Links of Interest: Modern Reproduction

Should This Be the Last Generation? (The New York Times)

A provocative essay by philosopher Peter Singer on whether we should reproduce, with David Benatar’s Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence as a starting point.

Have you ever thought about whether to have a child? If so, what factors entered into your decision? Was it whether having children would be good for you, your partner and others close to the possible child, such as children you may already have, or perhaps your parents? … Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?

‘Last Generation?’: A Response (The New York Times)

There was a huge response to Singer’s essay, and he replies in this article.

Even if relatively few people engage in ethical thinking before deciding whether to reproduce, the decisions are important for those who do. And since public policies affect the birthrate, we ought to be giving some thought to whether it is, other things being equal, good for there to be fewer people. Of course, in our present environmental crisis other things are not equal, but the underlying question of the value of bringing human beings into the world should still play a role in decisions that affect the size of future generations.

Study: Kids of Lesbian Parents Are Well-Adjusted (WebMD)

”Contrary to assertions from people opposed to same-sex parenting, we found that the 17-year-olds scored higher in psychological adjustment in areas of competency and lower in problem behaviors than the normative age-matched sample of kids raised in traditional families with a mom and a dad.” … How to explain the good results? “These are not accidental children,” Gartrell tells WebMD.

9/11 link to rise in male foetal death rate, study says (BBC News)

The stress caused by the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center may have led to an increase in miscarriages of male fetuses. … [This] support[s] the theory of “communal bereavement” … acute mental distress related to a major national event, like 9/11, even if there is no direct connection to those who died or were involved in these events. Pregnant mothers are thought to be particularly prone to this experience, as are unborn baby boys.

Nailing infertility with an ad (Salon)

An ad campaign by the maker of a fertility drug.

[T]he “Increase Your Chances” campaign encourages couples to visit a specialist if they hit that fertility wall, and, more broadly, aims to change the way infertility is talked, or, more to the point, whispered about, in our culture.

Abortion ad roils Britain (Salon)

There is no preaching, no weeping teenagers being thrown out of the house and no mention of “choice” or “legal rights.” The ad is short and to-the-point, hinging on the simple question, “Are you late?” It even ran after 10 p.m., when all the kiddies are in bed.

Sounds pretty tame, right? It is, and you can see for yourself below, but the backlash from antiabortion activists has reached a farcical level of dismay.

It Started More Than One Revolution (The New York Times)

How the pill changed the way we consume all drugs.

[T]he pill … led to profound changes in the F.D.A. itself. … In regulatory terms, the pill brought about a kind of reformation: just as Martin Luther insisted that individual Christians could communicate directly with God without the mediation of priests, the pill eventually led the F.D.A. to communicate directly with patients without going through doctors.

That change, fiercely resisted by some physician groups, is now firmly entrenched; the F.D.A. now routinely requires that many medicines carry significant and sometimes complex warnings that patients are expected to read and understand. …

“The F.D.A. had been battling with the American Medical Association for years about who would talk to patients,” said Daniel P. Carpenter, a professor of government at Harvard. “And with the pill, the F.D.A. clearly established the upper hand.”

Pioneer Reflects on Future of Reproductive Medicine (The New York Times)

An article on Dr. Howard W. Jones Jr., the 99-year old doctor who helped created the first test tube baby in the US.

Dr. Jones believes that young fertility investigators today should figure out which one embryo is likely to make a baby rather than transfer several. That will reduce costs, the number of multiples births and significantly increase success rates of in vitro fertilization, which currently hover around 30 percent — surprisingly close to the 28 percent success rate his team was seeing in the 1980s.

Test Tube Babies (PBS: American Experience)

A documentary on the early pioneers of reproductive medicine. Available on Netflix.

Two pioneers in human reproduction are highlighted, as well as the controversy and innovation their work sprouted, in this PBS series. In 1978 in Scotland, Louise Brown became the first viable test-tube baby through the efforts of Dr. Robert Edwards and his cohorts. Across the pond, Dr. Landrum Shettles was also paving the way for in vitro fertilization. See how their work sparked the debate over cloning yet also benefited science.

An easily entertained baby:

Resources:

Photo source: Herald Sun

Peter Singer, Should This Be the Last Generation?, The New York Times, June 6, 2010

Peter Singer, ‘Last Generation?’: A Response, The New York Times, June 16, 2010

Kathleen Doheny, Study: Kids of Lesbian Parents Are Well-Adjusted, WebMD, June 7, 2010

9/11 link to rise in male foetal death rate, study says, BBC News, May 24, 2010

Lynn Harris, Nailing infertility with an ad, Salon, June 7, 2010

Christine Mathias, Abortion ad roils Britain, Salon, May 25, 2010

Gardiner Harris, It Started More Than One Revolution, The New York Times, May 3, 2010

Randi Hutter Epstein, Pioneer Reflects on Future of Reproductive Medicine, The New York Times, March 22, 2010

Test Tube Babies, PBS: American Experience