Child Psychiatry: raising some questions

I don't think this culture's problems can be more apparent than in the field of child and adolescent psychiatry and psychology. At every turn there is a contradiction and denial of the obvious. Here are some recent statistics (from a lecture I had) that are hard to digest:

Conduct disorders: 24.8% of boys (lifetime prevalence)
ADHD: 26.3% of boys (lifetime prev.)
Emotional disorders: 36.2% of girls (lifetime prev.)
Sexual abuse of kids: 1 in 4 girls, 1 in 8 boys
Self-abuse (cutting and burning): 20% of general kid population, 40% residential kids
Fetal alcohol syndrome: 3 per 1000 babies born

Not to mention drug abuse, drug induced psychosis, schizophrenia, eating disorders, suicides, etc...

If these numbers are true, and I suspect they are not far from the truth, what is wrong with us? Do more than half of North American children have a serious psychological disorder?

Perhaps a better way to explain these astounding statistics is this: we'll admit that they describe real behaviors (e.g. real depression and cutting and suicide attempts in 14 year olds who break up with first sexual partner, or real law-breaking behavior in adolescent boys). And that's pretty bad. Then we'll ask why they are now, apparently, so prevalent.

I would suggest it's because we would rather say that the problem is with the kids than with the parents, teachers, and society that raises them. For instance, it's much easier for the tired, overworked teacher to have her problem kids labeled "ADHD" so that the blame for their poor grades doesn't rest on her. And what can a teacher do anyway, if the parents don't back her up? So it's easier for the parents too to have this diagnosis. (This is not to say that real ADHD may exist, just much much rarer than it is diagnosed today).

Here's another example: the 14 year old girl who breaks up with first sexual partner is counseled in exactly this way "Don't worry, that relationship is just the first rung on a long ladder of life's relationships." Going by current numbers, this may be because the majority of counselors are on a long ladder of sexual relationships. But no wonder the girl is depressed! She has formed a deep (although apparently casual) psychological, emotional and physical bond with her partner, which can only properly exist in the context of a lifelong commitment. So of course the girl will may become suicidal or turn to self-injurious behavior to cope. She doesn't get the treatment she needs, and more importantly, no one was there to help her avoid the problem in the first place.

The list can go on and on. The point in common seems to be that adults are excusing their own actions and kids are being increasingly harmed by it...

Stem Cells and the Psychology of Sin

Man’s advancement in the sciences over the last several decades has revolutionized health care and dramatically changed the culture in which we live. An important new advancement in the biomedical sciences is the discovery of stem cells and the means to manipulate them. The ethical implications of this discovery for science and for our culture have generated intense political and theological debate, about which much has been written already. In this article I will review the current science of stem cells, discuss the ethical concerns, and finally consider the question of why so much interest in embryonic stem cell research.

What are stem cells?

“Stem cells” refer to cells which have the potential to develop into more than one kind of cell type. Once they are isolated and grown in a lab, they can technically be reproduced indefinitely. Current literature distinguishes between two kinds of stem cells: embryonic and adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are part of the developing baby in its first few weeks of life. The fertilized egg, in a sense, is the ultimate stem cell – by dividing it can generate all the different cell types of the mature adult organism. The single fertilized egg, called a “zygote,” grows by dividing again and again, becoming a multicellular organism, i.e. made up of many cells. During the initial three to five days, any of these cells may separate from the embryo and become a new embryo, called an identical twin. At a certain point, however, these cells cease to be totipotent but are still able to differentiate into every kind of tissue needed for growth and development of the embryo into a mature adult. As the baby develops and becomes bigger, these cells become more and more specialized and lose the ability to become other kinds of cells, so that, in the end, a heart muscle cell cannot become a skin cell, although they both may have come from the same stem cell a few weeks or years before. In the laboratory, scientists are learning how to coax stem cells to develop into whatever kind of tissue they please.

The other kind of stem cells are adult stem cells, found in various body tissues (e.g. brain, muscle, bone marrow), as well as umbilical cord and placental blood. We now know that they are much more common than was previously thought. Scientists had postulated that it would be harder to manipulate adult stem cells to change into different kinds of cells. However, the opposite appears to be true: while embryonic stems cells are proving extremely difficult to control (they often turn into tumours in patients who are treated with them), coaxing adult stem cells to change into the desired tissue and remain stable is a simpler process. The “plasticity” of adult stem cells is now well established. For instance, researchers in Italy have been able to take stem cells from an adult brain and turn them into skeletal muscle.[1] In fact, success stories about adult stem cell treatments are coming in so fast, that LifeSiteNews.com, a news agency that is closely following the issue, reports that they are having difficulty keeping up. As recently as January of this year, a young woman paralyzed in a car accident three years ago from her biceps down, is now walking with leg braces on a treadmill, after stem cells taken from her nose were implanted in her spinal cord.[2]

It is important to note that, to date, all the successful stories have come only from the use of adult stem cells, while most disease research organizations, such as the Juvenile Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis and Canadian Cancer Societies, most governments, and most researchers continue to support the use of embryonic stem cells.

Is anything wrong with using stem cells?

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the use of stem cells for research and therapy. However, in order to obtain embryonic stem cells, the newly formed, few day old baby has to die. Extraction of these cells from the embryo results in the death of the embryo, necessarily. On the other hand, obtaining adult stem cells is often as uncomplicated and morally neutral as a simple blood test.

It should seem evident that if the human embryo, a small living human being, is killed to obtain stem cells, then this use of stem cells represents a grave moral evil. However, there are many who disagree that the embryo is human, or that it is a person. But especially repugnant are the views of those today who hold that in spite of the fact that embryos are tiny, living, human beings, the value of their cells to the common good of society outweighs their right to live and grow and be born.

A second moral issue arising from the use of embryonic stem cells is issue of obtaining the incredible number of human ova (unfertilized eggs) necessary for research and development of such “products.” Developing nations especially are expressing serious concerns that their women in particular will be at risk of exploitation by private pharmaceutical and research companies to obtain the necessary human eggs.

Why so much interest in stem cells?

An interest, and indeed, an excitement about the potentials of stem cell research for treating diseases is understandable and should be encouraged. Drug therapy dominates the medicine of today. With the ability to manipulate stem cells to become any kind of tissue we want, the medicine of the future will be dominated by restorative therapies. For instance, instead of using drugs to treat heart failure following a heart attack, stem cells could be injected into the heart which could be influenced to grow into new heart muscle in the damaged heart. This kind of “therapeutic potential,” formerly science fiction, now appears to be right around the corner.

The real question, then, is why the grossly inflated interest in embryonic stem cells, which, besides being obtained from tiny human persons grown and killed for that purpose, have proven to be uncontrollable and ineffective? The answer is not simple, for many forces are at work.

First, with the successes, both real and imagined, of stem cell research, comes a renewed devotion to the cult of health, which already pervades the thinking of modern culture. Phrases such as “As long as you have your health!” and “If you have your health, you have it all!” illustrate the common principle that health is equivalent to happiness. The worship of health by the strong of our society, in pursuit of health and fleeing all suffering, leads to the oppression of the weak and defenseless.

Second, with such incredible “therapeutic potential” comes the possibility of incredible financial gain. A healthcare market dependent on stem cells will generate a multi-billion dollar industry for the companies and researchers who develop the technology and supply the cells. Government healthcare programs and giant insurance agencies stand to save billions in pharmaceutical products and time spent in hospital.

Ultimately, however, the question remains: why, in the face of the immense success of adult stem cells, are embryonic stem cells still disproportionately championed by a conspiracy of governments, the media, and the vast majority of researchers? For it almost seems as if there is an attraction to the sinful, the morally evil, and to all things previously considered taboo. The beginnings of an answer to this question emerge by considering that the use of embryonic stem cells is simply another face of the culture of death, whose other faces include abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. In his letter to the Romans Paul describes the culture of death, at work in every age, “who by their wickedness suppress the truth... they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened” for they “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom 1:18ff). He points to the fact that the consequences of living out the culture of death are intellectual darkness, impurity, and ultimately death itself, precisely what is being experienced by our culture today.

Our response to embryonic stem cell research should not be discouragement or dismay – we are confident in the power of the Gospel and the unshakeable foundations of the Kingdom of God. We are encouraged by the words of Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter, The Gospel of Life:

“I repeat what I said to those families who carry out their challenging mission amid so many difficulties: a great prayer for life is urgently needed, a prayer which will rise up throughout the world… Let us therefore discover anew the humility and the courage to pray and fast so that the power from on high will break down the walls of lies and deceit; the walls which conceal from the sight of so many of our brothers and sisters the evil of practices and laws which are hostile to life.

“In this great endeavour to create a new culture of life we are inspired and sustained by the confidence that comes from knowing that the Gospel of life, like the Kingdom of God itself, is growing and producing abundant fruit (cf. Mk 4:26-29).”[3]

---

[1] Szabo, Paul. The Ethics and Science of Stem Cells. January 2002, p. 23. See www.paulszabo.com

[2] Taken from www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jan/05012007.html, referenced 2/27/05.

[3] Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, section 100.

Infanticide: the sky is the limit

The killing of newborns has, to the best of historical knowledge, been an integral part of every pagan culture. It should come as no surprise that, as our own culture becomes increasingly detached from its Christian heritage, the practice of infanticide should reappear as a socially acceptable and ethically defensible custom. After all, abortion has already won overwhelming approval, and the only difference between abortion and infanticide is the location of the child, i.e. inside or outside the womb.

Modern historians point out that infanticide flourished in areas where food was scarce (e.g. China and Inuit communities), that traditional patriarchal societies practiced female infanticide, and that disabled or deformed infants were routinely killed in almost every culture that has been studied. Some societies have even legislated infanticide, as is the case with the famous Patria Potestas law of ancient Rome. In Rome a father had absolute authority over the life and death of his children, and it was customary for a basin full of water to be present in the birthing room to drown the newborn child if the father so decided. In Sparta, the decision to keep a newborn child was left to a public magistrate. A notable exception were the Jews; Tacitus comments in his Histories that, interestingly, the Jews tended to raise all their young.

The unavoidable clash between Christian morals and pagan culture led finally to a complete ban on infanticide by emperor Valentinian in 374 AD. This triumph came not without a struggle. In fact, as Fr. Hardon noted in a lecture on contraception, the persecution of early Christians was generally not because they refused to offer incense to the emperor, as is often assumed, but because they refused to contracept, abort, or expose their infants. Thus it was then, as it is now, a struggle between the culture of life and the culture of death.

Today, as in ancient times, the Church of Christ fulfills her mandate to proclaim the Gospel of Life to the ends of the earth. Infanticide continues to be practiced with impunity in regions of Asia, especially in China and India. In these two countries “son preference” has decimated the female population, resulting in the “missing women” crisis of the early nineties. The gender ratio, usually 994 women for every 1000 men, reaches lows of 800 women to 1000 men in some Indian states, where sex-selective abortions and female infanticide are commonplace. Government censuses have revealed that over 60 million women are missing in Asia. It is estimated that by the year 2050 there will be a surplus of 90 million men in China alone. (Many have already written on the troubles to be expected from this exceptionally large population of young hedonist bachelors.)

While “son preference” is absent from North American culture, where sons and daughters are aborted at equal rates, the infanticidal mentality is not. Infanticide, where practiced, is rare or at least discreet. Remnants of western Judeo-Christian ethics, and the widespread and universal availability of abortion and contraception have rendered infanticide repulsive and unnecessary. However, the idea of infanticide is gaining favor, especially in academic circles.

The reconsideration of infanticide by western post-modern culture can be attributed to at least two causes. First, prominent bioethicists and physicians are beginning to promote it with unabashed and menacing urgency. And second, widespread abortion, especially partial birth abortion, encourages an infanticidal mentality. The gruesome and impious practice of infanticide is subtly but rapidly becoming the next battlefront in the war between the culture of life and the culture of death in North America.

A brief consideration of the philosophy of these bioethicists reveals fundamental confusion and a surprising shallowness. In the minds of these so-called experts, personhood is independent of human nature, and utilitarian ethics should prevail. For well-known Princeton ethicist Peter Singer, an adult cat has more of a right to life than a newborn human infant. For Singer, simply being human does not imply a right to life. What gives rise to fundamental rights, like right to life, is not being but having certain attributes like self-awareness or a desire to survive. Logically, then, higher animals like cats and primates enjoy the same rights as adult humans, while the rights of infants to live depend on extrinsic circumstances, such as whether they are wanted by their parents or can be afforded by society. Singer rightly points out that no metaphysical change in being occurs to the infant as it passes through the birth canal. Granting that abortion is ethically permissible, as he does, it is eminently logical to extend the abortive vulnerability to infants who have already been born.

Partial birth abortion laws encourage the acceptance of infanticide. This is one of the reasons given by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) for outlawing the practice in the United States. In a brief filed in the U.S. federal courts, the ACLJ contends that the government has a “vital and compelling interest” in preventing the spread of the practice of abortion into infanticide. “Partial-birth procedures represent the beachhead of abortion's assault on postnatal life, the bridge between abortion and infanticide,” the brief states. “Absent strong legal barriers and vigorous societal condemnation, partial-birth procedures open the way to legal infanticide.”

If Canadians already hear very little about abortion from the media, they hear nothing at all about infanticide. Yet there is well-documented evidence to prove that infanticide is practiced in some Canadian hospitals and many abortion clinics. Nurses and technicians from abortion clinics have reported that failed abortions, where the baby survives, are routinely followed by abandoning, drowning or otherwise killing the newborn. Infanticide is no longer merely a dream of pro-abortion academia, it is instead a quickly spreading reality, a nightmare already coming true.

In addition to infanticide, the insatiable appetite of the biotech industry has given rise to both cloning for experimentation and organ “harvesting”, as well as the horrific but undeniable market for fetal body parts that drives the partial birth abortion industry.

The culture of death wears many masks. Infanticide is just a new mask on the same selfish “non serviam” of Satan. It is another reason to worry for our country, for, as Donum Vitae makes clear, “When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined.” (Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum vitae III) In these times, however, we remember the voice of Christ and find hope in His words, “Be not afraid!” And with prayerful confidence, we beg for the courage and wisdom to continue the fight that has already been won.