In recent years transplantation has become a feasible way to treat some facial disfigurement. The process is not without its challenges – both scientific and ethical. This video on face transplantation was made by second year students as an assessed piece of coursework at the University of Leicester, UK.
This video was produced by students at the University of Leicester. The team made effective use of a fictional case study to investigate some of the ethical issues associated with organ trading.
In the three-part series, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, broadcast on BBC2 to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, broadcaster Andrew Marr explores the impact of the theory of evolution by natural selection on science, politics and society.
While the first and third episodes, respectively entitled Body and Soul and Life and Death, explore the historical spread of Darwin’s theory and the way it can be employed within conservation and ecology, the second episode, Born Equal?, includes a short section (between 00:45:12 and 00:56:20) that could be used in bioethics teaching.
The issue of resource allocation in the NHS has cropped up several times in recent programmes (see, for example, Dom’s on the Case regarding the “postcode lottery”. The present post examines the ethical issues implicit in a different aspect of resource allocation in healthcare: the potential for conflict between traditional medical ethics and core NHS values and increasingly prominent views of the individual as both responsible and accountable for their own health status. This tension came to the fore in Just, a recent episode of the BBC drama Holby City (first broadcast on BBC1 at 8.00pm on 20th January 2009), and is captured nicely in one particular quote from the programme in which surgeon Ric Griffin challenges his patient, an obese smoker, “if you can’t be bothered to look after yourself, then why should we?” (00:38:07)
(Warning: contains plot spoilers!) The film Godsend stars Robert De Niro as a maverick fertility expert who has perfected a technique for human reproductive cloning. Following the death of their son Adam, on the day after his eighth birthday, Dr Richard Wells (De Niro) offers his services to the Duncan family telling them “you can have him back” (00:11:27). Although Godsend’s convoluted plot is entertaining, it must be noted that the science is both inaccurate and misleading. Nevertheless, there are a number of clips that highlight some of the bioethical issues, not only around human reproductive cloning, but also in terms of the links between what is legal, what is moral, and what science can do.
The fourth series of BBC Radio 4’s bioethics programme Inside the Ethics Committee began on August 6 2008, and discussed some of the ethical issues involved in the creation of ‘saviour siblings’ (first broadcast on BBC Radio 4, at 20.00, August 6 2008 and repeated on August 9 2008, at 22.15). Vivienne Parry and a panel of experts discuss the ethical issues around real-life medical cases, on this occasion the dilemma involves a young child, Catherine, and her medical treatment. Previous BioethicsBytes posts have noted the utility of this series (see the post Making tricky decisions – Inside the ethics committee), and this episode is no different.
Shortly after she was born Catherine was diagnosed with Diamond Blackfan Anaemia (DBA). DBA is a rare blood disorder caused by a genetic mutation. In general, its treatment is “gruelling” (00:02:27) and the prognosis is poor. As in several previous cases (notably, the Whitaker, Fletcher and Mariethoz families), Catherine’s parents were offered the option of using preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for tissue typing alone in order to create a ‘saviour sibling’ whose umbilical cord blood could be used to treat Catherine’s DBA.
Many of the ethical issues involved in this choice have been dealt with in past BioethicsBytes posts (see The Future of Our Families? and the extended commentary that accompanies that post), however this edition of Inside the Ethics Committee brings consideration of these issues up to date. Though the majority of the ethical issues raised are covered in our existing posts, some of the additional details noted here about DBA and the testing procedure introduce new complications into the ethical debate.
In 2000, the BBC launched Child of our time, an ambitious experiment to record the lives of twenty-five children over twenty years. The aim was to establish how our genes and the environment combine to make us who we are and shape our personality. Sir Robert Winston (IVF – A child against all odds) the fertility expert and TV personality presents the programmes as they follow a series of newborns from before birth through to adulthood.
|BBC ‘Child of our time’ Homepage|
In this post we focus on two segments for the first series of Child of our time. These are: Series 1 The journey begins (00:22:00 – 00:28:40) and Series 1 – Birthdays (00:23:00 – 00:24:26). Both episodes are available online, see bottom of this post for details about how to access them.
This bioethical discussion, focuses on one set of parents, Neil and Gillian Roberts, who decide to be genetically tested for the Angiotensin I converting enzyme (ACE) gene. It has been suggested that certain variants of this gene help increase stamina and efficient use of oxygen, and thus have been linked to success in sporting activities The father, a keen athlete and sportsman, suggests that both he and the future mother be tested for this variant to establish whether their new born might subsequently have a chance of inheriting it. The result (which appears in the ‘Birthdays’ episode) is negative and neither parent has this particular variant. Read the rest of this entry »