Category Archives: ReadingLog

Sympathy for David Reimer…

Posted on by

I’ve studied the Reimer case before in my high school psychology class and i’m super excited to dive into it again. After reading some of As Nature Made Him: The Boy who was Raised a Girl, I’ve realized that it has an uncanny resemblance to the structure of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. John Colapinto takes the same route as Rebecca Skloot did. In his preface, he clarifies that the work is a true non-fiction account. He also recalls his story of how he was able to contact David Reimer and the lengths he went through to convince Reimer to expose his true identity and the identity of his family to the world. He also includes details of how great of challenge it is for Reimer to recall events from his stage as Brenda Reimer, similar to the situation with Skloot and the character Deborah Lacks and the rest of her zany family.

Getting into the story, Colapinto provides a back story to the Reimer case and structures his book like Skloot had. He shows the relationship between the parents Ron and Janet (similarly to Henrietta and David), the event that changed everything, the botched circumcision (similarly to the taking of cancer cells), and the involvement of Dr. Money (similarly to Dr. Gey). When I read the involvement of John Hopkins Hospital in the Reimer case, I wasn’t shocked. But, I can tell you I will never, ever go to that hospital if my life depended on it.

I’m super excited to hear David’s part of the famed case. In psychology, you never really get a chance to hear the patients perspective in the case because you’re dealing with scientist and a majority of the patients are always anonymous. Even though I greatly enjoyed the Henrietta Lacks, I think I’ll enjoy this one more because I have a greater interest in it.

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!

I found the BBC Documentary on David Reimer’s case on Youtube so check it out so you can put a face and voice to the name if my featured picture doesn’t do it for you 🙂

Dr. Money and the Boy With No Penis

How far will we go?

Posted on by

The story of Henrietta Lacks is one of the most intriguing and fascinating stories of the 20th Century. Its also one that many people have not heard of until recently. Her story brings up a few major questions on ethics in science, but I feel the main one is “How far will we go?” In other words, what extreme lengths are we willing to take for the advancements of science? Henrietta’s cells were taken from her without her knowledge, but had such a positive effect on the world, as well as, created a multi-billion dollar industry. Her family never saw any of the money, the benefits, and Henrietta died in agonizing pain without any knowledge of what had happened. The real ethical issue here is about consent and whether or not they should have known about the cells, but a see a bigger issue here. The big issue is that now humans are being used like guinea pigs.

The animal rights and protections from being taken advantage of by science is a problem, but now humans are being used in the same way. This is a case from the 1950s and apparently people were being used since even before then. It is a scary thought that now humans are being seen as just another resource to take advantage of. The epigraph used in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is a good portrayal of how a person is not only just another abstract being, but something more complicated, much more complicated. With this in mind there is not only an ethical responsibility for scientists to follow when using humans, but a form of respect towards the human race because we are not just another resource to be used. Today, such things still occur, but with consent of the individuals in drug companies, but we can never really know that what is being given to us is really safe or thoroughly tested before it comes to us. The drug companies can be taking advantage of people who are willing to test the subject without anyone knowing.

The Heart of the Matter: Insensitivity towards other Species

Posted on by

Is a human life considered more valuable than every other type of life on the planet? This is the type of question that ethics presents to situations in the scientific world for proposed “advancements” by using animals as mere tools. The action introduced in the article “The Heart of the Matter” is to use Chimpanzee hearts to “build a ‘bridge'” for heart transplant patients so they can live a bit longer until they are able to obtain a human heart of their own for permanent use. The problem that I have with this and most people would is the fact that the heart of the chimpanzee is just being used for the ends of humans; this procedure isn’t something necessary especially since it is most likely not to work, as stated in the article. I am all for the betterment of mankind and helping people survive, but I have a problem when animals, especially one such as a chimpanzee that is so similar to us, are used when the end factor may not justify the means.

In the commentary section of the article, Strachan Donnelley devises an argument in which I agree with. He focuses on the ethical questions presented when not going to an extreme side. He goes on to say this use of chimpanzee hearts its not ethically right nor is it morally right because it will result in the eventual extinction of the animal species. This is my same sentiment on this subject. The people that may receive these hearts will live longer for only a few more days while the chimpanzees giving the hearts will die. This factor added to the fact that these animals are already endangered will result in the complete annihilation of the species. I felt Willard Gaylin made a very good argument, but did not convince me. He focuses on the pathos of the argument to try and take in account the emotions of the readers to seeing and agreeing with him on this issue. There are, however, more factors that apply besides the ones he presents. Homo sapiens are the most intelligent beings on the planet, but that gives us the most responsibility to ensure that we do not take advantage of this power. As one of the most popular saying goes from the infamous spiderman comics, “With great power comes great responsibility”. This applies to humans in various ways especially with our animal counterparts and how we treat them.

I end with a simple cartoon that I found to be a good representation of what we should do for animals before using them for whatever advancement we want.

Bioethics and it’s importance….

Posted on by

“A field of study concerned with the ethics and philosophical implications of certain biological and medical procedures, technologies, and treatments…” This dictionary definition of bioethics has helped me to understand what is being discussed in class, the ethical concern of the advancements in biology and medicine has been the topic of many heated debates over the past few years and until now, I had no clue what was being said. Discussions on stem-cell research and cloning are a few generic topics discussed when mentioning the idea of bioethics. The main focus is whether these practices are right or wrong. Where do we as humans of the 21st century draw the line? There are many things that persuade a person to think something is right or wrong like religious preference and morality. But when these practices, take stem-cell research for instance, can save lives, is there a general right or a general wrong?

The Declaration made by UNESCO addresses the ethical issues “related to medicine, life sciences and associated technologies as applied to human beings, taking into account their social, legal and enviornmental dimensions.” UNESCO suggests to “provide a universal framework of principles and procedures,” “guide the actions of individuals, groups, communities…etc,” “promote respect for human dignity and protect human right,” and “recognize the importance of freedom of scientific research and the benefits derived from scientific and technological developments…” My question is, how can we make a “universal framework of principles” if we all have different beliefs, some centered around strong bonds to religion? In America, we have freedom of religion and speech and if we have a “universal framework of principles” then our freedoms are being taken away.

Since this is a nation of ‘freedom’, everyone has their own preferences, beliefs and ideas. We can, but we should not judge others on what they believe or prefer. The first amendment protects our freedom of speech and freedom of religion and if ones religion is against the topics that are brought up when discussing bioethics, we should not judge them for their religious opinions. It defeats the aspect of freedom.

UNESCO: Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights

Posted on by

The reading for this week was the Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). I want to first focus on the actual definition of Bioethics, which I deduced from the reading. Bioethics is a study of the moral and ethical responsibilities that all human beings have in all medical, scientific and research fields. This is the simple, elementary definition of bioethics, but reading through this declaration gave me a realization that it is much more involved and complex. One part of the realm of bioethics that interested me was the Aim presented in Article 2, part g, which stated “to safeguard and promote the interests of the present and future generations. Now the idea of safeguarding and promoting the interests of the present are expected, but the concept of preserving the future has only come up recently. Within the last 10 years, the preserving of the environment and of the world has been of utmost importance so that the generations after us can enjoy the faculties of this planet and the innovations we have brought into this world. For me, this created a whole new spectrum of bioethics because it broadened the reach of its importance.

Another aspect of Bioethics that surprised me in the Declaration was Article 13. This article basically is calling for a sort of worldwide unity and cooperation between all nations. It initiates another angle of equality socially and medically across the world for all people. Now due to many political, religious, and other numerous factors, many nations can not come to an agreement on many issues. Even within nations, such as ours, certain issues are divided almost right down the middle with two different sides, such as with abortion. I do not want to go on a tangent on the abortion issue, but I felt like this declaration does not hinder nor help either side of the issue. It was something that I was looking for as I read and found that through this document conclusion can be drawn for both pro-life and pro-choice sides. I noticed that the declaration did not want to make arguments or statements for certain controversial issues, but rather took an angle to provide a guideline to every nation and organization of how to proceed on protecting everyone’s rights and lives, but still allowing them to push for more innovations. With the coming election in this country I feel that bioethics must play an important issue, more so than it ever has in the past. We must take in consideration so much and I am not asking for an answer to this question, but just for everyone to think about, What candidate will help this country follow these guidelines as best as possible and is it even possible to follow every single one? These are just two questions that I thought about as I read this document.