"[...] this is the first federal bill to emerge in the recent years."
"The FDA investigation found several violations of research regulations, including falsified documents and poor record-keeping regarding case histories, as well as violations of protocol [...]"
"Private-public partnerships need to be made a cornerstone of our society, especially within health."
"[...] many seniors prefer it to painkillers and sleeping drugs [...]"
"[...] attacks on physical health institutions discourage patients from seeking care and professionals from working to provide that care [...]"
Good philosophers must be friends you see, as they love the same things in their heart.
Overcome by amazement and curiosity, it’s hard to know just where to start.
They want to know how, and what and why on the most general possible scale.
But any answer they hear, they’re likely to sneer, and try really hard to derail.
You have to be careful from what thoughts you begin, as they often show where you’ll end up.
Whether you point up or down, make sure your argument’s sound, and don’t mix your word meanings up.
Start from what’s obviously true, like one plus one equals two, then go where no one can follow.
If you need turtles big and round, all the way down, your ideas will sound bloated and hollow.
Epicycle on epicycle, please don’t act all like you’ll, never say anything ad hoc.
Try as you might, if you just want to sound right, do us a favor—just stop!
Now not just any thinkers become friends, but good thinkers make amends, when they acknowledge mutually.
That this world is a puzzle, it will bamboozle and fuzzle, with confounding absurdity.
Your assumptions and mine, happens all the time, lack internal consistency.
But…I’ve really enjoyed this, and I hope you have too, maybe on that at least we agree.
Are we angels or apes, oh…let’s decide later…
But whichever, I’m glad you’re one with me.
"[...] people with mental disorders are most commonly excluded from the possibility of accessing PAD under the pretense that their request may be symptomatic or their mental competence is to be questioned."
"[...] bring to attention the effect of science on human physical and mental health."
"[...] it must decide which standards and regulations to maintain or risk taking a huge step backward."
"When we see such a strong correlation with gun deaths we must ask, can we do more?"
"...it is clear that wholly ineffective, sweeping methods of disease prevention . . . are both unwarranted and unethical in combating the spread of Zika."
"Although we have made leaps and bounds to address and treat HIV, the virus and its counterpart disease AIDS should not be taken lightly."
Humans have been genetically modifying organisms for thousands of years. Through selective breeding, the genetic makeup of crops has been altered to provide more desirable traits. As our understanding of genes progressed, so did our capability to alter plant genomes. Biologists created disease resistant and higher-yield crops genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in an attempt to develop a greater, more economically friendly food supply (Forbes). The most popularly known example of this success is the Vitamin-A enriched golden rice, which many believed would be the solution to global malnutrition issues at the start of the 21st century.
However, these alterations caused a great deal of controversy as their complexity increased. Many feared the newly labeled “frankenfoods,” and demanded investigations into their effects on environmental and personal health. As public fear held strong, multiple government institutions, including the FDA and National Academy of Science, launched extensive studies. After collecting data across multiple years, it was unanimously concluded that GMOs are completely safe for consumption (New York Times).
Even after the publication of many studies backing these conclusions, some Americans believe in further control of GMOs. Recently, many anti-GMO groups including “Right to Know” are demanding special labels on genetically modified foods. The group’s name truly states their demands. They believe that Americans have the right to know if their food has been genetically modified in any way, as they still believe GMOs can be harmful to personal health (GMO Awareness Site).
There is a plethora of reasons why this movement has no place in American politics. To begin, essentially all food has been genetically modified at some point in time. Even legally labeled “organic” foods have undergone some form of artificial selection to produce a greater crop yield or other desirable phenotypic traits. This alteration is genetic modification in and of itself. By labeling all genetically modified foods as such, essentially every fruit and vegetable, “organic” or not, is a GMO.
Additionally, forcing food companies to change labels is nonsensical in both economic and simple logical terms. The passage of such legislature is a senseless economic burden for both companies and the government. By using disease resistant and high-yield crops, companies are undoubtedly going to achieve greater economic success than those who use unmodified crops. Food distributors would need to redesign and print new labels, which is an unfair punishment for using inherently better business practices. Furthermore, whatever government body in charge of enforcing these new laws would need to expand, costing taxpayers more money or shifting funds from one agency to the aforementioned. Both of these resulting changes are completely unnecessary, as they would be performed all to enforce a law that serves no genuine purpose.
In conclusion, GMOs represent the future of food production. They pose no threat to personal health and only provide the global population with the potential for better diet and reduced hunger. Labeling genetically modified foods is completely nonsensical and provides no benefit to the American consumer.
The New York Times. Genetically Engineered Crops Are Safe, Analysis Fins. May 17 2016.
GMO Awareness. Anti-GMO Groups in The United States. Web
FDA. Food from Genetically Engineered Plants. Web
Alison Van Eenennaam. The Journal of Animal Science. (Article unavailable online until October 1st, 2016)
Forbes. The Debate About GMO Safety is Over, Thanks to a New Trillion-Meal Study. Web
For a comprehensive list of many GMO related studies, please visit the following website: http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=52&autotry=true&ULnotkn=true
After the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida, blood banks from the surrounding areas put out a call for donors. Gay men were ready and willing to donate but were unable to unless they were celibate for the 12 previous months because of a ban imposed by FDA. For some time now, gay rights activists have argued that the ban perpetuates the stigma of being gay. The largest mass shooting in the United States brought attention to the topic and some felt that it added “insult to this nightmare” (Mcneil, 2016).
The FDA holds that their restriction is based on science and that the policy is the same in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK (Firger, 2016). The FDA also estimates that currently, 1 in 1.5 million blood donations transmits HIV to a recipient and that removing the ban would change this to one in 375,000 donations. The window period for transmission, or when a test will give an accurate result, of HIV is nine to eleven days, but this is for a typical patient and under the most exhaustive testing (Mcneil, 2016). Gay rights advocates argue that much more blood would be available if those who are in monogamous relations, take drugs to prevent HIV transmission, and always use condoms were allowed to donate (Firger, 2016). They maintain that the risks of infection would be low enough to be acceptable if combined with testing, and that the risks would be considerably more acceptable during a crisis like the Orlando shooting.
Firger, Jessica. "WILL THE FDA’S POLICY ON BLOOD DONATION FROM GAY MEN CHANGE AFTER THE ORLANDO MASSACRE?" Newsweek. Accessed June 24, 2016. http://www.newsweek.com/orlando-massacre-fda-blood-donation-ban-gay-men-470226.
Mcneil, Donald G. "Orlando Shooting Renews Debate Over Limits on Gay Men Donating Blood." The New York Times. 2016. Accessed June 25, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/health/orlando-shooting-renews-debate-over-limits-on-gay-men-donating-blood.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/health.
Over the course of the previous months, sweeping changes have been brought upon EMS protocols across the nation regarding spinal immobilization. Backboards, which have been thought to be key components in the protection of an injured patient’s nervous system, are slowly being removed from the world of first response. Our understanding of this form of spinal immobilization has been altered significantly, as multiple studies show that these devices pose more harm to a patient than benefit.
The typical image of a motor vehicle accident is a mangled car coupled with a patient restrained to a backboard, head between bright-orange blocks, with his neck secured with a cervical collar. This may become an illustration of the past, as new protocols state that only cervical collars are necessary to protect a patient’s spinal cord.
This massive change should be very beneficial to patients in the future. The abandonment of “backboarding” should produce shorter transport time to hospitals, diminish spinal injuries, and provide a much more comfortable experience for a patient in transport.
For further information regarding these policy changes as well as some of the research behind them, please refer to the following sources.
Research Suggests Time for Change in Prehospital Spinal Immobilization. Journal of EMS. 2013
The North Carolina Office of EMS. Protocols: Selective Spinal Motion Restriction.
Patients Immobilized with a Long Spine Board Rarely Have Unstable Thoracolumbar Injuries
Brian M. Clemency , Joseph A. Bart , Abhigyan Malhotra , Taylor Klun , Veronica Campanella , Heather A. Lindstrom
Prehospital Emergency Care
Vol. 20, Iss. 2, 2016
CRISPR is forging ahead towards use in humans. The first clinical trials in the US for the gene-editing technology have been approved by an advisory board to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study aims to improve the treatment of 18 people with cancer by performing three edits on T cells of the immune system that have been removed from the patients before infusing them back in each person (Reardon, 2016). The hope is that the modified T cells will be better able to target cancer cells and also more protected against cancer cells looking to disable them. The treatment is being tested on people with melanoma, sarcoma, or myeloma (Sifferlin, 2016).
Although the trial has gotten approval from the NIH, the researchers must still make their case to US regulators as well as review boards within the institutions. The University of Pennsylvania will be responsible for editing the cells and will work with centers in California and Texas to find patients (Reardon, 2016). The project, which does not have a budget itself yet, will be funded by a $250 million immunotherapy foundation started by Sean Parker, cofounder of Napster and former president of Facebook. Carl June, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania involved with the trial, hopes to start by the end of the year.
Reardon, S. (2016). First CRISPR clinical trial gets green light from US panel. Nature. Retrieved 23 June 2016 from http://www.nature.com/news/first-crispr-clinical-trial-gets-green-light-from-us-panel-1.20137
Sifferlin, A. (2016). First CRISPR Human Trial Approved in the U.S. TIME.com. Retrieved 23 June 2016 from http://time.com/4380352/crispr-human-trial-us/
With less than two months until the start of the Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, the World Health Organization (WHO) has announced that the games should not be cancelled due to the recent Zika virus outbreak in the region (Mcneil and Tavernise). The WHO does not anticipate any increased consequences from travel to Brazil – the Zika virus is expected to spread to the southern United States regardless (Mcneil). With the recent impeachment of Brazilian President Rousseff, the severe recession, and the large spike in police killings, postponing or moving the 2016 Olympics would only send Brazil into further political and economic turmoil (Waldron).
The Zika virus can be transmitted through mosquitos, sex, blood transfusions, and from mother-to-child during pregnancy, but can be avoided with simple precautionary measures. Only 1 in 4 people present symptoms, which can last for up to a week. Symptoms are mild enough that most people do not require hospitalization, and many never realize that they contracted the virus (Symptoms, Diagnosis, & Treatment). Though it is still advised that pregnant women should not attend the games due to the heightened risk of fetal microcephaly, other travellers, at risk for mild and short-lived symptoms, can protect themselves from the virus with measures that would be taken for any other mosquito transmitted diseases (Symptoms, Diagnosis, & Treatment). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued an Alert for the Summer Olympics (2016 Summer Olympics). They advise travellers to take preventative measures against mosquito bites by using insect repellent, covering exposed skin and staying in air-conditioned or screened rooms (Avoid Bug Bites).
The Zika virus is not the only threat posed to outsiders during the 2016 Summer Olympics. Travellers must also take precautionary measures against crime, foodborne illnesses, and other mosquito-borne illnesses, including dengue fever and malaria (2016 Summer Olympics). The CDC recommends seeking medical attention for any health concerns that may arise following the games.
References
"2016 Summer Olympics (Rio 2016)." – Alert Level 2. N.p., 2 June 2016.
"Avoid Bug Bites." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC, 22 Apr. 2016.
Mcneil, Donald G., and Sabrina Tavernise. "W.H.O. Says Olympics Should Go Ahead in Brazil Despite Zika Virus." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 June 2016.
"Symptoms, Diagnosis, & Treatment." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 26 Apr. 2016.
Waldron, Travis. "Everything Is Going Wrong in Brazil Ahead of the Olympics." Huffington Post. Huffington Post, 23 Mar. 2016.
With cases of Zika virus in pregnant mothers being linked to microcephaly and fatal birth defects, many Brazilians are taking a closer look at the restrictive abortion laws in the country. Currently, getting an abortion is illegal in Brazil unless a mother’s life is put at risk through the continuation of the pregnancy, the mother was raped and this is a resultant pregnancy, or if the fetus is found to be brain-dead prior to birth. Being found guilty of an illegal abortion under these laws can result in one to three years of prison time. One exception to the brain-death allowance for abortion has already been made with anencephaly being considered an acceptable justification for abortion.
Some Catholic leaders are seeking stricter abortion laws. They are proposing measures that would increase prison sentences to a maximum of 15 years, make it illegal to encourage or assist a pregnant woman to have an abortion, or require both a forensic medical exam and a formal police report for all rape-related exceptions to the anti-abortion law. The push for more restrictive laws seems to stem from religious beliefs. Pope Francis has been more accepting of birth control measures but is adamant about the unacceptable nature of abortion. The Pope is quoted as calling abortion, “a crime, an absolute evil.” Members of the Brazilian government have also been quoted as claiming aborting microcephalitic fetuses would constitute an act of eugenics.
It is important to note that microcephaly is not universally fatal and not always diagnosed prior to abortion. There is an increasing consideration of abortion in Brazil, attributed to the fear cause by the rise of Zika in Latin America. This fear is compounded by the fact that Zika is often hard to diagnose due to its occasionally asymptomatic prognosis.
Other movements in Brazil are seeking greater freedom for abortion in possible Zika cases. These movements cite the lack of adequate access to sexual education and contraceptives as a barrier to following the government’s recommended process for dealing with Zika-related birth defects. Brazil’s government has pushed a message of waiting to get pregnant until the virus has been controlled. At least one judge has said he recognizes this movement and will rule abortion due to confirmed microcephaly of the fetus to be acceptable under the same exception made for anencephaly, despite the difference in life expectancies. Anencephaly is almost universally fatal at the fetal stage whereas up to 90% of microcephaly cases result in no mental deficits.
Future shifts in Zika infection rates may encourage change in Brazilian abortion policy. It is not yet clear whether that change will result in more relaxed or tighter control over abortions in Brazil.
Works Cited
Collucci, Claudia. "Pregnant Women with Zika Virus Have Abortions Before Microcephaly Is Confirmed." Folha. Folha De S. Paulo, 1 Feb. 2016. Web. 18 May 2016.
Johnson, Reed, and Luciana Magalhaes. "In Brazil, Zika Fuels Abortion Debate." WSJ. The Wall Street Journal, 8 Mar. 2016. Web. 18 May 2016.
Mcdonald, Brent. "Brazil’s Abortion Restrictions Compound Challenge of Zika Virus." The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 May 2016. Web. 18 May 2016.
Román, Valeria. "Zika Awakens Debate over Legal and Safe Abortion in Latin America." Scientific American. Scientific American, 23 Feb. 2016. Web. 19 May 2016.
Romero, Simon. "Surge of Zika Virus Has Brazilians Re-examining Strict Abortion Laws." The New York Times. The New York Times, 03 Feb. 2016. Web. 18 May 2016.
Sandy, Matt. "Brazilian Legislators Look to Increase Abortion Penalties in the Wake of Zika Outbreak." Time. Time, 22 Feb. 2016. Web. 18 May 2016
The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, recently updated their guidelines for stem cell research. This update was completed due to the increased amount of research in the field over recent years. The guidelines acknowledge the importance studying human embryos in the advancement of stem cell understanding. The controversy surrounding the use of human embryos for stem cell research is active and often related to beliefs surrounding the start of human life, or when personhood is gained. The new ISSCR recommendations focus on the preservation of research integrity and patient welfare, as well as respect for the subjects of study and transparency surrounding the methods used. The new document aims to address ethical uncertainties that may be found in the previously offered ISSCR documents “Guidelines for the conduct of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research” (2006) and “Guidelines for the Clinical Translation of Stem Cells” (2008). Some of these uncertainties may have arisen because of advancements in the field since the publication of the original recommendations. Interestingly, the new guidelines find that it may be acceptable to financially compensate women who donate their eggs. This accommodation is considered to be an appropriate way to ensure there is no burden placed upon women who choose to donate their eggs for scientific research that may not result in lifesaving medical advancements. However, the financial compensation for egg donation could also be viewed as an incentive to donate eggs in order to profit. If this is the case, women are no longer donating eggs but selling them. The new guidelines grapple with the way eggs may be seen. It is clear that eggs may be seen as analogous to organs, potential lives, or crucial ingredients to groundbreaking research. Navigating these views is difficult and is clearly attempted in the new ISSCR document.
The complete document specifying all new guidelines can be found at the ISSCR website: http://www.isscr.org/
Works Cited
"About Us." ISSCR. International Society for Stem Cell Research, n.d. Web. <http://www.isscr.org/home/about-us>.
Guidelines for Stem Cell Science and Clinical Translation. Skokie, Illinois, USA: International Society for Stem Cell Research, 12 May 2016.
Nicholas, Anne. "ISSCR Releases Updated Guidelines for Stem Cell Science and Clinical Translation." ISSCR. International Society for Stem Cell Research, 12 May 2016. Web. 14 May 2016. <http://www.isscr.org/home/about-us/news-press-releases/2016/2016/05/12/isscr-releases-updated-guidelines-for-stem-cell-science-and-clinical-translation>.