These short explorations of contemporary bioethics issues first aired on Moody Radio.
There is a famous scene in the movie The Princess Bride (1987). Just when we think Westley is dead and unable to save his true love, Miracle Max declares Westley to be “mostly dead.” Miracle Max says, “There is a big difference between mostly dead and all dead: mostly dead is slightly alive.” Similarly, there is concern and confusion that we might be prematurely declaring a patient on life support to be “dead,” when they are very much alive.
You movie buffs out there have probably heard of the French film Amour, the winner of the Best Film at the 2012 Cannes film festival. Amour centers on the lives of two 80-year-old retired music teachers, George and Anne. Their world is shaken when Anne suffers a stroke. After a second stroke, partial paralysis, and dementia, Anne wants to end her life. George resists at first, but—spoiler alert!—eventually kills her as a presumed display of their lifelong devotion and love.[1]
Every four years, the world gets to watch a morality play acted out on the stage of global athletic competition. Of course, I’m talking about the summer Olympics. The actors include athletes, trainers, the International Olympics Committee, sports associations, and the fans. The moral in question? Whether the athletes “played clean,” or had an unfair advantage, perhaps through blood doping, drugs, artificial limbs, or something else.
The State Department issues travel warnings for countries that are risky for US tourists. Maybe we need travel warnings of a different kind: for stem cell tourism. Recently, CNN featured the story of a 6-year- old boy named Cash whose parents took him to India for experimental stem cell injections. Cash has a rare genetic disease that made him unable to talk, and requiring braces to walk. After the treatment, Cash began walking without braces for the first time, which his parents’ attribute to his stem cell treatment.[1]
In a few minutes, I’m going to give you some important information that may be worth writing down. It’s regarding our conference on the topic of “Reclaiming Dignity in a Culture of Commodification” this July 12-14. So, grab a pencil and paper, or whatever electronic device you use to write things down!
Do you ever wish you could be 25 forever? The movie In Time depicts a future where you can do exactly that, with a catch. Forty years in the future, humans have been genetically altered to stop aging at 25. That’s when their body clock starts counting down, and they will die within one year unless they earn, borrow, or steal more time. And guess what? While the poor must work very hard to earn a few months, days or even hours, the uber rich can accumulate centuries, living virtually forever, and never aging.
Last week I spent two hours with a group of ten women, and over coffee and muffins we had one of the most interesting conversations about women’s health. I would like to let you listen in and taste a flavor of what we were talking about:
Mother’s Day is the busiest day of the year for phone calls. It’s been a long time since I made one of those calls, as my mom died more than 25 years ago. Now, I get to receive calls from our three grown children. When the first one was born, I had the usual nervousness about a new baby. But, I never worried about whether I would survive the delivery, or whether she would survive infancy.
Would you like to live to be 100? Half of all children born since the year 2000 will live that long, according to some researchers.[1] We’ve seen dramatic reductions in infant mortality and improvements in living healthier, longer lives. One hundred years is not enough for some people, who have proposed living 1,000 years . . . pursuing a wistful quest for immortality like the elves in Lord of the Rings.[2]
You may remember a phrase that entered our popular language, courtesy of Rodney King: “Can’t we all just get along?” Getting along would be helpful in the world of bioethics, medical research, health, and patent law. There is a significant case on its way up to the United States Supreme Court that illustrates how these diverse interests can work together, or can collide.[1] It involves the patenting of the human genes for breast cancer.
Hey, girls, listen up! For many of us, one of life’s guilty pleasures is “Say Yes to the Dress” reality show. We’re riveted by the emotional drama over choosing a wedding dress. Well, wedding dresses have entered the realm of bioethics. Recently, the New York Times highlighted the latest trend for brides trying to lose weight before their big day. Instead of hitting the gym, some brides have found doctors willing to help them lose weight quickly, through the “feeding tube diet.”[1] With a feeding tube inserted into her stomach, after a few weeks—or sometimes just days—a bride can lose five to twenty-five pounds.
Hollywood loves stories were science experiments on human beings turn into apocalyptic disasters. Last year, Rise of the Planet of the Apes depicted a new gene therapy for Alzheimer’s disease. The chimpanzees in the experiment develop human-like intelligence and revolt. In the movie I am Legend, a virus created to cure cancer accidentally wipes out 90% of the world’s population. The truth about gene therapy is better than the movies, and it is quietly making progress to treat a range of diseases.
Russia, China and Vietnam recently celebrated a shared national holiday, but I’ll bet you didn’t hear about it. March 8 is International Women’s Day, established 101 years ago to celebrate economic, social and political achievements of women. This year, there were over 1,000 events worldwide, ranging from art exhibits to panel discussions to movie screenings. You might say at this point, “That’s great, but what does that have to do with bioethics?” I’m glad you asked! Let me connect the dots.
Did you know that you can find bioethics in a best selling book? Recently, when I was on the couch with the flu, I read a book that had been recommended to me several times, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. This Oprah’s Book Club favorite is the fascinating story of a woman whose cells changed the course of medical research. And the timing is just right. I finished the book just before International Women’s Day, which is March 8. You could say that Henrietta Lacks unknowingly changed the lives of thousands of women around the world.
You may have heard me mention in a recent commentary that you, too, can begin to think like an everyday bioethicist. I said: Be alert. Notice the news stories, reports, and movies that have a bioethical issue. Then, ask the right questions. A Bioethics 1.0 questions ask, what are the boundaries of human life? Who counts as part of the human family? Bioethics 2.0 issues not as clear cut. These are the questions such as, what does it mean to be human? How do we flourish as human beings made in the image of God? How do we live responsibly in our human community?
Whether you are a regular listener or have heard Everyday Bioethics just once, you may wonder how I put together my commentaries. It follows a process that mirrors my thinking as a bioethicist. It’s the same kind of process that you can learn. It will help you interpret your culture. Here’s my advice: be alert, and ask the right questions.
Regular listeners of Everyday Bioethics know we often highlight high tech solutions to human disease and suffering. Although they amaze us, they often come with a high price tag. Sometimes the greatest impact on human life can come from a less costly “low tech” solution. Today, I would like to tell you about a few “simple solutions” that can make a big difference in improving health and saving lives around the world.
Before our first grandchild was born, we were often asked, “Do they know what they’re going to have?” Surprisingly, our children made a countercultural and delightful decision to let the baby’s sex be a surprise. Even the doctor delivering the baby was excited. In the US, most parents routinely use ultrasound to find out their baby’s sex, so they can plan nursery décor and shower-gift wish lists. However, in India and China, ultrasound plays a more sinister role: targeting baby girls.
Every Christmas Eve, King’s College in Cambridge holds their “Lessons and Carols” service, where a “lesson” from Scripture is read, followed by the singing of carols or hymns. This popular service is repeated in many churches and universities. Here at “Everyday Bioethics” we try to communicate the ethical lessons we can learn from the stories making headlines every day. Without further ado, here are some of the key headlines and lessons of 2011.
January is one of the times during the year that our attention turns to abortion. Some prominent advocates for abortion have changed their mind when they saw an ultrasound. They could no longer deny the biological humanity of the fetus with his rapidly fluttering heartbeat, tethered like an astronaut by the umbilical cord, and floating in amniotic space.
When I lived in South America as a missionary kid, December 8th was the official start of the Christmas season. The town square in front of the cathedral was the center of activity, filled with rows of small vendors’ booths. In Medellín, the central square was vividly lit with strings of large colored light bulbs. As a young teenager, I was more interested in what was for sale, than what the festivity was for.
What happens when something is “ethically impossible”? It goes underground. You may remember the scandal last year when it was revealed that U.S. government researchers knowingly infected people with STDs. Not here, but in Guatemala, where 1,300 prisoners, soldiers, and psychiatric patients were infected with syphilis, gonorrhea and chancroid, between 1946 and 1948. What is worse, only about half of these subjects received some form of treatment, even though penicillin and other effective medicines were available. Some of them died during the research.
My husband likes one particular kind of toothpaste. It’s not available at all stores, so he tends to stockpile four or five tubes at a time. Aquafresh Extreme Clean® is a matter of taste. But what if the hospital runs out of the drug you need for your next cancer treatment? At least 200 medicines critical for treating diseases such as childhood leukemia, breast cancer, and infectious diseases, along with drugs to treat heart attack patients and accident victims, have been in short supply this year.[1]
It seems that a favorite plotline of crime shows is the methodical serial killer who finally slips up. Their crimes are usually horrendously vile. There's a different kind of "serial killer" that we can actually like, a biological one. Let me tell you about the newest enemy of cancer.
A few weeks ago, I received my new driver’s license in the mail, along with a letter thanking me for being an organ donor. But, I’m hoping that no one will benefit from this particular decision for a long time! State officials, the United Network for Organ Sharing, and other nonprofit organizations keep working to increase the number of organ donors, but the number has remained fairly constant. Meanwhile, 18 people die every day, waiting for a transplant of a vital organ such as a heart, kidney, liver, or lung. The good news? Medical researchers and engineers are developing artificial organs, which they hope will help eliminate the need for donated organs.
