Over at FreeRepublic, they’re discussing this week’s New York Times guest editorial, “The Doctor Will See You for Seven Minutes,” by Peter Salgo, MD. I highly recommend that your read the op-ed at the NYT in full, and then the thread at FR. 3 years ago, I closed my office and went to work part … Continue reading
Today’s Science Magazine reports on the implications of patent law on embryonic stem cell research. (Sorry, subscription only, excerpts below.) Somehow, there has not been much notice that the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) was awarded the patent to human embryonic stem cells in 2001. “On 9 August 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush directed … Continue reading
The National Animal Identification System is coming out from under the radar (is that almost a pun? Sorry.) At least for those of us involved in our County Republican Conventions – the resolutions are being submitted include opposition to the law. From the US Department of Agriculture website concerning NAIS: As part of its ongoing … Continue reading
>Well, by all means, don’t worry their pretty little heads about it. The patronizing pro-abortion faction of the Indiana Senate is blocking the addition of informed consent concerning the potential of pain felt by unborn children who are being killed. Because we don’t know. And because it might shock someone. And, besides, it’s so rare. … Continue reading
Just noticed that the Hinxton panel that decided to come to a consensus on what to do with human embryos, but ignored the very nature of human embryos themselves, included Julian Savulescu. The Oxford ethics professor is the author of a piece in the British Medical Journal (sorry, subscription only) in which he stated that, … Continue reading
A group of very well respected scientists, philosophers and ethicists (all involved in bioethics and stem cell research) have joined together to discuss and draft what they call a “consensus” on stem cell research, both destructive embryonic stem cell research and non-destructive, ethical non-embryonic stem cell research. The document can be accessed at the Berman … Continue reading
Two of the most brilliant ethicists in the United States have answered one of the most partisan. Robert P. George and Gilbert Meilander, in the National Review On Line, have answered Michael Gazzaniga’s New York Times discussion on embryonic stem cell research. You’ll remember that Gazzaniga’s editorial, published in the NYT last week, called for … Continue reading
I received an email from one of the readers. (Evidently, my spam program diverted it.) I make it my usual policy to only respond to reader’s comments on the blog, but I won’t post his name, since he chose not to post it here. Here’s the body of his message, and my reply: Dear Beverly … Continue reading
>A most appropriate question on this day, when the Supreme Court ruled that Oregon’s laws allowing physicians to write prescriptions intended to cause the death of patients. This time, the question is asked by Kathryn Hinsch,the founder of the Womens Bioethics Project, in her “guest column” in the Seattle Post Intelligencer. The subject of the … Continue reading
Scientific American published a biased little op-ed in their October 2005 “SA Perspectives” titled “Fill This Prescription” concerning pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions that they consider harmful, saying, It is tempting to wonder how far the principle of denying medicines for ethical reasons could stretch. Could one who disapproves of homosexuality refuse antiretrovirals to … Continue reading