I’ve been hearing some rather dismaying arguments recently about how important biological ties are—that family is biological, not social—which is a form of what I view as genetic determinism. It’s a view that misses the point that our capacity to choose to love and form relationships distinguishes us from other mammals (generally).
So I was heartened to see the recent study that showed that adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than biological parents.
The study, published in the new issue of the American Sociological Review, found that couples who adopt spend more money on their children and invest more time on such activities as reading to them, eating together and talking with them about their problems.
The researchers examined data from 13,000 households with first-graders in the family. The data was part of a detailed survey called the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education and other agencies.
For Medicinal Purposes (only), Roll a Joint
AIDS patients suffering from debilitating nerve pain got as much or more relief by smoking marijuana as they would typically get from prescription drugs—and with fewer side effects—according to a study conducted under rigorously controlled conditions with government-grown pot.
In a five-day study performed in a specially ventilated hospital ward where patients smoked three marijuana cigarettes a day, more than half the participants tallied significant reductions in pain.
By contrast, less than one-quarter of those who smoked “placebo” pot, which had its primary psychoactive ingredients removed, reported benefits, as measured by subjective pain reports and standardized neurological tests.
The White House belittled the study as “a smoke screen,” short on proof of efficacy and flawed because it did not consider the health impacts of inhaling smoke.
But other doctors and advocates of marijuana policy reform said the findings, in today’s issue of the journal Neurology, offer powerful evidence that the Drug Enforcement Administration’s classification of cannabis as having “no currently accepted medical use” is outdated. Link
The Commodification of Life
Two articles have appeared recently in the last week that demonstrate the need to consider how a market-driven economy and the notion of human dignity and beneficence are not always compatible:
Reason: Who Owns Your Body Parts?
Alistair Cooke’s body lay cold in the embalming room of an East Harlem funeral home, suspended in the brief limbo between death and cremation. A “cutter” soon arrived to make a collection. He sliced open Cooke’s legs, sawed the bones from the hip, and took them away. The quintessentially British presenter of Masterpiece Theatre and Alistair Cooke’s America—the face of genteel, urbane Albion to millions of Americans—was being carved up for parts. Link.
Michael Crichton in the NY Times on “Patenting Life”
One-fifth of the genes in your body are privately owned, and the results have been disastrous:
YOU, or someone you love, may die because of a gene patent that should never have been granted in the first place. Sound far-fetched? Unfortunately, it’s only too real.
Gene patents are now used to halt research, prevent medical testing and keep vital information from you and your doctor. Gene patents slow the pace of medical advance on deadly diseases. And they raise costs exorbitantly: a test for breast cancer that could be done for $1,000 now costs $3,000.
Why? Because the holder of the gene patent can charge whatever he wants, and does. Couldn’t somebody make a cheaper test? Sure, but the patent holder blocks any competitor’s test. He owns the gene. Nobody else can test for it. In fact, you can’t even donate your own breast cancer gene to another scientist without permission. The gene may exist in your body, but it’s now private property. Link
OWLs Report: More Kinds of Life Support
For our moms, sisters and daughters:
According to the 2006 Older Women’s League (a/k/a OWLs) report on 
women and long-term care, “about two-thirds of the 80,000 people living in assisted care residences nationwide are women. A touching commentary on Women’s E-News points out the growing need to create a network, a community of medical and social programs that truly supports our elderly; that there are millions of seniors, mostly women, who don’t need institutional care yet still need assistance.
At a palliative care case conference I attended recently, I found out that it is the eldest daughter who is the one who usually provides the most care (emotional, physical, and financial) for frail and aging parents—the burden clearly falls upon women and we, as a society, need to step up to the plate and recognize that it is a burden we should all be sharing.
Linda MacDonald Glenn is fellow of the IEET, and a bioethicist, healthcare educator, lecturer, consultant and attorney. Linda also serves as a Scholar of the Women’s Bioethics Project.
IEET Blog