The term entered the Oxford dictionary in 2004. The concept radically divides people with few being neutral or passive on the whole situation.
Medical, economic and moral arguments can be made for both sides:
Pros of Designer babies:
Genetic screening allows embryos with genetic diseases such as Down syndrome, spinal muscular atrophy, cystic fibrosis etc, to be identified and not be selected for. In 2000 a baby was born called Adam Nash. Who comes from an embryo which was selected so that he would possess the right cells to save his dying sister's life. She was suffering from Diamond-Blackfan anaemia.
It would also allow families to not suffer the burden of a handicapped child or prevent further handicapped children from being born. This could raise the standard of living for the family and ensure an already handicapped child is fully nurtured for. Ensuring it has the best possible care. Preventing handicapped children could save the NHS millions and allow funds to be focused on other areas; once again improving care.
Cons of Designer babies:
It may well create greater and greater inequalities between the rich who can afford to screen out genetic disabilities and the poor who can not (treatment costs between $15,000 to$18,000). This will create many social problems not least hindering social mobility.
More over, parents may be extremely sporty so could, due to the technology, engineer athletic ability into the child. However, the child may not develop into a keen sports person and may even feel betrayed or ashamed by parents that they haven’t lived up to their expectations. Morally it could be argued it natures choice and reducing this choice is amoral. This desire could also reduce the gene pool and genetic diversity of the human race. This could cause increased mutation rates from interbreeding and hinder our ability to adapt and survive if a change in our environment.
Similarly, in many countries there is a greater cultural importance and bravado placed to one particular sex. For example men in China. If legislation allowed was not in place a massive gender imbalance could occur and this would lead to gender discrimination.
As fewer and fewer babies would be born with genetic disorders it would create more hatred, discrimination and isolation both for foreigners and for those who are born with disabilities. These children may still be born because their parents can't afford treatment or because the parents do not believe that a particular condition is a disability. Such as Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough who are a deaf lesbian couple. They purposely selected an embryo which had the genetic code to create a deaf baby. Is it culturally or morally acceptable?
Finally, we do not know the long term affects of screening. It could give increased risk of cancer or any other disease.
In conclusion, I believe the strongest arguments are moral and ethical as we can't put a price on human life. I think it is completely acceptable to select out genetic disease but then extremely strict legislation must be in place to prevent embryos being selected for sex, characteristics or personal traits.
Friday, 8 June 2012
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
Face Transplant
Richard Lee Norris, a 37 year old man, has recently received what is believed by many to be the most extensive face transplant in history. Richard had being living as a recluse for 15 years after his horrific injury left him without lips, a nose and only limited function and movement of his mouth.
The surgery which was funded by the US navy, which hopes the techniques, can be applied to similar injuries sustained from blasts and explosions in Afghanistan and Iraq, used computer software to aid surgeons in their reconstruction.
During the 36 hour long surgery Richards' nose, jaw, tongue and teeth were replaced. In addition underlying muscles, connective tissues and nerves were also transplanted. The patient has already acquired a sense of smell, can shave and brush his teeth.
As this was the first of its kind a great deal has being learned. So going from the success which was achieved here and the improvements too be made with each new reconstruction the future is looking promising for those affected by hugely disfiguring abnormalities.
The surgery which was funded by the US navy, which hopes the techniques, can be applied to similar injuries sustained from blasts and explosions in Afghanistan and Iraq, used computer software to aid surgeons in their reconstruction.
During the 36 hour long surgery Richards' nose, jaw, tongue and teeth were replaced. In addition underlying muscles, connective tissues and nerves were also transplanted. The patient has already acquired a sense of smell, can shave and brush his teeth.
As this was the first of its kind a great deal has being learned. So going from the success which was achieved here and the improvements too be made with each new reconstruction the future is looking promising for those affected by hugely disfiguring abnormalities.
 |
| Before |
 |
| After |
Monday, 2 April 2012
NHS reform
The reforms have being a hotly debated topic. As many feel the changes of a shift from public to private provision lies at the heart of the Health and Social Care Bill, coupled with the eradication of primary care trusts and the installation of power and money too GPs.
This move has being welcomed by some, not just GPs, as it can be argued they are better placed to handle money than the managers, have a more direct interest in patient care rather than saving money and some already commission care for patients. However anecdotes have hinted not all GPs want to be reasonable for large budgets (£70 billion in total) meaning they may lack the efficiency required. But, in my opinion, the most shocking revelation is that GPs will be directing patients too services which they may run resulting in a major conflict of interests and the possibility of exploitation; against all the core values of the NHS.
The reforms also undermine those in society who are most at need of the NHS - those on the poverty line, as they usher a degree of marketization and commercialisation that will fragment patient care; aggravate risks to individual patient safety. Steadily eroding the ethics of the NHS, trust which took years to build up.
Although can we really afford a health system as extensive and all inclusive as ours in such a time of austeriy?
This move has being welcomed by some, not just GPs, as it can be argued they are better placed to handle money than the managers, have a more direct interest in patient care rather than saving money and some already commission care for patients. However anecdotes have hinted not all GPs want to be reasonable for large budgets (£70 billion in total) meaning they may lack the efficiency required. But, in my opinion, the most shocking revelation is that GPs will be directing patients too services which they may run resulting in a major conflict of interests and the possibility of exploitation; against all the core values of the NHS.
The reforms also undermine those in society who are most at need of the NHS - those on the poverty line, as they usher a degree of marketization and commercialisation that will fragment patient care; aggravate risks to individual patient safety. Steadily eroding the ethics of the NHS, trust which took years to build up.
Although can we really afford a health system as extensive and all inclusive as ours in such a time of austeriy?
Monday, 19 March 2012
Cry baby
Why do onions make you cry?
The answer lies within the mixing and alteration of chemicals within the onion and water on the surface of your eye.
Onion cells have two, one contains the enzymes called alliinases and the other sulphur containing amino acids. These two chemicals mix on slicing as the compartment walls are broken. On mixing a sulphenic acid called 1-propenesulphenic acid is formed. Another enzyme (lachrymatory factor synthase) rearranges the sulfenic acid to form propanethial s-oxide, which is a gas. Thus by diffusion the molecule comes into contact with the surface of your eye - which has a film over it containing a cocktail of compounds one of which is water. This causes three compounds to be formed: hydrogen sulphide, propanol and sulphuric acid. The sulphuric acid is of a high enough concentration too cause irritation meaning the eye rapidly produces tears to try and dilute the acid further.
Methods of prevention include too cover your eyes as this acts as a physical barrier preventing the gas from coming into contact with the eye or by slightly opening the mouth meaning you breath in through you mouth thus the gas is sucked into your throat rather than coming into contact with your eyes.
The answer lies within the mixing and alteration of chemicals within the onion and water on the surface of your eye.
Onion cells have two, one contains the enzymes called alliinases and the other sulphur containing amino acids. These two chemicals mix on slicing as the compartment walls are broken. On mixing a sulphenic acid called 1-propenesulphenic acid is formed. Another enzyme (lachrymatory factor synthase) rearranges the sulfenic acid to form propanethial s-oxide, which is a gas. Thus by diffusion the molecule comes into contact with the surface of your eye - which has a film over it containing a cocktail of compounds one of which is water. This causes three compounds to be formed: hydrogen sulphide, propanol and sulphuric acid. The sulphuric acid is of a high enough concentration too cause irritation meaning the eye rapidly produces tears to try and dilute the acid further.
Methods of prevention include too cover your eyes as this acts as a physical barrier preventing the gas from coming into contact with the eye or by slightly opening the mouth meaning you breath in through you mouth thus the gas is sucked into your throat rather than coming into contact with your eyes.
Sunday, 4 March 2012
Stem Cell Research
Should we use perform stem cells for research? Here is a break down of the arguments for each side:
Yes: Stem cells can replace or repair permanently damaged tissues providing cures to diseases which were or currently are incurable. This sort of disease affects millions world wide. Some try to put forward that the medical possibilities are small and virtually impossible to achieve but scientists from London’s Imperial College have sparked the fact it can be achieved. They successfully repaired a patients’ livers using bone marrow adult stem cells collected from their own blood. Therefore preventing cirrhosis from occurring.#
Both avenues, adult and embryonic stem cells, need to be researched as they have slightly different properties. For example adult stem cells cannot differentiate into any cell (stem cells found in bone marrow can only become blood cells) where as embryonic stem cells can differentiate into literally any cell in the body. Thus we may find cures for a wider range of illnesses if we research both types.
It could, in time, allow limbs or organs to be grown in laboratorys reducing deaths from lack of organs and stress on waiting lists. If adult stem cells were used it would also permanently prevent rejection meaning no need for the continued use of immunosupressant drugs or replacement after approximately 15 years.
Finally, it would all human tissue to be grown which could then be used to test new drugs for potency and toxicity. Thus saving money on clinical trials if the drug is found to be too harmful or accelerating its approval if the contrary.
If only aborted embryos are used then the potential benefits could outweight the drawbacks, especially as the embryos would be destroyed anyway.
No: For those who believe life begins at conception the destruction of a blastocyst (where embryonic stem cells are found) is destruction of life and therefore immoral.
In addition, long term side effects cannot be know such as their ability to replicate and whether they would degrade, cause cancer etc. Linking to this according to a new research, stem cell therapy was used on heart disease patients. It was found that it can make their coronary arteries narrower.
Adult stem cells are already pre-specialise meaning those in bone marrow could only differentiate into blood cells as mentioned above. Meaning their usage is limited to specific diseases.
Lastly, if cures are not found patients will feel they have being given false hope as medical institutions and research facilities have continued to tell the public about the possibilities to cure all sort of disease although we are very far away from many of these claims, if we will ever reach them at all.
I personally believe research should be carried out as I have no real belief true life starts at conception only when hearts start to beat and nerve connections are made. In addition all adult stem cells are taken with consent. But most importantly if a break through is made and vast numbers of lives are saved fewer and fewer people will care how the scientists managed to save their mum, sister, son etc.
Yes: Stem cells can replace or repair permanently damaged tissues providing cures to diseases which were or currently are incurable. This sort of disease affects millions world wide. Some try to put forward that the medical possibilities are small and virtually impossible to achieve but scientists from London’s Imperial College have sparked the fact it can be achieved. They successfully repaired a patients’ livers using bone marrow adult stem cells collected from their own blood. Therefore preventing cirrhosis from occurring.#
Both avenues, adult and embryonic stem cells, need to be researched as they have slightly different properties. For example adult stem cells cannot differentiate into any cell (stem cells found in bone marrow can only become blood cells) where as embryonic stem cells can differentiate into literally any cell in the body. Thus we may find cures for a wider range of illnesses if we research both types.
It could, in time, allow limbs or organs to be grown in laboratorys reducing deaths from lack of organs and stress on waiting lists. If adult stem cells were used it would also permanently prevent rejection meaning no need for the continued use of immunosupressant drugs or replacement after approximately 15 years.
Finally, it would all human tissue to be grown which could then be used to test new drugs for potency and toxicity. Thus saving money on clinical trials if the drug is found to be too harmful or accelerating its approval if the contrary.
If only aborted embryos are used then the potential benefits could outweight the drawbacks, especially as the embryos would be destroyed anyway.
No: For those who believe life begins at conception the destruction of a blastocyst (where embryonic stem cells are found) is destruction of life and therefore immoral.
In addition, long term side effects cannot be know such as their ability to replicate and whether they would degrade, cause cancer etc. Linking to this according to a new research, stem cell therapy was used on heart disease patients. It was found that it can make their coronary arteries narrower.
Adult stem cells are already pre-specialise meaning those in bone marrow could only differentiate into blood cells as mentioned above. Meaning their usage is limited to specific diseases.
Lastly, if cures are not found patients will feel they have being given false hope as medical institutions and research facilities have continued to tell the public about the possibilities to cure all sort of disease although we are very far away from many of these claims, if we will ever reach them at all.
I personally believe research should be carried out as I have no real belief true life starts at conception only when hearts start to beat and nerve connections are made. In addition all adult stem cells are taken with consent. But most importantly if a break through is made and vast numbers of lives are saved fewer and fewer people will care how the scientists managed to save their mum, sister, son etc.
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Cannabis
1) Cannabis is a persistent drug which stays in the body for months at a time. This is due to THC, the main psychoactive ingredient (tetrahydrocannabinol) being fat-soluble. This means it can dissolve in the phospolipid bilayer within brain cell membranes. 10% still remains after a month, meaning a monthly smoke ensures the drug remains permanently in the brain.
2) It has a adverse effect on brain function and mood as THC affects the neurotransmitter for dopamine. The THC molecule acts as a lock into its complimentary key, producing vast quantities of dopamine. Thus inducing the 'high', which is why THC is often referred too as the 'pleasure chemical'.
3) Physical dependency can occur as THC mimics the neurotansmitter anandamide, replacing it in the brain. Thus the body no longer produces anandamide meaning if a user stops taking cannabis the receptor sites stay empty inducing anxiety, sleeplessness, irritability and even violence. Although the withdrawal symptoms are not so serve as say heroin as cannabis takes longer to dissipate from the body.
4) Psychological dependence can occur by craving for additional dopamine. This increased dopamine triggers the formation of two other substances. One damps down the effects meaning more is needed for the same effect - tolerance. The other causes new connections in the brain so the brain becomes more sensitive reminding the user of the high they felt.
5) A link has long being established that cannabis can cause or aid mental illness. A paper found that 25% of humans have a faulty gene with leads to enhanced levels of dopamine production, meaning if an adolescent uses cannabis they have a 5/6 times greater risk of developing a psychotic illness. The way it affects the body is similar to schizophrenia as sufferers have an excess of dopamine. Brain scans have clarified this further, comparing cannabis users and non-using schizophrenics.
6) It can also effect education as concentration is compromised, due to new neuron connections being hindered. It has also being attributed to lowering sperm count, underweight babies, hyperactivity in babies, reduction in white blood cell production, heart attacks and various smoking related cancers.
As you can see the list of negatives is extensive and shocking although anecdotes and some scientific papers have drawn conclusions about some medical benefits of cannabis, which are:
1) Early on, THC had been shown to be effective for some patients who suffered nausea from cancer chemotherapy treatments. Although side effects do occur and as a result it is virtually never prescribed due to more effective less harmful alternatives being available.
2) Studies have shown that cannabis can relieve muscle pain in patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, although once again side effects have being seen which include impairing posture and balance further.
3) THC has being shown to increase appetite, which although not good for most of us, when carefully managed, could aid those suffering from debilitating diseases.
Most possible uses seem to be in pain relief, although all seem to have adverse side effects. As a result little or no work to try to find uses for cannabis is being performed as most have already being exhausted.
2) It has a adverse effect on brain function and mood as THC affects the neurotransmitter for dopamine. The THC molecule acts as a lock into its complimentary key, producing vast quantities of dopamine. Thus inducing the 'high', which is why THC is often referred too as the 'pleasure chemical'.
3) Physical dependency can occur as THC mimics the neurotansmitter anandamide, replacing it in the brain. Thus the body no longer produces anandamide meaning if a user stops taking cannabis the receptor sites stay empty inducing anxiety, sleeplessness, irritability and even violence. Although the withdrawal symptoms are not so serve as say heroin as cannabis takes longer to dissipate from the body.
4) Psychological dependence can occur by craving for additional dopamine. This increased dopamine triggers the formation of two other substances. One damps down the effects meaning more is needed for the same effect - tolerance. The other causes new connections in the brain so the brain becomes more sensitive reminding the user of the high they felt.
5) A link has long being established that cannabis can cause or aid mental illness. A paper found that 25% of humans have a faulty gene with leads to enhanced levels of dopamine production, meaning if an adolescent uses cannabis they have a 5/6 times greater risk of developing a psychotic illness. The way it affects the body is similar to schizophrenia as sufferers have an excess of dopamine. Brain scans have clarified this further, comparing cannabis users and non-using schizophrenics.
6) It can also effect education as concentration is compromised, due to new neuron connections being hindered. It has also being attributed to lowering sperm count, underweight babies, hyperactivity in babies, reduction in white blood cell production, heart attacks and various smoking related cancers.
As you can see the list of negatives is extensive and shocking although anecdotes and some scientific papers have drawn conclusions about some medical benefits of cannabis, which are:
1) Early on, THC had been shown to be effective for some patients who suffered nausea from cancer chemotherapy treatments. Although side effects do occur and as a result it is virtually never prescribed due to more effective less harmful alternatives being available.
2) Studies have shown that cannabis can relieve muscle pain in patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, although once again side effects have being seen which include impairing posture and balance further.
3) THC has being shown to increase appetite, which although not good for most of us, when carefully managed, could aid those suffering from debilitating diseases.
Most possible uses seem to be in pain relief, although all seem to have adverse side effects. As a result little or no work to try to find uses for cannabis is being performed as most have already being exhausted.
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Thalidomide
As many of you will know Thalidomide, which was prescribed from 1957 to 1961, caused phocomelia (Greek for seal limbs). At first it was thought to be a wonderful drug, being sold to treat diseases such as: coughs, colds, migraines, as a sedative in sleeping pills and its fall to treat morning sickness. Although this wide range of uses should have caused concern about it potency and its mode of action. to the right is the structural display of Thalidomide.How did it slip through the net? Could it happen again? Firstly, this occurred by the lack of rigorous tests on numerous volunteers, studying both long and short term effects/complications. But more worryingly there was virtually no testing on pregnant animals. Secondly, no it is very unlikely, due to new stricter regulation being introduced such as bigger clinical trials which encompass mandatory testing on pregnant animals. usually rabbits. Further more, there were some anomalies with the data when it was originally collected such as the possibility of neuropathy (nerve problems) would must, more than likely, be picked up today.
The abnormalities are permanent and life changing. In some cases they have become stigmatised and even abused. But many of these people have have adapted to use their 'limbs' successfully becoming musicians, writers and artists. Even with the most severe cases causing hands to be at the shoulders and feet almost to the hip. Below is a picture of a Thalidomide baby:
Against much controversy some drug companies and scientists have believed that such a potent drug must have a safe, usefully role in treating or reducing the symptoms of diseases. Initially, in the late 1990's, it was used to treat leprosy . But was out-competed by more effective drugs. It has now being linked with multiple myeloma - which is the cancer of plasma cells. Unregulated, vast volumes of antibodies are produced which can cause illness in numerous ways: reducing the red blood cell count, making the blood thicker, blocking kidney tubules and by making the bones more fragile, if the cancer spreads. Thalidomide has being shown to be effective when used in conjunction with traditional chemotherapy treatments. This is important as multiple myeloma is quite common - 1 in 170 people suffer at some point in their live. Meaning, especially as survival rates are low (survival beyond 5 years at only 30%), an effective treatment could benefit the masses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)