The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Creepiest Thing You’ll Read All Month

Posted on | August 16, 2012 | 8 Comments

by Smitty

ACRP Wire:

A new paper in the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry uses extensive Freedom of Information Act findings to detail what its authors call an extremely troubling off-label medical intervention employed in the U.S. on pregnant women to intentionally engineer the development of their fetuses for sex normalization purposes.

The paper is coauthored by Alice Dreger, professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Ellen Feder, associate professor of philosophy and religion at American University, and Anne Tamar-Mattis, executive director of Advocates for Informed Choice.

The pregnant women targeted are at risk for having a child born with the condition congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), an endocrinological condition that can result in female fetuses being born with intersex, or more male-typical, genitals and brains.

RTWT. It goes downhill from there. *shudder* The horror movies write themselves.


8 Responses to “Creepiest Thing You’ll Read All Month”

  1. McGehee
    August 16th, 2012 @ 10:29 pm

    Wow. So certain non-normal sexual conditions that can indeed be traced to biological causes are now being targeted for the development of treatments to prevent those conditions.

    Do the radical gays still want to claim that mere homosexuality is likewise “caused” by biology?

    Of course they do. Segments of the deaf community have in the past been hostile to treatments that can restore hearing for the very same reason: the preservation of their status as an aggrieved minority is more important than improving the quality of life of people suffering from the defect, or preventing people from ever suffering from it in the first place.

  2. Robot
    August 16th, 2012 @ 10:38 pm

    As usual, The perversion isn’t contained to just one front:

  3. ThomasD
    August 16th, 2012 @ 11:27 pm

    This is interesting, but I am not certain it is all that creepy.  Or put another way, there are many other medical interventions that are waaaaay (yep 5 ‘a’s’) more creepy.

    The cause for alarm is the “only one in eight of those exposed are the target type of fetus.”  But the issues with medical intervention is always a risk benefit analysis.  It raises eyebrows to expose so many people to a drug when it is not likely to provide any benefit.  But if any adverse effects are minimal, or -especially- transient, and the potential benefits great then it may be appropriate (an example of this would be the kinds of prophylactic drugs, or vaccines one gets when you travel to third world areas.)  So the question is what qualifies as a “serious” adverse event per cited Swedish the report?  Also why the cited report speaks of  “the children exposed in utero?”  Which begs the question of whether that study included children who were exposed to dexamethasone for other reasons, or at later stages of development?  (night and day for a drug like this.)  Since, by definition, this treatment would always involve in utero exposure.Curious.

  4. Adjoran
    August 16th, 2012 @ 11:48 pm

    Problems resulting from off-label treatments are what tort law was designed to remedy.

    Moral arguments are useless against scientific excesses.  There will always be someone willing to do the next thing and someplace that will let him, and usually someone else who will fund it. Remember that ONLY “embryonic” stem cells could cure paralysis, cancer, heart disease, and halitosis – until they discovered adult stem cells can do everything embryonic cells can, but that none of them can do any of those things which were claimed for them.


  5. The Monster
    August 17th, 2012 @ 12:38 am

    They explicitly oppose what the treatments will do to “the hearing-impaired culture” by depriving it of fresh blood. That a “culture” can be defined by disability, and a desire to protect that culture could translate as opposition to treating the disability is troubling.

    But consider the extent to which “black” has been defined by disability, and how those who are able to rise above it to succeed are “sellouts”, and weep for humanity.

  6. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 17th, 2012 @ 2:09 am

    I am not even sure what to say to this. Brave new world indeed.

  7. Bob Belvedere
    August 17th, 2012 @ 8:24 am

    Well put.

    The perverse pride these deaf folks take in remaining as they are is, indeed, a near-perfect example of perverse.

  8. Shawny
    August 17th, 2012 @ 11:21 am

    You could lob stems cells at that all day long and it wouldn’t fix it because she undoubtedly does not consider it a perversion, abnormal, dishonest or self absorbed….only her constituents as far less enlighted than she.
    Now here’s and interesting study from 1982 that will give you the creeps.