Friday, January 18, 2008

Styrofoam Duck Decoys

Bioethics our local, we are sure is the right way?


Since December 2006, Italy has a new National Bioethics Committee, adoption of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, its purpose is to interpret the visions of bioethical pluralism in our state and how it wants to steer the debate.
In view ad executive officer, this new committee was selected based on four key criteria:
reduction of members (52 to 40)
a greater number of women (15)
the lowering of the age
mean a change in staffing

far nothing objectionable, except that the stride in a glaring absence of a requirement for the 4 criteria that can be shared and positive, all of them invalid, missing substantive competence.
Reducing the number does not guarantee certain pluralism, on the contrary decreases opinions, a fundamentalist intolerant may well be young and a woman can be or may appear as parts than those it replaces.
If we then run the names of the States, we realize that there is even a reality at all neutral, but lined up, one wonders whether the criteria for selecting members were only the ones mentioned so far.
Close examination of the individual members based on the work they do, curriculum, what they have said or published (the rights of the partners, the status of the embryo, birth control ...) show that the number of representatives the Catholic world amounted to 24, twenty-four individuals.
That out of 40 by itself already exceeds the quorum or 50% +1, a perfect number to get an absolute majority. In the past
bioethics committees, the presence of this line of thought has always been dominant, in a sense part of Italy, the unwritten story and certainly never seriously discussed, as it is clear that the President is an ardent and uncompromising Catholic.
the absolute majority it must be added the former president of the Constitutional Court and current President of the Italian Treccani, Francesco Paolo Casavola, professor of Roman law, which will exercise its influence as a Catholic Democrat as chairman of the committee. In most

are therefore representatives of the CEI, priests, more or less conservative Catholics, lawyers, doctors as well as intellectuals from all over, the problem is that at this moment in history of aggression and intransigence oltretevere mean that the same process occurs when asked to take crucial decisions.
The dynamic is: let the dialogue proliferation, apparently, except that as soon as you touch a subject dear to the church comes calling aloud the cardinals.
At that point the distinction between Catholics more or less mature melts like snow in a heated oven, blocking the box.

Among these members are thus even some of the most aggressive of that conservative and anti-Catholicism that has transformed the debate in ideological campaigns violent and intolerant, certainly not very well informed in science, is an example of bad language is foul on Nazi eugenics, or that of science of death, the tyranny of technique or manipulation of life. So the overwhelming majority
lurks the hard core of extremists seen so far.

The laity are the remaining 16 members, including some highlights of the Italian science, Alberto Piazza, Elena Cattaneo and Silvio Garattini, at their side, representatives of other religions.
Finally a small group of representatives of secular bioethics Italian history.
Their role is to make some 'noise just to show that there are other points of view, lay in one piece could have its say in spite of the decisions were taken "democratically" with a surprise by 24 ... of pluralism is safe!
So lay people are and should be in the minority, must make noise, scream and protest, possibly arguing with each other and without a dowry box, are not useful. In

CNB also investigate if we discover that members of human and therefore do not have scientific backgrounds are 24, an overwhelming majority expressed on issues of relevance and scientific Experimental
However there are eight doctors and eight scientists who still remain in the minority.

In civilized countries and advanced the scientific community is mainly played in the event the courts, because it is a valuable partner, the goal is to provide policy tools for advancing the sphere of civil rights and ethics share community.
absolutely not the case that are seen as a threat to spreading the culture of death, religious fanatics who love to point out the science as a supreme evil exist everywhere, just that you typically see on the street ... not in government offices or worse in committees that decide how must conduct the search.
In Italy, the NBC censors opinions expressed through moralistic and, in addition to be consulted occasionally.
The scientific community is not taken into account in public debate, is misused and caricatured, we had a sad example of the referendum on the Law 40/2004 of June 2005, a single scientist (an insider with a culture capable of to understand and spread in this area) then put on a par with any other person.

The embryonic stem cell research in Italy

Another key point is the freedom to search:
ultra-conservatives in the U.S. in 2004 was decided that research on embryonic stem cells should not be financed by public funds, or the administration is assuming political responsibility to the voters of a choice is binding on the government research, but this does not prevent private citizens to fund studies in this direction in our state but the decision is binding because the law states that if a ban violated door to sanctions. More simply
is prohibited.
short, the National Bioethics Committee shall decide on the guidelines of the research, rather than favoring one another, but decided to do what is lawful or unlawful, or rights crimes.

Our state is betting everything on adult stem cells and fetal are believed to be the most successful line of study, the entire Catholic press the praises and says that "it would be ethically unacceptable to change the focus of" daily interviewing researchers who study them, we ignore the risks and failures as a matter of ideology.
Embryonic stem cells are considered instead of sin, do not cure anything, scholars who focus on creating easy illusions of their patients.
But this is a decision of the State, has nothing to do with the actual state of research worldwide.
Common sense suggests a guide for studies in all directions and not concentrate only in one direction, to the exclusion of science for reasons that have little chance unrepeatable. Both lines
researchers have both advantages and disadvantages, a study may also have benefits on the other, the stakes are considerable, not only for regenerative medicine is able to solve insurmountable problems today, but also an opportunity for understanding of those natural mechanisms that lead to the formation of tissue or the causes of diseases that today we do not know.
mean something to be reckoned with at all, but a scientific prejudice turns into a restrictive law that establishes what can be known and what is not. Meanwhile
end all public funding to those involved in adult stem cells and the researchers who use them have struggled deeply for the failure of the referendum on the law 40.
pure ideology? We avoid the unnecessary and conspiracy back to the facts, you can still a loophole, to study embryonic stem cells in culture already in place before the ban on the production of new cell lines, perfect! It would have just the funds but they are not bestowed by the state, so you can not do.
would not be prohibited, but in fact is denied.
For some time a bill proposed by the Minister Rutelli, the destination of tens of millions of euro to the study of adult stem cells, in the prologue of the law shows that "are the most promising," so on the basis of a clinical case mounted to hoc (there are no stem pancreas, or at least not yet been discovered so far) sl which legislate and allocate public funds to a lack of knowledge of science, these are the words of an indictment of Carlo Cattaneo.
But the proposed law, there is an additional appropriation of public funds, three million euro to inform people about the great possibilities for treatment of adult stem short, one-sided propaganda.

It remains a paradox that in Italy the research should have to deal with financial difficulties, legal, conflict of interest and totally arbitrary choices of prohibitions by quell'ortodossia that resides in parliament and in the Committee on Bioethics .



For those wishing to visit the government website here is a link
http://www.palazzochigi.it/bioetica/index.html

0 comments:

Post a Comment