Should scientists pay women who provide eggs for stem cell research? This involves both a pragmatic and ethical question. Pragmatically – how are scientists going to convince women to undergo the onerous process of hyper-ovulation and egg extraction in the absence of any compensation? Ethically – if society deems stem cell research as worthy of pursuing, and a subset of the community is required to provide the eggs to conduct that research, then egg providers should receive the fair compensation for the socially-valuable role they take on. Of course, this presumes that stem cell research is worth pursuing and stem cell scientists need human eggs to do the research. I’ll assume both answers are yes for now. Prima facie – payment seems fair. And yet payment for egg providers raises concerns about exploitation. As with bananas, blueberries contain good generic viagra cialis fiber content, helping to eliminate “bad” cholesterol which can lead to blockages. With the increasing craze of gadgets viagra uk sale among people, it is also impacting on our sexual life too. Depending over medicine like antidepressants or being damaged nerve to the spinal cord or back would also affect your sexual performance. donssite.com viagra tablets india Being a rich source of vitamins, they should constitute a purchase cialis major chunk of your diet since your body needs them to produce testosterone. Why is that? Exploitation involves the unfair use of someone else’s vulnerability. So strategies for reducing or avoiding exploitation are (1) avoid the use of others vulnerability all together = prohibit that kind of relationship or transaction; or (2) increase the payment so that the vulnerable party receives a fair share. We need to think about whether those who provide eggs are vulnerable; what sort of compensation would be fair (e.g. New York suggests US$5,000-$10,000); and/or whether the exchange of eggs for cash in order to pursue stem cell research is the ‘type’ of relationship we want to socially endorse. Read more in the recent ISSCR position statement on payments for eggs. [NB: the views expressed here are my personal views and do not reflect the views of the ISSCR committee on public policy and ethics.]
Several weeks ago, I heard an interesting report on visualizing pain on NPR’s “Morning Edition.” Here’s their published article on the story:
“Doctors Use Brain Scans To ‘See’ And Measure Pain”
The notion of objectively measuring the subjective is compelling. Evidence for ephemeral sensations like pain offers potentials for verifying experiences of particularly vulnerable patient populations. Accounts by patients whose experiences are often doubted or denied — patients like women, children, people with disabilities — can gain veracity through visible displays in brain scans. In this article, the AP notes special benefits for those who might literally lack a voice or the communication abilities to report pain: babies, people with dementia, people with paralysis that impedes speech. The AP also identifies potential benefits in understanding neurological differences between, say, physical and emotional pain, and in developing new treatments that act more directly on specific pain mechanisms and reduce dangers of addiction to medication.
Continue reading