This disease had ravaged the human race since prehistorical days, and yet with the technology of vaccines, free thinking humans dared to imagine a world free of smallpox.
Business & Human Rights Journal (Volume 2, Issue 2) | Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
Using technology, battle plans were drawn out, and smallpox was systematically targeted and eradicated. Technology will always mark the human experience, from the discovery of fire to the implementation of nanotechnology. Given the history of the human race, there will be no limit to the number of problems, both new and old, for us to tackle. There is no need to retreat to a Luddite attitude to new things, but rather embrace a hopeful posture to the possibilities that technology provides for new avenues of human imagination.
The author of this essay stakes out a clear and insightful position on the issue and follows the specific instructions by presenting reasons to support that position. The essay cogently argues that technology does not decrease our ability to think for ourselves, but merely provides "additional time for people to live more efficiently. In further examples, the essay shows how technology allows for the linking of ideas that may never have been connected in the past like medicine and economic models , pushing people to think in new ways.
Examples are persuasive and fully developed; reasoning is logically sound and well supported. Ideas in the essay are connected logically, with effective transitions used both between paragraphs "However" or "In contrast to the statement" and within paragraphs. Sentence structure is varied and complex and the essay clearly demonstrates facility with the "conventions of standard written English i. Thus, this essay meets all the requirements for receiving a top score, a 6. Surely many of us have expressed the following sentiment, or some variation on it, during our daily commutes to work: "People are getting so stupid these days!
Furthermore, hanging around with the younger, pre-commute generation, whom tech-savviness seems to have rendered lethal, is even less reassuring. With "Teen People" style trends shooting through the air from tiger-striped PDA to zebra-striped PDA, and with the latest starlet gossip zipping from juicy Blackberry to teeny, turbo-charged cell phone, technology seems to support young people's worst tendencies to follow the crowd. Indeed, they have seemingly evolved into intergalactic conformity police. After all, today's tech-aided teens are, courtesy of authentic, hands-on video games, literally trained to kill; courtesy of chat and instant text messaging, they have their own language; they even have tiny cameras to efficiently photodocument your fashion blunders!
Is this adolescence, or paparazzi terrorist training camp? With all this evidence, it's easy to believe that tech trends and the incorporation of technological wizardry into our everyday lives have served mostly to enforce conformity, promote dependence, heighten comsumerism and materialism, and generally create a culture that values self-absorption and personal entitlement over cooperation and collaboration.
However, I argue that we are merely in the inchoate stages of learning to live with technology while still loving one another. After all, even given the examples provided earlier in this essay, it seems clear that technology hasn't impaired our thinking and problem-solving capacities. Certainly it has incapacitated our behavior and manners; certainly our values have taken a severe blow. However, we are inarguably more efficient in our badness these days. We're effective worker bees of ineffectiveness!
Harnessed correctly, technology can improve our ability to think and act for ourselves. The first challenge is to figure out how to provide technology users with some direly-needed direction. The language of this essay clearly illustrates both its strengths and weaknesses. The flowery and sometimes uncannily keen descriptions are often used to powerful effect, but at other times, the writing is awkward and the comparisons somewhat strained. See, for example, the ungainly sequence of independent clauses in the second-to-last sentence of paragraph 2 "After all, today's tech-aided teens There is consistent evidence of facility with syntax and complex vocabulary "Surrounded as we are by striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued to their ears, PDA's gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent CNN gleaming in their eyeballs, it's tempting to believe However, such lucid prose is sometimes countered by an over-reliance on abstractions and reasoning that is not entirely effective.
For example, what does the fact that video games "literally train [teens] to kill" have to do with the use or deterioration of thinking abilities? On the whole, however, the response develops its ideas about the ways that technology can promote isolation and conformity with well-chosen examples, even if its ideas about the positive effects of technology are less successfully realized. Because this essay provides generally thoughtful analysis and takes a complex approach to the issue arguing, in effect, that technology neither enhances nor reduces our ability to think for ourselves, but can do one or the other, depending on the user and because the author makes use of "appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety," a score of 5 is appropriate.
In all actuality, I think it is more probable that our bodies will surely deteriorate long before our minds do in any significant amount. Who can't say that technology has made us lazier, but that's the key word, lazy, not stupid. The ever increasing amount of technology that we incorporate into our daily lives makes people think and learn every day, possibly more than ever before.
Our abilities to think, learn, philosophize, etc. Using technology to solve problems will continue to help us realize our potential as a human race. If you think about it, using technology to solve more complicating problems gives humans a chance to expand their thinking and learning, opening up whole new worlds for many people.
Many of these people are glad for the chance to expand their horizons by learning more, going to new places, and trying new things. If it wasn't for the invention of new technological devices, I wouldn't be sitting at this computer trying to philosophize about technology. It would be extremely hard for children in much poorer countries to learn and think for themselves with out the invention of the internet. Think what an impact the printing press, a technologically superior mackine at the time, had on the ability of the human race to learn and think.
Right now we are seeing a golden age of technology, using it all the time during our every day lives. When we get up there's instant coffee and the microwave and all these great things that help us get ready for our day. But we aren't allowing our minds to deteriorate by using them, we are only making things easier for ourselves and saving time for other important things in our days. Going off to school or work in our cars instead of a horse and buggy. Think of the brain power and genius that was used to come up with that single invention that has changed the way we move across this globe.
Using technology to solve our continually more complicated problems as a human race is definately a good thing. Our ability to think for ourselves isn't deteriorating, it's continuing to grow, moving on to higher though functions and more ingenious ideas. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it was used most frequently to denote an evil deed or a crime, a usage still in evidence at the time of the Revolution. In , for example, Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, noted that "accessories after the fact" were "allowed the benefit of clergy in all cases.
There is no way to know whether Jefferson and the Congress had this sense of "fact" in mind when they adopted the Declaration. Yet regardless of their intentions, for some eighteenth-century readers "facts" many have had a powerful double-edged meaning when applied to George III's actions toward America.
Although one English critic assailed the Declaration for its "studied confusion in the arrangement" of the grievances against George III, they are not listed in random order but fall into four distinct groups. The second group, consisting of charges , attacks the king for combining with "others" Parliament to subject America to a variety of unconstitutional measures, including taxing the colonists without consent, cutting off their trade with the rest of the world, curtailing their right to trial by jury, and altering their charters. The third set of charges, numbers , assails the king's violence and cruelty in waging war against his American subjects.
They burden him with a litany of venal deeds that is worth quoting in full:. The war grievances are followed by the final charge against the king--that the colonists' "repeated Petitions" for redress of their grievances have produced only "repeated injury. First, the grievances could have been arranged chronologically, as Congress had done in all but one of its former state papers. Instead they are arranged topically and are listed seriatim, in sixteen successive sentences beginning "He has" or, in the case of one grievance, "He is.
The steady, laborious piling up of "facts" without comment takes on the character of a legal indictment, while the repetition of "He has" slows the movement of the text, draws attention to the accumulation of grievances, and accentuates George III's role as the prime conspirator against American liberty. Second, as Thomas Hutchinson complained, the charges were "most wickedly presented to cast reproach upon the King. It also recalls the denunciation, in Psalms , of "the workers of iniquity.
From the revolutionaries' view, however, the primary advantage of the wording of charge 10 was probably its purposeful ambiguity. The "multitude of New Offices" referred to the customs posts that had been created in the s to control colonial smuggling. The "swarms of Officers" that were purportedly eating out the substance of the colonies' three million people numbered about fifty in the entire continent. But Congress could hardly assail George III as a tyrant for appointing a few dozen men to enforce the laws against smuggling, so it clothed the charge in vague, evocative imagery that gave significance and emotional resonance to what otherwise might have seemed a rather paltry grievance.
Third, although scholars often downplay the war grievances as "the weakest part of the Declaration," they were vital to its rhetorical strategy. They came last partly because they were the most recent of George III's "abuses and usurpations," but also because they constituted the ultimate proof of his plan to reduce the colonies under "absolute despotism.
To some extent, of course, the emotional intensity of the war grievances was a natural outgrowth of their subject. It is hard to write about warfare without using strong language. Moreover, as Jefferson explained a decade later in his famous "Head and Heart" letter to Maria Cosway, for many of the revolutionaries independence was, at bottom, an emotional--or sentimental--issue.
But the emotional pitch of the war grievances was also part of a rhetorical strategy designed to solidify support for independence in those parts of America that had yet to suffer the physical and economic hardships of war. As late as May John Adams lamented that while independence had strong support in New England and the South, it was less secure in the middle colonies, which "have never tasted the bitter Cup; they have never Smarted--and are therefore a little cooler. In similar fashion, the Declaration of Independence used images of terror to magnify the wickedness of George III, to arouse "the passions and feelings" of readers, and to awaken "from fatal and unmanly slumbers" those Americans who had yet to be directly touched by the ravages of war.
Business & Human Rights Journal (Volume 2, Issue 2)
Fourth, all of the charges against George III contain a substantial amount of strategic ambiguity. While they have a certain specificity in that they refer to actual historical events, they do not identify names, dates, or places. This magnified the seriousness of the grievances by making it seem as if each charge referred not to a particular piece of legislation or to an isolated act in a single colony, but to a violation of the constitution that had been repeated on many occasions throughout America.
The ambiguity of the grievances also made them more difficult to refute. In order to build a convincing case against the grievances, defenders of the king had to clarify each charge and what specific act or events it referred to, and then explain why the charge was not true. Thus it took John Lind, who composed the most sustained British response to the Declaration, pages to answer the charges set forth by the Continental Congress in fewer than two dozen sentences. Although Lind deftly exposed many of the charges to be flimsy at best, his detailed and complex rebuttal did not stand a chance against the Declaration as a propaganda document.
Nor has Lind's work fared much better since While the Declaration continues to command an international audience and has created an indelible popular image of George III as a tyrant, Lind's tract remains a piece of arcana, buried in the dustheap of history. But the British people had proved no more receptive to the Whigs than had the government, and so the Declaration follows the attack on George III by noting that the colonies had also appealed in vain to the people of Great Britain:.
Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. This is one of the most artfully written sections of the Declaration. The first sentence, beginning "Nor. Sentences two through four, containing four successive clauses beginning "We Have. The fifth sentence--"They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity"--contains one of the few metaphors in the Declaration and acquires added force by its simplicity and brevity, which contrast with the greater length and complexity of the preceding sentence.
The final sentence unifies the paragraph by returning to the pattern of beginning with "We," and its intricate periodic structure plays off the simple structure of the fifth sentence so as to strengthen the cadence of the entire paragraph. The closing words--"Enemies in War, in Peace Friends"--employ chiasmus, a favorite rhetorical device of eighteenth-century writers. How effective the device is in this case can be gauged by rearranging the final words to read, "Enemies in War, Friends in Peace," which weakens both the force and harmony of the Declaration's phrasing. It is worth noting, as well, that this is the only part of the Declaration to employ much alliteration: "British brethren," "time to time," "common kindred," "which would," "connections and correspondence.
Of those words, an overwhelming number eighty-one of ninety-six contain only one syllable. The rest of the paragraph contains nine three- syllable words, eight four-syllable words, and four five-syllable words.
This felicitous blend of a large number of very short words with a few very long ones is reminiscent of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and contributes greatly to the harmony, cadence, and eloquence of the Declaration, much as it contributes to the same features in Lincoln's immortal speech.
The British brethren section essentially finished the case for independence. Congress had set forth the conditions that justified revolution and had shown, as best it could, that those conditions existed in Great Britain's thirteen North American colonies. All that remained was for Congress to conclude the Declaration:. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. This final section of the Declaration is highly formulaic and has attracted attention primarily because of its closing sentence. Carl Becker deemed this sentence "perfection itself":. It is true assuming that men value life more than property, which is doubtful that the statement violates the rhetorical rule of climax; but it was a sure sense that made Jefferson place "lives" first and "fortunes" second.
How much weaker if he had written "our fortunes, our lives, and our sacred honor"! Or suppose him to have used the word "property" instead of "fortunes"! Or suppose him to have omitted "sacred"! Consider the effect of omitting any of the words, such as the last two "ours"--"our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Becker is correct in his judgment about the wording and rhythm of the sentence, but he errs in attributing high marks to Jefferson for his "sure sense" in placing "lives" before "fortunes.
Colonial writers had used it with numbing regularity throughout the dispute with England along with other stock phrases such as "liberties and estates" and "life, liberty, and property". Its appearance in the Declaration can hardly be taken as a measure of Jefferson's felicity of expression. What marks Jefferson's "happy talent for composition" in this case is the coupling of "our sacred Honor" with "our Lives" and "our Fortunes" to create the eloquent trilogy that closes the Declaration.
The concept of honor and its cognates fame and glory exerted a powerful hold on the eighteenth-century mind. Writers of all kinds--philosophers, preachers, politicians, playwrights, poets--repeatedly speculated about the sources of honor and how to achieve it. Virtually every educated man in England or America was schooled in the classical maxim, "What is left when honor is lost? By pledging "our sacred Honor" in support of the Declaration, Congress made a particularly solemn vow. For various reasons that have already been identified—the desire to separate the abortion decision from the donation decision, the desire to protect pregnant women from exploitation and coercion, and the desire to avoid fanning the flames of the abortion controversy—the panel recognized several limits on the pregnant woman's autonomy without restricting the abortion decision itself.
In the UAGA there is no obligation to accept donated tissue and organs; hence, the woman's right to give fetal tissue does not engender an obligation on the part of anyone else to accept the gift. The pregnant woman has a right, the panel argued, to request and receive information about donation of fetal tissue prior to her abortion decision, but that information should not be disclosed to her as a matter of course if she does not request it.
Here again, the rationale is to separate the two decisions to reduce the likelihood that knowledge of the possibility of donating will influence the decision to abort. In response to the assistant secretary's questions about potential pressure to modify the timing and method of abortion to secure older fetuses, the panel stressed that, according to the evidence it had received, there were no pressures for later abortions.
Stressing the express donation model embodied in the UAGA, the panel's recommendations would allow the pregnant woman to choose whether to donate fetal tissue for research or some other purpose and to receive as much information as she needed regarding donation after she had decided to abort, without allowing her to know or to designate the recipient. Reflecting differences in sociocultural context, the British report does not emphasize the disclosure of information to the pregnant woman to the same extent as the U.
Similarly, the U. However, both reports recommended disclosure of information about the tissue source to health care professionals. A few other issues and panel recommendations merit attention before we turn to other developments, including recent public policy responses. Throughout its deliberations the panel recommended institutional procedures and arrangements to avoid conflicts of interest, that is, situations in which parties might have some incentive to encourage pregnant women to abort to provide fetal tissue.
Another major set of issues centers on the justification of human fetal tissue transplantation research, particularly from the standpoint of potential recipients. According to federal regulations and common practice, ethically justified research must satisfy several criteria, including favorable benefit-risk ratios Levine, Such benefit-risk analyses presuppose careful laboratory and animal studies before research involving human subjects can be justified. The panel did not have the research protocol that had been submitted to NIH and thus did not approve or disapprove a specific research protocol as a peer review process or institutional review board would have done.
The panel's report was submitted to the Director's Advisory Committee of NIH on December 14, , with oral presentations by nine of the ten panel members who attended another absent panel member's statement was entered into the record. After reviewing and discussing the panel's report, the advisory committee unanimously approved three recommendations:.
The panel's report and the advisory committee's report were not forwarded to DHHS until January , just before the end of the Reagan administration, which took no action on the reports. After President Bush's inauguration, controversy developed over his nominee for secretary of health and human services, in part because of concerns about his stand on abortion and related issues, including HFTTR. Hearings on Louis Sullivan's nomination included attention to these matters, and during the hearings Sullivan commented that he had not read the two reports an HFTTR and could not respond until he had done so Rich, ; Tolchin, The reports were not released to the public until April Providing the additional rationalization of directly advancing the cause of human therapeutics cannot help but tilt some already vulnerable women toward a decision to have an abortion.
This consultation could influence the woman's decision making process. Third, Sullivan noted that if the research proved successful, there would be a demand for more fetal tissue. He seemed to suggest that there would be a subsequent demand for more abortions, but did not address the question of whether the current rate of abortions would be sufficient to provide the needed tissue.
There has been some privately funded HFTTR—for example, during fall , at the University of Colorado and Yale University, and it continues there and perhaps elsewhere in the United States as well as abroad; yet some people express the fear that without federal funding the field will not grow rapidly or attract the best researchers. Without government funding there undoubtedly would be many efforts to use fetal tissue for medical research that would be completely unsupervised and not governed by any guidelines.
Thus if the National Institutes of Health proceeds cautiously, and with carefully articulated safeguards and a program of periodic reviews, there would be much greater assurance that carefully crafted guidelines will be in place as an absolute condition to any research procedures. Such an arrangement would protect pregnant women and fetuses in a far more circumspect and intelligent manner than if the NIH did not participate in any way.
Adams, Critics have sharply challenged DHHS's indefinite extension of the moratorium. Similar themes emerged in the April 2, , hearings on human fetal tissue research before the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by Congressman Henry Waxman.
Freed, patient with Parkinson's disease, the debate about the moral justifiability of the moratorium can be expected to continue. One former panelist, LeRoy Walters, has noted that the position taken by the panel, in contrast to the moratorium by DHHS, is in accord with the international ethical consensus on HFTTR using tissue from electively aborted fetuses.
Within the United States, similar proposals, with minor variations, have emerged in the last two years from such groups as the Stanford University Medical Center Committee on Ethics Greely et al. This case study has offered in passing several comparisons with other reports and actual or proposed policies in other countries, particularly the proposals of the Polkinghorne Committee in the United Kingdom in Several distinctive features of the social-political-cultural context in each nation account for differences in specific guidelines even within a strong international consensus on ethical standards.
Obviously one major difference is the political strength of various groups that press certain moral visions or interests, such as the right-to-life movement in the United States.
By R.J. Rummel
First, many European countries have abortion laws that are more restrictive than those of the United States and thus may have less reason to fear the impact of HFTTR on abortion decision making and on the societal acceptance of abortion Clendon, Second, there may be important differences in the commercialization and regulation of abortion clinics and of tissue procurement.
For example, it could be argued that the HFTTR panel in the United States did not pay sufficient attention to actual institutional pressures Annas and Elias, , whereas the Polkinghorne report, which also recommended the separation of decisions regarding abortion and the use of fetal tissue, called for an intermediary as a mechanism of separation of the practice of abortion and the use of fetal tissue.
If there were more than one tissue bank, they would all function under a single intermediary organization. Sociocultural differences may lead to such variations in guidelines and approaches, even within a strong international consensus about the relevant ethical standards. One important question in the United States is whether, as some critics claim, public policy regarding HFTTR is being held hostage to the society's uneasiness about abortion, or whether the recommendations of the HFTTR panel or similar recommendations will be found to reflect an acceptable balance of ethical concern for fetuses, prior to and after their deaths; for pregnant women; for professionals and researchers; for patients who lack effective therapies and are potential beneficiaries of HFTTR; and for social integrity, including the democratic process.
The debate is in part about how to proceed in a situation of doubt; thus, it also becomes a question of which side has the burden of proof when there is a lack of irrefutable evidence that it is possible to separate abortion decisions and practices sufficiently from decisions and practices regarding the use of fetal tissue following abortions. Because of the lack of irrefutable evidence, the panel recommended that the secretary of health and human services review the proposed guidelines at appropriate intervals. As of this writing, the moratorium continues to be defended by the secretary, and Congress is considering legislation that would require a lifting of the ban.
There is no doubt that this issue will continue to be argued on moral, ethical, legal, political, and medical grounds for some time. In January , the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the American Fertility Society announced they will form a national advisory board to monitor embryo and fetal tissue research in the absence of federal guidelines. Appendix A is a March memorandum from the assistant secretary for health to the director of the National Institutes of Health.
The memo lists 10 questions that should be addressed by a Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel, once it is appointed and convened. I have given careful thought to your request to perform an experiment calling for the implantation of human neural tissue from induced abortions into Parkinson's patients to ameliorate the symptoms of this disorder.
This proposal raises a number of questions--primarily ethical and legal--that have not been satisfactorily addressed, either within the Public Health Service or within society at large. Consequently, before making a decision on your proposal, I would like you to convene one or more special outside advisory committees that would examine comprehensively the use of human fetal tissue from induced abortions for transplantation and advise us on whether this kind of research should be performed, and, if so, under what circumstances.
Is an induced abortion of moral relevance to the decision to use human fetal tissue for research? Would the answer to this question provide any insight on whether and how this research should proceed? Does the use of the fetal tissue in research encourage women to have an abortion that they might otherwise not undertake?
If so, are there ways to minimize such encouragement? Is maternal consent a sufficient condition for the use of the tissue, or should additional consent be obtained? Should there be and could there be a prohibition on the donation of fetal tissue between family members, or friends and acquaintances? Would a prohibition on donation between family members jeopardize the likelihood of clinical success? If transplantation using fetal tissue from induced abortions becomes more common, what impact is likely to occur on activities and procedures employed by abortion clinics?
- Sample Essay Responses and Rater Commentary for the Issue Task?
- Is Evolution Compatible with the Bible??
- Turtles and Tortoises - Childrens Picture Book (New Discoveries Picture Books 1);
In particular, is the optimal or safest way to perform an abortion likely to be in conflict with preservation of the fetal tissue? Is there any way to ensure that induced abortions are not intentionally delayed in order to have a second trimester fetus for research and transplantation? What actual steps are involved in procuring the tissue from the source to the researcher?
Are there any payments involved? What types of payments in this situation, if any, would fall inside or outside the scope of the Hyde Amendment? According to HHS regulations, research on dead fetuses must be conducted in compliance with State and local laws. A few States' enacted version of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act contains restrictions on the research applications of dead fetal tissue after an induced abortion. In those States, do these restrictions apply to therapeutic transplantation of dead fetal tissue after an induced abortion?
If so, what are the consequences for NIH-funded researchers in those States? For those diseases for which transplantation using fetal tissue has been proposed, have enough animal studies been performed to justify proceeding to human transplants? Because induced abortions during the first trimester are less risky to the woman, have there been enough animal studies for each of those diseases to justify the reliance on the equivalent of the second trimester human fetus?
What is the likelihood that transplantation using fetal cell cultures will be successful? Will this obviate the need for fresh fetal tissue? In what time-frame might this occur? Based on the findings and recommendations of the advisory committee s , I would like you to reconsider whether you would like to proceed with this kind of research, and, if so, whether you wish to make any changes, regulatory or otherwise, in your research review and implementation procedures for both extramural and intramural programs.
Pending the outcome of the advisory committee s ' assessment and your subsequent review, I am withholding my approval of the proposed experiment, and future experiments, in which there is performed transplantation of human tissue from induced abortions. You will note that this does not include research using fetal tissues from spontaneous abortions or stillbirths.
However, I would like the special advisory committee s to consider whether current research procedures are adequate for the appropriate ethical, legal and scientific use of tissue from these other sources. I believe that greater input from outside professionals and also from the public will enhance protections for research participants and will help assure greater public confidence in our work. Arlin M. Kenneth J. James T. James F. Jane L. Barry J. Joseph B. Aron A. John A. Childress is the Edwin B.
Turn recording back on. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Search term. General Altruism First, would the possibility of donating fetal tissue to benefit unrelated and unknown patients through transplantation play a role in a woman's decision to abort? Specific Altruism The second scenario raises the possibility that a pregnant woman or a woman contemplating pregnancy might donate fetal tissue to help a family member or acquaintance, which could result in abortions that would not otherwise have occurred.
Incentives of Financial Gain In a third way—beyond general and specific altruism—the possibility of HFTTR could provide another motive for abortion in the shape of financial incentives for the provision of fetal tissue. After reviewing and discussing the panel's report, the advisory committee unanimously approved three recommendations: to accept the report and the recommendations of the panel as written;.
Among other questions, I would like the advisory committee s to address the following: 1. Louis, Missouri Joseph B. Concurring statement. Bethesda, Md. Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research. Annas, G. The politics of transplantation of human fetal tissue. New England Journal of Medicine April 20 Bleich, J.
Fetal tissue research and public policy dissenting statement. Bopp, J. Human fetal tissue transplantation research panel: Statement of dissent. Clendon, M. A world without Roe: How different would it be? Hastings Center Report 19 July-August London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Medical applications of fetal tissue transplantation. Journal of the American Medical Association January 26