From VanCourt@COMPUSERVE.COM Tue Nov 18 13:59:16 1997 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:02:03 -0500 From: Marian Van Court Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: Re: [GEN-ETHICS] Britain and eugenics [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] I'd like to make a few comments about the article in the BMJ (British Medical Journal), no. 7108 of 6 Septmber 1997, p. 563 -"Thousands of women sterilised in Sweden without consent", which David Frenkel brought to our attention. The article conjures up horrendous images: a young woman--selected for no good reason--is dragged from her home, kicking and screaming, pinned to the operating table, and sterilized. She awakens from the anaesthesia (assuming they were nice enough to give it to her), and cries "Now I can no longer have a baby!" It's really hard to imagine that such things happen in *Sweden.* I've always thought Sweden was a highly civilized country. It is plausible that in every imaginable respect it's a highly civilized country, except for these totally atypical acts of barbarism? Or is it just *possible* there's a higher ethical principle operating here that we can only see if we probe beneath the surface? There are women in this world who are severely retarded or severely mentally ill, and who are also fertile. They present a real ethical dillemma which this group, especially, should find challenging. It's easy to just condemn Sweden's actions, to say, "Oh, to sterilize women against their will--how ghastly!" But it's not so easy to find alternatives that are demonstrably better. If mentally incompetent women are not institutionalized (say they live with their family), there's a very real danger they'll get pregnant, because history has shown that there are plenty of unscrupulous men ready to take advantage of them. Even in mental institutions, women are sometimes impregnated ("raped" would probably be more accurate) by attendants, guards, or janitors. Then, the child is taken away from the mother (is this a good thing??) and given up for adoption. In the past, in most cases, the adoptive parents had no idea if the biological mother was a schizophrenic who had been raped by an employee of the institution. Most of the children born of such unions will be OK, but as a group, they are far, far more likely to develop psychopathologies of some sort. What is our ethical responsibilty to the women? To the adopting parents? And to the children themselves? Sterilization may not be a good thing (although, of course, vast numbers of normal people opt to be sterilized every year). But clearly, there are no very good alternatives. (The fertility of mentally incompetent men is also a problem, but not quite as big, because severely retarded or insane men will generally have a very hard time finding women to have sex with.) And consider this: What exactly does the phrase "against their will" *mean* when you're talking about mentally incompetent people? I guess it means they didn't give their written or oral consent. But what if they *did* give their consent? What would such consent mean if they don't understand what they're consenting to? Maybe, just maybe, the authorities realized they'd have decide *for* them, and they didn't bother to *ask* them if it was OK, because they knew that to do so would be meaningless. I suppose one could try to explain to the women how babies are made, and why it might be better if they didn't have one, and then say "So, do we have your permission to be sterilized?" But the whole thing would be a charade as long as they don't know what you're talking about. The article goes on to refer to the "outdated belief that social misbehaviour could be inherited." This may be out-dated to the politically correct crowd--and it is certainly outdated in the sense that it's very, very unfashionable-- but it is a fact to those in the field of differential psychology and behavior genetics (scientists who study the heritability of IQ, criminality, personality traits, etc). We could use a precise definition of "social misbehavior" here, but assuming it means criminal behavior, alcoholism, things like that, it most certainly *can* be inherited. There are many lines of evidence, but let's just look at identical twins separated at birth: they resemble one another not only in intelligence, but temperament, sexual preference, SES, law-abidingness, alcohol consumption, political beliefs [that's right, folks!!], musical ability, hobbies, phobias, mannerisms, various idiocyncracies, the way they laugh, and even vegetable preferences!!! [Reference: Thomas Bouchard (U of Minnesota, Dept of Psychology) is the foremost researcher on identical twins reared apart. If you get a list of his publications, you'll find a wealth of information on the subject.] (I'm not saying they're *identical* on all these, I'm saying there is a statistically significant resemblance, which is strong in some cases, and not so strong in others.) We really don't know what happened in Sweden and the other European countries mentioned in the article--it could have been totally indefensible for all I know-- but I'm working on getting more information. I have a friend in Sweden who I hope will be able to help me, and I will pass along whatever I learn to the group (whether it supports my view, or shoots it down entirely). I'm not arguing that these programs were faultless. I'm just saying that the issues involved are difficult and complicated. An article that reports that "thousands were sterilized against their will" could be *very* misleading. Marian Van Court From myared@erols.com Tue Nov 18 13:59:31 1997 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:35:28 GMT From: Michael Yared Reply-To: Americans with Disabilities Act Law To: ADA-LAW@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ada-law Subject: Hate crime and disability Is crime against the disabled a hate crime? Mike Yared "Clinton urges grade school diversity training ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By Paul Bedard THE WASHINGTON TIMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ he Clinton administration, concerned that parents aren't teaching children to be unbiased, yesterday endorsed grade school "diversity" training to encourage students to be tolerant of minorities, homosexuals and the disabled. "Children have to be taught hate," Mr. Clinton said at a White House conference on hate crimes. "We want to teach them a different way." At the conference, designed to complement the president's race initiative, several top Cabinet officers endorsed plans for colleges and schools from kindergarten through 12th grade to implement diversity programs to provide tolerance education the administration fears is lacking in American homes. Attorney General Janet Reno, who hosted the conference at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., told the 425 participants to return home and make sure their schools have diversity training programs and a "conflict resolution plan" in which problem children can be enrolled. "Find out what your schools are doing in diversity programs to teach others how to appreciate diversity," Miss Reno said. "Teachers need more opportunity dealing with these issues," said Education Secretary Richard W. Riley. In addition, Mr. Clinton called for organized efforts in schools to teach students to interact with and be -- Continued from Front Page -- tolerant of other races and sexes. "Unless there is an organized effort in your school to do it, it's not going to happen, because if you just wait for people spontaneously to go out at recess, lunch or after school, it's just not going to happen. It's too much trouble; there's too much psychic risk in it," Mr. Clinton said. "Don't you think you almost have to have an organized effort to do it? There would almost have to be some sort of club or organization at the school -- because if you think about it, your parents are still pretty well separated," he said. "Now, we all work together more than we ever have before, just like you go to school together. But most neighborhoods are still fairly segregated. Most houses of worship are still fairly segregated. We're making more progress on it, but I think you almost have to organize your way out of this," Mr. Clinton added. Grade school diversity programs have been extremely controversial, in part because some parents are concerned about adding homosexuality to the list of minorities to be endorsed. However, several school systems, notably those in Cambridge, Mass., and Provincetown, Mass., have established diversity programs to help teach students to be tolerant of minorities and homosexuals. Mr. Clinton said intolerance of homosexuals exists partly because of "just ignorance, and the fear it breeds. I don't know this person who is different from me and I'm afraid, and I manifest this fear in bigotry or violence or something." Much of the conference heard testimony that parents aren't doing their job teaching children to be tolerant and unbiased. That was the basis for much of the administration's push for a new diversity effort in schools. Tammie Schnitzer, a Jewish mother whose family in Billings, Mont., was subjected to anti-Semitic attacks, said families can foster hate. "We really need to understand that this isn't a children's issue. We have children that we educate in our school systems, and then they go home and then they hear racial jokes from their parents," she told an agreeing president. "I have to teach my grandparents first, before I can teach my kids," she said. To help schools, the administration announced plans to distribute anti-hate-crime resource guides to public schools from the departments of Education and Justice. At the one-day conference, Mr. Clinton endorsed legislation expanding the federal definition of hate crimes to include attacks on homosexuals, women and the disabled. He also set up a "national hate-crimes network" to promote cooperation among federal, state and local prosecutors in combating hate crimes, added 50 more FBI agents and prosecutors to fight hate crimes, and created a federal hate-crimes Web page. While the conference was generally noncontroversial, it was temporarily rattled when a protester shouted at the president: "You murdered Vince Foster. Is that a hate crime?" After a pause, Mr. Clinton, who was a friend of the former deputy counsel who committed suicide in July 1993, said, "I think the hate is coming from your way, not mine." Mr. Clinton used his appearance during the first of three sessions to demand that the Senate Judiciary Committee allow the full Senate to vote on his embattled nominee to head the Justice Department's civil rights division, Bill Lann Lee. Repeating comments made Saturday to the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest homosexual lobby, Mr. Clinton said the committee shouldn't vote Mr. Lee down, as planned, but instead pass the buck to the full Senate. The hate-crimes conference brought together mostly Democrats who want the federal government to expand laws targeting perpetrators and to become more involved in schools. The Rev. Samuel Billy Kyles, a Tennessee Baptist pastor who was a close friend of Martin Luther King's, called on the federal government to withhold funds from colleges where hate crimes aren't prosecuted. California state Rep. Sheila Kuehl, the openly homosexual president pro tempore of the California State Assembly, said that the president should speak out more on hate-crime issues and continue lending his support to targeted groups, such as homosexuals." From michael.osier@YALE.EDU Tue Nov 18 13:59:39 1997 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:56:08 -0500 From: Michael Osier Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: Re: [GEN-ETHICS] Britain and eugenics before I begin, I know this thread has been going on for quite a while, and the messages are getting quite lengthy...are people still interested, or should we show mercy upon your mailboxes? :) On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Marian Van Court wrote: > misbehaviour could be inherited." This may be out-dated to the politically > correct crowd--and it is certainly outdated in the sense that it's very, > very unfashionable-- but it is a fact to those in the field of differential > psychology and behavior genetics (scientists who study the heritability of > IQ, criminality, personality traits, etc). I have to step in and correct a couple misconceptions here: 1) speaking as a member of the behavioral genetics field, it's outdated there, too...although for scientific reasons and not "fashion"... 2) IQ and criminality are fringe areas of behavioral genetics...criminality has gone the way of phrenology (reading the bumps on people's heads to figure out what their personality is)...IQ is rarely bothered with, as there is little practical benefit (if any)... behavioral genetics is currently concerned with psychological disorders (from classical concerns such as schizo. and alcoholism, to more modern concerns such as migranes) more than anything else...the brunt of this work is asking the question "how can we ease people's discomfort? how can we increase their quality of life?" in sum, the mainstream of behavioral genetics has little to do with eugenics...it tends to frown quite heavily on it for scientific reasons... > definition of "social misbehavior" here, but assuming it means criminal > behavior, alcoholism, things like that, it most certainly *can* be > inherited. alcoholism does indeed show signs of genetic _influences_, but about half of alcoholism appears to be due to environmental forces of various sorts... > There are many lines of evidence, but let's just look at > identical twins separated at birth: they resemble one another not only in > sexual preference, the verdict on sexual preference is still being hotly contested...it's too early in the scientific investigation to make a solid decision either way... granted, this is also an emotionally heated argument...but the literature I've seen has been frequently unbiased emotionally, and quite well controlled scientifically... > alcohol consumption, again, the link here appears to be about 0.5 genetic, 0.5 environment... > intelligence, but temperament, [..] > SES, [..] > law-abidingness, [..] > political beliefs [that's right, folks!!], musical > ability, hobbies, phobias, mannerisms, various idiocyncracies, these have been shown to be due to confounding factors...adoption agencies frequently put children in homes as close as possible to the homes they came from...thus, their environments are rarely different...thus, the statistically significant resemblance is the right answer for the wrong reason...it's not the genes, it's the household... this is a common theme I've been trying to present throughout our discussion: in statistics, correlation does not mean direct influence...we must be vigilent of confounding factors...a simple regression analysis is only the beginning...direct mechanism must also be shown for proof...this is where most of the studies are lacking... as an additional point in proof: the p-value of 0.05 that we deem to be "significant evidence" means only one thing: 1 in 20 times we falsely reject the null hypothesis...ie 1 in 20 such studies are likely to come to the wrong conclusion...when lifes come to the line, that p-value must become far more stringent, and additional proof is necessary to make a conclusion...life is more valuable than 1 in 20 odds...:) in addition, numerous twin studies for IQ have been shown to have the same confounding factors... besides, common sense would dictate there is no obvious mechanism by which categories such as political beliefs could be inherited...:) > We really don't know what happened in Sweden and the other European > countries mentioned in the article--it could have been totally indefensible > for all I know-- but I'm working on getting more information. that is probably the best course of action: acquire more information...I haven't read the article yet myself, so I won't make any judgements until then... btw, could the original poster reply to me via _private_email_ the reference to the journal article? I lost it...:) thanks! Ms Van Court (what would you prefer I call you?), are you planning to reply to my previous message? I'm not claiming you're conceding, just making sure we reach closure... Michael ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Osier = michael.osier@yale.edu | "He is not well rounded who does http://chloe.hgs.yale.edu/~og/ | not have an equally keen interest BS Biochemical Science - UVM | in all of the things within the Yale University | compass of painting." Human Genetics - Og | Leonardo da Vinci From dfrenkel@BGUMAIL.BGU.AC.IL Tue Nov 18 13:59:44 1997 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 03:14:49 +0200 From: David Frenkel Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: Re: [GEN-ETHICS] Britain and eugenics Your comments on the article published in the BMJ are interesting, but - facts are facts. You were so proud stating that some European countries had "purity of race" legislations already in the 20's. Well - now one can see the results! and it continued even after Hitler's regime. Why don't you want to learn from that? I am not expecting any answer on that from you. It has been a rhetoric question. Dr. David A. Frenkel,LL.D. From mgreenbl@ZOO.UVM.EDU Tue Nov 18 13:59:55 1997 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:41:55 -0500 From: "Marc S. Greenblatt" Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: Re: [GEN-ETHICS] Britain and eugenics - >are people still interested, or should we show mercy upon your mailboxes? :) I'm still enjoying this exchange, and I have some responses: >> with human beings, whatever genes predispose them to become smart, healthy, >> law-abiding, sane, and conscientious must be only a minuscule fraction of >> the entire genome...... > >where did you derive this from? my understanding is that genetic control >of neurotic functions are almost always controlled as polygenetic >traits...for instance, schizophrenia...how many cell receptors do you >think are associated with schiz.?... there are a >dozen candidates...and the list is constantly growing...and that's just one disorder... > >the problem is, the human body has ~100,000 genes...each and every one of >them can have an influence on neurological development, directly or >indirectly... >the problem is, the human genome is a highly complex system...it's a >misconception to say "there will only be a few genes involved", because >each gene can add a subtle effect on the development of the person... > I think the point underlying these comments is the key of the entire discussion. Yes, IQ correlates with many parameters which we associate with success, and to which we often ascribe moral judgments. But it's a fallacy to describe IQ as a linear equation with few variables. Human intelligence is a nonlinear system, involving many genetic and environmental factors that interact in often unpredictable ways. By my understanding of nonlinear systems, they are not easily predictable and certainly not predictably manipulated by simple interventions. Technical and moral issues aside (now *there's* a thought!), tring to find a simple genetic intervention which will reliably "improve" the outcome of the system strikes me as naive. Therefore, I agree with Michael that the best solution is to let genetic diversity reign, if for no other reason than it has proven to be a successful strategy. Of course, I think that at this time in our history there *are* other reasons to shun attempts at large scale genetic manipulation. >I would also like to point out, again, that "intelligence" is defined by >the problem one is trying to solve...different cultures specialize in >different problems to be solved as they need to solve different problems >on a daily basis...assuming a huge number of possible problems needing to >be solved, how can one test determine intelligence? > >> Imagine the worst possible thing that could happen to us if we reduced >> genetic diversity by an incredibly tiny amount, in order to alleviate >> suffering and create a better world. > We have no evidence that we know what the outcome of any changes would be. Evolutionary selection pressures change; what seem like valuable traits under one set of circumstances might be counterproductive in another (e.g., hyperaggression is an undesirable trait in a peaceful society, but a desirable one in wartime). Not that I'm worried that we could eliminate from the gene pool alleless for complex behavior traits, or even simple identifiable diseases, without a degree of social engineering that is currently (and for the forseeable future) not feasible. And a good thing, too. Too many lessons in history that the power structures that would control such decisions are prone to abuses, no matter what the safeguards that engineers (social and otherwise) think they can apply (such is the nature of complex systems, and power structures of nations are surely complex systems). >if there is a >serious reason (such as a major metabolic disorder, chromosomal >abnormality, high blood pressure, etc) such that medical intervention is >necessary, try to alleviate the symptoms...but trying to eliminate all >alleles which lead to these disorders is not economically feasible (not to >mention morally dubious and likely not even possible) because of 1) >unpreventable mutation (solar radiation, natural radioactive decay within >our DNA, etc), 2) recessive alleles "hiding", 3) the huge number >of such alleles already present in the population (every one of us has >numerous such alleles)... There is a middle ground between mere symptom alleviation and allele eradication, and that is the manipulation of somatic genetics to alleviate disease in individuals. The boundary of somatic vs germline manipulation will be the tricky one to defend. The merits vs risks of germline manipulation in individuals is an important thread that has been lost from this discussion. Any thoughts? The background mutation rate alluded to above is important. Another important source of this is DNA polymerase error, occurring in all organisms, and reminding us again that the generation of genetic diversity is favored in nature. It occurs in everybody; truly maladaptive mutations will not survive long enough to propagate themselves. > >> Kids from priviledged backgrounds with low IQs are much more likely to >> be unemployed, on welfare, working at menial, low-paying jobs, having >> illegitimate children, and committing crimes than kids from the exact >> same kind of background whose IQs are average or high. I'm also curious about this reference, the strength of the correlations, what the confounding factors might be, the specific social circumstances- for example, I would guess that this statement would be much more likely to be true among mid 20th century white Americans than among the English, where class structures are more rigid. Michael, I'm curious about your game theory arguments (although my familiarity with it is passing, and I'd have to brush up a little). > misbehaviour could be inherited." This may be out-dated to the politically > correct crowd--and it is certainly outdated in the sense that it's very, > very unfashionable-- but it is a fact to those in the field of differential > psychology and behavior genetics (scientists who study the heritability of > IQ, criminality, personality traits, etc). > >2) you are assuming all crimes are equal...individuals from more >priviledged backgrounds tend to commit more white collar crimes, while >those from less priviledge backgrounds commit more blue collar >crimes...when we divide crime into such categories, does the data still >hold up? >on a related topic, what do you think of "Campaign Reform", and the white >collar crimes predominant in political fields? ...the same >can be said for corporation executives and celebrities...how does this fit >into the data? >besides, common sense would dictate there is no obvious mechanism by which >categories such as political beliefs could be inherited...:) The genetic basis of "criminality" seems to me to be on shaky ground. Social structure has so much to do with it, who's in power, who's out, who gets to define the laws. What is defined as criminality could differ widely even in the same population, depending on circumstances, say, Russians under the Tsar and under the Soviet Union, pre- vs post-revolutionary Iran, etc. Criminality as discussed in the messages on this list (and the popular counterparts of these discussions) seems to imply violent crime that disrupts a stable Western society's daily life. I think the point about the types of criminal behavior in lower vs higher SES is well taken, and I wonder how the "heritability" literature has dealt with these and other confounders. An awful lot of variables to consider before we declare criminal behavior "genetic", I think. I must say, though, that I could imagine a character trait such as "willingness to challenge authority" as subject to genetic influences (e.g., neurotransmitter levels) and potentially an inherited component of "criminal behavior" (or political thought, Michael). That's a far cry, however, from trying to manipulate it at a genetic level and predict that the outcome would be salutory for society (see complex system comment above). >suffering will exist with or without genetic predeterminism...I find >eastern religions have an excellent way of dealing with this...it's known >as accepting those things it is not feasible to change... > Amen, or whatever it is that they say in eastern religions. Marc Marc S. Greenblatt, M.D. mgreenbl@zoo.uvm.edu From michael.osier@YALE.EDU Tue Nov 18 14:00:00 1997 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:37:49 -0500 From: Michael Osier Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: Re: [GEN-ETHICS] Britain and eugenics - On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Marc S. Greenblatt wrote: > I'm still enjoying this exchange, and I have some responses: so far, I've received two votes for and one against...for now, I'll continue, but if there becomes a clear majority, I'll roll with that and abide by the wishes of the list... for those who want to cut back on their reading, it should be fairly easy to delete any messages in this thread, as they have been (quite fortunately!) consistent in the subject line, giving you a way to identify them... [many good points deleted] thanks for adding more depth to this...you have a number of good points I should have thought of, but didn't...this would be good evidence I have a few more years of school before I'm ready for the mainstream onslaught...:) > There is a middle ground between mere symptom alleviation and allele > eradication, and that is the manipulation of somatic genetics to alleviate > disease in individuals. The boundary of somatic vs germline manipulation > will be the tricky one to defend. The merits vs risks of germline > manipulation in individuals is an important thread that has been lost from > this discussion. Any thoughts? honestly, I've stayed away from this point, as I haven't made up my mind yet...I'm sure a concise scientific definition could be derived, but the "tricky one to defend" part concerns me...I think you're right that it would be difficult to defend...as you aluded to on other points, different social climates could lead to different policies...we would need to predict the future interpretations and uses of the technologies, and predicting the future is a dubious enterprise, as we are all familiar with...:) also, some technologies (eg viral vectors) could spontaneously break the somatic/germline barrier early in the germline development...we need to be cautious of the effects and limitations of such technologies... so again, my answer is that I need more time to weigh the issues... > Michael, I'm curious about your game theory arguments (although my > familiarity with it is passing, and I'd have to brush up a little). ask away...I'll admit, it's more of a hobby than my expertise, but I find it a powerful approach to evolution studies...in fact, I haven't found a single evolutionary circumstance which isn't dictated by it...current economic and evolutionary models are almost identical... > and I wonder how the "heritability" literature has dealt with these and other > confounders. here is one point where my knowledge of the literature starts to get fuzzy...from what I recall, some people are starting to think of it, and some have used it as counter arguments, but I don't think anyone has actually studied types of criminality formally as a complicating factor in the "heritability" papers... so I think the argument has been made, and generally ignored in the face of greater problems... > imagine a character trait such as "willingness to challenge authority" as > subject to genetic influences (e.g., neurotransmitter levels) and > potentially an inherited component of "criminal behavior" (or political > thought, Michael). I suppose we could label ADD children in that category as an example...fortunately, mild drug therapy and calm, caring, and when necessary containing influences seem to help...I have many second-hand stories if anyone is interested in how a condition such as ADD is safely cared for...not easy, but possible... then again, I think "teenage rebellion" is a greater factor...I hope no one finds a gene for that...:) Michael ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Osier = michael.osier@yale.edu | "He is not well rounded who does http://chloe.hgs.yale.edu/~og/ | not have an equally keen interest BS Biochemical Science - UVM | in all of the things within the Yale University | compass of painting." Human Genetics - Og | Leonardo da Vinci From Mark_Johnson@SHEPHERD.ORG Tue Nov 18 14:00:21 1997 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:31:45 -0500 From: Mark Johnson To: NDY@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Press Release ADAPT / DC PRESS PACK November 11, 1997 For Immediate Release For More Information Contact: Mike Auberger(202) 479-4000 Holiday Inn (303) 829-1583 Cell Phone Web Page www.adapt.org Ninety two ADAPT activists were arrested today at the White House gates as they called on President Clinton to deliver on a promise he made to Assistant U.S. Attorney Holly Caudill. In September, Caudill spoke with the President about the need for a national attendant care policy because nearly all her income is used to pay for the assistance she needs each day. Like many quadriplegics, Caudill lives independently with daily support of a personal care attendant. In the White House Roosevelt Room, a moved Clinton promised Caudill, "Get me the legislation and I'll sign it." ADAPT is in Washington this week lobbying for the passage of H.R. 2020, which will establish the national personal assistance policy Caudill and hundreds of thousands like her need. Also known as MiCASA (Spanish for my home), H.R. 2020 was introduced in late June by Speaker Newt Gingrich. It currently has 22 bipartisan co-sponsors, and is expected to move quickly early next year. 450 ADAPT protesters carried signs proclaiming, "I'd rather go to jail than die in a nursing home," and chained themselves to the gates of the White House to make their point. Mike Auberger, national ADAPT organizer and one of those arrested, explained "Over two million Americans have been forced into nursing homes and other institutions because federal policy currently doesn't offer them the choice to get assistance in their own homes. H.R. 2020 will give them that choice." Earlier this week, ADAPT won a commitment from the House Sub-committee on Health and Environment to hold hearings on the issue. In addition, ADAPT also received a commitment from Congressional Budget Office Director, June O'Neill to reevaluate the fiscal impact of H.R. 2020, because the original scoring was based on erroneous assumptions. "We're ensuring the progress of H.R. 2020 every step of the way," said Stephanie Thomas, national ADAPT organizer, "because just like Holly Caudill we all know THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME." -- FOR MORE INFORMATION on American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today (ADAPT), please visit our website at http://www.adapt.org/. FOR DIRECT INQUIRIES regarding this press release, please use the contact information at the beginning of this message or Email adaptpr@adapt.org. From MommE27546@AOL.COM Tue Nov 18 14:00:27 1997 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:25:46 -0500 From: "" Reply-To: Down Syndrome To: DOWN-SYN@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU Subject: Re: problem in Canada - YES - Latimer Newsgroups: bit.listserv.down-syn Wow Val! It certainly was an eye opener that you pointed out what possibly could be the other side. I guess that we are all very quick to judge. However, I remain steadfast in my notion that God will be the ultimate *judge* here. I have no fear as to what the jury decides, or the court judge, because whatever the verdict, he'll have a very high price to pay. Jacqui From jim@niall7.demon.co.uk Tue Nov 18 14:00:38 1997 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:41:56 -0700 From: jim mcnulty To: GENTECH@ping.de Subject: GE - Biotechnology News 11/06 Resent-Date: 12 Nov 1997 17:40:58 -0000 Resent-From: gentech@ping.de Resent-cc: recipient.list.not.shown:; >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:19:20 GMT >X-Sender: rts@gn.apc.org >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) >Mime-Version: 1.0 >To: rts@gn.apc.org >From: Reclaim The Streets >Subject: GE - Biotechnology News 11/06 > >Biotechnology News 11/06 >contents: >1) EU delays plan to end bans on gene-altered maize >2) Wide opposition to UK's gene food labels stance >3) Forbio says to more than double plant production > > >1 ) EU delays plan to end bans on gene-altered maize By Gillian Handyside >> BRUSSELS, Nov 5 (Reuters) European Union governments on Wednesday >> stalled >> for two months European Commission attempts to prevent Austria and >> Luxembourg banning imports of genetically-modified maize, EC officials >> said. >> The decision was welcomed by Greenpeace, though the environmental >> organisation said it would have prefered an outright rejection of >> Commission >> plans to overturn national bans on gene-altered maize. >> Denmark and Sweden wrote to European Environment >> Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard last week urging her to delay >> plans to repeal the Austrian and Luxembourg bans, saying there >> was still widespread public anxiety about the consequences of >> using gene technology. >> They also said they were concerned that the Commission had >> failed to start monitoring insect resistance to the Bt toxin, >> despite a commitment to do so in December 1996. >> The maize, produced by the Swiss agrochemical multinational >> Novartis, contains a Bt toxin which is designed to ward off >> pests. >> But this may result in insects becoming resistant to the >> toxin, which is used in natural formulations by organic farmers, >> according to Greenpeace. Austria, worried by health risks, >> last December unilaterally banned imports of the maize, which is >> resistant to the herbicide gluphosinate. Luxembourg and Italy >> followed suit but the Commission said on September 10 that there >> was no scientific justification for their bans. >> Luxembourg and Austria have vowed to fight any decision to >> repeal the ban in the European Court of Justice. >> Under EU procedures, the Commission's decision can only be >> overturned competely if all 15 member states vote against it. >> In a separate development, Europe's biotechnology industry >> has attacked the Commission for not producing detailed rules for >> implementing a new EU law on the labelling of genetically- >> modified maize and soyabeans. >> The new labelling regulation came into force on November 1. >> "Operators in the food chain...need these rules for the >> practical implementaion of the regulation and to ensure they are >> in compliance," the European Association for Bioindustries >> (Europabio) said in a statement. REUTERS > >> ======#====== >2) Wide opposition to UK's gene food labels stance By Christopher Lyddon >> LONDON, Nov 5 (Reuters) >>The British government has been left isolated by a >> broad front of food processors, retailers, consumers and environmental >> groups opposed to its view on plans for labelling gene-modified >> products. >> Genetically modified (GM) soya has already started to appear in food >> products on British supermarket shelves, but the question of what to >> put on >> the labels has yet to be resolved. >> As it will not be possible to tell whether GM soya has been >> used or not, the EU Commission has put forward a proposal with >> includes a "may contain..." category of label for soya and other >> commodity products. >> But food processors, retailers, consumers and environmental >> campaigners were united in their scorn for the idea. Only food >> safety minister Jeff Rooker, who has called for better labelling >> of GM foods, is ready to accept it. The British government >> position was to push for more labelling. "Jeff Rooker would like >> to see all GM foods labelled, even if it says 'may contain,"' a >> ministry of agriculture spokeswoman said. >> "I know of no other significant body of opinion that >> regards 'may contain,' as acceptable," Greenpeace campaigner >> Douglas Parr told Reuters. Parr wondered why the foods could not >> simply be labelled with the words "contains genetically modified >> soya." >> A similar view was taken by the British Retail Consortium, >> the retailers' trade group. Food and drink director Janet Nunn >> pointed out that once this year's US harvest gets through the >> food chain, by the turn of the year, there was likely to be GM >> soya in every cargo. >> Thus retailers were gearing up to start using the word >> "contains" with out the "may." "May contains" just gives the >> message that you don't know," she said. Consumers >> undoubtedly wanted genetically modified foods "to be labelled >> clearly and fully so that they can decide whether to eat them or >> not," according to the Consumers' Association's recent policy >> report Gene Cuisine. "It's difficult to find people who are >> happy with it," Greenpeace's Douglas Parr said. "It doesn't >> satisfy anybody's needs." >> With many processed food products liable to be labelled as >> possibly containing GM material, especially once GM maize starts >> to appear, it didn't provide a mechanism for choice. "I think >> the retailers and food processors recognise that," he said. >> Although US producers were adamant that segregation could >> not be achieved, the Consumers Association took a cynical view. >> "It will be interesting to see whether segregation remains so >> difficult to achieve when the genetic modification results in a >> benefit that can be marketed to consumers," it said. And >> Greenpeace's Douglas Parr called suggestions that "may contain," >> could be used as a "figleaf," to cover the EU Commission's >> failure to tackle US exporters on segregation. >> The Consumers Association had not given up on segregation. >> "Pressure must continue to be exerted on the US producers as >> consumers will only be able to make a meaningful and informed >> choice between genetically modified and conventional foods if >> there is segregation," it said. >> The flow of GM soya into Britain will grow fast. "Last year >> they had a toe in the door, this year it will be a foot, next >> year they'll have their shoulders through," one food industry >> source said. >> The current state of European legislation does not oblige >> food manufacturers to label products containing GM soya. >> Under the EU's "Novel Foods" rules, which came into force >> in May genetically modified food ingredients do not have to be >> explicitly labelled as such if they are "substantially >> equivalent," to the unmodified versions of the same materials, >> a spokeswoman for the ministry of agriculture said. "You >> can't tell the difference," she said, pointing out that all soya >> in food was processed and so broken down. "Nobody eats >> unprocessed soya." The situation on labelling remains in a >> state of flux. "It's not set in stone," the spokeswoman said. >> The EU commission presented an orientation paper in July >> which suggested three categories for labelling; products which >> definitely do not contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), >> products which are certain to contain GMOs and products which >> may contain GMOs. >> "Manufacturers and retailers should ensure that these foods >> are labelled, even when the GM ingredients are not fully >> segregated," Rooker said in a statement issued in June. >> London Newsroom +44 171 542 7928 > >> ======#====== >3) Forbio says to more than double plant production > >> BRISBANE, Nov 6 AAP - Biotechnology company Forbio Ltd said >> it had forecast to more than double the amount of cultured >> plants produced within its 100 per cent owned companies in >> 1997/98. >> Forbio was expecting to produce 11 million tissue culture >> plants from its companies this financial year compared to five >> million in 1996/97. >> It had adopted a five year plan with the initial target set >> at an increase in group production to 100 million plants a year >> within three years. >> However, 75 per cent of >> this production will come from joint ventures, it said. > >> ======#====== > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >The old rts website is no longer. There will be a new rts website soon >watch this space. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >RTS now run a genetics information email list. >If you would like to be on it (and are not already) reply to > putting 'Subscribe Genetics' in the subject box. >If you have anything to contribute to the list then send it in and it will >be forwarded - unedited wherever possible. >Please do not send attachments (so as to avoid virus), instead just add text >to emails main body. >For info on genetics actions check out: >http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/shag/genetix.html >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Reclaim the Streets >PO BOX 9656 >London >N4 4JY >0171 281 4621(this tel number is not for Genetics info) > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe, subscribe or help is: GENTECH-REQUEST@ping.de From VanCourt@COMPUSERVE.COM Tue Nov 18 14:00:43 1997 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:16:10 -0500 From: Marian Van Court Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: Re: [GEN-ETHICS] Britain and eugenics [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] In response to Michael Osier's comments of Tuesday, the 11th: Before I begin, I know this thread has been going on for quite a while, and the messages are getting quite lengthy...are people still interested, or should we show mercy upon your mailboxes? :) I've been thinking along the same lines. I honestly do not want to inflict my views on people who find them terribly upsetting, and whose minds are closed to them anyway. I've been on this list for some time, and I never said a word about eugenics until someone else brought it up, because I figured people would just vehemently reject the idea, without really thinking about the evidence, so what's the point? But even though responses to my postings have been overwhelmingly negative, it's been very, very interesting for me--it's been fun, and I've learned a lot! It hasn't altered my support for eugenics, but I can see problems with my position that I haven't thought of before. I'm accustomed to people expressing horror at my views, but they frankly haven't been nearly as thoughtful and knowledgeable as many of the people on this list. Maybe I am being naive and Pollyanna-ish here, but even though people will always try to "one up" one another, because that's human nature, compared to other groups I've been in, it seems here more like a discussion which aims at getting to the truth, and not *solely* an argument between idealogues who only want to prevail, and don't really care about truth or learning something. For example, people are *capable* of conceding points. Nevertheless, the fact remains that some people just don't want to hear about it, and that's their right. We want to be considerate of them, too. What we could do is specify very clearly the subject matter in the title. People can already tell by the "Britain and ....etc" but we're starting to get Re: Copy of: Re: and for people who *are* following the debate, it's very difficult to locate an individual message once it's filed, because they all have the same title. Does the message *have* to say [GEN-ETHICS] at the beginning? (I know zero about computers and list-serve things, and have even less aptitude.) If it were abreviated to G-E, then we'd have room to put a comma and another E for eugenics, and then the specific title of the message, such as "Eur. steril." People who are not interested could delete it without having to read one word, and those who are interested would have messages in their file cabinets that more specifically said what they're about. If it has to stay [GEN-ETHICS] at the beginning for some reason, we could still start with E for eugenics, and try to cram in whatever information about the contents we could. What does everyone else think about this idea? Ms Van Court (what would you prefer I call you?) Please call me Marian. are you planning to reply to my previous message? I'm not claiming you're conceding, just making sure we reach closure... Michael Absolutely, and to the middle of today's message, too. I'm afraid it's a case of "So many misconceptions to clear up, so little time!" :) ! I hope to have my reply ready today or tomorrow. (I *do* have other work, you know!) I've already printed out your messages, and I've been jotting down little notes in the margin--notes such as "Reference, please!" and "Preposterous!" :) !!! Respectfully, Marian From checker@CLARK.NET Tue Nov 18 14:00:57 1997 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:32:11 -0500 From: Premise Checker To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: [GEN-ETHICS] Free Market Zero On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Marc S. Greenblatt wrote: > >are people still interested, or should we show mercy upon your mailboxes? :) > > I'm still enjoying this exchange, and I have some responses: Ditto. And if we can't discuss these issues here, we can't discuss them anywhere. [snip. I don't want to make everyone scroll through too much stuff they have already read. I trust the context will be clear enough] > I think the point underlying these comments is the key of the entire > discussion. Yes, IQ correlates with many parameters which we associate with > success, and to which we often ascribe moral judgments. But it's a fallacy > to describe IQ as a linear equation with few variables. Human intelligence > is a nonlinear system, involving many genetic and environmental factors that > interact in often unpredictable ways. This general statement is true of just about everything having to do with people. By my understanding of nonlinear > systems, they are not easily predictable and certainly not predictably > manipulated by simple interventions. Educators would agree. Technical and moral issues aside (now > *there's* a thought!), tring to find a simple genetic intervention which > will reliably "improve" the outcome of the system strikes me as naive. > Therefore, I agree with Michael that the best solution is to let genetic > diversity reign, if for no other reason than it has proven to be a > successful strategy. Should we stop funding education out of taxpayer monies? By removing government from education, the forces of competition would surely increase diversity. Government education has wound up being highly centralized and tied up in rules and regulations that stifle diversity. Of course, I think that at this time in our history > there *are* other reasons to shun attempts at large scale genetic > manipulation. Why "at this time"? I maintain that there are reasons to shun attempts at large scale environmental manipulation via public education. You didn't offer your reasons, but I bet most of them can be used against public education as well. Let us have them, and we'll see. [snip] > We have no evidence that we know what the outcome of any changes would be. > Evolutionary selection pressures change; what seem like valuable traits > under one set of circumstances might be counterproductive in another (e.g., > hyperaggression is an undesirable trait in a peaceful society, but a > desirable one in wartime). Do you mean belligerency or determination? I'm afraid "aggression" is a very loaded term. (No followup needed here, at least for now. Just a side comment.) > Not that I'm worried that we could eliminate from the gene pool alleless for > complex behavior traits, or even simple identifiable diseases, without a > degree of social engineering that is currently (and for the forseeable > future) not feasible. It looks like we are going to have to much more carefully define "eugenics." A narrow definition could mean a coercive elimination of certain genes brought about by the ruthless action of a central government. So being against eugenics could be just a part of being against ruthless actions by centralized governments. This is not a bad idea, since governments have killed something like 100 million of their *own* subjects (not citizens!) in this century. On the other hand, eugenics could be (actually, will be, if you ask me) improvements in the gene pool brought about by private actions of individuals. This is already happening with regard to certain diseases caught in time for abortion. I know one woman who is in favor of abortion if the woman does not feel comfortable with having a child at this particular time in her life's journey but is opposed to aborting a child who would turn out to be a dwarf. (I did not ask her whether such abortion was just immoral or whether the state should prohibit it.) There are others who are opposed to aborting fetuses with a high probability of becoming homosexuals. But in these cases, I think the result would be the *reduction*, not the *elimination* of supposedly defective genes. If elimination is not feasible, then that should be that: I would certainly find it peculiar for someone to advocate doing something that is impossible! That so many people in fact do just this is perhaps a very good argument *for* eugenics. I'd like to suggest a neutral scale for purposes of this discussion. The zero point is the Free Market, so beloved of economists. All private eugenic actions (abortions and whatever current and future technologies allow by way of manipulating the gene line) are permitted. There will be no interference with EUGENIC ACTS AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS. To the right of this are actions by the state mandating eugenic actions in excess of what would be done privately; to the left are prohibitions and maybe even the compelling of *dysgenic* acts. And a good thing, too. Too many lessons in history > that the power structures that would control such decisions are prone to > abuses, no matter what the safeguards that engineers (social and otherwise) > think they can apply (such is the nature of complex systems, and power > structures of nations are surely complex systems). Am I correct in calling you a Free Marketeer? > >if there is a > >serious reason (such as a major metabolic disorder, chromosomal > >abnormality, high blood pressure, etc) such that medical intervention is > >necessary, try to alleviate the symptoms...but trying to eliminate all > >alleles which lead to these disorders is not economically feasible (not to > >mention morally dubious If done voluntarily? Now I'm not so sure you are a Free Marketeer. and likely not even possible) because of 1) > >unpreventable mutation (solar radiation, natural radioactive decay within > >our DNA, etc), 2) recessive alleles "hiding", 3) the huge number > >of such alleles already present in the population (every one of us has > >numerous such alleles)... > > There is a middle ground between mere symptom alleviation and allele > eradication, and that is the manipulation of somatic genetics to alleviate > disease in individuals. The boundary of somatic vs germline manipulation > will be the tricky one to defend. The merits vs risks of germline > manipulation in individuals is an important thread that has been lost from > this discussion. Any thoughts? Alas this thread has not begun! Please start up a thread on this one, but I hope that there is a body of concrete dangers to appeal to, rather than to vague possiblities of harm in tampering with Nature. Advocating prohibition on tampering with Nature would place the advocate to the left of the Free Market zero. > The background mutation rate alluded to above is important. Another > important source of this is DNA polymerase error, occurring in all > organisms, and reminding us again that the generation of genetic diversity > is favored in nature. Is this reification or anthropomorphization? I am unaware of Nature favoring anything. The scientific question is how the equilibrium value of genetic diversity gets established. Certainly, the main trend in evolution has not been to maximize genetic diversity at all costs. We are headed deeply into the philosophy of biology here, apart from ethical questions as such. It occurs in everybody; truly maladaptive mutations > will not survive long enough to propagate themselves. Isn't this a tautology? [snip more matters that will surely come up again.] > ...An awful lot of variables to consider before we declare > criminal behavior "genetic", I think. I must say, though, that I could > imagine a character trait such as "willingness to challenge authority" as > subject to genetic influences (e.g., neurotransmitter levels) and > potentially an inherited component of "criminal behavior" (or political > thought, Michael). That's a far cry, however, from trying to manipulate it > at a genetic level and predict that the outcome would be salutory for > society (see complex system comment above). Very good warning indeed! Here's a topic for speculation: suppose *nations* start engaging in eugenic arms wars, that is, all of them adopt policies that are to the right of the Free Market zero. Do you think that successul societies in this race would be ones that suppress or encourage challenges to authority? Careful, there are lots of premises to check before giving any answer. I've retitled this thread "Free Market Zero," so as to break up this discussion, but I might also have started one called "A Eugenics Arms Race" or even "Uses of Anti-Eugenic Rhetoric to Question Public Education." I'll try to start up separate threads in the future, since we've got an incredible number of things to discuss. Which is why we are here. From michael.osier@YALE.EDU Tue Nov 18 14:01:03 1997 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:33:11 -0500 From: Michael Osier Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: Re: [GEN-ETHICS] Free Market Zero On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Premise Checker wrote: > Should we stop funding education out of taxpayer monies? By removing > government from education, the forces of competition would surely increase > diversity. Government education has wound up being highly centralized and > tied up in rules and regulations that stifle diversity. 1) I'm not convinced the educational system and human genetics are not apples and oranges...there are considerable differences in the two structures...mechanism of transmission, mechanisms of change, potential for variation, probably more...also, the point of the discussion is eugenics, not public education...let's stay on track... 2) has anyone claimed genetic diversity should be maximized? I recall making the argument _reducing_ genetic diversity is a bad idea, but I never made the argument that increasing genetic diversity was any better... > On the other hand, eugenics could be (actually, will be, if you ask me) > improvements in the gene pool brought about by private actions of > individuals. This is already happening with regard to certain diseases again, I believe I've pointed out reasons why eugenics is (at the very least) economically not feasible...if you can't find these reasons in back messages, I'll happily forward them to you via private email to save list space... > But in these cases, I think the result would be the *reduction*, not the > *elimination* of supposedly defective genes. If elimination is not > feasible, then that should be that: I would certainly find it peculiar for > someone to advocate doing something that is impossible! again, I believe we've pointed out why even reduction is not possible...many disorders are recessive or occur at a higher rate spontaneously than via inheritence...minor reductions in allele frequency of the former require huge economic investment...reductions in the latter are impossible... > That so many people in fact do just this is perhaps a very good argument > *for* eugenics. to quote my mother: "if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" there are better ways to argue a point than arguing "popular opinion"...:) > allow by way of manipulating the gene line) are permitted. There will be > no interference with EUGENIC ACTS AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS. so you're advocating free choice? I believe that's already covered in the US Constitution...:) > If done voluntarily? Now I'm not so sure you are a Free Marketeer. 1) when I said it would not be economically feasible to eliminate alleles, that assumed voluntarily...if there were any state insentive (financial reward), the costs would be unheard of...and that would be for just eliminating undesired alleles of one gene... 2) your uncertainty as to "free marketeer" status is due to the fact that you quoted two different people and made judgements upon those quotes...:) > Is this reification or anthropomorphization? I am unaware of Nature > favoring anything. nature favors alleles which allow the organism to survive long enough to successfully reproduce...this is known as Natural Selection, and is the mechanism of Evolution... > The scientific question is how the equilibrium value of genetic > diversity gets established. Certainly, the main trend in evolution has > not been to maximize genetic diversity at all costs. We are headed > deeply into the philosophy of biology here, apart from ethical questions > as such. not too deep...too little variation leads to inbreeding and the frequent expression of recessive lethal alleles...too much variation results in the complete scrambling of the genome from generation to generation...this would violate one of the assumptions of evolution (there must be a way of transmitting alleles to the next generation)... Michael ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Osier = michael.osier@yale.edu | "He is not well rounded who does http://chloe.hgs.yale.edu/~og/ | not have an equally keen interest BS Biochemical Science - UVM | in all of the things within the Yale University | compass of painting." Human Genetics - Og | Leonardo da Vinci From jim@niall7.demon.co.uk Tue Nov 18 14:01:12 1997 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:26:37 -0700 From: jim mcnulty To: GENTECH@ping.de Subject: Something to think! Resent-Date: 13 Nov 1997 18:25:39 -0000 Resent-From: gentech@ping.de Resent-cc: recipient.list.not.shown:; >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:11:27 -0500 >Reply-To: suresh@aripune.ernet.in >Sender: owner-pbasio@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu >From: suresh@aripune.ernet.in (SURESH NAIK) >To: pbasio@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu >Subject: Something to think! >X-Sender: dverma@pop.service.ohio-state.edu >X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN > >This is an editorial appeared in THE TIMES OF INDIA of Saterday, 8th >November issue(Bombay) > >Think about it >Regards >SURESH >------------ > Bogus Biodiversity > >Four years after the UN convention on Biodiversity came into force, India >has become the first country to propose a national biodiversity bill to >safeguard its plant and animal wealth. This might have been a welcome >step were it not for the spectacular lack of imagination in the draft >legislation. Mindful of the fact that the decline of biodiversity is >directly related to unchecked human activity, many countries have gone a >step farther than the UN Convention and implimented far-reaching measures >to protect their bioresources. India, however, did not and the new draft >is on conservation for which numerous laws already exist. The crucial >issue of ownership of biological resources has been overlooked-many other >countries have through executive orders ensured ownership over >bioresources. The role of communities and indeginous knowledge have not >been defined in the draft. Without this, no effort to preserve >biodiversity can work. The issue of protecting biodiversity is not >purely a scientific concern as the proposal legislation suggest; in a >country like India it has far-reaching social and political >ramifications. The draft bill devotes an inordinate amount of space to >the layers of administration which will be set up to identify and >conserve biodiversity. This suggests that the proposed biodiverisy >authority will be yet another bureaucratic adifice which can, at best, >provide comfortable berths to various Govt. officials. > >Experts have already voiced their disapproval of the secretive manner in >which the daft has been formulated. Well before the proposed authority >was mooted, several official and NGOs had already begun efforts to >document biological resources. The draft bill proposes to dublicate this >work. India has atleast 45 th. Plant species, and 95th. animal varieties. >Since existing legislation is largly ineffective, some of this natural >wealth has already been patented by outside agencies. Recent reports >suggest that a German Pharmceutical giant has taken six patents on >compound derrived from Coleus forskholii used in India to treat >Cardio-vascula, respiratory and abdominal ailments. Vital genetic >material routinely smugged abroad from Kerala, the North-east and the >Himalayan ranges. As prescribed by the Biodiversity Authority, the >panalties for offenders are unlikely to prove effective deterrents. The >export market for medicinal is highly lucrative with world demand growing >by 7% per annum. Despite its rich resources the Indian medicinal plant >market is a mere Rs 550 crore while global trade is a staggering $60 bil. >per annum. With better management India could increase its export >considerably. A long term conservation policy is only possible if the >existing networks are integrated with forestry and wildlife departments. >The proposed Biodiversity Authority has ignored this completely. It >would better serve India's interests if the proposed bill were scrapped, >and resources utilized instead to streangthen the many organizations >already working in the field of biodiversity conservation. >-------------------- > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >SURESH NAIK >Plant Molecular Biology Unit >Division of Biochemical Sciences >National Chemical Laboratory >Pune 411 008 >INDIA > >Phone/Fax: +91-212-338234 >email: suresh@aripune.ernet.in >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Prof. Desh Pal S. Verma Ph.D, FRSC >Biotechnology Center >Ohio State University >1060 Carmack Road >Columbus OH 43210 >Fax: 614-292-7293 >Phone: 614-292-3625 > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe, subscribe or help is: GENTECH-REQUEST@ping.de From VanCourt@COMPUSERVE.COM Tue Nov 18 14:01:16 1997 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:37:16 -0500 From: Marian Van Court Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: [GEN-ETHICS] Eug-Nature/Nurture [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] I hope the article I posted last night by Charles Murray helped to answer some of the questions that have been debated by Michael Osier, myself, and others in this forum. I'm doing my best to present "the other side," but I don't think anyone can do a better job of it than Charles Murray and (the late) Richard Herrnstein, authors of The Bell Curve. There are 2 arenas in in which the Nature-Nurture battle is being fought--the public one, and the scientific one. And the outcomes are exactly opposite. Scientifically, the egalitarian (nurture) position--that heredity doesn't influence behavior, everyone is born the same, and environment determines everything--is totally bankrupt. The proponents of this view have been not just beaten, but *clobbered* by overwhelming evidence--from numerous twin studies, adoption studies, and studies like the one Charles Murray did-- which proves genetic influences on IQ and behavior. And the egalitarians have been clobbered *despite* the fact that the "playing field" is absurdly uneven in their favor--it is *far* easier to get funds for research if you take an egalitarian stance, your articles will be greeted with great interest and approval, and you won't have one-thousanth the problem finding a publisher for your books. In spite of all that, the egalitarians have been thoroughly trounced in scientific arena, simply because they're wrong. But in the public arena--which is what they care most about--it's just the opposite. The egalitarians have clearly won the day. The egalitarian stategy has been all along to merely snipe at the research of the hereditarians. [I use "hereditarians" to mean people who believe heredity exerts a strong influence on behavior. None believes environment is unimportant.] Egalitarians use ad hominem attacks and portray their opponents as hateful, bigoted people who create false science in order to make other people feel bad. [To me, this is ludicrous! Where in the world do such ogres come from?] They have no compelling evidence, and they know it, so their best tactic is to confuse the issue: "Nobody can ever know for sure." "It hasn't been proven." "Who can say what intelligence really is?" "It's all hopelessly complicated." They point to questions taken from IQ tests, often many decades old, and say that such items are "obviously biased," as if it's sufficient to simply make the assertion, and leave it at that. That's what everyone wants to hear, anyway. But do you think the egalitarians really want to get at the truth? Ask yourself this question, "What research have Gould, Lewontin, Rose, et al *ever* produced to prove the egalitarians are correct?" Answer: none. Someone chastised me a few days ago when I responded to the assertion that The Bell Curve had been "disproven" with "By whom? The liberal media and the Marxist/nihilists?" He said if I wanted to keep the discussion civil, I shouldn't use insulting language. I agree. But how can *else* can I communicate the fact that someone is a Marxist or a nihilist, except by using those words? Do you see what I mean? It's an important fact, too, because if someone has a strong political agenda which opposes the idea of genetic influences on behavior, and the issue at hand is genetic influences on behavior, this matters! We all know if a person listens to only one side in a bitter divorce, he/she is liable to come away with a totally biased impression. (The wife's friends will say "The husband is a monster!" and the husband's friends will say "The wife is a psychopath!") The liberal media and the egalitarians have totally dominated public discourse on the issues of IQ and genetics, so for decades, only one side has been presented to the public! Is it any wonder the public accepts what they say uncritically? If I didn't happen to be involved with IQ, I'm sure I'd have the same opinion. But if I ever thought to myself "Why not see what the other side has to say?" and I summoned up the courage to venture into forbidden territory and read *just one* book (e.g, The Bell Curve), I'd think to myself "Gee, what a different world *this* is! It's not just a long, rambling, tendentious bunch of propaganda like Mismeasure of Man--it's well-organized, clearly stated, interesting, engrossing, and they're really saying something important! They have evidence, and logic, to back it up! It's kind of exciting! It's like meat-and-potatoes here -- although it's not really hard to understand-- whereas that other stuff was more like . . . cotton candy. I guess that's because this is--well, *science.* " And then I'd be plenty angry that I'd been lied to for so long. Michael, I haven't forgotten you, really! Another struggle, a microscopic one, wages simultaneously. But with a small arsenal of zinc, vitamin C, echinacea, golden seal, etc., I hope soon to prevail. Marian Van Court From levy@OSWEGO.EDU Tue Nov 18 14:01:22 1997 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:54:58 -0500 From: levy@OSWEGO.EDU Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: Re: [GEN-ETHICS] Warning: Counter productive ideas entertained I don't believe its that clear cut. When you say that the "propogandists" are "lying", it implies there is a conspiracy of people who plan it this way. Of course that is not what you mean, but the idea is present. Because there is a filter that is biased in favor of equality, pro-eugenics views are less numerous. However there is a reason that this filter exists (IMHO): it is more important for the vast majority of people to have opportunities to succeed and have a good life than it is for them to consider anti-social or volatile ideas. Even many people who seem to live on a diet of counter-culture and welcome odd ideas would toss these memes away after finding sufficient holes in the logic (assuming the person consciously employs its own logic. There are many fully sensible reasons to reject the eugenics idea even if you know it is scientifically true. One is to consider the vast majority of stupid people who will "fuck up the world" using eugenics arguments to make themselves sound scientific. The world is not "ready enough" to handle this reasearch without it being completely misunderstood, deranged, and wholly mutated by the press and other laypersons. Another reason is that is very important to be nice to fellow human beings. In my opinion, Eugenics as is stands now (and as it is represented by Van Court, and the Bell Curve) is very premature... fetal. Research into biological aspects of culture and psychology, sociology etc. is the most experimentally affirmative work being done right now, but I hope this will lead to breakthroughs allowing us to "act our aeon" by changing biology or use of biology to meet demands of humanitarian pursuits. This is not happening with eugenics, which seems more beneficial for estranged philosophers and scientists seeking ways to get onto the lists of DWM's. MARIAN VAN COURT WROTE ......... " But if I ever thought to myself "Why not see what the other side has to say?" and I summoned up the courage to venture into forbidden territory and read *just one* book (e.g, The Bell Curve), I'd think to myself "Gee, what a different world *this* is! It's not just a long, rambling, tendentious bunch of propaganda like Mismeasure of Man--it's well-organized, clearly stated, interesting, engrossing, and they're really saying something important! They have evidence, and logic, to back it up! It's kind of exciting! It's like meat-and-potatoes here -- although it's not really hard to understand-- whereas that other stuff was more like . . . cotton candy. I guess that's because this is--well, *science.* " And then I'd be plenty angry that I'd been lied to for so long. ////// Prometheus to the gods: Does anyone have a light? ////// From chn@intergate.bc.ca Tue Nov 18 14:01:38 1997 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 05:30:30 From: "chn@intergate.bc.ca" Subject: Latimer [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] Reply-To: <@compusmart.ab.ca> From: "Tom Braid" To: Subject: Latimer case Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:41:33 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal ATT Cheryl Eckstein Here is a column written by myself and published on Nov 10/97 in the Edmonton Sun Tom Braid tbraid@compusmart.ab.ca EDMONTON SUN: TOP STORIES November 10, 1997 THE MISERY LATIMER ENDED WAS HIS OWN By TOM BRAID -- Edmonton Sun   Sun Chief Photographer Tom Braid's son has a severe case of cerebral palsy due to brain damage that happened before birth, the cause of which is unknown. Nicholas, who will be four years old on Dec. 27, is at the developmental stage of a three-month-old baby and struggles daily just to survive. He needs around-the-clock care and has little hope of ever getting better.  "Hey, Tom. What do you think of that Latimer situation?" Anybody who knows me is aware that I have a son every bit as disabled as Tracy was, so this is a question that's been asked of me a lot over the last week.  More than 75% of the people were surprised by my answer.  Robert Latimer was convicted of second-degree murder last week and will be sentenced Thursday. I believe an even more serious conviction was in order.  Think about it: He picked his defenceless daughter up, carried her into his truck, put a tube in the window, started the engine, stood back - and watched her die. He then carried her dead body back to her crib and called emergency crews to say his daughter had died in her sleep.  In his dreams.  The only person he put out of misery was himself.  He couldn't take it any more - the pain, the suffering, the anguish, the day-to-day bad news of just how terrible and miserable his daughter's life really was.  For this, I feel truly sorry for him. We all should.  For what he did, we should not.  This is not the SPCA! He put his daughter down, it's a simple as that. She was not a farm animal, she was a severely disabled little girl. Most would consider her a freak of nature, one who didn't have a chance from the second she was born. But does this give a man the right to kill? She needed proper care, and the parents needed a break from all that unbearable stress.  I would be lying if I told you that the thought didn't cross my mind to end my son's suffering. How many people out there have not been driven crazy from a crying child at a grocery checkout, or a teething baby late in the night?  My son, Nicholas, cried, screamed, puked, went into seizures, stopped breathing and was rushed to hospital so many times we are on a first-name basis with the staff. He would stay up for days on end and he did not sleep through the night once for over two years. I would get to the point where I would pray for him just to die and get it over with. I would have to get my wife to take him away from me before I did something terrible. Would anybody blame me if I did?  But who would I have put out of misery - my son or myself? Think about it.  The polls show around 75% of Canadians believe in the "concept of people having the right to die", but do Canadians believe in people having the right to kill? I think not.  If a person wants to take their own life that's one thing. I can guarantee you that Tracy never said "Dad, put me out of my misery." It was not her choice.  If the rules change and you are allowed to put people out of their "misery," where will it start and where will it end? Who gets to make the call. Let's play God, shall we.  I do not know why God puts children like Tracy Latimer or Nicholas Braid on earth. But I can tell you the simplest explanation one pediatric specialist gave us. He told us, "Shit happens." It's as simple as that. Think about it. CHERYL ECKSTEIN Founder & President, CHN NEWSBYTES researched reports compliments of CHN please report any problems to CHN: chn@intergate.bc.ca _____________________________________________________ The Compassionate Healthcare Network (CHN) Canada's International Anti-euthanasia Network - CHN is an affiliated member of The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life * * * * * Address "CHN DIGEST ONLINE" at: http://www.awinc.com/partners/bc/commpass/lifenet/euthan1.htm CHN'S NEW ADDRESS ... SOON TO BE IN OPERATION: www.chninternational.com --------------------------------------------------- Tel: (604) 582 8687 Fax: (604) 582 7690 From checker@CLARK.NET Tue Nov 18 14:01:42 1997 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:41:05 -0500 From: Premise Checker Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: Re: [GEN-ETHICS] Free Market Zero On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Michael Osier wrote: > On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Premise Checker wrote: > > > Should we stop funding education out of taxpayer monies? By removing > > government from education, the forces of competition would surely increase > > diversity. Government education has wound up being highly centralized and > > tied up in rules and regulations that stifle diversity. > > 1) I'm not convinced the educational system and human genetics are not > apples and oranges...there are considerable differences in the two > structures...mechanism of transmission, mechanisms of change, potential > for variation, probably more...also, the point of the discussion is > eugenics, not public education...let's stay on track... My point is that the *rhetoric* of the anti-eugenicists can be used with just as much validity to question the merit of public education: we don't know what the goals of education are, we don't know what the term means, we don't know what the effects of our intervention in education will be, etc. > 2) has anyone claimed genetic diversity should be maximized? I recall > making the argument _reducing_ genetic diversity is a bad idea, but I > never made the argument that increasing genetic diversity was any > better... You seem to be assuming that Nature knows best. > > On the other hand, eugenics could be (actually, will be, if you ask me) > > improvements in the gene pool brought about by private actions of > > individuals. This is already happening with regard to certain diseases > > again, I believe I've pointed out reasons why eugenics is (at the very > least) economically not feasible...if you can't find these reasons in back > messages, I'll happily forward them to you via private email to save list > space... If you know how to do the math, could you walk us through the following calculation: suppose that a single recessive gene causes some malady, such as dwarfism. It is present in 1/1000 cases. Now what would be the effects on the frequency of the gene in the population if everyone who had the gene refrained from having children? The costs include the information costs of finding out whether one or one's spouse has the gene, the costs of refraining from reproducting, the costs to those who think tampering with Nature is evil, etc. > > But in these cases, I think the result would be the *reduction*, not the > > *elimination* of supposedly defective genes. If elimination is not > > feasible, then that should be that: I would certainly find it peculiar for > > someone to advocate doing something that is impossible! > > again, I believe we've pointed out why even reduction is not > possible...many disorders are recessive or occur at a higher rate > spontaneously than via inheritence...minor reductions in allele frequency > of the former require huge economic investment...reductions in the latter > are impossible... Now an individual may make the investment in finding out whether he has the defective gene (and whether his spouse does), depending on several factors: payments to the genetic analyst to gather the information, the cost to him of bearing a defective child, the cost of going to Hell if he thinks that aborting the child will get him there, etc. > > That so many people in fact do just this is perhaps a very good argument > > *for* eugenics. > > to quote my mother: "if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do > it too?" there are better ways to argue a point than arguing "popular > opinion"...:) > > > allow by way of manipulating the gene line) are permitted. There will be > > no interference with EUGENIC ACTS AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS. > > so you're advocating free choice? I believe that's already covered in the > US Constitution...:) We're gonna have to start some threads on Constitutional law! My copy of this document is silent on this matter. Indeed, the word privacy does not appear in my copy of the main text and its amendments. The notion of privacy got read *into* the Constitution in a famous article by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy," _Harvard Law Review_, Vol. 4, No. 5 (1890.12.15), pp. 193-220. > > If done voluntarily? Now I'm not so sure you are a Free Marketeer. > > 1) when I said it would not be economically feasible to eliminate alleles, > that assumed voluntarily...if there were any state insentive (financial > reward), the costs would be unheard of...and that would be for just > eliminating undesired alleles of one gene... Better explain your calculations here. > 2) your uncertainty as to "free marketeer" status is due to the fact that > you quoted two different people and made judgements upon those quotes...:) Well, go ahead and make your choice. > > Is this reification or anthropomorphization? I am unaware of Nature > > favoring anything. > > nature favors alleles which allow the organism to survive long enough to > successfully reproduce...this is known as Natural Selection, and is the > mechanism of Evolution... The issue is *how* evolutionary mechanisms result in equilibrium values that may result in optima. Optimum rarely equals maximum! > > The scientific question is how the equilibrium value of genetic > > diversity gets established. Certainly, the main trend in evolution has > > not been to maximize genetic diversity at all costs. We are headed > > deeply into the philosophy of biology here, apart from ethical questions > > as such. > > not too deep...too little variation leads to inbreeding and the frequent > expression of recessive lethal alleles...too much variation results in the > complete scrambling of the genome from generation to generation...this > would violate one of the assumptions of evolution (there must be a > way of transmitting alleles to the next generation)... The range between too much and too little covers a lot of territory. I don't think the setting of equilibrium values of second order variables (variation, in this case) in evolution is very well understood, even mathematically. Consider the debate over whether cells are programmed to die a natural death. The fact is that man does a great deal of tampering with Nature. Even the Unabomber wants to retreat only back to agriculture and does not pine for our hunting days. (The Old Testament has been interpreted as a debate between the farmers and the hunters!) I don't think biotechnology is going to be stopped anymore that those who agree with the Unabomber are going to all reject industrial technology. I will take only a few who disagree with the Unabomber to keep industrial society going. Anyhow, I don't think you are really a conservative like the Unabomber and Jeremy Rifkin. But you do seem to pick up some of their rhetoric. For me, the debate is not over whether but over how. From sndrake@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU Tue Nov 18 14:01:48 1997 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:56:43 -0500 From: "Stephen N. Drake" To: NDY@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: From AP's "Canada News Briefs" (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- BATTLEFORD, Saskatchewan (AP) - Robert Latimer is not a ``cut-throat'' or a murderer and the law should take into account his motive when they sentence him for killing his disabled daughter, his lawyer argued Thursday. Mark Brayford asked Justice Ted Noble to grant his client a rare constitutional exemption from the mandatory sentence for second-degree murder, 25 years with no chance of parole for 10 years. But Crown prosecutor Robert Mitchell countered that the court is bound by legal precedent to reject the motion. Noble will announce his decision Dec. 1. From summitil@PAW.MONTANA.COM Tue Nov 18 14:01:54 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:11:03 -0700 From: Paul Peterson To: NDY@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: From AP's "Canada News Briefs" (fwd) Well,........ I JUST KNOW that my life is worth so much less than any NORMAL persons, so if a NORMAL person kills me, they should get off with a light punishment, or a reward from a managed care company. FUCK this guy. He MURDERED one of us. With mallice of forethought. I thought Canada was more civilized than us because of their healthcare system, but I must rethink. Paul Peterson, P.I.T.B. (Pain in the Butt) "And in the end, the alphabet at the end of your name you take is equal to the alphabet at the end of your name you make up." On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Stephen N. Drake wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > BATTLEFORD, Saskatchewan (AP) - Robert Latimer is not a > ``cut-throat'' or a murderer and the law should take into account > his motive when they sentence him for killing his disabled > daughter, his lawyer argued Thursday. Mark Brayford asked Justice > Ted Noble to grant his client a rare constitutional exemption from > the mandatory sentence for second-degree murder, 25 years with no > chance of parole for 10 years. But Crown prosecutor Robert Mitchell > countered that the court is bound by legal precedent to reject the > motion. Noble will announce his decision Dec. 1. > From Dick.Sobsey@UALBERTA.CA Tue Nov 18 14:02:19 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:36:33 -0600 From: Dick Sobsey To: NDY@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Latimer Trial Reply to: Latimer Trial Paul Peterson said: "He MURDERED one of us. With mallice of forethought. I thought Canada was more civilized than us because of their healthcare system, but I must rethink." Dear Paul: Civilized can mean a lot of different things. In some cases it means explaining away murder. There is good and bad news here in Canada. The bad news is that naive manner in which the vast majority of people have accepted this unquestionable murder of a twelve-year-old girl amkes it absolutely clear that most Canadians believe or are willing to believe that its better to be dead than disabled. They keep talking about the terrible suffering that she experienced but in fact the defense had no evidence of significant suffering to present at the trial. The "hero" who killed her refused to testify at the trial to protect himself against self incrimination. The mother who originally agreed to testify for the prosecution but in the end tried to defend the husband who killed her child said that tracy was in great pain but when she was asked to read back from her own journal for the time right before tracy's death, she never talked about suffering and described tracy as happy, cheerful, alert, and so-on. The teachers at Tracy's school described her as pretty much like all the other kids and saw no evidence of great pain. The father was caught in lies about his daughter's pain more than once, including the claim that she was in great pain at a time when she was in fact already dead. The parents who claim she was in such terrible pain that she was better off dead can not explain why she was not sick enough to keep home from school, had not been taken to the family doctor for 10 months, and was never given medication stronger than tylenol to help her with her pain. This "hero" who is presented in the press as the salt of the earth was previously convicted for taking part in a sexual assult of a 15 year old but beat the conviction on appeal based on the fact that he was not allowed to attack her sexual history. Mr. Latimer's assertion that this was a mercy killing are rediculous. In fact, its the just anotyher version of the the same defense: she wanted it and I gave her what she deserved. The greater horror, however, is that people believe him because Tracy had a severe disability and that is all they need to know. The good news is that while public opinion still favors Mr Latimer, it has noticeably shifted away from naive support when one compares his first and second trial. People are starting to see through the scam and that is largely the result of the work of groups like the Canadian Council on Disabilities Human Rights Committee and Not Dead Yet. A number of news media are turning around on this issue and more importantly so is public sentiment. On November 29th, the "Reality Cheques" Campaign will publish a full page advert. in the Globe and Mail (Canada's National Newspaper) with the names of about 1300 people who kicked in $15 a piece to buy the ad demanding a stop to violence agianst people with disabilities. Its a tough fight up here in the frozen north, but we can still win it. dick.sobsey@ualberta.ca From Scott_McFarlane@sfu.ca Tue Nov 18 14:02:44 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:54:25 -0800 From: Scott_McFarlane@sfu.ca To: jest-west@sfu.ca Subject: re: Knoppers Re: Warren Bell's inquiry: Bartha M. Knoppers was the ethicist who chaired the so-called "First International Conference on DNA Sampling" held in Montreal, during Sept. of 96 sponsored by the problematic Canadian Genome Analysis and Technology Programme (CGAT). The conference was protested by a host of public interest groups and indigenous groups who were excluded from participating. Support for the protest was solicited from BCBC by Craig Benjamin at Cultural Survival Canada. According to Benjamin, "Conference chair Bartha Knoppers, a professional ethicist, a consultant to the UNESCO Bioethics Committee, and a member of the Human Genome Organization (HUGO) Ethical, Legal and Social Issues Committee, denied that the Montreal conference had any purpose other than open discussion of "all the issues" surrounding DNA sampling. She admitted that the absense of indigenous peoples' representatives on the list of invited speakers was not an oversight, but a deliberate decision of the organizing committee. However, she defended the decision to exclude indigenous peoples' representatives stating that the issues surrounding human DNA research are no more relevant to "any one population [sic] than another" and that it was not feasible to invite representatives of all the potentially interested groups and populations. Confronted with the open letter listing specific concerns of indigenous peoples that have largely been ignored in the debates around human DNA research, Knoppers replied," I have no knowledge of these issues. Native studies is not my discipline." " Considering that the HGDP depends on so-called "native studies" to even be aware of the existence of various peoples, let alone their diets, language and other means of cultural and environmental exchange necessary to carry out the project, Knoppers seems to be in way over her head. I think her self-admitted lack of knowledge forces her to resort to the configuration of an abstract field of ethics. Unfortunately, her claim that ethical issues re: the HGDP are no more relevant to "any one population than another", is removed from socio-political realities and it is out of touch with not only the operation of the HGDP but also most contemporary approaches to ethics. Of course it is precisely the particularities of indiginous groups that makes them the "targets" of the HGDP. To explicitly deny them a voice at the ethics table--while including representatives of the HGDP--is to erase the socio-political operation of the project-not necessarily the best starting point for a discussion of ethics. Maybe Knoppers has learned alot in the last year or so. It certainly seems as if the protests against the HGDP are having an impact. Maybe her position has changed dramatically. I thought, however, it was important to recirculate the position she articulated publically in Sept of 96. Scott McFarlane From chn@intergate.bc.ca Tue Nov 18 14:02:51 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:28:00 From: "chn@intergate.bc.ca" Subject: Other Commentary: Can a 'right to die' [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] BACK TO TODAY'S BEE | BACK TO EDITORIAL/OPINION | SACBEE HOME http://www.sacbee.com/news/beetoday/newsroom/edit/111497/edit05.html Other Commentary: Can a 'right to die' be turned into a forced fate? By Wesley J. Smith Special to The Bee (Published Nov. 14, 1997) ROBERT WENDLAND should die so that his family can "be allowed to live their lives," Dr. Ronald Cranford, a Minnesota neurologist and bioethicist, testified recently in the Stockton courtroom of Superior Court Judge Bob McNatt. The chosen method of death? Intentional dehydration and starvation. What has Wendland, 45, done to deserve such a fate? He went into a coma in September 1993 from injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Sixteen months later, he awakened from the coma, paralyzed on one side and unable to walk, talk or swallow well enough to eat. He is physically and cognitively disabled and dependent on others for his care. He is not terminally ill. He is not hooked up to machines. He does require a feeding tube to sustain his life. Those who seek to end Wendland's life downplay his physical and cognitive abilities. That is because people who are diagnosed as permanently unconscious are being dehydrated in this country, all perfectly legal thanks to several court decisions. Now, "right-to-die" activists such as Cranford who has testified in support of dehydration in most of the nation's major dehydration cases of brain-damaged patients, including that of Nancy Beth Cruzan want to stretch acceptable dehydration to disabled folk with brain damage who are awake and aware. This is the slippery slope in action. A Wisconsin Supreme Court decision dealt a blow recently to the right-to-die crowd's hopes when it ruled that it is not acceptable in Wisconsin to dehydrate conscious, brain-damaged patients (who would feel pain and agony) absent clear and convincing evidence probably through a written declaration executed by the patient before illness or injury that dehydration is precisely and explicitly what the now-incapacitated patient wanted. In other words, general statements are not enough. The Michigan Supreme Court issued a similar ruling in 1995. Cranford and others of his ideological persuasion were not amused by these decisions, seeing them as an impediment to the right to die. Wendland provides an opportunity to expand the law. Rose Wendland, Robert's wife, claims Robert would not want to live in his current condition. She bases her claim primarily on her husband's statements made in the aftermath of her father's death, three months before Robert's injury, that he would not want to live if he could not "be a husband, father or a provider." But is it right to kill someone because he might have said he would not want to live in a dependent state? Is it right to kill someone because he can't work and be productive? Is it right to kill someone because he is disabled? Robert Wendland's mother, Florence Wendland, and half-sister, Rebekah Vinson, say no. They sued to prevent the dehydration. It is important to note that Wendland has slowly improved in the nearly two years since he awakened from his coma. For example, he: Has maneuvered an electric wheelchair down hospital corridors and can now maneuver a manual wheelchair with his unparalyzed leg or arm. Has written the letter "R" of his first name when asked, as well as some other letters of his name. Has used buttons to accurately answer yes and no questions some of the time. (Is your name Robert? Yes. Is your name Michael? No.) In this regard, one of his doctors asked Wendland if he wanted to die. He didn't answer the question. According to Cranford, these and other of Wendland's activities mean little. He also opined in his testimony that Wendland's therapists, who believe he has slowly improved, should be disregarded by McNatt because they are only "seeing what they want to see." Perhaps it is Cranford who is not seeking what he does not want to see. It is disturbing that McNatt did not dismiss Rose Wendland's desire to end her husband's life out of hand when the case first came to his court two years ago. It is especially disturbing that a noted neurologist such as Cranford believes that one reason to dehydrate Wendland is to benefit his family, even though Rose Wendland has said she now only visits her husband once a month for about 30 minutes, and his children do not visit at all. Dehydration begins when the feeding tube is removed, and death occurs usually within six to 30 days. Ironically, in order to ensure Wendland doesn't feel the pain of dehydration, Cranford testified it might be necessary to put him back into a coma with morphine. It is said that a society is judged by the way in which it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members. Increasingly in the United States, we kill them. Let us hope that McNatt does not add Wendland to the list. Consumer advocate and attorney Wesley J. Smith is the author most recently of "Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope From Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder" (Times Books/Random House). BACK TO TODAY'S BEE | BACK TO EDITORIAL/OPINION | SACBEE HOME Copyright © 1997 The Sacramento Bee CHERYL ECKSTEIN Founder & President, CHN NEWSBYTES researched reports compliments of CHN please report any problems to CHN: chn@intergate.bc.ca _____________________________________________________ The Compassionate Healthcare Network (CHN) Canada's International Anti-euthanasia Network - CHN is an affiliated member of The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life * * * * * Address "CHN DIGEST ONLINE" at: http://www.awinc.com/partners/bc/commpass/lifenet/euthan1.htm CHN'S NEW ADDRESS ... SOON TO BE IN OPERATION: www.chninternational.com --------------------------------------------------- Tel: (604) 582 8687 Fax: (604) 582 7690 From VanCourt@COMPUSERVE.COM Tue Nov 18 14:02:55 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:01:02 -0500 From: Marian Van Court Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: [GEN-ETHICS] E-MVC to MO-crime,twins,BG [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] I apologize for taking so long to respond to Michael Osier's points of 11-10and 11-11: but could we ever get to the point where there are less criminals through genetics? Absolutely! One way it could be done is by raising IQ, since low IQ is very significantly negatively correlated with criminal behavior. (References: The Bell Curve, Crime & Human Nature, Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985, The g Factor, Arthur Jensen, see below.) Besides doing it "across-the-board," meaning encouraging all smart people to have children, and discouraging un-smart people, we could also just target the mentally retarded. In Lee Willerman's book, Differential Psychology (circa 1978), he says that half the retarded people in this country have a retarded parent. If this figure is correct, wouldn't it follow that if all retarded people refrained from reproducing, mental retardation could be cut in half in one generation? It would be difficult to imagine that all mentally retarded people could actually be induced to do so, but theoretically--wouldn't that be true? It's important to find out if this is correct, because this could potentially alleviate *all* social problems, not just crime, saving vast sums of taxpayers money, and it would prevent huge amounts of misery. It should definitely lessen crime, because mildly retarded and low IQ people commit a way disproportionate number of crimes (severely retarded people do not). So that would be one method--to raise IQ. (References: The Bell Curve, by Herrnstein and Murray, also Crime and Human Nature, Simon and Shuster, 1985, by Wilson and Herrnstein) Here's the other method. As I pointed out earlier, some research shows criminals have considerably more offspring than non-criminals-- in fact, almost twice as many (Richard Lynn, 1995, "Dysgenic fertility for crime," Journal of Biosocial Science, 27, 405-408; also by Lynn, Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, Praeger, 1996). This is just one study, and it needs to be replicated, but let's assume for the sake of argument the results hold up. By factoring in the established heritability of criminal behavior (derived from twin and adoption studies), Lynn shows how this will produce (ceteris paribus) a substantial increase in crime in the future. To reduce criminal's fertility would likewise decrease crime in the future. It's generally assumed that genes for intelligence are dominant, since intelligence confers a selective advantage. ( As for *evidence* of dominance, I think there's bound to be some, but I can't remember having run across it.) There's one exception I know of: Arthur Jensen found evidence for a recessive, X-linked (?) gene for spatial ability among the Japanese. (Reference: see below) > with human beings, whatever genes predispose them to become smart, healthy, > law-abiding, sane, and conscientious must be only a minuscule fraction of > the entire genome...... where did you derive this from? my understanding is that genetic control of neurotic functions are almost always controlled as polygenetic traits...for instance, schizophrenia...how many cell receptors do you think are associated with schiz.? if you scan the literature, there are a dozen candidates...and the list is constantly growing...and few of these are actually falling out...and that's just one disorder... I take back "healthy." And I "derived it" from my own mind! Which is not too far from saying "I just made it up!" But seriously, it seems so obvious that genes for any one trait couldn't possibly constitute a large portion of the entire genome. Maybe we can't know with 100% certainty until they're all pinned down. But let's just talk about IQ for now, since it's simpler than lumping together traits. Can't we draw some "strong inferences" from the fact that we share __% of our genes with chimps, that the genes for intelligence *couldn't possibly* be too terribly numerous, when compared to the entire genome? I don't know what the exact percent is--do you? let's take a more common example: nearsightedness...many, many children are nearsighted...what do other kids call them? "four eyes"... yes, the individual can rise above this, but will they ever completely? or will there always be a level of self-doubt in the back of their minds? and will this affect their school work during middle/high-school? could this not affect their IQ? But, guess what? Myopia is a positive correlate of IQ! [Near-sighted people are, on average, somewhat more intelligent than people who are not near-sighted.] I know you will counter, "But they could still have had a lowering of their IQ," and I'll agree they *could,* but I don't think it's likely, and there's no evidence of it. It's been shown that the correlation is *not* because myopics read more, but I can't remember how they proved it. There are a number of other interesting positive correlates of IQ: height, thinness, speed of talking (one I especially like!), head size (r = .3), and even better is brain size (eliminating skull differences using MRI) (r = .4?) Arthur Jensen's magnum opus, The g Factor, is due out around January. (Praegar, 1-800-225-5800; cost about $35. If you tell the operator the "source code," which I *think* will be F238, you'll get 20% off.) I haven't read the manuscript, but I have a copy of the Table of Contents, and he devotes one chapter to biological correlates of IQ. So this would be by far the most up-to-date, authoritative reference for all the traits I have just listed. This book will almost certainly be the best all-round resource for information on IQ for a long time. He addresses many of the other issues debated in the GEN-ETHICS forum recently--the heritability of IQ, the validity of IQ, population differences in IQ, challenges to the concept of IQ, etc. Regardless of whether one "likes" or "dislikes" his conclusions on race (which seem to be what he's associated with in the minds of the public), Jensen is "the master" when it comes to the scientic study of intelligence. On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Marian Van Court wrote: > misbehaviour could be inherited." This may be out-dated to the politically > correct crowd--and it is certainly outdated in the sense that it's very, > very unfashionable-- but it is a fact to those in the field of differential > psychology and behavior genetics (scientists who study the heritability of > IQ, criminality, personality traits, etc). I have to step in and correct a couple misconceptions here: 1) speaking as a member of the behavioral genetics field, it's outdated there, too...although for scientific reasons and not "fashion"... 2) IQ and criminality are fringe areas of behavioral genetics...criminality has gone the way of phrenology (reading the bumps on people's heads to figure out what their personality is)...IQ is rarely bothered with, as there is little practical benefit (if any)... behavioral genetics is currently concerned with psychological disorders (from classical concerns such as schizo. and alcoholism, to more modern concerns such as migranes) more than anything else...the brunt of this work is asking the question "how can we ease people's discomfort? how can we increase their quality of life?" in sum, the mainstream of behavioral genetics has little to do with eugenics...it tends to frown quite heavily on it for scientific reasons... Differential psychology is precisely the field I'm in--it's concerned with individual differences, group differences (age, race, and sex differences), the Nature-Nurture debate, the heritability of all psychological traits, twin and adoption studies, IQ, psychological testing, etc. But most people have never heard of it. I will concede that *most* of behavior genetics is *not* in the same realm. For one thing, there's a lot of research in behavior genetics on animals-- fruit flies, mice, etc. But the discipline does encompass some of the same issues, even if little work is being done on them now. I could be mistaken, but wasn't it Robert Plomin (behavior geneticist) who claims to have found a gene for intelligence? And doesn't Glayde Whitney (former president of the Behavior Genetics Association) do research and write articles about IQ? You're right it may not be mainstream, but it exists. Also, I disagree totally that the genetic influence on IQ and other traits was rejected by behavior geneticists on scientific grounds. First of all, the *are* no compelling scientific grounds to dismiss it, and behavior geneticists could find this out easily. They wouldn't be swayed by propaganda. And secondly, the Zeitgeist is so *overwhelmingly* hostile to genetic influences on IQ, with research funds almost non-existent, I believe many behavior geneticists feel the pressure and, quite understandably, don't bother trying to swim upstream against a mighty current. I'd like to see the results of an annonymous survey. If those results could be compared to a survey that required respondents to state their views *publicly,* the pathetic nature of the situation would be very nicely illuminated, even quantified. ( to be continued . . . . .) Respectfully, Marian From VanCourt@COMPUSERVE.COM Tue Nov 18 14:03:01 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:11:53 -0500 From: Marian Van Court Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: [GEN-ETHICS] pt 2-E-MVC to MO [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] Marian Van Court's response to Michael Osier, continued: > definition of "social misbehavior" here, but assuming it means criminal > behavior, alcoholism, things like that, it most certainly *can* be > inherited. alcoholism does indeed show signs of genetic _influences_, but about half of alcoholism appears to be due to environmental So, we're in agreement on that. > There are many lines of evidence, but let's just look at > identical twins separated at birth: they resemble one another not only in > sexual preference, the verdict on sexual preference is still being hotly contested...it's too early in the scientific investigation to make a solid decision either way... It doesn't really matter if the issue is being hotly contested. My assertion is that we know there's a genetic component to sexual preference because there's a highly significant correlation between identical twins separated at birth. > alcohol consumption, again, the link here appears to be about 0.5 genetic, 0.5 environment... [More traits on which there are correlations between identical twins reared apart.....] > intelligence, temperament, [..] > SES, [..] > law-abidingness, [..] > political beliefs [that's right, folks!!], musical > ability, hobbies, phobias, mannerisms, various idiocyncracies, these have been shown to be due to confounding factors... What?!! All the correlations between identical twins reared apart have been shown to be due to confounding factors, factors other than genetics??! By whom?! If you can back up this statement with facts, you will have overturned the whole field of differential psychology. Urgent need for a reference! adoption agencies frequently put children in homes as close as possible to the homes they came from...thus, their environments are rarely different... Their environments are rarely different? How could this be?! thus, the statistically significant resemblance is the right answer for the wrong reason...it's not the genes, it's the household... The *household*? That's preposterous! Are you saying that 50 years ago, all adoption agencies conducted incredibly exhaustive studies of every *conceivable* trait of *all* biological and adoptive parents--even down to their vegetable preferences--and then arranged to place children in homes where *all* these traits were *precisely matched*??!!! Not only is there a *long list* of traits showing resemblance, some of the correlations are *high*--e.g., IQ is typically .7, and personality traits .5. (Christopher Brand, The 'g' Factor, Wiley and Sons, 1996). Aside from its overwhelming implausibility, where's the evidence?! Also, if the household were so terribly important, wouldn't children with different biological parents adopted into the same family should be very, very similar on all these traits? Well, they're not! They show hardly show any resemblance to one another at all. Gee, I hope I've managed to express my views without being *too* terribly annoying . . . . . but somehow, I doubt it! I guess it's inevitable, that people who disagree will get angry. The challenge, as I see it, is to remain unswervingly civil about it. I don't like making people mad (believe it or not!), but if it happens, it happens. My first obligation is to other people is to be truthful. I do share an interest in Eastern religions. I'm not very knowledgeable, but I especially like Taoism, Zen, and Tibetan Buddhism. I love Alan Watts. Once I went to a week-end seminar on his houseboat in Sausalito. Respectfully, Marian From VanCourt@COMPUSERVE.COM Tue Nov 18 14:03:08 1997 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 13:38:13 -0500 From: Marian Van Court Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: [GEN-ETHICS] E-MVC to MG on crime, IQ [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] This is in response to Marc Greenblatt's posting of 11-11: I'm still enjoying this exchange, and I have some responses: Yes, IQ correlates with many parameters which we associate with success, and to which we often ascribe moral judgments. But it's a fallacy to describe IQ as a linear equation with few variables. Human intelligence is a nonlinear system, involving many genetic and environmental factors that interact in often unpredictable ways. By my understanding of nonlinear systems, they are not easily predictable and certainly not predictably manipulated by simple interventions. Technical and moral issues aside (now *there's* a thought!), tring to find a simple genetic intervention which will reliably "improve" the outcome of the system strikes me as naive. I understand (in an elementary way) what "linear" means, but somehow, I don't quite follow your assertion that IQ is not linear. I realize I'm revealing vast amount of ignorance here! But if you could explain this a bit, just very basically, I'd appreciate it (bearing in mind that math had never been my strong suit!) Anyway, if the example about mental retardation which I gave in my last response to Michael Osier is anywhere near correct (that half the mentally retarded people today had a retarded parent, so if all mentally retarded people did not procreate, mental retardation could be cut in half in one generation), then it would seem we *can* raise the intelligence of the population, and fairly rapidly. ( I don't claim this example about the retarded is the "gospel truth"--I read it in a scholarly book, and I haven't run across it anyplace else, so at this point I give it a tentative acceptance.) Furthermore, the intelligence of the population is being changed right now--lowered, that is--at a rate that would seem very fast, at least when compared to the vast expanses of time it took us, as a species, to acquire these IQ points through evolution. Richard Lynn estimates we have lost 6-8 IQ points since 1850 in Europe and North America. That refers to *genotypic* intelligence--there's still confusion about *phenotypic* intelligence because James Flynn contends that we are actually gaining about 3 points per decade. Some scientists dismiss Flynn's results, and others attribute the gains to improved nutrition (Reference: Richard Lynn's Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, 1996, Praeger). >> Kids from priviledged backgrounds with low IQs are much more likely to >> be unemployed, on welfare, working at menial, low-paying jobs, having >> illegitimate children, and committing crimes than kids from the exact >> same kind of background whose IQs are average or high. I'm also curious about this reference, the strength of the correlations, what the confounding factors might be, the specific social circumstances- for example, I would guess that this statement would be much more likely to be true among mid 20th century white Americans than among the English, where class structures are more rigid. The article by Charles Murray which best answers these questions was posted day before yesterday, I believe. I myself was a bit surprised to see just how little SES seemed to matter. >2) you are assuming all crimes are equal...individuals from more >priviledged backgrounds tend to commit more white collar crimes, while >those from less priviledge backgrounds commit more blue collar >crimes...when we divide crime into such categories, does the data still >hold up? I understand your point, but still, even taking into account white collar crimes, low IQ people commit *lots* more crimes. The genetic basis of "criminality" seems to me to be on shaky ground. Social structure has so much to do with it, who's in power, who's out, who gets to define the laws. What is defined as criminality could differ widely even in the same population, depending on circumstances, say, Russians under the Tsar and under the Soviet Union, pre- vs post-revolutionary Iran, etc. Yes, I agree with your latter point. In some severely repressive regeimes, it could almost become a moral duty to become a criminal. Criminality as discussed in the messages on this list (and the popular counterparts of these discussions) seems to imply violent crime that disrupts a stable Western society's daily life. I think the point about the types of criminal behavior in lower vs higher SES is well taken, and I wonder how the "heritability" literature has dealt with these and other confounders. An awful lot of variables to consider before we declare criminal behavior "genetic", I think. I would never claim crime is "genetic." I'm just saying there's a very substantial genetic component. Adoption studies in Scandanavian countries found that if the biological father was a criminal, the child was much more likely to become a criminal, but still, it wasn't anywhere near a foregone conclusion--chances are, the child would *not* become a criminal, there was just a significantly increased probability. If the adoptive father was a criminal, in some studies this had no effect, and in others this had a tiny influence. (Sorry, the reference eludes me at the moment--let me know if you're really interested, and I'll dig some more.) Marian Van Court From chn@intergate.bc.ca Tue Nov 18 14:03:13 1997 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 00:32:31 From: "chn@intergate.bc.ca" Subject: MACLEANS' > SHOULD LATIMER GO FREE? Cover: Preview Should Latimer Go Free? The Crown Reconsiders SHOULD LATIMER GO FREE? His conviction ignites a debate over mercy killing BY SHARON DOYLE DRIEDGER Robert Latimer watches in detached amusement as a kitten plays with his shoelaces. It is the day after a second jury has found him guilty of second-degree murder, and he is relaxing with half a dozen relatives on the deck in front of his modest farmhouse in Wilkie, Sask. Parked across the tidy yard is the half-ton Chevy pickup, the one he filled with deadly carbon monoxide fumes to end the life of his severely disabled 12-year-old daughter, Tracy, on Oct. 24, 1993. Although it is an unseasonably mild November afternoon, he makes sure his cousin Don Danbrook, a quadriplegic who travelled from British Columbia to show his support, is properly wrapped in a sleeping bag against the fall air. "Trials are terrible things to endure," says Latimer. "We were hoping for better--we were hoping for an acquittal." He worries about his wife, Laura, 42, and their three children, Brian, 14, Lindsay, 12, and Lee, 4. "It was very hard on Laura," says the 44-year-old farmer. "The kids are having some difficulties today I'm sure after yesterday's verdict. Lindsay's been pretty good, but Brian's hyper. It will take him a while to calm down." And then, his father may be in jail. "It'll be distressing if I get sent off to prison in a week or two--I just want to stay out of prison." Latimer may not be able to escape imprisonment. In a courtroom in Battleford, 35 km north of Wilkie, 12 jurors found him guilty last week of second-degree murder. "It's a sad day," says defence lawyer Mark Brayford, who also represented Latimer in his original trial. That conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada because police, following Crown orders, had improperly questioned potential jurors about their attitudes towards mercy killing. "Bob and Laura are such nice people," adds Brayford. "I don't think anybody can argue that he didn't act out of compassion." With a sentencing hearing scheduled for this week, it is "premature" to consider an appeal, he says. full story THE CROWN RECONSIDERS Last May, about 60 members of the Halifax regional police force swarmed into the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre and arrested Dr. Nancy Morrison (pictured right), a popular, highly regarded respirologist. Shocking her colleagues and friends--and provoking expressions of outrage from the general public--the police subsequently charged Morrison with murdering 65-year-old cancer patient Paul Mills, who died in the Halifax hospital's intensive care unit on Nov. 10, 1996. Nova Scotia justice officials seemed unequivocal about the nature of the alleged crime. "This is a first-degree murder charge," declared Crown prosecutor Craig Botterill, "and I'm arguing that she killed him." But the case took a dramatic turn last week as Botterill announced that Morrison would instead be prosecuted on the lesser charge of manslaughter. After an exhaustive review, Botterill told reporters, the Crown had concluded that "it was not in the public interest" to charge Morrison with first-degree murder. Botterill said several factors influenced the Crown's decision. Among them, he said, was the progress made in investigating other hospital deaths that had been reported by concerned families following Morrison's arrest. Of 31 such reports, police have ruled out foul play in 23; the others are still under investigation. Botterill said his office also took note of the public's views about the Morrison case--including petitions, cards and letters urging the charges be dropped. In the end, he said, the Crown concluded that the mandatory life sentence that comes with a first-degree conviction was too "harsh and oppressive" to apply to the Morrison case. Manslaughter--which can carry a range of punishments, from a suspended sentence to life imprisonment--was more appropriate, he added. Not everyone seemed to agree. In an unusual twist, the police--who in Nova Scotia have the right to lay charges with or without consulting the prosecutor's office--declined to withdraw the first-degree murder charge against Morrison. That left the Crown with no option but to notify the court that it would instead be pursuing a manslaughter charge following the preliminary inquiry, which is slated to begin in February. Morrison's lawyer, Joel Pink, found that apparent rift between the two law enforcement agencies perplexing. But even more troubling, he told reporters, "is why the police laid the charge before they completed their investigation." Even the manslaughter charge is unwarranted, said Pink, adding: "Dr. Morrison is not guilty of anything." According to Stephen Coughlan, a professor of law at Dalhousie University, the decision to reduce the charge is open to a variety of interpretations. Crown lawyers may simply have concluded no jury would convict Morrison if it meant sending her to jail for life, he says. Certainly, the weight of public opinion to date has been heavily in favor of Morrison, who went on a paid leave of absence for two months after the charge was laid, then returned to work (although not in the intensive care unit) in July. Halifax resident Chris Woodbury says she had no trouble raising nearly 5,000 signatures on a petition demanding the charge be dropped. Woodbury, whose mother died of cancer 22 years ago, says the case has brought the justice system into disrepute and is likely having a chilling affect on how doctors deal with dying patients. "All of us recognize that the care that goes on between a dying patient and a physician is a very intimate thing," she says. "And we're all in trouble when police start wandering around intensive care units, looking over physicians' shoulders." One thing that spokesmen on both sides of the legal battle stressed last week was that the charges against Morrison have nothing to do with mercy killing. "This is not a case of doctor-assisted suicide," said Pink, "this is not euthanasia." So what is it then? he was asked. "For that," Pink replied, "you will have to wait and see." BRIAN BERGMAN in Halifax MACLEAN'S / NOVEMBER 17, 1997 CHERYL ECKSTEIN Founder & President, CHN NEWSBYTES researched reports compliments of CHN please report any problems to CHN: chn@intergate.bc.ca _____________________________________________________ The Compassionate Healthcare Network (CHN) Canada's International Anti-euthanasia Network - CHN is an affiliated member of The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life * * * * * Address "CHN DIGEST ONLINE" at: http://www.awinc.com/partners/bc/commpass/lifenet/euthan1.htm CHN'S NEW ADDRESS ... SOON TO BE IN OPERATION: www.chninternational.com --------------------------------------------------- Tel: (604) 582 8687 Fax: (604) 582 7690 From dfrenkel@BGUMAIL.BGU.AC.IL Tue Nov 18 14:03:17 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 00:54:50 +0200 From: David Frenkel Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: Re: [GEN-ETHICS] E-MVC to MO-crime,twins,BG I am seriously terrified and horrified reading the views of Marian Van Court. One may think that nothing happened in Europe during the years 1933 - 1945. All that we learn from history that people don't or even refuse to learn from history. I feel as though I am in central Europe now in the beginning of the 40's. I do hope Marian Van Court belongs to a small minority, but I start to doubt it. Dr. David A. Frenkel On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Marian Van Court wrote: > I apologize for taking so long to respond to Michael Osier's points of > 11-10and 11-11: > > but could we ever get to the point where there are less criminals through > genetics? > > Absolutely! One way it could be done is by raising IQ, since low IQ is > very significantly negatively correlated with criminal behavior. > (References: The Bell Curve, Crime & Human Nature, Wilson and Herrnstein, > 1985, The g Factor, Arthur Jensen, see below.) Besides doing it > "across-the-board," meaning encouraging all smart people to have children, > and discouraging un-smart people, we could also just target the mentally > retarded. In Lee Willerman's book, Differential Psychology (circa 1978), > he says that half the retarded people in this country have a retarded > parent. If this figure is correct, wouldn't it follow that if all > retarded people refrained from reproducing, mental retardation could be cut > in half in one generation? It would be difficult to imagine that all > mentally retarded people could actually be induced to do so, but > theoretically--wouldn't that be true? It's important to find out if this > is correct, because this could potentially alleviate *all* social problems, > not just crime, saving vast sums of taxpayers money, and it would prevent > huge amounts of misery. It should definitely lessen crime, because mildly > retarded and low IQ people commit a way disproportionate number of crimes > (severely retarded people do not). So that would be one method--to raise > IQ. (References: The Bell Curve, by Herrnstein and Murray, also Crime and > Human Nature, Simon and Shuster, 1985, by Wilson and Herrnstein) > > Here's the other method. As I pointed out earlier, some research shows > criminals have considerably more offspring than non-criminals-- in fact, > almost twice as many (Richard Lynn, 1995, "Dysgenic fertility for crime," > Journal of Biosocial Science, 27, 405-408; also by Lynn, Dysgenics: Genetic > Deterioration in Modern Populations, Praeger, 1996). This is just one > study, and it needs to be replicated, but let's assume for the sake of > argument the results hold up. By factoring in the established heritability > of criminal behavior (derived from twin and adoption studies), Lynn shows > how this will produce (ceteris paribus) a substantial increase in crime in > the future. To reduce criminal's fertility would likewise decrease crime > in the future. > > It's generally assumed that genes for intelligence are dominant, since > intelligence confers a selective advantage. ( As for *evidence* of > dominance, I think there's bound to be some, but I can't remember having > run across it.) There's one exception I know of: Arthur Jensen found > evidence for a recessive, X-linked (?) gene for spatial ability among the > Japanese. (Reference: see below) > > > with human beings, whatever genes predispose them to become smart, > healthy, > > law-abiding, sane, and conscientious must be only a minuscule fraction of > > the entire genome...... > > where did you derive this from? my understanding is that genetic control > of neurotic functions are almost always controlled as polygenetic > traits...for instance, schizophrenia...how many cell receptors do you > think are associated with schiz.? if you scan the literature, there are a > dozen candidates...and the list is constantly growing...and few of these > are actually falling out...and that's just one disorder... > > I take back "healthy." And I "derived it" from my own mind! Which is not > too far from saying "I just made it up!" But seriously, it seems so > obvious that genes for any one trait couldn't possibly constitute a large > portion of the entire genome. Maybe we can't know with 100% certainty > until they're all pinned down. But let's just talk about IQ for now, since > it's simpler than lumping together traits. Can't we draw some "strong > inferences" from the fact that we share __% of our genes with chimps, that > the genes for intelligence *couldn't possibly* be too terribly numerous, > when compared to the entire genome? I don't know what the exact percent > is--do you? > > let's take a more common example: nearsightedness...many, many children > are nearsighted...what do other kids call them? "four eyes"... > yes, the individual can rise above this, but will they ever completely? > or will there always be a level of self-doubt in the back of their minds? > and will this affect their school work during middle/high-school? could > this not affect their IQ? > > But, guess what? Myopia is a positive correlate of IQ! [Near-sighted > people are, on average, somewhat more intelligent than people who are not > near-sighted.] I know you will counter, "But they could still have had a > lowering of their IQ," and I'll agree they *could,* but I don't think it's > likely, and there's no evidence of it. It's been shown that the > correlation is *not* because myopics read more, but I can't remember how > they proved it. There are a number of other interesting positive > correlates of IQ: height, thinness, speed of talking (one I especially > like!), head size (r = .3), and even better is brain size (eliminating > skull differences using MRI) (r = .4?) > > Arthur Jensen's magnum opus, The g Factor, is due out around January. > (Praegar, 1-800-225-5800; cost about $35. If you tell the operator the > "source code," which I *think* will be F238, you'll get 20% off.) I > haven't read the manuscript, but I have a copy of the Table of Contents, > and he devotes one chapter to biological correlates of IQ. So this would > be by far the most up-to-date, authoritative reference for all the traits I > have just listed. This book will almost certainly be the best all-round > resource for information on IQ for a long time. He addresses many of the > other issues debated in the GEN-ETHICS forum recently--the heritability of > IQ, the validity of IQ, population differences in IQ, challenges to the > concept of IQ, etc. Regardless of whether one "likes" or "dislikes" his > conclusions on race (which seem to be what he's associated with in the > minds of the public), Jensen is "the master" when it comes to the scientic > study of intelligence. > > On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Marian Van Court wrote: > > > misbehaviour could be inherited." This may be out-dated to the > politically > > correct crowd--and it is certainly outdated in the sense that it's very, > > very unfashionable-- but it is a fact to those in the field of > differential > > psychology and behavior genetics (scientists who study the heritability > of > > IQ, criminality, personality traits, etc). > > I have to step in and correct a couple misconceptions here: > > 1) speaking as a member of the behavioral genetics field, it's outdated > there, too...although for scientific reasons and not "fashion"... > > 2) IQ and criminality are fringe areas of behavioral > genetics...criminality has gone the way of phrenology (reading the bumps > on people's heads to figure out what their personality is)...IQ is rarely > bothered with, as there is little practical benefit (if any)... > > behavioral genetics is currently concerned with psychological disorders > (from classical concerns such as schizo. and alcoholism, to more modern > concerns such as migranes) more than anything else...the brunt of this > work is asking the question "how can we ease people's discomfort? how can > we increase their quality of life?" > > in sum, the mainstream of behavioral genetics has little to do with > eugenics...it tends to frown quite heavily on it for scientific reasons... > > Differential psychology is precisely the field I'm in--it's concerned with > individual differences, group differences (age, race, and sex differences), > the Nature-Nurture debate, the heritability of all psychological traits, > twin and adoption studies, IQ, psychological testing, etc. But most people > have never heard of it. I will concede that *most* of behavior genetics is > *not* in the same realm. For one thing, there's a lot of research in > behavior genetics on animals-- fruit flies, mice, etc. But the discipline > does encompass some of the same issues, even if little work is being done > on them now. I could be mistaken, but wasn't it Robert Plomin (behavior > geneticist) who claims to have found a gene for intelligence? And doesn't > Glayde Whitney (former president of the Behavior Genetics Association) do > research and write articles about IQ? You're right it may not be > mainstream, but it exists. > > Also, I disagree totally that the genetic influence on IQ and other traits > was rejected by behavior geneticists on scientific grounds. First of all, > the *are* no compelling scientific grounds to dismiss it, and behavior > geneticists could find this out easily. They wouldn't be swayed by > propaganda. And secondly, the Zeitgeist is so *overwhelmingly* hostile to > genetic influences on IQ, with research funds almost non-existent, I > believe many behavior geneticists feel the pressure and, quite > understandably, don't bother trying to swim upstream against a mighty > current. I'd like to see the results of an annonymous survey. If those > results could be compared to a survey that required respondents to state > their views *publicly,* the pathetic nature of the situation would be very > nicely illuminated, even quantified. ( to be continued . . . . .) > > Respectfully, > > Marian > From kbarrett@unixg.ubc.ca Tue Nov 18 14:03:21 1997 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:53:12 -0800 From: Katherine Barrett To: jest-west@sfu.ca Subject: new book: Gene Wars Hi everyone, I just picked up and skimmed through a very slim (65 page) book called Gene Wars: The Politics of Biotechnology. It's written by Kristin Dawkins (no philosophical relation to Richard) from the IATP. The book looks great. It mainly talks about biotech in relation to "free" trade (discusses GATT, TRIPS, NAFTA etc etc), the role of transnationals, and issues of food security, IPRs, farmers rights, biodiversity, biopiracy. I haven't come across many publications that deal directly with biotech and trade, so I think this is worth looking at. I got it at Spartacus Books (311 W. Hastings) for those of you in Vancouver. Katherine From VanCourt@COMPUSERVE.COM Tue Nov 18 14:03:27 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 13:31:57 -0500 From: Marian Van Court Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: [GEN-ETHICS] E-MVC to "Warning" on filters [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] >I don't believe its that clear cut. When you say that the "propogandists" are "lying", it implies there is a conspiracy of people who plan it this way. Of course that is not what you mean, but the idea is present. No, I don't think there's a conspiracy, except maybe clusters of little transient, "quasi-conspiracies" that probably don't merit use of the word. People can certainly lie without conspiring to do so. >Because there is a filter that is biased in favor of equality, pro-eugenics views are less numerous. However there is a reason that this filter exists (IMHO): it is more important for the vast majority of people to have opportunities to succeed and have a good life than it is for them to consider anti-social or volatile ideas. Ahh, now you've hit on something! You very aptly describe the suppression of these ideas as a "filter." I agree absolutely that this belief--that the public should be protected from such radical ideas-- is one major reason journalists and others have lied to the public about IQ. But it's not *nearly* good enough!! In fact, it's awful, really. It's journalists *job* to report the facts. And they, more than most people, support freedom of speech. While mentally incompetent people may *have* to have decisions made by others (because, by definition, they're incapable of making them), the public can hardly be considered mentally incompetent!! Are you suggesting that the public is too stupid and too unstable to be trusted with the truth? This is *precisely* the reason why many in the anti-eugenics camp distort or suppress the truth about IQ. It also serves as an ever-handy, really first-rate rationalization for the legions of journalists and others who are too *cowardly* to express an unpopular truth, but don't want to admit it to themselves, and who prefer instead to disingenuously congratulate themselves on being "real humanitarians." To me, this attitude conveys a chilling arrogance, and utter contempt for the humanity of the public. It indicates they (you?) don't value truth, or freedom, very much. Because you "care" about them, you want to decide what's best for them to believe?! Would you want people to "care" about *you* that way? Who are *you*--who is *anyone*-- to decide what truths the masses can, and cannot, be told? Do you believe in freedom of speech? Or is it only for certain people? >There are many fully sensible reasons to reject the eugenics idea even if you know it is scientifically true. One is to consider the vast majority of stupid people who will "fuck up the world" using eugenics arguments to make themselves sound scientific. The world is not "ready enough" to handle this reasearch without it being completely misunderstood, deranged, and wholly mutated by the press and other laypersons. Fascinating. It seems we have very different values. From levy@OSWEGO.EDU Tue Nov 18 14:03:38 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 16:04:34 -0500 From: levy@OSWEGO.EDU Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: Re: [GEN-ETHICS] E-MVC to "Warning" on filter I don't necessarily agree with those views. I am actually a radical liberatrian punk, but I don't necessarily see the truth as a solid and concrete thing. In the world of people (which for most purposes is "the world") things that people value are real things as well. Is information on genetics somehow more important than information on people's feelings on the effect eugenics will have on friends and community? I think human values are in some instances more important than truth, because we know that human values are actually extant in the minds of many humans, wheras we don't yet have any proof that the physical makeup of human beings is of any realtion to their value in the human reality. And who are you to say who is of value? Does your belief system or doctorate degree give you the right to act on conjectures that are downright invasive into the lives of others? Truth is multifacted, there is not "one truth", but relations between factors and multiple consequences, all of which may or may not be positive for some or many individuals. Rob previous message.... >There are many fully sensible reasons to reject the eugenics idea even if you know it is scientifically true. One is to consider the vast majority of stupid people who will "fuck up the world" using eugenics arguments to make themselves sound scientific. The world is not "ready enough" to handle this reasearch without it being completely misunderstood, deranged, and wholly mutated by the press and other laypersons. Fascinating. It seems we have very different values. ////// Prometheus to the gods: Does anyone have a light? ////// From levy@OSWEGO.EDU Tue Nov 18 14:03:48 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 16:20:02 -0500 From: levy@OSWEGO.EDU Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: Re: [GEN-ETHICS] E-MVC to "Warning" on filters On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Marian Van Court wrote: > To me, this attitude conveys a chilling arrogance, and utter contempt for > the humanity of the public. It indicates they (you?) don't value truth, > or freedom, very much. Because you "care" about them, you want to decide > what's best for them to believe?! Would you want people to "care" about > *you* that way? Who are *you*--who is *anyone*-- to decide what truths the > masses can, and cannot, be told? Do you believe in freedom of speech? Or > is it only for certain people? What about the freedom of individuals to lead their own lives, estranged and happy, retarded and insane, not contributing in any way to society? What about the semi intelligent people who become rich in human food chain, but never do anything but hurt society in one way or another. White collar criminals are not seeded out by eugenics, because they cheat on the intelligence test to dodge your hypothetical inquistition. What about schizophrenics, they are wonderfull poets, should we weed them out as well? The issue is not freedom of speech, it is what the largest number of people say overpowering week unconvincing voices. If the truth is in your data I don't doubt that it will eventually be accepted by the mainstream. Perhaps this is something we should work toward very slowly... ////// Prometheus to the gods: Does anyone have a light? ////// From chn@INTERGATE.BC.CA Tue Nov 18 14:03:52 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 16:32:56 -0500 From: "chn@intergate.bc.ca" To: NDY@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Tracy Latimer Ken Preston If Tracy had not been disabled and his father killed her, how would you feel about Robert Latimer's sentance? Just what do you know about C.P.? Do you think everyone who has C.P. should be allowed to be put out of *their father's* or caregiver's misery? Because there is no doubt in my mind, that - that is what this is all about. If Tracy had been compassionately treated - with mercy, it is quite possible, she would be alive today. What else do you know about Tracy? Have you read the complete court transcripts as I have here in my office? Do you know the *only* pain management she was given was *tylenol*? Vets give stronger meds to animals in pain. Tracy's pain was not being properly managed by a trained doctor in pain management. What do you know about pain? People like yourself, write hate letters, and don't have the courage to return an answer to me. Are you just another one? You don't even see your own biogtry. It seems you hate children who have disabilities enough that you cannot perceive them as having a right to live out their own life. Perhaps you think that of all people with disabilities? Someone in my office (not employed here) read your letter (over my shoulder). He suggested, "If his rash is so bad, maybe someone should put him out of his misery." Though he was joking, I told him Tracy's death was a homicide -- or you can call it nonvoluntary euthanasia. But her death must never be called a mercy killing, unless you, like some people who have written in calling us names like " sanctimonious jerks" believe Tracy would be better off dead and put out of *her father's* misery. Ken Preston, your biogtry is plain and clear to all of us. How terribly sad for you. Cheryl Eckstein Founder and President CHN At 08:02 PM 11/13/97 -0600, you wrote: >You sanctimonious jerks give me a rash. Robert Latimer has has over >twelve years of continuous hell and you want to rub salt in his wounds. > > CHERYL ECKSTEIN Founder & President, CHN NEWSBYTES researched reports compliments of CHN please report any problems to CHN: chn@intergate.bc.ca _____________________________________________________ The Compassionate Healthcare Network (CHN) Canada's International Anti-euthanasia Network - CHN is an affiliated member of The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life * * * * * Address "CHN DIGEST ONLINE" at: http://www.awinc.com/partners/bc/commpass/lifenet/euthan1.htm CHN'S NEW ADDRESS ... SOON TO BE IN OPERATION: www.chninternational.com --------------------------------------------------- Tel: (604) 582 8687 Fax: (604) 582 7690 From chn@intergate.bc.ca Tue Nov 18 14:03:56 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 02:57:03 From: "chn@intergate.bc.ca" Subject: Latimer it not a monster >Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:10:22 -0500 >From: Albert Pietersma >Reply-To: Albert.Pietersma@utoronto.ca >Organization: University of Toronto >To: chn@intergate.bc.ca >Subject: Latimer it not a monster > >Robert Latimer is not a monster! > >Robert Latimer's conviction defied all good reason. >Here is a man who did not ask for help in looking after his child. >He loved her and wanted to care for her himself at home with her family >where she belonged. >He only looked for help to stop Tracy's suffering and there no one could >help him. Even after a planned mutilating operation, the doctors could >not guarantee she would be without pain. >What they did guarantee was "incredible" suffering, as per Dr. Anne >Dzus, an orthopedic surgeon. >Latimer wanted to protect his little girl from more suffering and thus >ended her life. That was one last decision he had to make for Tracy. >All through her life he had to make all the decisions for her. >My heart goes out to the Latimer Family. It was not murder, but mercy >killing, which in this instance was justified. >As a parent all his options were closed. Robert Latimer made the >ultimate sacrifice. He gave up his freedom so Tracy could be free. > > Margaret Pietersma > Weston, Ont. > > CHERYL ECKSTEIN Founder & President, CHN NEWSBYTES researched reports compliments of CHN please report any problems to CHN: chn@intergate.bc.ca _____________________________________________________ The Compassionate Healthcare Network (CHN) Canada's International Anti-euthanasia Network - CHN is an affiliated member of The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life * * * * * Address "CHN DIGEST ONLINE" at: http://www.awinc.com/partners/bc/commpass/lifenet/euthan1.htm CHN'S NEW ADDRESS ... SOON TO BE IN OPERATION: www.chninternational.com --------------------------------------------------- Tel: (604) 582 8687 Fax: (604) 582 7690 From chn@intergate.bc.ca Tue Nov 18 14:04:03 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 03:19:58 From: "chn@intergate.bc.ca" To: Albert.Pietersma@utoronto.ca Subject: Re: Latimer it not a monster Albert Pietersma and Margaret Weston, Let us never forget, no person owns us. We do not own our children, nor are we allowed by law to kill them or other human being. I am going to forward you a piece called "One of our children is dead." In it is a fairly long quote from an 11-year-old boy named Teague Johnson who also had Cerebral Palsy. I think you should listen to what he said. Have you read the complete court transcripts as I have here in my office? Do you know the *only* pain management she was given was *tylenol*? Vets give stronger meds to animals in pain. Tracy's pain was not being properly managed by a trained doctor in pain management. What do you know about pain? Just what do you know about C.P.? Do you think everyone who has C.P. should be allowed to be put out of *their father's* or caregiver's misery? Because there is no doubt in my mind, that - that is what this is all about. If Tracy had been compassionately treated - with mercy, it is quite possible, she would be alive today. The biotry towards Tracy is outstanding. On the 11 0'clock news the other night, I heard that funds to support Latimer 's court costs have exceeded $100,00.00. I have maintained that "Robert Latimer has gained sympathetic support from some Canadians only because Tracy Latimer is consistently tagged as being severely disabled." (see my article "One of our children is dead") This unbearable news must strike fear into the hearts of disabled people. I know one young woman who is terrified that her mother may consider doing the same thing to her. Every time she hears such news, she phones my office. Just for a moment think of how great the fear is, when a woman is being stalked and she can't run. This is how Jenny, who is very disabled put it once to me. She lives in a group home and has heard some staff members sympathize with Latimer. Jenny does not feel safe anymore, and no thanks to society. Tracy's death was a homicide -- or you can call it nonvoluntary euthanasia. But her death must never be called a mercy killing, unless you, like some people who have written in - believe Tracy would be better off dead and put out of *her father's* misery. Jenny has to suffer the biogtry which plain and clear to all of us. How terribly sad for those who cannot or will not stand up for the most vulnerable in our society. How tragic - that someone who had a right to live her own life, was cut short because her father was too selfish to allow her daughter to be loved and cared for by foster parents, like Teague's. Your response, would be most welcomed. Cheryl Eckstein, Founder and President CHN At 10:10 AM 11/14/97 -0500, you wrote: >Robert Latimer is not a monster! > >Robert Latimer's conviction defied all good reason. >Here is a man who did not ask for help in looking after his child. >He loved her and wanted to care for her himself at home with her family >where she belonged. >He only looked for help to stop Tracy's suffering and there no one could >help him. Even after a planned mutilating operation, the doctors could >not guarantee she would be without pain. >What they did guarantee was "incredible" suffering, as per Dr. Anne >Dzus, an orthopedic surgeon. >Latimer wanted to protect his little girl from more suffering and thus >ended her life. That was one last decision he had to make for Tracy. >All through her life he had to make all the decisions for her. >My heart goes out to the Latimer Family. It was not murder, but mercy >killing, which in this instance was justified. >As a parent all his options were closed. Robert Latimer made the >ultimate sacrifice. He gave up his freedom so Tracy could be free. > > Margaret Pietersma > Weston, Ont. > > CHERYL ECKSTEIN Founder & President, CHN NEWSBYTES researched reports compliments of CHN please report any problems to CHN: chn@intergate.bc.ca _____________________________________________________ The Compassionate Healthcare Network (CHN) Canada's International Anti-euthanasia Network - CHN is an affiliated member of The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life * * * * * Address "CHN DIGEST ONLINE" at: http://www.awinc.com/partners/bc/commpass/lifenet/euthan1.htm CHN'S NEW ADDRESS ... SOON TO BE IN OPERATION: www.chninternational.com --------------------------------------------------- Tel: (604) 582 8687 Fax: (604) 582 7690 From GENETHICS@DELPHI.COM Tue Nov 18 14:04:22 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 23:07:27 -0500 From: GENETHICS@DELPHI.COM Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: [GEN-ETHICS] E-MVC to "Warning" on f What Ms van Court dismisses as a "filter" and somebody else claimed was the bias of the liberal press, is the fundamental concept in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution that all men are created equal. The same principle can be found in many religions. Genetics is the science of inequality and therefore it creates direct challenges to any democratic or humanistic belief system. Indeed, as some have observed, genetics raises great questions about the very definition of humanity. As genetic based techniques and thinking creep into societies all over the world, they pose a profound threat to civil liberties and privileges. This threat is difficult for many people to perceive because genetic research is being sold as medical research which will cure thousands of diseases. In my opinion most of those cures are decades away and they may come at a terrible price. The true believers in genetics and eugenics will always claim to have science on their side, and in many cases they may eventually be "right." I am not sure that we should find out. I know that I, for one, would not want to live in their utopia. Freud wrote that religion is the one true enemy of science. In this case he may very well have been right. So say a prayer for Carrie Buck and all those others whose reproductive rights and very presence on the Earth are in jeopardy. Hans Goerl The Genethics Center >Because there is a filter that is biased in favor of equality, pro-eugenics views are less numerous. However there is a reason that thi= s filter exists (IMHO): From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU Tue Nov 18 14:04:28 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:00:44 -0600 From: Automatic digest processor Reply-To: BIOMED-L Biomedical Ethics To: Recipients of BIOMED-L digests Subject: BIOMED-L Digest - 15 Nov 1997 to 16 Nov 1997 [ Part 1: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:00:44 -0600 From: Automatic digest processor Reply-To: BIOMED-L Biomedical Ethics To: Recipients of BIOMED-L digests Subject: BIOMED-L Digest - 15 Nov 1997 to 16 Nov 1997 There are 4 messages totalling 439 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. BIOMED-L Digest - 14 Nov 1997 to 15 Nov 1997 2. (2) 3. Multi-disciplinary charting [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 01:41:23 -0500 From: robin motz Subject: Re: BIOMED-L Digest - 14 Nov 1997 to 15 Nov 1997 [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] Robin Peters spoke about the managed care crisis, and got it exactly right! In large companies, employees may still have a choice of plans, but in small companies there is usually only one plan, and if the one you are in gets outbid (lowballed) next year, you may find yourself in a different plan. I have patients who have had to find three primary care doctors, three gynecologists, and three pediatricians in three years. If they had chronic problems (e.g. a child with scoliosis or hemophilia) they had to find even more doctors. There should, at least. be a mechanism for maintaining the therapeutic relationship no matter what. I have had some patients for twenty years, and, even if I forward the new doctor a full copy of the chart, it still can't convey all I know about my patient, especially the psychological part. Perhaps an any willing provider law is the answer. Costs could still be controlled---look at medicare, which is essentially an HMO with fixed prices, and accepts any willing provider, with the patient having a copay (after deductible) of about 20%. Robin O. Motz, M.D., Ph.D. Dept. of Medicine Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons [ Part 3: "Included Message" ] Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:51:22 -0700 From: Gregor Wolbring Subject: CCD Latimer Watch 3 November 1997 Sobsey and Wolbring Speak Out Responding to Dying with Dignity We would like to comment on a statement that the Calgary Herald printed by Marilynne Seguin, a founding member of Dying with Dignity who is quoted in the article saying "a few vocal disabled groups have been speaking loudly and meddling in the case. I don't know how Mr. Latimer can receive justice. He has suffered in so many ways and to such a degree none of us could even imagine it". We were shocked by her remark but not surprised. When Sue Rodriguez asked for assisted suicide several years ago the issue of "death with dignity" was framed around terminal illness and self-determination by a competent individual. Even then, many people in the disability rights movement opposed voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide because they believed that this would begin a slide down a slippery slope that would put the most vulnerable people in jeopardy. Very few of them, however, could have predicted how far we have slid down that slope in a few short years. Today, the term terminal-illness has been replaced by incurable condition. Pain is now defined as any physical or emotional distress. Competence and consent are no longer required, and others can now make a decision for us about whether or not our lives are worth living. Robert Latimer is alleged to have killed his daughter who was NOT terminally ill, who never asked to be killed, and never consented to her father's decision. Marilynne Seguin defends Latimer and criticizes the disability rights movement for "meddling in the case" by asking that the same laws that protect every other citizen be enforced when crimes are committed against people with disabilities. Her statements show very clearly that people with disabilities and others concerned about them can't trust the arguments of the right-to-die movement. Seguin shows the real face of the right-to-die movement. She claims that no one knows what it was like to be Tracy Latimer. She tells us no one (particularly not other people with disabilities) has the right to speak for Tracy Latimer, but Seguin goes on to speak for Tracy Latimer by telling us that Tracy Latimer's life was not worth living and not worth protecting. Did Tracy Latimer tell her that? Ms. Seguin also tells us that Mr. Latimer is suffering more than we can even imagine. She also tells us that it is sometimes acceptable to kill another human being to end his or her suffering even when he or she does not ask to be killed. Of course, it would be outrageous for someone to suggest taking Mr. Latimer's life to end his suffering. It is no less outrageous to use the same logic to the taking of his daughter's life or the life of another individual with a disability. Many people suffer in this world. Some are homeless. Some are poor. Some are victims of discrimination. Some are ill. Some are friendless. Some are healthy and wealthy but desperately unhappy for reasons known only to themselves. Research has clearly demonstrated that people with severe disabilities are no more or less happy than people without disabilities. Under Canadian law every life deserves equal protection. The same law that protects every other Canadian must protect the homeless, the poor, the victim of discrimination, and the friendless. We do not believe that people with disabilities deserve anything less. Robert Latimer deserves a fair trial. He is entitled to every defense that the law allows, but Seguin argues that we should ignore the law because the child Mr. Latimer is alleged to have killed had a severe disability. We believe that justice should take its normal course. Who do you think is meddling? Dick Sobsey, Director JP Das Developmental Disabilities Centre University of Alberta Dr. Gregor Wolbring, Human Rights Committee Council of Canadians with Disabilities University of Calgary (403) 220-5448 gwolbrin@acs.ucalgary.ca ACL Manitoba Speaks Out The Association for Community Living (ACL)- Manitoba passed unanimously the following resolution at its Annual General Meeting which was held in Winnipeg on 18 October 1997. WHEREAS All human life is inherently worth living, Individuals who live with a disability must receive adequate supports in order to live well, In recent years, individuals who live with a disability have been killed by family members or other caregivers, and, Many of these individuals have been children or vulnerable adults, who rely on others for their care and protection. BE IT RESOLVED THAT Canadians who live with a disability should enjoy the right to live a full life that is valued, supported and protected. All efforts to end the lives of Canadians with disabilities should be condemned: killing people who live with a disability, whatever the intent or motivation, can never be justified. ACL-Manitoba Division 210-500 Portage Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 3X1 Tel: 204-786-1607 Fax: 204-789-9850 [ Part 4: "Included Message" ] Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:52:40 -0700 From: Gregor Wolbring Subject: 12 November 1997 The Honourable Anne McLellan, P.C., M.P. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Room 360, Justice Building 239 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8#000# re: An open Letter on Compassionate Homicide: Hard Cases Make Bad Law Honourable Minister: Most lawyers agree with the old adage that "hard cases make bad law." Tailoring our laws to fit a few exceptions almost invariably means that they will fail to fit a much larger number of typical cases. We believe that changing the laws to respond to overwhelming public sentiment that Robert Latimer deserves a lighter sentence will almost certainly result in many new problems for Canadian law, society, and particularly for Canadians with severe disabilities. To understand what these new problems will be, we need to consider three possible alternatives for making these changes: (1) We could eliminate minimum sentences for all homicides, (2) we could create a broadly defined compassionate homicide law, or (3) we could create a very narrowly defined compassionate homicide law. The first option is the one recommended by Mark Brayford, Mr. Latimers's lawyer. He recommends that we simply eliminate minimum penalties for first and second degree murder. This approach would open the door for Mr. Latimer to receive a lighter sentence. It would also open the door for every other person convicted of killing someone to get off with a lighter sentence. It would be a serious mistake for Canadians to change our laws based on this one case unless we also feel that we want the same principle applied to thousands of other cases that will be affected in the coming years. If Canadians want to create an opportunity for anyone convicted of homicide to spend less time in jail, eliminating minimum sentences is a good way to accomplish that. It would permit a provocation defense and it would allow sentencing to be less when public opinion generally was sympathetic with the person who was convicted of murder. Most advocates for social justice can probably think of some cases that they would endorse such an option. Unfortunately, experience tells us that when we create such options, it is usually the privileged and powerful who gain the most and those who are socially disadvantaged who gain the least. If Canadians do not really want to open this opportunity to everyone convicted of murder and particularly the privileged and powerful, eliminating minimum penalties would be a terrible mistake. A second alternative, would involve the creation of a new class of third degree or "compassionate homicide. This would allow elimination of minimum penalties only for this class of homicide without elimination of minimum penalties for all murders. There are two serious problems with this approach. First, we can never directly observe motivation. This fact is complicated by two long-established principles of Canadian justice: (1) guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) defendants can not be required to testify at their own trials. In effect, this would mean that any time a lawyer claimed that his client was motivated by compassion, it would become almost impossible to convict that individual of first or second degree murder since the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that compassion was not the motive without ever having the opportunity to examine the defendant before the court. For example, a nurse in a Danish nursing home last month was arrested for killing about 20 residents of the home. She was arrested after an investigation that appears to show that she stole about $100,000 from the people she killed and many were described as active, alert, and healthy. She claims that she killed these people for compassionate reasons and there is no way to prove that she was not feeling compassion because her feelings can not be examined by others. The second problem is that compassion can be very broadly defined. It might be used to describe the killing of a person to prevent pain and suffering but it could also be used to describe many other alleged reasons for killing. For example, Susan Smith who drowned her two children in South Carolina confessed saying that she had done it to spare them suffering through a divorce. Compassion may or may not have ben her real motive, but it would be virtually impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not, particularly since her birth family had been broken by divorce and Smith had been an abused child by her step-father. Other parents tell us that they kill their children because they want to spare them from drug addiction, prostitution, atheism, poverty, or many other fates that they see as worse than death. We may or may not agree with their views on which (if any) children are better off dead, but it would not be necessary for society to agree, only that the parent who kills believes it, or at least that we can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are lying about motivation. Shifting the burden of proof to the defendant would create equally complex and insoluble problems. Of course, parents would not be the only ones who might avail themselves of the compassionate defense. Law enforcement officers might be equally justified in killing criminals to spare them from lives of disgrace and imprisonment. Criminals might even claim compassion, arguing that having realized the pain and suffering that they have already inflicted on their victims, they then killed their victim to end her or his suffering. While such absurd claims of compassion may seem laughable, even more bizarre claims already have been used to try to justify killing. For example, earlier this year, friends testified that Juan Lopez told them that he had carried out two mercy killings in Florida. Overwhelmed with compassion after his accomplice wounded two people in a warehouse holdup, Mr. Lopez said he felt compelled to finish them off and end their suffering. Illinois courts also heard the case of 61-year-old Thomas O'Farrell this year. He originally told police that his wife was shot to death by an intruder. When they found the gun that he had used to shot her in his home, O'Farrell admitted the shooting, explaining that his wife was suffering from a terrible disease and begged him to shoot her. The Judge who sentenced O'Farrell to 50 years in prison said he was doing so because there was no evidence that Lesley O'Farrell was ill or disabled. Does this imply that the mere presence of an illness or disability would have been enough to validate the killer's claim? In June, 1995, 28-year-old Muricio Torres was charged with murder of his daughter in Suffolk County, New York. He claimed he had killed her on compassionate grounds. Torres said he was rough-housing with his four-year-old daughter as fathers often do when she happened to fall on the large hunting knife that he was holding at the time causing a painful injury. He indicated that he could not stand to see her suffer and so he then plunged the knife into her chest to put a quick end to her suffering.A broadly defined compassionate homicide law such as the one proposed for Canada would require proof that he did not kill her for his stated reason, and the prosecutor would be required to prove it without ever questioning him. The creation of such a vague compassionate homicide law would be disastrous to justice in Canada. The final alternative for changing the law would be a much more narrowly defined compassionate homicide law. This kind of law would be carefully crafted to rule out most of the claims of compassion described. It would not include compassionate grounds such as saving someone from disgrace, divorce, temporary illness, boredom, existential crisis, or other things that a broad law might include. Only cases like those of Tracy Latimer would be left. Unfortunately, this approach has even greater problems. It provides no better solution for the problem of disproving a claim of compassionate motivation than a broader law. It simply restricts the problem to a particular class of victim. It simply assumes that if someone kills an individual with a severe disability and says that there was a good reason for it, we will believe it. If someone kills someone without a severe disability and says that there was a good reason for it, we will demand more proof. We believe that such a law would be a horrible affront to people with disabilities and would inevitably lead to more deaths of children and adults who do not want to be murdered. This is particularly problematic because there is already existing proof that people with disabilities are victims of violence at much higher rates than other citizens and strong evidence that sentencing discrimination already produces lesser penalties when crimes are committed against people with disabilities (We have enclosed a short article on this topic.We also would be happy upon request to provide you with Dr. Sobsey's background paper on Hate Crimes Against People with Disabilities that he was invited to prepare by the US Department of Justice for the recent White House Conference on Hate Crimes). In response to this problem , this week, President Clinton, announced that he will be introducing legislation in the United States that enhances penalties for crimes committed when the victim's disability enters into motivation. It would be horrible for Canada to introduce legislation that would effectively lighten sentences for crimes against the same vulnerable minority. Equally importantly, such a law would rightly be challenged and almost certainly be struck down since it would effectively amount to providing lesser protection for citizens with disabilities than for other citizens. We urge all Canadians and particularly all legislators to think carefully before changing the laws in response to the Latimer case. We believe that upon careful contemplation of the effects of proposed changes, Canadians will not want to create a bad law to attempt to address a few difficult cases. Sincerely, Dick Sobsey, Director JP Das Developmental Disabilities Centre dick.sobsey @ualberta.ca Gregor Wolbring, Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Human Rights Committee [ Part 5: "Included Message" ] Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:00:27 -0800 From: Ken Meece Subject: Re: Multi-disciplinary charting Our hospital is exploring truly multi or inter-disciplinarying charting options -- all disciplines charting in one progress notes, etc. does anyone have expereince with this, and with implementing it for the first time? I am especially interested in hearing from folks who have done it in a community (as opposed to teaching) hospital, as teaching hospitals may have an easier time implementing changes that we are likely to have. If you have any examples of forms, I'll appreciate your sending them as attachments or snail mail. Expereinces implementing this may be a valuable thread for discussion. Thanks in advance. ><> <>< ><> <>< ><> <>< ><> <>< ><> <>< ><> <>< KEN MEECE Director, Spiritual Health Services St. Joseph Health System -- Humboldt County 2700 Dolbeer St.; Eureka CA 95501 ph 707-269-4245 fax 707-269-3800 kmeece@humboldt1.com [or] amortal@earthling.net From summitil@PAW.MONTANA.COM Tue Nov 18 14:04:32 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:42:32 -0700 From: Paul Peterson To: NDY@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Tracy Latimer Hi gang, Who is this Ken "The Martyr Maker" Preston? Mr Preston, I am diabetic, totally blind, deaf in one ear, use a wheel chair and im in almost constant pain. I ASK YOU PERSONALLY: SHOULD MY PARENTS HAVE KILLED ME? Please answer me. Is my protecting my life too sanctimonious for you, or you just a pity mongering rear end opening for a horse? Paul Peterson, P.I.T.B. (Pain in the Butt) "And in the end, the alphabet at the end of your name you take is equal to the alphabet at the end of your name you make up." On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, chn@intergate.bc.ca wrote: > Ken Preston > > If Tracy had not been disabled and his father killed her, how would you > feel about Robert Latimer's sentance? > > Just what do you know about C.P.? Do you think everyone who has C.P. > should be allowed to be put out of *their father's* or caregiver's misery? > Because there is no doubt in my mind, that - that is what this is all > about. If Tracy had been compassionately treated - with mercy, it is quite > possible, she would be alive today. > > What else do you know about Tracy? Have you read the complete court > transcripts as I have here in my office? Do you know the *only* pain > management she was given was *tylenol*? Vets give stronger meds to animals > in pain. Tracy's pain was not being properly managed by a trained doctor > in pain management. What do you know about pain? > > People like yourself, write hate letters, and don't have the courage to > return an answer to me. Are you just another one? > > You don't even see your own biogtry. It seems you hate children who have > disabilities enough that you cannot perceive them as having a right to live > out their own life. Perhaps you think that of all people with disabilities? > > Someone in my office (not employed here) read your letter (over my > shoulder). He suggested, "If his rash is so bad, maybe someone should put > him out of his misery." Though he was joking, I told him Tracy's death was > a homicide -- or you can call it nonvoluntary euthanasia. But her death > must never be called a mercy killing, unless you, like some people who have > written in calling us names like " sanctimonious jerks" believe Tracy > would be better off dead and put out of *her father's* misery. > > Ken Preston, your biogtry is plain and clear to all of us. How terribly > sad for you. > > Cheryl Eckstein > Founder and President > CHN > > > > > At 08:02 PM 11/13/97 -0600, you wrote: > >You sanctimonious jerks give me a rash. Robert Latimer has has over > >twelve years of continuous hell and you want to rub salt in his wounds. > > > > > CHERYL ECKSTEIN > Founder & President, CHN > NEWSBYTES researched reports compliments of CHN > please report any problems to CHN: chn@intergate.bc.ca > _____________________________________________________ > The Compassionate Healthcare Network (CHN) > Canada's International Anti-euthanasia Network - CHN is an > affiliated member of The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life > * * * * * > Address "CHN DIGEST ONLINE" at: > http://www.awinc.com/partners/bc/commpass/lifenet/euthan1.htm > CHN'S NEW ADDRESS ... SOON TO BE IN OPERATION: > www.chninternational.com > --------------------------------------------------- > Tel: (604) 582 8687 Fax: (604) 582 7690 > From VanCourt@COMPUSERVE.COM Tue Nov 18 14:04:55 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:32:35 -0500 From: Marian Van Court Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: [GEN-ETHICS] E-MVC to HG on pol & rel [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] Marian Van Court replies to Hans Goerl: >What Ms van Court dismisses as a "filter" and somebody else claimed was the bias of the liberal press, is the fundamental concept in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution that all men are created equal. This is an objection which is frequently brought up. It goes (if I remember correctly) "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable (sp?) rights--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This means they are equal before the law, that government can't (or shouldn't) take away these fundamental rights. I think the historical record is quite clear that the Founding Fathers meant equal before the law, not that everyone was born equal in intelligence, talent, or athletic ability. Their other writings amply attest to the fact that they did *not* believe in biological equality -- between individuals, or between races. A number of them were slave-holders. In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson rejected the aristocracy based on one's birth as an artificial one, and spoke of "the natural aristocracy of talent and virtue," which he felt was our greatest gift. I think this was a lovely way to express what he valued, and what I also value. > The same principle can be found in many religions. It's true Christianity says we are all equal in the sight of God. But that's not the same as biological equality. Some Christians today may think their religion tells them that everyone is biologically equal, but I think this is a misguided idea, the result of the influence of political correctness. The Old Testament gives plenty of examples of biological inequality (e.g. Jacob and Esau?). Also, Christians believe that sinners go to Hell, so obviously God must discriminate between the virtuous and the un-virtuous on the Day of Judgement. I read in The Tibetan Book of the Dead that there were somewhat different approaches to helping someone die for people of low, average, and high intelligence. I'm not sure about all the other religions, but I'd be very, very surprised if they believed in biological equality, because it's untrue, and because it's really a very new idea. An argument can surely be made that God supports eugenics, and is totally opposed to the dysgenic situation we now have in which our genetic potential for intelligence, health, and conscientiousness is deteriorating. Doesn't God want us to be kind to one another, including those who come after us? Would God want us to squander His most precious gifts-- in fact, the very ones used to create us in His image? >Genetics is the science of inequality and therefore it creates direct challenges to any democratic or humanistic belief system. The notion of biological inequality has been the prevailing one since the beginning of time, up until Karl Marx, simply because it's *true.* People living long ago didn't need science to tell them something that was common sense to anyone who lived close to nature. During this long period, there have been good societies, and bad ones. What about Communism? It is totally egalitarian. Was is democratic? No. Humanist? No. A *far* better case could be made that the idea of innate *equality* destroys democracy and humanitarian beliefs. Communism has murdered more people, and caused more misery, than Fascism and all the other tyrannies combined. It has arisen in numerous different countries, too, and the result has always been devastating for freedom, and for the well-being of the citizens. > Indeed, as some have observed, genetics raises great questions about the very definition of humanity. As genetic based techniques and thinking creep into societies all over the world, they pose a profound threat to civil liberties and privileges. There's nothing that says it has to be this way. As I see it, we have a responsibility to make sure genetics helps people, not hurts them. We can't be Luddites [a group in the 1800s (?)who opposed all forms of technology]. We don't need to fear the future, we simply need to work very hard to make sure it turns out well for our descendants. > This threat is difficult for many people to perceive because genetic research is being sold as medical research which will cure thousands of diseases. In my opinion most of those cures are decades away and they may come at a terrible price. The true believers in genetics and eugenics will always claim to have science on their side, and in many cases they may eventually be "right." I am not sure that we should find out. I know that I, for one, would not want to live in their utopia. With all due respect, it might be better to reserve judgement on the type of society eugenicists would like to see until you have more information. How many contemporary eugenicists do you know?! How does anyone know *what* they advocate? It can only be speculation at this point. It's been a taboo topic, and not much has been said or written about it yet. >Freud wrote that religion is the one true enemy of science. In this case he may very well have been right. I apologize profusely for being so obnoxious as to object to *every* single thing you say!! But actually, there's a most fascinating development in the relationship between science and religion. A physicist named Frank Tipler (previously an atheist) wrote a book called The Physics of Immortality in which he claims that he and 3 other physicists independently proved (accidentally) the existence of God and an afterlife, and that they are an integral part of the Cosmos, not something removed from it. I was amazed. Marian Van Court From chn@intergate.bc.ca Tue Nov 18 14:05:05 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:37:08 From: "chn@intergate.bc.ca" Subject: > I am not a bigot. I am a realist, and you >>just don't get it. >Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:03:24 -0600 >From: Ken Preston >Reply-To: kpreston@fort-frances.Lakeheadu.Ca >Organization: Lakehead University >To: "chn@intergate.bc.ca" >Subject: Re: Tracy Latimer > >chn@intergate.bc.ca wrote: >> >> Ken Preston >> >> If Tracy had not been disabled and his father killed her, how would you >> feel about Robert Latimer's sentance? >> >> Just what do you know about C.P.? Do you think everyone who has C.P. >> should be allowed to be put out of *their father's* or caregiver's misery? >> Because there is no doubt in my mind, that - that is what this is all >> about. If Tracy had been compassionately treated - with mercy, it is quite >> possible, she would be alive today. >> >> What else do you know about Tracy? (etc. etc., etc., . . . Here follows Preston's ever so brief response, Cheryl, CHN.) _______________________________________________________ >I will respond to your letter. I am not a bigot. I am a realist, and you >just don't get it. > > Ken Preston CHERYL ECKSTEIN Founder & President, CHN NEWSBYTES researched reports compliments of CHN please report any problems to CHN: chn@intergate.bc.ca _____________________________________________________ The Compassionate Healthcare Network (CHN) Canada's International Anti-euthanasia Network - CHN is an affiliated member of The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life * * * * * Address "CHN DIGEST ONLINE" at: http://www.awinc.com/partners/bc/commpass/lifenet/euthan1.htm CHN'S NEW ADDRESS ... SOON TO BE IN OPERATION: www.chninternational.com --------------------------------------------------- Tel: (604) 582 8687 Fax: (604) 582 7690 From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU Tue Nov 18 14:05:17 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:09:25 -0600 From: Automatic digest processor Reply-To: BIOMED-L Biomedical Ethics To: Recipients of BIOMED-L digests Subject: BIOMED-L Digest - 16 Nov 1997 to 17 Nov 1997 [ Part 1: "Included Message" ] Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:09:25 -0600 From: Automatic digest processor Reply-To: BIOMED-L Biomedical Ethics To: Recipients of BIOMED-L digests Subject: BIOMED-L Digest - 16 Nov 1997 to 17 Nov 1997 There is one message totalling 86 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Latimer [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:02:20 -0500 From: James H Spence Subject: Latimer Thanks for the many responses to my post. So far, no one agrees with my (admittedly off the cuff) remark that it seems like a good idea to create a less serious offense of compassionate homicide. The objections seemed to fall into three categories, first, the difficulties involved in determining motive, second, the biases that would affect the decisions of those contemplating compassionate homicide, and third, the possibility that the disabled would be more vulnerable than others. I must say that I do not find any of the objections compelling. I am not persuaded by the first claim anymore than I would be if a person were to argue that we cannot allow a person to claim self defense as a defense against murder because all the accused would have to do is to claim that his intention was to preserve his own life, not to kill. Or if someone were to argue that we should not have a law against manslaughter in addition to one against murder because all the accused would have to do is to do is to show no premeditation and he would get a lesser sentence. I am not persuaded by these claims because it seems to me that the most important question is whether or not we think that there is an important difference between murder and self defense, or murder and manslaughter. If there is we should ask ourselves what that difference is. In all these cases it seems to be the intent and/or motive of the accused. While this creates serious problems because it is difficult if not impossible to know with confidence a persons intentions or motives, we think the difference is important enough to embrace these difficulties rather than have one offense "killing" that ignores these differences. The second problem, that there would be a bias, seems a real and serious problem. But first, there could be arguments during a trial concerning whether the killing was one of compassion or self interest. Such arguments have already surfaced on the list. Second, even if the accused was determined to have killed out of compassion, the result would be a conviction of a less serious offense. Many of you implied that Latimer did not kill out of compassion. This is relevant to how the proposed law would treat him, not the merits of the law itself. Finally, many were concerned that the disabled would be worse off if there were such a law. I certainly don't think that they should be made worse off than they are, but I fail to see why the legislation could not incorporate protections for individuals not able to protect themselves. This objection seems to be premised on the idea that the creation of a lesser offense would lead to an increase in the number of killings. This seems an empirical matter, and it is not obvious to me why this should be so. If it were explicitly against the law to kill someone out of compassion, and juries were given this as an option, there could be a greater deterrent effect, if that is what we are concerned with. In "Reflections on Hanging" Arthur Koestler recounts how British bankers lobbied to have British law changed to lessen the penalty for forgery. It seems that juries were reluctant to find forgers guilty because they knew this would result in the death penalty, and felt that forgery did not deserve death. Lessening the penalty, the bankers reasoned, would increase the number of convictions, and thus have a greater deterrent effect. I do not see why something similar could not happen here. But again, this is an empirical matter, for empirical study. And so I remain unpersuaded by the arguments against the creation of a new class of offense. From what has been posted, it seems that there is some reason to be suspicious of the claim that Latimer killed with compassion. I don't think that the arguments for or against such a law should be confused with our opinion about a specific case. And I don't think that tossing labels around "Pro-euthanasia" or whatever is very helpful. I find this way of proceeding hinders rather than fosters a decent discussion of an issue. None of the responses referred to any literature on the topic of creating a new offense, which is one of the things I was hoping to learn about, is there any out there? I was assuming that there would have to be at least one law journal article on the subject. Thanks for your responses, Jim Spence From mgreenbl@ZOO.UVM.EDU Tue Nov 18 14:05:21 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:33:47 -0500 From: "Marc S. Greenblatt" Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: Re: [GEN-ETHICS] E-MVC to HG on pol & rel >Marian Van Court replies to Hans Goerl: > >>What Ms van Court dismisses as a "filter" and somebody else claimed was >the bias of the liberal press, is the fundamental concept in our Declaration of >Independence and Constitution that all men are created equal. > >This is an objection which is frequently brought up. It goes >"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men >are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable >rights... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." >This means they are equal before the law, that government can't (or >shouldn't) take away these fundamental rights. This sums it up in a nutshell, doesn't it. If a person's pursuit of happiness involves procreating, how can anybody else claim the right to deny it, by statute or coercion. >An argument can surely be made that God supports eugenics, and is totally >opposed to the dysgenic situation we now have in which our genetic >potential for intelligence, health, and conscientiousness is >deteriorating. It's been difficult enough to avoid blatant politics in this discussion; now theology?!? How could anyone presume to speak for God in this debate? Especially when the sacred has been used too often to further the self-serving goals of the politically profane. I think there is a consensus that genetic technology is just a tool, and as such is morally neutral, can be used for good or evil, etc., etc., and that opinions will differ as to what is good use. I agree that the argument of "potential for abuse" can be taken to an extreme and result in a nihilistic attitude toward any new tool, whether social, biological, or mechanical. But neither should the potential for abuse be neglected, for it is real. As flawed and irrational as it can be, public opinion (informed by expert opinion) is our current mechanism for determining whether such abuse is a significant risk, and I don't know of a more reliable one. It seems to me that on the above issues, public and expert opinion overwhelmingly favor caution in the statutory regulation of genetic decisions. Marc Marc S. Greenblatt, M.D. mgreenbl@zoo.uvm.edu From summitil@PAW.MONTANA.COM Tue Nov 18 14:05:26 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:12:31 -0700 From: Paul Peterson To: NDY@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: > I am not a bigot. I am a realist, and you >>just don't get it. Ken, Is giving a murder a free ride being a realist? This guy MURDERED his own blood offspring. That's what's real here, not your whining. This kid had poor pain control, poor(not monitarily) parents and poor protection from the Canadian government. Where is the evidence, like notes in the mother's diary of pain or missing days of school, that makes your cas even partially believable? For that matter, what is your case, other than MURDER is fine and dandy as long as the victim is a person with a disability? This lady asked you some very real and telling questions. Your inability to answer them is just that. You have no defense for your claims, so you answer in an ignorant, smart assed way. That's about all you've got going for you. Paul Peterson, P.I.T.B. (Pain in the Butt) "And in the end, the alphabet at the end of your name you take is equal to the alphabet at the end of your name you make up." On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, chn@intergate.bc.ca wrote: > >Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:03:24 -0600 > >From: Ken Preston > >Reply-To: kpreston@fort-frances.Lakeheadu.Ca > >Organization: Lakehead University > >To: "chn@intergate.bc.ca" > >Subject: Re: Tracy Latimer > > > >chn@intergate.bc.ca wrote: > >> > >> Ken Preston > >> > >> If Tracy had not been disabled and his father killed her, how would you > >> feel about Robert Latimer's sentance? > >> > >> Just what do you know about C.P.? Do you think everyone who has C.P. > >> should be allowed to be put out of *their father's* or caregiver's misery? > >> Because there is no doubt in my mind, that - that is what this is all > >> about. If Tracy had been compassionately treated - with mercy, it is quite > >> possible, she would be alive today. > >> > >> What else do you know about Tracy? > > > (etc. etc., etc., . . . Here follows Preston's ever so brief response, > Cheryl, CHN.) > _______________________________________________________ > > >I will respond to your letter. I am not a bigot. I am a realist, and you > >just don't get it. > > > > Ken Preston > CHERYL ECKSTEIN > Founder & President, CHN > NEWSBYTES researched reports compliments of CHN > please report any problems to CHN: chn@intergate.bc.ca > _____________________________________________________ > The Compassionate Healthcare Network (CHN) > Canada's International Anti-euthanasia Network - CHN is an > affiliated member of The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life > * * * * * > Address "CHN DIGEST ONLINE" at: > http://www.awinc.com/partners/bc/commpass/lifenet/euthan1.htm > CHN'S NEW ADDRESS ... SOON TO BE IN OPERATION: > www.chninternational.com > --------------------------------------------------- > Tel: (604) 582 8687 Fax: (604) 582 7690 > From VanCourt@COMPUSERVE.COM Tue Nov 18 14:05:33 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:23:57 -0500 From: Marian Van Court Reply-To: "The Human Genome Project: Ethical, Legal & Policy Issues" To: GEN-ETHICS@LISTSERV.ACOR.ORG Subject: Re: [GEN-ETHICS] E-MVC to HG on pol & rel [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] Hans:>>What Ms van Court dismisses as a "filter" and somebody else claimed was >the bias of the liberal press, is the fundamental concept in our Declaration of >Independence and Constitution that all men are created equal. > Marian:>This is an objection which is frequently brought up. It goes >"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men >are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable >rights... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." >This means they are equal before the law, that government can't (or >shouldn't) take away these fundamental rights. Marc: This sums it up in a nutshell, doesn't it. If a person's pursuit of happiness involves procreating, how can anybody else claim the right to deny it, by statute or coercion. Marian: Wait a second!! We as a society have never countenanced *anything* a person wants to do because he's involved in "the pursuit of happiness!!" It may make a bank robber positively giddy to abscond with a big sack of cash, but are we going to let him get away with it? Of course not! We decided long ago that we sometimes have to put restraints on an individual's behavior for the sake of everyone else. Furthermore, the reason we have retrograde evolution (dysgenics) with regard to intelligence in the North America and Europe is because low-IQ women have much higher failure rates with birth control. When asked "How many children would you ideally like to have?" women of all IQ levels will say, on average, about 2.3. But low-IQ women on average have many more unplanned, unwanted pregnancies. So to at least break even in intelligence--to give the next generation a legacy in IQ equal to the one our parents left us--all that would be required would be to take steps to insure that all women had the number of children they actually wanted. (Reference: "Unwanted Births and Dysgenic Fertility in the United States," by Marian Van Court, published originally in The Eugenics Bulletin circa 1982, reprinted on the Future Generations website: http://www.ziplink.net/~bright/). This would mean free long-term contraception (such as Norplant) for low-IQ women, or sterilization if the woman choses. So to break even would not require coercion. However, for people who are mentally impaired to the point that they couldn't care for a child, and aren't able to make rational decisions (due to severe retardation or mental illness), society can and does make decisions for them all the time--for example, to institutionalize them. To *refuse* to make decisions for them is cruel--it means allowing them to wander the streets and get into all kinds of trouble, doing harm to themselves and others. In my opinion, it would be in their best interest, and in the best interest of any future children they may bear, and society at large, if these people did not procreate. Marian:>An argument can surely be made that God supports eugenics, and is totally >opposed to the dysgenic situation we now have in which our genetic >potential for intelligence, health, and conscientiousness is >deteriorating. Marc: It's been difficult enough to avoid blatant politics in this discussion; now theology?!? How could anyone presume to speak for God in this debate? Especially when the sacred has been used too often to further the self-serving goals of the politically profane. Marian: Sorry, sorry!! I certainly didn't intend to give the impression I was speaking for God!! I just meant a case could be made, given the tenets of Christianity or other major religions, that the current dysgenic situation is sinful or immoral. It's like the process of starting with axioms and deriving postulates. Marc: I think there is a consensus that genetic technology is just a tool, and as such is morally neutral, can be used for good or evil, etc., etc., and that opinions will differ as to what is good use. I agree that the argument of "potential for abuse" can be taken to an extreme and result in a nihilistic attitude toward any new tool, whether social, biological, or mechanical. But neither should the potential for abuse be neglected, for it is real. Marian: I agree absolutely. Marc: As flawed and irrational as it can be, public opinion (informed by expert opinion) is our current mechanism for determining whether such abuse is a significant risk, and I don't know of a more reliable one. It seems to me that on the above issues, public and expert opinion overwhelmingly favor caution in the statutory regulation of genetic decisions. Marian: Yes, I agree, except that in this case, the normal, healthy process of dissemination of information and opinion-forming in a democracy has been horribly corrupted, and Snyderman and Rothman proved this in their book, which I can't seem to find at the moment (but I will cheerfully provide a reference for it if anyone wants it!). They show that the ultra-liberal media and climate of hysterical political correctness have actually *kept* expert opinion *from* the public. Someday this should erupt into a huge scandal. When the truth gets out, public opinion will almost surely change. From aporter@CCNET3.CCNET.COM Tue Nov 18 14:05:48 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:31:26 -0800 From: Andrew Porter To: NDY@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: wesley smith's article >From aporter Mon Nov 17 08:26:34 1997 Envelope-to: aporter@ccnet3.ccnet.com Received: from value.net [204.188.125.4] (root) by enterprise with esmtp (Exim 1.71 #3) id 0xXU0O-0001eu-00; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:26:32 -0800 Received: from khamlonP.value.net (k16.value.net [206.14.138.16]) by value.net (8.8.7/8.7.4) with SMTP id IAA01865 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:26:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34707075.3134@value.net> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:27:33 -0800 From: Kathi Hamlon X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aporter@ccnet.com Subject: WESLEY J. SMITH: Can a 'right to die' be turned into a forced fate? X-URL: http://www.nandonet.com/newsroom/ntn/voices/111497/voices6_13087_noframes.html Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------2AED1A9A66F2" Status: R This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------2AED1A9A66F2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.nandonet.com/newsroom/ntn/voices/111497/voices6_13087_noframes.html --------------2AED1A9A66F2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="voices6_13087_noframes.html" RETURN TO OPINIONS: NORMAL || LOW-GRAPHICS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [BayInsider -- The Bay Area's Offical Sports & Recreation Site. Click Here!] BayInsider -- The Bay Area's Offical Sports & Recreation Site. Click Here! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WESLEY J. SMITH: Can a 'right to die' be turned into a forced fate? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 1997 Nando.net Copyright © 1997 Scripps-McClatchy Western (November 14, 1997 12:17 p.m. EST http://www.nando.net) -- Robert Wendland should die so that his family can "be allowed to live their lives," Dr. Ronald Cranford, a Minnesota neurologist and bioethicist, testified recently in the Stockton courtroom of Superior Court Judge Bob McNatt. The chosen method of death? Intentional dehydration and starvation. What has Wendland, 45, done to deserve such a fate? He went into a coma in September 1993 from injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Sixteen months later, he awakened from the coma, paralyzed on one side and unable to walk, talk or swallow well enough to eat. He is physically and cognitively disabled and dependent on others for his care. He is not terminally ill. He is not hooked up to machines. He does require a feeding tube to sustain his life. Those who seek to end Wendland's life downplay his physical and cognitive abilities. That is because people who are diagnosed as permanently unconscious are being dehydrated in this country, all perfectly legal thanks to several court decisions. Now, "right-to-die" activists such as Cranford who has testified in support of dehydration in most of the nation's major dehydration cases of brain-damaged patients, including that of Nancy Beth Cruzan want to stretch acceptable dehydration to disabled folk with brain damage who are awake and aware. This is the slippery slope in action. A Wisconsin Supreme Court decision dealt a blow recently to the right-to-die crowd's hopes when it ruled that it is not acceptable in Wisconsin to dehydrate conscious, brain-damaged patients (who would feel pain and agony) absent clear and convincing evidence probably through a written declaration executed by the patient before illness or injury that dehydration is precisely and explicitly what the now-incapacitated patient wanted. In other words, general statements are not enough. The Michigan Supreme Court issued a similar ruling in 1995. Cranford and others of his ideological persuasion were not amused by these decisions, seeing them as an impediment to the right to die. Wendland provides an opportunity to expand the law. Rose Wendland, Robert's wife, claims Robert would not want to live in his current condition. She bases her claim primarily on her husband's statements made in the aftermath of her father's death, three months before Robert's injury, that he would not want to live if he could not "be a husband, father or a provider." But is it right to kill someone because he might have said he would not want to live in a dependent state? Is it right to kill someone because he can't work and be productive? Is it right to kill someone because he is disabled? Robert Wendland's mother, Florence Wendland, and half-sister, Rebekah Vinson, say no. They sued to prevent the dehydration. It is important to note that Wendland has slowly improved in the nearly two years since he awakened from his coma. For example, he: * Has maneuvered an electric wheelchair down hospital corridors and can now maneuver a manual wheelchair with his unparalyzed leg or arm. * Has written the letter "R" of his first name when asked, as well as some other letters of his name. * Has used buttons to accurately answer yes and no questions some of the time. (Is your name Robert? Yes. Is your name Michael? No.) In this regard, one of his doctors asked Wendland if he wanted to die. He didn't answer the question. According to Cranford, these and other of Wendland's activities mean little. He also opined in his testimony that Wendland's therapists, who believe he has slowly improved, should be disregarded by McNatt because they are only "seeing what they want to see." Perhaps it is Cranford who is not seeking what he does not want to see. It is disturbing that McNatt did not dismiss Rose Wendland's desire to end her husband's life out of hand when the case first came to his court two years ago. It is especially disturbing that a noted neurologist such as Cranford believes that one reason to dehydrate Wendland is to benefit his family, even though Rose Wendland has said she now only visits her husband once a month for about 30 minutes, and his children do not visit at all. Dehydration begins when the feeding tube is removed, and death occurs usually within six to 30 days. Ironically, in order to ensure Wendland doesn't feel the pain of dehydration, Cranford testified it might be necessary to put him back into a coma with morphine. It is said that a society is judged by the way in which it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members. Increasingly in the United States, we kill them. Let us hope that McNatt does not add Wendland to the list. (Wesley J. Smith is a consumer advocate and attorney in California.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Global | Stateside | Sports | Politics | Opinions | Business | Techserver | Health & Science | Entertainment | Weather | Baseball | Basketball | Football | Hockey | Sport Server | MAIN ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 1997 Nando.net Do you have some feedback for the Nando Times staff? --------------2AED1A9A66F2-- From caucus@web.net Tue Nov 18 15:11:06 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:40:59 -0800 From: "Tom Balint, Canadian Environmental Network" To: jest-west@sfu.ca Subject: Press Review \ Revue de presse 97 11 18 The Toronto Star Tue 18 Nov 1997 By Thomas Walkom Federal Court to rule on patenting higher life forms A PIVOTAL court case is quietly unfolding in Ottawa, the results of which will determine whether Canada is willing to treat complex life itself as just another form of private property. Appropriately enough, it is a patent case. Harvard University wants the federal government to let it patent its so- called Harvard mouse - a genetically altered rodent - in Canada. In fact, Harvard is asking the Federal Court of Canada for the right to patent any animal genetically designed to have a predisposition to cancer. Currently, Canada refuses to allow the patenting of what it calls higher life forms such as plants, seeds and animals. You can patent a line of genetically altered cells (including human ones) in Canada. You can patent simple organisms like yeast or bacteria. But you can't patent a horse. The theory here is that the creation of such life is the preserve of a higher order. To suggest that a human being can claim to have invented mice or elephants - or other human beings themselves - is, in Canada, deemed nonsensical. For now. The trouble is that biotechnology, of which genetic engineering is an increasingly important component, constitutes big business. Jason Flint, general manager of the Industrial Biotechnology Association of Canada estimates that the core industry is capitalized at about $1 billion already and is growing by about 26 per cent a year. As well, most of the powerful multinational drug firms - with all of their political clout - are involved. And governments anxious for any good news on the job front regularly laud biotechnology as the wave of the future. It is an expensive business. Flint notes that biotechnology firms want to market their products worldwide to spread the costs of research. More particularly, they want worldwide monopolies on the genetically altered plants or animals they create. Which is why they want patent protection everywhere. Indeed, an increasing number of countries do let biotechnology industries patent complex life. The United States allows patents to be issued on anything short of a human, notes Toronto lawyer Eileen McMahon. So, too, Japan and Australia. The European Union decided just this year to allow the patenting of higher life forms, says Rick Walters of the Canadian Institute of Biotechnology (although it is not clear whether all member nations will comply). Lobbyists for the biotechnology industry argue that Canada should get on board. What is worrisome about all of this is that there has been virtually no public discussion in Canada about either the risks or ethics of genetic engineering. The Canadian Environmental Law Association, for example, argues that deliberate attempts to alter the genetic structures of plants and animals create the potential for all kinds of grief. The world has already experienced the problems that even naturally occurring plants can cause when introduced to new areas - witness rabbits in Australia or zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. The possibility of ecological disaster grows logarithmically when scientists start mucking around with the very genetic structures of life. There are also difficult moral questions. Is it right to create an entire species such as Harvard mice, rodents doomed to die painfully from cancer, simply to save research money? Is it right to create life at all? The federal government has so far chosen to duck all of the hard questions. It has already quietly allowed genetically altered food to appear - unlabelled - in Canada. Last year, a Commons committee called on the government to implement new legislation and regulations to control genetic engineering. But nothing came of it. Instead, the government appears content to take its lead from industry, market forces and the courts. The Canadian Environmental Law Association complains that even in the Harvard mouse case, the government is arguing its case most narrowly. Privately, government officials agree that's exactly what is happening. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that the Patent Act does not permit genetically altered seeds. That's why the patent office turned down the Harvard mouse. In appealing the patent office's decision to the Federal Court, Harvard - backed by the entire biotechnology industry - is taking a second crack. ``If the court says that, yes, animals are patentable, then the government might well change its patent policy,'' says lawyer McMahon, who does work for the biotechnology industry. The Harvard mouse case was heard yesterday in Ottawa. The judge said he would announce his decision later. So far it's all been happening without anyone outside the industry paying much attention. Thomas Walkom's column appears Tuesdays. KEYWORDS: National The Toronto Star From af752@LAFN.ORG Tue Nov 18 15:58:30 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:50:39 -0800 From: "Laura R. Mitchell" To: NDY@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: My Letter to Daily News Following is a letter I sent to the Daily News of Los Angeles for a Public Forum page about PID, which was published on Nov. 15. Except for dropping one sentence (the last sentence in the next to last paragraph), the published letter read just the way I submitted it (as shown below). I hope it helps. --Laura R.M. ============== ATTACHED FILE SHOULD APPEAR BELOW ================ [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] November 10, 1997 Public Forum [by fax to: 818-713-3723] Daily News of Los Angeles P.O. Box 4200 Woodland Hills, CA 91365 On behalf of the California chapters of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society--and as a woman with MS myself--I want to say emphatically that California should not legalize doctor-assisted suicide! Contrary to popular impressions, legalizing doctor- assisted suicide involves much more than personal autonomy or morality. It's a matter of public policy, and it would have implications and ramifications that extend far beyond individual choice. In fact, legalizing assisted suicide ultimately would turn the "right to die" into a "duty to die," especially for people with disabilities and serious chronic illnesses like MS. It is clear from experience that there is a serious risk of abuse and that physicians and family members, rather than patients, are likely to be the real decision makers. But less well recognized are the subtle and indirect ways in which legalization would affect health care for everyone. In a world of legalized physician-assisted suicide, would a health plan pay $10,000 a year for me to take an MS medication that could prevent or slow progression of the disease, or would the plan simply exclude that treatment, wait until my condition worsened to a point that I found intolerable, and then "compassionately," cover the cost of my doctor-assisted suicide? And with coverage of expensive new treatments curtailed or excluded (effectively destroying the market for any resulting product), why would anyone invest in research and development for new treatments? Similar questions can be asked regarding other conditions as well. Rather than legalizing doctor-assisted suicide, we should be improving the quality and availability of palliative care for terminally ill patients and of support services for family caregivers and for individuals with disabilities and serious chronic illnesses. Laura Remson Mitchell Government Issues Coordinator Multiple Sclerosis California Action Network (MS-CAN) National Multiple Sclerosis Society Winnetka [ Part 3: "Attached Text" ] |==================================================================| | 0 People with disabilities: A resource to recognize, | | |_ *not* a problem to solve! | | ( \_) =========================================================| | *** (c) 1997, Laura Remson Mitchell e-mail: af752@lafn.org | |==================================================================| From chn@intergate.bc.ca Wed Nov 19 06:59:40 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 06:08:55 From: "chn@intergate.bc.ca" Subject: Judge urges memorial to dead toddler (If only the Judge in the Latimer case would have asked for the same to be done in Tracy's name!) To next story To briefs Talk back! Tuesday, November 18, 1997 Judge urges memorial to dead toddler SAINT JOHN, N.B. (CP) - A New Brunswick judge in an infant manslaughter case wants a memorial more than a judgment to remind people of the tragedy of child neglect. In a dramatic statement, Justice Hugh McLellan of the Court of Queen's Bench said yesterday he wants people to be reminded of the sad, lonely death of a forgotten toddler, not the degree of punishment meted out to her neglectful parents. McLellan was expected to sentence Marc Janes, 25, and Helen Brewer, 24, for manslaughter in failing to provide the necessities of life to their two-year-old daughter, Jacqueline Brewer. The child died of dehydration around noon on Dec. 17, 1996, in her family's filthy apartment. Medical experts said she had gone without fluids for at least two days and possibly as long as six days. "Jacqueline's parents forgot her in her crib," the judge said. McLellan postponed sentencing until noon, Dec. 17 - one year to the hour since the death. The judge said sentences usually fail to have long-term impact on the public. "A better way to remind people might be annual Jacqueline Dawn Brewer memorial services and a conspicuous monument to her memory, perhaps in King's Square," he said, referring to a small park outside the courthouse in downtown Saint John. McLellan said the monument could record the fact the child was 28 months of age when she died "neglected, dehydrated and forgotten in her crib at home where she lived in loneliness, squalor and misery with her parents, under the supervision of social workers, health-care experts and child protection officials." He said flowers could be placed there. "Such a memorial could do more good than any sentences imposed by this court." The trial has been closely watched in this port city. "She's reviled by her peers," defence lawyer Allen Doyle said of Brewer, as he appealed to the court for sympathy. "Each day she came to court, she had to listen to taunts of `baby killer.' She's a social leper." People outside court yesterday liked the idea of a monument. "Bring them to the monument once a month and let them ponder what they did," said Donna Young, who described herself as a "peeved citizen." "But it's not enough. Him, he should get a vasectomy and her, she should get her tubes tied." The couple's two surviving children have been placed in foster care. Brewer and Janes spoke for the first time in court yesterday. They said they were sorry about their daughter's death. "I loved her," Brewer sobbed. Janes displayed no emotion, but said he was "real sorry" about the girl's death. Defence lawyer David Kelly, who represents Janes, said McLellan was obviously moved by the child's death. "It seems to me he's holding the Department of Health and Community Services accountable to some extent, to what extent I don't know." Local | National | World | Sports | Matinee | Life | Business | Computers | Opinion | Mou's Cartoon | Letters | Hotline | Events | Horoscope | Comics | Caption Contest | Hit Halifax! | Staff | CHERYL ECKSTEIN Founder & President, CHN NEWSBYTES researched reports compliments of CHN please report any problems to CHN: chn@intergate.bc.ca _____________________________________________________ The Compassionate Healthcare Network (CHN) Canada's International Anti-euthanasia Network - CHN is an affiliated member of The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life * * * * * Address "CHN DIGEST ONLINE" at: http://www.awinc.com/partners/bc/commpass/lifenet/euthan1.htm CHN'S NEW ADDRESS ... SOON TO BE IN OPERATION: www.chninternational.com --------------------------------------------------- Tel: (604) 582 8687 Fax: (604) 582 7690 From chn@INTERGATE.BC.CA Wed Nov 19 07:01:31 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:59:03 -0500 From: "chn@intergate.bc.ca" To: NDY@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Why are you so afraid of letting a disabled child live? >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:02:27 -0600 >From: Ken Preston >Reply-To: kpreston@fort-frances.Lakeheadu.Ca >Organization: Lakehead University >To: chn@intergate.bc.ca >Subject: Tracy Latimer > >You sanctimonious jerks give me a rash. Robert Latimer has has over >twelve years of continuous hell and you want to rub salt in his wounds. > later you answered: >>I will respond to your letter. I am not a bigot. I am a realist, and you >just don't get it. > >Ken Preston +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===================== KEN PRESTON Why are you so afraid of letting a disabled child live? Normally I don't respond to hate letters such as yours. But since you contacted me first, and called me a "sanctimonious jerk" I thought I was dealing with perhaps a teen-ager - hopefully who had an open mind. Now you write me and tell me I am heaping abuse on you! Mr. Preston, if you call the truth I spoke "abuse" what do you call what Latimer did to his daughter? Since I was quite wrong about who I thought you were, and age, I am absolutely surprised that you can demean Teague's words of wisdom and trash the whole idea that Tracy was murdered because she was disabled, not because she was in pain, but she was killed to ease her father's suffering. As a researcher, I have collected many case studies of children who are killed by their parents. The great majority of the children were moderately to severly disabled. It seems the only way you can escape this is to toss more unclaimed blame. If you won't listen to Teague, Tracy, or Jenny -- I doubt you will ever change your mind. But I tell you, your compassion is pseudo compassion, for Sir, Compassion means "to suffer along with". I did not heap abuse on you, something must be triggering this in your own mind, perhaps conscience? Why are you angry at me? Have you really thought it out? Why are you so afraid of letting a disabled child live? Just for your information, I am a volunteer for CHN. I travel all over the globe speaking against euthanasia. Recently I became disabled and a chronic pain patient. Somedays the pain is terribly unbearable, but we have learned what to do. I had to change doctors because my pain was not being properly managed. If ___IF I wanted -- I could have contacted Kevorkian, and he would have taken me. He did Judith Curren and a couple of others who have the same condtion I have. But I am not ignorant to what is available for pain sufferers. Unfortunately - they didn't. Tracy didn't have a chance to have her pain managed because her father wouldn't allow it. By the way, when her father was in his late teens or early 20's, he raped a girl, and got off on some small technicality. It was proven he raped her, just one tiny thing was found by his lawyer, enough to drop charges. He went before the same justice Bayda, who last year called him the "salt of the earth". Perhaps in his old age he had forgotten the man who once came before him. Unfortunately past records could not be entered. All in all, I wish Tracy were alive to experience her life --- people like you, who believe children like Tracy are better off dead, remind me of the societal attiudes that existed over 50 years ago. Many of the death chambers were called "Compassion Care Centres for the disabled" they were gas chambers for the disabled like Tracy. Children, like Tracy, were brought there by their own parents, or some parents unwittenly gave in to the doctor's advise. Why are you so afraid of letting a disabled child live? By the way "> enpathy" is empathy. Cheryl Eckstein, CHN PS: You never did respond to my questions, you only toss insults. I just returned from Harvard - where I was asked to be a speaker. This is a very emotional issue, but there we debated. Not once was I called a "sancitmonious jerk" or any other dirty name--- perhaps that is not where you were trained to do whatever it is you do. I found the majority of people there were looking for better ways to care than kill. I truly hope you change your mind. >I can readily see I am in a no-win situation with you. Because I don't >aagree with you views, I am a bigot and a hate-monger. Later last >evening as I was reflecting on the abuse you heaped upon me, I started >to get a little angry. I am a university honours course graduate with >over thirty years of experience in a professional field. I grew up in a >strong family environment have an honest enpathy for people suffering in >was I cannot even imagine and seriously doubt I could cope with what >many people endure on a daily basis. > > CHERYL ECKSTEIN Founder & President, CHN NEWSBYTES researched reports compliments of CHN please report any problems to CHN: chn@intergate.bc.ca _____________________________________________________ The Compassionate Healthcare Network (CHN) Canada's International Anti-euthanasia Network - CHN is an affiliated member of The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life * * * * * Address "CHN DIGEST ONLINE" at: http://www.awinc.com/partners/bc/commpass/lifenet/euthan1.htm CHN'S NEW ADDRESS ... SOON TO BE IN OPERATION: www.chninternational.com --------------------------------------------------- Tel: (604) 582 8687 Fax: (604) 582 7690 From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU Wed Nov 19 07:04:25 1997 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:21:01 -0600 From: Automatic digest processor Reply-To: BIOMED-L Biomedical Ethics To: Recipients of BIOMED-L digests Subject: BIOMED-L Digest - 17 Nov 1997 to 18 Nov 1997 [ Part 1: "Included Message" ] Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:21:01 -0600 From: Automatic digest processor Reply-To: BIOMED-L Biomedical Ethics To: Recipients of BIOMED-L digests Subject: BIOMED-L Digest - 17 Nov 1997 to 18 Nov 1997 There is one message totalling 52 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. "Compassionate" Homicide [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:37:01 -0500 From: Casey Frank Subject: "Compassionate" Homicide A member of the list wrote: "So far, no one agrees with my (admittedly off the cuff) remark that it seems like a good idea to create a less serious offense of compassionate homicide . . . I must say that I do not find any of the objections compelling." Easy to say. But let us look at the analogous area of physician assisted suicide. Those who are disabled, elderly, minorities, or poor fear that since they are disenfranchised, they may be more likely to be encouraged to die. That is probably why a clear majority of the poor, elderly and blacks OPPOSE legalization of physician-assisted suicide, even though an overall majority of Americans support it [David E. Rosenbaum, "Americans Want a Right to Die. Or So They Think," The New York Times (June 8, 1997), E3]. The reality of death and dying is not an argument to be abstracted and debated, but a rite of passage to be faced by us all. We better identify with those closer to it before we toss it around. The member also wrote: "I am not persuaded . . . than I would be if a person were to argue that we cannot allow a person to claim self defense as a defense against murder because all the accused would have to do is to claim that his intention was to preserve his own life, not to kill." This is an overly permissive analysis. It's not the mere claim of self-preservation which supports self-defense - it's the reasonableness of the circumstances. If a paraplegic in a wheelchair yells that he's going to come across the street and kick my butt, it's not an assault, nor does it justify self-defense. An able bodied person holding a crowbar is another story. The problem with compassionate homicide is that it is particularly difficult to extrapolate from the circumstances to the intent, which in fact may be heterogeneous. Again, in the analogous area of physician assisted suicide, that is why so many safeguards are needed, as in the current Oregon statute: To overcome the difficulty of evaluating the intent of a care giver acting so anomalistically as to end life. Compassionate homicide concentrates awesome power, unchecked authority, ready opportunity, and irreversability. It's too much. Call a compassionate physician who beleives in palliative care, call a hospice, call "Choice in Dying" (800-989-9455). There's no need to kill. Casey Frank, JD Attorney CaseyFrank@aol.com From chn@intergate.bc.ca Wed Nov 19 07:05:26 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:09:20 From: "chn@intergate.bc.ca" To: kpreston@fort-frances.Lakeheadu.Ca Subject: Re: Why are you so afraid of letting a disabled child live? KEN PRESTON, You say > Her life was a non-life. " You just judged Tracy Latimer as non-human, not even sub-human. Your information errors in most of your stories. Tracy was only home a few weeks - months after her baby brother was born. They kept her at a group home to help Laura Latimer get settled with the new baby. Tracy hardly stole all the attention. Granted , she had special needs, but so did the new infant. Tracy had siblings, not just one sibling, as you said. I admit, I get very troubled when I hear from people like yourself. But then I know I just have to keep working to educate those who are willing to be educated. But if the heart is stone, then the ears are shut, and the good message falls to the ground. There are many hundreds of Tracy Latimers out there -- hundreds in Canada and who knows how many throughout the world. They are alive because their don't have a father like Latimer. Knowing that helps everyone sleep a little better I hope. A memorial sh ould be set up in Battlerford for Tracy, similar to the child in this story: > In a dramatic statement, Justice Hugh McLellan of the Court of > Queen's Bench said yesterday he wants people to be reminded > of the sad, lonely death of a forgotten toddler, not the degree of > punishment meted out to her neglectful parents. > > McLellan was expected to sentence Marc Janes, 25, and Helen > Brewer, 24, for manslaughter in failing to provide the > necessities of life to their two-year-old daughter, Jacqueline > Brewer. The child died of dehydration around noon on Dec. > 17, 1996, in her family's filthy apartment. Medical experts said > she had gone without fluids for at least two days and possibly > as long as six days. > > "Jacqueline's parents forgot her in her crib," the judge said. > > McLellan postponed sentencing until noon, Dec. 17 - one year > to the hour since the death. > > The judge said sentences usually fail to have long-term impact > on the public. > > "A better way to remind people might be annual Jacqueline > Dawn Brewer memorial services and a conspicuous monument > to her memory, perhaps in King's Square," he said, referring to > a small park outside the courthouse in downtown Saint John. > > McLellan said the monument could record the fact the child > was 28 months of age when she died "neglected, dehydrated > and forgotten in her crib at home where she lived in loneliness, > squalor and misery with her parents, under the supervision of > social workers, health-care experts and child protection > officials." > > He said flowers could be placed there. > > "Such a memorial could do more good than any sentences > imposed by this court." [Tuesday, November 18, 1997 , Judge urges memorial to dead toddler] Latimer couldn't just neglect Tracy and let her strave while others watched. He killed her. His act was just as callous and cold as you can get. The Smith woman who drowned her two sons got life. No doubt you are satisfied with that verdict since her sons were not disabled. I suppose I will never know the answer to "why are you so afraid of letting a disabled child live?" However, you Ken Preston, have given me some dandy quotes. C. Eckstein, CHN At 10:06 PM 11/18/97 -0600, you wrote: >chn@intergate.bc.ca wrote: >> >> >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:02:27 -0600 >> >From: Ken Preston >> >Reply-To: kpreston@fort-frances.Lakeheadu.Ca >> >Organization: Lakehead University >> >To: chn@intergate.bc.ca >> >Subject: Tracy Latimer >> > >> >You sanctimonious jerks give me a rash. Robert Latimer has has over >> >twelve years of continuous hell and you want to rub salt in his wounds. >> > >> later you answered: >> >>I will respond to your letter. I am not a bigot. I am a realist, and you >> >just don't get it. >> > >> >Ken Preston >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===================== >> KEN PRESTON Why are you so afraid of letting a disabled child live? >> >> Normally I don't respond to hate letters such as yours. But since you >> contacted me first, and called me a "sanctimonious jerk" I thought I was >> dealing with perhaps a teen-ager - hopefully who had an open mind. Now you >> write me and tell me I am heaping abuse on you! Mr. Preston, if you call >> the truth I spoke "abuse" what do you call what Latimer did to his >> daughter? Since I was quite wrong about who I thought you were, and age, I >> am absolutely surprised that you can demean Teague's words of wisdom and >> trash the whole idea that Tracy was murdered because she was disabled, not >> because she was in pain, but she was killed to ease her father's suffering. >> As a researcher, I have collected many case studies of children who are >> killed by their parents. The great majority of the children were >> moderately to severly disabled. It seems the only way you can escape this >> is to toss more unclaimed blame. If you won't listen to Teague, Tracy, or >> Jenny -- I doubt you will ever change your mind. But I tell you, your >> compassion is pseudo compassion, for Sir, Compassion means "to suffer along >> with". >> >> I did not heap abuse on you, something must be triggering this in your own >> mind, perhaps conscience? Why are you angry at me? Have you really >> thought it out? Why are you so afraid of letting a disabled child live? >> >> Just for your information, I am a volunteer for CHN. I travel all over the >> globe speaking against euthanasia. Recently I became disabled and a >> chronic pain patient. Somedays the pain is terribly unbearable, but we >> have learned what to do. I had to change doctors because my pain was not >> being properly managed. If ___IF I wanted -- I could have contacted >> Kevorkian, and he would have taken me. He did Judith Curren and a couple >> of others who have the same condtion I have. But I am not ignorant to what >> is available for pain sufferers. Unfortunately - they didn't. Tracy >> didn't have a chance to have her pain managed because her father wouldn't >> allow it. By the way, when her father was in his late teens or early 20's, >> he raped a girl, and got off on some small technicality. It was proven he >> raped her, just one tiny thing was found by his lawyer, enough to drop >> charges. He went before the same justice Bayda, who last year called him >> the "salt of the earth". Perhaps in his old age he had forgotten the man >> who once came before him. Unfortunately past records could not be entered. >> >> All in all, I wish Tracy were alive to experience her life --- people like >> you, who believe children like Tracy are better off dead, remind me of the >> societal attiudes that existed over 50 years ago. Many of the death >> chambers were called "Compassion Care Centres for the disabled" they were >> gas chambers for the disabled like Tracy. Children, like Tracy, were >> brought there by their own parents, or some parents unwittenly gave in to >> the doctor's advise. Why are you so afraid of letting a disabled child live? >> >> By the way "> enpathy" is empathy. >> >> Cheryl Eckstein, >> CHN >> >> PS: You never did respond to my questions, you only toss insults. I just >> returned from Harvard - where I was asked to be a speaker. This is a very >> emotional issue, but there we debated. Not once was I called a >> "sancitmonious jerk" or any other dirty name--- perhaps that is not where >> you were trained to do whatever it is you do. I found the majority of >> people there were looking for better ways to care than kill. I truly hope >> you change your mind. >> >> >I can readily see I am in a no-win situation with you. Because I don't >> >aagree with you views, I am a bigot and a hate-monger. Later last >> >evening as I was reflecting on the abuse you heaped upon me, I started >> >to get a little angry. I am a university honours course graduate with >> >over thirty years of experience in a professional field. I grew up in a >> >strong family environment have an honest enpathy for people suffering in >> >was I cannot even imagine and seriously doubt I could cope with what >> >many people endure on a daily basis. >> > Ken Preston >> >My last message was truncated because if my little finger slips off >"Shift" onto "Crtl" the computer immediately sends the e-mail so I >didn't get a chance to change "enpathy" to "empathy", nor for that >matter "aagree" to "agree". I said I was a professional, but not at >keyboarding. I had intended to respond to your question about my >response to Teague. My response is that Teague and Tracy Latimer are, or >were, not in the same league. Tracy had a three-month old mind caught in >a broken and deteriorating body. Her life was a non-life. She was >draining the emotional resources of her family. As was testified at the >trial, her sibling got a minimum of attention because Tracy took it all. >I don't advocate disposing of a Teague. I don't consider it a valid >comparison. A TV reporter at the courthouse interviewed a mother with a >CP child who gushed about how she could never do anything like Robert >Latimer and somehow she always found the strength to go on. Her daughter >was standing and walking beside her, talking, and goes to regular school >classes. Then she dumps on Robert saying she found a way to live with >her problem, why couldn't he? Again, not even in the same league, much >less the same ball park. I won't even suggest that I can take a Tracy >and a Teague and define a line somewhere between them delineating where >life is worth it and where it isn't. However, I maintain my position >that I will not fault Robert Latimer for his actions, and as you well >know, many people agree with me. > >Ken Preston CHERYL ECKSTEIN Founder & President, CHN NEWSBYTES researched reports compliments of CHN please report any problems to CHN: chn@intergate.bc.ca _____________________________________________________ The Compassionate Healthcare Network (CHN) Canada's International Anti-euthanasia Network - CHN is an affiliated member of The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life * * * * * Address "CHN DIGEST ONLINE" at: http://www.awinc.com/partners/bc/commpass/lifenet/euthan1.htm CHN'S NEW ADDRESS ... SOON TO BE IN OPERATION: www.chninternational.com --------------------------------------------------- Tel: (604) 582 8687 Fax: (604) 582 7690 From adaptgazan@MINDSPRING.COM Wed Nov 19 07:06:15 1997 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:02:00 -0500 From: Zan Thornton To: NDY@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Disability added as Hate crime etc.. info from HRC NOt Dead Yet Press Release Coming SOON on this isssue FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, Nov. 10, 1997 PRESIDENT CLINTON ENDORSES HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT; DECLARES `ALL AMERICANS DESERVE PROTECTION FROM HATE' At Historic White House Conference, President Backs Bipartisan Measure to Include Sexual Orientation, Gender and Disability in Federal Laws That Are Tough on Hate Crimes WASHINGTON -- President Clinton today endorsed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA), a bill to include sexual orientation, gender and disability in a major federal hate crimes law. The president voiced his support for the bipartisan measure at the first-ever White House Conference on Hate Crimes, where he listed the bill first among several initiatives his administration will pursue to get tougher on crimes motivated by hatred. "The president is sending a message that we as a nation must get tough on all forms of bias crime," said Human Rights Campaign Executive Director Elizabeth Birch, who was among representatives of the gay community at the conference. "The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is critical because, when Americans are targeted for hate violence based on sexual orientation, gender or disability, the FBI should be able to investigate and prosecute -- just as it is currently able to combat hate crimes based on religion, race and national origin. All hate crimes are pernicious, and they should all be punished accordingly." Until the HCPA passes, hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender and disability are not against federal law. Therefore, they cannot yet be investigated and prosecuted by the Justice Department the way other hate crimes are currently combated. The HCPA will soon be introduced in the U.S. Senate by its lead sponsors, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. "The first thing we have to do is make sure our nation's laws fully protect all of it's citizens," said the president. "Our laws already punish some crimes committed against people on the basis of race, or religion or national origin, but we should do more. We should make our current laws tougher to include all hate crimes that cause physical harm. We must prohibit crimes committed because of a victim's sexual orientation, gender or disability. All Americans deserve protection from hate." According to the FBI, reported hate crimes based on sexual orientation are on the rise, accounting for 12.8 percent of such incidents in 1995 -- up from 8.9 percent in 1991. The FBI has found that hate crimes based on sexual orientation are already the third most commonly reported form of bias crime. Still, sexual orientation remains excluded from the major federal hate crimes laws as well as the hate crimes statutes of 30 states. When the Hate Crimes Prevention Act passes, it will apply to people victimized because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender or disability -- thereby offering equal protection to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and heterosexuals; transgendered Americans; women as well as men; and Americans with disabilities. The conference, convened by the president and held at George Washington University, brought together some 350 representatives from law enforcement, civil rights, anti-violence, youth, education and religious groups -- including organizations combating anti-gay hate violence. Among the representatives of the lesbian and gay community participating in the conference were Birch, HRC Senior Policy Advocate Kris Pratt and leaders from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs; National Youth Advocacy Coalition; Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network; and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian and gay political organization, with members throughout the country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to ensure that lesbian and gay Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community. - 30 - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= http://www.gep.org/gepmail.html please address any concerns to: gepinfo@gep.org =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Welcome to the Mailing List for Georgia Equality Project. To send an email to all subscribers use the following email address: For an Institutional & Barrier-Free World (peacefully), zan ========== ACCESS IS AN ATTITUDE ...=========== "Why are you demanding interpreters or other access?" -tell them this: " Freedom is NEVER voluntarily given by the oppressor; it MUST BE DEMANDED by the oppressed." --Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) "The problem is not that the [deaf] students do not hear. The problem is that the hearing world does not listen." -- Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, 1988 (at Gallaudet) (Are you listening?) ==========... NOT JUST A RAMP!!!!===================== From chn@intergate.bc.ca Wed Nov 19 07:27:45 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:40:34 From: "chn@intergate.bc.ca" Subject: Suicide laws seem unlikely elsewhere November 18, 1997 Suicide laws seem unlikely elsewhere States are expected to tackle better end-of-life care, particularly aggressive pain relief, instead of following Oregon's lead By Erin Hoover of The Oregonian staff Oregon probably will stand alone in the arena of legalized physician-assisted suicide, at least in the near future. Some states are considering legislation or initiatives to ban or allow assisted suicide. But observers and activists predict the real movement in the next few years will be in legislating better palliative, or end-of-life, care -- in particular, clearing barriers to the aggressive use of pain medication to ease suffering. "What Oregon's vote is going to do is get states to try to deal more with palliative care," said Marla Rothouse, a policy specialist with the Health Policy Tracking Service at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Washington, D.C. "Oregon has always been so much on the forefront of end-of-life care that I think it will take a while for other states to catch up." This year, nine states, including Oregon, have considered legislation banning assisted suicide, and 11 states have introduced bills authorizing the practice, Rothouse said. But none of those bills has passed. Oregon lawmakers asked voters to decide whether to repeal the state's law allowing assisted suicide, which was approved in 1994 but had been held up in the courts. The repeal measure failed Nov. 4. Prospects appear slim for legalization of doctor-assisted suicide anywhere outside Oregon. A Michigan citizens' initiative, worded much like Oregon's law, needs 247,000 signatures to get on the 1998 ballot. But Merian's Friends, the group behind the initiative, has collected only 45,000 signatures since July, and time is running out. In Maine, activists are confident an assisted-suicide bill will proceed from a legislative committee. But getting full legislative approval is far less certain. Fred Richardson, a former state lawmaker and a backer of the bill, said most legislators support assisted suicide, but not all are ready to vote for it. Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church and state affiliates of the National Right to Life Committee are deeply involved in fighting bills that would allow assisted suicide and backing legislation that condemns the practice. But some bills that forbid assisted suicide also hint at the possibility of consensus. Legislation in South Dakota and a smattering of other states specifies that doctors are not committing assisted suicide by giving medication to relieve the pain of dying patients, even if the medication hastens death. Doctor-assisted suicide supporters are zeroing in on this acceptance of aggressive pain control. They have observed from the debate in Oregon that legalizing assisted suicide requires narrowing the pool of eligible people to prevent misuse of the law. Focusing on pain control could serve a broader group of terminally ill patients, some activists say. They are using the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling on doctor-assisted suicide as a road map to common ground. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote: "There is no dispute that dying patients ... can obtain palliative care, even when doing so would hasten their deaths." Doctors call this practice the "double effect." The agony of some patients in the final days of a terminal illness can be so intense that only extremely high doses of painkillers or sedatives will relieve it. In some cases, medication causes the patient to slip into unconsciousness; breathing slows, and the patient dies. Oregon doctors estimate that doses that potentially could hasten death are given to 5 percent to 10 percent of terminally ill patients in hospitals or hospice care. Assisted-suicide supporters, such as the Hemlock Society and the Compassion in Dying Federation, are on the opposite pole from the anti-assisted-suicide stands of the American Medical Association and the Roman Catholic Church. But all of the groups accept the "double effect." As far back as the April 22, 1992, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs said: "Physicians have an obligation to relieve pain and suffering and to promote the dignity and autonomy of dying patients in their care. This includes providing effective palliative treatment even though it may foreseeably hasten death." Morton Leonard Yanow of Seattle, a board member of the American Civil Liberties Union, said this broad acceptance of aggressive pain management is an opportunity for consensus. "We all believe in the good death: I want to go to sleep and not wake up and not have to suffer. So palliation, even if it means unconsciousness that would hasten death, is the middle ground that all extremes seem to believe is valid," Yanow said. Medicine and the law But the new debate will be about whether and how this method of relieving suffering should move from the realm of medical practice -- a world in which patients have limited influence -- to the more publicly accessible arena of state law. Oregon has a progressive pain law that entitles dying patients to "medication ... to relieve pain and suffering." But some states, including Arizona, Washington, Florida and potentially California, are planning to propose bills next year that would put the patient even more in charge. In Arizona, state Rep. Sue Lynch, a Republican, is sponsoring a bill championed by the Hemlock Society and the ACLU's Yanow. An initial bill proposed allowing patients to state their preferences for such accepted options as withdrawing life support. Further, patients could tell their doctors of their willingness for sedatives or pain medication in dosages high enough to relieve suffering, even if the drugs also could quicken death. But in a compromise with the Arizona Medical Association, the language was toned down to avoid stating the drugs' potential for hastening death, said John Westbrook, a Tucson resident and president of Hemlock USA. "We're not cutting out the intent; we're just trying to state it gently," said Westbrook, who said his group sees the need to build consensus. "This is a different approach. We didn't get anywhere with the (lethal) prescription approach." The state medical association has agreed to discuss the legislation before the Legislature's session begins in January, Westbrook said. A similar run at consensus is happening in Florida. After a failed attempt to gain acceptance for assisted suicide under state privacy laws, the Hemlock Society of Florida joined forces with the Florida Commission on Aging With Dignity, which opposes assisted suicide. The two groups are drafting a bill similar to Arizona's. "I do think this is the way the states are going to move in the next couple of years," said Mary Bennett Hudson, president of the Hemlock Society of Florida. The Commission on Aging With Dignity, a group supported by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., Archbishop John C. Favalora of Miami and Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles, is holding a series of public forums. Chiles and others will urge participants to talk with their families about end-of-life care. "We don't want to polarize this issue (of care for the dying) like other issues have become," said Jackie Roberts, program coordinator of the Commission on Aging With Dignity. "Let's think about what we can work on together." Not smooth sailing Although better palliative care is enjoying wide support, activists such as those in the Hemlock Society have more hurdles to clear. The National Right to Life Committee, for example, supports legislation that promotes good palliative care. But the committee's Arizona affiliate has called Lynch's bill a blank check for doctor-assisted suicide. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops shares that concern. "If you say, 'I want pain control because it will cause my death,' then that is assisted suicide. If you're focusing on whatever medicine is necessary to relieve the pain, then that is standard medicine," said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the Catholic Conference's Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. "The idea that sedation is some kind of covert euthanasia is not legally correct or medically correct." Doerflinger said laws that spell out how dying patients can attain aggressive pain medication are not necessary. The Supreme Court has verified that all patients have the right to this kind of treatment, and many living-will laws also address the issue. Doerflinger said putting medical practice into law can have unintended effects. Laws that permit pain medication for dying patients who are not addicted drug users, for example, can restrict appropriate care for people who contracted AIDS by sharing hypodermic needles. "If you just let doctors practice medicine, it's usually more flexible than anything you can put into statute," Doerflinger said. But people such as Yanow plan to press forward. "My personal feeling is that there is need for a paradigm shift to continue the debate the Supreme Court referred to" on palliative care, he said. "I want to get to the point where we all agree that people want to die without suffering." Erin Hoover of the Health/Medicine/Science team can be reached by phone at 294-5011 or by fax at 294-4150. CHERYL ECKSTEIN Founder & President, CHN NEWSBYTES researched reports compliments of CHN please report any problems to CHN: chn@intergate.bc.ca _____________________________________________________ The Compassionate Healthcare Network (CHN) Canada's International Anti-euthanasia Network - CHN is an affiliated member of The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life * * * * * Address "CHN DIGEST ONLINE" at: http://www.awinc.com/partners/bc/commpass/lifenet/euthan1.htm CHN'S NEW ADDRESS ... SOON TO BE IN OPERATION: www.chninternational.com --------------------------------------------------- Tel: (604) 582 8687 Fax: (604) 582 7690