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
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
A comment from “jimmy” notes that I failed in my stated intention to be proactive rather than reactive. But, I prefer to call the post a “response.” Or rebuttal. The reference was to self-identified progressives. The Progressives’ meeting was sponsored by John Podesta’s organization. They are not prolife at either end of life. They are … Continue reading
>The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is sponsoring a bill that would require that all doctors refer patients to abortionists. ACOG is asking that Senators tuck this provision into the the FY06 Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill. According to an internet alert from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians … Continue reading
>The Scotsman has an opinion piece, “Genetic science alters war on animal rights,” by Kirsty Milne, which expresses confusion about what is right and wrong regarding research using animals and human subjects. She focuses on the altering of physical characteristics of different species by genetic manipulation. While the stealing of a family member’s corpse from … Continue reading