Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Friday, August 19, 2005

Anencephaly and right-wing moralizers

neurulation

There's an important phenomenon in development called neurulation. This is a process that starts with a flat sheet of ectodermal cells, folds them into a tube, and creates our dorsal nervous system. Here's a simple cross-section of the process in a salamander, but in general outline we humans do pretty much the same thing. Cells move up and inward, and then zipper together along the length of the animal to produce a closed tube.

It's a seemingly simple event with a great deal of underlying complexity. It requires coordinated changes in the shape of ectodermal cells to drive the changes in tissue shape, and invisible in simple diagrams to the right are all the inductive interactions going on that trigger the differentiation of the tube into a nervous system.

This is also a relatively early event in humans. It begins about 18 days after fertilization, with a thickening of the ectoderm to form the initial sheet, called the neural plate. By day 19, the edges of the plate thicken and rise, and the whole thing folds at the midline and looks something like an open hot dog bun. The photo below is of a pair of 20 day old human embryos; the midline seam is open and clearly visible.

neurulation
neurulation

By day 23, the edges have all fused together along the length of the embryo, leaving openings call neuropores at the rostral and caudal ends; the picture to the left is of a 23 day old human embryo, looking at its head end, and you can see right into its prospective brain. By days 26-28, both neuropores will close.

This is a crucial event that occurs very early, in the first month, of a pregnancy. What happens if the zipper gets stuck, and the tube fails to close completely?

It happens, and unfortunately it happens fairly frequently. About 0.1% of births in America have a serious neural tube defect caused by a stuck neural tube zipper.

The outcome is myelomeningocele—portions of the neural tube are left exposed, fail to develop properly, and are damaged and degenerate. It's variable in its consequences; when the posterior neuropore fails to close completely, it can result in nearly undetectable defects in the caudal spine to lower body paralysis and perturbations of cerebrospinal fluid flow that if untreated, can lead to hydrocephalus and severe brain damage.

Failure of the anterior neuropore to close is even more serious. The brain fails to form. This condition is called anencephaly, and it is untreatable and lethal. If they aren't dead at birth, they might last a few days before succumbing. They have no brain. At best, they have a mass of dying, relatively undifferentiated neural tissue smeared across the floor of their incompletely formed skulls. They can't think, they can't feel, they can't respond. The real tragedy is that development can proceed surprisingly far without a brain, and these fetuses are recognizably human (here is a photo for the strong of stomach), and they can be carried fully to term.

I can't imagine a clearer case to illustrate that humanity involves more than just the fusion of two gametes. We aren't defined by our complement of genes or a single instant of genetic combination, but are the result of many genetic and epigenetic processes working progressively through embryogenesis to assemble a functioning human being. When moral absolutists try to apply simple-minded, black-and-white reasoning to a complex situation (and defining a human being is certainly a complex problem), you get criminal travesties like this one:

A sailor's wife was pregnant with an anencephalic child, whose probability of surviving or of ever being conscious was zero. She, reasonably, wanted an abortion.

But the Congress had decided -- that no federal funds should be used to pay for abortions except where the life of the mother was at stake. As a result, Tricare (formerly CHAMPUS) the agency that covers military families, refused to pay the $3000 the abortion would cost.

The family sued, and a federal court ordered Tricare to pay, and the abortion went forward.

Then the Justice Department (with John Ashcroft as Attorney General) sued the family to recover the $3000, out of the sailor's pay of less than $20,000 a year.

The Justice Department just won. A panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that, under a 1980 Supreme Court precedent upholding the Hyde Amendment -- a parallel provision to the one in question, but applying to Medicaid recipients rather than to military families -- the law was valid and the government didn't have to pay for the abortion. Consequently, the family has to pay the money back.

Our guardians of purity have magnified the pain of this family and willfully and vindictively punished them for the 'crime' of a biological imperfection. I call that evil, pure and simple. There should have been no question in this case that an abortion was necessary.

There are much more difficult cases. What if the fetus was diagnosed with 'merely' a case of myelomeningocele that meant it would be paralyzed, require extensive surgeries, and would be a crippling financial burden? The average cost per year of maintaining a child with myelomeningocele is approximately $70,000, and that drain never ends. People with severe spina bifida can be intellectually and socially capable, fully human, but a young family with limited resources ought to have the privilege of making a choice about whether to shoulder the responsibility before the fetus has acquired those mental capacities. I presume we now have a government that will force families to take on that burden, but will refuse to pay any part of the price.


Cohen MM (2002) Malformations of the craniofacial region: Evolutionary, embryonic, genetic, and clinical perspectives. American Journal of Medical Genetics 115(4):245-268.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2761/VWDg8nRb/

Comments:
#36565: — 08/20  at  07:10 AM
According to the AP story:
In a 3-0 ruling, the judges acknowledged the ruling was “callous and unfeeling,” and said they were not judging the “wisdom, fairness or logic” of congressional legislation that limited abortions under military medical plans.

A judicious description of the christocrat regime...



#36567: — 08/20  at  07:22 AM
? I have no idea what I said that could have been misconstrued to mean I support government control of healthcare decisions.

What I am trying to say is that as American citizens, we (military) have a great many options. Soldiers and Sailors take care of their own, even if the government wont or doesn't. Tricare isn't perfect, but it is a good syste (as health insurance goes). What needs to be fixed is the law, and that has to be fixed by having balanced, informed representation in congress.



#36616: — 08/20  at  02:09 PM
Well, the final decision in this case was made by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If you go into the Ninth Circuit's chambers and start talking about moral issues, and this goes for either group, you will lose. And for whoever it was who implied, falsely, that I was trying to use legalese as cover for a pro-life position, or to force someone to make certain medical choices...wow, I can't even begin to explain how wrong you are. Perhaps if you had read further, you would have seen how I was attempting to point out why the Ninth Circuit was in error on this decision.

Oh, and Harry, in the court case that PZ cited, and which is being discussed, the baby was anencephalic. I honestly don't really care about the example you gave, it's a straw man to say "turning from the issue where you're right, let's look at a completely different situation and pretend that it's the same so I can gain moral ground." I have to call BS.



#36617: — 08/20  at  02:12 PM
Oh, and implying that the Ninth Circuit is made up of right-wing theocrats is laughable. The Fourth Circuit certainly may be, after all, they tried to overturn Miranda a few years back, but the Ninth Circuit is not made up of "christocrats" by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm saying this because I'm seriously concerned that Roe might be in trouble if this is indicative of the people we have defending a woman's right to choose. Sheesh.



#36624: — 08/20  at  03:12 PM
Let me try one more time.

OK... THE COURT MADE A GOOD "LEGAL" DECISION.... Blah, blah, blah.

You skipped that entire part about how a law was passed, constitutional or not, designed to discourage a medical procedure by withholding federal funds. It may be legal, but it is wrong... and the ONLY women seriously affected, are women who cannot afford expensive medical procedures.

You can all go back to the law library now... nothing to see here.



#36628: jack* — 08/20  at  03:26 PM
Just a minor note here: "slippery slope" arguments have been, are now, and always will be, bogus and invalid. To argue we shouldn't do X because it might lead to Y is a logical fallacy. If you feel strongly about an issue you need to find a different argument, preferably a valid one.

Legal abortion doesn't make euthanasia legal. Period. No one in their right mind is going to make that equivalence. "Gee, grandma had an abortion when she was 16 because she couldn't afford it, so logically she shouldn't mind if I kill her now that she's become a burden to me." Give me a break.

Conversely, it's quite morally correct to look at financial issues when making decisions about starting a family or family composition. If fetal development is failing, and caring for the resulting child might destroy the viability of the rest of the family, it should be stopped. It's a wrenching decision that no one wants to have to make, but the family itself must be allowed to make it.



#36630: jack* — 08/20  at  03:32 PM
Oh, and could anything be more (oxy)moronic than then idea of a "cosmetic abortion?"



#36646: — 08/20  at  05:50 PM
MpM:

The problem is that the pro-lifers use the exact same argument as yours for why Roe should be overturned. They say the EXACT SAME THING about how regardless of the legal issues involved, Roe was an immoral and wrong decision. The entire point of having a legal system is because emotional arguments over morality really don't get people anywhere. In fact, the entire point of the Roe decision was that regardless of the personal moral opinions that people may have over abortion, laws banning abortion simply cannot be justified in our legal system, because they violate the rights of the patients involved.

The principle is actually quite similar to the problem with IDiots and creationists. Just because a particular "scientific" philosophy might seem morally correct to religious fundamentalists is completely irrelevent to the question of what constitutes a valid scientific theory. The emotional impact that teaching evolution might have on fragile religious minds is completely irrelevent compared to both the scientific principles involved and the legal establishment clause issues.



#36661: Ron Sullivan — 08/20  at  08:29 PM
associated with high maternal fever and tends to occur in clusters

Thank you, Tlazolteotl. You've just answered a question I'd forgotten I had shelved in my head, about a cluster of admissions we had back when I was working in the NICU, some 25 years ago. It's rare to get an anencephalic patient at all, but we had two plus um at least three IIRC really awful neural tube defects that manifested as meningoceles; I think one of them survived long enough to leave the nursery, and we knew she wasn't going to last long after.

Flashbacks, shit, that was a rough month.



#36663: — 08/20  at  08:46 PM
Hyperion, it is amusing to be scolded for responding to the part of Professor Myers' post on spina bifida. I have not offered any opinions about anencephalic pregnancies, nor do I have any; but he introduced spina bifida, and I do have opinions about that.

I would add that, if $70,000 is the cutoff, that is probably quite a bit less than the annual cost of maintaining a graduate student in biology at UM-Morris. Cui bono?

As for slippery slope arguments, jack, they may not fly in the philosopher's classroom, but they fly very well in politics, and elsewhere. Have you ever visited that estimable blog pharyngula?

There you will often find a slippery slope argument that if schools allow in dogmatism in the shape of IDCreationism in the biology classroom, it will spread to geology, physics etc.

I have never objected to those arguments, because I suspect they are right. I have no problem with slippery slope arguments.

Your move, jack.



#36670: — 08/20  at  10:37 PM
Hyperion, I think it might be more correct to say that Roe stated it unconstitutional to, broadly and without specific definition, limit a medical practitioner and patient from discussing, concluding and practicing abortion.

States can
1) after the first trimester, regulate abortion to promote the welfare of the mother.
2) after the fetus becomes viable (can potentially live a meaningful life outside the mother's womb), regulate abortion to promote the welfare of the child except where the life or health of the mother is at stake.

Roe is a double edged sword. It was an impartial decision made free of contentious moral positions and emotion. This makes it a double edged sword because both sides (pro-life and pro-choice) have emotional and contentious arguments.



#36737: jack* — 08/21  at  11:43 AM
Bad arguments "fly" because people are credulous. It's not just pointy-headed intellectuals who should be concerned about faulty reasoning -- it's used constantly to justify any number of bad policies and dubious ethics. If people would learn to recognize logical fallacies like the slippery slope discourse could be more productive overall.

Not sure what you saw at Pharyngula that you thought was a slippery slope. The thing on "Intelligent Falling" was more of a humorous analogy than an argument. Meyers has been pretty clear and forceful throughout that his objection with ID is not that it could lead to other bad things but that it itself is not science and does not belong in the science classroom.

Sometimes the anti-ID side will argue that if we teach Bible creationism we should also teach the creation myths of other religions. That's not a slippery slope either, but rather an attempt to highlight the religious nature of ID, as well as the hipocracy of asking for equal time for one dogma but not others.



#36753: — 08/21  at  01:04 PM
The stated position of the IDCers, in debate, is that they are not attacking science in general. I don't believe they are being honest about that (most of them), but that's what they say.

To argue then that a consequence of allowing IDC in the classroom will necessarily spread throughout the academy is a slippery slope. I don't recall Professor Myers saying that here, but it's easy enough to find at PT, and others have said it here, without contradiction.

Besides, if you're going to invoke LOGIC on this issue, then we have to back up and decide whether Roe v. Wade, with its numerological mumbojumbo, was a logical decision.

However, to find slippery slope arguments widely accepted, we do not need to go so far.

It is not obvious, in logic, for example, that objecting to late term abortions or particular methods of doing them is either unreasonable in itself or commits the objector to opposing all abortions. Yet the violent and hysterical counterreaction to the attempts to prohibit 'intact dilation and extraction' is a classic slippery slope argument.

Yet I have never heard any proabortion advocate object to it on that ground.

It is possible that you are not so rigidly logical in your argumentation as you think you are.



#36754: — 08/21  at  01:07 PM
Hyperion:
Unlike Science, law is social. For that reason a law rooted in moral indignation against abortion is expressed in economic terms. "At least we reign in get the ones who can't afford it".

Factually, you are correct... I am just pouting about the social injustice.



#36823: — 08/22  at  01:33 AM
"Cruel burden, eh?

$70,000 a year,eh?

Speaking of cutoffs, what's yours? $50,000?

$25,000?"

Zero; the decision to have an abortion should be left to the parents, not to you or to government bureaucrats.

"However, if you are sincerely advancing this proposition, then you must also, in logic, call for the immediate shutdown of all government-financed drug rehab clinics."

Logic obviously isn't your area of expertise.



#36824: — 08/22  at  01:44 AM
"To argue then that a consequence of allowing IDC in the classroom will necessarily spread throughout the academy is a slippery slope. I don't recall Professor Myers saying that here, but it's easy enough to find at PT, and others have said it here, without contradiction."

That's not a slipperly slope argument. We object to teaching IDC in science classes on its own grounds. The argument about not teaching astrology in astronomy class, young earthism in geology class, and so on is an argument from illustrative analogy. A slippery slope argument is used when you lack an adequate argument against something and instead argue that it will inevitably lead to bad consequences without demonstrating same.

"Yet the violent and hysterical counterreaction to the attempts to prohibit 'intact dilation and extraction' is a classic slippery slope argument."

That's a case of begging the question.


"Yet I have never heard any proabortion advocate object to it on that ground."

There are no "proabortion" advocates, scumball. We would all prefer that abortions were rare, which is why we support sex education, contraceptives, economic opportunities for young people, and so on.



Trackback: When Ideology Trumps Science Tracked on: Imago Dei (66.151.149.25) at 2005 08 22 11:37:06
Those open to the idea of intelligent design are often charged with allowing ideology to get in the way of science. On the other hand, opponents of intelligent design claim that their only concern is the purity of science, and



#37392: Susie from Philly — 08/24  at  10:49 PM
Actually, the single biggest factor in neural tube defects is folic acid deficiency.



#37413: notheory — 08/25  at  07:41 AM
Thanks, Tlazolteotl. smile

In conclusion, David Horowitz is an intellectual pygmy.



#37461: Sal — 08/25  at  12:13 PM
Viki Wilson's story merits telling and re-telling. Senator Hyde called her a murderer for having an abortion.



#37463: Sal — 08/25  at  12:23 PM
Ack. Malformed link. Here's another Viki Wilson link that should work better.



#39634: — 09/12  at  11:03 AM
I just stumbled across this site by accident but I am shocked by what I have read so far.I am not a right-winger or pro-lifer.I feel everyone has a right to do what they want.Anyway I am 27 weeks pregnant with a baby that was diagnoised with anencephaly at 20 weeks(5 months). I chose to carry my child to term, not because I dont believe in abortion but because this was my child and I wasnt about kill him because he had something wrong with him.I have seen my son several times on ultrasound I saw his heartbeat at 7 weeks, at 17 weeks I watched him suck his thumb,everyday I feel him kick and move. He has 10 fingers,10 toes,he is perfectly normal except for his anencephaly.He is not some deformed fetus that cant feel or respond, this is a child concevied through love that can feel and he can respond.It has been hard knowing that my child will die shortly after birth,but it was also hard knowing my 5 year old nephew would die shortly when he was diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor.So to save our selves the pain and anxiety of seeing that 5 year old die we should have went ahead and killed him as soon as we got the diagnosis? I dont think so.If you dont think these little babies can bring more joy than pain maybe you should check out some of the anencephaly support groups on line.



#39641: notheory — 09/12  at  11:41 AM
Nicole:

I'm sorry that your family is afflicted thus :(

But i think that's the point at hand isn't it? It's not that anyone is forcing people to terminate pregnancies that will result in newborns that will survive. But people should be allowed to make the choice that you have had available to you. Don't you think?

In conclusion, David Horowitz is an intellectual pygmy.



#39642: notheory — 09/12  at  11:45 AM
will *NOT survive. gah. proof-reading lacking...

In conclusion, David Horowitz is an intellectual pygmy.



#39650: — 09/12  at  12:17 PM
yes everyone should have the choice if they want to carry their child to term or terminate them. That does not give anyone the right to dehumanize these babies by saying they dont feel,respond,etc.They are not brainless freak babies as so many people want to label them.Yes I chose to carry my child to term.I had the choice to make life easier on myself by getting rid of the problem(the grossly deformed baby as many would say),but no one ever said life was easy folks sometimes we are handed lemons in life.Maybe the goverment should pay for the abortions of a baby with anencephaly or spina bifida. Maybe had the goverment(or somebody!) tried to get the word out about the importance of women taking folic acid in their child bearing years we might not have so many babies afflicted with anencephaly.



Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >

Next entry: Twisting legalities like they were the Bible

Previous entry: Arrr, this be the book fer me

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college