Human-pig embryo approved in UK

The "cybrid" or hybrid human-animal embryos are created in the laboratory by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transplantation, using emptied eggs from animals and the nuclear and cellular DNA from humans.. We know that there are currently experiments on-going with the human embryos made using emptied cow eggs (more on the "ease" of making these embryos, here), and now the British have authorized the development of pig-human embryos.

The experimenters admit that the problem will be achieving embryos and embryonic stem cells that do not contain DNA left from the egg. Proving the purity and "human-ness" of the stem cells will be a complication that I do not believe they will be able to overcome, at least for transplantation into humans, except possibly in the case of severe, last-hope disease and trauma.

The ethical debates about xeno-transplants and treatments using living organs, cells and tissues from animals carry the risks of transmitting animal diseases that humans have no immunity for and the development of new strains of disease that cross species lines. Ethicists have predicted that at least the early patients will have to live their lives in isolation at the worst, and have life-long surveillance at the best. (more on the debate, here and here.)

However, the researchers will probably be able to develop other uses, such as the early warning chemical weapon detection systems that are being developed by our own military, using human embryonic stem cells.

Rather than humanitarian and medical hope, I believe that time will show us that the research is the result of pure greed, with each lab hoping to come up with a product that can be patented and sold. I'm disappointed that the courts and "ethics" bodies in the US and UK have allowed these patents of human organisms. The drive to "create" new human cells and artifacts using human DNA is the logical outcome.

Medicare, IRS kill doctors by alphabet soup

There's this number called the "NPI." The CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid or Can't Manage S(tuff))mandated that any one and any corporation that bills them (for services already done, mind you) needed to add this number, the "National Provider Identifier," by May 23 of this year. (Need I report that quite a few doctors haven't been getting paid properly since? ) Well, out of the blue, the PTB (Powers that Be) sent down a little notice that the names associated with the NPI must now be identical to the ones that the IRS (Infernal Internal Revenue Service) has on file.

The NPI is in addition to the "UPIN" (Unique Provider Identifier Number) the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) number, a whole caboodle of state and insurance "identifiers," and that pesky identifier that your mother, father, and husband gave you: your name.

The NPI also had to be acquired for any and each partnership or practice. Some people had one for themselves and one for their practice. Some did not receive their number for months. And, some were unable to get paid even with all the right numbers in the right place.

Now, many will have to start the application process all over if there's a period after the "M" in "M.D." or a space between the letters in their IRS files.

Here's more from "Health IT News:"

Healthcare IT News
By Diana Manos, Senior Editor

06/17/08

WASHINGTON - Just when doctors thought things couldn't get much worse, experts say, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has thrown another wrench into the already difficult transition to using National Provider Identifiers.

According to a June 11 CMS announcement, doctors will have to reconcile their NPI data with their IRS legal name data in order to get paid.

According to billing experts, this is a disaster waiting to happen. Every aspect of the data must match, including the exact spelling of names, the use of initials and even blank spaces in the data. The slightest discrepancy could send Medicare claims back to the drawing board. Don't go getting married!

After a year-long contingency period, the use of NPIs was required by CMS as of May 23. Both before and since that deadline, doctors have had difficulty getting paid due to a host of complications with CMS and clearinghouse systems, experts say.

Cyndee Weston, executive director of the American Medical Billing Association, said the IRS matching requirement "has blindsided the whole industry."

Weston, who works with small billing companies that submit claims for doctors, said many doctors who began using their NPI identifiers before the deadline have still not received Medicare reimbursements.

"This is going to affect all the doctors we work for. It's going to kill their practices," Weston said.

"I think we haven't seen the worst of this yet. I think we're going to see a big uprising if this continues. No way around it."

Martin Jensen, chief operating officer and chief analyst at the Healthcare IT Transition Group, a consulting group specializing in helping doctors get paid, said physicians aren't getting consistent answers from the CMS or its intermediaries as to what's blocking the claims. The added stress of matching NPI to IRS data is going to compound their troubles.

"This IRS thing is very immediate and one we didn't anticipate," Jensen said. "It's definitely going to set off a cascade of mismatches to data."

The answer most physicians are getting from CMS is to start over with a new NPI enrollment. This could take months, Jensen said. Even doctors who have successfully had their claims paid under NPI could be forced to start over if their IRS data doesn't match, he added.

Are you a provider experiencing difficulty getting paid under NPI? Share your experiences with Senior Editor Diana Manos at diana.manos@medtechpublishing.com.

I don't believe that doctors will actually quit work. Who can, unless our spouse has a good income or we were independently wealthy to begin. What's going to happen is that many more docs will "opt out," or quit accepting Medicare or Medicaid. With the threatened 15%- 20% cut looming over our heads, the extra work and uncertain payment, along with the threat of legal consequences and now no payment) if one comma, period, or space is out of place, I'm not sure I would trust a doc stupid enough to try to play the game.

FDA goes after fraudulent cancer cures

We were just talking about this.

The Washington Post reports

Neil Baker, a retired maker of truck canopies in Helena, Mont., fills about two orders a month for E-Mune through his company, Herbal Remission. It is made from bloodroot, a plant that contains sanguinarine, which has been studied for possible anti-tumor activity. He says one customer's melanoma was cured.

"I really don't know a whole lot about it. All I know is it works," said Baker, 63. "As far as I'm concerned, humanity should have it. But if the FDA doesn't like it, that's okay with me, too."

The FDA's list of "fake cancer cures" is at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/factsheets/fakecancercures.html.

New Bioedge edition available

The weekly newsletter, Bioedge, from the land down under is one of the better bioethics/biotechnology on-line newsletters.

Readers who consider the pro-life movement mainly as a US political matter, may be surprised by the existence of Bioedge, since it is pro-life. The publishers' aim is to:

* to promote evidence-based ethics in medicine
* to promote compassion in medical care
* to highlight the fact that medical excellence is not possible without ethical principles
* to provide high-quality up-to-date information and commentary on bioethics
* to facilitate the participation of health professionals in policy debates on bioethics

This week's headlines include

"Stem cell scientists seek to shed snake oil image"

"California euthanasia lobby scores victory"

"Nature attacks ‘human dignity’"

"Surprise on operating table"

"US Catholic bishops reject embryonic stem cell research"

Coffee drinkers live longer

If true, I may live forever.

According to the Washington Post,

The researchers found that women who drank two or three cups of caffeinated coffee daily had a 25 percent lower risk of death from heart disease during the follow-up (from 1980 to 2004) than non-drinkers. Women also had an 18 percent lower death risk from a cause other than cancer or heart disease compared with non-coffee drinkers.

For men, drinking two to three cups of caffeinated coffee daily was a "wash" -- not associated with either an increased or a decreased risk of death during the follow up, from 1986 to 2004.

The lower death rate was mainly due to a lower risk for heart disease deaths, the researchers found, while no link was discovered for coffee drinking and cancer deaths. The relationship did not seem to be directly related to caffeine, according to the researchers, since those who drank decaf also had a lower death rate than those who didn't drink either kind of coffee.

Everyone else does it

The American Medical Association and the American Medical Student Association are both up in arms about contact between drug companies and other vendors and doctors and medical students. And yet, no one complains when a New York Times story about the fuss contains advertising. (Free registration required -- is "free" anything undue influence?)

I've said it before, perhaps I can be bought, but not for a pen, some samples or lunch.

Meningitis damage repaired with adult stem cells

A 20 year old young man from Bedford, Texas was about to lose his arms and legs due to the clotting of blood in his vessels caused by meningitis but no longer.

The treatment involved doctors and technicians at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Florida, Israel and the Dominican Republic, and one aunt with a computer search.

(While it's wonderful that this young man was rescued, I can't help but wonder how many other experiments are going on in other countries, led by US doctors. Remember that Dr. Wilkerson of Houston did his first experiments using adult stem cells in Brazil.)

From the Fort Worth Star Telegram (Free subscription required):

Lampkin's medical odyssey has taken him from his home in Bedford to a hospital in an island country for a treatment the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved.

Sudden onset
It began when Lampkin, a freshman attending Cisco Junior College on an athletic scholarship, returned home for spring break.

That Friday he was fine. But on Saturday while visiting friends, he complained of having a headache and went to bed early, said Michelle Gideon, Lampkin's godmother.

The next morning -- Easter Sunday -- she found him lying on a bedroom floor.

"One side of his face looked totally normal, but the other side was swollen and looked like he had chickenpox," she recalled.

Lampkin was rushed to Harris Methodist H.E.B. Hospital, where he was treated for bacterial meningitis. Those chickenpoxlike spots were signs of clots cutting off blood flow.

Antibiotics helped stabilize Lampkin, who was transferred to Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas.

There doctors planned to amputate his legs at the knees and his arms at the elbows.

But an aunt searched the Internet for other treatments and found Grekos, who was using adult stem cells to stimulate tissue regrowth, improve circulation and reduce diabetic amputation rates. Grekos, director of cardiology and vascular disease at Regenocyte Therapeutic in Florida, flew to Dallas to escort Lampkin and his mother to the facility.

"If there was any hope of helping this young man we wanted to offer it," he said.

Once Lampkin was in Florida, his blood was drawn and sent to a lab in Israel.

Although it was Passover and the lab staffers were on vacation, they agreed to process the blood, Grekos said. The cells were then replicated into millions of super cells that Grekos' company has branded "Renocytes." The cells can become almost any type of new cell or tissue, he said.

I'm quoted in Texas Monthly

Over the weekend, at the annual convention of the Texas Medical Association, a friend said that she'd read my quote in "Texas Monthly." I assumed she meant an old article in Texas Medicine, the journal of the Texas Medical Association. I was wrong. (And, maybe now I know why I can't get appointed to any of the TMA Councils or Committees!)

In an article titled, "Faith, Hope and Chastity," in the very liberal Texas Monthly the author (without contacting me at all, by the way) used a statement that I made at a 2004 Texas School Board hearing on the content of high school textbooks on sex education.

The board met to consider these textbooks in July and September of 2004. More than one hundred people testified or submitted written testimony. Those who testified in person were given three minutes each to make their case. According to Gordon Crofoot, a specialist in HIV and STD treatment and research, many of the board members appeared totally uninterested in his testimony. Crofoot cares for about one thousand patients in his practice in Houston and is currently seeing more young patients with HIV than he has in his 31 years of practice.

“These textbooks do not meet the criteria and are factually and scientifically incorrect in what they say,” he told the board, “but their major fault is in what they don’t say and the resulting consequences. . . . If we do nothing [about STDs], the direct cost over the next ten years would be $10.6 billion. Comprehensive sex education programs might reduce this cost by fifty percent. Can Texas afford this cost?”

Crofoot was cut off when his three minutes were up. He offered to answer any questions. The board had none. Later in the day, he watched as Beverly Nuckols, a family doctor in New Braunfels opposed to comprehensive sex ed, was asked about the implications of human papillomavirus for men. She answered that HPV affected women differently than men before stating her position that condom instruction, in her experience as a family doctor, would do little good. “Yesterday I saw a boy who had had three partners in the last month,” she said. “He’s had twenty-two partners. He’s eighteen. He uses condoms every time. Unfortunately, a lot of the times he’s drunk and so they break or they don’t work. I mean, condoms are not a solution for teenagers outside of monogamous relationships. They don’t use them right even if we teach them.”

I'm not quite sure why I was chosen as the representative of those who "opposed comprehensive sex ed." I can't quite remember telling the story, but I probably did -- however, I don't think I would say, "I mean . . ." In order to read it in the journal, you'd have to turn to the "continued on page 200-something." However, I believe that the story was to refute testimony that high school boys and girls should be taught that condoms are the answer to all risk from the consequences of sex. My more common story is to note that condoms are more likely to be used correctly by couples in a monogamous relationship, that couples get better as time goes on, and that if a hundred couples use condoms to prevent pregnancy, 11 of them will get pregnant within a year.

The part that I remember addressing was a comment from a nurse practitioner who stated that there was no risk of contracting the Human Papilloma Virus for a girl, if the male wore a condom. The concern, according to her, is the infection of the girl's cervix. This was about the time that the public was becoming aware that cervical cancer is caused by HPV 99% of the time. According to the nurse, the tip of the penis when covered by the condom wouldn't actually touch the cervix. I felt compelled to delicately explain that the most common human sexual activity involves ins and outs, and that there is much more contact and potential for spread of the virus to all of the male and female genitalia -- except for the parts actually covered by the condom.

Let me correct one thing: I'm not against comprehensive sex education. I disagree with some people about the definition of "comprehensive," and believe that anything beyond the basics of very boring biology - the medical and legal responsibilities of human sexual activity - ought to be vetted by the parents in the local school districts. The school is not the place to teach methods and techniques and condoms are not the panacea they're far too often made out to be.

I do believe that the State (schools) should encourage sex within monogamous marriage, since that is the healthiest for individuals, families and their children, and for the taxpayer. While some people do very well in different arrangements, it takes a lot more work and the risks are far greater.

Oklahoma abortion Bill survives Governor's veto

The Oklahoma State Legislature has overturned Governor Henry's veto of an "omnibus" bill containing abortion regulations. (The veto is explained at the United Kingdom site of Medical News Today. Besides gives the best definition of human embryo that I've seen in legislation:

“Human embryo” means a human organism that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

Pro-abortion groups are concerned that the bill requires the facility doctor to perform an ultrasound before every abortion, that the girl or woman be allowed to see it, and that the results be explained to her. Not only is there a requirement to post a notice in the facility informing the women and girls that it is "against the law for anyone, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you to have an abortion" and the abortionist evidently must actually speak the words out loud before each abortion!

Called the "Freedom of Conscience Act," (The text is here, in a Word document) the bill offers protection to any medical professional who refuses to act in a way that goes against his or her conscience.


The best news article that I've found is here, at the "Daily Women's Health Policy Report" of the National Partnership for Women and Families, a group I'd never heard of before. It appears that the main focus has been legislation to protect women in the workplace.
Robert Cole, an Oklahoma native, writing for Associated Content, has explained the bill in this article. Here's an article from The Feminist Majority, with good links.

Ironically, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama, used the objection to abortion by the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator and Obstetrician Tom Coburn, to justify his relationship with the Weatherman bomb-building conspirator and now-college professor, William Ayers. (Ayers is the man who was quoted in the New York Times on September 11, 2001 as regretting that he did not do enough bombing and fighting the US government in the early '70's.)

Stem cell video collection

Here's a video featuring Scotland's Dr. Colin McGuckin, who has been doing research on cord blood stem cells. Dr. McGuckin has worked with the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston and NASA to produce embryonic-like stem cells from umbilical cord blood cells. His lab has gone on to stimulate those embryonic-like stem cells - that no one had to die for - into functional liver cells, masses of liver cells and pancreatic cells that produce insulin and the other hormones vital to the regulation of diabetes.

The video is part of a collection on YouTube, by "Stem cells that work." Visit the YouTube page with great collection of videos about stem cells, including the excellent 50 minute "Google" video, "Everything you wanted to know about stem cells."

Skeptical view on Expelled, the Movie

Michael Shermer, the Skeptic, has seen the movie, Expelled, in advance of its release Friday, April 18th, and posted a review on his blog at Scientific American.

Shermer is a spin doctor who, while purporting to follow reason, is actually better understood by the title he often sports, "skeptic." His near-"single-issue" is atheism vs. religion, specifically Christianity and Christians. He says in one of his books that he joined the Church of Christ (the conservative, no instruments) to impress a girl and never felt the conversion that should have gone with his baptism, but that he tried to justify his choice. He even went so far as to attend Pepperdine University, which is owned and run by the Churches of Christ. Rather than throwing out the bad and keeping or developing a faith in Jesus as he understands the Bible, he set about to prove to the world that religion is just one of the "weird things" that people believe. He loves to debate questions like "Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil?"

Shermer doesn't tell us that the agency that investigated Richard Sternberg's case against the Smithsonian agreed that he had been the subject of discrimination and a behind-the-scenes coordinated move to get him out of the Smithsonian. The case was dropped because he didn't belong to a protected group and he simply had no standing to sue within that agency, since he was not an employee. He did, however lose his lab space - going from a private office to a shared space and the privileges of unlimited access and his own key that he had enjoyed up to that time.

Also, Shermer claims that Sternberg went against policy in the peer review of the article by acting as editor and choosing the reviewers himself. Sternberg tells his side of the story and answers the charges against him at his own website, here, and here.


There's more on the web, including this review from 2006 Dispatches from The Cultural Wars , which details - and is an example of - the political nature of academia, research and the theme of Expelled.

Both sides spin to make a point. But, Sternberg's case appears to be a classic example of academia's - or any closed group with limited power to make change in the open - whisper campaigns and peer pressure to "expel" any doubters, gad-flies on the edge of scientific "consensus." Ironically, I've read that the reason that people don't understand the mutation that brings about changes in the gametes of individuals and eventually species, is that we don't understand really large numbers. Ironically, Intelligent Design began with the discussion about the mathematics involved in the evolution of species.

Nature nurtures debate on namesake

Josh Carter, over at the Bioethics.com blog, comments on the editorial in the April 10th issue of Nature, (subscription only. Joe quoted some but let me know if you need the full text) which uses news of a transgendered (but not transexual) pregnant and bearded woman to ask the age-old question, what is "natural" and whether "natural" is better than "un-natural."

What do you want to bet that the author prefers "natural" fibers for his clothes and "organic," when it comes to groceries? We know that the editorial board has opinions on the good and bad, since the cover of the April 3 issue in front of me has the headline, "Carbon emissions: it's worse than you thought."

Even though the question couldn't have been asked quite this way in the past, Nature asks one of the oldest philosophical questions. Unfortunately, they ask in a juvenile manner. In fact, they beg the question by stating that the approved purpose is to "enhance the human condition."

(As I commented on the Bioethics.com blog) The “natural” uses of medicine and science seek to discover and use our discoveries to encourage, enhance, and/or return to optimal what Aristotle called the “telos,” the “what it is meant to be.” For instance, a splint reduces pain and holds the limb in physiological position as it heals. Hip replacements, glasses and hearing aids aren't normally intended to give you the ability to jump higher or stronger, see with the sight of an eagle or hear a pin drop in the next county -- they are used in an attempt to return your functioning to "normal."

The most active debates in science today are actually discussions about the “nature” of the thing we are studying or manipulating. Is global climate change causing the Earth to heat up more than is “natural,” is it man-made (due to those carbon emissions), or cyclical, etc. Should there be regulation on abortions to for sex-selection or to choose for deafness? Who gets the resources to be the Six MillionTrillion Dollar Woman and why not allow men and women to demand that their limbs be cut off or that their faces be botoxed and surgeried into a human caricature that scares children?

Again, we see the problem with setting up the ethics hierarchy so that "autonomy" trumps "non-maleficence." "I want" ethics over "First, do no harm."

Is there good in the telos, or is there any standard for dividing funding and power in science and medicine? If there aren’t good and bad uses of science and medicine, then “Anything goes,” if you can get the financing, the power, or the ability to do it.

Gynecology and Obstetrics Policy makers respond to doctors on conscience

It appears that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and ABOG (the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologistsmay be about to abort their efforts to change laws concerning conscientious refusal in Washington. It remains to be seen whether they will deliver on their promise to support -- without limits - the Conscientious Refusal to perform or refer for certain procedures. (I'm sorry, I can't resist obvious puns, even on such a serious subject.)

LifeEthics has been covering the controversy over the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology's "Opinion #385, Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine," which states that,

Providers with moral or religious objection should either practice in proximity to individuals who do not share their view or ensure that referral processes are in place. In an emergency in which referral is not possible or might negatively have an impact on a patient's physical or mental health, providers have an obligation to provide medically indicated and requested care."

First, "medically indicated" should be up to the physician and not dependent on autonomy - the patient's wants and wishes. Remember that Joseph Kennedy, the father of John and Robert, had his daughter lobotomized because she was too wild. At that time, according to Joe, the lobotomy was medically indicated.)

Obviously, this is not a moral obligation - but one that can be enforced by the use of the words "standard practice" and "standard reproductive services." In other words, abort, refer, or face lawsuits and risk your board certification. And the definition of "emergency" varies.

We also reported that the Secretary of Health, Michael O. Leavitt, had written to the Presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the professional organization that supposedly sets the standard for these professionals, and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology which certifies and tests OB/Gyns Presidents of ACOG and ABOG. He informed them that they were in danger of risking their own funding for training programs and status by any attempt to override the protections for Conscience in Federal funding regulations.


Even NPR noticed and covered the controversy.

The leaders at the Christian Medical and Dental Association have let CMDA members know that the President of ACOG, Kenneth L. Noller, MD, responded to the Fellows (certified OB/Gyns) last week and Norman F. Gant, MD, the President of ABOG, responded to Secretary Leavitt by letter on March 19, 2008.

Dr. Gant doesn't have a clue what the Secretary is talking about:

I am responding to your letter addressed to me asking about the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s stand with respect or to a physician’s choice to violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking other objectionable action, or risk losing their board certification.” I can only say that I do not know where you came up with any suggestion, much less documentation, that the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology has ever asked anyone to violate their own ethical or moral standards.

And Dr. Noller reassures the Fellows that in this case, an Opinion is just an Opinion (and we're supposed to forget the attempts to change the laws):

We want to be clear the Opinion does not compel any Fellow to perform any procedure he or she finds to be in conflict with his or her conscience and affirms the importance of conscience n shaping ethical professional conduct. For example, while this is not a document focused on abortion, ACOG recognizes that support of or opposition to abortion is a matter of profound moral conviction and ACOG respects the need and responsibility of its members to determine their individual position on this issue based on their personal values and beliefs. We want to assure members with a diversity of views on this issue that they have a place in our organization.
Ethics Committee Opinions provide guidance regarding ethical issues. This Committee Opinion is not part of the “Code of Professional Ethics of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.” This Committee Opinion was not intended to be used as a rule of ethical conduct which could be used to affect an individuals initial or continuing Fellowship in ACOG. Similarly, it is not cited in the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s “Bulletin for 2008,” and “Bulletin for 2008 Maintanence of Certification” and an obstetrician-gynecologist’s board certification is not determined or jeopardized by his or her adherence to this Opinion.
Conscience has an important role in the ethical practice of medicine. While this Opinion attempted to provide guidance for balancing the critical role of conscience with a woman’s right to access reproductive medicine, the Executive Committee has noted the uncertain and mixed interpretation of this Opinion. Thus, the Executive Committee has instructed the Committee on Ethics to hold a special meeting as soon as possible to reevaluate ACOG Committee Opinion #385.

Dr. Nurse? Why not just Doctor?

Get ready for Dr. Nurse, who will call himself/herself "Doctor," but who, after 4 year bachelor's degree in nursing, has gone to the Doctor of Nursing school for two years with a one year internship -- that's compared to the 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, followed by at least 3 years of residency that Family Physicians, Pediatricians and Internal Medicine docs devote to training..

The Wall Street Journal reports (please let me know if you can't access this page) that the National Board of Medical Examiners will begin testing these "DrNP" candidates this fall.

From the Wall Street Journal:

As doctors face shrinking insurance reimbursements and rising malpractice-insurance costs, more medical students are forsaking primary care for specialty practices with higher incomes and more predictable hours. As a result, there could be a shortfall ranging from 85,000 to 200,000 primary-care physicians by 2020, according to various estimates.

So,the supposed reasoning behind the new doctorate is this shortage of primary care doctors. That shortage has been artificially encouraged by all sorts of federal interventions. For some reason, no one's considered paying Family Doctors more!

Instead, there are schemes to divide and re-divide the Medicare "Pie." There are the rural health clinics, which are paid more by Medicare and Medicaid than your local family doctor, pediatrician or internal medicine doc for seeing the same patients. In order to qualify, the clinic -- get the distinction, there, not the doctor, but who ever it is that owns the clinic and contracts with doctors and hires the rest of the staff - must hire at least one "mid level practitioner" to see patients. They can't hire a doctor to do the same work and/or for the same money -- they must hire a Physician Assistant or Nurse Practitioner.

As the article notes, the main reason for the loss of primary care physicians, however, is the low pay for the thinking part of what we do, compared to the procedures of specialists, such as all the varieties of surgeons, urologists, gynecologists and gastroenterologists. We analyze, examine and determine treatment or treatment change, resulting in "Evaluation and Management" visits. Rather than the codes used for procedures, the E&M visits are divided into levels of payment based on a set of check lists and diagnoses. The money from Medicare - followed closely by the insurance companies - has consistently shifted from the office visits toward the procedures.

Needless to say, the smart medical students -- or at least the ones more interested in money than in your family history, living arrangements and whether Junior ate his peas and carrots will become interventional sub-specialists, not a Family Physician or Pediatrician.

A few years ago, Medicare payments increased for home health agencies, which encouraged RN's and LVN's to leave the hospital. Medicare quit paying your family doc to "scrub in" with the general surgeon or orthopedist as an assistant during your gall bladder surgery, colon resection or hip replacement. But, they did pay the surgeon enough to justify the hiring of a nurse practitioner or physician assistant. And studies said there was no difference or even better outcomes, since the "team" worked better in the Operating room and the peri-surgery procedure became more efficient.

(Of course, the NP or PA won't be available to your wife or kids for questions next week, and won't watch the effect of your new level of activity on your blood pressure or diabetes. And your family doctor may no longer even know that she should, since she won't even find out about the surgery until your next visit or hospitalization. But that has nothing to do with the outcome of the surgery, right?)

The increase of Federal funding for Nurse Practitioners has exacerbated the loss of good RN's and LVN's - leading to more of the Federal pie going to nursing schools. And the DrNP will probably have the same effect. The WSJ article mentions the lack of faculty in the nursing schools. The funding will have to come out of the Medicare and Federal "pie."

However, what patients need to consider is whether the DrNP training can truly accomplish the same training in 3 years that our Medical Schools can do in 5 to 7 years. Some have said that mid levels can handle 80% of what doctors do.

It's that 20% that is the difference between knowing what you don't know and planning for the 2 AM crisis.

Secretary of Health Supports Conscience

Secretary of Health Michael O. Leavitt has stepped up to protect the right of conscience and conscientious refusal, specifically in the right not to be forced to commit or be complicit in abortion and other forms of killing. The Secretary has sent a letter to the President of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology warning about a possible conflict with Federal anti-discrimination rulings secondary to ACOG's Ethics Statement #385. (that's a pdf)

See the LifeEthics post explaining the origin of the conflict, here.

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetrics and Gynecology, alerted us to the Press Release sent out by the HHS, most likely due to the fact that the ACOG Ethics Committee is meeting Monday and Tuesday, March 17 and 18.

Here's the news item:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: HHS Press Office
Friday, March 14, 2008 (202) 690-6343

HHS SECRETARY CALLS ON CERTIFICATION GROUP TO PROTECT CONSCIENCE RIGHTS

Unless changes are made, physicians could be forced to refer patients for abortions even if it violates their conscience

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt today expressed disappointment in a new policy put forth by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).He also called on the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) to reject this policy and protect the conscience rights of physicians.

In a letter sent to ABOG Executive Director Dr. Norman Grant today asking for clarification, Secretary Leavitt notes, "It appears that the interaction of the [ABOG Bulletin for 2008 Maintenance of Certification] with the ACOG ethics report would force physicians to violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking other objectionable actions, or risk losing their board certification."

In particular, the Secretary expressed concern that enforcement of this ACOG policy by certain federally-funded entities would violate federal laws against discrimination.

Secretary Leavitt continues, "As you know, Congress has protected the rights of physicians and other health care professionals by passing two non-discrimination laws and annually renewing an appropriations rider that protect the rights, including conscience rights, of health care professionals in programs or facilities conducted or supported by federal funds."

The full text of Secretary Leavitt's letter appears below:

Norman F. Gant, M.D.,
Executive Director
The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology
2915 Vine Street
Dallas, TX 75204

Dear Dr. Gant:

I am writing to express my strong concern over recent actions that undermine the conscience and other individual rights of health care providers. Specifically, I bring to your attention the potential interaction of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology's (ABOG) Bulletin for 2008 Maintenance of Certification (Bulletin with a recent report (Opinion Number 385) issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Ethics Committee on November 7, 2007 entitled "The Limits of Conscience Refusal in Reproductive Medicine".

The ACOG Ethics Committee report recommends that in the context of providing abortions, "Physicians and other health care professionals have the duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers if they do not feel that they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive service that patients request." It appears that the interaction of the ABOG Bulletin with the ACOG ethics report would force physicians to violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking other objectionable actions, or risk losing their board certification.

As you know, Congress has protected the rights of physicians and other health care professionals by passing two non-discrimination laws and annually renewing an appropriations rider that protect the rights, including conscience rights, of health care professionals in programs or facilities conducted or supported by federal funds. (See 42 U.S.C. § 238n, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, § 508). Additionally, threats to withhold or revoke board certification can cause serious economic harm to good practitioners.

I am concerned that the actions taken by ACOG and ABOG could result in the denial or revocation of Board certification of a physician who -- but for his or her refusal, for example, to refer a patient for an abortion -- would be certified. These actions, in turn, could result in certain HHS-funded State and local governments, institutions, or other entities that require Board certification taking action against the physician based just on the Board's denial or revocation of certification. In particular, I am concerned that such actions by these entities would violate federal laws against discrimination.

In the hope that compliance of entities with the obligations that accompany certain federal funds will not be jeopardized, it would be helpful if you could clarify that ABOG will not rely on the ACOG Ethics Committee Report, "The Limits of Conscience Refusal in Reproductive Medicine" when making determinations of whether to grant or revoke board certifications.

Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Michael O. Leavitt
cc:
Kenneth Noller, M.D.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Human embryos cloned in California

Scientists at Stemgen, a La Jolla, California laboratory have published a report on the successful cloning of human embryos in the journal, Stem Cells. (The article is available free, due to the open access policy of the journal.)

The authors are very clear: these are human embryos produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer or cloning. The embryos were clones of the men who donated the fibroblast skin cells.

This study demonstrates, for the first time, that SCNT can be utilized to generate cloned human blastocysts using differentiated adult donor
nuclei remodeled and reprogrammed by human oocytes. Evidence of successful SCNT was shown with DNA fingerprinting analyses of three SCNT cloned blastocysts where embryo genomic DNA was that of the donor fibroblast cell line and were not fragmented oocytes or of parthenogenetic origin.

. . .DNA fingerprints from three SCNT blastocysts were consistent with those of the somatic cell donor employed with no evidence of contamination from the egg donors, indicating that embryonic development was being controlled by the donor cell genome.

The cloned human embryos were produced using donated oocytes less than 2 hours old and the DNA from the skin cells of men. (The eggs were donated by women for the use of other couples, see below.) The use of male donor DNA allows for easier distinction from any possible parthenogenetically produced embryos, which would be female. Any embryos that are male serve to prove the success of the experiment.

In this case, the cloned embryos were actually compared to parthenogenetically produced embryos created by stimulating oocytes to become embryos. These embryos only contain the DNA of the women who donated the eggs. Parthenotes are not clones, because of the rearrangement of genes that happens when the eggs are produced with half of the normal chromosomes which would be matched by the haploid sperm if fertilization took place.

It appears that the group had a very high success rate, with approximately 2/3 or 16 of 25 of the enucleated oocytes producing very early embryonic organisms, which (who) demonstrated cell development and division similar to embryos produced by in vitro fertilization. 10 of the embryos developed to day 3 and 5 of those went to day 5, with the formation of blastocysts. Blastocysts are embryos that have developed enough cells to form a layer of cells around a hollow center, and eventually the inner cell mass, the differentiated grouping of embryonic stem cells at one spot within the sphere. All 5 of the blastocysts formed inner cell masses. The authors do not report any stem cell lines from these embryonic stem cells, but note that they are trying to do so - either from these embryos or from additional cloning.

The Discussion includes speculation that the success rate was so high because the oocyte donors were young women who were able to produce so many eggs through stimulation of their ovaries that there were more than enough for the use by the parents (couples?) to whom they were donating for the production of embryos for implantation and pregnancy. Although the article states that all 3 of the parents were able to get pregnant from the eggs that went to them, that could not have been known at the time the eggs were taken to the experimental lab. Some went to the in vitro lab and some went to the experimenters within less than 2 hours. It takes at least a few hours after in vitro fertilization to determine whether any embryos were formed.

If embryonic stem cell lines are developed from this technique, perhaps some group will compare them to embryonic-like stem cells developed by reprogramming.

Myths on Myths about stem cells

There's a new Public Broadcasting System (your tax dollars at work) television show on "stem cells," "Mapping Stem Cell Research: Terra Incognita."

You don't have to go any farther than the top of the home page, with its picture of a girl in a wheelchair and this quote,

"Some people consider stem cell biology to be the Holy Grail of Regenerative Medicine, while others view embryonic stem cell use as morally wrong."

to see that it's propaganda for embryonic stem cell research and cloning for embryonic stem cells. The authors immediately begin the pattern of using the term "stem cells" for both of the two basic kinds of stem cells: those that require the destruction of a human life and those that don't.

Here are the first three points from the "Myths and Realities" page, with my comments in Bold after each.

MYTH
Stem cell research uses aborted fetuses.
REALITY
Stem cells can be totipotent (a fertilized egg with the “total potential” to give rise to all different types of cells in the body), multipotent (stem cells that can give rise to a small number of different cell types), or pluripotent (stem cells that can give rise to any type of cells in the body except those that are needed to develop a fetus). While pluripotent stem cells could be developed from fetal tissue or even adults, they are best derived from early-stage embryos, a mass of cells that is only a few days old—not aborted fetuses.

The authors skip over the significance of the fact that embryronic stem cells come from destroyed human embryos in the lab, it is true that most stem cell research does not use tissues obtained from abortions. Nowadays, however, the term "fetus" is too often used by the media (and even researchers who ought to know better) for all pre-born human beings. The proper definition of human embryo is the organism from fertilization or the beginning of the first cell division to 7-8 weeks of age. The term "fetus" in humans is properly used from 8 weeks until birth.

More on the claims about what is the "best" source of stem cells and about "embryonic-like stem cells," below.

MYTH
Somatic cell nuclear transfer using human cells involves the use of fertilized eggs.
REALITY
Somatic cell nuclear transfer, the process in which the nucleus from an adult cell is removed and then transferred to an egg whose nucleus has been removed, is the first step in cloning and can be used to create an embryonic stem cell line. However, an egg cell does not need to be fertilized to be used in this procedure—an unfertilized egg cell can be used.

Here, the authors avoid using "embryo" and throw around the terms "unfertilized egg" and "fertilized egg." An embryo is not a "fertilized egg" - once an egg is fertilized, it becomes an embryo. In Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (cloning), the embryo is produced artificially by inserting the DNA of a donor cell and stimulating division and organized development that occurs with natural reproduction. When human DNA is used to produce human embryonic cells in an organized embryo, there can be no doubt that what we are talking about is a human embryo. No matter how he or she is created - or produced - or how severely handicapped by the intentions and actions of the producers, a human embryo is a very young human being.

MYTH
Researchers can use adult stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells. Other treatments using adult stem cells are available to treat conditions such as Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injuries.
REALITY
Adult stem cells lack the versatility and flexibility of embryonic stem cells, making them less likely to lead to medical breakthroughs. Embryonic stem cells have a far greater developmental potential and are more likely to be pluripotent, while adult stem cells are thought to be merely multipotent, or restricted to only certain cell types.

In November 2007, Japanese and American research teams reported new ways to obtain stem cells that behaved like embryonic stem cells from human skin cells—without having to use human embryos. This breakthrough holds great promise in solving the ethical dilemmas of stem cell research, but scientists currently still face technical hurdles and the challenge of finding ways to use these stem cells successfully in medical treatments and therapies.

The biggest lie of all is that embryonic stem cells are more useful in treatments for human beings. Just ask the 20,000 plus in the US alone who have been treated with adult and umbilical cord stem cells or go looking for even one human who has been treated with embryonic stem cells.

While it is true that most ethical, adult stem cells are not "pluripotent," there are many kinds of "multipotent" stem cells and precursor cells in the body. In fact, these are the cells that we probably will use in the future, because they are the cells the body uses to repair itself and because they are less likely to grow out of control or cause tumors.

We are also learning that the desired development of stem cells and precursor cells is influenced by the environment and all sorts of "factors," or chemical and physical signals present in the part of the body where they grow into cells, tissues and organs. The key to future treatment for most disease will probably come from learning to stimulate these conditions and factors.

Besides the ethical dilemma of destroying early human life, embryonic stem cell research has every problem or hurdle that could be cited for adult stem cells: they are difficult to grow, found in small numbers, the cultures may be contaminated with different, undesirable cell lines, and are difficult to control to produce for the exact stem cell line that is needed.

Moreover, no one wants to transplant embryonic stem cells into people. What we want is to produce adult stem cells for treatments.

The last paragraph mentions embryonic-like stem cells. There are several ways to produce stem cells that behave in every way that the unethical stem cells do.

These cells are being used in research to replace the unethical cells produced by destruction of embryos.

The goal of all stem cell research is to have a source of "patient-specific" stem cells from the patient or to find ways to stimulate stem cell production in the body of the patient, when and where they are needed.

The producers of this program are advocating for outdated research methods.While researchers have learned a lot from human embryo research in the past, most of what we use has been developed from research in animal models. The production of new embryonic stem cell lines from human embryos and from cloning is no longer necessary to carry out this research.


(Thanks to Janet, of the Bedford County Citizens Concerned for Human Life, for sending me the link to the website on the show.)

Surfing the web, leaving a trail

It might surprise many Internet surfers and commenters how much a slightly curious website owner knows about them.

I've always believed that I shouldn't post any thing I didn't want published in my hometown newspaper. However, I forget how much information about me is available on the Internet - whether or not I actually post.

There are several for-fee and free sites that allow me to track which pages are viewed and when, how many visitors I get, the viewer's location and the links that referred them to my website. The reports also tell me the type of browser, the length of time and divides the reports by unique visits and pages viewed. There are all sorts of reports that I don't use - or understand why I would want them.

It is cool to see that what I write has been seen - possibly read - by someone from Czechoslavakia this morning.

The images above are pictures of one report that I check most often. It shows the numbers of "hits" or visits to my blog during the last week. The top image is from this morning, the bottom is from January 8th. This website that produces the reports, Sitemeter, filters out most of the newsreader "hits." Another program shows those, inflating the numbers two or three times.

By studying the numbers and who, when and how, I keep trying to figure out how to get more readers.

I haven't found many patterns, by the way, except the "hits" seem to go up about the time midterm and end of the semester school papers might be due.

I am surprised to discover that one of the most read pages on this blog are those which deal with the subject of evolution and public policy. I post on these stories as a way of discussing the intersection of public policy and what I perceive as a bias in the science community. Few people seem to care about "Ethicists for hire," but there is a lot of interest in evolution and public policy.

One of the most frequent searches that links to LifeEthics are those on the movie, "Expelled." LifeEthics has been viewed about 12 times over the last day because someone used Google or another web search engine with the search words, "Expelled, the movie." This morning, my post from last October, "LifeEthics.org: Expelled, the movie (It's about censorship)" is the third link in a search on the US Google. One of those visits was by someone from somewhere in the United Kingdom who used the AOL and Google.uk search engines to view my page for a little over a minute, each time. They clicked on a link on my post to view the Guardian.uk article on Richard Dawkin's reaction to the movie.

There were comments yesterday on "Expelled: movie to explore politics of science" from a reader who objects to my critique of the case of one of the scientists mentioned in the press releases about the movie. This post was from August 23, 2007. That commenter and I are still having a conversation on a story about a Texas Education Agency employee who sent out an email alerting people she knew about a talk on "Creationism's Trojan Horse." Those posts were written in early December,2007 and titled, "Politics Bites," and "Texas Employees, Politics, Science."

Happy New Year! (a little late)

Okay, it's January 9th, and I'm just getting back to the blog after a couple of weeks obsessed with politics, house design, and moving. (We are about to remodel our 60 year old house.)

I do my best to keep raw partisan politics out of this blog. However, this is a Presidential election year here in the US, and so much of our Bioethics is really just Politics.

So, I'm activating a sister blog, "Bioethics and Politics." Don't be surprised if that one gets as much or more attention as LifeEthics.

"Objectivity is Bias" (meaning, healing, integrity)

Our recent conversation about conscience and medicine and the ongoing conversation about science and controversies is reflected in the NPR "Speaking of Faith" replay of an interview with, and publication of an essay by, Dr. Rachel Naomi Remen. (The outline and much of the story is available in text, here.)

"An answer is an invitation to stop thinking about something, to stop wondering."

Dr. Remen speaks of the stories that we share, the meaning that we need to find in those stories and acknowledges that objectivity is in itself a bias. Scary thought: that some data is ignored in science, medicine and public policy because it doesn't fall within the parameters that we've already decided is acceptable.

There's a description that most of us who have any medical training at all will recognize: the med student looking at the veins of strangers and judging their suitability for drawing blood or inserting IV's:

On one very rare summer afternoon off I remember traveling home to visit my parents on the subway, realizing only after a while that I had been unconsciously scanning the veins of the bare-armed people around me, wondering whether my skills with a needle were good enough to allow me to successfully draw blood from them. This sort of training changes the way you see things, the way you think. Gradually things that had been central in my previous life became vague and faded into the background and other things more heavily rewarded became overdeveloped. After a time I just forgot many important things.

Actually, what seems a demeaning way of looking at the human body isn't necessarily a proof that medical training leads to depersonalization and instrumentalization of our fellow humans, if we recognize the new viewpoint as an outgrowth of our wish as students and doctors to heal, prevent and relieve pain. Finding the underlying meaning or connecting it to a story that has a "better" meaning can inform our conscience, help to maintain our integrity and prevent some suffering of our own as profession.

About 20 minutes into the interview, there's the story of Dietert, who continued weekly chemotherapy injections as the only way to continue the contact - the touch and communication - with his doctor. In the meantime, the doctor was depressed because the "only thing" he had was failing to cure the patient. I worry about this: how often do we only offer and only validate active intervention, science and the material, rather than the passive, spiritual or psychological valuable - the intangible moral worth - like the listening that Dr. Remen offers so generously?

Early in the interview, Dr. Remen speaks of her mystic, Orthodox Jewish grandfather who described the birthday of the world as an accident, when the vessels containing the light of the world were broken and the striving of each of us to heal the world, to reveal the light around us and especially in our fellow human beings. I recognize her grandfather's conversation with the world, and with God, as I was raised surrounded by the knowledge of the love of God.

Now, I am just as guilty as anyone else of deciding that if you don't at least relate somehow to the same meaning that I do. If you don't seem to even live in the same reality that I do, you must be wrong and may even be insane. You'd benefit from my "fixing" you (her word, not just mine), either by inundating you with facts and references and some arguing or by some medical or technological intervention, like a nice shot of Haldol ("vitamin H") or an antipsychotic medication.

But I think - I hope - my best skill is listening, learning your language and meanings, and trying to translate between our two perceptions (even if I have to admit to myself that I really think of it as my understanding and your misunderstanding).


What too many people don't realize is that it's actually easier to interfere than to refrain. (So we end up with drug resistant bacteria, because it was easier to write the antibiotic than to explain viruses and risk your anger. Or it's easier to hook you up to chemotherapy, a ventilator or dialysis than to explain that I'm probably not going to be able to cure or even heal you. At least it looks - it feels - like I'm doing something!)

The interview and the essay point to the need for meaning in the practice of medicine beyond "objective" science and even healing that we can achieve as doctors - and society. I love the how and when, the molecules and causes. I believe in the germ theory and the disease model of Western medicine. I need and love my tests and measurements. But what drives me (and gets me in trouble) are the why's and what if's, what is right or ethical. It's probably what drives you, too or you wouldn't be reading this blog.

(I think Dr. Remen's Orthodox Jewish grandfather and I would have had a nice conversation during this season of Hanukkah and Christmas, when our two traditions celebrate light and dedication, revelation and reconciliation, watching and listening expectantly and generously.)

Abortion, miscarriage, and risk to later babies

I'm afraid that the report I blogged about a couple of days ago is being misinterpreted by at least one Pro-life source.

The numbers are impressive enough from a public health and pro-life view point, without ignoring the fact that the original data is 40 to 50 years old (without the advantage of our current Neonatal Intensive Care Units and the wonderful advances in our medical abilities) and that there's no way to know whether the mothers in the study had a miscarriage or an intentional, induced abortion. The authors do report on more recent, reliable data showing an increase after abortion, compared to miscarriage, not the 300% to 900% increase seen in the earlier (and less relevant to today's medical realities) report.

As I said before, we can't really control the numbers of miscarriages, but we can control and decrease elective abortion. That would decrease the numbers of premature births and low birth weight babies who are at such risk for early death and chronic problems like cerebral palsy and lung disease.