Faculty Bibliography

Almost every football fan older than 10 knew that [LYLE ALZADO], like many other linemen in the NFL, was using steroids. So did his coaches, trainers, team owners and the NFL commissioner. They had to know, either by looking at the size of men like Alzado, or because ex-NFL athletes were more than willing to tell anyone who asked. But no one cared because the image that the NFL wanted to sell was one of size, strength, violence and power

If the specter of a candy company insisting on a fat-free work staff isn't enough to drive you in despair to your refrigerator, how about a beer company insisting that it will only pay the full health-insurance tab for its workers who are fit and trim?

LET me be clear at the outset: There should be no obstacles in the path of women who want to use the new implantable contraceptive drug, Norplant - the most convenient and reliable birth-control agent ever. For women who can't afford it, the government should pay

A California judge already has punished a woman by sentencing her to have Norplant put in her arm. Various goofball legislative proposals have been floated in Kansas and other states, and whispered in Congress, to make using Norplant a condition for receiving welfare benefits

The use of fetal tissue in transplants for treating illnesses such as Parkinson's disease and juvenile diabetes has raised the hopes of patients, their families, and the biomedical community. But, this practice has created considerable controversy. Concerns arise because tissue is usually obtained from electively aborted fetuses. Despite the controversy, there has been little systematic and sustained examination of the ethical and policy issues posed by the use of fetal tissue in biomedicine. The lack of information and analysis hampers serious discussion. In the Spring of 1988, the Center for Biomedical Ethics began an interdisciplinary research project on the scientific, ethical, and policy issues raised by the use of fetal tissue in biomedicine. Twenty-five scholars, drawn mainly, but not exclusively, from the faculty of the University of Minnesota, met to undertake the study. The members of this research group included experts in neonatology, pediatrics, neurology, neurosurgery, organ transplantation, tissue procurement, cell biology, immunology, epidemiology, law, philosophy, moral theology, and the behavioral sciences. The group met every three weeks over a period of ten months to collect and review information about the use of fetal tissue -- with special attention to transplantation -- the potential sources of fetal tissue, and the relevant laws and guidelines in the U.S. and other nations. Six members of the research group had primary responsibility for writing this report.

The researchers suspect that the gene responsible for setting the clock that determines how long a worm lives _ which they call "age-1" _ is a relatively simple, regulatory gene. If, by using some of the new techniques of recombinant DNA technology, they can locate, identify and isolate this gene they could then look at human genes to see if an analogous form exists

Forty-three states, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, have laws on their books that protect from criminal liability parents who deny their children life-saving medical care on religious grounds. If a baby is convulsing and obviously racked with pain, but not brought to a doctor, religious-exemption clauses mean that no charge of neglect or abuse can be made. Some state laws even exempt parents from sexual abuse and molestation charges if religious reasons are invoked! Last year two Minnesota parents who allowed their child to die of diabetes had manslaughter charges dropped when courts cited the religious-exemption statutes

Is the solution to put price tags on the dead? "Sentimentalist," sneer the advocates of a free market in cadaver parts. If transplant surgeons, procurement specialists, hospitals, transplant coordinators and insurance companies can make a pretty good buck taking parts from the dead and putting them into the living, why should the dead and their loved ones be the only ones expected to participate for free? Besides, if some people want to make a few dollars by selling off their organs upon their demise, why stand in their way? The family makes some dough, more transplants are done, more lives are saved, and everybody is happy -- except maybe a couple of oversensitive ethicists who think money is somehow evil

Some think-tank types are unleashing studies that sing the glories of garnering more organs if we allow the incentive of cold, hard cash. Even Louis Sullivan, the U.S. secretary of health and human services, has declared himself "intrigued" by proposals to pay for parts