20060530

Abortion and Brainwaves

Abortion and Brainwaves.

(See here) an article written by Margaret Sykes that discusses fetal brain waves.

One very pointed critique I have of the article is that Margaret fixates on the cortex again. My understanding of things is that the cortex only serves as a bridge between what goes on in the body and what goes on in the "mind".

Margarets piece yields nothing on what happens in the cerebrum, or when activity in the the fetal brain might indicate the "fetus/baby" is starting to think.

9 Comments:

Blogger Michael said...

Um... no. I think you have a misunderstanding of neurophysiology and/or terminology.

When we say "cortex", it implicitly refers to the "cerebral cortex", i.e., the grey matter of the cerebrum.

The cerebral cortex (or simple "cortex") is where all the funky stuff happens insofar as "thinking".

See my neuroanatomy notes on the cerebral cortex.

I'm not exactly sure what you are thinking of, but the "bridge" would either be the spinal cord, the brainstem, or arguably even the deep white matter tracts of the brain (e.g., the corpus callosum).

The article that you have linked to thus is a perfect example of why EEG criteria for "abortion" is unworkable (and in any case, filled with nonsense from the pro-life lobby).

If you are measuring EEGs for activity in the cerebral cortex, it is firstly a very bad measure for "thinking". Secondly, there is pretty good evidence that babies in utero are anaethetised and not doing any thinking in any case. On EEG criteria alone, you could probably justify aborting a near term infant (something which is not considered acceptable even by the pro-choice supporters).

Regards,
Michael Tam
vitualis' Medical Rants

5/31/2006 03:09:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

OK, I will accept my own ignorance on the subject, which is why I continue to seek out opinions from those more learned then me. What I would like to see discussed is when brain waves indicate something is going on in the cerebrum.

What I am talking of is that those that approach this subject from a pro-choice viewpoint (such as yourself) often approach it from the "pain" threshold and arguing as to when "connectivity" between the brain and the nervous system is completed.

You have obviously already made up your mind about the issue. You continuously (as you have just now) made statements such as "Secondly, there is pretty good evidence that babies in utero are anaethetised and not doing any thinking in any case." I do not consider anaethetised as a proper criteria.

If EEGs are too crude a method of charting brain activity, then I would suggest we seek to do detailed brain scans somehow. While the procedure might be too risky to be performed on a fetus that is intended to be brought to full term, there are numerous ones that are going to be aborted anyway, so why not conduct the studies on them?

I know this is a rather horrible thought, however if it is OK to kill them, surely it is OK to study them before we do it to extend the realm of human knowledge.

5/31/2006 07:07:00 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

The brain of the foetus is generally not accessible to a non-invasive "brain scan" of any sort.

Furthermore, the decision to undergo a termination of pregnancy is not exactly something a woman takes lightly. I find it difficult to construct any meaningful study that would fall within bounds of medical ethics.

There are simply technological limitations here. At present, it is not feasible. Which is why I have consistently argued that "brain activity" should definitely not be considered a criteria of acceptability for termination.

I know this is a rather horrible thought, however if it is OK to kill them, surely it is OK to study them before we do it to extend the realm of human knowledge.

Yes, this is a rather horrible thought and one that is not consistent with modern ethical norms in medical research. By this same argument, would it be reasonable to study (involuntarily) people in the terminal stages of their disease? Or perhaps perform medical experiments on condemned criminals immediately before execution?

What I am talking of is that those that approach this subject from a pro-choice viewpoint (such as yourself) often approach it from the "pain" threshold and arguing as to when "connectivity" between the brain and the nervous system is completed.

Actually, I believe only a minority of pro-choice proponents use this line of reasoning. It is usually the pro-life people who use this idea and then throw around completely erroneous facts.

From a factual point of view, if you are asking WHEN a foetus has "thoughts" that we would characterise as being experiential of being human, the answer is probably that it NEVER does in utero. As for whether any PARTICULAR foetus is having thoughts or capable of having thoughts, that question is unanswerable with current technology.

Except for a few extremists, the pro-choice people do not advocate terminations all the way up to term. Again, this is why I emphasise that "brain waves" are a useless concept in this particular area.

My personal opinion is that even if a foetus has not reached a developmental stage capable of having "thoughts", BUT is capable of surviving ex-utero, then it would be unethical to abort. If the mother is in serious harm (or will self harm if remains pregnant), then a Caesarian should be performed and the infant given the best chance with modern neonatal intensive care. Realistically, this falls at around the 20 weeks gestation mark - which is also the generally acceptable cut off for terminations. The vast majority of all terminations occur much earlier than this.

Regards,
Michael Tam

5/31/2006 11:02:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

You are arguing with both sides of your mouth.

If the fetus is incapable of being harmed by being killed, surely it is incapable of being harmed by being studied before it is killed.

As for the woman, if the woman is so sure she is not harming another person by killing that which grows inside her, surely she would agree the studies would prove she is right!

We could even motivate her to subject herself to the inconvenience of the studies by offering her some money for doing so. She will thus be rewarded financially for subjecting herself to a study that will only prove that her judgement was correct. What does she (or you) have to fear?

By the way, you object to EEGs (brainwaves) as a determination of when human thought occurs. When I suggest another means of determinings this, and explore the possible objections, you still express objections.

You seem to grasp at every straw to prove you are right.

If the fetus is less then human, then experiments on this "thing" that is less then human can not be objected to. You still object?

Why? If it is OK to kill it, while is it not OK to observe it prior to killing it?

5/31/2006 12:32:00 PM  
Blogger Little David said...

By the way, your position seems to rely on the position of viability.

Within human understanding, is it not possible to bring a human embryo to term from first fertilization to term absent the mother? What was the name of that cloned sheep?

I think your definition is going to become too restrictive as human knowledge progresses. Eventually this is going to result in viability being defined as the point of conception (with human technological assistance).

5/31/2006 12:42:00 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

If the fetus is incapable of being harmed by being killed, surely it is incapable of being harmed by being studied before it is killed.

You are right... but that is beside the point. The issue is consent from the mother.

As for the woman, if the woman is so sure she is not harming another person by killing that which grows inside her, surely she would agree the studies would prove she is right!

"Surely" here is completely wrong. Why do the vast majority people not want to have an autopsy or want their (dead) relatives to have one? Surely there is no "harm"? After all, they are dead.

Also, surely taking tissue or samples of organs from dead people (in autopsies) for the purposes of medical education would not be unethical by your logic. Again, it isn't as if the dead person is going to "miss" their parts of their body.

We could even motivate her to subject herself to the inconvenience of the studies by offering her some money for doing so. She will thus be rewarded financially for subjecting herself to a study that will only prove that her judgement was correct. What does she (or you) have to fear?

Good one. Try to get THAT past an ethics approval board. I think most people can see that experiment as paying women to abort to experiment on their foetuses and you'll be fighting an impossible upward battle to convince people otherwise.

By the way, you object to EEGs (brainwaves) as a determination of when human thought occurs. When I suggest another means of determinings this, and explore the possible objections, you still express objections.

Okay, what "other means" have you suggested. You haven't suggested any other means. You are just assuming these "other means" exist. Sorry, but they don't - not without killing the foetus in the process.

Furthermore, I think that you are entirely missing the point. You still have a mistaken belief that if we could somehow have a magical test that could "measure brainwaves", that it would show 6 week embryos having thoughts. Let us say we revolutionalise functional MRIs such that we can map neurological function in the foetal brain. What will we see?

Well, we actually already kind of know (which is what I have mentioned dozens of times previously). Foetal brains are anaethetised by circulating maternal hormones. If you could do an EEG (without killing the foetus), the foetus wouldn't have any brainwaves suggesting of thought. It is basically asleep in utero.

If the fetus is less then human, then experiments on this "thing" that is less then human can not be objected to. You still object?

Simplistic and ignorant. A tumour is definitely less than human. We can't experiment on a tumour without the patient's (from which the tumour came from) consent. People own their own "tissues" and there are very very few circumstances when someone else can use your body or a part of it in a way without your explicit knowledge.

Most women would probably NOT want their aborted foetuses to be experimented on and certainly any coercion otherwise would be immoral.

There are practical considerations as well. The reason why we have neurophysiological information on foetuses to begin with (see your own article) is that those were aborted by a Caesarian section. The process allows for the foetus to be most undamaged in the actual process. Most terminations now are either chemical or by a currette or vacuum. This destroys the tissues in the process, making any sort of delicate analysis afterwards impossible. A termination is ultimately designed to be safe for the woman and this is unlikely to change.

Within human understanding, is it not possible to bring a human embryo to term from first fertilization to term absent the mother? What was the name of that cloned sheep?

Sigh... Sorry, but you absolute lack of knowledge of reproductive medicine makes it almost ludicrous that you are trying to argue on a technical level.

"Dolly" was firstly cloned from an adult animal. The "embryo" was created by in vitro (in GLASS) techniques (i.e., outside of the body). The embryo was then implanted into the surrogate mother. Not too different from IVF techniques we have for humans.

You are talking about extracting an implanted embryo and keeping it alive in the process. That is frankly impossible and likely to be so for the forseeable future.

Regards,
Michael Tam

5/31/2006 11:27:00 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

If you still don't understand, functional MRI at best (i.e., in experimental machines) have a resolution of around a few millimetres to about half a centimetre. For the vast majority of aborted foetuses, they will be at most a few centimetres in length, with brains in the size of a few millimetres to perhaps a centimetre.

That is, the brain of a foetus as represented by fMRI would be a handful of pixels and the cerebral cortex completely invisible.

Functional MRI is in reality the only form of non-invasive functional imaging available to humans at this time.

BTW, if you aren't aware, the "EEGs" conducted on those foetuses in the studies weren't done by a few electrodes stuck onto Mum's belly. There were performed by placing fine wires inside the brains of the aborted foetuses.

Regards,
Michael Tam

5/31/2006 11:36:00 PM  
Blogger Little David said...

Actually, the article describes that both surface and depth electrodes were used. By surface electrodes, I took it to mean on the surface of the skull, and not the surface of the belly, but the article is not clear on this.

6/01/2006 05:38:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

As for what "other means" I proposed, I believe I mentioned a brain scan, something other then an EEG. I have seen images from brain scans that were color coded so as to indicate areas of high and low activity in the brain. Perhaps these were a result of an MRI? I do not know.

I am sorry my lack of knowledge frustrates you, however your continued statements why it is OK to abort the child frustrates me. You continue to point out the fetus/baby is anaesthesized, or most recently you stated: "It is basically asleep in utero." You introduce ethics into the argument as if "no studies can be done" because of "ethics" but then make that statement! So let me see if I got this straight.

We can not study a fetus because of ethics. But we can kill it because it is asleep.

Let us further explore these circular ethics of yours. You stated: "Yes, this is a rather horrible thought and one that is not consistent with modern ethical norms in medical research. By this same argument, would it be reasonable to study (involuntarily) people in the terminal stages of their disease? Or perhaps perform medical experiments on condemned criminals immediately before execution?"

We do not involuntarily study criminals, because even convicted criminals are a "person". We can kill the fetus because we as a society have evidently determined they are not a person. The executed person is still given a funeral while the aborted fetus might as well be thrown in the dumpster. Do you think there is anything wrong with a person vonluntarily donating their body to science for study? If the fetus is still not a person, but only part of the pregnant woman's tissues, then she can't voluntarily agree to allow studies of these tissues? We might have to ask 1000 women for permission to get one to agree, but if we then ask 100,000 women we would have 100 specimens.

I also hope that when you finish your studies you are not as quick to jump to conclusions. You state: "You still have a mistaken belief that if we could somehow have a magical test that could "measure brainwaves", that it would show 6 week embryos having thoughts." Where have I ever indicated this? I believe I did point out there have been claims EEG's conducted on fetuses as early as 42 days after conception have shown brainwaves. I did not state that this proves the fetus is then thinking.

I also am frustrated by your lack of understanding of the abortion debate here in America. You stated: "Except for a few extremists, the pro-choice people do not advocate terminations all the way up to term." Perhaps that is how it is in Australia, however here in America, these pro-choice "extremists" are engaged in framing the debate. They object to ANY restrictions on a "woman's right to choose" and fight, in court, any effort to regulate late term abortion procedures such as partial birth abortion. If the "majority" of pro-choicers are in disagreement with them, they are remaining silent and not telling this vocal and activist minority to knock it off.

6/01/2006 06:22:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home