Scottish Parliament is told to reject assisted death Bill

Embryonic stem cells are over-hyped, says scientist

Doctor defends Octomom’s fertility treatments

Australian surrogacy law “of grave concern”

Canada: Fertility agency chief domineering, MPs told

Center for Reproductive Rights: Costa Rica’s new IVF law “unacceptable”

Ireland: Billboard campaign counters embryo research push

Merkel repeats call for PGD pre-natal screening ban

Steep rise in official Dutch euthanasia

EU in Kosovo probes organ trafficking

Woman gives birth to homosexual son’s baby

Law Review: Embryonic Stem Cell-Based Therapeutics: Balancing Scientific Progress and Bioethics

    Embryonic Stem Cell-Based Therapeutics: Balancing Scientific Progress and Bioethics
    Ronald Chester and Robert Sackstein, 20 Health Matrix 203 (2010)

    “The breakneck speed of scientific developments in embryonic stem (ES) cell technologies is, commensurately, ushering forth new bioethical debate(s) regarding these cells. A framework of bioethical principles is presented here to guide biomedical scientists and others engaged in improving human welfare through the application of ES cell-based therapies.”


  • Posted: 11/08/2010
  • |
  • Category: Sanctity of Life

  • Tags: , , ,

Poll: Canadians moving away from support for assisted suicide, euthanasia

University of Cambridge forum: Making babies in the 21st century

Canadians worry about vulnerable people if euthanasia is legalized: poll

Law Review: Am I My Son? Human Clones and the Modern Family

    Am I My Son? Human Clones and the Modern Family
    W. Nicholson Price II, 11 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 119 (2010)

    “As increasingly complex assisted reproductive technologies (ART) become available, legal and social conceptions of family become ambiguous and sometimes misaligned. The as-yet unrealized technology of cloning provides the clearest example of this confusion: is the legal parent of a clone the individual cloned, or are that individual’s parents also the parents of the clone? These issues have been generally obscured by the debates around the deployment of ART, especially cloning; far less consideration has been given to the way these new technologies impact the way we think about and develop law on the relationships between genetic, social, gestational, and legal parenthood. This article considers these issues in depth, looking at competing common-law frameworks for determining parentage, the statutory framework of parentage, and deeper theoretical concerns underlying the area. The article concludes that an intent-based framework, with at least some external limitations, most accurately matches law to social views of parents using new forms of ART.”


  • Posted: 11/04/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: www.stlr.org

  • Tags: , ,

Australia: Euthanasia talks fail to attract Queensland MPs

CA: Catholic high schools address tough issues in bioethics courses

Australia Greens Senator makes Parliament debate bill OKing euthanasia

Ethical lines drawn in Discovery Institute cloning debate

Switzerland: Doctor on trial for assisted suicide

New study confirms overwhelming death rate of IVF human embryos

Artificial insemination allows British women in their 50s to have babies

Law Review: How Will Artificial Wombs Affect the Legal Status of a Fetus or Embryo?

    Development of Ectogenesis: How Will Artificial Wombs Affect the Legal Status of a Fetus or Embryo?
    Jessica H. Schultz, 84 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 877 (2010)

    “Artificial womb technology would allow conception and fetal development to occur completely independent of a woman’s womb or allow a fetus to be transferred from a woman’s womb to an artificial womb for the remainder of its gestation. Both of these possibilities raise a variety of legal and ethical questions. Some commentators see ectogenesis, which is the process of the embryo or fetus developing in a device outside of the body, as a valuable medical development. For example, ectogenesis could help those who cannot carry a pregnancy have genetic children without a surrogate and could also save the lives of premature babies. Others assert that the development of artificial wombs will cause babies to be treated as commodities and will debase women by replacing one of a woman’s most unique natural abilities with man-made technology. The potential of this technology is fraught with legal questions, including how artificial wombs will affect the potential father’s and the state’s interest in the fetus; whether contracts regarding artificial wombs might be enforceable; and who would bear liability for mishaps that might occur due to artificial womb use.

    *878 Part I of this note will provide an overview of the steps scientists have made towards creating an artificial womb and the obstacles that remain. Part II will discuss the balance of maternal, paternal, and state interests in an embryo or fetus grown in an artificial womb. Part III will examine the enforceability of contracts concerning embryos or fetuses in artificial wombs. Part IV will discuss potential liability issues that could arise if artificial wombs are created. Finally, Part V will propose solutions for some of the most controversial issues that would arise should an artificial womb be developed.

    Exploring these questions makes it clear that the development of ectogenesis will increase, rather than resolve, the complexity of issues regarding reproductive rights and the legal status of an embryo or fetus.”


  • Posted: 11/02/2010
  • |
  • Category: Sanctity of Life

  • Tags: , ,

Obama admin: No patent on human genes

EU Parliament rejects coercive abortion/sterilization funding

What about IVF? The embryo technology that evangelicals don’t oppose

Canada: Test-tube parenthood on trial

Only a tiny percentage of eggs or embryos in IVF process will become babies

Stanford University opens new stem cell building, bucking federal restrictions

Invisible dads: $3.3 billion fertility industry is creating a huge number of fatherless children

    “An estimated 30,000-60,000 children are born each year through sperm donation—the product of a $3.3 billion fertility industry that does not have to keep strict records of births, reveal donor names, or regulate the number of children one sperm donor creates. For Stewart and other donor­conceived children, never knowing their fathers has created a crisis of identity.”


  • Posted: 10/28/2010
  • |
  • Category: Featured
  • |
  • Source: www.worldmag.com

  • Tags: , ,

Surgeon: “Freeze ovaries for childbirth in later life”

More not always better with in vitro fertilization

Military wives supplement income as surrogates

California funds less embryonic, more adult stem cell research

En banc 3rd Circuit set to hear DNA samples case

Canada: Court case seeks to strip sperm donors’ anonymity

UK: Think tank warns against legalizing assisted suicide

Witness: Octuplet mother’s doctor remorseful

Polish bishops slam plans for liberal in vitro law

Lawyer: Octuplets’ mom implanted with 12 embryos

Octomom fertility doc’s license hearing begins

The Incredible, Profitable Egg: “Eggsploitation” Uncovers Dark Side of Infertility Industry

Wisc. Gov. Doyle: Announces state has filed motion to join stem cell funding amicus brief

Baby Born From Embryo Frozen For 20 Years

US treats first patient with human embryonic stem cells

MO Senate candidates differ on feds role on stem cells, marriage, concealed guns

American College of Embryology opposes defining embryos as mere “diagnostic specimens” in CA

Humanoid Rights: The ACLU looks to science fiction to prepare for future threats to civil liberties

New York Times shows it’s clueless about embryonic stem cell research

Italian law on assisted fertility under judicial review

Woman seeking identity of sperm-donor father may get day in B.C.’s Supreme Court

Vatican Cardinal: Artificial procreation a “shameful form of commerce”

New stem cell technique captures “high moral ground”

Pro-lifers decry University of Michigan’s new embryonic stem cell line

The dark side of IVF

    Debora Spar writing at The Daily Beast: “Dr. Edwards’ work has clearly led to massive joys for millions of individuals but, more quietly, it has also raised a host of issues that the U.S. refuses to grapple with, much less resolve . . . In the United States . . . it can be said that ‘anything goes.’ No regulation, no (or little) insurance coverage, and a correspondingly greater chance for bad things to happen in what has become a multibillion-dollar industry . . . [A]s reproductive technologies continue to expand, they are bringing [women] options that push the notion of personal choice to terrifying limits.”


  • Posted: 10/05/2010
  • |
  • Category: Sanctity of Life
  • |
  • Source: www.thedailybeast.com

  • Tags: , ,

Scientists overcome hurdles to stem cell alternatives

Rebecca Hagelin: U.S. apologizes for Guatemalan human experiments, what about human embryos?

IVF discovery opened Pandora’s box of ethical issues

Disabled Babies in the Womb event supporting prenatal disability diagnosis – October 5th, 2010

Vatican: Nobel to IVF pioneer raises questions

U.S. Apologizes For Syphilis Experiments In Guatemala

Study shows progress with stem cell alternative

Controversial research to continue

Judge lifts ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research

Quebec nurses’ order opposed to assisted suicide

Australia: GPs back euthanasia for old people “tired of life”

Appeals Court allows Obama to fund embryonic stem cell research during suit

Court questions Obama Admin lawyers on embryonic research funding appeal

Scotland: Disability group to protest against assisted suicide bill

Appeals court considers ban on stem cell research

Law Review: Science, Public Bioethics, and the Problem of Integration

    O. Carter Snead, Science, Public Bioethics, and the Problem of Integration (June 1, 2010). UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 5, June 2010; Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 10-27. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1682025

    “This Article examines the question of how scientific methods and principles can and should be integrated into the making and enforcement of laws in this domain without compromising the integrity of science, the democratic legitimacy of government, or both. It identifies, analyzes and critiques one prominent model of integration, namely, the proposal to delegate virtually all public bioethical questions to scientific experts for resolution solely using the tools of their respective disciplines. The Article argues that this model of integration raises serious prudential concerns relating to democratic accountability (and thus legitimacy). More deeply, it argues that the proposal is unsustainable in principle because of the fundamental conceptual incompatibility between the premises and methods of modern science and the ethical principles that comprise the currency of public bioethical deliberation. It concludes by offering a provisional way forward, arguing that integration should be a function of defining and policing the boundaries of scientific methods and ethical reasoning, according to their respective competencies for the particular public bioethical question at issue. The Article provides an analytic tool to facilitate this line drawing, and illustrates its application with reference to several contemporary debates within public bioethics (i.e., the recent FDA approval of Plan B emergency contraception, the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and the impact of cognitive neuroscience on theories of criminal punishment).”


  • Posted: 09/27/2010
  • |
  • Category: Sanctity of Life
  • |
  • Source: ssrn.com

  • Tags: , , , ,

Australian Greens press to legalize euthanasia

Scientists oppose CA Regents’ motion to intervene embryonic stem cell case

Cuts threat to Britain’s stem cell supremacy