Core Valve Prosthesis Fails to Produce Long-Term Results

According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the Core Valve prosthesis that is used to alleviate complications of coronary artery disease has been proven to be faulty over time. The Core Valve self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve prosthesis was specifically designed to help patients who suffer from various coronary artery diseases, such as aortic stenosis. In some of the Core Valve recipients the device has actively disintegrated into the aortic lining of the heart. This malfunction has led to severe damage to the aortic lining, which included cardiac decomposition, aortic regurgitation, and congestive heart failure. The causes of this device malfunction are baffling doctors, as these issues were not prevalent during clinical trials. Although there is not a definitive cause for the malfunctioning properties of this device, doctors believe that interference with the mitral-valve leafletcould be a key factor in its lack of longevity.

et

G.I.N.A.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, otherwise known as GINA, is facing increasing concern among the public. This act, which was established in two thousand eight by President Barack Obama, was intended to protect citizens against the discrimination of genetically preexisting conditions from healthcare insurance companies. Although this act legally protects citizens from the discrimination of genetically preexisting conditions, it however, does not legally protect citizens against the discrimination of employer health insurance. This discriminatory, legal loop hole has caused great concern among the public and scientific community. In addition to this concern, studies suggest that about thirty percent of people who are informed about the limited protection from this act are less likely to volunteer for genetic testing. As a result of the legal limitation, this act cannot protect a person after genetic testing has been performed and their genomic sequence has been permanently placed within their health record. Presently, scientists are urging law makers to take into account that a person’s genetic predisposition is not a guarantee for any disease.

BBC "Designer Babies" debate should start, scientist say

Dr. Tony Perry has had a long history in the scientific art of cloning. Dr. Perry, who has worked on the first set of teams which cloned pigs and mice at the University of Hawaii in 2007, is now claiming that his techniques in cloning are steadily approaching a one-hundred percent efficiency rate. Dr. Perry’s experience with the genetic modification of animals has led to a breakthrough in cloning of human embryos, which he calls “designer babies.” These designer babies have the potential to become genetically modified for physical appearance, prevention against heritable or communicable diseases, and intelligence. The surgical techniques that Dr. Perry and his team have created, has made it possible for them to cut and reinsert genetic information. The modification of this genetic information of embryonic cells has sparked a major debate concerning the ethical conflicts among the medical, scientific, and political community. One of the major ethical concerns is governance, and how the law should decide on the restrictions of human cloning. As of today, there are still more laboratory test and medical safety precautions that would need to be taken before the option of genetically altered babies could effectively be open to the public. If the process of removing mutagen (disease causing) DNA and reinserting specialty coded DNA to create a new generation of designer babies continues, where does this leave families who cannot afford this modified type of fertility treatment? In the future, will this type of fertility treatment create an ongoing social conflict between natural born children and genetically altered children? Is it plausible to contemplate that genetically altered, disease resistant, aesthetically superior children will view natural born children as inferior people within society? In terms of school and education, would it be an academically level playing field if genetically altered children were to compete for the same scholarships that natural born children are applying for? All of these questions are valid ethical implications that we must consider in the near future.