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.

"Expelled" Producers make silly, ironic mistake

The producers of the movie "Expelled" owe PZ Meyersa lifetime pass to the movie. And they really need to attend and pass a logic class.

Dr. Myers, a scientist who researches cephalopods, and one of the men interviewed for the movie, was escorted by security from a free event that included a preview of the movie. However, the producers allowed Myer's wife, daughter, and her fiance to enter and view the movie, accompanied by Richard Dawkins.

The producers should be ashamed of themselves. They advertised the event, inviting people to register to see the movie. They did not send out notices that "everyone except x, y, and pz, may see the movie."

And to skip over Red-A Atheist-wanna-be Myers for the original, Dawkins, is just plain dumb. Dawkins has posted his review of the movie, here. (I haven't read it yet.)

Here's the real-time "Pharyngula" blog post about the incident - from PZ Myer's blog (he ran over to the Apple computer store to post on his blog) and there's a follow up post, here.

The entire conversation about the movie has left the original topic of academic prejudice against believers or even doubters, the near topic of the truth about Creation and evolution. The little boys are throwing mud pies and calling each other "dummie." I can't help but believe that the move to expel Myers from the showing was just a power play on the part of some would-be producer intern.

The Producers had a chance to frame the publicity from a PJ Myers appearance (along with that other guy) at their movie. ("Look who's coming to see the movie" will now become "Expelled from Expelled" and "Evidence that "Expelled" is not too bright." and "Myers is a saint.")

Here's the LifeEthics blog conversation that's been going on since October, and which also has a notice about the incident with Myers, Dawkins and the Producers and bouncers. Here's the Christianity Today review, and here's the New York Times. I guess that if all the Producers wanted was publicity, their strategy worked.

"Expelled, The Movie" Conversation Continues

The many Anonymice are still discussing world views on a post from last October.

(In case you wondered where I've been:

We've had our primary, with one hotly contested local Republican race ending in a cliff-hanger. The same seat was decided by 54 votes out of about 20,000 in 2006. This time, it looks like the winner may be decided by about 38 votes out of 30,000, before the mail in ballots are counted. We're expecting a recount.

It turns out that the consequences of politics and policy became personal this last 2 months. We've spent the last year - over 14 months, now - working out a plan to remodel our 65 year old house only to find out that the city adopted the new provisional FEMA flood plain map, and we can't remodel - we have to fill in the basement, tear down the old house, and build 2-3 feet higher. I'll admit that I haven't reacted very well. But, still, the City's bureaucrat literally lost the plan for 6 weeks before telling us that the concrete-poured-in-place house and basement that's still plumb, smooth and level after more than 60 years might float up and turn on its side.)

Politics Bites

Chris Comer, Director of Science Curriculum for the Texas Education Agency (TEA) sent out an email from her State account that was blatantly political in nature and which she knew was a bad idea.

Surprise! So did her bosses.

She made the political move, and got fired for it. Really, advocating a lecture titled, "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse," by Barbara Forrest, a well-known anti-Creationist. That's worse than "not neutral." The title of the lecture is blatantly political.

If you want to see a video of Forrest's lecture, this page hasa link to the video, "Barbara Forrest's Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse."

The Red-A blogger,Pharyngula, The Austin American Statesman, and Nature blogger, "The Great Beyond," among others are blaming the politics on the Texas Board of Education. "The Austringer" blogger has the text of the original memo that Ms. Comer sent out.

In my experience, Ms. Comer's boss has it right. In her memo to the Agency, she notes that Ms. Comer either violated what she knew is TEA policy against employees of the State advocating for a political cause or she does not have the understanding that she should. (There's a link to the memo from the boss on the Austin American Statesman link above, but theres some sort of glich in it - it tries to add Japanese script updates to my computer.)

(In the video, go to 1:01/1:09:52: "These people are fanatics. . . . They know they have to get hold of the kids." A little earlier, Forrest stated that the believers are guilty of projection. From this side, it looks like a case of "Pot, Kettle." The last thing Forrest speaks on is the need to watch out for which judges are appoint, the need to teach the teachers to tell students that belief in a Creator is bad science and that "We need to stop electing people who put up with this crap!")

CNN objects to conscience

This subject again.

CNN, that bastion of upstanding plants ethics, objects to doctors with morals - or at least the ones who act on them.

The CNN video (not a "news piece") shows interviews with a woman who was refused contraception by one doctor and a second interview with another doctor who is Catholic and who does not believe that contraception is moral and so he does not prescribe it.

The reporter is shocked that 60% of doctors feel that it's okay to tell patients our moral views.

The reporter asked the patient whether she felt "rejected." The woman said that she did and that she felt that the doctor was judging her and imposing his morals on her. She said that any doctor who would not do what his patients wanted should not be in practice.

The woman isn't judging or imposing her morals on every doctor, is it?

Doctors make "judgments" all the time. We are not simply dispensers of products that people want. We must "impose" our judgment on patients who smoke (a perfectly legal drug) and drink (ditto) or who have become overweight from eating legal food and choosing not to exercise enough to burn off calories faster than they take them in. We are responsible for determining whether a patient is becoming addicted to pain medications, asking for a note for missing work when they were never sick, or a handicapped parking sticker when they're not disabled.

Much more often, we make judgments about the cause of a patient's symptoms or disease and how best to treat it. Our job is not to make the patient feel good about themselves, although most doctors I've met prefer to do so. What we do is diagnose and treat in order to help the patient be as healthy as we are able.

While I don't object to non-abortifacient contraception, it is an elective service in most cases. It is very rarely necessary to maintain the health of the body of patients. It is truly a "choice."

As I've said before, it would be simpler for people who feel that contraception is important to arrange to pay doctors who will write and dispense those medications and devices to go around to the areas where they are needed.

The alternative is to find a way to trust a doctor who will act against his conscience - to do what he considers the wrong thing for your pet issue - to do the right thing every other time.


Hat Tip: Blog.bioethics.net

Laws, conscience, medicine and bloggers

In contrast to the hype that you might read on blogs and in the press, the Federal District Court judge in Washington has upheld the law of that State. The basic right to not be forced into action that one considers unethical or immoral - the right to liberty - was upheld first, by the Washington State Legislature and affirmed by the Court.

According to the Seattle Times article, there will be a trial next year and the "rules were meant as a compromise after long, contentious hearings and intervention by Gov. Christine Gregoire, who threatened to replace members of the Board of Pharmacy who didn't vote to protect women's rights." (Emphasis mine, BBN.)

The judge ruled in favor of State Law and overturned regulations passed by the Washington State Board of Pharmacy which were changed in July of this year to require that "pharmacies must maintain at all times a representative assortment of drugs in order to meet the pharmaceutical needs of its patients." The plaintiffs, two individual pharmacists and a corporate pharmacy were asking to be allowed to follow their previous practices "refuse and refer."

The Court's ruling is posted here at the Seattle Times website, which also has a fairly good review of the case to this point, here. (I've saved copies of each, so let me know if they disappear).

Judge Ronald B. Leighton issued an injunction that delays the force of the regulation, since it appears that the regulation violates laws passed by the Washington State legislature to protect the rights of individuals:

"As a part of the Health Care Access Act, the legislature expressed the recognition “that every individual possesses a fundamental right to exercise their religious beliefs and conscience.” RCW 70.47.160(1). The Legislature further acknowledged that “in developing public policy, conflicting religious and moral beliefs must be respected.” RCW 70.47.160(1). Accordingly, the Legislature provided that “no individual health care provider, religiously sponsored health carrier, or health care facility may be required by law or contract in any circumstances to participate in the provision of or payment for a specific service if they object to so doing for reason of conscience or religion.” RCW 70.47.160(2)(a). No person may be discriminated against in employment or professional privileges because of such objections. RCW 70.47.160(2)(a). The right of conscience, however, is not intended to result in a patient being denied timely access to any service included in the basic health plan. RCW 70.47.160(2)(b).

"An identical right of conscience was included within the Insurance Reform Act adopted by the Legislature in 1995. RCW 48.43.065."

(emphasis in italics are mine, BBN)


The regulation itself was poorly written.

The phrase "at all times" is a big problem. Would that mean that all pharmacies must change their hours so that they are open or on call 24/7? As to the phrase, "representative assortment," that might mean different things to different people. The wording open to the widest interpretation, however, is the phrase, "pharmaceutical needs of its patients." (Let's forget that pharmacies don't have patients, pharmacists do.)

The "pharmaceutical needs" of patients is wide open to interpretation, especially in the case of Plan B. I've covered the evidence (here) that indicates that Plan B only works to prevent ovulation and fertilization the 5 days or so of the month before and the day of ovulation and the lack of evidence that it acts in any way as an abortifacient. Unfortunately, this isn't acknowledged in the court's ruling or by any of the other parties in the case.

I depend on pharmacists to evaluate the prescriptions I write for my patients. They have often helped me by catching and refusing to fill scripts because they knew about drug interactions, allergies, and fraudulent prescriptions when I didn't. I would like for them to notify me if they refuse to fill my scripts, but their professional judgment is the very thing we physicians and patients are depending on, isn't it? If we force them to do what they believe to be wrong, the only pharmacists we'll be left with will be people who will do wrong because they were "only doing their job." (Where have we heard that before?)


There's an especially over-wrought emotional discussion over at the Women's Bioethics Project blog. No posts are published without the permission of the author, who evidently has some pretty strong feelings involved. I added to the intensity of the silliness and self-righteousness with my comments, I'm afraid. (So far, they haven't posted my remarks from 12 hours ago about cigarettes as a legitimate treatment for priapism [an old remedy - no longer advised - that was actually used as late as the '80's], prescribing of wine as a relaxant, and the fact that I make it a policy not to prescribe medications until they are on the market long enough to be proven by lots of other doctors' patients.)


As Mick Jagger sang, "You can't always get what you want. . . but you can try sometimes to get what you need."

(edit - typos fixed at 5:30 PM CST 11/14/07)

Catholic Bishops to Allow Plan B in Emergencies

Can anyone be forced to act against his conscience? Do religious convictions have any weight in the law? How far can the courts go to make a person do an act that he believes is unethical or immoral?

I hope these questions are not ignored due to the sensationalism that surrounds emergency contraception.

The Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have decided to allow the doctors in Emergency Rooms at the Catholic hospitals in their State to prescribe Plan B for rape victims. (More here.) The courts had ruled that the hospitals would be required to follow state law mandating that all emergency rooms prescribe the pills, even those belonging to religious organizations which object to contraception and abortion.

The law requiring all hospitals to prescribe Plan B to rape victims, which passed in June and takes effect Monday, does not allow for an ovulation test. Instead, it requires a pregnancy test.

Barry Feldman, a spokesman for the Connecticut Catholic Conference, said that since the bill passed, the bishops have questioned the feasibility of the original policy because of "further revelation by them about the state of existing science and the lack of definitive teaching by the church and the fact that there are many who are affiliated with the church that believe the ovulation test isn't necessary."

Feldman said the bishops' decision to allow Plan B to be used for all rape victims in the hospitals does not mean that the bishops' personal beliefs have changed. Also, they still believe the law is seriously flawed and should be changed to allow an ovulation test.

In June, Bridgeport Bishop William E. Lori said the new law violated religious liberties and suggested that politicians might force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or euthanasia.

Sen. Jonathan Harris, D-West Hartford, who worked to negotiate a compromise bill with the church, said lawmakers have no interest in taking such steps.

"Our efforts had only one goal, to protect the victims of rape," he said. "There was no other agenda. It was started to just do that."

Rape crisis counselors in Connecticut said there have been unclear and inconsistent policies for supplying Plan B to victims who seek treatment in emergency rooms across the state, including some in nonreligious hospitals.

According to Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services Inc., 40 percent of rape victims were not offered or did not receive the full dose of emergency contraception at the hospitals where they were treated during the first half of 2006.

Plan B, a package of pills containing levonorgestril, a progesterone, is also called "the morning after pill."

My review, "Plan B, How It Works and Doesn't Work," with links to reliable information and research papers, is here.

It appears that the bishops aren't just caving in to legal pressure, but were convinced that the pill works, when it works, by delaying ovulation or keeping the sperm from getting to the oocyte. There is quite a bit of evidence that this is true and none (from some pretty good studies in animals and ovulating women) that the Plan B formulation prevents implantation or causes an implanted embryo to be aborted.

The biggest problem now is that the courts in Connecticut dared to over-rule a religious principle and conscience issue in the first place. At what point can the state force men and women to act against their consciences?

An oldie but a goodie - new conversation

The November 2006 post, "Beyond Belief: the Institutional Delusion of Scientism" commenting on the Belief net symposium on science and religion has a new life - with comments.

Paul Booth has left a new comment on your post "Beyond Belief: the Institutional Delusion of Scien...":

"If you ask me (or read this far in the blog), a rational universe that is subject to measurements and study that yield consistant and ever sharper, more focused results in different labs and at different times does not preclude a Creator"

I dont think a single participant in the beyond belief conference would claim otherwise. Science does not claim disprove the existence of God. It does however demonstrate that 'God' as 'he / she / it' is conventionally conceived and depicted is incredibly unlikely. Science also is making inroads into understanding why we are likely to be susceptible to a belief in God.

Of course none of this affects me as a Jedi.

While "science" doesn't claim anything, the practitioners of science may, given a forum.

However, if they have no more proof - and don't expect to - if the who belief that there is nothing to believe in is a matter of faith, what's the difference between religion with a Creator and religion of science?

Doctors, faith and helping the poor

The Chicago Tribune published an article on a study concerning doctors who help the poor. I haven't read the actual article, yet, but I wonder how the "poor" are defined and question the definition of "religiosity" vs. spiritual.

For one thing, I'm not sure how, as a Family Physician, I would separate my patients into poor and not-so-poor. Currently, I work for other doctors, but their patients seem similar to the ones I cared for when I had my own practice, although the trend is away from Medicaid, which pays very little compared to Medicare and private insurance. (Medicaid pays less than the office overhead for the time it takes to see the patient.)

There seems to be a fair mix in the patients that come to our practices through the hospital call lists because they don't have a doctor. Also, I frequently hear that this patient or that has an agreement with the doc to pay what and when she or he can. I'm also reminded by the staff that the patient is "self-pay." These patients are "coded" or charged as little as we legally can without committing the felony offense of insurance or Medicare fraud. (The law says we can't charge less than we would charge a Medicare patient and we can't charge a "discounted" rate without risking charges of fraud. There is a little bit of lee-way, however, in calculating the risk, history necessary, etc.)

The study, based on a mail survey of more than 1,100 American physicians, found that 31 percent of doctors who described themselves as religious reported that they serve primarily poor or uninsured communities, compared with 35 percent of doctors who had no religious affiliation.

Those two figures were statistically equal, but other comparisons showed that doctors were more likely to treat underserved populations if they considered themselves highly spiritual, felt that their religious beliefs influenced their medical practice, or said they were raised in a family that encouraged service to the poor.

How do you determine "religious" if not by those who "considered themselves highly spiritual, felt that their religious beliefs influenced their medical practice?"

BTW, I've been away while studying for and taking my every-7-years American Board of Family Physicians National Boards. I won't know the results until mid-September, but at least there's no dead lines looming ahead of me for a while. Yeay!!!

Sam Harris at the Aspen Ideas Festival

Sam Harris, author of the books, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation, was given a forum at the Aspen Ideas Festival. I'm not sure how I ended up finding the video, "Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World," but I believe I was referred by one of the Science Blog forums. I can't remember which one, and, as far as I can tell, only one of these blogs is owned by a believer.

Which is probably how I got lost. There's a bit of a row, right now, concerning the derision of believers by "Pharyngula." (Which is surprising, since that seems to be his purpose in blogging.) I was once again struck by the idea that science and religion are incompatible, chased some links, and ended up watching a video from the Festival.

Mr. Harris spent his time at the Festival blurring the edges between “Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,” with a little Hinduism and Buddha thrown in to strengthen his point. There doesn’t seem to be any difference in his viewpoint, although he does grudgingly admit to a questioner that “moderate” Christians and Jews have been influenced by the belief in human rights and equality by secular, outside influences, while Muslims have remained isolated and so have not “evolved.”

Beyond the fallacy of treating all religions as one, Mr. Harris denies that atheism is a religion, using his second favorite technique, mockery and one liners designed to encourage his listeners to laugh with him. He mocks the Second Commandment: “Is this as good as it gets? . . . How about, ‘don’t deep fry all of your food?’” and mocks the idea that agnostics are a separate from believers and atheists by saying, “I haven’t met too many agnostics about Zeus.”

The biggest logical fallacy in which Harris engages is his statement that religions change from without, due to secular ideas about human rights. In fact, the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that we are all created in the image of God.

While Christians have cited the fact that very young children naturally display concern for others and seem to understand the concepts of justice and beauty as proof of God, Mr. Harris believes that this actually disproves the “usefulness” of religion. While he admits that 70% of (I presume, U.S.) college graduates believe in the Biblical God, he strongly commends “peer review” in science.

His major point seems to be that “much of the Bible and Koran is life-destroying gibberish.” He dismisses the rest. While he insists that believers who promote their religions or teach their children to follow them are enabling religious fanatics who kill in the name of religion, shouldn’t Harris, who has been called an "Atheist Evangelist" take responsibility for enabling those who kill and enslave to suppress religion, as in China? Or the Western academic powers that be that harass, deny recommendations, employment and funding to those who fall out of favor, such as Richard Sternberg (see the review at Sternberg's site and at National Public Radio)?

Christian Docs' Ethics on The Moral Worth of Human Life

Yesterday, at the annual meeting of the House of Representatives of the Christian Medical and Dental Association, three statements on ethics were approved. I don't have all of the text or the final versions of any of them at this time and will report on them in more detail later, but I would like to brag on the our Ethics Commission and the work of the House. (I'm the Chair of the Family Medicine Section.) Watch for more here and - hopefully - in the Press. I'll post links as soon as they're published on line.

The Chair, Dr. Robert Scheidt also gave one of the workshops on Conscience issues, which I'll discuss after I get home. At the meeting, he introduced statements on "Abuse of Human Life," "Human Stem Cell Research and Use" and "Human Life: Its Moral Worth."

These are statements from an unabashedly Christian world view - with strong logic and historic background. And some of the most elegant language on "person," the image of God, and the moral worth of human life. Here's a bit of the wording - draft version:

Every being of human origin is a person. A person is not a Homo sapiens with the superadded quality of "personhood." Some, however would attempt to withhold moral worth from human beings unless they "qualify" as persons. The status of "personhood" cannot be conferred by society.

The beginning and continuity of the moral worth of human life are concurrent with human life itself. Human worth begins with the one-cell human embryo and lasts lifelong. A living human being is an integrated organism with the genetic endowment of the species Homo sapiens. . . . Thus a human being, despite the expression of different and more mature secondary characteristics, has genetic and ontological identity and continuity throughout all stages of development from formation of the human being until death.

There is beautiful language on the image of God, the sacred nature of human life, and the love of God. I will post these more fully as soon as I get home. Now, I have to go catch a 7 AM plane.

Racism, politics, and really big numbers

Last week's announcement that three different labs have managed to not only reproduce work showing that certain genes are responsible for embryonic-stem-cell-ness, but actually managed to turn adult cells into embryonic-like stem cells has been widely reported and comment upon.

Times Magazine displays blatant racism and not a little naivete in their report, "Japan gets ahead of the curve":

But it was March 2006, just months after the South Korean stem-cell scientist Hwang Woo Suk—who had become an international sensation after claiming to have cloned a human embryo, a first—had been exposed as a fraud. As another Asian stem-cell scientist announcing a surprise advance, Yamanaka knew his peers would put him under the microscope. (emphasis mine)

Yep, all them furinner's look alike to us.

Actually, the Times reporter mentioned the most important factor in any increased scrutiny and pressure from Yamanaka's peers: ". . . because Yamanaka did not use human embryos, his technique offered researchers everywhere a way to sidestep the ethical controversies that have dogged the field since its birth."

We've been treated to examples of politics in science each time non-destructive stem cells news breaks out. I reported on the comments at the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities meeting last October. David Stevens, MD, CEO of the Christian Medical and Dental Association describes the scenario:

. . . proponents rushed to the microphone to do damage control and claiming we must continue embryonic stem cell research since we can't predict which technique will provide cures. With 1,200 clinical studies underway using adult stem cells and none using embryonic ones as well as these two breakthrough studies in the last year, it is becoming a pretty sure thing on simple pragmatic grounds where we should be putting our tax money. It is like predicting whether the San Antonio Spurs are going to beat your local Saturday afternoon pick up basketball team.

The emperor has no clothes but continues to ride smiling through the public. Sooner or later the people notice."

(Go, Spurs, Go! Yeaaay Champs! Sorry, couldn't resist.)

We've read that the results we keep seeing from adult stem cells are simply a matter of the numbers - more US tax dollars are spent on adult stem cell research than on embryonic stem cell research, and embryonic stem cell research is much newer than adult. But let's look at the facts: Yamanaka did his work in Japan, and Nature is published in the United Kingdom. Nope, no influence from US tax payer funding or the lack there of. Perhaps it's just that non-destructive stem cell research actually produces reliable, frequent results?

But maybe, just maybe, if we get out our tin hats and/or risk assuming a duty to die, we might contemplate there's Something Else going on. A UK conspiracy? Or is Someone higher up messing with the United States Congress?

Dr. Stevens:

Ironically, the day this bill passed last fall, the news announced the breakthrough study that showed that amniotic stem cells could become endoderm, ectoderm and mesoderm. They have all the benefits of embryonic stem cells but none of the risks. They don't turn into cancers, they are readily available, genetically stable and easier to control. This year, the ground breaking study on dedifferentiating mouse skin cells into embryonic stem cells hit the front pages and TV screens the same day as the House vote and stole its thunder. Though this technique has a number of hurdles to cross before being applicable in humans, I'm beginning to wonder if God has a great sense of humor!

(Go, God, Go! Had to do it.)

And Dr. Stevens is not the only one to notice that there are just too many coincidences, what Yogi Berra called, "Deja vu, all over again."

A very funny Washington Post Op-Ed by Rick Weiss, entitled "Darn cells, Dividing Yet Again!" could be used to discuss humans' need to attribute natural phenomena with supernatural explanations with these guys, over at The Edge. Or at least a cosmic conspiracy.

Go read the whole thing, but here's a bit:

Is there a plot afoot?

Lots of lobbyists, members of Congress and even a few scientists are starting to think so.

"It is ironic that every time we vote on this legislation, all of a sudden there is a major scientific discovery that basically says, 'You don't have to do stem cell research,' " Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) sputtered on the House floor on Thursday. "I find it very interesting that every time we bring this bill up there is a new scientific breakthrough," echoed Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), lead sponsor of the embryo access bill. Her emphasis on the word "interesting" clearly implies something more than mere interest.

"Convenient timing for those who oppose embryonic stem cell research, isn't it?" added University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan in an online column. (The bill passed easily, but not with a margin large enough to override Bush's promised veto.)

Even some scientists, those exemplars of rationality, couldn't help but wonder if somebody, somewhere, was -- if not out to get them -- at least taking some pleasure in irritating them.

"I don't think this is the most sensitive timing for Nature to release these papers," said Harvard stem cell scientist Kevin Eggan, the lead author of one of the articles that appeared in the London-based journal on Thursday.

Twice in six months. What are the odds?

Religion and zealotry of one sort or another

The National Review has published an editorial by Colleen Carroll Campbell on the resignation of St. Louis' Archbishop Raymond Burke from his position on the board of that city's Children's Hospital foundation. The Archbishop objected to the invitation to the outspoken (and vocal) proponent for abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Cheryl Crow.

Ms. Campbell states the problem well:

Today’s religious leaders increasingly face a double standard when it comes to their public pronouncements: They can say what they want as long as they express politically correct views or stay mum on hot-button social issues. Where secular pundits and celebrities are given free reign to plead their case to the public, religious leaders are derided as theocrats for injecting religiously derived moral principles into political debates. This stifling of religious voices is intended to prevent religious conflicts in the public square. But it also prevents the most fundamental form of deliberation necessary to the functioning of a pluralistic democracy: honest debates about right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood.

However, I would add that the zealotry of some who complain about activism by any and all religious people in any public dispute is near-religious in itself.

A case in point:

The journal, Nature Neuroscience published an unsigned, unattributed essay in the April, 2007 issue, entitled "Shaky arguments against stem cells: Recent attempts to use scientific findings to discredit embryonic stem cell research are distorting the state of the field." (I'm not sure whether this requires registration to view.)

(Amazing, huh, that the editors could afford so much space for their title, but none for their own names?)

The editorial is nothing but a call for all embryonic stem cell research and nothing short of the same, without comment, without restrictions.

In order to illustrate their point, the authors (whoever they are), discuss an essay written to inform the readers of First Things. The authors (whoever they are) state that the content of the article is "correct," but feel it necessary to stress that the journal is a "conservative Roman Catholic magazine" and cite Maureen L. Condic, Ph.D. for "trying to spin science—both its problems and successes—to fit an anti-scientific purpose."

In fact, they seem most offended that Dr. Condic commented at all.

As I wrote the editors, the editorial reflects a deep bias and a "spin" of its own, discrediting their journal and "distorting the state of the field," indeed.

If we knew who these anonymous authors were, perhaps we could ask them why their own position is "right" and the Dr.s' is "wrong." I would also ask them why they insist on bringing religion and politics into the debate, when Dr. Condic so obviously - as they state - avoided both.

Artificial Intelligence vs. believers

The subject of believers and those who actively oppose them is only tangential to this blog. However, anyone exposed to cutting edge technonology, futurism, and, especially, transhumanism and enhancement will eventually run across at least one fundamental atheist.

George Dvorsky, transhumanist and anti-theist, has published his review of a movie called "The Jesus Camp." In fact, he titled the post, "The Jesus Camp and the art of Brainwashing Children."

As interesting as it is that Mr. Dvorsky discusses the mimetic convergence of Islam and Christianity rather than noting the divergence(since both teach that we can trace our history back to Abraham and his God), I was stirred to post from the gallery of the Senate of the Texas Legislature by this remark of one of the visitors to the site:

The best news, however, is that AI, when it is invented, will be immune to religion; I suspect it this will remain true even if the AI is designed by a deeply religious person. (anyone agree/disagree?) And what's the likelihood of a religious person being the maker of the first AI? Are there many christian AI programmers?

Majority of Doctors Oppose Abortion

In that NEJM article that I blogged on earlier, there are numbers about the "Intrinsic religiosity" of physicians, based on the answers of the 1000 or so docs who answered the questionaire.

The authors seem to have no feeling for the history of bioethics as an outcome of the Holocaust or Tuskegee. Instead, the fuss and bother is over docs refusing to follow through on legal killing. (Okay, I will admit that the authors might be trying to avoid in their analysis what they seem to see as a problem: "for the doctor to describe that objection to the patient." Heaven forbid -oops- that anyone name "wrong," wrong!)

27% of responders measured moderate and 36% were high on the "Intrinsic Religiosity" scale:

"We also assessed physicians' intrinsic religiosity and religious affiliations. Intrinsic religiosity — the extent to which a person embraces his or her religion as the "master motive" that guides and gives meaning to his or her life (12) — was measured on the basis of agreement or disagreement with two statements: "I try hard to carry my religious beliefs over into all my other dealings in life" and "My whole approach to life is based on my religion." Both statements are derived from Hoge's Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale13 and have been validated extensively in previous research.(13,14,15) Intrinsic religiosity was categorized as being low if physicians disagreed with both statements, moderate if they agreed with one but not the other, and high if they agreed with both."

10% of the docs said they had no religious affiliation, while 18% identified as Protestant, 22% as Catholic, 16% as Jewish, and 14% as "other." The surveyors defined other as "a category that included Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon, Muslim, Eastern Orthodox, and other."

52% of the docs object to abortion for failed contraception, by the way and 46% object to providing contraception to children 14 - 16 years old when their parents object.

Oddly, the authors cite a lack of consensus about these matters of conscience, and don't seem to question the moral rightness of any of the practices, only to the fact that a some few docs might actually follow through on their beliefs.

And watch out, docs! The authors suggest a need to actually observe your reaction when patients ask for abortions.

Bad, Bad Doctors (Religious, with Consciences)

The NEJM has a free on line article evaluating the results of a survey of doctors, "Religion, Conscience and Controversial Clinical Practices," which is a perfect example that far too much of the effort of "medical ethics" or "bioethics," goes into deciding who can be killed.

"In recent years, several states have passed laws that shield physicians and other health care providers from adverse consequences for refusing to participate in medical services that would violate their consciences. For example, the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act protects a health care provider from all liability or discrimination that might result as a consequence of "his or her refusal to perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any particular form of health care service which is contrary to the conscience of such physician or health care personnel." In the wake of recent controversies over emergency contraception, editorials in leading clinical journals have criticized these "conscience clauses" and challenged the idea that physicians may deny legally and medically permitted medical interventions, particularly if their objections are personal and religious. Charo, for example, suggests that the conflict about conscience clauses "represents the latest struggle with regard to religion in America," and she criticizes those medical professionals who would claim "an unfettered right to personal autonomy while holding monopolistic control over a public good." Savulescu takes a stronger stance, arguing that "a doctor's conscience has little place in the delivery of modern medical care" and that "if people are not prepared to offer legally permitted, efficient, and beneficial care to a patient because it conflicts with their values, they should not be doctors.""

"If physicians' ideas translate into their practices, then 14% of patients — more than 40 million Americans — may be cared for by physicians who do not believe they are obligated to disclose information about medically available treatments they consider objectionable. In addition, 29% of patients — or nearly 100 million Americans — may be cared for by physicians who do not believe they have an obligation to refer the patient to another provider for such treatments. The proportion of physicians who object to certain treatments is substantial. For example, 52% of the physicians in this study reported objections to abortion for failed contraception, and 42% reported objections to contraception for adolescents without parental consent."

Not surprisingly, these "controversial" "legal" practices are abortion "for failed contraception," giving "birth control to teenagers between the age of 14 and 16 if their parents do not approve," and "sedation to unconsciousness in dying patients." For some reason, the authors do not give results or even discuss the other "Controversial Issues in Medicine": Physician assisted suicide, withdrawal of artificial life support or abortion for congenital anomalies.



First, "elective" abortion is neither mandatory nor beneficial.

Second, I guess that the first discussion must be whether or not "legal" implies that a practice is necessarily "beneficial," moral, or required.

Third, the legality of providing contraceptives to minors under the age of consent, against their parents' wishes, is questionable, except in Federally funded clinics, where it is mandated under Title X funding for Family Planning clinics.

Fourth, it is illegal in most states to participate in "Physician Assisted Suicide."

And fifth, the "monopolistic control" is distraction. Are all professionals who are licensed by the government required to do whatever is demanded of them by whomever can use their services? Let's see: architects, engineers, all those media types?

If so, I'd like to ask Alta Charo - who, after all is a licensed lawyer, working for a State University that receives Federal funds - to give me some good, solid quotes that do not advocate the taking of human life or the defamation of those of us who act on our convictions.





Take a look at the survey and the article. Take the survey.

Do you agree with the "bioethicists" quoted in the introduction?

Texas HPV Vaccine

One of my goals is to translate between the pro-life and pro-family community that has a religious background and those who do not necessarily count themselves as religious. Sometimes, it seems that's all I do.

Governor Rick Perry evidently surprised most of the world with his brave move concerning a vaccination against Human Papilloma Virus, a group of sexually transmitted viruses that cause abnormal pap smears and cervical cancer. While he follows a 2003 law, he has been criticized by the Family Policy Center, the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons and many Texas conservatives. Even the Republican Party of Texas issued a statement calling on him to rescind his Executive Order.

Although I normally agree with these groups, I think they are wrong in this case. The Christian Medical and Dental Association agrees with me. And Governor Perry, since he went so far in his EO to protect the right of parents to "opt out."


The vaccine will not interfere with our efforts to teach and encourage our children to abstain from sex outside of marriage. In fact, I hope that by giving the vaccination before 6th grade, younger children will be less likely to connect the vaccine with sexual activity and will be protected when they do have sex for the first time. The fact that the vaccine is so necessary could also be used to teach the fallacy of "safer sex."

The research showed that younger girls show stronger immune responses to the vaccine than older girls and women. And logically, vaccines only work before contracting the disease.

Studies of teen girls have shown that over 2 years, 40% to 80% of them will become positive for HPV, and over 10% of them will have the high risk virus, HPV 16, that is associated with over 50% of cervical cancers. Admittedly, the infected girls must be exposed. However, contrary to popular opinion, the viruses can be spread by the hands during heavy petting.

Besides the pain and cost of the cancers and the 400 deaths per year in Texas from cervical cancer, however, there is the cost of the early precancerous changes from the viruses. There are the every three to six month repeat paps and HPV tests, the freezing and lasers, and the weakened cervices that can result in premature labor.

Gardasil, while new, is produced the same way most insulin for diabetics is manufactured these days: by recombinant DNA. It’s not a weakened or killed virus, isn’t grown in human tissues and doesn’t contain mercury. The vaccine contains copies of antigens that are part of the outside covering of the virus, not the DNA that causes infection and cancer. Vaccinated patients make antibodies against four strains that cause the most harm.

In contrast, the last two vaccines mandated for schoolchildren in Texas are manufactured using human tissue cultures that resulted from abortions. Many parents object to the “Chicken Pox” Varicella and Hepatitis A vaccines – although the children were not aborted in order to obtain the vaccine, and there is some ethical support for accepting the vaccines because the unethical act is isolated from the intention and act of the vaccine.

(Edit: The Hepatitis B vaccine is also made by recombinant DNA, and not one of the un-ethical methods. This was added to strengthen the case for the safety of the recombinant technique, similar to the evidence due to the wide spread use of insulin from recombinant DNA. I could have added that Hepatitis B is another virus that is unlikely to be spread by casual contact in school. That fact is also true of another mandated vaccine for Tetanus - what we used to call "lock jaw.")

The vaccine against Hepatitis B, which is spread by blood and bodily fluids, has been mandated for school children in Texas since 1998.

The Texas Legislature gave the Governor the power that he exercised as the head of the Executive Branch: the power to regulate the Medical Board and the Department of State Health Services. The Legislature has passed law as recently as 2003 that allows the Department and Board to add vaccines as they deem them necessary.

The Governor's language strongly promotes the parental right to "opt out" and orders the Department to make the “opt out” provision available on the Internet. Currently, parents have to make a request in writing for an affidavit, which has to be notarized and then delivered to the Department - eventually the Department mails the exemption to the parent. (Can you imagine? There's no way we could have ever managed to get parental consent forms this complicated or the process so convoluted for abortions.) The Governor's language would make the opt out process easier.

Governor Perry’s Executive Order: here.

The Texas Education Code: here.

Gardasil prescribing information: here.

Statement from the Christian Medical And Dental Association: here.

Texas Governor pulls a fast one (HPV shot)

In all the excitement about Texas becoming the first State to mandate the vaccination against a Sexually Transmitted Disesase, no one seems to have noticed that Governor Rick Perry ordered the Health Department to make it easier on parents who wish to opt out on vaccinations for their children.

Parents' Rights. The Department of State Health Services will, in order to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children's health care, modify the current process in order to allow parents to submit a request for a conscientious objection affidavit form via the Internet while maintaining privacy safeguards under current law.

The current relevant law is all over the website containing Texas Statutes. I'm not at all sure that I tracked it all down, but most of it is in The Education Code, especially Chapter 38 and some is in the Health and Safety Code. The "opt out" provision is in 38.001, which was passed in 2003. I believe that this law was the first time in Texas that there was a formal way for parents to object for philosophical reasons, without having to claim health risks.


However, the law concerning the paperwork is in 161.0041 of the Health and Safety Code, and has higher requirements than the parental consent for abortion rulings!

Sec.A161.0041. IMMUNIZATION EXEMPTION AFFIDAVIT FORM.
a) A person claiming an exemption from a required immunization based on reasons of conscience, including a religious belief, under Section 161.004 of this code, Section 38.001 or 51.933, Education Code, or Section 42.043, Human Resources Code, must complete an affidavit on a form provided by the department stating the reason for the exemption.
(b)The affidavit must be signed by the person claiming the exemption or, if the person is a minor, the person ’s parent, managing conservator, or guardian, and the affidavit must be notarized.
(c)A person claiming an exemption from a required immunization under this section may only obtain the affidavit form by submitting a written request for the affidavit form to the department.
(d)The department shall develop a blank affidavit form that contains a seal or other security device to prevent reproduction of
the form. The affidavit form shall contain a statement indicating that the person or, if a minor, the person ’s parent, managing conservator, or guardian understands the benefits and risks of immunizations and the benefits and risks of not being immunized.
(e)The department shall maintain a record of the total number of affidavit forms sent out each year and shall report that information to the legislature each year. The department may not maintain a record of the names of individuals who request an affidavit under this section.

Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 198, Sec. 2.163, eff. Sept. 1,
2003.

In order to opt-out, the parent has to send a "written request" for the paperwork to the Department. The law actually states that the legal affadavit has to have "a seal or other security device" to prevent copying. Can this be done online?

Texas: First to Mandate STD Vaccine

That'll shock 'em on the coasts, won't it? Not to mention France and England, since the story has gone global.

Governor Rick Perry reportedly (free registration required) has signed an order mandating that teen girls in the State of Texas receive the vaccine against four strains of the Human Papilloma Virus by 12 years old and that the State pay for the vaccines that are not covered by health insurance. Two of these strains cause most cases of cervical cancer, and the other two cause most of the big, ugly genital warts that, while they don't cause cancer, can obstruct the urine or bowels and definitely cause bleeding and pain.

We all hope that our daughters and sons will meet their perfect mate, get married while they are both virgins. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about 99.7% of all cervical cancer. However, as Dr. Gene Rudd of the Christian and Dental Medical Association has said, no matter how well we raise our daughters and sons, their future husbands and wives may not have benefitted from the same background. A virginal wife can catch the virus from her husband on their wedding night(and vice versa - although he has vastly less risk of cancer of the penis in the US).

Another shock will probably come when (what the Houston Chronicle and the Austin American Statesman are calling) "the Governor's base" does not rise up in revolt and rants.

There is a strong lobby in the State against mandated vaccines (largely driven by objection to mercury preservatives, the vaccinations that are grown in human cell cultures and the troubles with the pertussis [whooping cough] vaccine from the '70's and '80's.) However, while good people who probably agree with the Governor's pro-life, pro-family views on other issues, these are not quite large enough to be called the Governor's "base."

In my opinion, the Governor decided that the vaccine is too important to leave to politics - especially in a State still healing from the redistricting fight of 2003, that ended up with first the Democratic Representatives and then the Democratic Senators running away from Austin and leaving the State to stall legislation.

I wish he would go ahead and let both the boys and girls get the shot -- Take a look at this video on "herd immunity." If we're going to do this thing, we might as well eradicate as much of the virus as possible.

I am concerned that no one knows how long the vaccine's effects will last.

On the other hand, this is Texas.

We don't like the government mandating anything. We can be convinced that some things are for the good - at least for other people - if you sell it right(grin).

The Governor must make a huge effort to convince the parents of Texas that this is good for the boys and girls in Texas, and that the money spent on the vaccine ($360 per girl, for 3 shots over 6 months) will save lives and money by preventing cervical cancer, genital warts and even anal cancer in both men and women.

Feminists For Life History

I wrote about Serrin Foster's article on National Review Online, yesterday. Be sure and click through to the actual op-ed and to the Feminists for Life website. (Especially the "Covetable Stuff"!)

The actual founders of F4L were two women, Catherine Callaghan, Ph.D. and Pat Goltz. Like many of us in the '70's and '80's, these women recognized the conflict between abortion and feminism. Both were once members of the National Organization of Women. Ms. Goltz was expelled from her local chapter, and both eventually resigned from the national organization.

Feminists for Life reminds us how common it is to assume that we know all about other people and other groups. It seems that we quickly stereotype and assume division, rather than look for common ground.

I love common ground! My goal has been to offer that ground and possibly to offer my translation and peacemaking skills in order to demonstrate the logic of the prolife arguments to the domestic and sexual violence communities, non-Christians and even atheists, pro-life churches and other prolife groups who assume they have nothing in common. Unfortunately, far too many prolife organizations require members to agree to a Christian creed.

For more surprises and information on opposing abortion in the public square, take a look at Libertarians for Life and Democrats for Life. And then, check out the Atheists and Agnostics Prolife Leaque (you've got to see their url).


(For those Christians who are offended, I offer the book of Romans - I try to live so that others can see some of the insight in Romans 1 through my example. A little bit of truth can serve as a catalyst for more truth.)

ASBH day 2: Human rights and Public Health Ethics

Ever been the only conservative in the room? I can go one better: a woman from Rhode Island responded to my confession that I'm a conservative by saying that we should talk, since she'd never had a conversation with a conservative before and she wanted to understand how we think.

BTW, before I go on, I need help: I was told by one of the speakers that some proponents of human dignity defend the "dignity" of "stem cells" in the same way that they defend the dignity of "the impaired." Supposedly, in the discussion about the ethics of research on human tissue banking, some focus on the dignity of the tissue as separate from the infringement on the dignity of the original donor of the tissue. She could not give me a reference, but seems a bright young woman, so I wonder if anyone can explain where this idea could come from.


I guess I ought to explain how the conference is set up. Most of the day, there are 1 to 1 1/2 hour sessions with 5 or 6 different groups, consisting of 2 or 3 (up to 5) panelists who present a paper (or summarize a paper, if time seems short) on a given theme. The presentations are followed by a question and answer period. There's never enough time for the Q and A, so I end up asking my questions after the conference.

Today, I attended sessions on "Bioethics and Public Health Ethics" and "Human Rights and Human Dignity: Curb your enthusiasm." Each of the sessions touched on the basic idea of human rights. And each seemed to get the most bang out of political points: the Bush administration is abusive and against the bioethics Powers That Be.

In the first, we were asked to consider the proposition that Public Health Ethics should be more concerned with the good of the community, rather than attentive to individual rights. After all, public health and most health care systems are public, community enterprises, and an activity of the State that relies on pooled resources and interdependence.

However, aren't Law and the Court system activities of the State, based on pooled resources and interdependence? And aren't these systems still governed by the fact that the rights of the individual are primary?

We also heard how inept the Bush administration was proved to be in the Katrina/Rita hurricane "debacle," although the panelist later stated that the basic problem was the failure to repair the levies and protect the people in the way of the flood. Somehow, the panelists believe that all political failures in public health policy began in 2001. There was no mention about the debacle that came from the redefinition of oral sex as not being "sex," for instance.

The second session was based on the deconstruction of a single term, "human dignity," and a rather confused discussion about human rights. In both cases, the presenters seem to believe that the Bush administration is responsible for attempting to foist an idea of the inalienable rights of human individuals.

Like Caulfield and Brown in this article, the presenters object to protection of human embryos and the children of the future as bearers of human dignity because the concept is not held by all and will not stand in a pluralistic society.

An interesting twist was the first presenter's statement that the proponents of human dignity include "stem cells." (see above)

Beliefs about which members of the human species are bearers of rights are not consistent throughout the world. Islamic nations do not hold that women bear full human rights: women are not protected from killing, enslavement, and are not allowed freedom of movement or ownership of property.

However, regardless of a lack of consensus, or more particularly in the case of disagreement, hasn't history shown that it is it better to support the wider classification of human rights in the case of all races, both sexes, all religious and political backgrounds?

The fact that some of the "dignitarians" and human rightists have expressed concern about the humanity of our descendents who are no longer members of our species was mentioned. I believe that this concern will complicate our efforts to protect the (negative) right to life. Believers hold that humans are created in the image of God base our argument for human dignity on our duty to Him for giving us life. If we are created, it's obvious that we and our children are not here because of our plan and efforts, but because of His. Those of us who are concerned about whether or not our children who are not of the human species are 'human" would do well to spend some time contemplating whether or not it is possible to divide the image of God.

Edited for typos at 11:30 PM CDT