(No subject)

[Guest guest]

As I

read this article, all I can think is what has our world come to when we are ordering up and assembling a baby from "parts' world wide. These are people we are talking about ...not products!I am not sure what can be done, other than pray for people to understand that we are not the designer of Life, only God is and ultimately it His will that will be done.

Assembling the Global Baby

Excerpt from Assembling the Global Baby, Wall Street Journal. November 23, 2010--In a hospital room on the Greek island of Crete with views of a sapphire sea lapping at ancient fortress walls, a Bulgarian woman plans to deliver a baby whose biological mother is an anonymous European egg donor, whose father is Italian, and whose birth is being orchestrated from Los Angeles. She won't be keeping the child. The parents-to-be, an infertile Italian woman and her husband (who provided the sperm)—will take custody of the baby this summer, on the day of birth. The man bringing together this disparate group is Rudy Rupak, chief executive of PlanetHospital.com LLC, a California company. Mr. Rupak is a pioneer in a controversial field at the crossroads of reproductive technology and international adoption. Prospective parents put off by the rigor of traditional adoptions are bypassing that system by producing babies of their own—often using an egg donor from one country, a sperm donor from another, and a surrogate who will deliver in a third country to make what some industry participants call "a world baby."

The process can bring profound dilemmas. In some cases, clinics end up creating more fetuses than a couple needs, forcing a decision over whether to abort one or more pregnancies. Babies carried to term occasionally find themselves temporarily unable to get a passport. Some of his own clients have faced the abortion decision, Mr. Rupak says. "Sometimes they find the money" to pay for more children than they expected, he says. After all, they went to such lengths. And if they decide otherwise, Mr. Rupak says, "We don't judge." Critics say the business is strewn with pitfalls. "The potential for abuse on many levels is big," says Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, discussing the industry in general terms. "You're straddling all these [international] boundaries to buy the ingredients and the equipment." Mr. Caplan calls it the "wild, wild west of medicine."

Unlike traditional adoption, there is relatively little vetting of would-be parents either by agencies like PlanetHospital, regulators or clinics. There are also fewer restrictions, such as strict age limits, on who can participate. Mr. Rupak says individual clinics use their own standards to make some of these decisions. He sometimes advises his clients to get a lawyer to be sure they're in compliance with the laws of their home country. "Our ethics are agnostic," Mr. Rupak says. "How do you prevent a pedophile from having a baby? If they're a pedophile then I will leave that to the U.S. government to decide, not me." PlanetHospital recently launched a website touting "surrogaycy" aimed at gay couples. "In some states you cannot marry, let alone adopt; but not a law in the land can take away a child that is biologically yours," the site says.

Medical Director of the National Embryo Donation Center Jeffery Keenan, MD (NEDC): "This kind of medical practice/arrangements is extraordinarily opposed to Christian and even secular ethical principles, and should not be allowed within the confines of countries that have the means to prevent it. Click here to register now.

Click here to read CMDA IN THE NEWS.

Freedom2care BlogClick here to follow Freedom2care's blog

View comments fromNews & Views readers here.

Resources for You andYour Patients

Inconceivable Women who are anxious to conceive - and who have yet to conceive - know about waiting. Inconceivable is the remarkable true-life story of Woodward, a woman who stopped waiting her life away. Woodward revisits eighteen years of personal frustration, pain, and anger, and speaks from her own experience to show how women can have peace in their disappointment by surrendering their hopes and hearts, their dreams and losses, to the One who heals all things broken. Paperback. 223 pages. $12.99. Order here

Basic Questions on End of Life Decisions The choices that we make in life are products of our values. The values we place on human life determine how we treat others. Now, more than ever, Christians need to address crucial questions pertaining to the end of life. Some of the questions answered in the work include: "How do I adequately prepare for the dying process?" "Should I consider organ donation?" "How can I cope with suffering that God doesn't relieve?" "Do I have a right to determine my medical treatment?" "If I remove life support, am I responsible for the death?" Paperback. 89 pages $6.99. Order here

The fastest and most secure way to give to CMDA is through our secure online giving site. Your gifts will be used to continue and expand the critical work of CMDA as we minister to doctors, students and patients.

P.O. Box 7500 Bristol, TN 37621 www.cmda.org

The Christian Medical & Dental Associations is a non-partisan organization that does not endorse political parties or candidates for public office. The views expressed herein reflect judgments regarding principles and values held by CMDA and its members and are not intended to imply endorsement of any political party or candidate. Use of news articles is allowable within the guidelines of the copyright fair use law.

Please note commentaries are the views of the author and not CMDA official positions or statements.

Your comments are always welcome. Though we may not be able to personally respond to each one, your insights are carefully read and can impact our future analysis. Please note that comments may be edited for space restrictions and language. Copyright notice: CMDA News & Views may be copied and re-transmitted by electronic mail. Individual copies of a particular News & Views e-mail transcript may be printed, provided that such copying, re-transmission, printing, or other use is not for profit or other commercial purpose. CMDA's News & Views may not be reproduced on the World Wide Web or in broadcast, print or other media without permission from CMDA. Any copying, re-transmission, distribution, printing or other use of News & Views must cite: © 2009 Christian Medical & Dental Associations. View CMDA's

"We can start with the two main premises which allow a company like this to stay in business – the legal and economic incentives for couples. First of all, if a law is made to insure the best interests of parents and children, it is certainly unethical to circumvent said law by pursuing the illegal actions in another country. Just because a couple has the monetary means to do this does not make it sound morally.

"As far as the financial aspects, there is tremendous potential for exploitation in 3rd world countries with these practices. This is exemplified by the fact that the surrogates are not told that the children they carry, often using their own eggs, will be adopted by homosexual couples. Furthermore, the women’s own friends and family member could pressure participation in programs like this for their own monetary gain.

"Probably the most egregious problems with such use of assisted reproduction are also exemplified in this article. It demonstrates the 'anything goes' mentality often seen in artificial reproductive technology (ART) clinics and labs. That is, if it CAN be done, why not? Never mind that two men or women could never have a biologic child on their own, or that this is obviously in conflict with God’s plan for humankind. Basically, this amounts to buying a child, with the concomitant temptations of creating 'designer babies', as opposed to allowing and accepting God’s will for procreation.

"It is time to put laws on the books regulating not only the ART community in the U.S., but also establishing methods protecting our children and our laws. We will hear cries of outrage about ‘government regulation’, to which we should inquire where that same indignation is as the administration quietly does away with conscience protections such that physicians are forced by the government to practice medicine outside of their own deeply held moral beliefs."

To post a comment click here.Action:Take action now to protect your conscience rights:

Download and use the new handout to inform others about conscience rights Submit your personal story of discrimination

Right of Conscience: Real Life Stories of DiscriminationCMDA Ethics Statements: Reproductive Technology

Back to menu

Health Plans for High-Risk Patients Attracting Fewer, Costing More than Expected

Excerpt from Health plans for high-risk patients attracting fewer, costing more than expected, Washington Post. December 27, 2010--An early feature of the new health-care law that allows people who are already sick to get insurance to cover their medical costs isn't attracting as many customers as expected. In the meantime, in at least a few states, claims for medical care covered by the "high-risk pools" are proving very costly, and it is an open question whether the $5 billion allotted by Congress to start up the plans will be sufficient. Federal health officials contend the new insurance plans, designed solely for people who already are sick, are merely experiencing growing pains. It will take time to spread the word that they exist and to adjust prices and benefits so that the plans are as attractive as possible, the officials say. State-level directors of the plans agree, in part. But in interviews, they also said that the insurance premiums are unaffordable for some who need the coverage - and that some would-be customers are skittish about the plans because federal lawsuits and congressional.

The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, the program's official name, is an early test of President Obama's argument that people will embrace the politically divisive health-care overhaul once they see its advantages firsthand. According to some health-policy researchers, the success or failure of the pools also could foreshadow the complexities of making broader changes in health insurance by 2014, when states are to open new marketplaces - or exchanges - for Americans to buy coverage individually or in small groups.

The law contains rules to make the high-risk pools more affordable than older ones that many states have run; the new ones cannot charge more in premiums than the average premium for other individual insurance in a given state. But "the individual market is expensive," said P. Hall, a University of Kansas researcher studying the new plans. "From my perspective, it is not a good match for people who have expensive conditions." HHS has made some changes for 2011 in the federal plan on which 23 states and the District are relying. It will have somewhat lower premiums and two new options with varying deductibles, according to Popper, HHS's deputy director for insurance programs. When the law was passed, proponents of the special health plans feared the $5 billion would run out before 2014. Today, HHS's Popper says of that financial help: "We want to use it - make it last but also use it to effectively to get people covered."

Small, MD, PhD, Medical Director of Anatomic Pathology: "In a hot political climate, increasing costs and decreasing use of a government program should not be a major surprise. The question for a Christian physician must be how to deal with the realities of a hybrid government-private system. On the one hand, we are instructed to care for the poor, and in Romans 13 tells us that God has set up our ruling authorities. On the other hand, Jesus himself in Luke 20 warns us to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.

"We each wrestle with the question, then, as to whether healthcare should be God’s or Caesar’s. There are troubling issues on the horizon with threats to remove conscience protections and to expand Federal financial support for abortion that should concern those who favor expanding Caesar’s role in healthcare. Today’s article on increased cost and decreased usage is another red flag.

"Those opposed to more government involvement should note that 25 warns that if we are not giving significantly of their own time, talent and treasure to care for the uninsured and needy we may be ignoring God’s role in medicine. There are many who need our help.

"As we struggle with the macro issues of cost, supply, the uninsured, let us never forget that we must also ultimately account for our own individual actions as we deal with the individual infinitely valuable human creations we meet daily."

To post a comment click here.CMDA Ethics Statement: Allocating Resources

Back to menu

‘Death Panel’ Concept in Medicare Rule

Editor's Note: The Obama administration dropped this provision on January 4, 2011.

Excerpt from Obama Embraces ‘Death Panel’ Concept in Medicare Rule, Newsmax. December 26, 2010--During the stormy debate over his healthcare plan, President Barack Obama promised his program would not "pull the plug on ggrandma," and Congress dropped plans for death panels and "end of life" counseling that would encourage aged patients from partaking in costly medical procedures. But on Dec. 3, 2010 the Obama administration seemingly flouted the will of Congress by issuing a new Medicare regulation detailing "voluntary advance care planning" that is to be included during patients' annual checkups. The regulation aimed at the aged "may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment," The New York Times reported.

The new provision, which goes into effect Jan. 1, allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death. Critics say it is another attempt to limit healthcare options for the elderly as they face serious illness. Incoming House Speaker Boehner said during the healthcare debate: “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.â€

The rule was issued by Dr. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, according to the Times. He is a longtime advocate for rationing medical procedures for the elderly. Berwick has argued that rationing will have to be implemented eventually, stating, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.†“The chronically ill and those towards the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here . . . there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place,†he said. He added: "Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the [death] panel that was part of the healthcare reform.’"

Associate Clinical Professor at Vanderbilt University's School of Medicine Hamada, MD: "Though this difficult issue continues to polarize both sides of the political spectrum and encourages further partisanship, there are valid arguments on either side that allow a balanced view.

"The term 'death panels', which implies Nazi-like forced euthanasia, was intentionally created to incite strong emotional and political response; but it poorly represents what is actually being proposed. Unlike the British National Health Service’s algorithm that dictates whether or not a terminal patient receives advanced and aggressive care, this is an attempt to allow the patient to address an issue that we as physicians see every day; an issue that is responsible for survivor guilt and anxiety, family disruption, indecision, and hostility between family members and physicians. This issue is responsible for up to 80% of medical costs – all spent in the last months of a person’s life when further intervention does not affect the outcome. This issue is advance directives or end-of-life care.

"There is a huge difference between euthanasia or even premature withdrawal of vital care, and withholding aggressive or extreme care for a patient that is at the end of his or her life. These patient-driven decisions are not being mandated, but are being recommended and incentivized for those with government sponsored insurance.

"As Christian physicians, we already face a serious loss of credibility and influence in this fallen world. This is only worsened when we approach difficult issues such as this with name-calling and intellectual paralysis. Ignoring the problem and not having these conversations will not make them go away. We must engage them head on in an ethical, rational, and educated fashion."

To post a comment click here.

CMDA Ethics Statement: Allocating Resources.

Back to menu

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. View CMDA's Privacy Policy.{OPENEDEMAILMARKER}