Search


 
 
Blog : Displaying 994-997 of 1209


What makes surrogacy like military service?

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on April 4th, 2008


The unexpected finding in Newsweek's cover story about surrogacy in the U.S. is the preponderance of military wives among the women who sign up to carry and bear other people's babies: "IVF clinics and surrogate agencies in Texas and California say military spouses make up 50 percent of their carriers."

As the article makes clear, a key force driving this phenomenon is money.

It is an act of love, but also a financial transaction….Military wives who do decide to become surrogates can earn more with one pregnancy than their husbands' annual base pay (which ranges for new enlistees from $16,080 to $28,900).
Another factor is the nomadic nature of military life. According to one surrogacy broker, "Military wives can't sink their teeth into a career because they have to move around so much."

The article also focuses on the surrogates' desires to help other people, "to contribute, do something positive." Military wives are portrayed as particularly prone to such sentiments:
"In the military, we have that mentality of going to extremes, fighting for your country, risking your life," says Jennifer Hansen, 25, a paralegal who's married to Army Sgt. Chase Hansen…."I think that being married to someone in the military embeds those values in you. I feel I'm taking a risk now, in less of a way than he is, but still a risk with my life and body to help someone."
In fact, there are additional similarities between surrogacy and military service. Both involve putting your body and health on the line for a cause. Both require giving up some of the autonomy that most adults take for granted: Other people claim control over what you eat, drink, and do; when and where you travel. And your commitment is 24/7 for the duration of the tour of duty: the only outs are AWOL in the military and abortion in a surrogacy arrangement.

All the surrogacy business needs now is recruiters. But wait - they already have those:
Surrogate agencies target the population [of military wives] by dropping leaflets in the mailboxes of military housing complexes, such as those around San Diego's Camp Pendleton, and placing ads in on-base publications such as the Military Times and Military Spouse.

I wonder if any of those leaflets are headlined "Looking for a few good women."

Previously on Biopolitical Times:







Facts on the Ground

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on April 2nd, 2008


Researchers in the United Kingdom announced yesterday that they had successfully created (mostly) human clonal embryos using animal eggs. These hybrid embryos, intended for stem cell research, were able to divide to thirty-two cells over three days. That's not quite enough to be able to extract stem cells.

It's discouraging enough that this development was announced via a press release, and not a peer-reviewed publication, particularly so soon after an editorial in Nature decrying haste to publication in stem cell science. The announcement also comes just as the contentious Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is reaching the UK Parliament, with this very human-animal hybrid cloning process one of the most controversial platforms.

One need not be that cynical to believe that these researchers are trying to change the "facts on the ground" for the upcoming debate.





More on Personal Genomics

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on March 26th, 2008


New types of community?

For a front-page Washington Post article on the burgeoning - and completely unregulated - personal genetic testing industry, Rick Weiss gathered some real howlers. Here's a quote from Anne Wojcicki, co-founder of 23andMe:

"We envision a new type of community where people will come together around specific genotypes, and these artificial barriers of country and race will start to break down."

Weiss also includes some zingers, in a far more sober register. He writes,

"One subtle but potentially insidious downside of the new trend, [director of the National Human Genome Research Institute Francis] Collins said, is that people may slip into the DNA-deterministic thinking that fed the early 20th-century eugenics movement, in which people with `undesirable' traits underwent forced sterilizations."

Collins continued:

"I very much worry that all this emphasis on a 'gene for this' and 'gene for that' raises the risk that people will conclude that that's the whole story."

Collins has also addressed these concerns in a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, co-authored with W. Gregory Feero and Alan E. Guttmacher. "The Genome Gets Personal - Almost" concludes this way:

There are many rapid advances in personalized medicine to celebrate. But if the goal is to empower [patients] to take full advantage of these discoveries, it is far too early to declare victory. A great deal of complex, groundbreaking, and multidisciplinary research is still needed before personal genomics reaches the mainstream of medicine.





The Gullible Gene?

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on March 26th, 2008


Thirty-two companies are now marketing direct-to-consumer genetic tests, according to a chart [PDF] published by the Genetics and Public Policy Institute.

Eight of the 32, including the trio of 23andMe, Navigenics and DeCodeMe that has of late been much in the news, offer "personal genome" services. In other words, they look across the genome for variants that are supposed to correlate with predispositions to a range of conditions, from Alzheimer's to arthritis to - get this - athletic performance.

Other companies focus on propensity towards specific traits - many serious diseases, but also "hair loss," "addiction," and "skin profile." Two companies analyze the blood of pregnant women, and claim that they can thereby determine fetal sex.

Public-interest advocates, government advisory committees, and medical experts have been warning for years that oversight of genetic tests is inadequate. Back in 2006, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a report [PDF] on nutrigenetic testing titled Tests Purchased from Four Web Sites Mislead Consumers.

But there's no government agency regulating the genetic testing industry - not the FDA, which you'd think would claim it; not the FTC, which is supposed to prevent false and misleading advertising.

Are the tests accurate? Clinically valid? What about privacy and genetic discrimination? What will you do with the information anyway? And for that matter, what will the company do with it?

Buyer beware. And the rest of us too.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:





Displaying 994-997 of 1209  
< Prev  Next >> 
« First Page Last Page » 
« Show Complete List » 

 


ESPAÑOL | PORTUGUÊS | Русский

home | overview | blog | publications | about us | donate | newsletter | press room | privacy policy

CGS • 1936 University Ave, Suite 350, Berkeley, CA 94704 USA • • (p) 1.510.625.0819 • (F) 1.510.665.8760