A Rose By Any Other Name…

Dr. Bernard Lo, professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco and present President and CEO of the Greenwall Foundation, a foundation that sponsors bioethics research, wrote one of the lead editorials in the May 31st NEJM entitled Beyond Legalization – Dilemmas Physicians Confront Regarding Aid in Dying. His main point was that regardless of the physician’s position, given the increasing number of jurisdictions where “Physician Aid in Dying” (his term, hereafter PAD) is now legal, at some point the physician will probably be asked about the process, as well as their position, and whether or not they are willing to participate, so it is better for physicians to have answers to those questions prior to that doctor-patient discussion. I think it is perhaps more important to understand the terminology in which these issues are presently being discussed so I encourage your review of the short editorial in the link before considering my following concerns.

I believe the lumping of all terminal care into the moniker PAD confuses the issue. Physicians have always participated in their patient’s care, including the death of their patients. What is novel is the expectation that physicians will hasten the death itself. A physician treating a dying patient has always been legal. What is becoming legal is physician-assisted suicide (PAS), specifically causing the death via suicide that the terminal illness has, at that point, failed to accomplish. A physician directly administering an agent with the intent to cause death should be physician homicide (PH) or at least physician manslaughter (PM), though it is unclear why the adjective “physician” should change the criminality of the event.

At one point, Dr. Lo appears to include Palliative Care within PAD but later clearly identifies them as distinct and separate options in his provision for patients with terminal illness. This is especially so given his statement that “perceived loss of autonomy and dignity is now a more common reason for requesting PAD than inadequate pain control.” If PAD simply was the preferred term for general end-of-life care then palliative care would obviously be one component. Since it is not, then Dr. Lo is really talking about PAS and he should use the term PAS rather than PAD and be honest about it.

Finally, Dr. Lo discusses the need to consider adverse outcomes “such as deciding whether to call 911 if distressing symptoms develop after lethal medications are ingested.” What does he expect 911 to do? I am assuming he wants their assistance in stopping the suicide process, nevermind that it was physician assisted. If a growing number of physicians are henceforth going to be expected to actively kill their patients, surely we can all agree to keep 911 as an emergency response unit of healthcare providers unambiguously dedicated to keeping their patients alive? A call to 911 seems a tacit admission that supporters of PAS aren’t exactly certain or in common agreement as to what euthanasia (“a good death”) or “Death with Dignity” is supposed to look like, and, perhaps more importantly, an admission that no one can control the dying process as well as they may believe they can. By the way, what does Dr. Lo mean by “distressing symptoms”? I thought the reason for providing PAS was that the original terminal process wasn’t going as desired and this was causing “distressing symptoms”. If the addition of PAS can cause more distressing symptoms, what has been gained through PAS? Certainly not euthanasia or “Death with Dignity”.

Discussing whether or not a physician should hasten their patient’s death for any reason is unfortunately a necessary debate given the present diversity of world views in our society. Describing that process in less specific terms such as “Physician Aid in Dying” does nothing to help that discussion. Like Neil Skjoldal said in yesterday’s blog entry, I also will “continue to advocate strongly against PAS, affirming God’s gift of life whenever and wherever I can.”

One Man’s Trash is Another Man’s DNA Treasure

Last month, investigators used big data analysis, public DNA genealogy websites and “Discarded DNA” to identify the Golden State Killer (WSJ subscription needed), an individual believed responsible for over 12 murders, greater than 50 rapes and over 100 burglaries in California between 1974 through 1986. While justice may be served if the legal case remains solid, there are some interesting bioethical issues that warrant discussion.

This blog has previously discussed the ethics of searching reportedly anonymized databases and the ability of algorithms to “unanonymize” the data (see HERE and HERE). The current technique used in the Golden State Killer case takes this one step further. Using a public genealogy database site, where individuals looking for distant relatives voluntarily share their personal DNA samples, investigators looked into these databases for partial DNA matches. A partial DNA match means that the investigators were looking for any relatives of the original suspect hoping to gain any identifying information of the relative, leading back to the original suspect. Then, using this narrower group of DNA relatives, investigators literally collected DNA samples this group of people unwittingly left behind, such as skin cells on a paper cup in the trash, so called discarded or abandoned DNA.

One man’s trash is another man’s DNA treasure.

Presently, neither the method of partial DNA search of public voluntary genealogy databases nor the collection of discarded DNA samples violates the 4th Amendment regarding unreasonable search and seizure. Neither the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) nor the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) provide protection as none of the data relates to health care records or employment, respectively.

Shouldn’t some law or regulation prevent my personal DNA code from becoming public, particularly if I have not taken steps to publicize it on one of the many public voluntary genealogy sites?

Since your DNA is the ultimate physical marker of personal identity, how much control do you or should you have over it? While you may wish to live a life of anonymity, your extroverted cousin who voluntarily provides her DNA to a public DNA database has just unwittingly publicized some portion of your family DNA as well as traceable personal family data that may allow others to know more about you than you desire. An energetic sleuth dumpster-diving your trash can retrieve your actual DNA. I shred my mail to avoid my social security number or other personal financial information from being obtained and used for identity theft. How do I “shred my DNA” to prevent it from being similarly recovered from my trash?

What may someone do with my DNA information obtained using these techniques. What should someone be able to do?

You could not have convinced me back in 2001 that anyone would spend money to build cars with 360 video equipment and figure out optimal routes that would eventually become what is now Google Street View. Might not someone do the same thing with trash-sourced DNA samples, perhaps Google DNA View?

We already have figured out the garbage truck routes.

Deep Brain Stimulation: the New Mood Modifier?

A patient of mine recently had a deep brain stimulator (DBS) placed to reduce her severe tremors. The stimulator has worked very well to almost eliminate her tremor but has resulted in a side effect that causes her personality to be more impulsive. Her husband notices this more than the patient. Both agree that the reduction in the tremor outweigh the change in her personality though her husband has indicated that her personality change has been more than he imagined when they were initially considering the surgery. He has commented that if her new impulsivity were any stronger, he might be inclined to reverse the process. As one might imagine, the patient sees no problem with the impulsivity and remains extremely pleased with her newfound lack of tremor.

I share the preceding clinical vignette as backdrop to a recent article in Nature describing research funded by the US military’s research agency, The Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA – the same group that sponsored the early development of the Internet), where they are looking into modifying neural activity with the goal to alter mood, and eventually cure mental health disorders. Using patients that already have DBS stimulators in place for treatment of epilepsy or movement disorders such as Parkinson’s Disease, scientists are developing algorithms that “decode” a person’s changing mood. Edward Chang, a neuroscientist at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) believe they have a preliminary “mood map” and further believe that they can use the DBS stimulators to stimulate the brain and modify the local brain activity to alter the patient’s mood. The UCSF group describes this as a “closed-loop” (using the stimulator to both receive and then stimulate the brain). Chang further admits that they have already “tested some closed-loop stimulation in people, but declined to provide details because the work is preliminary.”

If scientists are on the verge of changing your mood, might they not also be on the verge of creating your urges? Professor Laura Cabrera, a neuroethicist, and Professor Jennifer Carter-Johnson, a lawyer, both at Michigan State University, argue we need to begin worrying about that possibility and further that we need to begin considering who is responsible for those new urges, particularly if those urges result in actions that cause harm against other people. The article does a masterful job of the ethical-legal ramifications of just what happens when your DBS causes you to swerve your car into a crowd of people – Is it your fault or did your DBS make you do it?

Returning to my patient, the alteration in her behavior is an unwanted but not a completely surprising result of her DBS to treat her movement disorder. Despite the informed consent, her husband was not prepared for the change in her personality. The treatment to correct my patient’s movement disorder (a good thing) has altered my patient’s personality (a not-so-good thing). My patient’s husband might even argue that his wife is almost a different person post DBS.

When we modify the brain in these experiments, we are intentionally modifying behavior but also risk modifying the person’s actual identity – the “who we are”. As the DARPA experiments proceed and cascade into spin-off research arms, we need to be very clear with patient-subjects in current and future informed consents that the patient who signs the consent may end up very different from the patient who completes the experiment. How much difference in behavior or urges should we tolerate? Could the changes be significant enough that they are considered a new person by their family and friends?

And if that is true, who should consent to the experiment?

New Moral Anesthesia for Abortion

“Is it possible, once again, to hold in tension seemingly opposite ideas about abortion?” This is the main question asked by Dr. Lisa Harris in the lead editorial in the April 12, 2018 NEJM. Her concern is that in her view, since the creation in January of the new Conscience and Religious Freedom division at HHS, subsequent comments by HHS leaders “suggest that they are uninterested in discrimination against health care providers whose consciences compel them to provide care, and uninterested in injuries to patients caused by care refusals.” (emphasis hers) She wants us to return to the time of the 1973 Church Amendment when she argues that lawmakers reached common ground protecting conscious rights of healthcare workers, then holding what she describes as a tension “between abortion as a new fundamental right for U.S. women and the reality that some healthcare providers could not in good conscience participate in it.” Our inability to maintain that tension, she believes, will continue to result in our present extreme divisiveness on the abortion issue. So, specifically, per Dr. Harris: “Can we understand abortion as both something that ‘stops a beating heart’ and a fundamental right, rather than insisting it’s only one or the other?”

Trying to understand abortion as both is the problem. Cognitive dissonance is the word Dr. Harris was looking for, and she is correct that something was needed immediately after Roe v. Wade to ease that dissonance.

With Roe v. Wade in early 1973, the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution prohibits the government from stopping one individual from ending the life of a second individual who was not actively ending the life of the first individual. No one was honestly claiming that we needed Roe v. Wade to allow physicians to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother if the baby/pregnancy was immediately threatening the life of that mother. The Church Amendment, which passed shortly after Roe v. Wade became law, essentially said that no one will be forced to perform an abortion or be discriminated against if they did so – effectively permitting an individual to follow one’s own religious beliefs or moral convictions on the matter. Abortion became just a personal religious or private moral thing.

I believe that the Church Amendment was the necessary moral anesthesia that allowed the Supreme Court to surgically join the opposite ideas that an abortion is both a fundamental right and an act that “stops a beating heart”, the amendment effectively numbing our ethical faculties to what Roe v. Wade would now permit.

Had pro-choice supporters simply adhered to the Church Amendment, there would not have been growing broad demand by pro-life groups for the proposed Conscience Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 644). I suspect most pro-life supporters hope the creation of the new HHS division will correct the concerns addressed in the failed bill.

I worry the new HHS division will be the new moral anesthesia to lull us into contentment with securing arguably necessary conscience protections at the cost of leaving Roe v. Wade intact.

In his recent blog post, The Child I Want, Neil Skjoldal nicely articulated the dehumanization that results when we create a fundamental right to “stop a beating heart.” But we have known that this would happen since that right was first established. Almost identical concepts were discussed during oral arguments of Roe v. Wade, such as the following exchange between Justice Potter Stewart and attorney Sarah Weddington, who represented Roe. (see LINK for transcript or audio of the second reargument Oct 11, 1972, approximately one-third of the way through):

Potter Stewart: Well, if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?

Sarah R. Weddington: I would have a very difficult case. [Laughter]

Potter Stewart: You certainly would because you’d have the same kind of thing you’d have to say that this would be the equivalent to after the child was born.

Sarah R. Weddington That’s right.

Potter Stewart: If the mother thought that it bothered her health having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn’t that correct?

Sarah R. Weddington: That’s correct.

So, to answer Dr. Harris: “Can we understand abortion as both something that ‘stops a beating heart’ and a fundamental right, rather than insisting it’s only one or the other?” — I certainly hope not.

The Ethics of Pet Cloning

Anyone who passes through a grocery checkout line on a weekly basis is unable to remain ignorant of the latest thoughts and insights from Hollywood. With ethical pronouncements from Hollywood, I usually find it reliable to point my moral compass in the opposite direction, at least until I have time to further evaluate the issue. Such was the case with a recent National Enquirer scoop that Barbara Streisand has cloned her now deceased Coton du Tulear dog Samantha, producing two offspring, Miss Violet and Miss Scarlett. The fact that she cloned her pet was interesting in its own right, as I did not realize this process was commercially available to the general (wealthy) public. Perhaps more interesting was the backlash Ms Streisand has experienced from Twitter (generally) and PETA (specifically) largely on ethical grounds. More on this in a moment. The Streisand scoop actually should be credited to a Variety interview and the initial ethical discussion to both the New York Times and Fox News (offering, no surprise, differing vantage points)

Sone of Streisand’s harshest criticism came from Twitter under the hashtag #adoptdontclone. One argument against the pet cloning process was that it was unjust; given the fact that only rich people could afford the price tag, which according the NYT link above ranged around $50,000. Another argument against the process was to remind Ms. Streisand that Miss Violet and Miss Scarlett were not the same as the original Samantha, even though they might look or even act in a manner that might remind Streisand of her dear departed. These arguments touched on the very themes of genetic determinism vs. environmental nurture, admittedly in a rudimentary way. The PETA arguments described the pain and suffering they claimed that the female dogs experienced during the required egg harvesting needed for the cloning process to be successful, arguments eerily similar to risks women experience related to egg harvesting for some IVF procedures.

The strongest or, at least, most popular argument leveled at Ms. Streisand was that cloning her pet eliminated the possibility that she might adopt an already existing puppy, who very much needed a loving pet owner to provide that puppy a better future. While no one presently is making a similar argument against human cloning in favor of human adoption (since human cloning is presently illegal), similar arguments have been made with IVF vs. adoption.

The point of all this was to appreciate some of the ethical arguments by the lay press presently used against pet cloning by Hollywood’s elite and wonder whether, if and when human cloning is accessible to the general (wealthy) public in the future, similar arguments will resurface to protect the humans involved then with the same loud voice used to protect the animals now.

The Bioethics of a Modern Death Mask

By the time you read this, a company called Nectome will have pitched its business plan to investors at Y Combinator as a company who has designed a technology called Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation to preserve all of your connectome, which is all of your brain’s interconnected synapses. Doing this, they argue, can preserve your memories, allowing the company to effectively “upload your mind”. One problem with the technology is that the process is 100% fatal as you have to die during the cryopreservation process to make an accurate connectome.

Oddly, the fact that you have to die for the process to be successful is not considered a deal breaker. Twenty-five individuals have already plunked down the $10,000 deposit to be first on the list to eventually have their brains perfectly preserved in this manner. The process also depends upon future scientists being able to figure out a way to use these perfectly embalmed brains to “reboot” their consciousness. Never mind that no one presently knows how that rebooting process might work or whether the present process captures everything that will be necessary some 100 years in the future when the complete technology will hopefully actually exist. Presumably, smarter people will have all of that detail eventually worked out. What is important at present, particularly if you have a terminal disease, is to preserve your brain so you can be rebooted in the future. A new state law in California called the “End of Life Option Act” makes the application of this novel technology legal for terminal patients (at least as best as can be determined as the legal details have yet to be tested in court). A very nice overview of this new technology and the new company itself may be found in the latest Technology Review article by Antonio Regalado.

There are scientists, such as neuroscientist Ken Hayworth, president of the Brain Preservation Foundation, who believe that a connectome map could provide the basis for reconstituting a person’s consciousness. At its base, this theory assumes that the physical brain is not only the necessary but presumably the sufficient source of consciousness. Capturing the synapse pattern would certainly be essential for recreating the hardware (and perhaps the software) of the brain to restart one’s electrical pattern leading presumably to rebooting one’s consciousness.

I have a couple of ethical problems with this technology, though I am sure there are more. The most obvious is that the process hastens the death of the individual, regardless of their terminal illness. The person will not be dying from their illness but from the cryopreservation process. This technology would not be legally possible without the new California law that will ascribe the death to the terminal illness rather than Nectome’s cryopreservation process, presumably shielding Nectome from product liability suits. Only in California could a terminal patient’s family sue the manufacturer of their vehicle for a malfunction in the brakes that resulted in their loved one’s premature death as they were in the process of driving their loved one to a Nectome facility to die by brain cryopreservation with the hope that the loved one could live again.

Another ethical problem is the transhumanist lure of a brain being rebooted, effectively allowing immortality of one’s consciousness. Aside from the presently unproven science of the rebooting process, who would be the recipient of the successful rebooted consciousness? By that I mean “who” (or what) is regaining consciousness? If the physical brain is the basis for consciousness, and recreating a new but exactly reproduced connectome is the thing that becomes conscious, would it really be you becoming conscious, or someone or something else entirely? Who really enjoys the rebooted memories? What if it is not really you that is being rebooted but someone or something else with your life’s memories? This would be the worst “bait and switch” advertising scam ever devised! What till the FTC begins filling suit. But seriously, are we just our consciousness or a necessary combination of physical mind and body, or a necessary combination of spiritual soul and physical mind/body? What exactly are we? Why do we think we can achieve immortality in the first place? If we can, is the Nectome method the right way of going about this process?

The Christian faith argues for a different process, but uses language such as “dying to self” and being “born again”, which sound similar to Nectome but are indeed very different. Per Nectome, if you die, using our cryopreservation technology, you can live again by regaining your consciousness in the future. The biblical concepts of being born again and dying to self reflects a believer having faith in the salvation offered by Christ’s death on the cross and subsequently humbly subjecting oneself to God’s will rather than one’s own will for the future, both temporally on earth and eternally in heaven.

I recommend the Christian process of being born again rather than the modern death mask soon to be offered by Nectome.

Belgian Euthanasia: Volunteers No Longer Necessary?

A recent resignation letter by one member of Belgium’s Euthanasia Commission suggests the slippery slope of who meets the criteria for legal euthanasia is becoming even more slippery. Dr. Ledo Vanopdenbosch sent his resignation letter to members of the Belgian Parliament who oversee the commission. His concern was with one of the main requirements of the law, which demands that the individual patient formally request euthanasia. Vanopdenbosch claims euthanasia occurred on a psychiatric patient without his or her request. His resignation has generated substantial concern not only because Vanopdenbosch is a committee member but also because he is considered a strong advocate of euthanasia. Here is the AP article in Voice of America with the details.

One of the main tasks of the Belgium Euthanasia Commission is to review every euthanasia case to make sure each case meets the legal criteria necessary for euthanasia. Any case in doubt is referred to the public prosecutor’s office. It is perhaps telling that in the last 15 years since legalization of euthanasia in Belgium, over 10,000 individuals have been euthanized but only one case has been referred to prosecutors by the commission with the concern that it may have been performed illegally. Vanopdenbosch argues that the commission is acting in place of the courts, a potential conflict of interest given that those on the commission are generally considered strong supporters of euthanasia. In addition to the slippery slope metaphor used earlier, one might also add that the foxes are guarding the henhouse.

An internal review of this particular case resulted in the committee claiming that what really happened was an accidental death related to palliative care rather than actual involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia, as is claimed by Vanopdenbosch. The general population will never know, as commission protocol and privacy concerns prevent the details of the case from ever reaching the light of day. In absence of further details, one wonders whether the alleged palliative care for the unknown psychiatric condition was formally requested by an otherwise competent patient or just provided absent his or her formal consent but “in his or her best interest” by the patient’s physician or caregivers.

It is presently unknown whether or not Dr. Vanopdenbosch’s resignation will result in any changes in the structure, function or transparancy of Belgium’s Euthanasia Committee. At the very least, one would expect to see an increase in referrals to the public prosecutor’s office for legal oversight. It is simply unbelievable that the committee has only encountered one case out of 10,000 cases that they found sufficiently suspect to refer to prosecutors for legal review. Perhaps more importantly, I want to believe that even those supporting euthanasia would be against all forms of non-voluntary euthanasia, particularly involuntary euthanasia. Sadly, I am naive. In our post-modern world, how can any death be a “good death” unless, at the very least, the competent patient in question so stipulates?

(For an excellent recent YouTube interview containing a brief history of euthanasia, please see this link of an interview with Dr. Richard Weikart, Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus. Some highlights: at 10:40 where he touches on Belgium and psychiatric euthanasia, at 19:00 where he discusses the slippery slope argument, and at 21:30 regarding non-voluntary euthanasia)

DIY CRISPR Kits – Gene Editing for the Rest of Us

One might think with the amazing advance of technology and easy access to nearly infinite data via the Internet that we, as a society, would see a reduction in false claims of benefit for novel medical procedures and untested medications. Sadly, it seems to be just the opposite. I seem to be spending gradually more time with my patients reviewing the results of their internet research for new solutions for their chronic back pain. Their efforts are laudable even though the “hoped for” benefits claimed in their researched solutions are woefully lacking. Unfortunately, often this exercise in reviewing the outside data takes valuable time away from the remainder of the office visit.

Reviewing false or confusing information is one thing but preventing patients from self-experimentation with untested medications or unproven treatments is another. Enter the biohacker and companies offering do-it-yourself (DIY) kits claiming to allow anyone to experiment with CRISPR (a method of genetic editing) for self-administration. Emily Mullin covers biohacking and DIY CRISPR very nicely in her recent article in the December Technology Review. To me, this has the feel of the 1980s when a curious kid with some basic programming knowledge, an inexpensive computer and a modem can access previously forbidden government systems, potentially unleashing havoc on the rest of us (WarGames, anyone?) After all, now that we know the human genetic code, all we need is for someone to just provide the instructions and tools for editing that code, then anyone could tweak their own DNA. Easy peasy lemon squeezy, right?

Recently, the FDA has been busy trying to prevent medical clinics from administering untested stem cell treatments (see Neil Skjoldal’s recent November blog entry on (Stem Cell Clinics & the FDA). Imagine the significant increase in the scope of the regulatory problem if individuals can order a DIY CRISPR kit off the Internet!

While we might chagrin at the naiveté required to believe the street-side pitch of the Old West Carter’s Little Liver Pill salesman, that same pitch via a modern tech savvy YouTube video (complete with separate internet links) somehow offers a new level of legitimacy. The Technology Review article speculated that one of the featured companies was preparing not a vaccine but a treatment for herpes. In less than 8 weeks from the article’s publication, Aaron Traywick, CEO of Ascendance Biomedical, publically self-injected himself with his firm’s untested and non-FDA approved “treatment” for herpes. The linked article by Reegan Von Wildenradt in the popular magazine Men’sHealth offered an excellent counter as to why this type of “science” might be suspect, including quotes from ethicist Arthur L. Caplan at NYU in support of the standard FDA process for screening medical treatments.

We often lament in this blog that technology is advancing so rapidly that we fail to have a fair public hearing and discussion of the ethics involved in a particular biomedical advance. Now it seems our time may be better spent speaking out first about the basic risks of the new technology and doing our best to support the FDA in their massive task of policing the Internet to prevent a DIY CRISPR kit from falling into the wrong hands – ours.

P.S. – I’m accepting names for the title of the future Hollywood blockbuster where the son of Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy injects himself with his own DIY CRISPR-modified DNA and …

Citizenship, Surrogacy and the Power of ART

A recent LA Times article by Alene Tchekmedyian explores a complicated case involving birthright citizenship, surrogacy and same-sex marriage. Briefly, a California man, Andrew Banks, married an Israeli man, Elad Dvash, in 2010. At the time, same-sex marriage was not legal in the US leaving Elad unable to acquire a green card for residency (via the marriage) so the couple moved to Canada where Andrew has dual citizenship. While in Canada, the couple conceived twin boys, Aiden and Ethan, using assisted reproduction technology (ART) whereby eggs from an anonymous donor were fertilized by sperm from Elad and Andrew and then implanted within the womb of a female surrogate and carried to term. When the US Supreme Court struck down the federal law that denied benefits to legally married gay couples in 2013, Elad applied for and was granted his greed card. The present controversy occurred when Andrew and Elad applied for US passports for the twins. US State Department officials required detailed explanation of the boys’ conception, eventually requiring DNA tests which confirmed Aiden to be the biological son of Andrew and Ethan to be the biological son of Elad. Aiden was granted a US passport while Ethan was denied. The family has since traveled to the US (Elad with his green card and Ethan with his Canadian passport and temporary 6 month visa) where they are now suing the State Department for Ethan’s US birthright citizenship. They are arguing that the current applicable statute places them wrongly in the category of children born out of wedlock rather than recognizing their marriage, thus discriminating against them as a binational LGBTQ couple.

Birthright citizenship is a complicated legal arena and I am no lawyer. The US is even more complicated because we allow birthright citizenship to be conferred jus soli (right of the soil) in addition to jus sanguinis (right of blood). The twins were not born in the US so establishing “bloodline” is needed. The law specifies conditions where one parent is a US citizen and one is not a US citizen, and there is further differentiation depending on whether the children of the US citizen were born in or out of wedlock. They also vary depending on whether the US citizen is male or female, with the law more lenient (easier to acquire citizenship) for the child of a woman than of a man.

While the legal challenge here will almost certainly involve potential issues of discrimination of LGBTQ binational couples, the problem is really with the current legal definitions of parent as it relates to surrogacy in general. The State Department actually has a website dedicated answering questions related to foreign surrogacy and citizenship. The real issue is that the State Department relies upon genetic proof of parentage for foreign surrogacy births. In the present case, the surrogacy occurred outside the US, Elad is the genetic father of Ethan and Elad is not a US citizen; therefore Ethan is not a US citizen. While I’m deep in the weeds here, technically, Aiden and Ethan are not fraternal twins in the usual sense but rather half siblings (and this assumes that the donor eggs are from the same woman; otherwise the boys would be unrelated despite sharing the same pregnant womb through the magic of ART). Had Ethan been physically born via surrogacy in the US, he would have acquired his citizenship via jus soli (see US map for surrogacy friendly states near you).

This problem is just as confounding for heterosexual couples using foreign surrogates, and the problem is global. A more detailed technical legal discussion may be found here. A heterosexual couple using donor eggs and donor sperm and using a foreign third party surrogate would have exactly the same problem establishing US citizenship for “their” child. A similar problem would exist for an adopted embryo gestated in a foreign country by a foreign surrogate. If either the egg or the sperm of the US citizen is used for the surrogate birth, the child would be granted birthright citizenship.

The main difference for homosexual couples is that only one spouse can presently be the biological parent. I say “presently” because with ART it is theoretically possible (and may become actually possible in the future) to convert a human somatic cell into either a male sperm or a female egg. At that point, both spouses within a same-sex marriage could be the biological parents of their child. The present legal issue is not the result of a cultural prejudice against anyone’s sexuality but with the biological prejudice of sex itself. ART has the potential ability to blur the categories of sex as culture is now blurring the categories of gender. Should we consider this a good thing?

Given the present technological limits of ART, the simple issue of US citizenship could be resolved in all these cases if the US citizen parent simply adopted the child. Elad correctly points out that while adoption of Ethan by Andrew would grant Ethan US citizenship, it would not grant Ethan birthright citizenship, a necessary requirement for Ethan to someday run for US president. ART may be forcing us to look at changing our definition of parent but should it change our definition of biology? Ethan is the biological son of Elad. He is able to be the legally adopted son of Andrew and enjoy the benefits of US citizenship as currently does his half brother Aiden. He is not able to become the biological son of Andrew and enjoy the additional benefit of birthright citizenship via jus sanguinis.

Should we change the definition of birthright citizenship because ART is changing our definition of parent?

Will Medical Compliance Ever Become Non-Voluntary?

A recent article by Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum in the New England Journal of Medicine explored both the benefits and drawbacks of Digital Adherence Monitoring. The focus was on the FDA’s recent approval of Abilify MyCite, a medicine technology that combines the medication aripiprazole, used to treat various psychiatric diseases such as schizophrenia, certain features of bipolar disorder and depression, with a digital ingestion tracking system. This voluntary digital health feedback system (DHFS) works by having the patient wear a skin patch that is triggered when the pill contacts the acid in the stomach. This event is then recorded and tracked on the patient’s smartphone. The patient can then permit their caregivers and/or physicians to access the data via a web portal. The company responsible for the DHFS, Proteus, has shown improvement in patient’s systolic blood pressure using DHFS compared with standard care. The article primarily focuses on using the technology to help doctors work with their patients to determine the reasons for non-compliance.

While this presently voluntary technology obviously can track pill ingestion and this data can certainly help doctors and patients improve medication treatment adherence, I wondered about non-voluntary uses of the technology. This particular DHFS confirms that the prescribed pill was actually ingested regardless of what the patient or their caregiver may claim. Would an insurance company be permitted to have access to this data in exchange for payment for a particularly expensive medication? Could a government agency require such a system in exchange for providing coverage for a patient for a procedure whose subsequent outcome is improved with the use a given medication?

Dr. Rosenbaum offered in her article that she thought it unethical to withhold coronary artery bypass from one of her patients with whom she was fairly certain would not subsequently take the dual antiplatelet therapy post revascularization. Using a DHFS eliminates mere suspicion. Prematurely discontinuing of thienopyridine therapy (antiplatelet drugs such as Effient, Ticlid, or Plavix) after a similar cardiac stent placement has been shown to increase the risk of both re-hospitalization and death within the subsequent 12-month period. Given the success of the Proteus DHFS in reducing systemic high blood pressure, mandating this DHFS to monitor antiplatelet therapy immediately post cardiac stent placement should reduce both patient morbidity and mortality during the following 12-month period.

A consequentialist in charge of public health care expenditures might disagree with Dr. Rosenbaum regarding the ethics of providing a revascularization procedure in an individual who is poorly compliant with beneficial post-procedure medication compliance. Bluntly, why spend the money if the patient (for whatever reason) is going to act in a manner to reduce the benefit of her procedure? Thankfully, money is not the only healthcare utility worth measuring and economists are not yet fully in charge of healthcare delivery, though they appear to have an ever increasingly important seat at the table.

So, I think DHFS technologies such as Abilify MyCite will slowly become non-voluntary.