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.

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.

Whose Body?

In 1923, Dorothy L. Sayers published her first mystery featuring Lord Peter Wimsey, entitled Whose Body?  The concern was that an adult body, wearing only a pince-nez, had been found in someone’s bathtub. Whose body was this? Was it the body of a well-known financier, who had recently disappeared? Or was it the body of someone else? Whose deceased body was this?

Slightly less than one hundred years later, the nation that Sayers called home has answered that question. As of Spring, 2020, in England, and a few months later in Scotland, deceased adult bodies are the State’s for purposes of organ procurement – unless they are in an “excluded group” or have registered an “opt out” decision.  The public is currently being assured that organ procurement will not apply to all who die, but only to those whose organs would be in a “usable condition”—primarily those dying in intensive care units or accident and emergency departments.

The law of “deemed consent” applies to all but these excluded groups:

  • Those under the age of 18
  • People who lack the mental capacity to understand the new arrangements and take the necessary action
  • Visitors to England, and those not living here voluntarily
  • People who have lived in England for less than 12 months before their death

The language of “deemed consent” is the iron fist in a velvet glove. According to the National Health Services’ FAQ page:

 If you have not recorded a decision either way and you are not in an      excluded group, your family will be approached and asked if they have any information about your organ donation decision. If no information is available, it will be considered that you consent to donate your organs and your family would be expected to support this.

Although the language of donation is used, gifts are what is “given.” To call what is “taken” or “coerced” a gift is to contort language into misrepresentation.

It is a conundrum the government is trying to solve. Every day, some people needing organ transplants die. Every day, some people with potentially transplantable organs die. Inviting people to decide whether or not they want to be organ donors, and register that decision, seems a reasonable step. But deciding that the government has the right to take organs upon death is overreach. Human organs are not property. We do not “own” our organs. Whether one views human beings as ensouled bodies or embodied souls, human organs are integral to those bodies.  The government did not give the people organs; it is an injustice – to the language and the people – to take human organs and call such “donations.”

Promoting vaccination with a not-too-heavy hand

This week’s Nature has a worthwhile read, “Mandate Vaccination with Care.”    The recent rise in the number of cases of measles is well-documented in the general press, and there is a strong argument that it is a social good that sufficient numbers of children be vaccinated for a range of infectious diseases.  Your correspondent considers it unfortunate, to put it mildly, that there is a persistent belief that vaccines for the standard childhood diseases are harmful.  Although some cases of vaccine harm occur, they are rare—rarer than many in the general public believe—and the cost of under-vaccination is great.  I, for one, never want to see an infant with pertussis (whooping cough) again, and, although I recall having had measles and chicken pox when I was a kid, it’s best to prevent them.  Some can even be eradicated (see: smallpox—which we should fervently hope is never purposely re-introduced, now that we don’t routinely vaccinate for it). 

In brief, the authors in this case argue for promoting vaccination in the public with such steps as ensuring supply and access, providing information and allowing public forums, monitoring safety carefully, and tracking vaccination rates.  They argue, reasonably, that mandatory vaccination that carries the wrong kind of penalties—such as, fines or even jail sentences imposed in some countries—for non-compliance actually can harm poorer, medically underserved people, and as such be counterproductive and, frankly, unfair.  They comment that harsh mandates can unnecessarily prompt a backlash, with increased resistance.

They say, further, that if mandates are deemed “politically appropriate,” then the procedures should be just, with constraints on choice as limited as possible; any penalties must be proportionate; those who do suffer complications should be adequately compensated.   They speak favorably of creating administrative hurdles to getting exemptions from mandates.  They also argue against governments mandating only some vaccines while excluding others.  They claim that making some vaccines only “recommended” can limit the uptake of all. 

This last point may be the most questionable of all in this article.  It is easier to justify mandating vaccination for highly contagious diseases that can have devastating effect (e.g. measles, rubella, diptheria, and others), than, for example, vaccination for human papilloma virus (HPV), infection with which predisposes to certain kinds of cancer but transmission of which is through sexual activity.  In this last case, the argument for a mandate is substantially weaker; vaccination at a fairly young age might be wise, but one might still reasonably accept, for oneself or one’s child, the less certain and more remote risks of the consequences of infection, and therefore reasonably object to mandated vaccination.

Again, a worthwhile read. >

Should Abortion be a Trivial Event?

A recent NEJM Perspective by Drs. Jane Henney and Helene Gayle is calling for reduction in the current restrictions on Mifepristone, previously better known as RU-486. Mifepristone, a progesterone blocker, which effectively opens the cervix of the uterus, when combined with misoprostol, which promotes contractions of the uterus, forms the two-pill combination marketed as Plan C – an effective, safe, self-administered home medical abortion. Arguing that the drug has been shown to be far safer than originally thought, and because many US women are accessing foreign internet sources of potentially suspect quality Mifepristone, Drs. Henney and Gayle are encouraging the FDA to make the drug available from regular US pharmacies rather than at special medical/surgical clinics from a restricted set of doctors as it is presently distributed.

At the time of its initial FDA approval in 2000, it was unknown whether mifepristone would have a high risk of excessive bleeding or incomplete abortions so it was approved under FDA Subsection H, which required that the drug be dispensed directly from a physician (rather than a pharmacy) who can provide blood transfusion or surgical abortion. Drs. Henney and Gayle argue that numerous studies since 2000 support that this level of restriction is unnecessary. This is not to say that the risks of Mifepristone are zero but rather, as one of their arguments goes, there are many other medications available from a pharmacy via prescription that have higher risks so why single out Mifepristone? They are not specifically calling for the medication to become “over-the-counter” (meaning available without prescription) but they list other countries where this is the case.

Their concern about the ease of obtaining Mifepristone (or Plan C) over the Internet is not exaggerated. A quick search of the Internet shows one advocate website called plancpills.org providing a report card where their own secret shoppers grade various Internet sites offering Mifepristone for sale. Another popular site called AidAccess.org offers an informative video, telemedicine consultation as well as foreign sourced Mifepristone and this site is presently one of the least expensive sources of the drug.

One of the statistics offered in support of abortion, especially medication-based abortion such as Plan C, is that these processes are safer for women from a morbidity and mortality standpoint than actually being pregnant, particularly the labor and delivery of birthing a baby. Of course, it (always) goes without saying that the same processes are nearly universally fatal for the baby. But, for arguments where the morbidity and mortality of the child are excluded, abortion, particularly medication-based abortion, has become a relatively safe process.

I have no doubt that the present restrictions by the FDA on access to Mifepristone will be reduced for the reasons Drs. Henney and Gayle have provided, perhaps eventually to point of making Plan C available over the counter.

Abortion is becoming a trivial event.

Abortion kills a human being.

Killing a human being should not become a trivial event.

Parental responsibility in childhood immunizations

Last week I wrote about the issue of parental responsibility and medical decision-making for children. We have good reasons for having parents be the primary decision makers for children who are not capable of making their own medical decisions. However, as I discussed in the last post, there are some situations in which parents make decisions that are not in the best interest of their child. When those decisions reach the point at which the child’s life is in danger, society clearly has a moral obligation to intervene to save the life of the child.

Parental refusal of recommended immunizations for their children raises similar issues but is more complex. We can clearly demonstrate that it is in a child’s best interest to receive at least most of the commonly recommended immunizations for children. Those immunizations help to prevent a child being affected by diseases that can be serious and have a very low risk for serious adverse effects. However, the chance of an individual child being affected by many of these diseases is relatively small and the situation is quite different from a child whose life is in immediate danger due to a parental refusal of treatment. Since the risk to an individual child is relatively small and there is some possible risk to the child from receiving the immunization, it is not clear that a parent who refuses immunizations for a child is being negligent in the same way as a parent who refuses treatment for a life-threatening illness. It can be argued that the best way to deal with this type of situation is education. Many times, parents refuse immunizations for their children because of misconceptions about the risks and a lack of understanding of the benefits of doing the immunizations. It can be difficult to counter widespread misconceptions, but physicians have the responsibility of trying to do that the best that we can. However, this is not the only issue involved in determining whether society has an obligation to intervene and mandate childhood immunizations when parents refuse.

Immunizations are unique in the way that they work. They help protect the individual who is immunized, but they also help protect the community as a whole when we can achieve sufficient levels of immunity to halt the spread of an infectious disease within the community. This is sometimes called herd immunity. We have an excellent example of how this works with the current measles outbreak in the United States. Measles happens to be one of the most easily transmittable infectious diseases that we know of. It also can be deadly in a small percentage of the people who acquire the disease. It is also primarily a disease of children and is transmitted by children. When about 97% of children have been immunized in a community the disease will not be transmitted through that community and those who have not been immunized or cannot be immunized are protected from acquiring the disease. This level of immunity was accomplished in the United States about 20 years ago and for some time the only cases of measles that were seen in the United States were cases that originated elsewhere. However, because of parents refusing to have their children immunized for measles in significant numbers in some parts of the country, herd immunity is no longer present and we are having outbreaks of measles this year that are more than we have seen in 20 years.

That raises a different question. Should we mandate immunization of children for diseases such as measles and override parental decision-making not solely for the benefit of the children whose parents refuse to have them immunized but for the common good of the community? There are some children and other individuals who cannot be immunized or for whom immunizations would not be effective who are put at increased risk when herd immunity is not achieved in the community. This makes the decision about whether to immunize a child not just a decision about what is best for that child but also a decision about what is best for the community. For Christian parent it makes the decision about whether to immunize a child a decision about love of neighbor. Immunizing one’s own child helps to protect the child, but it also helps to protect the most vulnerable in the community. If we truly love our neighbor, we should do that even if there is a small risk to our own child. The final question is whether we as a society should require children to be immunized for these diseases when a parent is not willing to authorize it out of either concern for the best interest of the child or concern for those who are vulnerable in the community.

Measles: When does Screening, Quarantining and/or Vaccination become Mandatory?

As this linked PBS NewsHour interview between Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Judy Woodruff reports, the number of new cases of measles in the US has reached nearly 700, which is the highest number of new cases since measles was supposedly eliminated in 2000. The video is short and provides a quick review of the current causes of the outbreak and suggested steps one can take to mitigate future personal and family risks of contracting the disease. The reason for this being the subject of this bioethics blog is to touch on the ethical tensions between personal autonomy and utilitarian public health calculations regarding the recent measles outbreak.

So what is the problem with getting measles in the first place? Measles is a highly contagious viral respiratory disease. Simply being in the same room with someone with the disease can lead to becoming infected. In its milder form, the disease results in fever, runny nose, ear infection and a classic spotted red skin rash. In its more severe form, it can cause a severe pneumonia requiring hospitalization, deafness, lifelong brain damage and even death. Children under 5 years of age are at particular risk. A common two-stage vaccine called MMR is available that successfully immunizes 97% of those that receive it. It is given at age one and again around age 5.

The benefits of the immunization are two-fold. The first is direct personal protection against contracting the disease if you receive the vaccination and are one of the 97% of individuals who gain future immunity against the measles virus. The second is something called herd immunity. If enough people are immunized (experts estimate “enough” to be between 95-97% of the population), then even people who cannot be immunized, such as infants less than one year of age or individuals whose immune systems are compromised, are still somewhat protected from contracting the disease. This is because new measles cases from “outside the herd” are severely limited in their ability to spread to the small number of non-immunized people within the largely immunized herd. The immunized people effectively act as a physical barrier to protect the non-immunized people. Problem solved, right?

To quote my favorite ESPN College Gameday commentator coach Lee Corso: “Not so fast, my friend”. The measles vaccine is not completely risk-free. Minor side effects include fever, rash and local injection site infections. Much less common but more severe reactions include seizures and rare deaths from severe allergic reactions. In the late 1990s, the British medical journal Lancet published a study by Andrew Wakefield positing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. This study was later proven to be a completely falsified claim and Wakefield was completely discredited, though some parents still use the original study to argue against vaccinating their children.

If the vaccine were completely risk-free, there would be no logical or ethical reason not to receive the vaccination. If everyone who could take the vaccine did so, herd immunity from a public health standpoint would be at its maximum, protecting the remainder of individuals unable to receive or benefit from the vaccine. The current measles outbreak argues that either we are not properly screening or quarantining new cases of measles at the point of entry to the US or our herd immunity may be breaking down (or some combination of the above).

So, at your next social function, after you have debated your usual political concerns or dismay at your favorite NFL football team’s shocking choice in the recent NFL draft, settle in to a potentially more meaningful discussion around the ethics of personal autonomy versus public health policy regarding mandatory measles screening, quarantining and vaccination. Suggested sub-topics might include:

• Is it fair for those who are able to vaccinate but choose not to vaccinate to freely rely on the herd immunity of those that do vaccinate?
• How public should one’s vaccination or immunity status be to avoid quarantine?
• What reasons are reasonable to choose not to immunize?
• Would it be fair to deny public (or private) insurance coverage for treating the measles if one chose not to take the vaccine?

Are pharmaceutical companies responsible for the opioid crisis?

Recently a major pharmaceutical company settled a lawsuit with the state of Oklahoma for $270 million. The state had alleged that the company’s marketing of OxyContin had helped to fuel the opioid epidemic in the state. Pharmaceutical companies in general do some things that are very good and have many times had some questionable practices. Some of their pricing and marketing practices are morally questionable, but it seems to me that it is the role of the FDA to evaluate those marketing practices and discipline pharmaceutical companies when they market inappropriately.

It does not seem to me that states suing pharmaceutical companies is an appropriate way to deal with the opioid crisis. The problem of what we used to call narcotic addiction has been around for centuries. It has been a problem long before any modern pharmaceutical companies existed. Whether the narcotic being abused was opium, morphine, heroin, or prescription pain pills the primary driver of narcotic addiction has always been hopelessness and despair. This is true whether it involved the opium dens in China or the slums of London, heroin addiction in the inner cities of the US or opioid abuse by the rural poor of states like Oklahoma or Indiana (where I practice). Supply plays a role in which narcotics are abused, but the underlying problem is a social and spiritual one.

There are many factors that go into the hopelessness and desire to escape that underlies narcotic addiction. One factor is economic. People who are unable to find work to support themselves and have no hope of being able to do so may turn to narcotics to escape. Those who are wounded by broken families and have no hope of being able to find the wholesome family relationships they desire frequently turn to alcohol and drug abuse. It would make as much sense to sue those who have contributed to these economic and social conditions as it would to sue pharmaceutical companies. Should states sue manufacturers who have yielded to economic pressures and have left empty factories scattered around our country while they profit from manufacturing goods overseas? Should they sue musicians who glorified drug abuse in their songs and modeled that in their behavior? Should they sue the entertainment industry that has promoted sexual immorality and the breakdown of families? Should they sue both state and federal legislators who have created a welfare system that promotes dependence and generational poverty?

I do not think that this is the answer. There are many things in our society that have helped to promote the increase in drug abuse that we are dealing with today. It will take all of us working together voluntarily to impact this crisis. Churches, businesses, physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and government at the local, state, and federal level will all need to work together to help reduce the hopelessness and despair that underlies the current opioid epidemic. Research and treatment like what will be funded by the settlement of the Oklahoma lawsuit is needed, but working on the underlying problem of hopelessness and despair is essential. Local churches have the potential to impact that most effectively without needing to sue anyone.

Summarizing ethical issues with heritable human gene editing

By Jon Holmlund

A brief recap of reasons why we should not pursue heritable human gene editing:

It seems unlikely that risks to immediately-treated generations can be predicted with the accuracy we currently and reasonably expect from human subject research and medical practice.

Risks to later generations, that is, to the descendants of edited people, would be incalculable, and the informed consent of those later generations would be unobtainable.

To allow heritable gene editing even in the uncommon cases of untreatable, devastating genetic illness is to place too much faith in the ability of human providence to identify, and human behavior to observe, firm boundaries on its eventual use. 

Eventual use will become unavoidably subject to a eugenic approach in which the key decision will be what sort of people do we want, what sort of people should be allowed to receive life.

There will be no end to the disagreement over what edits should be permitted, and to the vilification of those considered to have been illegitimately edited, from those who object to their existence, perceived unfair advantage, or other characteristic.

Human populations will become stratified into the “edited” and the natural, introducing deep new justice concerns.  The main issue will be not will humans be gene-edited, but what should be the social status of those who are. 

To reduce heritable human gene editing to a reliable practice requires submitting it to the paradigm of manufacturing, as in drug development, with children seen as quality-controlled products of choice, not gifts of procreation.   To develop the practice, a “translational model,” again analogous to drug development, is necessary, with human embryos serving as raw materials, and, of necessity, a large, indeterminate number created and destroyed solely for development purposes, for the benefit of other humans yet to be born, and of those who would raise them.

Quite possibly, the translational model will demand great license on the extent to which embryos and fetuses may be experimented on; to wit, longer and longer gestations, followed by abortion of later and later stage, to further verify the success of the editing process.

In the extreme situation, the degree of editing may change the human organism in ways that will create a “successor” species to homo sapiens whose nature and desirability cannot be reasonably envisioned at this time.  In the extreme situation.

Even granting that this last scenario may never really arrive in ways that fiction writers can easily imagine, the other reasons should be enough that we simply don’t move heritable gene editing forward.

National Public Radio recently reported on the gene editing of human embryos—one day old—in the laboratory, in an attempt to correct and eliminate the inherited cause of blindness, retinitis pigmentosa.  The end is laudable.  The means is not.  We should not race ahead without considering why, first.  Then, we should not move ahead, but seek alternate means to the medical ends.

Edited embryos should not be created and brought to term—certainly not now, and I would say, not ever.  To be outraged over the former but not the laboratory creation of edited embryos is insufficient.  Both are outrages, although outrage over the recently-claimed birthing of edited babies in China is real, not “faux,” as one reaction held.  Still, the authors of that reaction are correct that one’s condemnation of the China event somehow justifies the laboratory work.  It does not. One last point: The Economist carried an essay decrying the birth of the edited twins in China as a case of “ethical dumping,” the practice of carrying out human subject research that would be disallowed in the West in other, perhaps less advanced (although China is certainly not backward), nations with fewer ethical scruples.  A valid point—but not one to cloak oneself in, while trying to justify the efforts to edit humans in ways that can be passed on from generation to generation.