Nuffield Council on Bioethics Call for Evidence: Disclosure and Donor Conception - Kristy Owyang

http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_139465.asp

SUMMARY

this article talks about how people are looking into other people donating eggs and sperm and the right of them to know about it later on if the kids would want to know where they come from and the evidence in how this all happen. it also talks about the ways they use to find some evidence to see where they orginally came from, using things from your body and how the parents would feel about it later on after when they are found. 

QUESTION

if you found that your parents arent your parents, would you want to know where you originally came from (your real parents) that the egg and sperm came from?

Ethics and Science in the UK

The audio is over 22 minutes long, but there is the slides to give you a general sense of the issue. please take a look at one or both of them.
Link:
Research involving adults lacking the capacity to consent: The Mental Capacity Act 2005: Audio
Research involving adults lacking the capacity to consent: The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (slides)


Summery:
Since October 2007, England and Wales have carefully regulated research upon adults who lack the ability to consent. However, in Scotland and Northern Ireland, there are different regulations for this issue.   The speaker talks about the range and different parts of the MCA (Mental Capacity Act), and who would qualify to need this act to protect them. He also talks about what the MCA requires and all the proceses that each person must go through in order to do research upon a person who lack the ability to consent.

Questions:

1. Should there be a state law that governs research and development?

2. Should the law, given that there is one, be complicated and require a long process and have detailed specifics on who falls under the need for protection from the Mental Capacity Act?

McGeever Charlotte - 'An ECG could have saved my child'

My April article written by Judy Hobson of The Guardian, published April 8, 2012 is titled "'An ECG Could have saved my child': Two of Kathy Moyle's daughters and a grandson died suddenly. Had she been aware of a genetic link, she says, they might still be alive"


Link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/apr/08/ecg-could-have-saved-child


Summary
The article is a report on a woman, Kathy Moyle, who after 25 years has learned the what killed her three seemingly healthy younger family members suddenly and unexpectedly. After the first death of her daughter who literally just collapsed and died, it was reported that the cause of death was an abnormal artery. Then later on, Kathy's grandson died in similar fashion - he was riding his bike, then collapsed and died. At this point, no doctor or medical personnel advised her family to get screened for heart defects or that there may be a heredity link. A year later her other daughter was watching TV and collapsed. After this death, the coroner's office got permission to send the recently deceased daughter's heart to a specialist for examination - it was sent by mail and never reached the specialist which Kathy Moyle didn't learn till 6 months after. She was angry because the heart of her daughter could have given an insight into why she and perhaps her sister and the grandson died. Then one day Kathy Moyle was watching a documentary about a rare inherited disorder that affects the electrical rhythm of the heart, Long QT Syndrome. She spoke to a geneticist and was referred to a specialist for screening. It was discovered that she had Long QT Syndrome and that her daughters/grandson had inherited it and that that was most likely the cause of their deaths. If she and her family had received screenings (ECG - Electrocardiography) after the first death of her daughter, her other two family members might still be living.


One Question I have:


Do you think it was wrong that Kathy (and her family) were never advised to get an ECG screening by doctors after the death of her second family member? Do you think that could be considered malpractice? I mean come on, if two young members of the same family die unexpectedly - something fishy has to be going on and doctors are the ones responsible for figuring that out!

A comparison of Origami to our Brains

Link:
 http://cbhd.org/content/origami-brain-neural-folds-neuroethics

Summery:
  Such as origami is a complicated form of folds, and is capable of being a masterpiece, by using one piece of paper, our brain is extraordinarily complicated, "By adulthood, the cerebral hemispheres enfold 2500 cm ³, which is 1.4 times the surface area of the front page of the Wall Street Journal." This being said, we can imagine how much information we can possibly jam in. Neuroscientists are beginning to think that they might be able to map out the brain like a topography map by studying the molecular behavior of it. By defining what a person should and can do, creates the 'what should or shouldn't be done' area a bit more hazy. This would mean that, like origami, the brain has a limited number of space to 'fold' and so will eventually not be able to store information.

questions:
1. Should scientists try decoding the human brain and cause the ideals of right and wrong to become "hazy"?

2. Do you think that the brain has a limit, or can it 'fold' indefinitely?

MARION CUNNANE

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/03/ethical-issues-over-potential-cancer-treatment.ars


Summary:
This article talks about a new type of cancer treatment called DCA.  This cancer treatment, however, had not been used on humans ever yet.  It has been very hard to get a trial group to test this treatment on human beings, to see if it actually works.  The article also discusses the desperation of the patients for a cure, or any treatment that will work, but they are struggling with time and money, causing them to question whether or not they want to participate in the study.

Questions:
Should cancer patients have there health care paid for when they are participating in a medical study, regarding all treatments received outside of the actual trial?  Is there a faster way to pass the legal and economical sides clinical trials in order to speed along the process of finding a cure?

Yuck, Diet Pepsi! Priscilla De La Rosa

Website link: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/28/pepsico-denies-accusations-on-link-to-aborted-feta

Summary: Basicslly, the second largest food company, PepsiCo, has been accused of using aborted fetal cell lines to enhance the flavor of the soda. They have also been accused to contracting along with Senomyx Inc., which uses aborted fetal cells to greater the taste of their beverages and food. When the company, Senomyx publicly announced they used fetal cells in their research, many pro-life activists boy-cotted PepsiCo all around the world. However, with all the information on the companies, PepsiCo has denied and denied the use of aborted fetal cells in their beverages.

Question: is it right to use aborted fetal cells to enhance the flavor? Even though, it's completely nasty and disgusting?

Geneticists debate what to tell patients about clinical genome sequences

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/03/geneticists-debate-what-to-tell-patients-about-clincial-genome-sequences.html

This article talk about the fundamental question and debate in genome sequencing today. That is: "Should patients undergoing genome sequencing be screened for a minimum set of disease-causing mutations, and should adults and children receive different types of genetic results?" This article discusses how if patients do go in for genome sequencing, doctors will not only be able to detect basic mutations and alignments of there genes, but also more serve 'secondary findings' about diseases in the future (such as Alzheimer's). The problem doctors faced today is whether or not patients have a right to these secondary findings, especially since these findings do not accurately detect whether a patient will have the disease in the future. Some argue that yes, patients should have a right because it can save lives. Others argue that knowing the information will only cause the patient to worry constantly for no real reason.

Question: If the doctors discover a non-life threatening "secondary finding", should patients still be informed?