Human-Animal Hybrid

This article is about a newly discovered type of stem cell could help provide a model for early human development. Eventually, human organs can be grown in large animals for research or therapeutic purpose. Scientists stumbled upon an unknown variety of pluripotent cell, which can give rise to any type of tissue. They stumbled upon it while attempting to graft human pluripotent stem cells into mouse embryos. 

These cells more quickly and stably than other pluripotent cells. That is why they may be more useful for developing new therapies. Izpisua Belmonte sought to transplant known types of human pluripotent cell into mouse embryos in vitro. They were grown in different combinations of growth factors and chemicals. Eventually they found a solution that causes them to be most effective. However, they did not take well with the mouse.

Gene editing could help scientists to optimize human cells’ ability to grow within another species, allowing the creation of transgenic chimaeras. It is stated that using human cells to create animals with human organs is not unrealistic. With this arise ethical questions about creating human-animal hybrids. They acknowledge this concern, but the lab has already started to implant pig embryos with different cells.

Reference

Nature Magazine, & Reardon, S. (2015, May 7). New Type of Stem Cell Could Make It Easier to Grow Human Organs. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-type-of-stem-cell-could-make-it-easier-to-grow-human-organs/

CNN physician-journalist poses ethical dilemma after treating Nepal victims

This article is about a physician-journalist who was filmed while performing surgery on earthquake victims in Nepal. Ethical questions have been raised after a CNN crew covering the Nepalese earthquake filmed its chief medical correspondent performing emergency brain surgery on an 8 year old girl. He also resuscitated a woman mid-air on a helicopter, using a cardiac thump. Dr Sanjay Gupta was reporting on the devastating earthquake and is said to have regularly stepped in to saves lives while covering the story.


Gupta is not new to carrying out medical procedures in front of the camera. He has also treated a young boy in the Middle East while on assignment as well as examined patients on camera after the earthquake in Haiti.

The article states that people are worried about the ethics of filming a journalist’s medical intervention. There’s certainly a possible confidentiality issue, as well as the potential for self-promotion. When you film the journalist performing medical procedures, they are now the story instead of the main story. Several ethics experts have previously raised questions over the conflicting instincts of a physician-journalist. There are uneasy feelings over how “news organizations at some point appear to be capitalizing for promotional reasons on the intervention by journalists”.

In Nepal, the CNN crew filmed surgery on eight-year-old Selena Dohal, who had a fractured skull after a roof collapsed in her home. Gupta was called on by Nepalese doctors to assist in this procedure. He described it as a makeshift operating room, using iodine and sterilized water to clean the injuries. He had no surgical drill to cut open Dohal’s skull because of the lack of electricity and had to use a saw. The other incident that was filmed was in a helicopter flight where a woman stopped breathing. With no defibrillator, Gupta delivered a heavy blow to her chest in a last-ditch attempt to restart her heartbeat. 

These actions were definitely heroic. However, was it unethical to film these procedures? Or was it to show the world how bad things are over there? Gupta could have chosen not to film the procedures but his job as a reporter was to capture these moments. Were his actions unethical?

References:

Elgot, J. (2015, May 1). CNN physician-journalist poses ethical dilemma after treating Nepal victims. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/01/cnn-physician-journalist-ethical-dilemma-nepal-sanjay-gupta

Marijuana and Kids

This article talks about the long lasting controversial issue of medical marijuana. It states that while nearly two-thirds of people agree that their state should allow medical marijuana for adults, half as many -- just over a third -- say it should be allowed for children. It also states that eighty percent of respondents say adults shouldn't be allowed to use medical marijuana in front of kids. States have now been permitting medical marijuana and only few enforce strict rules regarding use by children. The majority of Americans worry that exposure to marijuana may be harmful to kids' health.

The article states the from the Mott poll ten percent of respondents in the Mott poll either have a medical marijuana card or know someone who does, while 7 percent either use marijuana when children are present or know someone who does. Medical marijuana laws have been in the news around the country because of the ethical and legal complexity it has brought. There have even been cases of children even being taken away from parents using medical marijuana at home. In Maine, even though medical marijuana is legal, the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled that it can make a person unfit as a parent and therefore risk custody rights.

More states are being faced with questions regarding if children that have qualifying conditions should be able to use it too. In Connecticut, they are considering a bill that would expand the state's medical marijuana program to children. In New Jersey, the health department recently took a step toward allowing edible medical marijuana for kids. Colorado permits a special strain of cannabis known as "Charlotte's Web" used by hundreds of children.

There is little science about the safety of treating children with medical marijuana. Research has indicated that children’s brains and nervous systems are especially vulnerable to the adverse effects of marijuana. This raises a concern in some people. Advocates for medical marijuana argue that it can be safe and effective for treating symptoms related to diseases such as cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS and epilepsy for adults and children. Others are concerned about inadequate scientific testing as a treatment, negative side effects on the brain and other organs and evidence that drug use early in life is more likely to lead to drug addiction in adulthood.

This is an ethical issue that we are being faced with and is very controversial. More research should be done on this subject in order to get more information on the affects it could have on children.

Reference:

University of Michigan Health System. (2015, April). Most Americans say medical marijuana shouldn't be used by kids or in front of kids, legal or not. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150420084545.htm

Robots As Weapons

This article is about the ethical issues on the field of lethal autonomous weapon systems, or killer robots. These machines could roam a battlefield, on the ground or in the air, picking their own targets and then shredding them with cannon fire, or blowing them up with missiles, without any human intervention. It is said that this technology is 20 plus years away but there are similar systems from a German automated system for defending bases in Afghanistan, and a robot by South Korea in the demilitarized zone. These systems rely on a human approving the computer’s actions, but at a speed which excludes the possibility of consideration. There is as little as half a second in which to press or not to press the lethal button. Half a second is just inside the norm of reaction times, but military aircraft are routinely built to be so maneuverable that the human nervous system cannot react quickly enough to make the constant corrections necessary to keep them in the air. It is said that in some way this is an ethical advantage because machines cannot feel hate and they cannot lie. Robots are autonomous but they cannot be morally responsible as humans. 

Reference:

The Guardian. (2015, April). The Guardian view on robots as weapons: the human factor. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/13/guardian-view-on-killer-robots-lethal-autonomous-weapons-systems

Ethics of embryo editing divides scientists

This article is about scientists who agree that the use of powerful gene techniques on human embryos needs to be restricted. But they are divided amongst each other as to why. Some say that if safety is not an issue then the applications could have a bright future and eradicate diseases. On the other hand, some say that modifying the DNA of embryos is an ethical line that should not be crossed.

These gene modifying techniques use enzymes called nucleases to change DNA at specific points and basically rewrite the genetic information. A recent event was from Sangamo BioSciences of Richmond, California. They used an older gene modifying technology zinc-finger nucleases to remove a gene from white-blood cells that encodes the receptor to which HIV binds to enter the cells.

There is no divide amongst scientists that this technology can do some amazing things and have usefulness. The divide comes from the concerns of the use of gene editing to modify the genomes of eggs and fertilized eggs. Some concerns are that parents will want to use this technology to simply change a child’s eye color. Groups that do not agree with this technology say that we are humans and not transgenic rats. There are clear ethic issues in this topic. Would we be crossing the boundary to modifying human genes?

Reference
Cyranoski, D. (2015, March). Ethics of embryo editing divides scientists : Nature News & Comment. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/ethics-of-embryo-editing-divides-scientists-1.17131

3D printing raises ethical issues in medicine

 This article talks about how 3D printing is giving doctors the potential to improve medical treatments and procedures for condition such as bone cancer, arthritis, glaucoma and hearing loss. With this new medical ability there comes many ethical issues that arise. The three issues they list are justice in access to health care, testing for safety and efficacy, and whether these technologies should be used to enhance the capacity of individuals beyond what is 'normal' for humans. This technology is doing something for the good of patients, yet is under attack for being unethical.

3D bio-printing allows orthopaedic surgeons to print artificial bone from a scan of the patient. This allows for the surgeons to print exactly the right size and shape to fit that particular patient. This means that treatments are meant to be tailored for each individual patient. This technology has been used to create skull implants and a titanium heel for a patient with cancer.

This article mentions that in the future, 3D printing technologies may be used together with advances in stem cell research to print living bone cells from patients' own cells or functioning organs for transplant. However, 3D bio-printing will continue to raise many ethical questions as the technology advances.


References:
Dodds, S. (2015, February). 3D printing raises ethical issues in medicine. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/02/11/4161675.htm