Click here to read Reproductive Technologies 101, an overview of reproductive technologies

Journal of Medical Ethics (Volume 35, Number 7, July 2009) is now available by subscription only.

Articles Include:

• “More than cautionary tales: the role of fiction in bioethics” by Sarah Chan, 398-399.
• “HIV testing of junior doctors: exploring their experiences, perspectives and accounts” by L R Salkeld, S J McGeehan, E Chaudhuri, and I M Kerslake, 402-406.
• “The ethics of the placebo in clinical practice revisited” by P Louhiala, 407-409.
• “Reconsidering prenatal screening: an empirical–ethical approach to understand moral dilemmas as a question of personal preferences” by E García, D R M Timmermans, and E van Leeuwen, 410-414.
• “Bone marrow transplantation in the prevention of intellectual disability due to inherited metabolic disease: ethical issues” by P Louhiala, 415-418.
• “Understanding respect: learning from patients” by N W Dickert and N E Kass, 419-423.
• “Exploring morally relevant issues facing families in their decisions to monitor the health-related behaviours of loved ones” by D Gammon, E K Christiansen, and R Wynn, 424-428.
• “Is all fair in biological warfare? The controversy over genetically engineered biological weapons” by J M Appel, 429-432.
• “Genetic enhancements and expectations” by K Sorensen, 433-435.
• “Belgian euthanasia law: a critical analysis” by R Cohen-Almagor, 436-439.
• “Vulnerability in palliative care research: findings from a qualitative study of black Caribbean and white British patients with advanced cancer” by J Koffman, M Morgan, P Edmonds, P Speck, and I J Higginson, 440-444.
• “Limits to research risks” by F G Miller and S Joffe, 445-449.
• “Split views among parents regarding children’s right to decide about participation in research: a questionnaire survey” by  U Swartling, G Helgesson, M G Hansson, and J Ludvigsson, 450-458.

Last October, I broke news of a very exciting new technique for genetic screening of embryos. Genome-wide karyomapping, developed by Alan Handyside, of the Bridge Centre in London, potentially marks a step change for the field, as it has the capacity to transform the range of genetic mutations and variations that can be detected.

Critically, there is no need to know the precise sequence of a mutation or variation for which you wish to test. Instead, SNPs and haplotypes are used to track how an embryo’s chromosomes are put together, and whether sections that include the DNA in which you’re interested have been passed on. (Times Online)

A ‘genetic’ ‘MoT’ that can spot almost all inherited diseases in an IVF-created embryo could be available within a year. The £2,500 test can detect around 15,000 genetic conditions, including cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease and some types of cancer, autism and mental retardation. It also counts the number of chromosomes in the embryos, potentially increasing the chances of pregnancy and cutting the odds of miscarriage. (Daily Mail)

New York has become the first state to allow taxpayer-funded researchers to pay women for giving their eggs for embryonic stem cell research, a move welcomed by many scientists but condemned by critics who fear it will lead to the exploitation of vulnerable women. (Washington Post)

The story soft-pedals but makes its point, and then tells the tale it chooses to tell with grace and delicacy.

Here’s a term for you: “savior sibling” ~ a baby genetically matched to provide life-saving cord blood that could be transplanted into a sick brother or sister. (Examiner)

We are all ex-embryos and are all in the process of becoming, from conception to death; it’s clear we can’t ethically destroy human embryos for stem cell research. (Ottawa Citizen)

New York has become the first and only state to opt to pay women for eggs donated for human embryonic stem cell research. The Empire State Stem Cell Board (ESSCB), which oversees New York’s $600 million stem cell research program that was launched last year, came to the decision last week (June 11) following “extensive deliberation” from its ethics committee. (The Scientist)

Journal of Medical Ethics (Volume 36, Number 9, June 2009) is now available by subscription only.

Articles Include:

• “The concise argument” by Soren Holm, 337.
• “Code status discussions and goals of care among hospitalised adults” by L C Kaldjian, Z D Erekson, T H Haberle, A E Curtis, L A Shinkunas, K T Cannon, and V L Forman-Hoffman, 338-342.
• “Overlap of premature birth and permissible abortion” by O Collyns, G Gillett, and B Darlow, 343-347.
• “Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey” by E Wager, S Fiack, C Graf, A Robinson, and I Rowlands, 348-353.
• “Enhancement and human nature: the case of Sandel” by T Lewens, 354-356.
• “Navigating the chasm between religious and secular perspectives in modern bioethics” by A B Jotkowitz and S Glick, 357-360.
• “To protect or to publish: confidentiality and the fate of the mentally ill victims of Nazi euthanasia” by R D Strous, 361-364.
• “Tobacco regulation: autonomy up in smoke?” by C R Hooper and C Agule, 365-368.
• “The development of “medical futility”: towards a procedural approach based on the role of the medical profession” by S Moratti, 369-372.
• “Getting beyond the welfare of the child in assisted reproduction” by B Solberg, 373-376.
• “Research involving adults who lack capacity: how have research ethics committees interpreted the requirements?” by M Dixon-Woods and E L Angell, 377-381.
• “Standards for research ethics committees: purpose, problems and the possibilities of other approaches” by H Davies, F Wells, and M Czarkowski, 382-383.
• “A renewed, ethical defense of placebo-controlled trials of new treatments for major depression and anxiety disorders” by B W Dunlop and J Banja, 384-389.
• “Medical students’ attitudes to abortion: a comparison between Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Oslo” by R Steele, 390-394.

Let’s start with stem cells. That may seem a strange place to begin thinking about torture, but many bioethical issues are at least as controversial and disputed as torture. Among the most controversial in recent years has been research that destroys embryos in order to procure stem cells for use in regenerative medicine. (Weekly Standard)

On May 12, my colleagues on the ethics committee of New York’s Empire State Stem Cell Board voted overwhelmingly to recommend that state funds be awarded to researchers who have paid women for their “time and burden” in the retrieval of their eggs for research purposes. (National Review Online)

The state of New York is considering several proposals which would pay women who donate their eggs for research purposes, leading some Catholic ethicists to worry the move would induce poorer women to risk their health and become involved in unethical human embryo research. (CNA)

Bioethics (Volume 23, Issue 5, June 2009) is now available by subscription only.

Articles Include:

• “Conscience and the Unconscionable” by Robert Baker, ii-iv.
•  ”Superior Termination of Pregnancy Committees - Are We Doing the Right Thing?” by Asaf Toker, 263-264.
• “‘The Fallacies of the Principle of Procreative Beneficence” by Rebecca Bennett, 265-273.
• “The Moral Obligation to Create Children with the Best Chance of the Best Life” by Julian Savulescu and Guy Kahane, 274-290.
• “Procreative Reasons - Relevance: On the Moral Significance of Why We Have Children” by Mianna Lotz, 291-299.
• “Reassuring Insurers’ Access to Genetic Information: Genetic Privacy, Ignorance, and Injustice” by Eli Feiring, 300-310.
• ” Administrative Gatekeeping - A Third Way Between Unrestricted Patient Advocacy and Bedside Rationing” by Sigurd Lauridsen, 311-320.

n response to growing numbers of couples who want to choose the sex of their next child, the Reproductive Science Center of the San Francisco Bay Area (RSC) announced today that it now is offering an alternative gender-selection technique with fewer moral and ethical dilemmas. (PR Newswire)

The recent media storm over the in vitro fertilization-induced birth of octuplets has receded into the tabloids and entertainment pages. A second fertility industry scandal that emerged several weeks later—the announcement by a Los Angeles fertility clinic that it would soon offer a program to select embryos not just for sex but also for hair, eye and skin color—has also veered out of the headlines. But the outcry surrounding these events has revealed mounting disquiet about the multi-billion dollar baby business. (Science Progress)

In February, U.S. scientists claimed hypospadias was among the handful of serious congenital defects more likely to occur in IVF babies than naturally conceived children.

As the Mail reported at the time, official guidance will soon make clear that test-tube babies could be up to 30 per cent more likely to suffer from birth defects. (Daily Mail)

GENETIC clues contained in the cells that nurse and nurture developing eggs could help identify which ones to choose for IVF.

There is currently little that can be done to predict which eggs are most likely to generate healthy embryos. After an egg has been fertilised, doctors can takebiopsies from early embryos or examine their shape to predict which are most likely to implant and produce healthy children. Despite this, around 8 out of 10 embryos conceived through IVF fail to implant when transferred to the womb. (NewScientist)

… According to German law, a woman can have up to three embryos planted in her womb, but unlike in other countries, there is no selection process – so these embryos are not chosen from a larger number.

Crucially, all of the embryos must be used, and not disposed of or frozen. (Russia Today)

As the Obama administration prepares to greatly expand the government’s investments in embryonic stem cell research, the next big biomedical research debate in Congress is shaping up: whether to allow government funding of experiments using cloned human embryos. (CQ Politics)

Government legal and ethical experts are to discuss whether families can ‘bank’ embryos not just for procreation but also for use by doctors to create personalised treatments for parents and their children. (Daily Mail)

Most expectant parents can’t wait to see what their child looks like, and what that child will become. But now, parents can choose to take the surprise out of finding out by determining eye color, hair color, gender and even physical talents. (ABC30)

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh says Labor MPs will not be allowed a conscience vote when new surrogacy laws go before State Parliament.

The State Government has decided to decriminalise altruistic surrogacy, although commercial surrogacy will remain illegal. (ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation))