Dawkins is abandoning both to spread anti-transgender rhetoric embraced by religious conservatives.

During a recent episode of his podcast "The Poetry of Reality," Dawkins spoke with author Helen Joyce about the "influence of gender ideology on society."

There was no mention of how Joyce has previously said transgender people who have transitioned are "damaged" and "a huge problem to a sane world."

Nor did Dawkins bring up how she believes "reducing" the number of people who transition is a moral imperative.

Dawkins not only agreed with many of her points, he added that "sex really is binary" and that kids are choosing to be Trans under pressure from both their peers and teachers.

He also insisted that people like him were the real victims of abuse, wondering why "all the bullying (goes) one way."

(In fact, a study from 2021 found that trans people are four times more likely than cisgender people to "experience violent victimisation.")

The podcast episode dropped days after Dawkins wrote an essay for the British magazine The New Statesman answering the question, "What is a woman?"

Dawkins' reductive response boiled down to "A woman is an adult human female, free of Y chromosomes," as if the absence of a single chromosome answers the question.

That flies in the face of what many scientists have said about the subject.

"There are cisgender women who have XY sex chromosomes, and many other exceptions to binary sex.

"Around 1 in 1,000 people are intersex," said Jey McCreight, a science communicator with a Ph.D. in genomics who has consulted on trans inclusivity for biotech companies.

McCreight added in an email: "That's pretty common as far as biology goes.

"A study may treat sex as binary out of practicality, but scientists understand that reality is more nuanced."

Despite acknowledging those exceptions exist, Dawkins casually dismisses them, just as he dismisses the genetic influences many experts believe contribute to the development of trans identities.

Those exceptions and influences are reasons the American Medical Association and other major medical organisations have supported gender-affirming care.

Dawkins also rejects definitions of womanhood that extend beyond chromosomes.

In 2021, he went even further, comparing trans people to Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who famously (and controversially) identified as Black.

Suggesting trans people were making a similar choice, he tweeted, "Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men."

He insisted he wasn't disparaging trans people — most of whom say their gender identity is not a choice at all, but rather just who they are — and said he used their names and pronouns as a "courtesy."

But that didn't smooth things over.

The American Humanist Association, which gave Dawkins its 1996 Humanist of the Year award, rescinded the honour in response.

At a time when 76 percent of atheists accept the existence of trans people, according to a 2022 Pew Research Center survey, while only 38 percent of all American adults feel the same, it's jarring to see the world's most famous atheist use his massive platform to downplay or deny trans identities.

That's especially true when trans people in the U.S. are under attack from conservative media outlets and legislators eager to label them predators or "groomers."

The advocacy group GLAAD said 2023 was "on pace to be a record-setting year for state legislation targeting LGBTQ adults and youth," including laws banning or limiting trans individuals' access to health care and participation in sports.

For decades, the most vocal opponents of LGBTQ rights were religious conservatives making the argument that acceptance violated God's wishes.

Lately, though, as the lines between politics and religion have blurred, conservatives have been citing science, rather than religion, to justify their positions.

In response to a trans-supporting colleague, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene hung a sign outside her office saying "There are TWO genders … Trust The Science!"

A recent anti-trans film by conservative provocateur Matt Walsh attempted to make a scientific rather than religious case against trans people.

And author J.K. Rowling, whom Dawkins called "very brave" in his podcast, has couched her inflammatory rhetoric in biological terms.

What's most frustrating about Dawkins' shift in focus is that his otherwise excellent science writing is being tarnished by his bizarre obsession.

Much as fans of the Harry Potter series are now conflicted about the book and movie franchise and its creator, I can no longer recommend Dawkins' books to people who want to educate themselves about evolution.

It's also maddening because Dawkins remains the go-to atheist for reporters and media outlets.

There are more atheists who are LGBTQ, women and people of colour than ever before, yet it's Dawkins who often takes centre stage whenever there are public conversations about atheism.

That's not his fault, of course: He literally wrote the most popular book on the subject.

But it's irresponsible to use his platforms to spread ignorance on a topic that critics have repeatedly said he doesn't understand and often gets flat-out wrong.

His words also have the effect of further alienating LGBTQ people when they're already marginalised by many powerful religious leaders.

Why would they want to become atheists when supposedly "reasonable" people are spreading the same lies they hear in churches?

Trans people are currently subject to political attacks and dehumanising laws.

Dawkins should spend less time acting like this issue boils down to basic biology and more time advocating for LGBTQ people who have been harmed by religious — and now supposedly scientific — bigotry.

• Hemant Mehta is a writer, podcaster and atheist activist. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.
• First published in Religion News Service. Republished with permission.

Remarkably, these embryos have reportedly been created from embryonic stem cells, meaning they do not require sperm and ova.

This development, widely described as a breakthrough that could help scientists learn more about human development and genetic disorders, was revealed this week in Boston at the annual meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Research.

The research, announced by Professor Magdalena Żernicka-Goetz of the University of Cambridge and the California Institute of Technology, has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

But Żernicka-Goetz told the meeting these human-like embryos had been made by reprogramming human embryonic stem cells.

So what does all this mean for science, and what ethical issues does it present?

What did the researchers do?

Each of these synthetic human embryos is created from a single stem cell. Żernicka-Goetz described how her team grew the synthetic embryos to a stage of development called "gastriculation", which is a stage just beyond the 14-day developmental mark for a human embryo.

The current legal limit to how long a human embryo can be permitted to develop in a lab is 14 days.

This is approximately the length of time from fertilisation of the egg to implantation in the uterine wall, if conception has taken place within a human womb.

So, synthetic embryos have - for the first time - been allowed to develop past this point.

Initially, the 14-day rule was both a moral and a practical limit; scientists didn't have the technology to keep embryos alive longer than this.

But the International Society for Stem Cell Research's 2016 guidelines also suggested the 14-day limit was morally appropriate, as past this point the cells within the embryo begin to differentiate to form important body systems like the gut, brain and lungs.

The International Society for Stem Cell Research's updated 2021 guidelines now say we should reconsider the 14-day rule, via public debate, to perhaps allow research on embryos later into development in some cases.

From what has been reported about Żernicka-Goetz and her team's research, the creation of synthetic human-like embryos is a significant advance.

It's further remarkable they seem to behave, in terms of development, like a human embryo would in some ways.

Żernicka-Goetz reported the human-like embryos began to develop placenta and yolk sacs, but not a beating heart or the beginning of a brain.

Despite the role of the placenta in pregnancy, and its importance to the health of mother and fetus, we know surprisingly little about this vital but temporary organ.

If it was possible to observe placenta in a lab via these synthetic embryos, this could yield valuable knowledge.

Moral quandaries

However, just as there are real possibilities for gaining knowledge from synthetic human-like embryos, there are also real moral quandaries.

One of these quandaries arises around whether their creation really gets us away from the use of human embryos.

Robin Lovell-Badge, the head of stem cell biology and developmental genetics at the Francis Crick Institute in London UK, reportedly said that if these human-like embryos can really model human development in the early stages of pregnancy, then we will not have to use human embryos for research.

At the moment, it is unclear if this is the case for two reasons.

First, the embryos were created from human embryonic stem cells, so it seems they do still need human embryos for their creation. Perhaps more light will be shed on this when Żernicka-Goetz's research is published.

Second, there are questions about the extent to which these human-like embryos really can model human development.

At the moment, animal models of similar synthetic embryos suggest they are not capable of developing into a full living being. Studies in mice and monkeys have so far shown that the synthetic embryos die a short while after being implanted into a female's womb, which means they are not viable.

There could be significant limits to the usefulness of these synthetic embryos for learning about human developmental issues, if human-like synthetic embryos aren't capable of developing into full human babies and do not form important body structures like a beating heart and a brain.

One of the reasons researchers want to use these embryos is for research into miscarriage and developmental anomalies. This is very important, but will these synthetic embryos be "close enough" to real human embryos to reveal useful answers?

Scientists may still rely on the use of human embryos if we do need human embryos for the creation of these models, or there are research questions that these synthetic embryos can't address.

Is it morally permissible?

This leaves us with the important moral question about whether it is permissible to use human embryos for research.

Further, if the human-like synthetic embryos are capable of developing into full living beings, then we must consider whether it is morally permissible to create them just for research.

It could be that they are not currently capable of developing much further than the 14-day mark.

Scientists might decide that this is a problem that needs to be fixed, partly for practical reasons about the limits to their usefulness. Scientists might then fix these synthetic embryos so that they could continue to develop. However, this would create a huge moral quandary.

We should think carefully about whether it is ethical to create living human-like beings only to conduct research on them.

• Kathryn MacKay is a Senior Lecturer in Bioethics, University of Sydney.
• First published in The Conversation. Republished with permission.

Caused by a virus, smallpox was a serious disease which killed about three in ten of the people who contracted it and left many others with severe scars.

Smallpox was mainly spread by direct, lengthy face-to-face contact between people.

Virus from an infected person spread to another when they coughed or sneezed. Over the centuries, smallpox killed literally millions of people.

Jenner observed that milkmaids who became infected with cowpox, did not subsequently contract smallpox.

In 1796, Jenner inoculated a young child with cowpox, and demonstrated that the child had developed immunity against smallpox.

It is said that through this discovery, Jenner saved more lives than anyone else has ever done.

Through ongoing vaccination programmes, smallpox was eradicated in 1979.

Vaccination has also greatly reduced the risk of infection for many other diseases for much of the world's population, including rubella, polio, whooping cough, diphtheria, mumps, chickenpox, measles, and tuberculosis.

Although these diseases are still present in some parts of the world, many parents today have the great gift of not worrying when the next outbreak might ravage their local neighbourhood and their children.

The COVID-19 pandemic

This year, 2020, on March 11, a pandemic was declared by the World Health Organisation. There has not been such a world pandemic since the Spanish Flu just over one hundred years ago.

Coronavirus 19 or COVID-19 has caused havoc across the world. Infections and deaths are occurring at a disturbing rate.

COVID-19 belongs to a family of viruses which includes the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) virus (as well as several bat coronaviruses).

The Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) virus, another coronavirus, appears more distantly related.

In the seventeen years since the SARS outbreak of 2003, no vaccine has become available.

COVID-19 is a highly infectious virus spreading between people when an infected person is in close contact with others.

Transmission can occur through saliva, respiratory secretions or secretion droplets, which can be released from the mouth or nose when an infected person coughs, sneezes, speaks, or sings.

Uninfected people who are in close contact (within 1 metre) with an infected person can be infected with COVID-19 when those infectious droplets get into their mouth, nose or eyes.

Transmission can also occur through touching objects or surfaces contaminated with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic now poses a significant threat to global public health, economic stability and growth, food security and environmental issues.

As seen so far, the pandemic has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives with the potential to claim many more.

It is placing, and will continue to place, an enormous strain on global health care systems.

Social distancing and different levels of lockdown can help to reduce the spread of COVID-19. However, these measures come at enormous social and economic costs to all aspects of society.

Human cell lines are one type of cell line that supports the growth of COVID-19.

One of the sources used for these cell cultures is tissue from deliberately aborted foetuses.

This can pose a significant moral quandary for Catholics and others. Catholic teaching upholds the principle of the inviolability of human life and forbids direct abortion.

Some of the major challenges of this pandemic are the lack of a safe and effective vaccine and a lack of treatments in lieu of a vaccine.

Scientific knowledge is growing daily to understand more fully the transmission of infection, including the potential for transmission by asymptomatic infected people, the disease trajectory, who is more susceptible to infection, and the longer-term health implications of a COVID-19 infection.

The long-term protection provided by the immune response either from a COVID-19 infection or potential vaccine is still unknown.

The requirement for boosters if a vaccine is developed is yet to be determined.

Vaccination is considered one of the best exit strategies for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, and a race has begun to develop an effective vaccine.

As of 10th August 2020, there are 28 candidate vaccines in clinical evaluation, and 139 in pre-clinical development.

The origin and development of vaccines

Vaccines can be produced by growing the virus in a cell line or another substrate.

They can also be developed through replicating viral vectors, subunit vaccines, mRNA and DNA techniques, as well as through the production of a non-replicating viral vector.

Companies in the race to develop a vaccine are utilising one or more of these techniques. (It should be noted that no commercial vaccine has yet been licensed utilising mRNA, DNA or non-replicating viral vector techniques. COVID-19 may be the first.)

Human cell lines are one type of cell line that supports the growth of COVID-19.

One of the sources used for these cell cultures is tissue from deliberately aborted foetuses.

This can pose a significant moral quandary for Catholics and others. Catholic teaching upholds the principle of the inviolability of human life and forbids direct abortion.

What is more, Catholic teaching opposes the use of tissue from deliberately aborted foetuses.

On this matter, it is also worth noting that the use in medical research of human foetal tissue from elective abortions was restricted in the United States last year.

Vaccines which have been produced using cell lines from deliberately aborted foetuses are often known as ethically compromised vaccines.

...someone who refused an ethically compromised COVID-19 vaccine could catch the virus, have the potential to be asymptomatic, and infect others, who could become seriously ill with the possibility that they may die. By refusing a vaccine when available, one could therefore perhaps be directly responsible for the death of another.

Two cells lines derived from elective abortions are PER.C6 and HEK-293.

Both these cell lines are being utilised by a small number of research facilities who are in the process of developing a COVID-19 vaccine.

HEK-293 is a kidney cell line widely used in research and industry. The foetus was aborted in about 1972. PER.C6 was developed from retinal cells from an 18-week-old foetus aborted in 1985.

The cells used today in the potential vaccine manufacture are cells that are descended from the cells that were originally sourced from the foetal material. Thus, while their lineage can be traced back to the foetuses, the cells in use today are not the cells from the aborted foetus.

Further, if a COVID-19 vaccine is produced through the use of these cell lines, the vaccine will not contain cells or DNA pieces that are recognisably human. The cells are killed as the virus grows in them, usually bursting the cell membrane. The process of vaccine purification removes cell debris as well as any growth reagents.

Catholic teaching and ethically compromised vaccines

The Vatican has issued a number of documents to guide Catholics in their response to ethically compromised vaccines.

In 2005, the Pontifical Academy for Life issued Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human foetuses.

The issue of ethically compromised cells is also considered in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 2008 Instruction Dignitas Personae on certain bioethical questions.

The Pontifical Academy for Life dealt with this issue again in its 2017 Note on Italian vaccine issue.

All these documents apply a Catholic principle called the principle of cooperation to the issue of the production and utilisation of ethically compromised vaccines.

The Catholic Church is not dismissive of the problem of ethically compromised vaccines.

To the contrary, the Church has a clear and consistent position which includes three important points:

• First, when a choice exists between an ethically compromised, we have a grave responsibility (all other things being equal) to use the latter vaccine.
• Second, when only ethically compromised vaccines are available, we should make known our moral objection to these vaccines, lobbying governments and healthcare systems to prepare and make available vaccines that are not ethically compromised.
• Third, until ethically uncompromised vaccines are developed, we can and should use ethically compromised vaccines to prevent serious health risks both for ourselves and for everyone. The Pontifical Academy for Life stated this third point very clearly in 2017. It said that "we believe all clinically recommended vaccinations can be used with a clear conscience ... the moral responsibility to vaccinate is reiterated in order to avoid serious health risks for children and the general population."

The 2005 document from the Pontifical Academy for Life contained a noteworthy footnote.

It noted that rubella can cause "grave congenital malformations in the foetus when a pregnant woman enters into contact, even if it is brief, with children who have not been immunised and are carriers of the virus.

In this case, the parents who did not accept the vaccination of their children become responsible for the malformations in question, and for the subsequent abortion of foetuses, when they are discovered to be malformed."

Parents in this situation are of course only indirectly responsible for these abortions.

Ethically compromised COVID-19 vaccines and moral responsibility

However, someone who refused an ethically compromised COVID-19 vaccine could catch the virus, have the potential to be asymptomatic, and infect others, who could become seriously ill with the possibility that they may die.

By refusing a vaccine when available, one could therefore perhaps be directly responsible for the death of another. If only an ethically compromised vaccine is available, the truly pro-life decision is to vaccinate with that vaccine, not infect others, and save lives.

The World Health Organisation in 2019 listed "Vaccine Hesitancy" as one of the ten major global threats.

If someone chooses not to be vaccinated, they are instead reliant on others to be immunised so that a society can reach a sustainable level of herd immunity through which transmission is interrupted. In this situation, an unimmunised person may be protected against COVID-19 through the acceptance of vaccination by others.

However, there are both practical and ethical problems with this. John Grabenstein reported that sociologists refer to those who do not vaccinate as "free-riders" or "free-loaders."

He added that such behaviour is "inequitable and uncharitable".

Further, "if enough people ‘free-load', then the community's collective immunity dissipates and disease outbreaks resume."

To refuse a COVID-19 vaccine would therefore be "a morally wrong act contrary to the common good".

The World Health Organisation in 2019 listed "Vaccine Hesitancy" as one of the ten major global threats.

First, when a choice exists between an ethically compromised vaccine and another vaccine which is not

Dr Helen Watt, a senior research fellow with the Anscombe Endnotes Bioethics Centre in Oxford wrote a briefing paper in April 2020.

The paper admits that there is "no absolute duty" to boycott a COVID-19 vaccine developed using a cell line derived from an aborted foetus.

However, it argues that "some will feel, whether rightly or wrongly, called to a boycott [of such a vaccine] even if no alternative vaccine is available to them."

We believe that this comment is not pro-life and potentially dangerous as it may encourage people not to vaccinate.

While Dr Watt may be pressuring vaccine companies to utilise ethical methods for vaccine production, encouraging the boycotting of an ethically compromised COVID-19 vaccine is quite dangerous.

In this pandemic, could Catholic researchers or a Catholic research institution use ethically compromised cell lines for development of a COVID-19 vaccine?

There may indeed be proportional reasons for doing so. Some compromised vaccines have been used effectively for many years.

Researchers may be very familiar with these cell lines, know the techniques of using them, and know the outcomes which are most likely.

In this crisis, they may reasonably decide that they do not have either the time or the financial resources to develop and adequately characterise ethically uncompromised cell lines or to utilise other techniques to develop a vaccine.

They may also belong to an international consortium in which they have little influence on the cell line used for vaccine development. They should not forget about the need to develop uncompromised cell lines, but they may reasonably not seek to do so during this time of crisis.

If they do use ethically compromised cell lines, they should recognise the ethical problems with them, and also state their proportional reason for using them during the pandemic. As the Code of ethical standards for Catholic health and aged care services in Australia states, we minimise the risk of scandal by "explaining clearly ... the reasons for one's cooperation [i.e. in this case, the use of a cell line derived from an historical abortion] and why the ... cooperation is permissible according to Catholic principles."

Conclusion

Developing ethically uncompromised cell lines and vaccines is important.

In the crisis of this pandemic, developing and using an effective vaccine to save lives is even more important.

If a COVID-19 vaccine is developed using a cell line derived from an aborted foetus, the Catholic Church would surely permit the use of this vaccine, and Catholics should not hesitate to use it. Saving lives was just what Edward Jenner set out to do, and saving lives is still very important.

• Kevin McGovern is a Catholic priest. He is a former Director of the Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics in Melbourne, Australia. He is an adjunct lecturer at both Australian Catholic University, and Catholic Theological College within the University of Divinity.
• Kerri Anne Brussen has worked as a medical scientist and is a former Researcher at the Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics.
• First published in The Nathaniel Report. Republished with permission.

Consumer says the advertisements don't provide people with useful information.

The advertisements sell the promise of a quick fix, but Consumer doesn't think they provide all the facts needed for people to make an informed choice.

A study has found that people with "unhealthier" lifestyles are more likely to buy into medical marketing for conditions that could otherwise be improved by exercising, eating healthier and cutting back on alcohol.

The study of more than 2057 New Zealanders was carried out by the University of Otago and published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health.

The researchers are calling for regulatory changes regarding the advertising of medicines.

Another 2014 study concluded that DTCA is a biased source of health information and is associated with unnecessary prescribing, iatrogenic harm and unnecessary costs to the taxpayer.

New Zealand and the USA are the only two countries in the developed world that allow DTCA.

In the US, medical marketing is regulated.

The Ministry of Health has been consulting on whether the law should continue to allow medicine advertising.

Consumer has made a submission favouring a ban.

They will be providing the results of their latest research to the ministry and Minister of Health David Clark.

The Council of Medical Colleges of New Zealand, the New Zealand Medical Association, The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners and the New Zealand Nurses Association also back a ban.

A statement on behalf of all four New Zealand Departments of General Practice/Primary Care states that "The misleading method of marketing our most powerful and potentially most harmful medicines should be banned."

Source

• scimex.org
• consumer.org.nz
• nzma.org.nz
• Image: nzdoctor.co.nz

It will have its inaugural meeting at St Michael's School Hall in Remuera, Auckland on May 25.

Mass will be celebrated at midday in St Michael's church by Auckland Bishop Patrick Dunn.

The aim of the association is to support medical practitioners, drawing on the treasures of the Catholic faith, especially in regard to the ethical challenges of healthcare today.

The meeting, from 10.00am to 3.00pm, is open to all those who work in healthcare and in roles which support healthcare such as administration or health leadership.

While there is particular emphasis on supporting doctors, the association also wishes to extend an invitation to nurses, midwives, pharmacists, physiotherapists, counsellors, social workers, chaplains, dentists, health administrators, lawyers, medical students and anyone who works in allied roles.

Dr Joseph Hassan, his wife Cushla who is a clinical nurse manager, and Dr Christina Noetzli are organising the launch event.

Mrs Hassan said "the group is for people who want to understand the wisdom of the Catholic Church on ethical issues.

"Non-Catholics may also be interested to be part of it.

"There will be an opportunity to meet in groups, particularly groups related to the health care area you are in," Hassan said.

"We're hoping that, as a result of the meeting, we'll have established an organisation or a group that will meet regularly and support each other regularly."

Noetzli gave particular encouragement to young workers in the health sector to attend the inaugural meeting.

• Those who want to attend can email info@newzealandcatholicmedical.co.nz
• Those who want more details about the event can go to newzealandcatholicmedical.co.nz/event.

Source

• nzcatholic.org.nz
• newzealandcatholicmedical.co.nz
• Image: nyit.edu

Responding to a proposed Organ and Tissue Donation bill, the Church's parliamentary office called an opt-out system "intrinsically discriminatory".

This is because "it denies the integrity of the person by overriding the requirement for consent on how a person's organs may be used".

"The proposal aims to establish a principle in law that the consent of the person can be determined by the authority of the state," the Church's response explained.

The Church affirmed that it is an enthusiastic supporter of organ donation providing it is based on "free and consensual giving".

But it is not "morally acceptable" if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent.

"In aiming to meet the demand for organs and transplantations it is important not to sacrifice important ethical principles," the Church said.

The proposed bill would mean that adults would have to specify that they do not want their organs donated.

The current "opt-in" system "recognises the importance of genuine consent in the treatment of persons and the charitable nature of organ donation which is based on a gratuitous act of kindness on behalf of the donor", the Church said.

The Church response went on uphold the role of family members in the consent process.

It also supported a campaign promoting organ donation, provided it is "based on free and consensual giving".

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI both lent their support to organ donation, with the latter at one point being a card carrying organ donor.

In 2008, Pope Benedict said that "organ donation is a peculiar form of witness to charity".

"In a period like ours, often marked by various forms of selfishness, it is ever more urgent to understand how the logic of free giving is vital to a correct conception of life," Benedict said.

A similar move to introduce an opt-out system of organ donation has been proposed in Wales and was also opposed by the Church.

There is pressure to increase the number of donated organs which can often be used in life-saving operations.

Sources

• The Tablet
• Scottish Catholic Media Office
• Image: The Guardian

Managed by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP), the group developing the fourth edition of the benchmark Guidelines for Ethical Relationships Between Health Professionals and Industry has recently undergone changes that caused a furore among college fellows.

The controversial draft medical ethics guidelines, three years in the making, urged doctors not to accept free drug samples, nor to enjoy free hospitality from medical industries courting influence with the physicians.

But just three days after the heavily revised guidelines were made public in draft form, they were removed from the RACP website, prompting The Global Mail to report on the turmoil behind-the-scenes.

Within 24 hours of the article's publication, the president of the college, Associate Professor Les Bolitho, submitted a letter to The Global Mail taking issue with its report, saying the ethics group once charged with the job is being replaced by "time limited and purpose driven Working Parties".

Source

• The Global Mail
• The Global Mail
• Image: Dreamstime.com

In a summary released on Wednesday, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal says the doctor acted inappropriately and contrary to the best interests of patients in prescribing misoprostol, known as Cytotec, to women in a way that was contrary to legal pregnancy termination procedures.

According to the charge sheet, the doctor prescribed and/or dispensed misoprostol (Cytotec) to three pregnant patients, resulting in abortions that breached the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977.

In one instance, she gave a patient 56 tabs of misoprostol without determining if the pregnancy was non-viable.

She also prescribed misoprostol to a fourth patient, and failed to document the prescriptions in all four of the patients' clinical notes. The tribunal says there was professional misconduct in relation to four patients.

The tribunal says High Court orders mean it cannot publish details of the medical practitioner or certain other details, and that is why it has issued the summary.

Source

• Radio New Zealand
• New Zealand Herald
• NZ Doctor
• Image: FirstBabyJourneys

Melissa Pont, 23, said her family practitioner, Dr Joseph Lee, would not renew her pill prescription, instead lecturing her on a baby's right to live and on using the rhythm method.

Lee is a doctor at the Wairau Community Clinic in Blenheim. He is a catholic and has four children.

He told the Herald on Sunday "I don't want to interfere with the process of producing life."

Lee also does not prescribe condoms, and encourages patients as young as 16 to use the rhythm method.

The only circumstances in which he would prescribe the contraceptive pill would be if a woman wanted space between pregnancies, or had at least four children.

"I think they've already done their reproductive job".

He acknowledged natural birth control was "not very reliable".

The New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA) says a doctor who refused to prescribe the contraceptive pill to a woman was within his rights, but that it was wrong to share his views on the matter.

Melissa Pont was denied the pill by her doctor Joseph Lee who has been working at the Wairau Community Clinic in Blenheim for about a year.

She was instead told about other contraception options such as tracking her reproductive cycle.

NZMA chairperson Mark Peterson says the code of ethics allows doctors to not prescribe the pill, but they do have to refer the patient to another doctor.

Peterson says it is inappropriate for a doctor to discuss personal ethical views.

Wairau Community Clinic lead GP Scott Cameron said a pamphlet at reception warned that some doctors did not prescribe birth control, and staff tried to screen patients. He would consider installing a sign.

The clinic is run by the Marlborough Public Health Organisation. Chief executive Beth Pester said Lee's choice not to prescribe was "his ethical choice", but she was concerned he discussed natural birth control with patients as young as 16, and would talk to him about that.

Source

• The New Zealand Herald
• Radio New Zealand
• Image: SMH.com

There are two Centres already established in Auckland and Wellington which provide free pregnancy tests, counselling for women facing an unexpected pregnancy, practical help and support, advocacy and support for families who have received an adverse prenatal diagnosis as well as counselling after abortion.

Family Life International's John Paul II Centres for Life are also a base for educational work on life issues such as presenting Theology of the Body to youth and holding educational seminars on life issues in the context of Catholic morality.

Source

• A Culture of Life
• Image: prolifebook.com

• Should young people be able to jump queues for costly drugs at the expense of older people who've already had a long life?
• Are poor people more deserving of help than rich people"?

The proposals are among a raft of provocative questions being asked by Pharmac as it conducts a consultation exercise about the criteria it uses when deciding how to spend its budget, which last year was $783 million.

Other questions being posed are:

• Should the underprivileged groups such as Maori and Pasifika get priority access to drugs?
• Should it take into account the ability of parents of sick children to return to work?
• Should it assess the future earning potential of children?
• Should it have different priorities for providing treatment of conditions considered "preventable", compared to those that are genetically based?

Source

• Stuff.co.nz
• Image: Hacklive.ru

The committee is particularly concerned that women seeking fertility assistance have been caught up in the anti-abortion protests.

In particular, the Report singles out "harassment of medical staff is taking place in Invercargill resulting from services now being offered at Southland Hospital."

"We are further concerned about the impact of being known as a certifying consultant in some locations. During the last year the Committee has heard distressing reports from certifying consultants where they, their families, patients and wider public have been the subject of harassment. Particularly distressing are reports of women seeking fertility assistance who have been harassed when they were mistakenly thought to be seeking pregnancy termination."

However, Right to Life spokesman, Ken Orr, says their protests are peaceful and supportive of women.

"The people who have vigils outside hospitals and clinic are there in a prayerful presence."

The Right for Life group were not responsible for bullying or threatening staff as their group opposed violence, he said.

Source

• The Abortion Supervisory Committee Report
• Stuff.co.nz
• Image: TV3

The Sino-Implant is composed of two thin, flexible, silicone rods, each containing 75mg of levonorgestrel (a synthetic form of the hormone progestin). The size of a match stick, it is inserted under the skin of a woman's arm by a trained health care provider and is effective for four years.

Sino-Implant is currently being delivered by a family planning non-government organisation, Marie Stopes, in just a few provinces. It has been distributed to sexually active 18 year olds and those who are 19 years old and above.

Its success has the government planning to make it available nation-wide within a few months.

According to reproductive health specialists, when the contraceptive is administered, it takes effect after seven days. It can be removed any time and fertility can be regained thereafter.

Maries Stopes has advised that these contraceptives do not protect against HIV and AIDS.

Source

• Radio Australia Network News
• Courier Post
• Image: FHI

Was Ostapchuk just unlucky? The former chief of the World Anti-Doping Agency has said that based on his own anecdotal evidence "maybe 10 per cent of athletes use drugs and we're catching one or two of them ... People who have prepared in advance and used drugs coming here (to London) won't get caught."

So is cheating here to stay? Even the Scrabble contestants are at it. Is it only cheating because the laws say it is? There is already the beginnings of a media campaign aimed at legalising performance enhancing drugs.

The argument goes like this: drugs are against the rules, but we make the rules. Just change the rules so that drug takers won't be cheats any more.

"If we made drugs legal and freely available, there would be no cheating", according to Oxford University philosopher Professor Julian Savulescu and his colleagues Their paper has gained 57 "likes" and 28 "dislikes".

The World Anti-Doping Agency code declares a drug illegal if it is performance enhancing, if it is a health risk, or if it violates the "spirit of sport".

The "spirit of sport", the agency says is the celebration of the human spirit, body, and mind, and is characterised by the following values:

• ethics
• fair play and honesty
• health
• excellence in performance
• character and education
• fun and joy
• teamwork
• dedication and commitment
• respect for rules and laws
• respect for self and other participants
• courage
• community and solidarity

Would "legal and freely available drugs violate this spirit? Would such a permissive rule be good for sport?" Savulescu and his colleagues ask.

Source

• British Journal of Sports Medicine
• The Wanganui Cronicle
• New Zealand Herald
• Image: Courier Mail

He says that the introduction of abortion services brings a "conflict of conscience" for many staff members, is opposed to the "central tradition" of medical ethics, and concludes that "Liberal abortion is simply not good medicine and this is why many Southlanders are deeply concerned this harmful procedure will be practised within our community".

• Read Norman MacLean's opinion piece.
• Image: Youth Speak News

Mr Norman MaLean was a clinical obstetrician and gynaecologist at Southland Hospital for 35 years. He works in Invercargill as a senior lecturer in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Otago Medical School.

Andy Tookey from GiveLife NZ, a organisation that advocates for a more effective organ donor system, says those who donate need to be rewarded.

In a statement released today, Tookey said he believes organ donors funerals should be paid for by the Government.

Continue Reading

One of the dangers is that the demand for euthanasia cannot be limited to a carefully defined group and vulnerable members of the community would be put at risk.

Archbishop John Dew, President of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference, says that there is more at stake in this debate than the protection of individual choice, often emphasised by pro-euthanasia advocates.

If individual choice was the basis for legalising euthanasia then there would be no logical basis for denying it to a person who is depressed or someone with dementia.

Alternatively, if someone was considered incapable of giving informed consent, but their family claimed it was what they would want, whose responsibility would it be to decide whether they should live or die? Some might argue that adequate safeguards can be built into the law, but the experience of those countries that have legalised euthanasia shows this is not the case."

Another risk is that the ‘right to die' could very quickly become a ‘duty to die'.

"The disabled and elderly are already being given the message that they're a burden on economy and health resources. The vulnerable members of our society depend upon the protections which the legal and medical institutions currently provide and legalising euthanasia would undermine these," says Archbishop Dew.

"Even when it is done with the most compassionate of intentions and with a patient's consent, euthanasia is still the killing of another person. To legalise this would set a dangerous precedent.

Evidence shows that most people who ask to be assisted to die are not driven by physical pain but by a sense of social isolation and a fear of losing their dignity and control. Ending lives is not the solution to this problem. Part of the solution is to improve the quality of care at the end of life. This can only happen if we commit to a culture of caring, not killing".

The statement titled "The Dangers of Euthanasia" was released on Wednesday 19 October.

Source

• Angela Pyke Communications Adviser New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference
• Image: eventyrhus