|
Weber Woman's Wrevenge No.53 February 1999 Contents Diary notes Book notes LOCs Background by Windy |
|
Letters
Rena Yount
I found Paula Johanson's central point in "Immune System" to be oddly purist in terms of the past while willing to risk lives in the present. At least as well as I can understand her. The writing style of this excerpt is lively, and draws one in, but I did not find its ideas very clearly expressed. She's saying that some people don't want to be immunized or have their children immunized against German measles because the vaccine was developed in Germany using cells from a fetus that may or may not have been deliberately aborted. Possibly the fetal cells came from a miscarriage. But for people who consider abortion abhorrent, to use a vaccine developed in this ethically questionable way presents an agonizing dilemma. Johanson seems to be saying that this is a much more compelling issue in medical ethics than whether people may be subjected to compulsory AIDS testing at work. I don't want to argue about whether deliberate abortion is in fact unethical. Assume that it at least may be. A couple of points still need to be made. First: If medicine is being produced in an unethical way in the present, I agree that there is a serious question whether to use that medicine and thus become complicit in and financially reward the unethical behavior. But vaccine against German measles has been around for decades, hasn't it? And there's no suggestion here of evidence that any fetus was aborted in order to develop a vaccine. The worst Johanson can say is that an abortion may have been performed decades ago - an action which, even if we agree it's unethical, cannot now be corrected. Because of that, we should allow people to become sick and sometimes die, and infants to be born deaf or blind, rather than use the "tainted" knowledge? Even if fetal cells are not now used to make the vaccine at all? This strikes me as a bizarre ethical stance. Refusing the vaccine benefits no one and would have no impact on changing any unethical practice. It risks harm, not only to the person who refuses the vaccine, but to other unprotected persons who may be infected by the refuser. Where's the morality in that? People who argue against using fetal cells for medical experiments generally warn that such use would tend to normalize and legitimize abortion, and even create an incentive for hospitals to encourage abortion. If there were no danger of such a general effect, then - even if abortion is wrong - there would be no more ethical argument against using fetal cells to make medicine than against doing an organ transplant from a person who was murdered or killed by a drunk driver. In each case, even if the death is wrongful, doctors rightfully proceed to save any other lives they can. Even if they also go out and lobby against abortion, or for stricter drunk-driving laws. By no stretch of the imagination is being immunized against German measles going to encourage abortions. This is a total disconnect. Does not compute. Second: It's not clear what Johanson, or her narrative character, is saying about AIDS testing at work. She seems to be saying that the whole field of medical ethics is such a complete mess that we can't even get close to trying to figure out AIDS testing. I disagree. This is a current issue that can cause harm to actual people now alive - loss of job, resulting loss of insurance (with drastic results), etc. Therefore, it's a valid and immediate ethical concern. As far as I'm concerned, AIDS testing at work is not valid unless (a) people may actually be in danger of being exposed to AIDS by an infected worker; and (b) that danger will not be adequately dealt with by the precautions that should be in place for ALL workers, given that some of them, sometime, are going to be carrying the HIV virus and not yet testing positive. In other words, if there's a possibility that a dentists carrying AIDS may infect his/her clients, then ALL dentists need to be taking appropriate precautions. This will provide much better protection than relying on testing, which always has a percentage of false negatives. Given these standards, I cannot think of any example of a job situation in which required testing would be valid. Ron Salomon
Regarding peanuts and allergies, now when I was a youngen, we ain't never heard no such thing. But today is big business. Yesterday I took my (and Lori's) two boys to a local MacDonald's, where the cup containing the Big Guy's (10 yr. Old David) frozen yogurt gave almost as much notice ("Caution: May Contain Peanuts!") as their hot coffee cups proclaim all over "Hot Hot Please Don't Sue Us Again We Told You Already Hot." {{I hope you're not suggesting that warning people about peanuts, or the possibility of traces of peanut, in food is inappropriate or unnecessary. The peanut warnings certainly might arise from companies' fears of being sued, but I would hope they'd also be a public health service. Quite often one can't predict whether processed foods contain nuts. That's not in quite the same league as warning people that coffee is hot.- JHW}} Yvonne Rousseau
John (Foyster) resigned on 9 July (from his job). He already has a registered business name: "Foyster Fact and Fiction" - he intends to get a home modem, but since he's off to Malaysia on 11 July for another 7-week work-visit, I'm afraid it will be awhile ... I also heard from Lots of people. If you sent an electronic LoC, it's gone forever (unless you have a copy and want to send it to me again). If you sent a paper LoC, it's probably here somewhere and will turn up sometime in the next millennium. But I did read them as they came in, and enjoyed them, and encourage you to send more. More about peanutsLate in 1998 I saw several articles in newspapers about banning peanuts on airplanes, and I overheard some people joking about it. But as a person who has suffered considerably on airplanes when surrounded by peanut fumes, I'm glad that this problem is being taken seriously at last. Home | Wrevenge 53 Contents | Book notes | LOCs Contact me jean@jeanweber.com Page last updated 29 March 2002 |