Looks like the brave new world has finally arrived. The website BeautifulPeople.com reportedly “booted out 5,000 people who gained weight and were deemed too ugly to remain members”. (R & D Mag)

During the Nuremberg trials, convened at the end of World War II, lawyers for the German defendants, politicians accused of crimes against humanity, and physicians accused of euthanasia and barbaric medical experimentation offered the rationale of “kriegsraison” to exculpate their clients. The defence argument was that in conditions of all out war, those prosecuting the war can and must do whatever it takes to win. The Nuremberg tribunals summarily rejected kriegsraison as a defence. (The Lancet)

The idea that humans may not inherently deserve more respect than animals or even robots is a very dangerous one. (THE MARK)

Valuing Lives: A Conference on Ethics in Health and the Environment
The NYU Center for Bioethics
New York University
March 5, 2011

The NYU Center for Bioethics in conjunction with the NYU Environmental Studies Program will be hosting ‘Valuing Lives: A Conference on Ethics in Health and the Environment’ on Saturday, March 5, 2011. The event will be held on New York University’s beautiful Washington Square campus, in the heart of Greenwich Village and will feature talks in a single day followed by an end-of-conference dinner at a local restaurant that night.

Call for Papers Deadline: November 1, 2010

For more information

A Melbourne couple is suing the Royal Women’s Hospital for damages because doctors failed to diagnose their unborn daughter with Down Syndrome, denying them the choice to have an abortion. (ABC News)

Authors such as Francis Fukuyama, the President’s Council on Bioethics, and George Annas have argued that biotechnological interventions that aim to promote genetic enhancement pose a threat to human nature. This paper clarifies what conclusions these critics seek to establish, and then shows that there is no plausible account of human nature that will meet the conditions necessary to support this position. Appeals to human nature cannot establish a prohibition against the pursuit of genetic enhancement. [Abstract (Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)]

The Institute for Faith and Learning
Baylor University
2010 Baylor Symposium on Faith and Culture
“Human Dignity and the Future of Health Care”
October 28-30, 2010
Waco, Texas

Inspired by the conviction that a Christian understanding of the dignity of the human person should inform fundamental questions about the future of health care, our conference seeks to engage participants from a broad range of disciplines and health care professions.  Confirmed speakers include: Elias Bongmba, Rice University; Toyin Falola, University of Texas; Paul Griffiths, Duke Divinity School; Jeff Levin, Baylor University; Gilbert Meilaender, Valparaiso University; Stephen Post, Stony Brook University; Margaret Somerville, McGill University; Daniel Sulmasy, University of Chicago; John Swinton, University of Aberdeen; and S. Kay Toombs, Baylor University.

For more information, please visit: http://www.baylor.edu/ifl/index.php?id=70580.

Call for Papers Deadline: July 15, 2010

In this paper, I focus on the concept of human dignity and critically assess whether such a concept, as used in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, is indeed a useful tool for bioethical debates. However, I consider this concept within the context of the development of emerging technologies, that is, with a particular focus on transhumanism. The question I address is not whether attaching artificial limbs or enhancing particular traits or capacities would dehumanize or undignify persons but whether nonbiological entities introduced into or attached to the human body contribute to the “augmentation” of human dignity. First, I outline briefly how the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights uses the concept of dignity. Second, I look at the possibility of a universal bioethics in relation to the concept of human dignity. Third, I examine the concept of posthuman dignity and whether the concept of human dignity as construed in the declaration has any relevance to posthuman dignity. [Premium AJOB]

The American Journal of Bioethics (Volume 10, Issue 7, 2010) is now available by subscription only.

Articles Include:

• “Disaster in the Gulf: Public Health and Public Responsibility” by Summer Johnson, 1-2.
• “Should Human Beings Have Sex? Sexual Dimorphism and Human Enhancement” by Robert Sparrow, 3-12.
• “The Risks of ‘Sexual Normalcy’” by Ronald M. Green, 13-14.
• “Humans Should Be Free of All Biological Limitations Including Sex” by James J. Hughes, 15.
• “Resisting Sparrow’s Sexy Reductio: Selection Principles and the Social Good’ by Thomas Douglas, Russell Powell, Katrien Devolder, Pablo Stafforini, and Simon Rippon, 16-18.
• “Sexual Dimorphism and the Value of Feminist Bioethics” by Nancy J. Matchett, 18-20.
• “Sex and Enhancement: A Phenomenological-Existential View” by Jenny Slatman, Annemie Halsema, and Guy Widdershoven, 20-22.
• “The Value of Sex in Procreative Reasons” by Guy Kahane and Julian Savulescu, 22-24.
• “Sexual Dimorphism and Sexual Intermediaries” by Thomas Marino, 24-25.
• “Is There a Moral Obligation to Have Children of Only One Sex?: by Kalina Kamenova, 26-27.
• “This is What Happens When You Forget About Gender” by Dan O’Connor, 27-29.
• “Sex, Romance, and Research Subjects: An Ethical Exploration” by Timothy F. Murphy, 30-38.
• “No Sex Please, We’re Social Scientists?” by Michael Dunn and Mark Sheehan, 39-41.
• “On the Costly Compromises of Nonclinical Research Relationships” by Hallie Liberto, 41-42.
• “No Sex Please in Sexuality Research” by Bridget Haire, 43-44.
• “Human Dignity and Transhumanism: So Anthro-Technological Devices Have Moral Status?” by Fabrice Jotterand, 45-52.
• “Human Dignity, Transhuman Dignity, and All That Jazz” by Immaculada de Melo-Martin, 53-55.
• “Toward a ‘Post-Posthuman Dignity Area’ in Evaluating Emerging Enhancement Technologies” by Annelien L. Bredenoord, Rieke van der Graaf, Johannes J.M. van Delden, 55-57.
• “Dignity and Agential Realism: Human, Posthuman, and Nonhuman” by Linda MacDonald Glenn and George Dvorsky, 57-58.

Fertilization in humans and other mammals produces a new member of the species in the embryonic stage of its natural development. That is to say, the entity produced by the union of spermatozoon and oocyte is a complete, though developmentally immature, organism. Unlike the gametes — the sperm and egg cells independent of each other — it is no mere part of another organism, nor is it merely something that can be used to produce a complete organism. At fertilization, the ovum and the sperm cease to be and something new comes to be — an organism (the embryo) whose genetic constitution and epigenetic state orient and dispose it to develop in the direction of maturity as a member of the species. (National Review Online)

An advisory panel of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave the green light Thursday to an emergency contraceptive for use up to five days after sex. The Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs voted unanimously to recommend the drug, called ella. (CNN)

Have you ever thought about whether to have a child? If so, what factors entered into your decision? Was it whether having children would be good for you, your partner and others close to the possible child, such as children you may already have, or perhaps your parents? For most people contemplating reproduction, those are the dominant questions. Some may also think about the desirability of adding to the strain that the nearly seven billion people already here are putting on our planet’s environment. But very few ask whether coming into existence is a good thing for the child itself. Most of those who consider that question probably do so because they have some reason to fear that the child’s life would be especially difficult — for example, if they have a family history of a devastating illness, physical or mental, that cannot yet be detected prenatally. (New York Times)

Sanger is one of the heroes of “America and the Pill,” a new cultural history of the birth control pill written by Elaine Tyler May, a professor of American studies and history at the University of Minnesota. Throughout her long career as a nurse and activist, Sanger was a tireless advocate for an oral contraceptive, calling as early as 1912 for a “magic pill.” By the time this dream was realized in 1960, six years before Sanger’s death, other contraceptives were widely available, but the pill stood out for three main reasons: First, it was the only form of contraception that was not directly linked to the act of sex (that is, no coitus interruptus necessary). Second, it was nearly 100 percent effective. Third, and most important for Sanger, women controlled it. Unlike with condoms or the rhythm method, men’s cooperation didn’t matter at all. They didn’t even have to know. (Washington Post)

Fertilization in humans and other mammals produces a new member of the species in the embryonic stage of its natural development. That is to say, the entity produced by the union of spermatozoon and oocyte is a complete, though developmentally immature, organism. Unlike the gametes, it is not merely part of another organism; nor is it merely something that can be used to produce a complete organism. At fertilization, the ovum and the sperm cease to be and something new comes to be — an organism (the embryo) whose genetic constitution and epigenetic state orient and dispose it to develop in the direction of maturity as a member of the species. (National Review Online)

At least 11 states have passed laws this year regulating or restricting abortion, giving opponents of abortion what partisans on both sides of the issue say is an unusually high number of victories. In four additional states, bills have passed at least one house of the legislature. (New York Times)

Cath Elliott has called Marie Stopes’s new abortion advertisement “innocuous” because the only abortion- or pregnancy-related term it uses is “late”. Laurie Penny has interpreted the advert’s cagey language as “normalis[ing] free and frank discussion of reproductive issues”. But the advert is neither innocuous nor positive about open debate. It shows three women, each alone and worried about their unwanted pregnancy. It then provides the company hotline. (Guardian)

Three metaphors appear to guide contemporary thinking about organ transplantation. Although the gift is the sanctioned metaphor for donating organs, the underlying perspective from the side of the state, authorities and the medical establishment often seems to be that the body shall rather be understood as a resource. The acute scarcity of organs, which generates a desperate demand in relation to a group of potential suppliers who are desperate to an equal extent, leads easily to the gift’s becoming, in reality, not only a resource, but also a commodity. In this paper, the claim is made that a successful explication of the gift metaphor in the case of organ transplantation and a complementary defence of the ethical primacy of the giving of organs need to be grounded in a philosophical anthropology which considers the implications of embodiment in a different and more substantial way than is generally the case in contemporary bioethics. I show that Heidegger’s phenomenology offers such an alternative, with the help of which we can understand why body parts could and, indeed, under certain circumstances, should be given to others in need, but yet are neither resources nor properties to be sold. The phenomenological exploration in question is tied to fundamental questions about what kind of relationship we have to our own bodies, as well as about what kind of relationship we have to each other as human beings sharing the same being-in-the-world as embodied creatures. [Premium (Journal of Bioethical Inquiry)]

Not long ago, a team of researchers watched a 1-year-old boy take justice into his own hands. The boy had just seen a puppet show in which one puppet played with a ball while interacting with two other puppets. The center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the right, who would pass it back. And the center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the left . . . who would run away with it. Then the two puppets on the ends were brought down from the stage and set before the toddler. Each was placed next to a pile of treats. At this point, the toddler was asked to take a treat away from one puppet. Like most children in this situation, the boy took it from the pile of the “naughty” one. But this punishment wasn’t enough — he then leaned over and smacked the puppet in the head. (New York Times)

Earlier this month, NEWSWEEK published an article on what’s been called the “graying” of the abortion-rights movement: the idea that older women are promoting the cause while younger women are uninvolved. It’s a concern that’s been raised before and that left younger pro-choice activists asking, “What about us?” What resulted was a spirited and informative debate online, where abortion rights activists of all ages discussed what role younger women play in the movement and what the future of that movement looks like. (Newsweek)

Days before travelers worldwide are to begin arriving for Shanghai’s world exposition, China has lifted a two-decade ban on travel to the country by people who carry the virus that causes AIDS or who have other sexually transmitted diseases. (New York Times)

Abbie Dorn lies in a hospital bed in her parents’ home on the South Carolina coast. A halo of dark curls frames her pale face. The pump for her feeding tube clicks softly in the quiet room. (Los Angeles Times)