Is there a stick big enough to smack some sense into the media all at once?
Jivin,
I wanted to ask you some questions about Meisner's cloning bill. I know this topic doesn't fit on this string, but I wanted to make sure you saw it so I am sticking it here.
Did Meisner’s HB4900 die? Is HB4616 his attempt to resurrect the bill?
I notice in Meisner’s new bill (4616), he no longer attempts to amend sections 2687, 2688, 2692, and 16274 of the code. He only focuses on 2685 (and ironically, puts “embryo” back in whereas he proposed to remove it in v.4900), but adds a lot of new text. Interestingly, cloning is no longer defined as implantation. In fact, the word cloning is not mentioned at all. It only uses SCNT, and defines the process rather accurately (admitting that it produces an embryo).
I don’t know about you, but section 3, parts A and B seem to make meaningless the opening sentence of the existing law to not harm embryos. The only thing it might still apply to is killing embryos produced in IVF clinics when the parents have not given them permission to do so.
What does “NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 16274, the utilization of a somatic cell nuclear transplantation procedure which was for the sole purpose of creating nuclear transfer blastocysts for the extraction of embryonic stem cells” mean? Does that mean, despite what section 16274 of the existing law says about the prohibition of using SCNT to produce embryos, MI will produce embryos using SCNT? If so, would that not mean section 16274 would contradict the updated section 2687? Is he attempting to invalidate section 16274 without proposing any change in language to 16274 as he did in HB4900?
Jason
J,
Don't be too hard on your OB-GYN. In the culture that we live in, it is expected that a physician give their patients all of their options regardless if such information could lead to a horrific decision. There is no obligation to either perform genetic testing or provide referrals for abortions, but to not give patients information could be considered a breach of standard of care.
Serge
Hi Jason,
Lots of questions. I'll try to do my best to answer them. The 4900 bill died at the end of the last legislative session. 4616 is his new bill but Gretchen Whitmer has a bill in the Michigan Senate which I believe is identical to the original 4900 bill (with the deceptive definition of cloning).
The "notwithstanding" part refers to Michigan's current ban on cloning (so notwithstanding should mean not affecting Michigan's current ban on cloning) but the rest of the bill is not worded very well for a legislative bill since they're trying to avoid having clear language about cloning.
So basically, they could be trying to do a couple of things. One, they've realized that a bill which permits cloning in Michigan won't work so they just want to be allowed to kill human clones (created in other states) for their stem cells in Michigan. Two, they hope the confusing language of the 4616 bill will allow them to go to court and claim the bill legalizes attempts to create human embryos thru cloning. Third, they hope to pass both the Whitmer bill and the Meisner bill and then make the changes to allow the cloning of embryos in a conference committee to iron out the language difference between the bills.
I'm don't think we'll know for sure until they try to put together a ballot initiative.
I personally believe they want cloning legalized in Michigan. This legislation is all about Michigan researchers and the U of M being able to get patents on embryonic stem cell lines. I don't see a researcher in another state creating cloned human embryos and then giving them to researchers in Michigan. It would be such a big accomplishment, I can't imagine them giving those embryos to Michigan researchers.
Hi Serge,
Thanks for your input. I'm not sure if it was that the information was presented but more in the way it was presented. I think I would have had a different reaction to it if it was presented more as "you have the option of genetic screening" instead as "would you like genetic screening?"
Subtle difference, I know.
As for your question about prenatal genetic screening, this one hits home with me because I perform prenatal genetic screening in my lab. Some people ask me how I can provide couples with information that would lead them to choose abortion. I have discussed it with a Christian ethicist and the bottom line is that prenatal genetic testing is only information. It is neither right or wrong. It is what is done with that information that is where the ethical implications lie. Just because Roe v Wade allows couples to abort for any reason, does not mean the prenatal genetic screening is inherently immoral. It is actually very valuable information, especially in cases when early treatment can mitigate or prevent the onset of disease. The dangers lie when the medical community drops the test results on the couple and then fails to give then proper counseling about the implications of the test. That is when a couple is most likely to abort.
I think the upshot is that as pro-lifers we need to focus some of our efforts on making sure couples with an unexpected prenatal diagnosis have access to good genetic and medical experts. If any young prolfers you know are interested in genetics, encourage them to become genetic counselors.
I forgot, about false positives... If the test is just a screen by testing protein levels in maternal blood there is a good chance for false positives. These screens are not meant to stand on their own. An amnio is supposed to be done for confirmation. I do not do amnios myself, but many of my colleagues do and they assure me that a false positive from a test as thorough as an amnio is unlikely.
You are right. Whitmer introduced SB 0052 in January 2007 and it is an exact replica of Meisner’s HB 4900. It is in committee right now. I signed up to be alerted on bill status changes through Michigan’s legislative website.
The text for SB 0052 can be found here: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/
(S...ghlight=cloning
Meisner must be banking on SB 0052 passing, and section 16274 of the code being amended. Otherwise, his bill would be in conflict with section 16274. Or maybe his bill would simply be construed as a legal exception to the overarching principle as stated in section 16274. I’m not sure.
Why would they do a ballot initiative? They would not need one if they can pass these bills, would they?
Jason
Understood J. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if a physician with a Christian background would buy into the idea that every parent has some form of "right" to have a child without a handicap. To be honest, when it comes to the medical profession, I am continually amazed at how many intelligent individuals are horrific thinkers - especially when dealing with ethics.
Serge spoke thusly:
To be honest, when it comes to the medical profession, I am continually amazed at how many intelligent individuals are horrific thinkers - especially when dealing with ethics.
Don't be too hard on your profession, Serge. Ethics is a whole different vocation from medicine. The training is different, the language is different ... it's all different. Faulting doctors for not being top-notch ethicists is like faulting them for not being IT experts and needing help with their computers from time to time. 
The real problem here is that a heckuvalot of us seem to have decided that ethics simply aren't very important. Such ethical standards as we still acknowledge are infinitely flexible, to the point that they're nearly meaningless. As Ian Malcolm said in Jurassic Park, "Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean that we should."
Jason,
They don't have the votes (especially in the Senate - they might in the House if some usually prolife Democrats falter) to pass the bills.
In a couple of editorials, they've hinted at a petition drive and a ballot initiative.
Commenting by HaloScan
