Posts Tagged ‘biology’
[One of 50 articles written and published for Demand Media in 2013]
Legally, refusal to provide or access medical care for children can be termed medical neglect. According to the latest available national statistics, documented child abuse and neglect in 2011 affected more than 675,000 children, or nearly 1 in a 100 kids. On average, 3 percent was stemmed from medical neglect in 41 reporting states. Some states average higher. Arkansas’ medical neglect rate is 7.5 percent, while the District of Columbia, Georgia, New York and Puerto Rico all average about 5 percent. The lowest rates are in Delaware and Utah at 0.04 percent and 0.02 percent respectively, plus both Wisconsin and Nebraska at 0.01 percent.
Medical neglect can have several causes, including economic hardship, lack of access to care or health insurance, family chaos and disorganization, lack of awareness, knowledge or skills, lack of trust in health care workers, impairment of caregivers, caregivers’ beliefs and children’s behavior, according to a 2007 article in the journal “Pediatrics.” Of these causes, two can involve active refusal of care: caregivers’ belief systems and children’s behavior.
In most instances, medical neglect is legally actionable. The exception is faith-based exemptions, which are written into law in most states, according to Childhealthcare.org. These exemptions vary in scope. Forty-eight states permit exemption from immunization programs. Most states permit exemption from metabolic testing of newborns that can detect developmental problems, including some that can be prevented with treatment. Ten states have religious exemptions for eyedrops that can help prevent blindness in children who contact a venereal disease carried by their mothers. Seventeen states have religious exemptions to felony crimes against children.
A study titled “Child Fatalities from Religion-Motivated Medical Neglect” in the American Academy of Pediatrics journal found that of 172 cases of child fatalities attributed to faith-based medical neglect, 140 had excellent (90 percent positive) prognosis with standard treatment. Many of the remaining 32 children were treatable, with good outcomes likely. The consequences of not participating in immunization programs can be widespread. In 1991, “The New York Times” reported on an outbreak of 492 measles cases in Philadelphia that led to the deaths of six children, two of them unrelated to the Faith Tabernacle and First Century Gospel churches at the center of the outbreak. A later check of the Faith Tabernacle school found 201 of the children in attendance had never seen a doctor.
Most faith-based cases of medical neglect leading to illness and death are preventable. The nonprofit educational charity Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty lists other treatable conditions that resulted in the deaths of children in the care of Christian Science parents between 1974 and 1994; five by meningitis, three of pneumonia, two of appendicitis, five of diabetes, two of diphtheria, one of measles, one of septicemia, one of a kidney infection, one of a bowel obstruction, and one of heart disease. In the Philadelphia outbreak, three children were hospitalized under court order to ensure treatment. However, as long as religious exemptions remain in place, the justice system has legal limits on what they can do.
American Academy of Pediatrics: Religious Objections to Medical Care
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Familes: Child Maltreatment 2011 report
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Familes: Child Neglect: A Guide for Intervention
American Academy of Pediatrics: Recognizing and Responding to Medical Neglect
American Medical Association: Miracle vs. Medicine: When Faith Puts Care at Risk
[One of 50 articles written and published for Demand Media in 2013]
Biotechnology can affect children before they are conceived, before they are born and as they age. The knowledge base is expanding quickly, with new tools for DNA analysis. The ability to model and image molecular and atomic interactions, together with sophisticated scanning techniques that allow doctors to peer into tissue, has bolstered our capacity to re-engineer life. The power of such knowledge is obvious. It can be used for good, by repairing or replacing damaged organs and tissues, or it can be used for ill, by screening out traits that some perceived to be undesirable.
Immunization of children is a routine safeguard against disease, and despite the fears of a small minority, it has been and remains an effective defense against serious illness. Children today no longer need to fear diseases such as polio, measles, rubella, whooping cough and meningitis. These diseases once destroyed lives, and still do in regions around the world. Even as those historical dangers fade, new vaccines provide protection against HPV, which can cause cancer in women. HPV infection rates have fallen 56 percent among teenage girls since immunization for HPV became available.
Laundry soap enzymes help ensure kids live and play in clean clothes by breaking down proteins, starches, fats and grease. Proteases break down proteins in egg, gravy and blood, and amylases tackle starches, lipases take out fat and grease. Other common enzymes used include cellulase, mannanase and pectinase. This biotechnology has existed since the 1960s, but less well known is that the enzymes used in modern detergents are genetically modified organisms designed to lower costs.
Genetically Modified Foods
Genetically modified foods, which include children’s cereals, have been controversial since their inception, primarily due to the lack of comprehensive safety studies, concerns about their effect on the environment and legal issues related to intellectual property. However, it is certain that world population is growing and food prices will rise unless agricultural yields can be increased. Whether GMO foods can meet this challenge and maintain a record for safety is still a point of contention. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has noted that the “World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”
Human Genetic Modification
Since the human genome was mapped in 2003, much has been learned about gene expression, interaction and the phenomenon of epigenetics, the response of genes to environmental cues. The first publicized germline genetic modification of humans occurred in 2001, resulting in the birth of 30 healthy children born with genes from three people. Germline genetic changes are passed on to future generations. Genetic alternations that prevent a debilitating or fatal disease will prevent children from acquiring these genes and becoming ill. They then pass this protection on to their children.
When I was in high school, we’d study simple forms of life – single cell life, like a paramecium. And the thing that consistently impressed me was how incredibly complicated these forms of life were. We’d examine a single, basic cell, and find it was amazingly sophisticated. It was enough to make one think that maybe, just maybe, the intelligent design people were on to something.
For much of my life, I’ve been mildly interested in building up a sense of the sequence of life. Wouldn’t it be cool to look at forms of life around us and know, roughly, how long it’s been around?
The puzzle of complexity and the mystery of age drove much of my interest in biology for years. And the key to understanding both is the timeline of development.
We know the earth was frequently subject to heavy-duty bombardment by meteorites during the first half-billion years. This pounding was fierce enough that it’s entirely possible that simple forms of life arose and were wiped out several times.
We also know that the earliest evidence of life we can find dates back the time when the bombardment was winding down. Those early life forms were single cells. And that’s how matters remained…
…for the next 2.5 billion years.
Two and a Half . Billion. Years.
Evolution is driven by changes in the environment. Life that can adapt to change survives. Life that can’t…dies. Sometimes it’s the weird mutant cell that survives, say, a period where it’s colder than normal. That mutant proliferates while others fade away. The mutant moves into colder environments while it’s cousins remain in the tropics. Single cells adapted to a variety of environments, including competition with their own expanding numbers. The development of single-cell life, including the arms race of single-cell biological warfare, went on for time out of mind.
No damn wonder they’re so sophisticated. This chart of cellular biochemical and metabolic pathways resembles a large city map:
All the oldest forms of life began in the ocean. It was only about 500 million years ago – half a billion years – that life moved onto land. There are living fossils among us. Sponges date back 635 million years. Horseshoe crabs, 435 million years. Sharks, over 350 million years. Alligators, more than 200 million years. Ginko trees – there are many of them in Washington, DC – haven’t changed in 170 million years.
But to find the oldest form of life, you need look no farther than the cells of your own body. We are, all of us, walking cell colonies. The cells that form us are, of course, far more advanced than the earliest cells, and they got that way because they had 2.5 billion years to find their groove.
The most ancient forms of life are the building blocks of your life.
Employment Matters column, i711.com
According to the biology departments at Gallaudet University and the Medical College of Virgina, at least 85% of deaf people will marry another deaf person.
Many of those marriages will eventually include children, and if their parents became deaf by genetic causes, there’s certainly a chance of the children being deaf too. Among the general population, about 1 in 1,000 children in the US is born profoundly deaf.
About half of all deaf people are genetically deaf, and the other half became deaf through environmental causes. Environmental causes include premature birth, viruses that reach the fetus, and certain drugs that can affect the fetus.
Genes come with on/off switches, so not all genes are working all the time. Some genes are only read during fetal development, others during puberty, and others can be on or off depending on the activity of other genes or the environment.
The genes that cause deafness can be either dominant or recessive. If a gene is dominant, it will be active when only one copy of the gene is present. Recessive genes are only active when two copies are present.
Everyone gets genes from both parents. Dominant genes for deafness can come from either parent, but a recessive gene for deafness means both parents must pass it on for that gene to be active.
Most genetically deaf people inherit recessive genes, which is why deafness can sometimes skip generations – childen may get only one recessive gene from their parents, and so become carriers of the deafness gene, but they won’t be deaf themselves.
Working out how genes interact with each other and the environment is an extremely complex subject, and there are at least several hundred genetic changes that can lead to deafness. But just a few common causes dominate the list. You probably know of some of them, either from personal experience or through people you know.
Genetic causes for deafness are grouped in two ways. One group is linked with other traits, or syndromes. In the second group, deafness appears unrelated to anything else.
The first, syndromic group, include Usher’s, Waardenburg and Pendred syndrome. One feature of Waardenburg is a forelock of white hair, so if you’ve seen that, you’ve seen an example of syndromic deafness. These forms of deafness arise when mutations in a gene or a group of genes affect more than just hearing.
Genes provide instructions – you can think of it as a recipe – for making proteins. Our bodies use some proteins for more than one purpose. If a mutation affects one of these multi-purpose proteins, the effect shows up as a syndrome. Different areas of the body feel the impact of the missing or incomplete protein.
There are also at least 30 genetic causes of deafness that are not apparent through appearance or other issues. Most deaf people – 70 to 80% – are in this group. Of the major causes in this group is a mutation of the GJB2 gene.
This gene makes a protein called connexin 26, which makes a critical part need by cells to communicate with neighboring cells. This communication trouble at the cellular level scales all the way up to the whole individual!
Many genes in both groups have been mapped – their locations are precisely known, and tests for some are available. Some genes are so large that testing them for deafness-related mutations is too expensive, but among the smaller and well-known deafness genes, it’s possible to arrange tests. There are still some genetic causes of deafness where the location of the gene remains a mystery.
Both genes and our environment have a powerful influence on the people we become. But in the end, how we play the environmental and genetic cards we’re dealt has the greatest impact on our lives. The actions we take and the choices we make define us more than anything else.