Twenty-first Century Divorce: Who Gets Custody of the Embryos?

A recent CBS news story provides yet another example of the technology and legal cart pulling the ethical horse.

In short, in 2014, an Arizona couple used in vitro fertilization (IVF) to preserve her eggs after she learned she had breast cancer and would require chemotherapy. The woman’s then boyfriend originally declined to be the sperm donor but later agreed when the woman, perhaps desperate to preserve her eggs, considered using a former boyfriend as the donor (fertilized eggs survive cryogenic preservation far better than unfertilized eggs). The couple executed a contractual agreement, provided by the clinic, as to the disposition of the frozen embryos (“their joint property”) should their relationship divorce or dissolve prior to implantation. They married several days later, underwent IVF yielding 7 embryos, which were cryogenically preserved and the woman underwent successful chemotherapy.

Unfortunately, after 2 years of marriage but prior to implantation, the husband filed for divorce. The pre-IVF contract stipulated that both husband and wife had to mutually agree on the disposition of the embryos – if not, they agreed a court could decide the embryos’ fate. Recently, the Arizona Supreme Court determined that the embryos should be put up for adoption, siding in one sense with the ex-husband to prevent the ex-wife from “using” the embryos. The decision upset many in Arizona to the point where the Arizona Legislature enacted a law to award the frozen embryos, in the future cases of divorce, to the spouse who “intends to use them to have a baby.” The new law will not benefit the ex-wife so, at the time of this blog entry, she was considering whether or not to appeal her case to the US Supreme Court.

There is a lot here to consider. I want to focus on just a few issues. First, I left scare quotes around several of the terms used in this case. The frozen embryos are indeed legally “joint property”, much like children in other cases of divorce. The couple could have just as easily checked the box on the contract to select “Destroy the Embryos” in case of their divorce. This same choice is one that many married (and unmarried) couples make regularly in IVF absent divorce when deciding the fate of unwanted or unused embryos following successful pregnancy and birth from prior IVF cycles. So asking a court to decide the fate of the frozen embryos is similar to children of divorced couples (though their “destruction” is not currently an option.)

“Using the embryos” is terminology that further emphasizes the commodification of frozen embryos as we consider them as a convenience for, or, for the sole benefit of, the parent(s). While I can empathize with the ex-wife’s desire to preserve her ability to have future children in the face of cancer treatment, her choice of an ambivalent (then) boyfriend over an ex-boyfriend as the father of her future children has proven disappointing, if not disastrous, for her in the present. It is harder for me to grasp the rationale of the ex-husband, who, though previously agreeing to father his ex-wife’s children, now (vindictively?) refuses to allow her to mother them, particularly since (continuing with my horse analogy) that fatherhood horse left the barn years ago.

As we allegedly advance our technical and scientific skills by increasing the various situations in which women can become pregnant, we are demanding more legal decisions when these new situations cause conflict rather than discussing and agreeing beforehand whether or not to permit these situations from occurring in the first place.

Autonomy of Access vs. Autonomy of Decision Making in Opioid Addiction

A recent Perspective in The NEJM by Dr. Amy Caruso Brown discussed the ethics consultation involved in treating addiction as a terminal disease. Since the article is behind a subscription firewall, I will briefly summarize the case and some of the ethical problems outlined by Dr. Brown. The focus of this blog is to ask the limited question as to whether or not there is sufficient patient autonomy to make decisions in an addiction situation described as terminal if, as Dr. Brown claims, society has failed to provide sufficient access to and services for patients with chronic addiction and/or mental health problems associated with similar levels of addiction.

Dr. Brown’s patient, Ms. A, was an unemployed, homeless woman who had a history of chronic opioid use/abuse and had failed multiple impatient rehabilitation, methadone maintenance and buprenorphine treatment programs. She was hospitalized for septic shock secondary to endocarditis, which had damaged two heart valves to such a degree that she was not considered healthy enough to survive surgery to correct the problem. Her only relative, a brother, who had recently finally cut ties with his sister to protect exposing his children to her illness and habits, agreed to a do-not-resuscitate order. To the surprise of her treating staff, her condition stabilized to the point where the cardiothoracic surgeon agreed to operate. She declined, wanting to be discharged so she could seek morphine to self-treat the intractable chest pain. She fired her attending physician as he made the ethics consultation referral questioning her decision-making capacity.

Dr. Brown nicely outlines the particular issues of legal capacity requirements required in New York and the limited capacity that surrogates have if they we not previously designated as such. Dr. Brown also discussed whether or not Ms. A met the criteria for terminal illness, specifically whether or not ongoing chronic opioid addiction, in the face of now severe cardiac compromise, would be expected to cause death within 6 months. Dr. Brown maintained that Ms. A was lucid and capable to make informed decisions, which were that she “simply wanted to go home, or to a hospice facility, and die peacefully.” Dr. Brown did not find her depressed or emotionally compromised, though quoted her as saying “I’m done. I’m ready to be done. I’ve fought long enough” and described her as “exhausted and grieving”. Dr. Brown believed Ms. A’s “decisional capacity was clear.”

Finally, Dr. Brown argued that society had failed Ms. A by not facilitating access to a treatment program that “included medication for opioid use disorder (OUD) – preferably initiated in an inpatient setting and coupled with ongoing trauma-informed mental health care and various social supports – [in the absence of which Ms. A] would almost certainly have a relapse”, further making it likely she would die within 6 months. Though the article noted Ms. A had previously failed inpatient rehabilitation, methadone maintenance and buprenorphine, it was not stated how coordinated or integrated the previous programs were. Was the proposed program new or simply a second (or third) chance through a similar program? Thankfully, Ms. A decided to accept palliative terminal care, which resolved her homeless situation, as it would be provided at an inpatient facility.

What if Ms. A had declined inpatient palliative care? Dr. Brown made a strong case that Ms. A’s social situation (poor, homelessness, mental health history of abuse and chronic opioid dependence/abuse) limited access to an appropriate treatment program for her problems, likely the only one with any expectation of success, however limited. Even if we grant that Ms. A was indeed terminal and had clear decision-making ability not compromised by depression, ongoing opioid dependence and other mental health factors, did her social situation really allow her to be autonomous in decision making? Said differently, how can we consider her autonomous for decision-making when she apparently lacks autonomy for access to her treatment? Further, how much support can an individual demand or expect from society and still be considered autonomous? I have touched on a similar issue in this blog previously with regard to serial pregnancy in opioid addicted women, asking when should the risks to the children (and social and financial burden to society) supersede the mother’s autonomy for having more children?

We need to improve access to treatment and support for mental health in general and opioid treatment in particular. This will likely include further discussion regarding the level of autonomy of those needing that treatment and support.

Scientific Validity vs. Bioethical Violation?

In a previous blog entry, Dr. Riley covered the 30 December 2019 conviction of He Jiankui, the Chinese scientist who allegedly created the first genetically altered human babies born in November 2018, to three years in prison for “illegal medical practices”. His criminal conviction is somewhat surprising to me because I believe Dr. He must have received at least initial support from the Chinese government for his human genetic experimentation, particularly since he was allowed to travel to Hong Kong in late 2018 and make public a portion of his research. My surprise is that the almost universal uproar about the bioethical violations in this case can (at least presently) make even the Chinese government admit that a line has been crossed that warrants public condemnation and punishment of those involved. Though the crime cited was crossing a thinner bioethical line (lying on the informed consent about the risks of genetic engineering to the babies) rather than the fuller bioethical line (the actual risks of genetic engineering to the babies and humanity in general), a bioethical crime was committed.

There are other aspects of this story that need our bioethical consideration. Antonio Regalado in a recent Technology Review, describes the still circuitous path Dr. He’s research has taken en route to ANY publication. In fact, it appears that Technology Review is the first publication to make any portion of the original manuscript public (there is a link within the link provided above of excerpts of Dr. He’s manuscript). I cannot do justice to Mr Regalado’s sleuthful efforts at piecing together this story (it defies a simple summary) and encourage those interested to read his account in the link above.

Regalado reports that Dr. Howard Bauchner, editor-in-chief at JAMA, was given access to the original manuscript just days after the 2018 Hong Kong conference. Regalado found Dr. Bauchner to be generally supportive of genetic editing of embryos:

“I think it’s inevitable that it will move ahead, and I think it should move ahead… Oftentimes early scientific breakthroughs [such as organ transplantation and IVF] are seen as unethical, and then over time that changes, [as the technologies prove successful].”

In fact, a main dilemma for Bauchner remains the following: “If someone thinks it’s scientifically valid but not ethical, does that mean the study will stay in the shadows?…It’s such an interesting question.”

An interesting question indeed. One online repository of pre-published scientific papers called bioRxiv rejected the manuscript, likening the manuscript to a paper it might have received from Dr. Josef Mengele, the infamous Nazi death camp doctor. One might therefore wonder why Technology Review has published any portion of the manuscript. They are not a scientific journal per se, with strict peer review to validate the scientific method and results. They are a publisher of scientific news, and Dr. He’s experiment, regardless of it’s many bioethical failures, is certainly scientific news. Technology Review offers a more in-depth opinion as to why they believe it is appropriate to make the manuscript public.

Back to Dr. Bauchner’s interesting question. Does he mean by scientific validity that Dr. He’s experiment (may have) accurately edited the section of human genome that Dr. He claimed and therefore the scientific community should be able to learn from that? Even so, it still seems to me that that Dr. Bauchner is putting the scientific cart before the bioethical horse. Shouldn’t we decide whether it is right to edit the human genome in the first place before worrying about the validity of the technique to edit that genome?

Sociopaths in Medical School

The NEJM recently had an interesting article calling on medical schools to do a better job identifying students who exhibit “unprofessional behavior” before allowing them to graduate. The link for that article is HERE (subscription required). While admitting that it was difficult to consistently and reliably identify such students, the authors claimed that every medical school staff annually could likely identify one or two students “whom they would not allow to care for their family.” The article goes on to describe the barriers that prevent medical schools from accurately identifying unethical behavior in their students and some of the problems associated with trying to use the limited data that is available to delay or even prevent such a student from graduating medical school.

Going so far as to label students with unethical behavior as sociopaths is admittedly hyperbole on my part for the sake of rhetoric. In my defense, the article does touch upon the fact that there are a few physicians, presumably in every class, who commit “criminal or malicious acts”. The authors then go on to ask how we might identify these individuals before they behave “unprofessionally”, ideally before they graduate medical school. I presently have no doubt that anyone who has ever attended medical school can think of at least one person in their graduating class whom they would prevent from treating their immediate family.

I heard an excellent lecture on this issue more than 15 years ago by Dr. John Patrick, former Associate Professor of Clinical Nutrition at the University of Ottawa, who now speaks worldwide on issues of medical ethics, culture, public policy and the integration of faith and science. In speaking to a group of medical students about the need for transcendence in Hippocratic Medicine in a lecture entitled “Meaning and Purpose in Medicine”, he says about the sociopaths in their midst (beginning at 38:25 in the audio):

“…you can name them in your class already, you know who they are. You could tell me in your class the two or three people who are likely to lose their licenses for immoral or bad behavior in the future. The faculty never have a clue. You know. But you have already left Christian ethics, and loyalty dominates your class, so you don’t tell us. We find out 5 or 6 years later when they lose their license. And nothing on their university transcripts but all the students are not surprised.”

I originally wondered about the veracity of this claim so, for several years, I conducted a simple survey of the first year medical students in our local medical school. For a period of time, I was the very first clinical lecturer the students heard as they prepared for their first exam on the anatomy of the spine, just 10 days after beginning medical school. At the beginning of the lecture, I asked the students to look at me directly and, without speaking or glancing at their fellow classmates, answer the following question in their head: “After being together for the past 10 days, have any of you met at least one person in your first year class to whom you would not trust to care for someone you loved?” Invariably, over half of the class smiled, many while quickly glancing in the direction of the same one or two potential sociopaths in their class.

Why is this bioethically important? Dr. Patrick contends, and I suspect many of the readers of this blog agree, while the study of medicine is a scientific endeavor, focused on the accumulation of scientific knowledge, the practice of medicine is mainly a moral endeavor. Physicians are trying to work with their patients to help them do what they “ought” to do, as agreed upon by both the physician and patient. Such an endeavor demands mutual respect and trust so there is no place for unethical behavior on the part of the physician caring for a vulnerable patient.

Sadly, as both Dr. Patrick and the authors of the recent NEJM point out, while we are fairly adept at selecting medical students who can handle the academic rigor and have sufficient self-discipline to succeed in medical school from a knowledge standpoint, we remain woefully inadequate at assessing the ethical character of those same students to make sure they have the necessary moral integrity to actually practice medicine.

Unless that can be remedied, we should expect the continued gradual replacement of rich, lifelong, covenantal doctor-patient relationships with sterile, limited, contractural provider-client partnerships.

[I encourage readers to follow the link to Dr. Patrick’s website for a wealth of audio lectures on bioethics, culture and the integration of faith and science. Begin with the above link for “Meaning and Purpose in Medicine”]

Determining Fairness in Healthcare

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) had a recent Perspective on proposed bill H.R. 3 aimed at reducing federal spending on prescription drugs. A main component in the bill authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a “Fair Price Negotiation Program” that, beginning in 2023, would permit the secretary to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies the price paid by the federal government on 25 drugs each year. The article provides a broad overview of the bill as it discusses some of the economic pros and cons as well as the political back and forth that would be required to allow this bill to become law. The link is behind a subscription firewall but provides an option for free access to a limited number of articles with registration.

Call me cynical but anytime I see the word “fair” associated with a bill in Congress, I immediately wonder “for whom?” The article is quick to point out that the “negotiation” effectively means “price regulation and severe penalty for noncompliance” by the drug manufacturers. The article describes in general the method that will be used to set the maximum price of a given drug. How or why did Congress determine that method as the best for determining the Fair Price? Also, not all drugs will be included in the group subjected to negotiation. If it is good or fair (as determined by Congress) for drug prices to be determined/set/negotiated by our government, should not all drugs be negotiated similarly so they are fairly priced?

Bills like H.R. 3 are part of the larger discussion of what I call the ultimate “Rights vs. Obligations” in the delivery of healthcare. If healthcare is a human right, who is obliged to provide that right? In the present case of medication pricing, if the present cost of a drug is too high, who is obliged to offset that cost (read – pay the difference between “too high” and “fair”)? The provision of healthcare, generally, and the creation, testing and production of medications, specifically, have real costs. Are these costs fair? Who will pay these costs? The patient? The doctor? The hospital? The pharmaceutical industry? Should healthcare be for-profit? If so, how much profit? Should healthcare become a utility with strict(er) oversight? Can the market decide a fair cost or price? Can a utility board? Can our elected representatives? How about a group of really (and I mean really) smart, unelected bureaucrats?

Thoughtful answers to any one of these questions should be submitted immediately to your local congressperson. Collectively, they are presently the ones determining fairness (in a real bioethical sense) in healthcare.

Assisted Suicide and Disability

On October 9th, the National Council on Disability (NCD) released a report on the dangers of assisted suicide laws as they relate to persons with disabilities. The report provides a nice background on the history and justification of the Council’s position against assisted suicide as far back as 1997. The present report, available here, provides an update on its rationale for its continued opposition to assisted suicide laws. The report, and its references, provide an excellent resource for those of us who argue against assisted suicide regardless of the presence or absence of a disability.

Eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized assisted suicide in some form since Oregon led the way in 1994. Additionally, while lacking a specific assisted suicide statute, a state supreme court decision in Montana in 2009 is believed to provide a defense for physicians who practice assisted suicide. Oregon has provided the statutory framework for existing assisted suicide laws as well as proposed or pending legislation in states moving in this direction. As a result, every state where assisted suicide is legal claims that a primary need for the law is to preserve a person’s dignity, a claim that NCD finds particularly troublesome for people with disability:

The idea that hastened death is a pathway to dignity for people facing physical decline reveals the public’s extreme disparagement of functional limitations and a perception that “dignity” is not possible for people who rely on supports, technology, or caregivers to be independent or alive. Many hold the attitude that a person with a disability may be better off dead than alive.

Assisted suicide is often the cheapest “treatment” for many chronic medical problems affecting those with disability, a fact not lost on those responsible for state Medicaid budgets. NCD provided example after example of patients in Oregon who were denied treatment for their chronic or terminal medical care only to be offered coverage for assisted suicide within the same denial letter. Such crass efficiency was too much even for California, who in 2015, passed a law correcting this behavior: “[a]ny [insurance carrier] communication shall not include both the denial of treatment and information as to the availability of aid-in-dying drug coverage.” Many patients or their physicians eventually were provided the information on assisted suicide by the very same insurance carrier in a follow-up phone call.

Another major issue discussed within the NCD report was the relationship of depression and suicidal ideation in patients with a new disability:

Research overwhelmingly shows that people with new disabilities frequently go through initial despondency and suicidal feelings, but later adapt well and find great satisfaction in their lives. However, adaptation takes considerably longer than the mere 15-day waiting period required by Oregon-model assisted suicide laws.

Perhaps the most persistent concern by NCD since 1997 continues to be “the major gap between informing the patient of alternative options [such as palliative care programs and long term-term services/supports] and those alternatives actually being available and provided.” All statutes legalizing assisted suicide include provisions that require a full explanation of all of the programs, resources, and options available to assist the patient if he or she does not decide to pursue suicide. However:

Many people with disabilities find this to be a very shallow promise when they know that all too often the programs are too few, the resources are too limited, and the options . . . often nonexistent.

The concerns articulated in the NCD report warning of the dangers of assisted suicide apply just as forcefully for those without disability. We should join their efforts to educate law makers on a better way forward without assisted suicide.

“Why did you make me this way?!”

Recently, Jon Holmlund brought us up to date on an effort in Russia to proceed with CRISPR gene editing aimed at eliminating deafness. Coincidently, a recent MedPage article was posted regarding the ethics of using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and IVF to purposefully select FOR an embryo with genetic deafness for a couple, both of whom were deaf. Both links discuss some of the ethical problems with using medical reproductive and genetic technology for these purposes. While we presently lack the ability to use polygene scoring to accurately “produce” the babies we want, I want to use the remainder of today’s blog to consider what obligations, if any, a genetic engineer (or parents that use their skills) may have toward future children designed using these growing array of genetic technologies.

Deafness seems to me to be rather curious in that it is considered either a serious disability or a desirable trait, depending upon your cultural worldview. No one in any culture would purposefully select for cystic fibrosis or Tay-Sachs diseases for their child. In fact, most want to use medical reproductive and genetic technologies to eliminate these diseases. On the other end of the genetic trait spectrum, some parents want to use these same technologies to purposefully select for more trivial traits for their children – hair and eye color, for instance. Given the triviality of these traits, I hear no one mounting an effort to genetically eliminate any particular hair and eye color. Perhaps I am living a sheltered life?

Nonetheless, with regard to deafness, prior to the promises of our new reproductive technologies, if you were born deaf and did not like it, you could only shake your fist at God or Nature. Now (or very soon), you can shake your fist directly at another human, such as your regional genetic engineer (or your parents who purposefully used her technological skills) and demand a direct answer as to why they purposefully made (or did not make) you deaf. Maybe this angst will be more widespread for the many more trivial traits such as eye or hair color rather than something more significant like deafness?

Building a child is about to become much harder for parents as they become directly responsible for both interior (genetic illnesses) and exterior (hair and eye color) design issues.

“Why DID you make me this way?!”

“Why did YOU make me this way?!”

I wonder how many genetic designers (or the parents that will ultimately bear the direct responsibility for having used the technology) really want that type of responsibility?

Is there already fine print in PGD-IVF contracts holding the doctors/scientists/geneticists harmless for the choices the parents make?

I can’t wait for the late night TV commercials: “Were you born with brown eyes and feel emotionally scarred because you have always wanted blue? Call our law offices as you may be entitled to financial compensation …”

Humanoid Mass Production

Henry Ford would be proud.

We now have the ability to mass produce humanoids, embryonic cells derived from human embryonic stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells (the latter can be made from adult cells). These cells are specifically designed by researchers to have some but not all of the necessary elements to be fully human. The goal is to grow these humanoids beyond the current 14-day limitation imposed on research studies on human embryos that ARE fully human.  In theory, these humanoids are physiologically similar enough to humans that by observing their growth and development, scientists hope to learn about human development. By design, the claim is that humanoids are different enough from humans that they would not/could not /should not live outside the Petri Dish. The original report in Nature may be found here.

I use the Henry Ford analogy on purpose. He revolutionized the automobile industry by standardizing the manufacturing process such that less skilled laborers could sequentially assemble an automobile. This allowed the cars to be built faster, at higher volume and far less expensively. Previously, higher skilled craftsmen machined each unique part for each unique car. Though the cars looked the same, their parts were not interchangeable. The process was painstakingly slow, resulting in a very low production volume at a very high price. With mass production, cars became far more common,  much less expensive and, to some extent, disposable.

Moving toward a standardized “mass production” process will have the same effects for humanoid production. Standardizing the manufacturing process will reduce the variance of a given humanoid, making the scientific study of its growth more reliable, reproducible and less expensive, all good things from a scientific standpoint. Will it also cause us to view the humanoids as more disposable?

I continue to want more discussion on the moral status of humanoids before more experimentation is permitted, particularly as we extend their lifespans. Whatever they are, at minimum, they are living entities.  Humanoids must be more than the sum total of their individual cells otherwise we humans would not have so much interest in their development. How human-like does a humanoid have to be before we should consider additional human-like moral/ethical protection in humanoid experimentation?

Or their mass production?

Different answers to “Why?”

Sometimes when we ask “Why” we are really asking the mechanical or causation question: “How did something come to be?” In a billiards game, one might ask: “Why did the 8 ball go into the side pocket?” A valid answer might be: “It was struck by the 3 ball.” A reasonable follow-up question might be: “Why did the 3 ball strike the 8 ball?” Answer: “It was struck by the cue ball after a billiards player struck the cue ball with her stick.” These are correct mechanical explanations as to how the 8 ball came to go into the side pocket.

Sometimes when we ask “Why?” we are really asking: “For what purpose did something come to be?” In the previous billiards game, the answer to the question: “Why did the 8 ball go into the side pocket?” might be: “The player struck the cue ball which struck 3 ball which struck the 8 ball which went into to the side pocket so she could win the billiards game.” There was a purpose behind or beyond the physical or mechanistic description of the 8 ball falling into the side pocket.

Two opinion pieces asking “Why?” from medical and bioethical aspects were published within a week of one another and provide similar examples. The first was a NEJM Perspective by Anthony Breu entitled “Why is a Cow? Curiosity, Tweetorials, and the Return to Why” (subscription required). The second was by Stephen Phillips in this blog entitled “Why do we do this?”

In the first article, Dr. Breu begins with the classic infinite regression example of his 4-year old daughter asking “Why” to every response he provides to her previous “Why” question.

Daughter: “Why was [so-and-so] sleeping?”
Dr. Breu: “Because it was nighttime.”
Daughter: Why was it nighttime?”
Dr. Breu: “Because the earth rotates.”
Daughter: “Why does the earth rotate?”

Dr. Breu paused at this point because he did not immediately know why the earth rotated. He jokingly recalled that his own father terminated these inquisitions with: “Why is a cow?”, which Dr. Breu quickly learned meant the “Why Game” was over. The rest (and real emphasis) of the article discussed the benefits of encouraging medical curiosity in his students and the particular benefits of “Tweetorials”, Twitter posts that answer in-depth medical explanations of pathology. “Why does an acute hemorrhage cause anemia?” His Tweetorial provided a mechanistic answer to the question of why (or how) does anemia result from an acute hemorrhage.

Dr. Breu closes his article with the following answer to his daughter’s last question:

…the Earth rotates because of the angular momentum that resulted from asymmetrical gravitational accretion after the Big Bang. And if my daughter asks me “Why was there a Big Bang?,” I’ll be forced to reply, “Why is a cow?”

In the second article, Dr. Phillips answers the question: “Why do we do this?” by succinctly describing the purpose for which we Trinity Bioethics bloggers write the bioethics articles that we write. We believe there is purpose behind or beyond the human biology that we study determined by a loving God in whose image we are made. As such, our bioethical inquiries seek to understand whether the human purpose of a particular medical technology or procedure is complementary or contrary to God’s purpose. Why? As Dr. Phillips explained, because God loves us and has asked us to love our neighbor.

Maybe that is an answer to “Why was there a Big Bang?” (and “Why is a cow?”)

Stem Cell Rx No Longer For Sale on Google

Perhaps once a week, I will be asked by a patient about the potential benefits of stem cells for reversing the normal affects of age, particularly with respect to arthritis of the knee joints, hip joints or the degenerative discs in the lumbar spine. I believe one of the reasons for this interest has come from increasing advertisements by various clinics in my region of East Tennessee claiming stem cells are the answer for these problems. My region is not unique. A simple Google search on “stem cells for knee pain” yields ads for clinics offering such treatment.

Stem cells are cells that have potential to become any type of cell in the human body such as a new blood cell, nerve cell or bone/cartilage cell. Scientists are rapidly learning how to find or create stem cells, as well as how to safely use them to replace old or missing cells, thus restoring function in worn out, damaged or diseased areas of the body. In fact, stem cells are presently used to replace the bone marrow for some individuals with certain cancers and disorders of the blood and immune system, and in many of these cases, the results are lifesaving.

The problem is that stem cell treatment remains yet unproven in all other medical conditions, including the age-related arthritis conditions which I treat. This lack of efficacy has not stopped clinics from offering and patients from receiving stem cell injections with the hope of achieving improved function or cure. I am willing to grant that many offer these treatments with the sincere hope and belief that they are acting in their patient’s best interest, though I suspect not all have the patient’s best interest in mind. Unfortunately, there have been severe adverse events. Examples include blindness following an injection of stem cells into the eye, and loss of function with development of a spinal cord tumor following stem cell injection into the spine.

The FDA is trying to educate the public and prevent stem cells from being offered for unproven treatments. The FDA has the authority in the US to stop these unproven treatments and take punitive action if needed. This is not to suggest that the FDA is in the business of preventing legitimate investigation into the potential benefits of stem cells, such as this Mayo Clinic Phase 1 study looking at the risks of injecting stem cells in to the cerebrospinal fluid of patients following a spinal cord injury to see if this particular stem cell technique causes harm (with future studies needed to determine benefit).

The FDA is recently getting some help from Google. On September 6th, Google announced it would stop accepting ads for unproven medical treatments, including stem cell therapies. It is early in the effort and the initial link above still has four ads for non-bone marrow stem cell treatments returned with the Google search. Maybe by the time you read this blog entry, the stem cell ads for unproven treatments will be gone.

I am hopeful that stem cells will eventually provide patients with safe therapies that repair injury and return patients to normal health. Offering that promise without the studies that prove such benefit is unethical and potentially harmful. It is good to see Google favoring human welfare over financial profit.