The Point Tile

The Point Blog ARCHIVE
All articles found in the archive are more than three years old.

 

The purpose of this blog is to stimulate thought and discussion about important issues in healthcare. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily express the views of CMDA. We encourage you to join the conversation on our website and share your experience, insight and expertise. CMDA has a rigorous and representative process in formulating official positions, which are largely limited to bioethical areas.

Search for Current The Point Articles not in the Archive

The Quality Control of Life

September 13, 2018

by David Prentice, PhD

Manufacturing industries routinely do quality control on their products, testing them to be certain the items being produced meet certain specifications. Any flawed products, those that do not meet the required specifications, are discarded. For the manufacturer, this helps maintain the satisfaction of the customer. But what if that same mindset were applied to human beings? We’ve seem this in terms of future possibilities, e.g., the potential to use technologies such as gene editing to make “better human beings.” While this remains a future peril in our view of creating new human beings, there is sadly a current peril of quality control for human beings.

In utero screening tests are already being used as a form of quality control over human beings. As with many technologies, it is not the tests themselves that are problematic but rather why the tests are done in many cases, and what actions are taken based on the results, that is, the attitude toward the value of an individual life. Some tests are designed specifically to detect chromosomal abnormalities. In some cases the screen is for sex chromosomes; often this has been phrased as an attempt to achieve “family balancing.” Screens for trisomies (Down syndrome, as well as Edwards and Patau syndromes) are common, and newer “non-invasive prenatal screening” using some of the mother’s blood has pushed detection early into pregnancy (10 to 12 weeks.) But why use such early screens? Sadly, as quality control. Iceland has bragged that it has “eliminated” Down syndrome from the country, but the answer is not due to medical treatment, but a nearly 100 percent abortion rate for those detected in the womb with Down syndrome.

The screens (genetic, ultrasound) have begun to have a wider reach than trisomies, but seem to be used with much the same attitude—quality control. A recent paper showed that in Denmark, where universal screening is now mandated, there was a 65-fold increase in abortions of babies with congenital heart defects. As with Iceland and Down syndrome, one headline touted that they had cut the rate of birth of infants with serious cardiac defects, but this public health improvement was by eliminating many of those with the defects, not by healing arts.

A recent editorial in The Lancet asks the question, “Are we ready for universal genomic sequencing for newborns?” There may be solid reasons to proceed, for early detection and treatment. But there are also reasons to say no, especially if the screening is used as another form of quality control. We’ve mentioned the movie GATTACA before, in which the main character struggles to overcome the stigma of not being genetically designed and enhanced. Early in the movie is a poignant scene of his birth, where the newborn’s genome is immediately taken from a heel stick and the parents are given his “readout” and told of his high potential for cardiac problems and other health issues. This information leads them to give him a different name than the one they originally intended, because he was not worthy to be the father’s namesake.

When children are not considered a gift to be cherished and nurtured, they can be viewed as a commodity, and any flaws or variance from the desired minimum specifications is an inconvenience at best, and intolerable at worst. And our viewpoint of the value of any individual human life colors our view of all other human lives.

David Prentice, PhD

David Prentice, PhD

David A. Prentice is Vice President and Research Director for the Charlotte Lozier Institute. He is also Adjunct Professor of Molecular Genetics at the John Paul II Institute, The Catholic University of America and was a Founding Advisory Board Member for the Midwest Stem Cell Therapy Center, a unique comprehensive stem cell center in Kansas that he was instrumental in creating. In 2020, he was appointed by the Secretary of HHS to the federal Human Fetal Tissue Ethics Advisory Board. Dr. Prentice has over 40 years’ experience as a scientific researcher and professor, including previous service as senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council, Professor of Life Sciences at Indiana State University, and Adjunct Professor of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine.

He established Stem Cell Research Facts, an educational website providing scientific facts and patient-centered videos about adult stem cells, and is a founding member of Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, and an advisory board member for the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. He has provided scientific advice for numerous medical professionals, legislators, policymakers and organizations at the state, federal, and international levels.

Dr. Prentice received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Kansas, and was at Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of Texas Medical School-Houston before joining Indiana State University where in addition to his research and teaching, he served as Acting Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences and Assistant Chair of Life Sciences. He was recognized with the University’s Caleb Mills Distinguished Teaching Award and Faculty Distinguished Service Award. He has taught courses ranging from non-majors biology to advanced and graduate courses including developmental biology, embryology, cell and tissue culture, history of biology, science and politics, pathophysiology, medical genetics, and medical biochemistry. Several of his courses were also taught on-line.

He received the 2007 Walter C. Randall Award in Biomedical Ethics from the American Physiological Society, given for promoting the honor and integrity of biomedical science through example and mentoring in the classroom and laboratory. Dr. Prentice’s research interests encompass various aspects of cell growth control, cell and developmental biology; one major focus is adult stem cells. He has reviewed for various professional publications including The Journal of the American Medical Association.

He is an internationally-recognized expert on stem cell research, cell biology and bioethics, and has provided scientific lectures and policy briefings in 40 states and 21 countries, including testimony before the U.S. Congress and numerous state legislatures, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the President’s Council on Bioethics, European Parliament, British Parliament, Canadian Parliament, Australian Parliament, German Bundestag, French Senate, Swedish Parliament, the United Nations, and the Vatican. He was selected by President George W. Bush’s U.S. President’s Council on Bioethics to write the comprehensive review of adult stem cell research for the Council’s 2004 publication “Monitoring Stem Cell Research.”

Dr. Prentice has published numerous scientific and bioethics articles, including a recent review of stem cell science and adult stem cell treatments published in Circulation Research. He has also published numerous commentaries and op-eds, and travels nationally and internationally to give frequent invited lectures regarding stem cell research, fetal tissue research, gene editing, cloning, embryology, cell culture and vaccines, bioethics, and public policy. He has been interviewed in virtually all major electronic and print media outlets, including CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CSPAN, Reuters, AP, NPR, USA Today, BBC, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times.