These short explorations of contemporary bioethics issues first aired on Moody Radio.
In this third episode, Dr. Sleasman begins with a brief overview of the church's involvement in culture, why it is important, and some areas where it has been successful in engaging culture in a positive way. He then discusses new technological developments, such as drones, and the role of popular media such as movies and books in facilitating discussion of new technologies and the issues that arise from them. Loneliness, intimacy, and the role of personal assistant technology is discussed, as well as ways to reflect critically on how we utilize our technology without altogether avoiding it. Dr. Sleasman ends the segment with a discussion of currently emerging technologies, especially driverless vehicles, the Brain Initiative, neuroscience, and 3D printing.
Have you ever objected to a nurse taking your height and weight? That’s what I did just a few weeks ago, at my allergist’s office. It’s the first time I’ve ever done that. And the head nurse agreed with my objection.
“I was expecting something devotional, not this egghead stuff.” That's a paraphrase from a comment made about our recent summer conference at The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity. So, why do we bother with designing and hosting academic conferences?
Imagine that you’ve just learned that your 89-year-old mother has cancer. The doctor lays out the options of chemo or hospice with palliative care. What do you do? While you may not find a specific Bible reference, you can seek God’s wisdom.
Sometimes we feel as if everything around us is changing so quickly that we can’t keep up. When our children were small, we would get two sets of prints to give to grandparents. Today, parents can share photos by text message, Facebook, Flickr, Instagram, Picasa, and Shutterfly. The questions used to be about who to send photos to; today, we are wrestling with privacy and out pictures getting into the wrong hands.
In some cases, the downside of a misdiagnosis is not too serious. But when it comes to brain injuries, the risks of an incorrect diagnosis could mean the difference between dying or living, or the difference between the labels “vegetative state” and “minimally conscious.
Why should the National Children’s Study matter to you? Most of you probably haven’t even heard of it. It is the most ambitious study of children’s development ever attempted in the United States. The study has stumbled, but it just might succeed. I’m talking about the National Children’s Study, a prospective study of 100,000 children, following them from birth until they are 21. Researchers want to figure out the influence of genetics and the environment on children. This is a public health study, which explores big picture questions about things that influence health, the kind of questions that don’t necessarily come up in your typical doctor-patient encounter.
I have a friend—let’s call him Nicholas—who told me he has kidney disease, and not much hope of getting a kidney transplant, partly due to his age. Desperation drives some sick patients to grasp at anything, even if it might not be ethical. Fortunately, Nicholas is well aware of the ethical challenges, such as whether to go to India for a transplant, or to get an organ from a paid “donor” who is likely being exploited because of his poverty.
Have you ever been fooled by something you read on the internet? Or that a friend posted on Facebook? It happened to me. I was giving a public lecture, and in the Q&A that followed, I casually mentioned a story about a stunningly beautiful woman whose husband was suing her for having ‘ugly children.’ He claimed she had deceived him about the cosmetic surgery she had before their marriage. I didn’t take the time to verify this urban legend, and I was fooled.
Last week, I was interviewed about the FDA hearings that considered human trials for the three-parent embryo.[1] We spent much of the interview talking about the ethical concerns, but I think it is important to first address the science that’s involved. Part of helping us to think bioethically includes a responsibility to understand basic science.
A few weeks ago, Nicholas confided to me that he had kidney disease. His condition is getting worse. Nicholas is considering whether to be added to the national transplant waiting list. Last fall, Maria asked me if I knew any infertility specialists. Her daughter and son-in-law were advised by their doctor to pursue IVF immediately, but they felt pressure, rather than support. Last year, Charlotte was told that she was a match for someone who needed her bone marrow. The procedure would be risky for this young mother, but the potential recipient was very sick. (The names are pseudonyms, but these stories are true.)
When I was a law student intern at Americans United for Life, we discussed the possibility of an artificial womb as a way to save fetuses that were destined for abortion. If we could transplant the fetus into an artificial womb, then the mother who doesn’t want to be pregnant could terminate her pregnancy, and the child could be saved.
In our last commentary, I highlighted the top six bioethics news stories of 2013, in the area of public policy. This week, we’ll focus on the top six in technology. I’m going to give you a thinking challenge. At least one of these stories has less-than-obvious ethical issues. Which one is it? I’ll tell you at the end.
It’s that time of year again: time to review the top bioethics stories of 2013. As I sorted through the candidates, I was surprised by how many significant developments there were last year. So many, in fact, that it will take two episodes to review them. They divide rather conveniently into two groups: public policy developments, and technological developments. This week, I’m going to highlight the top six stories in public policy, which includes legislation, litigation, and government regulation.
In the last episode of the year, you might expect me to talk about this year’s highlights in bioethics, or predictions for next year. Wesley Smith takes care of that with his annual bioethics predictions, and he seems to hit the target just about every time.[1] And we’ll save the highlights for a future episode. On this, the last day of the year, I can’t resist the temptation to talk about New Year’s resolutions. Don’t worry; this has nothing to do with losing weight, exercise, or getting organized.
It’s that time of year again, when kids and adults make their wish lists, usually for things they want, rather than what they need. As adults, we might want to check our own wish list twice. In getting what we want, we may also receive an unpleasant surprise. It’s what we call the ‘law of unintended consequences.’
Every Thanksgiving season, it seems as if we are reminded that we need to be thankful. It can become more of a duty, or a religious obligation. I’d like to invite you to think about thankfulness in a different way, as something that is good not only for your spiritual health, but also for your mental, physical and social health. Let me explain.
Last time, we talked about an amazing new development in ethical stem cell research. I described a new technique that increases the efficiency of producing induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) to almost 100%. This is a way to generate embryo-like stem cells, without creating or destroying any embryos. These iPSCs are pluripotent, just like stem cells harvested from human embryos, which means they can develop into any tissue in the human body. Pluripotency is considered the ultimate prize for stem cell researchers.
This fall, scientists announced two breakthroughs in stem cell research, and I’d like to tell you about one of them.
In this second episode, Dr. Sleasman again addresses the Christian life of the mind in the midst of our technological age, exploring a number of technologies and emerging developments, notably 3D printing, stem cell research, the Brain Initiative, and the impact of social media on modern culture.
Have you noticed that every time you go online, there’s someone wanting you to take a survey? A lot of them seem to be aimed at finding out how to entice you to buy something. I want to talk about a different kind of survey -- one that The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity is sponsoring. That’s how important we think it is.
You can find bioethics news in some unusual places. Take CNN Money, for instance. I came across a story in July about crowdfunding for adoption.[1] Think of it as “Kickstarter for kids.” Kickstarter is an online platform for raising money for creative projects, big and small. If the entire amount is not raised, the project does not happen.
In the U.S. we typically think that our healthcare choices are our own—private decisions between us and our doctor. But in reality, many of my health care decisions affect the people around me—whether I wash my hands, whether I send my child with a cough and runny nose to school, or whether I choose to get vaccinated. Our actions communicate whether we truly care about our neighbor. Health is a community affair, and Christians are involved in practical ways. This is nothing new; it’s part of our heritage. The first hospital was started in the third century by Christian monks.[i]
We took our children to see Air Force One on the Fourth of July, 1997. Since then, we’ve associated summer with going to movies that we all could enjoy. And also since then, we’ve noticed moral statements and bioethical themes in the movies. If you pay attention, you can find movies that do both: entertain and provoke ethical conversations.
I love how Hollywood raises important bioethical questions through movies. I’ve used The Sixth Day (2000) to discuss human cloning with students, John Q (2002) to discuss organ transplantation, and Gattaca (1997) to talk about IVF and genetic selection. These films are well-crafted dramas that raise important questions about exploitation and human nature.
