November 2008
What's That in Your Christmas Stocking?
Planned Parenthood of Indiana is giving out a holiday gift that has some people outraged. What possibly in the season of giving could have Hoosiers so upset?
According to a news report out of Evansville, Indiana, $25 gift certificates are being handed out by the organization this holiday season which women can use for yearly checkups or one's chosen birth control method. This gift is raising the ire of pro-lifers in Indiana who say that Planned Parenthood is making a "mockery" of Christmas by promoting the destruction of life.
Shame on you, Planned Parenthood of Indiana, for making reproductive health a little easier in these difficult financial times and for not leaving it to the pro-life community to determine what the appropriate "stocking stuffers" for women should be this holiday. I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of uninsured women who need access to reproductive services in Indiana will be sending you a lump of coal for your stocking as well.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Graffiti Begets More Graffiti, But What Do Clean Hands Get You?
Last week, the Economist reported on two contradictory stories: the first reaffirmed the decades old "broken windows" theory which suggests that neighborhoods with broken windows or graffiti in this case results in more crime, unrest, and general bad behavior than neighborhoods that are well-kept, while the second article reports on research from the University of Plymouth that suggests that hand washers are less likely to see unethical behavior as such.
So what does this study out of the University of Plymouth really suggest? That clean hands can mask a dirty soul? That cleanliness bears no relationship to morality? Perhaps really, understanding of morality is really all just in the mind--as this research suggests. Study subjects asked to unscramble words such as "clean" and "pure" as opposed to those with random words were statistically significantly more likely to find it morally acceptable to eat the family dog!
It is interesting that moral suggestion would also appear to be at work for the "broken windows" theory. Living in a world of graffiti and broken windows gives one the suggestion that engaging in such behavior or being satisfied with such conditions is okay.
Further research must be done to understand the ways in which our minds work and to understand exactly why one's environment or other exposures can persuade oneself to accept graffiti and violence, washing one's hands, and finding it acceptable to eat the family's pet. Thankfully, only one of those three is something that is morally acceptable in our society.
Summer Johnson, PhD
(Thanks to Art Caplan for the tip on this story.)
Stick with the Turkey, Stay Away from the Chicken
Researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health have reported that those giant trucks flying down the highway with chickens stacked many crates high are actually a hazard to our health. According to HealthDay News (via the Washington Post), these tractor-trailer trucks full of chicken and, um, the things they leave behind are filled with bacteria that can cause infections.
So keep your distance on your Thanksgiving road trip or next vacation, that truck of chickens could be quite hazardous to your health.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Anyone Have a Spare Kidney to Sell?
Thanks to a tip from Christopher MacDonald from his Business Ethics Blog, we've learned that the sale of live kidneys will be permitted in Singapore thanks to new legislation just passed there.
The rationale? Donors should be compensated for their time and effort, but not to be induced into donating. It's hard to imagine, however, how a five or six figure sum, as reported in the Straits Times, could not be an inducement for those who are at a financial disadvantage and need the cash.
McDonald says that, in spite of himself, he has come to support organ markets. It is true that the current system is not producing enough organs for those who need them--demand far outstrips supply. But I have been more than reluctant to embrace payment for any nation or for any reason out of concern for inducement and the lack of truly informed consent when organ procurement becomes a business. For now, we should rely on altruism until the data suggest from bioethics research that persons, regardless of their socioeconomic status, can sell an organ in a market and be free of inducement and that money doesn't change people's minds about how essential their second kidney is.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Is it Bad to Ration? Callahan Says No.
In the NYT health blog, the New Old Age, Jane Gross blogs about Dan Callahan's recent commentary on the virtues of rationing healthcare, particularly for the Medicare system.
As Gross notes, not only did Callahan write an intriguing and provocative essay, but readers of the column viscerally responded to Callahan's claims. And contrary to popular opinion, the readers voiced support for cost-containment (the fancy way of saying the evil R-word, rationing).
Americans willing to trade away some of their instant gratification and greediness about health care services for the greater good of the Medicare system. Who would have guessed that?
Summer Johnson, PhD
Is Art Caplan One of the Smartest People on the Planet?
Discovering Minds Want to Know...
Check out this update from the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics noting that Arthur Caplan has been recognized by Discover Magazine. The article is below.
Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the Center for Bioethics, was named to Discover Magazine's "Smartest People on the Planet" list, which includes picks "from genius kids and rising stars to unsung heroes and self-styled outsiders." Caplan was named among the list's ten most "Influentials," alongside Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, former NIH Director Harold Varmus and U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski.
ARTHUR CAPLAN BIOETHICIST UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
NAVIGATING THE MINEFIELD OF BIOETHICS
Remember when in vitro fertilization, which has produced millions of babies, was controversial? Today's medical breakthroughs, from genetically engineering animals to rewiring the human brain, pose moral and social dilemmas every bit as divisive, providing grist for Arthur Caplan as he weighs in on the future of science.
Caplan has sorted through the ethical traps of science for the United Nations, the National Institutes of Health, the president of the United States, and the Olympics and has written or edited more than 30 books and 500 articles on ethics in biomedicine. He has guided us through such issues as the organ donor market (he opposed the sale of
kidneys to the highest bidder), the Terri Schiavo case (he opposed government intervention to keep her alive), and the stem cell wars (he supports embryonic stem cell research). Although he sometimes loses battles against politicians, he often succeeds in swaying public opinion, which in the end may be his proudest achievement.
Caplan has played a singular role in "democratizing bioethics," says James Hughes, executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. "His tireless work translating philosophical debates into understandable ideas, along with his being accessible to the media, has helped millions of people around the world develop more
informed opinions about health care and biotechnology. As a champion of accountable government regulation, universal health care, and individual liberty, he has applied the values of the Enlightenment to the 21st century.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Brain Ethics Comes to the Nation's Capital
This Thursday and Friday, November 13th and 14th, the Neuroethics Society will meet in Washington DC at the AAAS Headquarters.
According to Martha Farah, Communications and Membership Director of the Society, in 2005 it occurred to a number of ethics and neuroscience types that the occasional meeting or special issue of a journal was not enough to sustain the perennial issues that were beginning to arise out of neuroscience research and clinical neuroscience practice.
Those first visionaries who met in 2005 to imagine a future Neuroethics Society became the Executive Committee and planned to have the first annual meeting in 2008.
Well, folks, that meeting is now here, starting today in Washington and will host approximately 400 members of the society who love to just talk about brains and the ethical issues they raise. The Society is supported by the Dana Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation and we are proud to announce that AJOB-Neuroscience is now the official journal of the Society.
So all of you who love to image brains, slice them, put brains in vats, or anything else related to neurons in any place or time, check out the Neuroethics Society and stay tuned for developments regarding their annual meeting and the Society itself.
Summer Johnson, PhD
"Odd" Baby Play = Autism?
A recent study published by the UC Davis MIND Institute has found that infants who repetitively play with toys by spinning them or rattling them or who look at objects out of the corners of their eyes at one year of age are more likely than those who don't to be diagnosed with autism, says the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
What is troubling is not the finding itself, but the idea that these results might encourage parents to become hyper-vigilant about their infant's play behaviors, perhaps even to the point of unnecessary worry for the parents. Moreover, at one year of age, there do not exist the treatment interventions to begin caring for autistic children or those on the spectrum in the same way for those with later diagnoses. Adding a screening test of this kind at this point--without having established that there are effective treatment modalities for children diagnosed at this age--would unnecessarily worry parents and provide them with no viable treatment options.
Suggesting, as the investigators in this study did, that this indicator should be "added to a parent's checklist" for monitoring their child's development seems ill-advised--at least at this point. Even if it is the case that the brain is more plastic at younger ages, nothing in this study suggests that we know that the same methods that work on a 24-month or 36-month old will work on a 9-month or 12-month old. The same measures for language development, responses to stimuli, and other measures cannot be the same at these dramatically different developmental stages for infants.
While this finding is interesting in and of itself that the same behaviors evidenced later in life in children with autism are sometimes present earlier in life, the results of this study do not do anything to suggest that earlier diagnosis will result in accurate diagnosis, better treatment or better outcomes for those ending their first year of life and who may be potentially at risk for developing autism.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Crestor for All?
It turns out that not just the high cholesterol crowd benefits from the use of anti-cholesterol medications, in this case Crestor, says Bloomberg. Recent studies have shown that the risk of heart attack, stroke, and death is cut almost by half by the use of these drugs by those well within the normal range for blood cholesterol.
The hypothesis is, of course, that widespread use of these drugs for all adults might result in a dramatic reduction of heart-related morbidity and mortality and have called for some researchers to (jokingly?) ask, "Should we put it in the water?", says Bloomberg.
The problem with the universal prescription of statins as a public health measure to prevent heart problems and other issues seems both unlikely and foolhardy. Why rush to promote a drug that is incredibly costly for those who cannot get it covered by health insurance when there are cost-free alternatives to lowering cholesterol for most healthy adults including diet modification and exercise? Sure it's easier to pop a Crestor than lay off the cheese nachos, but is it really the best thing for the population overall?
Only future studies will tell us--but for my money, I'd rather spend it on fruits and veggies than a medication to keep cholesterol low. For those who cannot lower blood cholesterol via other methods, statins are a great option. Of course, behavior modification is not easy--but in the long run, nations would be better off promoting healthy behaviors than pumping its citizens full of Crestor.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Caplan on Change Coming for Stem Cells
Arthur Caplan is conjecturing that the battle over stem cells may be coming to an end with the coming Obama administration, on MSNBC.com.
Full-text of the column appears below:
Obama election signals change in stem cell fight
Battles over embryonic research and abortion may be coming to an end
'Change' was the horse that Barack Obama's presidential campaign rode to victory. Indeed the 2008 election will be remembered not only for Obama becoming the first African-American president, but also for its impact on core bioethical topics that have long dominated American domestic politics.
Divisive issues such as abortion bans failed to gain traction on state ballot initiatives, while newer bioethical concerns that are likely to dominate American politics for years to come, including physician-assisted suicide, emerged.
The past eight years of the Bush White House have seen stem cell research and the status of embryos at the center of the moral values debate. Obama's election has brought the fight over embryonic stem cell research in the U.S. to an end.
Loosening stem cell research
The state of Michigan passed Proposal 2, loosening restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. This means that in Michigan -- whose universities such as Michigan State in East Lansing are major biomedical research powerhouses -- scientists will be able to use the excess embryos created at in-vitro fertility clinics as a source of stem cells for research, as long as they have the written consent of the parents who sought treatment.
There are now 10 states that have laws permitting embryonic stem cell research. These 10 are likely to be the recipients of an executive order that the new president will undoubtedly sign shortly after taking office, freeing up federal funds for embryonic stem cell research while laying out new regulatory guidelines.
One of the main arguments against embryonic stem cell research is that all embryos are persons from the moment of conception. The voters of Colorado were given the chance to put that view into law with the proposed Amendment 48. The so-called "Personhood Amendment" sought to define fertilized eggs as human beings, extending them constitutional rights. Coloradoans defeated this amendment by a margin of three to one.
Many, including myself, would argue that the ongoing debate over the morality of stem cell research is really just a stalking horse for the abortion debate. But efforts to further restrict abortion did not fare well at the ballot box, either. California voters rejected a proposition that would have required doctors to notify parents before performing an abortion on a minor. The initiative also would have required a two-day waiting period before minors could get abortions.
In South Dakota a measure that would have banned abortions -- except in cases of rape, incest and serious health threat to the mother -- also lost. An even tougher version, without the rape and incest exceptions, was defeated two years ago. The 2008 initiative went down to a resounding defeat of 55 percent to 45 percent.
Taken all together this series of votes represents an important moment in public bioethics in America. Like it or not -- and I am well aware that many are not ready to let go of these issues -- the nation may be starting to move past the endless battles over stem cells, embryos and abortion. Stem cell research in all forms is proceeding. Embryos are not going to be given legal status as persons. Further restrictions on abortion are unlikely.
There will still be plenty to fight over! The most important topic to emerge from this election is how Americans die and treat painful medical conditions.
Michigan became the 13th state to enact an amendment legalizing marijuana use for medical purposes. Proposal 1 passed by a margin of 63 percent to 37 percent. It allows patients with "debilitating medical conditions" to register with the state and, with the permission of a physician, legally buy, grow and use small amounts of marijuana to relieve pain, nausea and appetite loss, among other symptoms. Massachusetts decriminalized possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, shifting the penalty to a $100 fine.
Help for terminally ill
Americans are clearly telling Washington that they want dying people to have access to whatever helps make that process less burdensome. It will be interesting to see how the new administration grapples with that message. If no one listens, then a much more controversial option may emerge -- physician-assisted suicide.
Perhaps the most startling measure to pass at the state level was in Washington's Initiative 1000, offering terminally ill people the option of physician-assisted suicide. Washington voters decided that adults who are deemed competent and have been given less than six months to live by a physician can legally request and self-administer lethal prescription medicine. The measure passed by a margin of 59 percent to 41 percent.
This surely will not be the last state-level effort to legalize physician-assisted suicide if other policies aimed at minimizing the suffering of the dying are not enacted. While I have my doubts about the wisdom of offering help in ending one's life before offering them health insurance, I suspect it will become a political hot potato in a number of states in the next few years.
An aging population, the increasing cost of medical care and a lack of high-quality palliative and nursing-home care almost guarantee it.
The pundits will spend the next few months analyzing the election, pontificating on what led to the Obama victory and the Democrats taking greater control of Congress. They won't find the answers if they do not pay attention to the clear messages Americans sent concerning critical bioethical questions.
Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.
Veterans Day is a Day To Remember Many Things
Veterans Day provides us with the opportunity to remember and reflect upon what our fellow citizens who have proudly served in the armed services mean to us. For some, it means remembering those who have perished on the battlefield in far away lands. For others, it is a day to be thankful that their friend or loved one made it home from their tour of duty.
But today, there are other important issues for us to consider as we think about how we care for our veterans. First, we must remember that we, as a nation, have committed ourselves to providing care to our veterans through their own healthcare system. It is the only universal healthcare system in the nation providing coverage for all regardless of employment status or other privileges. The system is not perfect, but it is one committed to serving all. That is an American value worth preserving, as our President-Elect has pledged to do by expanding VA health care benefits and increasing the Veterans Affairs budget significantly to support the soldiers coming home from war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In particular, we must remember that there are areas universally acknowledged to be weak within the Veterans Affairs health care system and that it is our duty to remedy them--first through awareness and then through advocacy. The APA has reminded us this Veterans Day that "not all wounds are physical" and has called for greater funding and prioritization of mental health care within the VA system. Indeed, no one can ignore the great number of men and women who have or will soon come home from places of conflict abroad and will need the resources to help them stay mentally, as well as physically, strong.
As US. Representative John Murtha has said this Veterans Day, "honoring our veterans takes more than words." We owe it to all of our living veterans to commit even more to their health and well-being. After the sacrifices these brave men and women have made for our country, it is the least that their country can do for them.
Summer Johnson, PhD
The Brothers Emanuel
So, this isn't news (it originally aired June 16th this year)--but who wouldn't want to watch Ezekiel Emanuel, Chair of the Department of Bioethics at The Clinical Center of the NIH, duke it out with his two brothers, Rahm--soon to be Chief-of-Staff for the Obama administration--and Ari, on whom the unforgettable character Ari Gold of HBO's Entourage is based?
In this conversation they are talking about--you guessed it--healthcare.
Watch the video. You'll laugh. You'll marvel. You'll ask yourself, "So is it genes or environment?" Or maybe you'll wish you could be an Emanuel brother (or sister) and join in on their conversation....
Summer Johnson, PhD
For other Emanuel videos, check out these links.
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/11/7/3/a-rebroadcast-of-a-conversation-with-ezekiel-ari-and-rahm-emanuel
http://gawker.com/5082403/dinner-with-emanuel-family-a-violent-emotionally-scarring-experience
Iran Loves Stem Cells
According to Payvand's Iran News, Iran's Cord Blood Bank has announced that the government of Iran will be investing $2.5 billion over 5 years to study stem cells. Not liberal in regard to much, according to Payvand, Iran is pretty lenient when it comes to stem cell research--even doing embryonic stem cell research which was given approval by Ayatollah Khamenei.
This news report also suggests that the Iranian government will be closer to President-Elect Obama's stem cell policy than President Bush's. As PressTV.com, the source of this report, acknowledges, there exist multiple ethical issues in the debate over stem cell research, even though Muslim clerics acknowledge life begins at three months, thus making embryonic stem cell research possible under Islamic law.
It's good to know that with the arrival of the Obama administration our stem cell research policy will be as liberal as Iran's. (Go figure.) Unfortunately, one has to wonder--with two wars and a floundering economy--whether the US can pony up the same kind of cash Iran has for stem cell research.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Future of Healthcare is Technology
Based on reports from CNet.com, one small part of O'Reilly's Web 2.0 Meeting in San Francisco this week was about the next phase in healthcare--as they call it Health 2.0.
The essentials--lots of people, even more data, and big, bad technology. At the center of it all are innovative ideas that allow individuals to feel as though they are taking control of their health through at home testing (whether for some late-onset genetic condition or cardiovascular disease), whether they actually are taking such control or not. What is remarkable about these companies is not just that they have the potential to effect millions of people's lives is that they also have the potential to conduct enormous research studies using the data of those who buy their tests and to create real-time disease communities online.
Also floated at Web 2.0 was the idea that there could be online user platforms that cut out the need to visit the doctor because nurses and physicians would be there online to chat with you (and presumably see you by your computer's camera). No more long, painful waiting times in an uncomfortable waiting room for patients of the future. Moreover, why even train doctors using human beings at all? As I wrote here on the blog recently, the trend is moving away from human-based medical training to simulators. Web 2.0 experts believe that this trend really is going to stick--just as it did in the airline industry.
Does anyone think that something is missing here? Perhaps the human side of medicine? I mean--where did the people go? Now we can just swab our cheeks at home and get an envelope in the mail a few weeks later with our genetic test results, never need to go to the doctor for a check up, and our own physician gets trained on a computer simulation. Does anyone else worry that the human essence of medicine could get lost in all this advancement and glorious technology promised by Health 2.0?
I do. Even if it's just a tiny worry, which it is, I do.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Parents Don't Sweat the Gene Stuff
According to US News and World Report, a recent study done by researchers from the University of Michigan reports that parents do not overreact to genetic test results for their children, and in fact, treat the data similar to family history.
What do these findings suggest? Predictive genetic testing for children may not result in the kind of psychological or medical harm that many bioethicists have feared if parents just treat it as one more piece of data like Aunt Laverne's breast cancer. In fact, many parents, the study said, feared family history more than genetic test results in regard to what the future holds for their children.
Some data that contradicts the conventional wisdom for sure--but certainly food for thought as well. Certainly not a good reason to recommend genetic tests for children lightly, but also maybe a reason to fear them less than we once did for those under 18.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Michigan to Let Loose on Stem Cells?
Although polling in the weeks before Election Day 2008 did not look promising and there was fierce opposition to Michigan's Proposal 2 to loosen the state's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, I can report that at 1:09 AM on November 5th the stem cell research ballot initiative was leading in the voting 53% YES to 47% NO with 76% of precincts reporting.
At least this is according to Mlive.com's Politics Blog. Sometimes one just can't wait until the daylight hours to make a prediction: Michigan will join the small but growing number of states opening their doors to embryonic stem cells...and the researchers who love to study them.
Some might say this one is "too close to call" like Al Franken dueling against the incumbent Coleman in Minnesota, but I'm throwing my weight behind the voters in Michigan and my hope that they will see that embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility treatment is morally acceptable for the mitten-shaped state.
Here's to embryonic stem cell research in Michigan, Al Franken...and all those races just a little too close to call at 1 AM on the morning after Election Day. If Al could become a senator, then stem cells could be harvested from embryos in Michigan. Change is coming to America.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Consider the Source
The American College of Preventive Medicine has announced via MarketWatch that it will be producing a new CME program to help physicians understand genetic information in the coming era of personalized medicine.
The funds for this project called "Genetic Risk, Screening, and Intervention", come from an "unrestricted grant" from Navigenetics. This company, as described in its own press release, has "the goal of improving health outcomes in individuals across the population" as it "educates and empowers customers with knowledge of their genetic predispositions, and then motivates them to act on the information to prevent the onset of disease, achieve earlier diagnosis, appropriately manage disease, or otherwise lessen its impact." In other words, tell people about the gene mutations they have, teach them about what they mean, and then maybe just maybe they'll do something about it.
That is, of course, there actually IS anything to do about it. Or we really understand what the genetic mutations really mean or that there really is a thing called "genetic disease" that can be so easily identified in many cases like the ones most commonly discussed like breast cancer.
I'm not saying there's anything sinister or even misleading about CME being funded by a personalized genetics company. Nor do I have a problem with Navigenetics specifically versus any other company in this field. From their perspective it makes complete sense to fund CME to teach doctors who know virtually nothing about genetics enough to be able to recommend genetic tests offered by companies just like Navigenetics (and others).
But more than that--just ask yourself--who will ACPM consult with when developing the material? Can someone receiving "unrestricted funds" really forget the hand that feeds them?
Not if they want to continue to receive such monies. Not if they want to continue their relationship with one of a handful of successful companies in the burgeoning markets of the personal genome, genetic testing, and personalized medicine.
So all I ask is: consider the source. Consider who's paying for the materials that are training new and old physicians about what it means to test for genetic disease, to educate patients themselves, and to practice personalized medicine.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Where It Rains, There's Autism.
Recent research reports suggest that children who live in rainier climates are at greater risk of developing autism than those who don't. According to US News & World Report, the study done by researchers at Cornell University have a number of hypotheses including that in rainier spots children stay indoors more and thus they are more likely to be exposed to whatever environmental toxins cause autism. Another possible correlation? Vitamin D deficiency. Or maybe watching too much TV or video games at too young an age when they can't run outside because it's raining cats and dogs.
But whatever the correlation and the conclusion of this study, the point is not to avoid living in places like Seattle, but to begin understanding which of these triggers exist in these places and don't in others in order to rule out certain environmental factors. At some point, the mystery of autism will be solved. Then we won't have to worry about living in moist climes being associated with childhood developmental disorders.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Granny's Got Your Back
When it comes to protecting kids from getting hurt, it turns out that grandmothers know best, according to a recent Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study. As reported in US News and World Report, injuries are cut in half when granny is at the watch as opposed to kids being at day care facilities or any other places.
As opposed to the conventional wisdom, that grandparents aren't as sharp or are too frail to care for young ones--it turns out that perhaps their years of experience dealing with child rearing and having eyes in the back of their head counts for something.
Perhaps these study results should force us to reconsider whether its better to send kids off to daycare or after school programs or to send them to their grandmothers and grandfathers. A little more time with one's elders might not only prevent injury but pass on family values, let the previous generation tell family stories to the next, and all kinds of externalities besides the fact that grandpa won't let Junior fall on his head off the swing set.
And who knows? It just might result in a new generation of children respecting their elders and valuing spending time with their grandparents rather than dreading it--as well as making kids safer too.
Summer Johnson, PhD
Ethics Hits Center Stage at Upcoming Autism Conference
The Interdisciplinary Council on Learning Disorders will hold its Annual Conference next Friday through Sunday (November 7th-9th) highlighting ethical issues in autism. What is remarkable about this is that the creator of the widely acclaimed framework for caring for children with Autism and founder of ICLD, Stanley Greenspan, and Editor-in-Chief of AJOB, Glenn McGee with both be speaking at this conference about the emergent, critical, and rapidly expanding ethical problems associated with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorders).
McGee will specifically speak on the ethical issues in educating children with autism while Greenspan will address an ethical approach to overcoming aggression and misbehavior in schools. (See program for further details.)
Elevating ethical issues in autism is a sign that the fields of bioethics, mental health, education, and others are beginning to connect out of a clear need to draw on as many frameworks as possible to help society cope with the dramatic increase in the number of children diagnosed with autism who will be attending daycare, public and private schools, and colleges, as well as utilizing the healthcare system.
This promises to be an interesting series of talks that hopefully will raise awareness about autism among the bioethics community and about bioethics among the autism community.
Summer Johnson, PhD
