lwsimmons.org

Thursday, December 18, 2008

A team of eight transplant surgeons in Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, USA, led by reconstructive surgeon Dr. Maria Siemionow, age 58, have successfully performed the first almost total face transplant in the US, and the fourth globally, on a woman so horribly disfigured due to trauma, that cost her an eye. Two weeks ago Dr. Siemionow, in a 23-hour marathon surgery, replaced 80 percent of her face, by transplanting or grafting bone, nerve, blood vessels, muscles and skin harvested from a female donor’s cadaver.

The Clinic surgeons, in Wednesday’s news conference, described the details of the transplant but upon request, the team did not publish her name, age and cause of injury nor the donor’s identity. The patient’s family desired the reason for her transplant to remain confidential. The Los Angeles Times reported that the patient “had no upper jaw, nose, cheeks or lower eyelids and was unable to eat, talk, smile, smell or breathe on her own.” The clinic’s dermatology and plastic surgery chair, Francis Papay, described the nine hours phase of the procedure: “We transferred the skin, all the facial muscles in the upper face and mid-face, the upper lip, all of the nose, most of the sinuses around the nose, the upper jaw including the teeth, the facial nerve.” Thereafter, another team spent three hours sewing the woman’s blood vessels to that of the donor’s face to restore blood circulation, making the graft a success.

The New York Times reported that “three partial face transplants have been performed since 2005, two in France and one in China, all using facial tissue from a dead donor with permission from their families.” “Only the forehead, upper eyelids, lower lip, lower teeth and jaw are hers, the rest of her face comes from a cadaver; she could not eat on her own or breathe without a hole in her windpipe. About 77 square inches of tissue were transplanted from the donor,” it further described the details of the medical marvel. The patient, however, must take lifetime immunosuppressive drugs, also called antirejection drugs, which do not guarantee success. The transplant team said that in case of failure, it would replace the part with a skin graft taken from her own body.

Dr. Bohdan Pomahac, a Brigham and Women’s Hospital surgeon praised the recent medical development. “There are patients who can benefit tremendously from this. It’s great that it happened,” he said.

Leading bioethicist Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania withheld judgment on the Cleveland transplant amid grave concerns on the post-operation results. “The biggest ethical problem is dealing with failure — if your face rejects. It would be a living hell. If your face is falling off and you can’t eat and you can’t breathe and you’re suffering in a terrible manner that can’t be reversed, you need to put on the table assistance in dying. There are patients who can benefit tremendously from this. It’s great that it happened,” he said.

Dr Alex Clarke, of the Royal Free Hospital had praised the Clinic for its contribution to medicine. “It is a real step forward for people who have severe disfigurement and this operation has been done by a team who have really prepared and worked towards this for a number of years. These transplants have proven that the technical difficulties can be overcome and psychologically the patients are doing well. They have all have reacted positively and have begun to do things they were not able to before. All the things people thought were barriers to this kind of operations have been overcome,” she said.

The first partial face transplant surgery on a living human was performed on Isabelle Dinoire on November 27 2005, when she was 38, by Professor Bernard Devauchelle, assisted by Professor Jean-Michel Dubernard in Amiens, France. Her Labrador dog mauled her in May 2005. A triangle of face tissue including the nose and mouth was taken from a brain-dead female donor and grafted onto the patient. Scientists elsewhere have performed scalp and ear transplants. However, the claim is the first for a mouth and nose transplant. Experts say the mouth and nose are the most difficult parts of the face to transplant.

In 2004, the same Cleveland Clinic, became the first institution to approve this surgery and test it on cadavers. In October 2006, surgeon Peter Butler at London‘s Royal Free Hospital in the UK was given permission by the NHS ethics board to carry out a full face transplant. His team will select four adult patients (children cannot be selected due to concerns over consent), with operations being carried out at six month intervals. In March 2008, the treatment of 30-year-old neurofibromatosis victim Pascal Coler of France ended after having received what his doctors call the worlds first successful full face transplant.

Ethical concerns, psychological impact, problems relating to immunosuppression and consequences of technical failure have prevented teams from performing face transplant operations in the past, even though it has been technically possible to carry out such procedures for years.

Mr Iain Hutchison, of Barts and the London Hospital, warned of several problems with face transplants, such as blood vessels in the donated tissue clotting and immunosuppressants failing or increasing the patient’s risk of cancer. He also pointed out ethical issues with the fact that the procedure requires a “beating heart donor”. The transplant is carried out while the donor is brain dead, but still alive by use of a ventilator.

According to Stephen Wigmore, chair of British Transplantation Society’s ethics committee, it is unknown to what extent facial expressions will function in the long term. He said that it is not certain whether a patient could be left worse off in the case of a face transplant failing.

Mr Michael Earley, a member of the Royal College of Surgeon‘s facial transplantation working party, commented that if successful, the transplant would be “a major breakthrough in facial reconstruction” and “a major step forward for the facially disfigured.”

In Wednesday’s conference, Siemionow said “we know that there are so many patients there in their homes where they are hiding from society because they are afraid to walk to the grocery stores, they are afraid to go the the street.” “Our patient was called names and was humiliated. We very much hope that for this very special group of patients there is a hope that someday they will be able to go comfortably from their houses and enjoy the things we take for granted,” she added.

In response to the medical breakthrough, a British medical group led by Royal Free Hospital’s lead surgeon Dr Peter Butler, said they will finish the world’s first full face transplant within a year. “We hope to make an announcement about a full-face operation in the next 12 months. This latest operation shows how facial transplantation can help a particular group of the most severely facially injured people. These are people who would otherwise live a terrible twilight life, shut away from public gaze,” he said.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

A team of eight transplant surgeons in Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, USA, led by reconstructive surgeon Dr. Maria Siemionow, age 58, have successfully performed the first almost total face transplant in the US, and the fourth globally, on a woman so horribly disfigured due to trauma, that cost her an eye. Two weeks ago Dr. Siemionow, in a 23-hour marathon surgery, replaced 80 percent of her face, by transplanting or grafting bone, nerve, blood vessels, muscles and skin harvested from a female donor’s cadaver.

The Clinic surgeons, in Wednesday’s news conference, described the details of the transplant but upon request, the team did not publish her name, age and cause of injury nor the donor’s identity. The patient’s family desired the reason for her transplant to remain confidential. The Los Angeles Times reported that the patient “had no upper jaw, nose, cheeks or lower eyelids and was unable to eat, talk, smile, smell or breathe on her own.” The clinic’s dermatology and plastic surgery chair, Francis Papay, described the nine hours phase of the procedure: “We transferred the skin, all the facial muscles in the upper face and mid-face, the upper lip, all of the nose, most of the sinuses around the nose, the upper jaw including the teeth, the facial nerve.” Thereafter, another team spent three hours sewing the woman’s blood vessels to that of the donor’s face to restore blood circulation, making the graft a success.

The New York Times reported that “three partial face transplants have been performed since 2005, two in France and one in China, all using facial tissue from a dead donor with permission from their families.” “Only the forehead, upper eyelids, lower lip, lower teeth and jaw are hers, the rest of her face comes from a cadaver; she could not eat on her own or breathe without a hole in her windpipe. About 77 square inches of tissue were transplanted from the donor,” it further described the details of the medical marvel. The patient, however, must take lifetime immunosuppressive drugs, also called antirejection drugs, which do not guarantee success. The transplant team said that in case of failure, it would replace the part with a skin graft taken from her own body.

Dr. Bohdan Pomahac, a Brigham and Women’s Hospital surgeon praised the recent medical development. “There are patients who can benefit tremendously from this. It’s great that it happened,” he said.

Leading bioethicist Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania withheld judgment on the Cleveland transplant amid grave concerns on the post-operation results. “The biggest ethical problem is dealing with failure — if your face rejects. It would be a living hell. If your face is falling off and you can’t eat and you can’t breathe and you’re suffering in a terrible manner that can’t be reversed, you need to put on the table assistance in dying. There are patients who can benefit tremendously from this. It’s great that it happened,” he said.

Dr Alex Clarke, of the Royal Free Hospital had praised the Clinic for its contribution to medicine. “It is a real step forward for people who have severe disfigurement and this operation has been done by a team who have really prepared and worked towards this for a number of years. These transplants have proven that the technical difficulties can be overcome and psychologically the patients are doing well. They have all have reacted positively and have begun to do things they were not able to before. All the things people thought were barriers to this kind of operations have been overcome,” she said.

The first partial face transplant surgery on a living human was performed on Isabelle Dinoire on November 27 2005, when she was 38, by Professor Bernard Devauchelle, assisted by Professor Jean-Michel Dubernard in Amiens, France. Her Labrador dog mauled her in May 2005. A triangle of face tissue including the nose and mouth was taken from a brain-dead female donor and grafted onto the patient. Scientists elsewhere have performed scalp and ear transplants. However, the claim is the first for a mouth and nose transplant. Experts say the mouth and nose are the most difficult parts of the face to transplant.

In 2004, the same Cleveland Clinic, became the first institution to approve this surgery and test it on cadavers. In October 2006, surgeon Peter Butler at London‘s Royal Free Hospital in the UK was given permission by the NHS ethics board to carry out a full face transplant. His team will select four adult patients (children cannot be selected due to concerns over consent), with operations being carried out at six month intervals. In March 2008, the treatment of 30-year-old neurofibromatosis victim Pascal Coler of France ended after having received what his doctors call the worlds first successful full face transplant.

Ethical concerns, psychological impact, problems relating to immunosuppression and consequences of technical failure have prevented teams from performing face transplant operations in the past, even though it has been technically possible to carry out such procedures for years.

Mr Iain Hutchison, of Barts and the London Hospital, warned of several problems with face transplants, such as blood vessels in the donated tissue clotting and immunosuppressants failing or increasing the patient’s risk of cancer. He also pointed out ethical issues with the fact that the procedure requires a “beating heart donor”. The transplant is carried out while the donor is brain dead, but still alive by use of a ventilator.

According to Stephen Wigmore, chair of British Transplantation Society’s ethics committee, it is unknown to what extent facial expressions will function in the long term. He said that it is not certain whether a patient could be left worse off in the case of a face transplant failing.

Mr Michael Earley, a member of the Royal College of Surgeon‘s facial transplantation working party, commented that if successful, the transplant would be “a major breakthrough in facial reconstruction” and “a major step forward for the facially disfigured.”

In Wednesday’s conference, Siemionow said “we know that there are so many patients there in their homes where they are hiding from society because they are afraid to walk to the grocery stores, they are afraid to go the the street.” “Our patient was called names and was humiliated. We very much hope that for this very special group of patients there is a hope that someday they will be able to go comfortably from their houses and enjoy the things we take for granted,” she added.

In response to the medical breakthrough, a British medical group led by Royal Free Hospital’s lead surgeon Dr Peter Butler, said they will finish the world’s first full face transplant within a year. “We hope to make an announcement about a full-face operation in the next 12 months. This latest operation shows how facial transplantation can help a particular group of the most severely facially injured people. These are people who would otherwise live a terrible twilight life, shut away from public gaze,” he said.

Tuesday, November 7, 2006

Allegations of paedophilia made against Indian guru, Sathya Sai Baba are back in the limelight again, after the UK’s Sai Youth movement was recognised as an accredited partner of The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Scheme.

The Baba’s followers deny the allegations, and the Sai Youth UK’s National Co-ordinator called them “totally unfounded”. Sai Baba attracts followers from many countries around the world who revere him as a “living god”.

Around 200 youth are due to fly to India on November 13th after receiving a “divine commandment” to carry out a month-long “humanitarian pilgrimage” that will coincide with the birthday celebrations of Sai Baba, who will be 81 on November 23rd.

Pressure has been mounting on the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme charity to break its association with the Baba’s organisation.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

The Associated Press (AP) news agency has come under fire from the blogging community after issuing a number of DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown notices against bloggers who have used extracts from AP articles.

Quoting from correspondence surrounding the takedown notices, a Drudge Retort contributor claims in his personal blog that not only is AP asserting that the quotes are a copyright violation, but that they also constitute ‘”hot news” misappropriation.

Wikinews contacted several people in an effort to get to the bottom of this issue. Rogers Cadenhead, one of the copublishers of the Drudge Report blog, brought Wikinews up to speed on the DMCA notices. The takedown notices were received by email on June 10, he said. This, in and of itself, constitutes an improper filing. The letter of the law requires that a DMCA notice be sent to the appropriate party by recorded postal delivery.

Cadenhead remains unaware of any other bloggers who have been similarly notified, and says receiving seven takedown notices left him “dumbfounded”. Previous Drudge Retort interaction with AP’s legal team had seen AP complain about people posting entire reports in the comments section of the site. These were quickly removed and users warned that this was inappropriate and indisputably a copyright violation, says Cadenhead.

Cadenhead goes on to discuss how blogs, and other social networking sites, are of benefit to mainstream media such as AP. He describes how the posting of excerpts and quotes helps drive visitors to the sites where the full article text can be found, “MSNBC publishes its news videos with an “embed” button that makes it possible to share them on blogs. If NBC sees the value of that, print-based media should recognize the benefits of encouraging the link-and-excerpt culture of bloggers. I heard on NPR yesterday that 20 percent of the New York Times web traffic is referred by blogs.”

There may be a longer-term strategy behind these actions from the Associated Press. A report on ChannelWeb indicates that AP wants to charge for excerpts of their online content. The pricing schedule reported on this site starts at US$12.50 for quoting five to twenty-five words and goes up to US$100.00 for over 251 words. This, a challenge to the very existence of fair use, is to be managed by the company iCopyright operating as a copyright protection service. Cory Doctorow goes into this in some depth on the Boing Boing site, commenting that those who inform on violators may receive up to one million dollar rewards. In addition, the “no disparagement” clause is highlighted, whereby AP reserves the right to revoke the license where they are unhappy with the usage.

“Welcome to a world in which you won’t be able to effectively criticize the press, because you’ll be required to pay to quote as few as five words from what they publish,” Doctorow wrote.

The controversy provoked by these moves from AP, apparently, prompted them to schedule a meeting with the Media Bloggers Association to hammer out a set of guidelines.

The Associated Press case seems to rely on the 1918 U.S. Supreme Court case, International News Service v. Associated Press where, following INS being prevented from using allied telegraph lines following unfavourable reporting, they used AP reports as a source to rewrite in their own words. With one vigorously dissenting justice, the case was closed in AP’s favour, with the INS usage described as “misappropriation”. Today sees a similar battle played out where bloggers and other citizen journalists simply do not have the resources to place their own reporters at the scene and must excerpt or rewrite from sources such as AP.

According to Michael Kwun, a senior staff attorney with the EFF, one of their blog entries describes the action as biting the hand that feeds them. Kwun questioned whether the 1918 ruling could still be considered “good law”, that changes in Federal law likely rendered it inapplicable, and that there was only a small chance that at state level this could still be applied.

Despite several attempts to get input from the Associated Press, they had not responded to Wikinews at time of publication. Attempts to contact Reuters and the BBC for input also went unanswered.

On June 20, Cadenhead released a statement saying that after receiving additional information from AP, he is “glad” the dispute is over. AP said it had a “constructive exchange” with a “number of interested parties in the blogging community” and will seek to continue dialogue.

“I think it would be helpful for bloggers and users of social news sites to know what the AP believes to be fair use of their copyrighted work,” said Wade Duchene, attorney for Cadenhead. “I hope that any guidelines that are issued are not interpreted as an agreed definition of fair use.”

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Last Tuesday, AusAID Australia and the World Bank’s Global Environment Fund (GEF) reached an agreement to give the government of Kiribati US$5 million (AU$4,779,000, NZ$5,985,000, €3,885,000) to install solar panels around the country capital, located on the Tarawa atoll. According to Business Desk of the Brunei Times, AusAID promised AU$3.2 million in funding, while GEF promised US$1 million. The country was the first in the Pacific to make a deal with the World Bank.

The funding was part of a US$530 million (NZ$635 million) package announced at yesterday’s Pacific Energy Summit in Auckland involving New Zealand and the European Union, Australia, the Asian Development Bank, the European Investment Bank, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, the World Bank Group, and the United Arab Emirates. Also at the summit yesterday, New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully had announced a national commitment of USD$54,262,000 (AU$51,861,000 NZ$65 million, €42,178,000) to Pacific region energy solutions, of which US$8,348,000 (AU$8 million, NZ$10 million, €6,483,000) would be specifically earmarked for renewable energy and improved energy efficiency in the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, and Tuvalu.

Kiribati is heavily dependent on diesel fuel for most of the energy available on the national power grid, which supplies power to half Kiribati’s population of 110,000. In addition, a third of the country’s population lacks access to electricity. Once installation of the solar panels is complete, they are estimated to reduce diesel consumption by 230,000 liters (60,760 gallons) a year and give access to the electricity to some parts of the population that currently have no electricity. The European Union already has committed €100 million to sustainable energy in the region, with €10 million of that coming as a result of an announcement made last week.

In a press release about the news, Kiribati President Anote Tong was quoted as saying, “Kiribati faces big challenges it is remote, it is at risk from the effects of climate change, and it is vulnerable to economic shocks. […] Shifting Kiribati’s focus to reliable solar energy will provide a more secure, more sustainable power source for the country’s people.” Radio New Zealand International quoted Tong as saying, “It’s the first time we are doing this. We’re excited at the prospect of even substituting fossil fuel to a small extent at this stage. What the system being envisaged will only produce around 500 kilowatts, but this is the beginning of what I hope will be a pattern, the trend in the future.”

The European Union’s Fiji-based head of operations for the Pacific region, Renato Mele, supported alternative energy solutions like solar power for the region, but said that solar power had limitations because climate and environmental conditions sometimes meant batteries required to power the panels had a life of only 12 months, compared to other climates where batteries normally last five years. This created the potential to drive up standard operating costs. Mele has also noted these additional costs though are still lower than the cost of diesel power.

One News Pacific Correspondent Barbara Dreaver noted, “Governments will be able to put the money they (currently) spend on diesel into things like education and health.”

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

English actress Rachel Weisz thinks that Botox injections should be banned for all actors.

The 39-year-old actress, best known for her roles in the Mummy movie franchise and for her Academy Award-winning portrayal in The Constant Gardener, feels facial Botox injections leave actors less able to convey emotion and that it harms the acting industry as much as steroids harm athletes.

In an interview with UK’s Harper’s Bazaar, coming out next month, Weisz says, “It should be banned for actors, as steroids are for sportsmen,” she claims. “Acting is all about expression; why would you want to iron out a frown?”

Currently living in New York, she also mentions that English women are much less worried about their physical appearance than in the United States. “I love the way girls in London dress,” she claimed. “It’s so different to the American ‘blow-dry and immaculate grooming’ thing.”

Friday, April 30, 2021

On Tuesday, the Governor of the US state of Arizona Doug Ducey signed into law a bill banning abortion if sought solely because of a foetus’ genetic abnormality.

Senate Bill 1457, which stalled twice for criticism by opponents of abortion, passed both chambers of the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature last week in a party-line vote, amended twice along the way to alleviate concerns by two hesitant Republicans.

The bill makes it a Class 6 felony, the least severe, to seek or perform an abortion “because of a genetic abnormality of the child”, defined as “the presence or presumed presence of an abnormal gene expression in an unborn child”, but not a “severe fetal abnormality” considered “incompatible with life.” Intimidating someone to get an abortion and soliciting or accepting monies to finance an abortion for this purpose has been made a Class 3 felony.

The bill also allows the unborn child’s father or, in case the mother is under 18, a maternal grandparent to sue, as well as including the applicability of state law to “an unborn child at every stage of development”, which Senator Kirsten Engel and Representative Melody Hernandez wrote in a submitted minority report “would open up the potential for prosecutors to charge persons including the pregnant individual whose conduct results in a woman having a miscarriage with murder, manslaughter or child endangerment.”

Other provisions of the bill includes a prohibition on the distribution “via courier, delivery or mail service” of abortion-inducing drugs, a ban on any public educational institution from performing or aiding non-life saving abortion, a ban on the use of public or tax monies paid by the state or students for university research involving foetal remains or somatic cell nuclear transfer, or any state money towards organisations providing abortion care, and requiring all foetal remains to be buried or cremated.

KYMA-DT reported Ducey is an anti-abortion rights governor who ran on the Republican ballot and has never vetoed anti-abortion legislation. In a statement, Duckey said, “[t]here’s immeasurable value in every single life — regardless of genetic makeup […] We will continue to prioritize protecting life in our preborn children, and this legislation goes a long way in protecting real human lives.” The news release, originally published on his website also read, “[w]ith this legislation, Arizona remains among the top pro-life states in the nation.”

Senator Nancy Barto said, according to the release “[w]e need to protect our most vulnerable, especially those with treatable genetic conditions […] They are loved, integral members of our community that make Arizona whole”. Cathi Herrod, president of Center for Arizona Policy said in her own news release, according to the Associated Press “[t]oday, Arizonans win.”

Representative Diego Espinoza wrote in a tweet, “I’m disappointed to see Arizona moving in this direction, ignoring the needs and desires of doctors, women, and families for an extreme political agenda.” Representative and House Democratic Leader Reginald Bolding wrote in a statement “it’s disturbing and wrong that the legislature is not focusing on policies to help [women], and instead is stripping away the fundamental freedom to choose if, when, and how to start or grow a family.”

In a letter shared to a Facebook post, the union United Campus Workers at Arizona State University urged last Saturday to the Arizona Board of Regents, university president Michael M. Crow and University of Arizona president Robert D. Robbins to “immediately speak out against SB 1457”, calling it “a blatant attack on reproductive freedom”.