Is it ever okay to experiment on people if they know the risks and the risks are low?

I watched a movie the other day called Extreme Measures.  *movie spoiler alert*  A famous doctor was taking homeless people and performing experiments on them to find a procedure to allow parapalegics to walk again.  The ethical delimna was whether he should sacrifice these few homeless people in order to help thousands of people who are unable to walk.

It made me think about the issue.  Science sacrifices animals all the time to determine if a medicine or medical procedure is safe and can then be used on humans.  The animals cannot be asked if they wish to be part of the experiments.  But humans can.  The doctor in the movie was obviously wrong in using people without their knowledge.  In the movie, he states that he is rather old and doesn't have time to wait years for experiments on rats and monkeys.

Is it ever okay to experiment on people when the odds of survival are slim to none?

Obviously, taking people, homeless or not, is unethical.  But what if you asked for volunteers?  If you spelled everything out to people and showed them the risks and benefits, to them and humanity, would that be okay?  I am of the mind that if people are in control of their mental faculties, they can make any decision they wish.  If someone asks for volunteers and someone steps forward, they can all sign the appropriate paperwork (and maybe be overseen by a 'oversight committee') then the doctor and volunteer can proceed.  I can imagine there would be a few people who would want to do this.  There are always a few individuals who will volunteer for anything.  But would they get the right kind of people?  Would they get volunteers who fit the criteria they needed?

But what if they can't get enough volunteers?  Maybe the odds of success are too low.  Would it be okay to pay for volunteers?  If people were offered a substantial amount of money, would it be appropriate?  I can certainly see more volunteers stepping forward.  Money can be a strong motivator.  And even if the odds of success are low, the money could be given to their family.  If the volunteer was of sound mind, would this be okay?

I am of the opinion, that if someone is capable of making decisions for themselves, then they can volunteer for any and all procedures that are offered.  But money should probably not enter the equation (maybe living expenses?).  It makes the reasons for volunteering more difficult to ascertain.  And I like the idea of an oversight committee.  A group of medical professionals (and laypersons?) who make sure that what the scientist/doctor is doing needs volunteers and that the volunteers are not being coerced.

The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one.  As long as that one understands the risks involved.

Free Speech rights at funerals comes to U.S. Supreme Court

Fred Phelps, who has a church with about 75 members, mostly his family, protest at funerals.  Really?  Are they protesting the way the funeral is held?  Or the funeral company?  Or an individual?

No, they protest because the federal government (and America in general) embraces gays.  And gays are bad.  And God is killing American soldiers because he's upset about the gay embracing.

They also protest at music concerts, sporting events and even a Holocaust Museum.  Reprehensible as their proclamations and signs are ("Fags Doom Nations") they have a right to Free Speech under the First Amendment.

As disgusting and anti-Christian as they are (God DOES love everyone), someone has died.  Whether you like or dislike the person, their attitudes, or actions, they have died.  Their family should be allowed respect to bury them; without anyone disturbing them.

Phelps and his religious family are smart about it, though.  They don't protest right next to the funeral.  They are some distance away.  They don't target any individual person (dead or alive).  They protest generically, holding up signs and chanting things such as "God Hates Fags"; and "God Bless IEDs".

This case isn't about simply protesting at a funeral, it is specifically about speech directed at an individual, in this case, the soldier's father. 

Having said all of this, I know the U.S. Supreme Court will fall on the side of Free Speech, as they should.  Fred Phelps and his followers will probably be allowed to continue their homophobic hate speech.  And gay soldiers will continue to die for our freedoms.  And America will embrace gays more and more over the years, just as they did with Civil Rights and Women's Rights. 

Maybe Fred Phelps will pass soon, and his followers will disperse, with no one taking the reigns.  Then there will be no more media coverage of this loony-toon.  One can only hope.

US weighs rights for anti-gay church (The Age)

Here is a good article on Fred Phelps and his beliefs:  Fred Phelps and Goodness (InSearchOfGoodness)

Even the hatefulness of Fred Phelps is protected by this country’s free speech (KansasCity.com)

Protitutes teaching our children?

A New York elementary school art teacher is writing a memoir about her time as a stripper and sex worker in Mexico when she was 19 years old and for about a year (ending in January 2007) she advertised as a hooker on Craigslist.  She was 'outed' after someone videotaped her reading a portion of her memoir at an open-mic event.

Some parents are up in arms about a former prostitute teaching their children.  And Melissa Petro is currently on administative leave pending an investigation by the school authorities.

Should the background of a teacher be considered for suitability for teaching children?  Of course.  No one would think that a sex-offender should be an elementary school teacher?  But what about a previous sex-worker?  What if the teacher used to smoke marijuana?  Or if they were convicted of drunk driving 10 years ago?

Everyone has some past indescretion that they probably would prefer to forget.  Small or large, few of us have gone thru our younger years (high school or college) without doing something we think better of later.  Or maybe some don't.  Just because Melissa is no longer a sex worker, doesn't mean she would do things different now.  But how does this affect the children she teaches?

Unless Melissa is espousing her beliefs that all young people should become involved in the sex trade in some aspect, what's wrong with her teaching art to students?  Where is the line that connects the two items that precludes one from the other?

If someone is currently an avid mountain-biker and teaches math to elementary students, where is the harm?  If the person tells their students they need to get a mountain-bike and speed down converted ski-slopes, then there could be an issue.  They are in the classroom to teach math.  Telling students to go and do something potentially harmful could be an issue that the school should handle.  They ask the teacher not to bring up the subject.  And if they do, the teacher is disciplined.

So, whether I like or dislike what Melissa has done in the past and however she feels about it now, as long as she isn't bringing this into the classroom, where's the harm?
Bronx art teacher Melissa Petro blabs about exploits as stripper, hooker at open-mic events (NY Daily News)

Government has no part in who counselors can and cannot counsel.

I agree with this opinion piece that the government does not have a say in what a person can and can't study because the student won't apply the degree the way the schools wants them to.

Julea Ward was studying for her Masters in Counseling.   When the school found out she refused to counsel homosexuals, because of her religous beliefs, they expelled her.

As the article states, it would be impossible to expect all counselors to counsel everyone in all situations.  Sometimes their biases are so strong that they would be unable to give proper counseling for the patient.

An Attack on Religion and Counseling (NewsBlaze)

Mary Bale: Evil Incarnate for trashing cat? Not even.

By now you have probably heard about Mary Bale, the woman who dumped a cat into a dumpster.  Clearly she's got some issues.  Maybe a cat bit her when she was a child?  Maybe she thinks all small furry things are disgusting?  Maybe she was having a bad day?

Regardless, while she should be chastised and perhaps even be involved in some kind of police action for her cruelty to an animal, she is not 'a monster' or 'evil incarnate' as the following articles suggests.  Nor should someone 'give her grief for the rest of her life.'

Mary Bale The Lady Who Threw Cat In Garbage: Most Hated Woman In World!

Life is Hell for Evil Lady Who Threw Cat Into Garbage Container

And for the record, I am a cat lover.

Lastly, she does NOT deserve police protection.

UPDATE:  Bank clerk 'who dumped cat in wheelie bin' charged with animal cruelty (DailyMail)
UPDATE: Cat bin woman Mary Bale fined £250 (Guardian)

Prop 8, don't discriminate

Lots of talk going on about Proposition 8 being being struck down.

Much anger about 'the will of the people' being subverted. Some say "why can't we decide on validity of propositions before they are put on the ballot?" The simple reason is that if the Proposition doesn't pass, no time or money is wasted.

And when a Proposition passes, that's when the legality is questioned. Just because a Proposition is popular enough to pass doesn't make it legal. Many 'unpopular rights' were still 'legalized' because of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Think Civil Rights and Women's Rights.

It's been over 40 years since Civil Rights legislation was adopted. 40 years from now, we'll be thinking the same thing about Gay Rights.

Someone on a site I have misplaced said the Government should give a Civil Union License to those who want to be together in the eyes of the Government and all of the legal implications. If they want to get married, they go to a church with all of the religious implications. Makes sense to me.  Separation of Church and State.

Here is an opinion piece from the Los Angeles Times with a little background on Judge Walker, who struck down Proposition 8, and some quick info on racial discrimination in the 1960's. Proposition 8, Judge Walker, and our short memories (LA Times)

And another opinion on why Republicans shouldn't stand on the wrong side of another civil rights issue.  My Fellow Conservatives: Think Carefully About Your Opposition to Gay Marriage (Fox News)

Lying to a woman to have sex is rape?

A court in Israel has declared that a man who lied to a woman to have sex, in fact raped her because of that lie. The implication is that it doesn't matter what he lied about but simply the fact that he lied.

Israeli Court Calls Lying for Sex Rape (New York Times Blog)

Seems to me that the issue is really Jewish/Arab based. If the man had said he was wealthy and was not, I don't think the woman would have taken him to court. Pure speculation, of course, but racial tensions are high in the region and it seems like this was the real reason.

If a woman will have sex with someone who tells her things about himself and doesn't check on them, then who is to blame? The man is at fault for lying, but the woman gave herself willingly. Should either of them be held 'legally responsible'? Should either of them be taken to court?

One area where this could go to court is if one partner asked the other if they were 'disease free', for HIV, for example, and they were not. Then the aggrieved party could take the person to court for endangering their life.

But going to prison for 'lying for sex'? Not even.

Marriage: One of These and One of Those?

When it comes to 'the definition of marriage' I know I won't sway anyone by giving my opinion on the matter.  Those who have their mind made up on either side of the debate won't change their mind because of me.  I'm not so full of myself to think that I'll say X and someone reading this will say 'Wow, never thought of that.  Guess I'll change sides!'

But I will, for the record state my view.  And the reason for my view is what determines many of the opinions I do hold.  Simply stated, it is: if people are of legal age and aren't harming anyone else, let 'em do it.

Applying this to marriage, if a woman and a man want to get married, let 'em do it.  If a woman and a woman want to get married, let 'em do it.  And if a man and a man want to get married (wait for it...) let 'em do it.

In addition, if two women and a man want to get married, let 'em do it.  As long as everyone involved is of legal age and no one is being harmed, where is the issue?  If six women and fix men want to get married?  You know where I stand.

All of this just means that society, moving forward, will have to figure out how to handle these 'plus-sized marriages'.  Sure, a child will still have two biological parents, but if they are brought up in a large family, raised by everyone, how will we handle 'bring your father to work day?'  When filling out the emergency contact card at school, will extra spaces need to be provided?  Will 'Couples Retreats' need to be renamed 'Spouses Retreats'?

The possibilities are endless.

What brought this to mind lately was a judge striking down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (Washington Post);  a place the federal government has no place to be.  (A future posting will discuss why the Federal Government needs to have their hands in so many issues.)

Nun demoted for approving life-saving abortion

A nun in Phoenix, AZ was demoted and excommunicated for her role in a decision to perform an abortion. The abortion was necessary, according to the hospital ethics committed, of which the nun was a member, because the patient would have died. The patient had pulmonary hypertension which would have been fatal because of the pregnancy.

According to this article, 'the pregnancy carried a nearly certain risk of death for the mother'. Hospital nun rebuked for allowing abortion in Phoenix (USA Today)

More on the story: Phoenix nun and her abortion decision (Arizona Daily Star)

But it is clear the Bishop didn't care about the woman's life. Seems it could have been a 'certain risk' instead of a 'nearly certain risk' and it would still have been sin to perform the abortion.

So the Bishop is saying, in effect, 'it is better to have two people dead, than to have one living because an abortion was performed'. What a crock! The obvious solution is NOT go to go a Catholic hospital for any medical conditions that could be terminal. Or maybe not to go to one at all, just in case things become 'complicated'.

The decision was made with the full cooperation and understanding of the mother. And as long as she is in her 'right mind', that's all that is needed. The Catholic Church be damned!

An opinion via NPR: Sister Margaret McBride: Don't Confess (NPR)