Daily Archives: February 7, 2023

How does cloning work? | Live Science

Posted: February 7, 2023 at 7:11 am

The idea of human cloning was science fiction when it was first imagined. But in the last few decades, technological and scientific advances have made this a real possibility. Although the ethics of cloning a human are questionable, the technology has led to some promising reproductive and health therapies.

The most basic definition of cloning is the creation of an exact genetic copy of an organism, tissue, cell or gene, according to the U.S. National Library of Medicine. The how and why of cloning really depends on what is being cloned. There are three main types of cloning: Gene cloning, reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning.

Related: How stem cell cloning works (infographic)

The most commonly applied type of cloning is gene cloning. At its most basic, gene cloning is a biochemical reaction that takes place in every single cell in every organism. It's the creation of a copy of genetic material from an existing strand of genetic material. This natural reaction can be recreated in the lab and is an essential tool for many aspects of biological research.

The most commonly discussed and debated type of cloning is reproductive cloning. This type of cloning creates genetic duplicates of whole organisms from the genetic material of an already-existing organism. A cloned organism is very similar to being an identical twin to the parent organism, just born later.

And perhaps the most medically applicable type of cloning for humans is therapeutic cloning, which creates cloned embryonic stem cells of a patient to create genetically identical cells that can treat a medical condition. "Therapeutic cloning refers to the use of embryonic stem cells that in our lab we derive from somatic cells from a patient's skin," Shoukhrat Mitalipov, an embryologist at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, told LiveScience in an email. "In our research lab we can develop [these cells] into different kinds of cells in the body such as neurons or cardiovascular cells."

Yes, cloning is real, but it may not look like it does in science fiction stories.

Some types of cloning occur in nature regularly. For example, bacteria can reproduce asexually, essentially cloning themselves all the time. Similarly, parthenogenesis is a unique biological phenomenon that results in the spontaneous creation of natural clones it happens in some species of sharks, amphibians, lizards and snakes. In humans, every cell in the body is a clone of the first embryo cell created when the father's sperm fertilized the mother's egg, and identical twins are natural clones.

Related: Rare 'virgin birth' of shark in Italian aquarium could be first of its kind

Cloning is also very real in the biology lab researchers worldwide use gene cloning in many ways. For example, it can create large amounts of proteins for medications like insulin or be used to detect the presence of specific strands of DNA, like in the COVID-19 PCR test.

It has been more than a quarter of a century since researchers first cloned animals from adult cells. The most well-known animal clone is Dolly the sheep, created in 1996 at the University of Edinburgh. While not the first cloned mammal, Dolly was the first created from an adult cell, rather than an embryonic or fetal cell.

To create Dolly, researchers needed to clone 277 embryos, 29 of those were healthy enough to implant, but only one survived until birth. In those early years, cloned embryos faced many failures, and the animals born alive sometimes died prematurely. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, sheep and other cloned mammals have had various organ defects, including the heart, brain and liver. Other reports suggest issues with premature aging, increased birth size and immune system issues.

Related: 20 years after Dolly the sheep, what have we learned about cloning?

The success of Dolly brought a flurry of media attention to cloning both its potential benefits and the world's fears. As a result, many countries rushed to ban cloning of all kinds.

Nevertheless, in the decades since Dolly, animal cloning has come a long way. Some services will clone pets, as Barbra Streisand had done with her pet, Smithsonian Magazine reported. Some companies will even clone an entire polo team. Polo team La Dolfina, and world-class player Adolfo Cambiaso, have for several years used cloned horses, according to a 2016 article in Science magazine.

Related: Cloning mammoths is still a dream.

The work to clone other animals has been a slow, uphill battle but over the past few decades, researchers have been working their way toward cloning humans.

In 2007, Mitalipovs research team cloned the first primate embryos rhesus macaque and used them to create embryonic stem cells, publishing the process in the journal Nature. But it took until 2018 for these technologies to result in a living cloned monkey, achieved by a team of Chinese scientists and described in their paper published in the journal Cell, Live Science previously reported. The researchers made about 80 cloned embryos, ending up with six pregnancies and just two live births.

Six years after cloning the monkeys, Mitalipovs team created embryonic stem cells from cloned human embryos, research he published in 2013 in the journal Cell. At this point, many of the technologies needed to create human clones exist, but there are still many roadblocks and ethical arguments against using them to clone a human.

As cells grow and divide, they naturally create clones using cellular division, a process called mitosis. The cells use proteins and enzymes coded in their genes to copy their genetic material. As researchers developed an understanding of how cells reproduce their genes, scientists began recreating these reactions in the lab. Now, cloning genes in the lab is as easy as mixing a drink combining the proteins that cells use to copy their DNA and adding a gene to copy.

"Cloning DNA or cells is simple; it's the nature of DNA to replicate itself," Mitalipov said. "But when we say cloning of an entire organism, that's much more complex."

Most multicellular organisms replicate themselves through sexual reproduction. This process takes half of the genetic code from one organism (an egg) and half from another (a sperm). It remixes them, creating a single cell that can turn into a whole new being an embryo that might grow into a new organism if it implants in the right uterus.

But the goal of cloning is to create an embryo without remixing the genome. To do this, the researchers first start with a body cell, called a somatic cell. Somatic cells make up the majority of the body the skin, internal organs, brain cells. A somatic cell's genome has been "set" like jello into a specific shape.

Differences in the structure of somatic cell DNA dictate what genes the cell can express, according to the U.S. National Libraries of Medicine. The differences in gene expression, dictated by chemical changes called epigenetic modifications, determine how the cell looks, how it acts, and what it does in the body. And that process is limiting that cell then can't do anything else in the body. It will just age and die, and be broken down into parts to be reused.

Embryonic cells, or stem cells, on the other hand, have the potential to become any type of cell in the body because the genes they can express aren't locked in like they are in somatic cells. Researchers use both types of cells to create clones. The process originally used to create Dolly the sheep is called somatic cell nuclear transfer, as described in a 2015 review in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. In this process, scientists remove the nucleus, or genetic hub, of a somatic cell and insert it into an egg cell that has had its genome removed.

If successful, this process will reset the somatic genome's epigenetics, and result in a cloned embryo with an exact copy of the genome of the somatic cell without the epigenetic modifications. It sounds straightforward, but the process is incredibly finicky to be successful the egg needs exactly the right conditions, and these conditions differ with every species. So, when scientists attempt to clone a new animal, they're faced with making many adjustments to the general process, Mitalipov said.

"You'd have to resolve lots of mysteries and there's no standard protocol to do it," Mitalipov said. "Everything needs to be tweaked a little bit depending on the difference in species."

These might have to do with the chemical environment (including the presence of caffeine in the petri dish for human embryos) that the experiment is performed in, the application of a jolt of electricity, the timing of the steps and even how forcefully the embryo is touched while removing and inserting the somatic cell nucleus.

In his 2013 Nature paper, Mitalipov and his colleagues showed that they had found the conditions to successfully clone a human somatic cell into an embryo, which was then used to create a human embryonic stem cell line.

Following the Mitalipov team's breakthrough in 2013, and the first cloned primates in 2018, the world has been waiting to see if anyone would actually clone a human. But this hasn't happened yet.

But is it possible? The short answer is likely yes. The technology exists and there's nothing significantly different about how human genes or genetics work compared with those of other animals that have been cloned. But, based on the difficulties experienced in developing cloned animal embryos into living, full-term births, there's no saying what types of conditions or diseases a human clone might have if one was born. We also know that it would likely require creating many many embryos to get one live birth a very ethically murky proposition.

Related: Artist's 'cloning agency' replicates Jesus, Lady Gaga

Additionally, humans (and other animals) are more than their DNA. The environment human bodies and brains are exposed to in the womb, during development and extending through childhood and young adulthood, plays a big part in creating who a person is. And just as epigenetic modifications alter how genes are expressed to create specialized somatic cells, they also reflect the things cells and bodies have gone through adding another major layer of complication into the question.

families, many others believe this kind of research is ethically problematic.

The creation and destruction of human embryos is a sticking point for many major religions, and others worry about the potential diseases and conditions that this process might inflict on a cloned baby.

Related: Human cloning? Stem cell advance reignites ethics debate

For these reasons and more, many countries and U.S. states have put bans on human cloning experiments. In the U.S., there are no federal laws against cloning humans, but multiple states have laws prohibiting cloning for any purpose. Multiple others prohibit funding of human cloning. According to intellectual property attorneys Knobbe Martens, 10 states allow the creation of human cloned embryos but prevent them from being implanted researchers can destroy them to create embryonic stem cell lines.

The use of three-parent IVF is illegal due to a 2015 amendment introduced by Rep. Robert Aderholt, a Republican from Alabama, to the 2016 appropriations bill. The amendment forbade clinical trials of heritable genetic modifications. However, patients and scientists are pushing to change that, according to STAT News.

More than 30 countries ban human cloning experiments, according to a 2007 review published by Rice University. In 15 countries, there are bans on human reproductive cloning but not on the creation of cloned embryonic stem cells. Other countries do not have any specific legislation banning human cloning.

While polo ponies are no doubt important to some, there are several other ways that technologies developed through these cloning experiments may be important in the future, Mitalipov said.

Mitalipov's work on somatic cell nuclear transfer in humans has led directly to the development of reproductive technologies that allow women with mitochondrial diseases (which these women pass down to offspring through their eggs) and infertility issues to have healthy children that are genetically related to them. Previously, women with mitochondrial diseases had no recourse other than to pass their condition on or not have biological children.

Now, technology developed by Mitalipov's lab is used to strip donor eggs of their DNA and move the nucleus from the mother's egg, resulting in a healthy embryo that is genetically related to the mother, according to a 2014 review in the journal Fertility and Sterility. Multiple "three-parent babies" have been born using these methods at clinics in the Ukraine and Greece, according to STAT News.

Related: Prenatal genetic screening tests: Benefits & risks

The ability to create cloned embryonic stem cells using somatic nuclear transfer is also promising for developing therapies that a patient's immune system wouldn't reject. These clonal stem cell therapies could create new organs or cells for people that could replace damaged ones.

"You can theoretically use those cells to treat a patient with a neurodegenerative disease or a cardiovascular disease," Mitalipov said. These cells "could, in theory, lead to the development of stem cell therapies treating neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's, cardiac disease and spinal cord injuries."

The cloned stem cells can be created now, but there are roadblocks on the research and clinical end to developing these therapies.

"Unfortunately, no therapies have been developed yet," Mitalipov said. "We can grow neurons in a petri dish, but how do you integrate neurons into the brain or other types of cells into relevant organs like the heart? It's going to be very difficult."

In the future, Mitalipov hopes that some of the technologies he's working on now can help create genetically related babies for same-sex couples or infertile couples. For example, his lab is currently figuring out how to remove half of the DNA from a cloned embryonic cell to create an egg cell.

If researchers create a cloned egg cell from the somatic cells of a man or infertile female, it could then be fertilized with the sperm from another man, creating an embryo. Using the cloning technology this way would give same-sex or infertile couples a way to have genetically related babies.

Read the original:

How does cloning work? | Live Science

Posted in Cloning | Comments Off on How does cloning work? | Live Science

20 Years after Dolly the Sheep Led the WayWhere Is Cloning Now?

Posted: at 7:11 am

It was a glorious day in the hills above Edinburgh, Scotland, when old friends and scientific colleagues Ian Wilmut and Alan Trounson set off on a hike two decades ago. High over the city, Wilmut confided that he had a secret to share. As part of a larger study, he and several co-workers had successfully birthed a lamb in the labnot from egg and sperm but from DNA taken from an adult sheeps mammary gland. They had cloned a mammal. Crikey, I was stunned, says Trounson, who is nowas thena stem cell biologist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. He remembers sitting down hard on a nearby stone. It was a warm day but Trounson felt a chill pass over him as he realized the implications. It changed everything.

Cloning a mammal defied the scientific dogma of its time. The success led to dire and fantastic predictions: Humans would be cloned. Diseases would be prevented. Lost children rebirthed. Today, two decades after Dollys birth on July 5, 1996, the impact of cloning on basic science has surpassed expectations whereas the reality of what is technically called nuclear transferthe form of cloning used with Dollyhas largely faded from public consciousness.

In 2016 cloning a person remains unfeasible, with no scientific benefit and an unacceptable level of risk, several scientists say. Most know of no one even considering the feat. And the cloning of animals remains limitedalthough it is likely growing. Some agricultural cloning is used in the U.S. and China to capitalize on the genes of a few extraordinary specimens, scientists say, but the European Parliament voted last year to ban cloning animals for food. One scientist in South Korea charges $100,000 to clone pets, although the level of demand for the service is unclear.

Clonings biggest impact, several researchers say, has been in the stem cell advances it has sparked. Stem cell biologist Shinya Yamanaka said via e-mail that Dollys cloning motivated him to begin developing stem cells derived from adult cellsan accomplishment that won him a Nobel Prize in 2012. Dolly the Sheep told me that nuclear reprogramming is possible even in mammalian cells and encouraged me to start my own project, wrote Yamanaka, who splits his time between the University of California, San Francisco, and the Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA) at Kyoto University in Japan, which he directs. He used adult cellsfirst in mice, although the technique is now feasible in human cellsto make stem cells that can form a wide range of other cells, essentially turning their cellular clocks back to infancy so they could mature into different adults. Because they are artificially created and can have a variety of futures, they are called induced pluripotent stem (or iPS) cells. The rise of these iPS cells has reduced the need for embryonic stem cellswhich have long caused ethical concerns for someand iPS cells now form the basis for most of todays stem cell research.

Dollys birth was transformative because it proved that the nucleus of the adult cell had all the DNA necessary to give rise to another animal, says stem cell biologist Robin Lovell-Badge, head of the Division of Stem Cell Biology and Developmental Genetics at the Francis Crick Institute in London. Previous researchers had derived adult frogs from embryonic frog cells or embryonic frog cells from adultsat which point their development stalled. Dolly was the first example of taking an adult cell and getting an adult, Lovell-Badge says. That meant you could reprogram an adult cell nucleus back to an embryonic stage.

Dolly died on February 14, 2003, at age six from a lung infection common among animals who are not given access to the outdoors. It probably had nothing to do with her being a cloned animal, says Wilmut, now an emeritus professor at the The Roslin Institute at the University of Edinburgh where he did his initial work.

The sheep, made from breast cells, was famously named after Dolly Parton, the American singer known for her large chest as well as her voice. It wasnt meant to be disrespectful to the lady in question or to women in general, Wilmut said recently, of the name suggested by a stockman. Rather, it helped humanize a research project that might otherwise have seemed detached from everyday life. Science and its presentation can sometimes look terribly serious, he said. I think it was good for usit made us look human.

Wilmut admits Dollys birth was a lucky accident. He and his colleagues were trying to make clones from fetal cells and used adult ones as experimental controlsnot expecting that they would actually generate an embryo of their own. We didnt set out to clone adult cells. We set out to work withideallyembryonic stem cells or things like that, Wilmut says. Being successful with adult cells was a very considerable, unexpected bonus.

The initial aim of the research was to use an animals milk production system as a factory of sorts, manufacturing proteins to treat human diseases. But interest in that idea has declined with the rise of inexpensive synthetic chemicals.

Wilmut says he thinks it would be possible to clone a humanbut highly unadvisable. The cloning technique used to create Dolly has been shown not to work in primates. He believes it could be possible using other techniques but said he is vehemently opposed to the idea of cloning a person. Just because it may now work in the sense of producing offspring doesnt mean to say we should do it, he says. The likelihood is you would get pregnancy losses, abnormal births. For example, one of the lambs his lab cloned soon after Dolly developed lung problems that caused it to hyperventilate and regularly pass out. It was distressing enough to see that in an animal, he says. I wouldnt want to be the person who looked a cloned child in the face and said very sorry. With recent advances in gene-editing technology, the need for cloning to correct genetic errors will decline even further, he notes. Theres even less reason for doing it now than before..

Trounson says he believes there is a large market for cloned livestock embryos. Its pretty busy out there, kind of surprisingly and below the surface, he says. The benefits genomically for production excellence and driving up production parameters is very good, adds Trounson, who recently stepped down after six years as president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, a state agency that provides loans and grants for stem cell research. Thats probably the driver that has kept companies doing it in the U.S.

The U.S. government decided in 2008 that there were no discernable differences between cloned and noncloned cows, goats and pigs, so it allowed the process in those animals, although mainly for breeding rather than meat production. In China a company called Boyalife Group has plans to produce at least 100,0000 cloned beef cattlea fraction of the total number of animals slaughtered each year in that country, a company spokesperson wrote via e-mail. We might be at the best time to advance this technology into applications from both a technology perspective and from a market perspective [in China].

Theoretically, cloning could also be used to bring back endangered species. There has been talk of using it to restore woolly mammoths, giant pandas and even Neandertalsideas Lovell-Badge dismisses as fairly silly. Trounson says he still has a stash of skin samples from critically endangered northern hairy-nosed wombats stored in liquid nitrogen, in case someone ever wants to attempt to restore the speciess numbers. Clones, however, are created by taking an adult cell and fusing it to a recipient egg cell. Making a clone requires an intact nucleus, which would not be available for most extinct species.

Several researchers are now using cloning techniques to produce embryonic stem cells, thereby avoiding the need to collect new embryos. So-called somatic cell nuclear transfer may help researchers better understand early human embryogenesis and stem cell biology, according to Paul Knoepfler, a biologist at the University of California, Davis, who is not directly involved in the work. Knoepfler wrote via e-mail that he does not see any imminent therapeutic benefit [to that work], but that could change in the future.

The idea of cloning a deceased loved onehuman or pethas fallen out of favor in part because of the recognition that environment affects behavior. The genetics might be the same but would a clone still be the same lovable individual? Youre never going to get Tibble back, or whatever, Lovell-Badge says, noting that he thinks the idea of cloning a pet is stupid. He adds, The only possible use that I can sort of vaguely think of is if you have a particular valuable dog, with skills like super-sniffing that scientists would want to determine was inborn or behavioral.

Lovell-Badge is even more dismissive of the idea of cloning a person. Wed have to know an awful lot more about reprogramming and how to make it 100 percent efficient, he says. I have never thought of a good enough reason for a human being.

Here is the original post:

20 Years after Dolly the Sheep Led the WayWhere Is Cloning Now?

Posted in Cloning | Comments Off on 20 Years after Dolly the Sheep Led the WayWhere Is Cloning Now?

Darwinism – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Posted: at 7:10 am

The evolution of moral norms.

In the Descent of Man, Darwin speculated on the origins of what he called our moral sense. He argued that other intelligent organisms, were there any, would acquire a moral sense other than our own. Darwin cites the case of the hive-bees who might well support fratricide (Descent, chapter 4). According to Darwin, and I daresay, contemporary sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists, the kind of organisms we are determines, in a broad sense, what kinds of norms we are likely to develop and endorse. This has both a positive and negative aspect.

On the positive side, given our social natures and the need for communal support in the raising of children, human beings have evolved altruistic motivations that temper inclinations toward self interest. We can well imagine, in the spirit of Darwin, that other creatures that are intelligent but self reliant would not be moved by considerations of sympathy and empathy with their fellow kind.

On the negative side, just as the Naturalistic Fallacy suggests that is does not imply ought, it is often pointed out in ethical circles that ought implies can. The idea is that no norms that require what is impossible can be binding on us. So, for instance, it is folly to establish or endorse norms that are beyond our capacity to obey. The norm Thou shalt not kill seems perfectly proper while the norm Thou shalt not eat seems ludicrous. There are limitations to the expectations we can have for ourselves and for others. These limitations are a result of our limited physical, emotional and intellectual capacities. But these limits are the fruits of our evolutionary progress. So, it seems reasonable that the evolved limitations of our physical and mental capabilities ar relevant to determining or setting the boundaries of our normative demands.

Some moral theorists might take exception to the above conclusion. A God-centered ethics might argue that the limitations of human beings are the reflection of original sin or something of the sort and that this just shows that human beings need to resign themselves to the will of their Maker. A secularized version of such an ethic can be found in Kant who postulates an ideal Kingdom of Ends as the (ultimately) unachievable model for human moral behavior. These concerns can not be easily dismissed although I do not propose to pursue them here. Instead I commend to your attention James Rachels Created from Animals which explores the implications of Darwinism for formulating a moral theory and effectively calls into question both theologically based and Kantian ethical positions.

Rachels book is one long argument to the effect that Darwinism undermines the concept of human dignity that he claims forms the basis for traditional moralities. This, in turn, has implications for the moral status of animals. Rachels takes what he calls the traditional concept of human dignity to be the presumption that the primary purpose of morality is the protection of human beings and their rights and interests [Rachels, 1990]. This presumption is supported by certain factual (or quasi-factual) assumptions about human nature. Two basic claims emerge from this factual base and support the sanctity of human dignity. One is the presumption that human beings were created (as special) in the image of God. Rachels calls this the image of God thesis. The second is the presumption that human beings alone among the animals are rational beings. It does not follow logically from these presumptions that human dignity is or ought to be the lynch pin of morality. But, Rachels argues, the primacy of human dignity does rest on and is supported by these presumptions. They serve, as it were, as the rationale for putting human concerns ahead of all others in matters of morals.

Darwinism indirectly undermines the primacy of human dignity by undermining the presumptions that support the doctrine. The Darwinian perspective marginalizes God as the creator of human beings as special. Although Darwinism does not entail that God did not create human beings as special, it renders the story superfluous or suspect.1 From the Darwinian perspective, humans are just one among the animals. The Darwinian theory of common descent suggests that all organisms are interrelated. Darwinian gradualism suggests that differences between species are often matters of degree and not matters of kind. These implications undermine the status of human beings as special and in so doing undermine the traditional moralities which are based on that explicit or implicit assumption.

To replace the discarded image with something of value, Rachels proposes a view he calls moral individualism. Moral individualism treats all individuals, human or not, as individuals and not as members of a certain species. Considerations of moral relevance are to be determined by circumstances and not by fiat. Rather than pursue that development here I want to note that Rachels argument is not intended merely to replace one set of moral norms by others but that it calls into question some of the fundamental assumptions that lie behind any norms. This takes us into the realm of the meta-ethical.

What, if anything, are the implications of Darwinism for meta-ethics? The verdict is still out but one can find adherents of a wide diversity of views. Michael Ruse, for one, has argued that a Darwinian approach to ethics rules out any form of moral realism in favour of an error theory of the form first promoted by David Hume [Ruse, 1986]. This has led to a vigorous debate in the literature with no clear resolution in sight.

One might argue that Darwinism lends itself to moral realism by adapting an argument formulated by Donald Campbell with respect to human cognitive faculties. Campbell argues that just as the physical environment shapes the evolution of organismic features, so the physical environment is held to shape the evolution of what we know [Campbell, 1974]. Our cognitive faculties and our scientific theories fit our physical environments in much the same way the organisms in successful lineages are co-adapted to their environments. If our cognitive abilities and guesses about the world we live in were not on the mark more often than not we would be on the road to extinction. There is a congenial reciprocity between what we think and how we think and what we think about. Campbell calls this view critical realism and thinks that a Darwinian viewpoint is committed to it. I have some reservations about this argument in its guise as an account of the evolution of our cognitive capacities but, were one persuaded by it, it might be invoked as a defense of the contention that Darwinism is committed to or, at least, is compatible with some form of moral realism.

If we understand a minimal version of moral realism to be committed to the view that there are moral facts in the world then we can well imagine that the moral environment might shape the evolution of our moral capacities and moral norms in much the same manner as the physical environment is held to shape our cognitive capacities and cognitive norms. I'm not sure how far this argument can be pushed but it seems that the cognitive realm and the moral realm are, prima facie, on a par and if an evolutionary argument for critical physical realism can be made then perhaps an evolutionary argument for critical moral realism could be made as well.

This ignores, of course, all the arguments that have been made to the effect that moral claims have an absolutely different status from physical claims and I am far from suggesting that an appeal to evolutionary theory is likely to resolve this debate. In fact, since I do not think that Campbell's argument should persuade us of the truth of critical physical realism as he understands it, I do not think a parallel argument would persuade anyone of the truth of critical moral realism either. With respect to the ultimate status of moral claims evolutionary theory is, to this point, silent.

Read more from the original source:

Darwinism - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Posted in Darwinism | Comments Off on Darwinism – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

QCPD arrests UP prof over alleged non-remittance of SSS contributions; orgs call for her release – GMA News Online

Posted: at 7:08 am

QCPD arrests UP prof over alleged non-remittance of SSS contributions; orgs call for her release  GMA News Online

See the original post here:
QCPD arrests UP prof over alleged non-remittance of SSS contributions; orgs call for her release - GMA News Online

Posted in Post Human | Comments Off on QCPD arrests UP prof over alleged non-remittance of SSS contributions; orgs call for her release – GMA News Online

When is SpaceX Starship launching? Here’s what we know so far. – Mashable

Posted: at 7:05 am

  1. When is SpaceX Starship launching? Here's what we know so far.  Mashable
  2. SpaceX eyeing March for 1st Starship orbital flight, Elon Musk says  Space.com
  3. SpaceX will attempt Starship orbital test in March, says Elon Musk  Engadget

View post:

When is SpaceX Starship launching? Here's what we know so far. - Mashable

Posted in Spacex | Comments Off on When is SpaceX Starship launching? Here’s what we know so far. – Mashable

Ways in which technology can enhance the abilities of law enforcement agents to assist the community – Times of India

Posted: at 7:01 am

Ways in which technology can enhance the abilities of law enforcement agents to assist the community  Times of India

Read the rest here:

Ways in which technology can enhance the abilities of law enforcement agents to assist the community - Times of India

Posted in Technology | Comments Off on Ways in which technology can enhance the abilities of law enforcement agents to assist the community – Times of India

Euthanasia – MU School of Medicine

Posted: at 6:59 am

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a patient to limit the patients suffering. The patient in question would typically be terminally ill or experiencing great pain and suffering.

The word euthanasia itself comes from the Greek words eu (good) and thanatos (death). The idea is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, or undignified death, euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively good death.

Different practices fall under the label euthanasia. Here are some distinctions demarcating different versions.

Active euthanasia: killing a patient by active means, for example, injecting a patient with a lethal dose of a drug. Sometimes called aggressive euthanasia.

Passive euthanasia: intentionally letting a patient die by withholding artificial life support such as a ventilator or feeding tube. Some ethicists distinguish betweenwithholdinglife support andwithdrawinglife support (the patient is on life support but then removed from it).

Voluntary euthanasia: with the consent of the patient.

Involuntary euthanasia: without the consent of the patient, for example, if the patient is unconscious and his or her wishes are unknown.. Some ethicists distinguish between involuntary (against the patients wishes) and nonvoluntary (without the patients consent but wishes are unknown) forms.

Self-administered euthanasia: the patient administers the means of death.

Other-administered euthanasia: a person other than the patient administers the means of death.

Assisted: the patient administers the means of death but with the assistance of another person, such as a physician.

There are many possible combinations of the above types, and many types of euthanasia are morally controversial. Some types of euthanasia, such as assisted voluntary forms, are legal in some countries.

Mercy-killing:The term mercy-killing usually refers to active, involuntary or nonvoluntary, other-administered euthanasia. In other words, someone kills a patient without their explicit consent to end the patients suffering. Some ethicists think that

Physician-assisted suicide:The phrase physician-assisted suicide refers to active, voluntary, assisted euthanasia where a physician assists the patient. A physician provides the patient with a means, such as sufficient medication, for the patient to kill him or herself.

Some instances of euthanasia are relatively uncontroversial. Killing a patient against their will (involuntary, aggressive/active, other-administered), for instance, is almost universally condemned. During the late 1930s and early 1940s, in Germany, Adolf Hitler carried out a program to exterminate children with disabilities (with or without their parents permission) under the guise of improving the Aryan race and reducing costs to society. Everyone now thinks this kind of euthanasia in the service of a eugenics program was clearly morally wrong.

Advocates of active euthanasia typically argue that killing the patients in question is not worse than letting them die. Advocates of voluntary euthanasia often claim that patients should have the right to do what they want with their own lives. Advocates of mercy killing argue that for patients who are in vegetative states with no prospect of recovery, letting them die prevents future needless and futile treatment efforts. If they are suffering then killing them prevents further suffering. Advocates of physician-assisted suicide argue that a physician assisting a terminally ill or suffering patient is merely helping the patient who wishes to die with dignity.

Critics of the euthanasia typically argue that killing is always wrong, that nonvoluntary or involuntary euthanasia violates patient rights, or that physician-assisted suicide violates an obligation to do no harm.

Killing vs. letting die: There is dispute over whether killing a patient is really any worse than letting the patient die if both result in the same outcome.

Commonsense morality usually thinks that letting a person die is not as bad as killing a person. We sometimes condemn letting an innocent person die and sometimes not, but we always condemn killing an innocent person.

Consider different instances of letting die. One might claim that it is wrong to let our neighbor die of an accident if we could easily have saved his or her life by calling an ambulance. On the other hand, we let starving people in poor countries die without condemning ourselves for failing to save them, because we think they have no right to demand we prevent their deaths. But if someone killed a neighbor or starving people we would think that wrong.

Likewise, we would condemn a healthcare professional who kills a patient. But we might accept the healthcare professional who at patient and family request withholds artificial life support to allow a suffering, terminally ill patient to die.

The distinction between killing and letting die is controversial in healthcare because critics charge there is no proper moral basis for the distinction. They say that killing the above patient brings about the same end as letting the patient die. Others object to this and claim that the nature of the act of killing is different than letting die in ways that make it morally wrong.

Ordinary vs. extraordinary treatment: Ordinary medical treatment includes stopping bleeding, administering pain killers and antibiotics, and setting fractures. But using a mechanical ventilator to keep a patient breathing is sometimes considered extraordinary treatment or care. Some ethicists believe letting a patient die by withholding or withdrawing artificial treatment or care is acceptable but withholding or withdrawing ordinary treatment or care is not. This view is controversial. Some claim the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary treatment is artificial, contrived, vague, or constantly changing as technology progresses

Death intended vs. anticipated: Some ethicists believe that if a suffering, terminally-ill patient dies because of intentionally receiving pain-relieving medications, it makes a difference whether the death itself was intended or merely anticipated. If the death was intended it is wrong but if the death was anticipated it might be morally acceptable. This reasoning relies on the moral principle called the principle of double effect.

Excerpt from:

Euthanasia - MU School of Medicine

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off on Euthanasia – MU School of Medicine

Euthanasia | ama-coe – American Medical Association

Posted: at 6:59 am

Opinion 1.1.1

At the heart of medicine lie relationships founded in a covenant of trust between patient and physician in which physicians commit themselves to responding to the needs and promoting the welfare of patients.

Preserving opportunity for physicians to act (or to refrain from acting) in accordance with the dictates of conscience is important for preserving the integrity of the medical profession as well as the integrity of the individual physician; Physicians freedom to act according to conscience is not unlimited; They are expected to provide care in emergencies, honor patients informed decisions to refuse life-sustaining treatment, respect basic civil liberties and not discriminate against patients on the basis of arbitrary characteristics.

Informed consent to medical treatment is fundamental in both ethics and law. Patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care.

Physicians should engage patients whose capacity is impaired in decisions involving their own care to the greatest extent possible, including when the patient has previously designated a surrogate to make decisions on his or her behalf.

When a terminally ill patient experiences severe pain or other distressing clinical symptoms that do not respond to aggressive, symptom-specific palliation, it can be appropriate to offer sedation to unconsciousness as an intervention of last resort.

Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physicians role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks. Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must respond to the needs of patients at the end of life.

Go here to read the rest:

Euthanasia | ama-coe - American Medical Association

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off on Euthanasia | ama-coe – American Medical Association

Euthanasia – Arguments in Favour and Against – ClearIAS

Posted: at 6:59 am

Euthanasia (good death) is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relievepainandsuffering. It is also known as mercy killing. In many countries,there is a divisive public controversy over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of euthanasia.Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Euthanasia is also classified into active and passive Euthanasia.

Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can all be further divided into passive or active variants.

Historically, the euthanasia debate has tended to focus on a number of key concerns. According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel Emanuel, proponents of euthanasia have presented four main arguments:

Emanuel argues that there are four major arguments presented by opponents of euthanasia:

Passive euthanasia is legal in India. On 7 March 2011, the Supreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia by means of the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who had been in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for 42 years until her death in 2015.

In March 2011, the Supreme Court of India passed a historic judgement-law permitting Passive Euthanasia in the country. This judgment was passed in the wake of Pinki Viranis plea to the highest court in December 2009 under the Constitutional provision of Next Friend. Its a landmark law which places the power of choice in the hands of the individual, over government, medical or religious control which sees all suffering as destiny. The Supreme Court specified two irreversible conditions to permit Passive Euthanasia Law in its 2011 Law:

ClearIAS Video Classes (Recorded): The easiest way to cover the entire UPSC Prelims and Mains GS syllabus in the shortest time.

ClearIAS Prelims Test Series: The best Mock Exams you ever get for practice for UPSC Prelims.

ClearIAS Intelligent Elimination Techniques (IETs): 40 IETs to solve difficult MCQs using logic and common sense.

Yes. I love ClearIAS methods!

The same judgement-law also asked for the scrapping of 309, the code which penalises those who survive suicide-attempts. In December 2014, the Government of India declared its intention to do so.

However on 25 February 2014, a three-judge bench of Supreme Court of India had termed the judgment in the Aruna Shanbaug case to be inconsistent in itself and has referred the issue of euthanasia to its five-judge Constitution bench on a PIL filed by Common Cause, which case is the basis of the current debate. Then, the CJI referred to an earlier Constitution Bench judgment which, in the Gian Kaur case, did not express any binding view on the subject of euthanasia; rather it reiterated that the legislature would be the appropriate authority to bring change. Though that judgment said the right to live with dignity under Article 21 was inclusive of the right to die with dignity, it did not arrive at a conclusion on the validity of euthanasia, be it active or passive. So, the only judgment that holds the field with regard to euthanasia in India is the ruling in the Aruna Shanbaug case, which upholds the validity of passive euthanasia and lays down an elaborate procedure for executing the same on the wrong premise that the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur had upheld the same, the CJI said.

OnDecember 23, 2014, Government of India endorsed and re-validated the Passive Euthanasia judgement-law in a Press Release, after stating in the Rajya Sabha as follows: that The Honble Supreme Court of India, while dismissing the plea for mercy killing in a particular case, laid down comprehensive guidelines to process cases relating to passive euthanasia. Thereafter, the matter of mercy killing was examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and it has been decided that since the Honble Supreme Court has already laid down the guidelines, these should be followed and treated as law in such cases. At present, there is no legislation on this subject and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court is binding on all.

The court rejected active euthanasia by means of lethal injection. In the absence of a law regulating euthanasia in India, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until the Indian parliament enacts a suitable law. Active euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds for the purpose of ending life, is still illegal in India, and in most countries.

As India had no law about euthanasia, the Supreme Courts guidelines are law until and unless Parliament passes legislation. The following guidelines were laid down:

Recently, the issue was in the news, as the Govt. said it was open to making a law on the subject. The law commission too has proposed a legislation on passive euthanasia, it said. According to the Centre, the decision to come out with a bill was taken after considering the directives of the apex court, the law commissions 241st report and a private member bill introduced in Parliament in 2014. The Centre said that initially, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of B.P. Sharma, secretary in the health and family welfare ministry, on May 22, 2015, to examine the draft of The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill and the draft of The Euthanasia (Regulation) Bill.

This move to introduce a bill is a welcome step to clear the grey areas in Euthanasia debate.Students can also link to this issue while answering questions on:

Article by: Jishnu J Raju

Go here to read the rest:

Euthanasia - Arguments in Favour and Against - ClearIAS

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off on Euthanasia – Arguments in Favour and Against – ClearIAS

Baton Rouge animal shelter overwhelmed, resorting to euthanasia: ‘Please help us help them’ – The Advocate

Posted: at 6:59 am

Baton Rouge animal shelter overwhelmed, resorting to euthanasia: 'Please help us help them'  The Advocate

Read the rest here:

Baton Rouge animal shelter overwhelmed, resorting to euthanasia: 'Please help us help them' - The Advocate

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off on Baton Rouge animal shelter overwhelmed, resorting to euthanasia: ‘Please help us help them’ – The Advocate