Category: Ethics

Another team of researchers call for the 14-day limit on embryo experimentation to be scrapped

BioEdge

Michael Cook*

An international team of bioethicists and scientists has advised scrapping the 14-day limit that restricts how long researchers can study human embryos in a dish. Going beyond this policy limit could lead to potential health and fertility benefits, they contend in an article in Science.

This is not a novel suggestion. Scientists and bioethicists have been chafing at the bit for years to extend this widely-accepted limit. This time around, Insoo Hyun, of Case Western Reserve University, and colleagues urge policymakers and the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) to consider “a cautious, stepwise approach” to scientific exploration beyond the 14-day limit.

ISSCR is expected to soon release updated guidelines for stem cell and embryo research. . . continue reading

Dying with Dignity Bill represents a failure of compassion

Mandatory referral “unacceptable”

News Release

Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference

The following statement has been agreed by the Spring General Meeting of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference which took place this week. 

Statement

In January 2021, the Council for Life of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference made a submission to the Oireachtas Committee on Health, regarding the Dying with Dignity Bill. Alongside the protection of human life, our concern is to offer our pastoral support to people living with terminal illness and to their families. We are very aware that, sadly, all across Ireland, many families are engaged day by day in accompanying loved ones through terminal illness.

The Bill currently before the Oireachtas wrongly proposes the deliberate ending of life as a way of conferring dignity on people with terminal illness. The opposite is the case. Human dignity belongs to every person by virtue of his or her human nature. Terminal illness does not take away that dignity. Indeed, in our experience, the inherent dignity of the person often shines through under those difficult circumstances. Under existing law and current best practice, people with terminal illness are supported by family members, by doctors and nurses and palliative care teams, in living life to the full until death comes naturally. We take this opportunity to thank the many healthcare professionals who so generously devote their lives to the care of people with terminal illness.

What this Bill proposes may be appropriately described as “Assisted Suicide”, because it involves one person taking his or her own life, with the active participation of another. We believe that every life has an inherent value, which should be endorsed by society. This Bill, if passed, would be a sad reflection of the unwillingness of society to accompany people with terminal illness. It would reflect a failure of compassion.

The Dying with Dignity Bill presents the deliberate ending of life as an expression of personal autonomy, but what is proposed in this Bill has implications for society as a whole. Once it is accepted in principle, that one person may participate actively in ending the life of another, there is no longer any logical basis for refusing this same option to any person who feels that life is no longer worth living. We are aware that, in countries where it is legally permitted for healthcare professionals to be directly involved in the taking of human life, it has very quickly been extended to include people who are not terminally ill (the elderly, people with intellectual disability, young adults on the autistic spectrum and even minors who, in other circumstances, would not be considered capable of giving legal consent).

The Bill anticipates that doctors and nurses, whose vocation and purpose is to serve life, will now be prepared to involve themselves in ending life. This would represent a radical transformation of the meaning of healthcare. While the Bill does, theoretically, provide for conscientious objection, it still requires healthcare professionals to refer their patients to other medical practitioners who will carry out their wishes. This means that, one way or another, healthcare professionals are required to involve themselves in something which they believe to be contrary to morality and to medical best practice. This, in our view is unacceptable.

As we mark the anniversary of the arrival of Covid-19 in Ireland, and consider the enormous efforts that have been made across every sector of society to protect the life and health of people who are most vulnerable, this Bill is in clear contradiction with the shared commitment of our society. It is at odds with the common good, which it is the function of the state to promote. This Bill is fundamentally flawed. It cannot be repaired or improved and we call on Catholics to ask their elected representatives to reject it entirely.

ENDS         

For media contact: Catholic Communications Office Maynooth: Martin Long +353 (0) 86 172 7678 and Brenda Drumm +353 (0) 87 310 4444.

Registered health practitioners and students: What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine rollout

News Release

Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (Ahpra) and National Boards

The National Boards and Ahpra have published a joint statement today to help registered health practitioners and students understand what’s expected of them in giving, receiving and advising on and sharing information about COVID-19 vaccines.

Key points

  • A joint position statement was published today about National Boards’ expectations of registered health practitioners and students in relation to COVID-19 vaccines.
  • Registered health practitioners have led the remarkable public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, and we commend them for this sustained public health response.
  • As the national vaccination program gets underway, registered health practitioners and students remain critical to this success by:
    • being vaccinated against COVID-19 unless medically contraindicated
    • being appropriately qualified and trained to administer COVID-19 vaccines if authorised, and
    • providing accurate information and advice about COVID-19 vaccination including in social media and advertising.

The National Boards and Ahpra have published a joint statement today to help registered health practitioners and students understand what’s expected of them in giving, receiving and advising on and sharing information about COVID-19 vaccines.

Co-chair of the Forum of NRAS Chairs and Pharmacy Board Chair, Mr Brett Simmonds, said all registered practitioners have a key role to play by ensuring they provide accurate, evidence-based information to patients about COVID-19 vaccines.

‘National Boards support the vaccine program and encourage all registered health practitioners to get vaccinated unless medically contraindicated.

‘The codes of conduct for each of the registered health professions explain the public health obligations of registered health practitioners, including participating in efforts to promote the health of the community and meeting obligations on disease prevention,’ Mr Simmonds said.

‘There is no place for anti-vaccination messages in professional health practice, and any promotion of anti-vaccination claims including on social media, and advertising may be subject to regulatory action.’

Ahpra CEO, Mr Martin Fletcher, said it’s important that as part of the national response to the pandemic, Australia’s 800,000 registered practitioners and 193,800 students are aware of what is expected of them.

‘If you’re a registered health practitioner or student, the best thing to do is to read our joint statement. It explains the National Boards’ expectations of registered health practitioners about receiving, administering and sharing information about COVID-19 vaccines. It’s important you understand these expectations so that patients and communities are best protected against the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19.’

The National Boards and Ahpra also acknowledge the exceptional leadership role played by many health practitioners in the public health response to COVID-19.

‘We thank Australia’s hardworking public health leaders who have provided remarkable leadership to protect the Australian community and continue to be key to our national COVID-19 defence,’ Mr Fletcher said.

As part of the national vaccine rollout program, practitioners authorised to administer COVID-19 vaccines must complete specific COVID-19 vaccine training, as required by Australian, and State and Territory Governments. Training in the handling and administration of COVID-19 vaccines protects the public by supporting the vaccination program to be rolled out safely.

All practitioners, including students on placement, must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines on COVID-19 vaccinations.

Concerns about the conduct or practice of a health practitioner can be reported on the Ahpra concerns submission portal. National Boards will consider whether the practitioner has breached their professional obligations and will treat these matters seriously.

For media queries, please call (03) 8708 9200.

More information

Read the joint statement 

Lack of evidence-based medicine in debate around new MAID law should concern Canadians

CBC News

Dr. Mark Sinyor

I recently had the privilege of testifying before the Senate of Canada in their deliberations about medical assistance in dying (MAID) legislation. The specific question before them was whether to allow the practice as a treatment for mental illness, which the Senate voted to recommend following an 18-month “sunset clause,” and the House of Commons says it would support with a two-year phase-in.

I have no personal objection to MAID in principle. But as a doctor and a psychiatrist who believes in evidence-based medicine, I found both the hearing and the result horrifying.

Bill C-7 would extend MAID to those experiencing intolerable suffering and who are not approaching the natural end of their lives, including those with mental illness. . . [Full text]

Is the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine Unethical?

Russell Moore

After half a million of our fellow Americans have died to the COVID-19 pandemic, the country seems almost right on the verge of hope. Vaccines were developed with record-setting speed, and have proven both safe and effective. After the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been on the field now for a while, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) just authorized a third—by pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson. This vaccine has made news—both in terms of the images of trucks headed for parcel distribution hubs for delivery and, less noticed, a denunciation from the Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans, later joined by the Catholic bishops nationwide, arguing that Catholics, when possible, should take one of the first two vaccines but not the Johnson & Johnson version because, they argue, it is linked to cloned stem cells derived from abortions that took place decades ago. . .

Some have wondered, seeing these headlines, whether taking a COVID-19 vaccine would cause them to be involved, somehow, in abortion or embryonic stem-cell research or in any way the taking of a human life. . . continue reading