new end-of-life medical form is rapidly gaining ascendency in U.S. healthcare. It is called the "POLST" document. (In my own state of Colorado, it's called a MOST document.) The acronym stands for Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment. (MOST = "Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment;" its provisions are almost identical across states.) Click here to see an example of a standard POLST document.

The document consolidates on a single form provisions formerly dispersed over several documents: it acts as a living will specifying the scope of medical interventions a patient wishes in case of incapacitation; it makes specific provision for a do-not-resuscitate order (DNR); it has a box to check in the event a patient wishes to refuse treatment with antibiotics; and it allows a patient to designate a proxy decision maker.

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 27, 2011 (Zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org /)).- Here
is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the
fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation
(http://www.culture-of-life.org /).

Q: Prior to "Humanae Vitae," was the idea of "proportional morality" ever
discussed (e.g., in the work of the papal birth control commission)? By
proportional morality, I mean the ranking of moral issues such that one
issue trumps another. For example, if overpopulation threatens to destroy
everything, wouldn't this trump the prohibition against birth control and
abortion? -- Rob. Sedona, Arizona.

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

Intention Must Be to Serve the Needs of Others

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 13, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- A reader from Ontario, Canada, has written to say: "I have allowed my body at death to be given to science. Is this permissible?"

The short answer is "Yes," if specific conditions are met. To show why, I will review briefly Church teaching on organ donation and comment on this teaching to show its relevance to donating one’s body to science. Next, legitimate reasons for donating one’s body to science will be given.

It will then be helpful to summarize canons of the Code of Canon Law that must be taken into account and comment on these canons. It will also be important to consider the policies of a person’s diocese of residence that are to be observed. I will then provide a concluding summary.

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 6, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Political advocacy for assisted suicide in the United States dates back to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century and the failed Ohio euthanasia bill of 1906.

Activists organized themselves in the 1930s around the former Protestant minister Charles Potter (who first abandoned the Baptist and then the Unitarian church because both were too conservative), and formed the Euthanasia Society of America. The movement remained on the social fringe until the 1970s, when the case of Karen Ann Quinlan mobilized its energies.

WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 29, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- It's nice to know that the trusted aspirin maker, Bayer, is watching out for our daughters. The oral contraceptive producer of YAZ, Beyaz and Yasmin has been cited since 2008 by the FDA for failing to adequately address certain risks of its pills' active hormone drospirenone, a so-called "fourth generation" contraceptive drug.

Introduction

Today legislation requires patients to provide doctors, clinics, hospitals etc. with “advance directives.” An advance directive is a document by which a person makes provision for health care decisions in the event that, in the future, he or she is no longer competent to make such decisions for himself or herself.

WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 6, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: The Catholic Church teaches that in vitro fertilization (IVF) is always wrong. I understand this to be the case when embryos are made and destroyed. But my doctor said that IVF could be used in a way that wouldn't create and destroy "extra" embryos, even though it would lower our chances for a successful pregnancy. If this is true, why is IVF wrong when used by husbands and wives? K.M. -- Denver, Colorado

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

A: The question rightly identifies the wrongness of creating and destroying (and we should add freezing) human embryos in and through the process of IVF. But even if IVF was chosen only by married couples, and those couples intended to create only as many embryos as they implant, and they rejected the eugenic screening and destruction of disabled embryos, IVF still would be gravely wrong.

WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 23, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: Could you please clarify the concept of a "savior sibling"? Some argue that a child conceived to save his older brother or sister is "conceived to be used." But the child per se is not used at all, only the child's umbilical cord. Please clarify. Sincerely, D.V.M -- Bellflower, California

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

A: Lisa Nash, mother of the world's first "savior sibling," said she would do "anything" to save her daughter's life.[1] Her daughter Molly was diagnosed at birth (in 1994) with Fanconi Anemia, a serious genetic disorder in which patients can suffer bone marrow failure, birth defects, developmental abnormalities, a heightened risk of leukemia and premature death. Lisa and her husband Jack were told that the best way to help Molly was to give her a blood and marrow transplant from a genetically matched sibling. But Molly was an only child. Her parents had been considering conceiving again, but decided against it because of the high probability -- about 25% -- that the child would suffer the same illness.

Surgery of this kind in the 1980’s
Spina bifida is a developmental congenital disorder caused by the incomplete closing of the embryo’s neural tube. Some verterbrae overlying the spinal cord are not fully formed and remain unfused and open. This can cause long term mental and physical crippling to the child and at times death in the womb due to the build up of fluid and swelling in the brain.

In the 1980s it was possible, using prenatal screening, to detect neural tube anomalies such as spina bifida and then to perform a therapeutic action on the developing unborn child in the womb.  The most common procedure to treat this anomaly was to insert a shunt  into the child’s brain to drain the fluid thus releasing the pressure and providing great benefit to the child’s neurological and physical development.  In fact, at a hearing at the US Senate sometime in the mid 1980’s, sponsored by then pro-life Senator Gordon Humphrey a couple and their physician, with the child—at the time a born baby girl resting on her mother’s  lap—gave testimony in which they described the wonderful surgery that had been done on the child while still in the womb after a prenatal diagnosis had shown that she had suffered from a neural tube defect and that fluids were building up in her cranium, exerting pressure on her brain. This timely intervention was successful in minimizing the harm this girl suffered after birth, and the surgical intervention posed no serious risks either to the child or her mother. The child still needed to have a shunt to remove fluids from her brain after birth, but she did not suffer debilitating mental deficiencies and other symptoms associated with spina bifida.

WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH. 2, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- Here is a questions on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: What is the Catholic perspective on the ethics of parthenogenesis to produce stem cells from an ovum without fertilization by sperm? Thank you for your insights. Sincerely, R.P. Panama City Beach, Florida, USA

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

The term "parthenogenesis" (from the Greek words parthenos, "virgin" + genesis, "birth") refers to a form of asexual reproduction, naturally occurring among some insects, birds and lizards, in which an unfertilized egg develops without being fertilized by a male gamete.

On Friday, February 18th, the Obama Administration rescinded key provisions of Bush-era regulations that were critical to the enforcement of the Church Amendments and other longstanding federal laws protecting the rights of conscience of health care professionals.  

The new Final Rule (1)  rescinds, in part, George W. Bush’s 2008 Final Rule (2).   The new rule purportedly does not alter statutory protections for health care professionals as established under the Church Amendments, Section 245 of the Public Health Service Act, and the Weldon Amendments.  The Final Rule states: “These federal statutory health care provider conscience protections remain in effect.” 

The Obama Administration claims that the Final Rule retains all existing health care conscience protections, while removing “unclear and potentially broad” language that has caused “confusion.”

However, this statement is only partially true and is dangerously misleading.

Is It Moral to Sell Contraceptives, Abortifacients?

WASHINGTON, D.C., FEB. 16, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.



Q: Is it morally permissible to sell something immoral to some one else, for instance, working at a pharmacy and selling Plan B pills and contraceptives? -- D.K., Oxford, Michigan, U.S.A.



William E. May offers the following response:

The question posed is broad. This answer will be limited to the moral obligations of pharmacists to sell contraceptive and abortifacient materials to their customers. We begin with a brief overview of Catholic and pro-life principles on the issue.

WASHINGTON, D.C., FEB. 2, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Here are two questions on bioethics asked by ZENIT readers and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: Can the adult stem cells or eyes or other organs of a murder victim be used for the benefit of others, if the person was not murdered for the purpose of harvesting his or her organs? -- Sister C., Lincoln, Nebraska

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

A: Persons who wish to donate their organs when they die may formally designate themselves as organ donors. This intention is often indicated on some document such as a driver's license. The intention is not only legitimate but can be praiseworthy (as John Paul II suggests in "Evangelium Vitae," No. 86).

If persons have designated themselves as organ donors, then executing their wishes after they die, even if they have been murdered, is perfectly legitimate.

***

Introduction
It is useful to begin by citing the teaching found in the 1987 document issued by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae (Instruction on the Respect Due to Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation). This document addressed the morality of both pre-natal screening and the use of therapeutic procedures on human embryos. Regarding pre-natal diagnosis it affirmed: “pre-natal diagnosis makes it possible to know the condition of the embryo and of the fetus when still in the mother's womb. It…makes it possible to anticipate earlier and more effectively certain therapeutic, medical or surgical procedures. Such diagnosis is permissible, with the consent of the parents after they have been adequately informed, if the methods employed safeguard the life and integrity of the embryo and the mother, without subjecting them to disproportionate risks. But this diagnosis is gravely opposed to the moral law when it is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion depending upon the results: a diagnosis which shows the existence of a malformation or a hereditary illness must not be the equivalent of a death-sentence.” Concerning therapeutic measures applied to the human embryo it taught: “[O]ne must uphold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it but are directed towards its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival. Whatever the type of medical, surgical or other therapy, the free and informed consent of the parents is required…The application of this moral principle may call for delicate and particular precautions in the case of embryonic or fetal life.”

Introduction

It is useful to begin by citing the teaching found in the 1987 document issued by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae (Instruction on the Respect Due to Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation). This document addressed the morality of both pre-natal screening and the use of therapeutic procedures on human embryos. Regarding pre-natal diagnosis it affirmed: “pre-natal diagnosis makes it possible to know the condition of the embryo and of the fetus when still in the mother's womb. It…makes it possible to anticipate earlier and more effectively certain therapeutic, medical or surgical procedures. Such diagnosis is permissible, with the consent of the parents after they have been adequately informed, if the methods employed safeguard the life and integrity of the embryo and the mother, without subjecting them to disproportionate risks. But this diagnosis is gravely opposed to the moral law when it is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion depending upon the results: a diagnosis which shows the existence of a malformation or a hereditary illness must not be the equivalent of a death-sentence.” Concerning therapeutic measures applied to the human embryo it taught: “[O]ne must uphold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it but are directed towards its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival. Whatever the type of medical, surgical or other therapy, the free and informed consent of the parents is required…The application of this moral principle may call for delicate and particular precautions in the case of embryonic or fetal life.”

Introduction

It is useful to begin by citing the teaching found in the 1987 document issued by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae (Instruction on the Respect Due to Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation). This document addressed the morality of both pre-natal screening and the use of therapeutic procedures on human embryos. Regarding pre-natal diagnosis it affirmed: “pre-natal diagnosis makes it possible to know the condition of the embryo and of the fetus when still in the mother's womb. It…makes it possible to anticipate earlier and more effectively certain therapeutic, medical or surgical procedures. Such diagnosis is permissible, with the consent of the parents after they have been adequately informed, if the methods employed safeguard the life and integrity of the embryo and the mother, without subjecting them to disproportionate risks. But this diagnosis is gravely opposed to the moral law when it is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion depending upon the results: a diagnosis which shows the existence of a malformation or a hereditary illness must not be the equivalent of a death-sentence.” Concerning therapeutic measures applied to the human embryo it taught: “[O]ne must uphold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it but are directed towards its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival. Whatever the type of medical, surgical or other therapy, the free and informed consent of the parents is required…The application of this moral principle may call for delicate and particular precautions in the case of embryonic or fetal life.

Introduction

Bioethics in the United States is dominated by secularists who reject religious faith, which they believe is a remnant of a superstitious age that has no place in the public square. This is the position taken by such influential writers as Peter Singer, Daniel Callahan, Arthur Caplan, Ronald Green and many others, by scores of bioethics centers at think tanks such as the Hastings Center (founded by Callahan and Willard Gaylin, M.D.), and centers at prestigious universities.  In addition, many well-known and influential Catholic bioethicists repudiate their own Church’s teaching and for it substitute in large measure the “received wisdom” common to secularist bioethicists and institutions, among them Daniel Maguire, Thomas Shannon, James Walters, and others.

WASHINGTON, D.C., JAN. 12, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: I would love to see some more discussion or advice on the use of vaccines. [...] If my memory served me correctly, in the United States, all of the vaccines for Chicken Pox and the standard MMR [measles, mumps, rubella] protocols are developed from aborted children. Considering the ubiquity of these particular vaccines, I believe it is an issue that needs further exploration, discussion, and guidance from the Church and her thinkers. -- C.G., Charleston, South Carolina, USA

William E. May offers the following response:

The Reuters News Agency reported on January 3 that the Federal Drug Administration had granted the Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) firm the right to try out using embryonic stem cells for treating macular degeneration, a common cause of blindness. ACT’s chief scientific officer, Dr. Robert Lanza, said that ACT would immediately recruit patients with age related macular degeneration and would use stem cells procured by destroying embryonic human beings in an effort to help these patients retain or recover their vision.

This essay will first explain what macular degeneration is and note its different forms. It will then focus on the morality of using human embryonic stem cells in efforts to cure persons suffering from maladies, and then report and reflect on relevant scientific evaluations of the therapeutic value efficacy of embryonic stem cell research.

Classical and theological discourse has always held a unique and deeply significant respect for the womb.  Indeed, the womb is the place where the human person first experiences communion with another, where it is nourished and grows under the care of maternal union, where the developing person is most vulnerable and depends upon another in all things. 

Maggie Datiles wrote a Culture of Life piece in October explaining how Northern Ireland’s High Court had rejected a so-called “wrongful life” suit brought by two IVF children against the clinic where they were created. 

The bioethics website BioEdge (www.bioedge.org) just reported that an appeal’s court in Belgium recently upheld a similar suit brought by parents against doctors on behalf of their disabled son.  The Court of Appeal of Brussels ruled that because of a faulty prenatal diagnosis, which led to a disabled boy being born, the doctors “have injured [the boy’s] certain and legitimate interest in being the object of a therapeutic abortion.”  In other words, the boy had a right to be killed through abortion, and that right was violated when, because of the doctors’ misdiagnosis, he was born alive.  The news is interesting because although “wrongful birth” suits are not uncommon in European (and U.S.) courts, “wrongful life” suits have generally been rejected.  For those who could use a refresher on some legal jargon, a few definitions might be useful.

Saving a Life, or Saving Money

December 15, 2020 Atlanta Journal Constitution

Meningococcal meningitis and meningococcal septicemia are the leading cause of death by infectious disease in early childhood. Even with early detection, the disease can kill in as little as four hours. Tragically, the rate of infection from these killers is three to seven times higher in infants than any other age group.

For years, a commitment by policymakers to eliminate the disease in the U.S. has yielded steady gains. But, under the Obama administration, there are concerning signs of a shift from saving lives to saving money. Now, some in the ethics community are questioning whether federal officials will fulfill their pledge to rid us of this disease and protect kids.

Read entire article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution...

If an unborn baby in the fetal or embryonic stage of life dies as a result of a miscarriage it would not be immoral to do worthwhile scientific research using tissues taken from it. But, as Germain Grisez noted in his massive book on Difficult Moral Questions, a serious problem of conscience can frequently face pro-life scientists and researchers regarding use of tissues taken from embryonic or fetal human persons who were intentionally aborted. The quandary is the following: Suppose that it is not possible to do the research proposed by using spontaneously aborted unborn babies who miscarry.  For example, certain research may require using embryonic/fetal tissue that must be fresh and not frozen or in any way not normal and tissues from miscarried embryos/fetuses do not meet these criteria. What should a conscientious pro-life person do if his research center agreed to use biological material obtained as a result of the intentional abortion of babies in their embryonic or fetal stages of life? Grisez concluded that the scientist ought not participate in the research nor cooperate with it in any way, even by advising a colleague who would take his place but who is not as knowledgeable about the science involved as he is. Grisez, however, thinks that if certain conditions are fulfilled, he could offer this colleague some advice if it justified tolerating bad side effects that would accompany the discovery of a procedure that would also greatly benefit unborn babies (pp. 385-388).

WASHINGTON, D.C., NOV. 17, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: Is it ever legitimate to remove or withhold life-sustaining procedures from a patient in order to save excessive expenses to persons other than that patient (e.g., the patient's family, the community)? -- W.G., Denver, USA

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

WASHINGTON, D.C., NOV. 3, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: Is a "do-not-resuscitate" order ever ethical? Shouldn't a patient in an emergency situation always be resuscitated, so that the family can evaluate with some time and care what are the limits of ordinary and extraordinary care (and is that distinction used anymore)? -- K.T., Kansas City, USA.

William E. May offers the following response:

WASHINGTON, D.C., OCT. 8, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Dr. Robert Edwards, IVF pioneer and recipient of the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, first fertilized a human egg in vitro (literally "in glass") in 1969. The embryo died after the first cell division. He surmised that successful in vitro embryonic development required the harvesting of mature eggs.

WASHINGTON, D.C., OCT. 6, 2010 (Zenit.org).- After my article on Homologous Intrauterine Insemination appeared in ZENIT, José C. Florez, M.D., Ph.D kindly corrected me for a misunderstanding of what Homologous Intrauterine Insemination, or what he refers to as IUI (Intrauterine Insemination), entails.

WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPT. 22, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: Could you tell us the state of Church teachings on homologous intrauterine insemination between spouses, using a seminal reservoir to obtain the semen? -- J.A.A. of Santiago de Chile

William E. May offers the following response:

I presume that by "homologous intrauterine insemination," J.A.A. is referring to the procedure known as GIFT, an acronym that stands for "gamete intrafallopian tube transfer."

What is GIFT?

In May the Vatican announced that it was beginning a cooperative venture in adult stem cell (ASC) research with the international biotech firm NeoStem.  Although the Catholic Church has patronized the sciences for centuries, this is the first contractual foray into stem cell research with a for-profit secular corporation.  NeoStem (listed on the Amex) has pharmaceutical operations in the US and China.  The company is launching a development program in adult stem cell therapies in addition to building adult stem cell collection banks in the U.S. and China to allow people to harvest and store their own stem cells as a type of clinical insurance toward future medical need.  Its Chinese division, its website says, was established in order “to leverage the country’s progressive stem cell environment” (www.neostem.com).  NeoStem’s operations with the Vatican—specifically with the Pontifical Council for Culture (PCC)—will run through the corporation’s non-profit foundation “Stem for Life.”  The firm will bring to the relationship its considerable expertise in clinical ASC research; the PCC—extraordinarily—is bringing one million dollars and the “reach” of the Church’s influence.  The New York Daily News reported on May 25 that the money will come from two foundations, but the Vatican has not revealed their names [1].

This question is very insightful and well formulated. Although I believe that embryo adoption is in principle legitimate and even can be praiseworthy, the problem of unintended harmful consequences is very real.

When I speak publically on bioethical issues, the topic I most frequently address is the problem of the terrible exploitation of human embryos.

Meilaender takes these topics up in chapters 4 and 5, of his Bioethics: A Primer for Christians. I will devote more space to the first issue.

CHAPTER 4, GENETIC ADVANCE (pp. 38-47)
Summary and Comment
Meilaender’s principal concern in this chapter centers on a new kind of medical therapy aimed at curing persons suffering from or genetically disposed to different genetically caused diseases such as Down Syndrome, sickle-cell anemia, diabetes, and many, many others. After describing how some of these diseases are caused genetically, Meilaender then examines the basic forms of genetic therapy: germ cell therapy and somatic cell therapy. Modifications of germ cells (i.e., the cells proper to males and females, sperm and ova respectively, that when united become a newly conceived human person) are passed on to future generations whereas modifications of somatic cells (=equals the cells found in different parts of an individual’s body, e.g., in one’s brain, pancreas, liver, colon, etc.) are not and affect only the individual whose somatic cells are modified (39-41). Meilaender repudiates germ cell therapy, judging its supposed great benefit—the overcoming of disease not just in one person but in future generations--to be its “greatest danger…[which] C. S. Lewis memorably characterized as the ‘abolition of man.’” By this Meilaender and Lewis mean that the risks of such therapy and the harmful effects it might have on our children and grandchildren are not known to man but only to God—and we are not God and ought not “play” God. On the other hand, the moral questions raised by somatic cell therapy do not call for “the no that should be spoken to germ cell modification but for caution and a willingness to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable aims of therapy” (42-43).

This is the second part of a two-part series on the U.S. Bishops’ newdocument on reproductive technology, Life-Giving Love in an Age ofTechnology, issued on November 17(www.usccb.org/LifeGivingLove/lifegivinglovedocument.pdf ).  In thefirst essay I discussed the document’s ethical framework for analyzingparticular forms of reproductive assistance.  In this essay I reviewthe document’s ethical teaching on the following forms: using gametedonors, surrogate motherhood, homologous artificial insemination, invitro fertilization, and cloning.  Each consideration is brief.  Ifinterest is expressed, I’d be happy to develop one or another of thearguments in a future blast.

Health Care

Action Alert!

Pro-life amendment killed

- By now you have probably heard that yesterday Senator Barbara Boxer offered a motion to table (i.e., eliminate chances of voting on) the Pro-life Nelson Amendment, which would have excluded federal funding for abortion in the Senate Health Care Bill.

In this Part I summarize Chapters 5 though 8 and offer reflections and comments on this very important book.

September 8, 2008 is the official date of a new doctrinal document prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and approved by Pope Benedict XVI on bioethical issues.  It is a sequel to the CDF’s February 1987 doctrinal Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origins and on the Dignity of Procreation (Latin title Donum vitae). Dignitas Personae (henceforth DP), formally released for publication on December 12, 2008, is of a doctrinal nature and falls within the category of documents that "participate in the ordinary Magisterium of the successor of Peter" (see Instruction Donum veritatis, no.18), and is to be received by Catholics "with the religious assent of their spirit" (DP, no. 37).

Like many concerned with the welfare of vulnerable human life, the results of the Nov. 4 election have led me to question where our country is going.  Do the results imply we are growing more tolerant of abortion?  After three and a half decades of strenuous effort to sensitize our friends and neighbors to the ‘silent screams’ of the unborn, does the electoral outcome mean we’re losing the battle for the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens?  Does electing a president as politically tolerant of killing human embryos, fetuses and newborns as Barack Obama mean our country’s moral callousness is thickening? What does the Obama victory foreshadow for the future of preborn human life in our country?

This helpful book could be called  “Catholic Bioethics for Everyone.” Dividing their material into an introduction and seven chapters subdivided into 57 questions, Smith and Kaczor offer a broad view of major life issues in easy-to-understand language. One of their major goals is to help fellow Catholics and others to understand the reasons behind Church teaching on crucial issues concerning human life; they also hope that their presentation of fundamental principles will guide readers in making their own choices on disputed questions on which the Church has not taken a firm stance (pp. xiii-xix).

The recent announcement of the first UK baby created with a new found product guaranteed to be free from breast cancer marks a new turn in human reproduction. While most of the attention has focused on the ability to provide a guarantee for the avoidance of a life-threatening illness, the question surrounding the therapeutic role of medicine has slid by the wayside.  

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2008/jk_0709.shtml (click here)

Lest anyone is tempted to think that the debate over hybrid embryo creation is premature, the troubling announcement on April Fools Day (4/1) that a research team at Newcastle University in England had successfully created the first part-human part-animal hybrid embryo (cow egg, human somatic cell nucleus) in the UK will make clear how late in the day the time actually is.  The embryo survived for three days.  Parliament will debate next month the morality and utility of socially sanctioning the creation of such embryos. 

Fellow in Ethics Christian Brugger clarifies, in layman terms, what it is to be: To be who we are when we were an embryo.

Recently a Catholic U.S. Coast Guard officer filed suit to prevent being forced to receive a vaccination he believed morally objectionable since the vaccine derived from the remains of an aborted child. The officer, Lt. Cmdr. Joseph Healy filed a complaint just last week, charging the government with using “its own arbitrary judgment of what constitutes Catholic theology while permitting religious exemptions to others.”

A collage of headlines covering Monday’s breakthrough in stem cell research, published in the scientific journals, Science and Cell, attempt to state what, to many, is not so obvious.   What we have found are pluripotent stem cells, equal to, but not to be confused with pluripotent embryonic stem cells.

On Sept. 5, a government agency (called the Human Fertilization and Embryology Agency or HFEA) decided to let scientists, mad or otherwise, create human/animal hybrids. Let me repeat: Science fiction will become science fact very soon; and man and beast will be combined into one.