Goodbye Human Exceptionalism, Hello The Corner

by Wesley J. Smith

This is the last post on Human Exceptionalism.

No, I am not taking my football and going home. Nor have I been given the boot.

Rather, NRO has invited me to opine exclusively on the site’s very popular The Corner, just as I do now here, expanding my potential readership. And so I shall, without any changes in emphases or subject matters.

Worry not: Past HE posts will still be archived under my name and fully searchable on the site.

The Corner is a scrolling type blog with many posts published daily about different subjects. On a busy day, a post can quickly be moved off the front page.

If you want to make sure not to miss a post–either to cheer or jeer–I always link my published writing on Twitter, where my handle is @forcedexit.

I also post links to all of what I write on my Facebook page.

Thanks so much to everyone who have supported Human Exceptionalism over the years, and its predecessor, Secondhand Smoke.

So, this isn’t goodbye. It isn’t even au revoir. It’s, “See you at The Corner!“

View Comments

Canadian Bar Association Wants More Euthanasia

by Wesley J. Smith

Once a society accepts the premise that killing is an acceptable answer to suffering, there is seemingly no upper limit to which that principle will eventually not apply.

The Canadian Supreme Court recently imposed a nationwide right to euthanasia. The government passed a bill with an extremely loose–nay, close to meaningless–restriction that death be “foreseeable” to qualify for the lethal jab.

But that small impediment is too much for culture of death aficionados. Now, the Canadian Bar Association wants more euthanasia. From the Canadian Press story:

The Canadian Bar Association is urging the federal government to expand its restrictive new law on assisted dying, allowing mature minors, people suffering strictly from psychological illnesses and those diagnosed with competence-eroding conditions like dementia to get medical help to end their suffering.

Two brief points:

1. The Canadian Supreme Court ruling made a point of finding that the right to be killed to end suffering is not limited to the terminally ill. The two criteria are a medially diagnosed condition and irremediable suffering–as defined by the patient. Hence, the “forseeeable” limitation probably is not constitutional.

2. The ruling did require competency, both medical and legal. But I have little doubt that having radically changed medical ethics and law based on their own opinions, the justices won’t expand their ruling to include “mature” minors and pre-authorization for euthanasia in the event one becomes incapacitated.

As I always say: The culture of death is like the universe. It never stops expanding. 

 

View Comments

NIH Can’t Be Trusted to Regulate Animal/Human Research

by Wesley J. Smith

The NIH is considering funding research that will inject human stem cells into animal embryos, thereby creating human/animal chimeras.

We have to be careful how we react to such stories and not assume that all such human/animal research is, by definition, unethical. For example, transgenic animals–that is, an animal with a gene or genes from another species–have been created that contain valuable medicinal properties in their milk (as just one example), without materially changing the nature of the animal so that it possesses distincly human characteristics or the potential to develop human behaviors. That was the purpose for the creation of Dolly the cloned sheep, to eventually manufacture a herd of transgenic sheep for use in “pharming.”

If we had a science sector that believed in the intrinsic dignity of human life, we could explore these potentially beneficent avenues of biotechnology with little concern that scientists would begin to blur vital distinctions or cross crucial ethical lines dividing human beings from fauna.

Alas, we don’t live in that milieu and we can’t trust our regulatory bodies–which can be more controlled by the sectors they are supposed to regulate than the other way around–to maintain strict boundaries.

Another problem is that society generally doesn’t seem to care much about ethical principles around these issues. If you tell many people that biotechnology will cure their Uncle Charlie’s Parkinson’s disease, they won’t give much of a fig about other moral ramifications.

I don’t think this work can be stopped. But identifying the lines that should not–and which we will not allow to–be crossed is urgently needed so that legally enforceable standards can be delineated.

I just don’t see anyone currently in power within the symbiotically connected science, government, and big business sectors much interested in giving such work more than placating lip service at the moment.  

View Comments

Dolly Clones Paving Way for Human Cloning

by Wesley J. Smith

Apparently clones of the same dead sheep from which Dolly was manufactured are in good health and aging normally. From the LiveScience story:

Four cloned sheep that are genetically identical to Dolly, the first cloned mammal, are still healthy even in old age, a new study found. The four sheep, which were derived from the same batch of cells as Dolly and could be considered her clone “sisters,” have just reached their 9th birthday, which is equivalent to age 70 in human years, researchers who have been studying the sheep said.

A detailed study of these four sheep and nine other cloned sheep that are not related to “the Dollies” found that the animals were healthy. All of the sheep were free from many diseases commonly found in older sheep, such as diabetes and high blood pressure, the study showed.

What does this mean for the future of human cloning?

  1. The cloning technique–known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)–can be refined so as to permit the manufacture of normal mammals in such a manner.
  2. Human SCNT has already been done, creating embryos that were developed to the blastocyst stage (the time when stem cells can be derived).
  3. SCNT is one type of cloning. The result is an embryo, that once in existence develops in the same manner as a natural embryo.
  4. At that point, the question isn’t whether to clone but what to do with the embryo that was created. 
  5. Some human cloning apologists falsely say that “therapeutic cloning” is different than “reproductive cloning.” That’s not true.
  6. Those terms merely reflect different uses of the cloned embryo, the former being destroyed for research, the latter implanted in a uterus and–as with Dolly–brought to birth.
  7. Bioethicists and Big Biotech support have said that human “reproductive cloning” should be banned until it is “safe.”
  8. Animal cloning moves that process forward–making human reproductive uses of cloning safe.
  9. So does “therapeutic” human cloning since a major point of that work is to perfect the still faulty techniques needed to do in humans what is currently being done in sheep and other animals.
  10. The goals of human cloning include, but are not limited to, research, learning how to genetically engineer human beings, fetal farming for parts and research, and reproductive outcomes.
  11. Banning “reproductive cloning” is not banning cloning, but merely one use of a cloned embryo. In other words, it is a phony ban intended to fool people.

The time to outlaw human cloning is now–meaning all human SCNT, regardless of the use to which the embryo will be put. If we wait until the sector perfects its techniques, it will be too late.

Will we? Not a chance!

Hillary won’t. Trump hasn’t a clue or a care about the issue. The media are asleep and/or active boosters of Big Biotech and Congress is safely in their campaign donation-paid special interest pockets.

There will be consequences.

View Comments

Trump, Hillary, and Bioethics

by Wesley J. Smith

I have been asked what I think the US election means to bioethics. A lot and not much. Here’s how I put it in an interview in BioEdge:

BioEdge: You can’t escape without a question about the US presidential election. Which of the presumptive nominees is more likely to wind back the “culture of death”?

Smith: None of the above, I’m afraid. If Hillary Clinton becomes president she will accelerate current trends with great gusto, not only in the USA but internationally. I don’t think Donald Trump has thought—or much cares about—bioethical issues, and I am under no illusion that he will grapple with bioethics in any fundamental manner.

However the election turns out, for issues I care most about, winter is coming. It’s just a matter of how cold that winter will be and how well we can insulate ourselves against the chill.

Beyond that, I’ll comment on any specific proposals or comments from either candidate as they unfold.

View Comments

Protect Vermont MDs’ Right to Not Push Assisted Suicide!

by Wesley J. Smith

Assisted suicide isn’t the same as palliative care. The latter about easing symptoms and alleviating pain. The former about intentionally ending life.

But the culture of death brooks no dissent. Vermont authorities require doctors to counsel terminally ill patients on receiving assisted suicide under a law that requires all end of life medical options to be discussed.

That is, doctors are to be forced by law to counsel their terminally ill patients about the pros and cons of committing suicide.

Alliance Defending Freedom has filed suit contending violation of the First Amendment and conflicts with aspects of Obamacare that prohibit discrimination against doctors that refuse to participate in life-ending actions . From the complaint:

Vermont medical authorities have recently determined to force conscientious doctors and other clinicians to counsel their patients for physician-assisted suicide.

Although Act 39, the State of Vermont’s assisted suicide bill, passed with limited protections for conscientious physicians, Act 39 and a separate existing mandate to counsel and refer for “all options” for palliative care have been construed by State medical licensing authorities, including Defendants, to require all healthcare professionals to counsel for assisted suicide. 

Imagine. Not long ago, assisted suicide was against the law in Vermont. It violates the Hippocratic Oath.

Now, all doctors are required to discuss the option of being made dead objectively and without judgment.

Forcing doctors to violate their conscience and essentially push suicide as if it were no different than controlling symptoms or other medical treatment–or refer for that purpose–is to force doctors to commit what they might consider a grievous sin or moral wrong.

That’s tyranny.

But we are seeing more and more of such cases these days. Because as I wrote above, the culture of death brooks no dissent.

 

 

View Comments

Quebec Can’t Kill Them Soon Enough

by Wesley J. Smith

Waiting periods for reflection are supposed to be a “safeguard” against abuse in euthanasia and assisted suicide.

That has been exposed as mere veneer as Quebec euthanasia advocates are furious that the province has imposed a 10-day waiting period. From the CBC News story:

The federal assisted-dying law requires a 10-day delay between a patient’s request for doctor-assisted death and the administration of the procedure.

Quebec’s law doesn’t stipulate a waiting period before a doctor-assisted death is administered, though patients have typically received the procedure within 48 to 72 hours. “When you’re really ill, you’re at the end your life and you’re really suffering … Each hour, each day can be an interminable agony.”

“They changed the law by simply sending out a letter,” said Hivon, who is among five candidates campaigning to become the new PQ leader.

Once you accept killing as an acceptable answer to human suffering, the time will come when getting dead takes first priority, not protecting the lives of the despairing ill and disabled. 

Things are deteriorating in Canada very swiftly. USA take warning!

View Comments

AMA Playing “Hide the Ball” with Futile Care Rule?

by Wesley J. Smith

“Futile care” is ad hoc health care rationing. It permits a doctor to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment that is working, based on the values of the MD that keeping the patient alive is not the “medically appropriate” approach.

The term “medically appropriate” in such cases is a misnomer. The “refuse wanted treatment decision” is really a subjective values judgment of the doctor, as opposed to an objective medical medical determination.

Or to put it another way, the treatment isn’t refused because it doesn’t work, but because it does or will.

“Medically ineffective” treatment would seem to be wholly different concept, an objective determination that a requested intervention will not work.  

Wild example: If I ask my doctor to cure my earache by performing an appendectomy, she should absolutely refuse because such an intervention would be objectively futile.

The new AMA ethics rules would seem to conflate these two distinct concepts. Under the heading “medically ineffective interventions,” the AMA would empower doctors to refuse “medically inappropriate” care. From the preliminary rule (my emphasis):

5.5 Medically Ineffective Interventions

At times patients (or their surrogates) request interventions that the physician judges not to be medically appropriate. Such requests are particularly challenging when the patient is terminally ill or suffers from an acute condition with an uncertain prognosis and therapeutic options range from aggressive, potentially burdensome life-extending intervention to comfort measures only.

Requests for interventions that are not medically appropriate challenge the physician to balance obligations to respect patient autonomy and not to abandon the patient with obligations to be compassionate, yet candid, and to preserve the integrity of medical judgment.

Physicians should only recommend and provide interventions that are medically appropriate—i.e., scientifically grounded—and that reflect the physician’s considered medical judgment about the risks and likely benefits of available options in light of the patient’s goals for care. Physicians are not required to offer or to provide interventions that, in their best medical judgment, cannot reasonably be expected to yield the intended clinical benefit or achieve agreed-on goals for care​.

The “agreed on” term is especially important in this context. Under futile care, if a patient wants to stay alive, and the MD thinks that should not be done, there is no “agreed upon goal.”

In such circumstances, under futile care theory, the MD and/or a hospital ethics committee have the right to refuse wanted treatment–which works–based on their subjective personal value beliefs that it is “inappropriate.”

Coercion should have no place in medicine.

Question: Is the false heading and subsequent conflation of distinct ethical concepts a game of “hide the ball?

View Comments