The recent overruling of the FDA decision to sell Plan B over the counter (OTC) to children as young as eleven years of age has engendered no small amount of outrage by proponents of the FDA plan, and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has come in for severe criticism from women’s health and advocacy groups. Setting aside for a moment the undercurrent of abortion and the distrust between warring parties over the issue, this decision by Secretary Sebelius is a victory for the very children the FDA purports to serve and protect.

According to FDA labeling on Plan B:

“Ectopic pregnancies account for approximately 2% of all reported pregnancies. Up to 10% of pregnancies reported in clinical studies of routine use of progestin-only contraceptives are ectopic.”

That represents a five-fold increase in the incidence of a potentially fatal side effect of the drug’s usage in those taking the drug. The very issue proponents of OTC Plan B sale cite for selling to young adolescents, their fear of parental knowledge and involvement in their sex lives, heightens the risk of fatality in the very young.

Aiding and abetting the young in skirting parental involvement fosters a do-it-yourself gynecology where side-effects such as cramping, nausea, vomiting, and bleeding can serve to reinforce and heighten the fear and distrust that led to the child’s self-medication in the first place. Plan B taken by a child with an existing and untreated endometriosis can lead the child into thinking that the lower abdominal pain and heavy bleeding of a resulting ectopic pregnancy may well be her monthly norm. Such a mistake can be fatal, but what is an already fearful and distrustful child to do? It is entirely unreasonable to expect children, who are notoriously ignorant of their changing physiology, to engage in self-differential diagnosis and admit their clandestine activities to the parents they fear and distrust.

In research conducted by Family Health International (FHI), January, 2003.

“… the sine qua non of an OTC-switch is that patients should be capable of self-medicating by reading the drug’s package insert. The above label comprehension tests for Plan B indicate that safe self-medication is not possible for a significant segment of the population. For example, only 75% of all respondents answered correctly that Plan B should not be taken in the presence of unexplained vaginal bleeding. Among the low-level literacy group that figure declined to 69%. Furthermore, only 67% of all respondents understood that Plan B is designed to serve as a backup for regular contraception methods, not a replacement. Among those of low-literacy this figure dropped to 46%; whereas for women of high literacy the figure was 78%. Obviously, many patients do not understand much of the drug’s package insert, which argues against FDA approval of EC OTC.”

If there are any doubts about the ability of children and teens to self-prescribe such medication and act responsibly, NPR published a story about the work of Harvard’s Dr. Frances Jensen that shows how the child and adolescent brain is underdeveloped in the areas responsible for critical and prudent decision making:

She learned that that it’s not so much what teens are thinking — it’s how.

Jensen says scientists used to think human brain development was pretty complete by age 10. Or as she puts it, that “a teenage brain is just an adult brain with fewer miles on it.”

But it’s not. To begin with, she says, a crucial part of the brain — the frontal lobes — are not fully connected. Really.

“It’s the part of the brain that says: ‘Is this a good idea? What is the consequence of this action?’ ” Jensen says. “It’s not that they don’t have a frontal lobe. And they can use it. But they’re going to access it more slowly.”

Do-it-yourself gynecology is bad medicine for the young, and our daughters deserve better than such callous disregard for their lack of knowledge of their bodies, lack of impulse control, and lack of sufficient neurological development to enable them to make reasonable and informed decisions. For those who lack trust in the experience and wisdom of the adults who know them best, it is all the more imperative that we ensure they don’t fall victim to pharmaceutical merchants and their allies who would exploit the callowness of their youth.

For the women’s groups howling with rage at Sebelius, I remember a time when feminism demanded medicine’s best for women, not do-it-yourself gynecology for our teenage and pre-teen daughters.

~Gerard M. Nadal, Ph.D.

Recent news that Geron has abruptly pulled out of the embryonic stem cell (ESC) business, after having just begun the only human clinical trials with ESC’s, has been met with deserved rejoicing by the pro-life community. While it certainly is a blow to the ESC movement, it doesn’t necessarily signal the impending implosion of the ESC industry.

Not by a long shot.

While ESC’s are on the ropes, adult stem cells (ASC’s) are being declared the winner in some enthusiastic quarters. This, too, may be a bit premature.

What makes adult stem cell (ASC) therapy so very appealing, compared to ESC’s, is that they are not only free of their embryonic counterpart’s ethical baggage, but that they are for the most part an autologous therapy–being taken from one part of the patient’s body and transferred to another. Being thus free of the tissue compatibility/rejection dimensionality that comes from using cells from another human, ASC’s are the much safer alternative, with scores of clinical applications in use globally.

Paradoxically, the strength of ASC’s autologous nature is also their great difficulty from a business perspective, and one of the main reasons that ESC’s are being pursued by industry. ESC’s are taken from embryos that are destroyed in the process, with the hopes that the biotech company can patent a successful line of cells and perpetuate that line of cells indefinitely in the laboratory. With a perpetually growing and dividing line of cells, it is thought, therapy will be less expensive than the more labor-intensive process of retrieval and processing of the patient’s own cells.

That’s a powerful business model for modern day gold prospectors, and one that will keep ESC’s in the game for quite some time to come. Public support is fueled by politicians like former U.S. Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate, John Edwards, who famously thundered from the campaign trail,

If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.

To be fair to Edwards, it takes a great deal of vision and intestinal fortitude to pursue stem cell therapy of either stripe. It takes bold visionaries with charismatic leadership styles to rally donors and benefactors to underwrite such a vision. Had Edwards qualified his remarks, he wouldn’t have drawn the fire that ensued. So here is that qualification.

To date, Geron’s limited human trial with ESC’s to treat spinal cord injury has not resulted in people getting up and walking, or any other demonstrable recovery of function in paralytics.

In Portugal, Dr. Carlos Lima has had some successes in taking ASC’s from the base of the patient’s brain and transferring them to the site of injury in the spinal cord (olfactory mucosa autografts) and actually getting people walking with various degrees of success. To learn more about this from the Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, click here.

Where ASC’s stand in spinal cord injury may be likened to the Wright brothers at Kitty Hawk. Yes, we have modest sustained flight for the first time in human history. But we need to get to the level of Charles Linbergh’s trans-Atlantic flight.

That will take some doing.

There were several generations of technology that had to be born, each begetting the next, before the promise of Kitty Hawk became the reality of trans-Atlantic flight. ASC’s and spinal cord injury are on their way, while the ESC fleet remains grounded. It may well be that in time ESC’s will emerge as successful therapies. When that day comes, the therapies will have been built through the abrupt ending of millions of human lives in their embryonic stage of development.

Edwards may yet be proven correct, but such success will come at a terrible price that we will all pay at the civilizational level. To achieve that success will require the deadening of moral sensibilities to accept such high-tech cannibalism: civilization literally consuming their young.

~Gerard M. Nadal, Ph.D.

.
.
.
Image via: vote29.com

When one considers the ethics of manipulation, the question of whether we ought to, or whether we may manipulate an organism or entity depends on the answer to the first and most fundamental question:

What is it?

Ascertaining the identity and status of the object of our intended manipulation is essential.

In the fields of obstetrical medicine and reproductive medicine the ethical debates have raged for four decades. Enlightened discourse between opposing parties must assume good motives by all involved, and then go about asking the essential questions, following where the truth of science and reason lead.

Many claim that life begins at some point distant from fertilization, always beyond the point at which they propose some manipulation (abortion, embryonic stem cell culturing, etc…). There are always a list of biological functions that are given to define when human life begins: Cognitive capacity, etc.

The simple biological truth of the matter is that the Cell Theory states that all cells arise from pre-existing cells. There is no blackout period between sperm and egg uniting, and then the emergence of ‘life’ at some point distant.

The Carnegie stages of human development indicate that human development begins in the zygotic stage. Then there is the assertion of developmental biologist and leading textbook author in the field, Scott Gilbert. In his text, Gilbert takes us through the life cycle of a dog. His text, Developmental Biology, is arguably the leading text in the field. According to Gilbert:

“Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.”

First, note how he sets the word dog off in quotes at one point, to communicate the very essence of the organism:

But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm…

The same may be said of all vertebrates, including cats, giraffes, chimpanzees, and humans. Substituting the word human for dog in Gilbert’s analysis gets to the heart of the matter. We are human for our entire life cycle. We are whole and complete in form and function at every stage of our development, for that given developmental stage. The prepubescent child is fully human, even though they lack the capacity to execute all human functions, such as abstract reasoning, or reproduction.

In the same way, the early embryo is alive and fully human, though it has not yet executed all human organismal functions.

~Gerard M. Nadal, Ph.D.

Photo via: embryology.med.unsw.edu.au

Having begun two months ago as the new National Director for Medical Students for Life of America, I am pleased to report on what we have been working on for you these past two months.

First, allow me to introduce myself. I’m Dr. Gerard Nadal (Ph.D. Molecular Microbiology).

Through my pro-life science blog, Coming Home, I’ve been writing about the scientific data that supports a return of medicine to its traditional moral and ethical moorings. Having taught college level biology (micro, immunology, A&P) for sixteen years, I believe that my contributions are better made here in this arena, the education of physicians, PA’s and NP’s. So here is what I have been up to.

I’ve traveled the country, meeting with pro-life physicians and ethicists, listening to their vision of what the needs of medical students, resident physicians, PA’s and NP’s are, and what it is that we can do. Beginning in 2012 we’re going to do the following:

Conferences: One of the greatest scandals in medicine in recent decades has been the eugenic mentality that has seized hold in the area of poor prenatal diagnoses. Beginning with an all-day conference at Family Research Council headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, January 21, and several more times throughout the year, we are focussing on the theme: Therapeutic Advances in Prenatal Diagnoses.

At these conferences, physicians and ethicists will tackle the difficult questions, and provide the most up to date clinical approaches for the babies and parents alike. Medical students will have the opportunity to present papers.

All conferences will be live webcast and uploaded to a video library that will be constructed here on this site. Over the next few years, we’ll be hosting conferences on a range of topics.

Externships: We are actively engaged in setting up summer externships and summer training in pro-life ethical medicine.

Mentoring: A list of pro-life physicians and bioethicists willing to be consulted by students and resident physicians is being compiled, and a mentorship program will be announced at some time in the Spring semester.

Conscience Protections: The Alliance Defense Fund is a pro-life law firm providing pro bono legal representation to medical professionals and students whose conscience rights come under attack. In the Spring, we will have an evening webcast dealing with this topic. As with all conferences and seminars, it will be permanently uploaded to our video library.

Scientific Medical Library: Over time, we will be adding a reference list for journal articles and government data dealing with the life issues.

Annual Awards Dinner: Beginning in May, we will have an annual dinner honoring our new medical school graduates and graduates of residency training, as well as honoring one pro-life physician who has distinguished themselves in the education of our students.

Campus Lectures: We’re lining up a Spring speaking tour with a pro-life physician and myself. Stay tuned.

New Groups: If anyone knows of friends in other medical schools, forward their contact information to me at: gnadal@studentsforlife.org

If anyone is on campus with other groups such as CMA and CMDA, we exist to support ALL pro-life students.

That’s just the start! Spread the good word, and please email me and introduce yourselves. I’m here for you, for your needs. If you have some other ideas, or if there is ever anything I can do, please let me know.

For now, check back here frequently for new articles on the science and medicine, and for new announcements. Subscribe to the site to have new posts emailed.

The best of luck in your studies, and the thanks of the entire team here for your courageous witness to life.

~Gerry Nadal

By: Sofia Resnick
Originally posted on The American Independent

In April, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill that makes it illegal for state colleges to fund medical residency programs that offer abortion training with state or federal money, including money paid by students as part of tuition or fees.

But what began as a rare seed in a nationwide garden of abortion-defunding measures has blossomed into a national movement to reduce the number of medical professionals who are trained to provide abortions. Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure that would ban health centers from using federal funds for comprehensive medical training that includes instruction of abortion procedures. Read the rest of this entry »

**For Immediate Release**

Media Contact: Mary Powers
Email: mpowers@studentsforlife.org
Phone: 703-351-6280

Arlington, VA- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has officially responded to pro-life concerns over the recent conscience rescissions for medical students and medical professionals. The response comes after Students for Life of America, Medical Students for Life of America, Christian Medical Association, Catholic Medical Association, and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists sent a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius expressing concerns over the Obama administration’s latest attempt to discriminate against medical professionals of faith and conscience.

View the original letter sent to HHS  here and view the response letter from HHS here.

Upon receipt of Health and Human Services’ response, Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life of America commented, “While the Obama administration may not define life as beginning at fertilization, many Americans and medical professionals do. Conscience rights should be extended to health care providers who refuse to participate in actions which terminate the life of a human being after fertilization. The current U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulations are inadequate to protect those rights of conscience as abortionifacent drugs like ella and Plan B are falling through the administration’s loophole.”

ella was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in August of 2010 for sale within the United States. The pill is both a contraceptive and abortificant, but the FDA chose only to label it as a contraceptive, deceiving millions of American women and forcing pro-life medical professionals to dispense the life-ending drug. Learn more about ella here: www.ellacausesabortions.com.

This February, the Obama administration rescinded the right of conscience to dispense drugs labeled as contraceptives. This action forces pro-life medical professionals to prescribe ella, Plan B, and other life-ending drugs even if doing so is a direct violation of the professional’s conscience.

The HHS response comes as the Christian Medical Association (CMA) released new polling data on May 3rd showing that 77% of American adults believe that it is important to “make sure that health care professionals in America are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections.” A poll released previously by CMA revealed that 62% opposed a revocation of the conscience protection rule for medical professionals.

For interviews or questions about the HHS response, Contact Mary Powers at mpowers@studentsforlife.org or by phone: 703-351-6280.

###

The freedom of choice for medical professionals is up for grabs now.

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives will debate and vote on H.R. 3 “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” which includes a provision for protecting conscience rights for medical professionals. After a whirlwind with the MedSFLA National Conference Webcast and National Speaking Tours, Congress is now tackling the same questions.

Is this provision needed?

Does H.R. 3 Leave Women in Emergencies to Die?

As medical and nursing students, we are are occupied enough with finishing this year’s exams, let alone whether or not our grades may be contingent on quickly fading conscience rights. Stay updated here at Med.StudentsforlifeLife.org!

MedSFLA has the April 30th National Conference Webcast up online for instant replay! Watch the Conference now.

The Historic Medical Students for Life (MedSFLA) National Conference Webcast (Research & Leadership National Conference) sponsored by Medical Students for Life and co-sponsored by the Family Research Council, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetrician-Gynecologists (AAPLOG), and Heartbeat International will take place this Saturday, April 30th from 9:00am-1:45pm (Eastern)!

The MedSFLA National Conference Webcast will feature national pro-life medical and bio-ethics professionals who will present on various pro-life medical topics from perinatal and prenatal medicine, stem cell research, and counseling post-abortive women.

Read the rest of this entry »