Endocannabinoid Deficiency Suspected As Cause For Fibromyalgia.

Endocannabinoid Deficiency Suspected As Cause For Fibromyalgia – Women With Fibromyalgia

Lawyers could be replaced by artificial intelligence

Lawyers could be replaced by artificial intelligence

SpaceX Just Launched NASA’s Exoplanet-Hunting Telescope (Gee I Wonder What They’ll Find)

SpaceX Just Launched NASA’s Exoplanet-Hunting Telescope (Gee I Wonder What They’ll Find)

‘Mono’ virus linked to seven serious diseases: Epstein-Barr virus may affect health in more ways than known.

‘Mono’ virus linked to seven serious diseases: Epstein-Barr virus may affect health in more ways than known — ScienceDaily

Motherless, designer baby specter increases

Two developing reproductive technologies — one that could facilitate motherless babies and another that could open the door to so-called designer babies — have drawn warnings from Christian ethicists.

In one experiment, researchers at the UK’s University of Bath altered unfertilized mouse eggs so they took on properties like “ordinary” cells, such as skin cells, the BBC reported. Then they created mouse embryos by fertilizing the altered eggs with sperm cells, leading scientists to speculate that two human men, or even one man, may one day be able to conceive a child with similar technology using sperm and another donated body cell.

A separate experiment in Sweden has achieved genetic modification of “healthy human embryos,” which were then destroyed, NPR reported. Lead researcher Fredrik Lanner said he is seeking to help treat infertility, prevent miscarriages and treat diseases. But critics say the research could lead to genetically made-to-order babies and the introduction of new diseases into the human genepool.

Both experiments have troubling ethical implications, Union University bioethicist C. Ben Mitchell said.

“The biblical ideal for procreation is one man, one woman, in a one-flesh relationship, in which children are received as a gift,” Mitchell told Baptist Press in written comments. “Every violation of that ideal results in human trauma and heartache, whether through adultery, divorce or death.

“The use of reproductive technologies that end up destroying unborn human beings is a clear harm. If we defy the procreative relationship by creating parentless babies, there is likewise clear harm. Even if we could justify the outcome, think of the human carnage on the way to the goal. Countless human beings — generated at the hands of researchers — would die in the process of trying to perfect the techniques. The end does not justify the means when the means are immoral,” said Mitchell, Union’s provost and Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy.

Conception without eggs?

The British experiment, reported Sept. 13 in the journal Nature Communications, is only a first step toward motherless human babies, with researcher Tony Perry calling such a prospect “speculative and fanciful” at present, according to the BBC.

Still, Charles Patrick, a Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary vice president who holds a Ph.D. in chemical and biomedical engineering, warned of skewing God’s plan for procreation described in Genesis 1-2.

“Just because we can develop a reproductive technology does not mandate that we must develop the technology,” Patrick told BP. “It seems unwise to develop reproductive technologies that preclude the use of sperm or eggs.”

“First, and to be scientifically honest, much of what occurs when a sperm and egg unite continues to be a mystery. There are potential errors with dangerous consequences that may occur when cells are ‘tricked’ into functioning in a manner not natural for them,” he said in written comments. “Second, reproductive technologies that remove either the egg or the sperm open the cultural door further to a genderless society.”

Additionally, creating babies without either egg or sperm cells “would provide childless couples yet another ‘extraordinary means’ distraction from adoption. Adoption is clearly espoused and modeled throughout Scripture,” Patrick said.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the University of Bath research illustrates society’s quest to redefine “everything about sex and reproduction and marriage and gender.”

The sexual revolution, Mohler said Sept. 22 on his podcast The Briefing, has necessitated “a technological revolution” whose proponents seek reproduction “without marriage, and in this case … without women.”

Genetically made to order?

The Swedish research uses a genetic engineering innovation to “edit” healthy embryos’ DNA for what NPR deemed the first time ever. British scientists have said they will begin similar experiments later this year.

Thus far, at least 12 embryos — which were donated by couples who generated them as part of the in vitro fertilization process — have been modified, and researchers have vowed to destroy all modified embryos no later than their 14th day of life.

Patrick called any “use and destruction of human embryos” unethical because it “does not preserve the worth, dignity and value of human life defined in Genesis 1-2.” Yet “even if there were not a sanctity of life issue, there are other issues to consider in opening the epigenetic black box.”

“For instance, although there is the promise of correcting devastating diseases, there is equally the specter of creating designer babies or other non-therapeutic modifications and of introducing unintended consequences in the human germline,” Patrick said.

“Man was mandated in Genesis to be a steward of creation, and emphasis throughout Scripture is placed on restoring what God originally purposed in His creation. Hence, there is a general biblical warrant for scientific advances and technologies that restore,” he said.

“However, there is not clear biblical permission to manipulate genes toward perfection. Gene editing cannot reverse what sin and resulting human depravity wrought to God’s perfected creation. There is a flesh-spirit aspect that gene editing does not and cannot incorporate,” Patrick said.

Mohler wondered aloud Sept. 23 in The Briefing, “How long will it be before the bumper sticker on the back of the SUV says, ‘My child is genetically enhanced?’ … That day might after all not be so far in our future.”

Posthumous conception raises ‘host of ethical issues’

The legal and moral propriety of conceiving a child with a dead person’s egg or sperm is among the latest fronts being discussed in bioethics.

In Ireland, legislation is under consideration that would

permit reproductive cells from deceased individuals to be used by their spouses or partners to conceive children posthumously, according to media reports. The Irish legislature’s Joint Committee on Health discussed the bill once in January and again in February, a spokesperson for the legislature told Baptist Press. A final bill could be drafted in the coming months and put before parliament for debate.

Health Committee chairman Michael Harty said in a news release, “Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR) is becoming increasingly important in Ireland and measures must be put in place to protect parents, donors, surrogates and crucially, the children born through AHR.”

The posthumous conception legislation, which is part of a broader bill, would require children of the procedure to be carried in the womb of a surviving female partner in the relationship, according to an online commentary by Denver attorney Ellen Trachman, who specializes in reproductive technology law.

Posthumous conception has also been considered by lawmakers and courts in the United States, Canada and Israel.

Southern Baptist bioethicist C. Ben Mitchell said posthumous conception “raises a host of ethical issues.”

“There is no moral duty to use the sperm of a deceased husband or the eggs of a deceased wife,” Mitchell, Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union University, told BP via email. “And intentionally bringing a child into the world with only a single parent raises a host of ethical issues, not to mention a host of psychological, emotional and relational issues for that child.”

Frozen sperm can be used later via artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization (IVF). Frozen eggs can be used to conceive a child through IVF. Following IVF, the resultant embryo must implant in a woman’s womb — either the biological mother or a surrogate.

Sperm and eggs can be either donated prior to death or extracted from a corpse shortly following death, according to the German newspaper Der Spiegel.

In Israel, approximately 5,000 young adults have established “biological wills” stating they want their eggs or sperm frozen and used to conceive offspring if they die before having children, Der Spiegel reported March 28. Some posthumously conceived children have been born in Israel and elsewhere, according to media reports.

Posthumous conception also has emerged in the U.S. and Canada, including the 2016 birth of a New York police detective’s daughter two and a half years following her father’s murder, the Irish Examiner reported. The night the detective was murdered, his wife of three months requested that sperm be extracted from his body and preserved.

U.S. law, Trachman wrote, “lacks any clear uniform rules” regarding posthumous conception “but generally permits post-death reproduction with specific consent in place.”

An additional issue related to posthumous reproduction is what to do with frozen embryos when one or both parents die.

Der Spiegel reported a case in Israel, in which a widower sought, via a surrogate mother, to bring to term embryos he and his wife had frozen. A Harvard Law School blog noted a 2014 Texas case in which a 2-year-old stood to inherit 11 frozen embryos after both of his parents were murdered.

Frozen embryos, Mitchell said, are a separate ethical consideration from posthumous conception.

“If the eggs have already been fertilized, there is a moral duty to bring the embryos to term,” Mitchell said. “We should not generate a new human being only to abandon him or her in a petri dish or nitrogen tank. Embryos belong in uteruses.”

Southern Baptist Convention resolutions repeatedly have affirmed that life begins at conception and that all unborn life must be protected. A 2015 resolution, for example, affirmed “the dignity and sanctity of human life at all stages of development, from conception to natural death.”

Risk of Unnatural Mortality in People With Epilepsy

Key Points

Question  What is the risk and medication contribution to cause-specific unnatural mortality in people with epilepsy?

Findings  In this population-based cohort study, more than 50 000 people with epilepsy and 1 million matched individuals without epilepsy were identified in 2 data sets from the general populations of England and Wales. People with epilepsy had a 3-fold increased risk of any unnatural mortality and a 5-fold increased risk of unintentional medication poisoning; psychotropic and opioid, but not antiepileptic, drugs were most commonly used in poisoning.

Meaning  Clinicians should provide advice on unintentional injury and poisoning and suicide prevention and consider the toxicity of concomitant medication when prescribing drugs for people with epilepsy.


Importance  People with epilepsy are at increased risk of mortality, but, to date, the cause-specific risks of all unnatural causes have not been reported.

Objective  To estimate cause-specific unnatural mortality risks in people with epilepsy and to identify the medication types involved in poisoning deaths.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This population-based cohort study used 2 electronic primary care data sets linked to hospitalization and mortality records, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in England (from January 1, 1998, to March 31, 2014) and the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank in Wales (from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2014). Each person with epilepsy was matched on age (within 2 years), sex, and general practice with up to 20 individuals without epilepsy. Unnatural mortality was determined using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes V01 through Y98 in the Office for National Statistics mortality records. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated in each data set using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, and meta-analyses were conducted using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. The analysis was performed from January 5, 2016, to November 16, 2017.

Exposures  People with epilepsy were identified using primary care epilepsy diagnoses and associated antiepileptic drug prescriptions.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Hazard ratios (HRs) for unnatural mortality and the frequency of each involved medication type estimated as a percentage of all medication poisoning deaths.

Results  In total, 44 678 individuals in the CPRD and 14 051 individuals in the SAIL Databank were identified in the prevalent epilepsy cohorts, and 891 429 (CPRD) and 279 365 (SAIL) individuals were identified in the comparison cohorts. In both data sets, 51% of the epilepsy and comparison cohorts were male, and the median age at entry was 40 years (interquartile range, 25-60 years) in the CPRD cohorts and 43 years (interquartile range, 24-64 years) in the SAIL cohorts. People with epilepsy were significantly more likely to die of any unnatural cause (HR, 2.77; 95% CI, 2.43-3.16), unintentional injury or poisoning (HR, 2.97; 95% CI, 2.54-3.48) or suicide (HR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.51-3.07) than people in the comparison cohort. Particularly large risk increases were observed in the epilepsy cohorts for unintentional medication poisoning (HR, 4.99; 95% CI, 3.22-7.74) and intentional self-poisoning with medication (HR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.01-12.53). Opioids (56.5% [95% CI, 43.3%-69.0%]) and psychotropic medication (32.3% [95% CI, 20.9%-45.3%)] were more commonly involved than antiepileptic drugs (9.7% [95% CI, 3.6%-19.9%]) in poisoning deaths in people with epilepsy.

Conclusions and Relevance  Compared with people without epilepsy, people with epilepsy are at increased risk of unnatural death and thus should be adequately advised about unintentional injury prevention and monitored for suicidal ideation, thoughts, and behaviors. The suitability and toxicity of concomitant medication should be considered when prescribing for comorbid conditions.