Over-the-Counter Access for Birth Control Pills: What’s the Rush?

by | April 21, 2017 | Fertility and pregnancy

On April 17, 2017, a French group called « Libérez ma pilule” : (Free the Pill) published an open letter addressed to pharmaceutical labs, the French Health Products Safety Agency and the European Medical Agency (EMA), to request OTC (over-the counter) marketing of birth control pills.

This measure would affect progestin-only contraceptives which are reported to have fewer contraindications than “combined” pills (those with both estrogen and progestin), especially those from 3rd or 4th generation.

The side-effects associated with these latter pills led to a serious controversy with complaints being filed, whereby the French government finally refused the pills’ reimbursement in 2013, due to risks of phlebitis and vascular complications.

The group’s request, backed up by a petition, states « this step forward for women’s rights in Europe and in France to have free access to contraception is at a standstill”. In their opinion, without consulting a gynecologist or a general practitioner, “women should have access to birth control pills at the pharmacy (over-the-counter), whereby a pre-established questionnaire could determine whether or not a woman would be at risk”. This claim is supported by some countries’ example, where the practice is already authorized, and by statements issued by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that recommended the over-the-counter sale of birth control pills in 2012.

This so-called « Collective Group » purports to be composed of health professionals, members of Family Planning and feminists. Among the signatories, many figure among those who spoke out strongly against the conscience clause for pharmacists, discussed within the Order of Pharmacists as the “Joint Group of Pharmacists against the Conscience Clause”, and founded just for the event, without a spokesperson, and whose members are known as “twitter signers”, mostly anonymous or only known by their pseudonyms.

This activist petition was even passed on by French Minister for Women’s Rights, Laurence Rossignol. This rush for OTC pills raises several questions: especially since long-term oral contraception is not without risk. If women (especially young women) do not consult a gynecologist or a doctor, they are deprived from obtaining appropriate follow-up and prevention advice. In addition, if birth control pills are qualified as a medical treatment, it is because they have possible but non-negligible side-effects.

According to INED, (French National Institute for Demographic Studies) 72% of women carrying out abortions were using contraception when they discovered they were pregnant. Consequently, downplaying the risks of contraception by trivializing any need for regular medical check-ups does not appear as an appropriate answer

For Professor, Geneviève Plu-Bureau, a specialist from the French National Congress of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, “the reason the government increased the reimbursement rate for medical consultations for 15-18 year-old girls, is because it is not a simple evaluation.” She also emphasizes that “only long-term contraceptives such IUD’s or contraceptive implants have been shown to be effective in reducing the number of non-desired pregnancies.”

According to Professor Philippe Deruelle, French General Secretary for the National Congress of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, this is “only a good idea at first sight”, as he continues to point out drawbacks with progestin-only pills. Even if the pills themselves do not provoke adverse side-effects, taking the medication is inconvenient and is often associated with tolerance problems, especially that of having an effect on sexuality or provoking bleeding. “This is not an insignificant or innocuous matter. It can be worrisome for women to have unexpected bleeding throughout the month. This measure would implicate a simultaneous loss of choice and counseling.”

As for increasing the role of pharmacists, Philippe Deruelle sees a horrible lack of empathy. « It’s so contradictory. Lately, on one hand, we’ve seen that women need to be more listened to, as seen by all the criticisms voiced using “#paietonuterus”.) On the other hand, we only offer them over-the-counter advice, this is not credible… No one can offer an automatic prescription without having a minimum of interaction. A genuine consultation includes discussion during the consultation.


 

« Essure® »: Controversial Female Sterilization Device

by | April 20, 2017 | Fertility and pregnancy

“Essure” is a small metallic coil-shaped birth control device which is permanently inserted into each fallopian tube. The resulting inflammation and scar tissue build-up thus creates a barrier, which theoretically provides permanent female sterilization.

Numerous adverse side-effects have been reported including device migration, organ perforation, and persistent pain. In December 2016, two patients filed lawsuits, and apparently more than 30 other claims are currently being established against Bayer who markets this implant in France. In response, the French Health Products Safety Agency has named a Temporary Specialized Scientific Committee with multidisciplinary independent experts to establish a report comparing the benefits and risks of the device.

In this context, several groups have been auditioned, such as the “R.E.S.I.S.T.” association (a network to support and provide information on tubular sterilization), who has requested by precaution that women do not have the device implanted. In France, 1200 women having been implanted with the device have joined this association in order to obtain answers. This allows them to exchange information and testimonials on the secondary effects of this tubular sterilization device and to compile the results of a questionnaire carried out among the members. In the USA, women who have been victims of adverse side-effects have joined a Collective Group. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has already received 9,970 adverse event reports associated with the use of Essure.

Family Planning and the National Association of Abortion and Contraception Centers were also auditioned, who requested for the device to be taken off the market.

The French National College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians also spoke during these hearings. The gynecologist, Dr. Olivier Graesslin, suggested that the x-ray performed 3-months post-insertion should automatically be backed up by a sonogram. He also suggested implementing “a specification sheet” for removing Essure and a directory of “expert” gynecologists throughout France.

According to the French Medical Drug Agency, 140,000 Essure devices have been sold in France since 2011, an average of over 20,000 per year. France represents 40% of the worldwide market for this implant.

On April 19, 2017, the same agency reported in a report that over 1000 French women have experienced problems with the device or the appearance of adverse side-effects between 2003 and February 2017.

During the insertion procedure, 682 problems were noted (breakage or non-functioning of the small coil-shaped device…), whereas 457 incidents occurred at a later date. Among the problems following implantation, 138 were mechanical (device migration, organ perforation…), 249 were gynecological (bleeding and abdominal pain) and 281 of different nature (other kinds of pain, extreme fatigue, allergic reactions, depression…). Forty women also reported becoming pregnant after receiving an Essure implant.

The director of medical therapeutic devices at the French Medical Drug Agency, Brigitte Heuls, recognizes that these statistics for dysfunction and adverse side-effects may be underestimated, since they are based uniquely on the incidents reported to the agency. Therefore, she emphasized the evaluation of the device “demonstrates some limitations”.

For the lawsuits currently in progress, the decision from the judge of the High Court in Bobigny (Seine-Saint-Denis) is expected by May 5th.

At the end of their evaluation, the Temporary Specialized Scientific Committee will give their recommendations which will be published in the coming weeks.

=========================================================================

Notes :

Temporary Specialized Scientific Committee

Understanding Alliance VITA’s trend indicator for biopolitical issues

by | April 19, 2017 | Bioethics, News, Publications

Henri de Soos, Alliance VITA’s General Secretary answers 4 questions regarding the significance and the scope of this political trend indicator.

1° Why establish such a trend indicator?

The trend indicator is a simple tool, often used by several organizations throughout this presidential election period. Using a comparative table with clearly formulated language, the prior position for each candidate or his future commitment is summarized. This clarification is useful information for voters and contributes to democratic discourse.

Since autumn 2016, Alliance VITA has published several trend indicators on its website. A trend indicator was performed for each Primary voting session (for the Left, Center and Right political parties), and currently we provide updates for the 11 official candidates.

2° Your trend indicator doesn’t address all the subjects that French citizens are preoccupied about!

Before casting their ballot in a presidential election, the constituents should evaluate all aspects of political, economic, social and international life. However, we are convinced that most of the policies a candidate proposes always correlate with a “certain perception of Mankind”.  It is as essential to identify and understand this anthropological viewpoint, although rarely expressed openly, as it is to explain “a certain idea of France” in international politics. Therefore in our opinion, it is indispensable to shed light on these basic principles.

We have then chosen 10 so-called « biopolitical » subjects, since they provide tangible proof for each candidate’s bioethical convictions. These subjects deal with respecting the most vulnerable of our citizens, and the measures required for them to become, or remain included as part of society. Often, these are issues affecting those individuals who don’t have much electoral weight. For example in cases of surrogacy or medically-assisted reproduction it is mostly only the adults’ desires which are taken into account. But who is concerned about the child, deprived of his paternal or maternal filiation? Isn’t this fundamentally unfair? Who worries about or defends the infant?

3° How is the color attributed to each issue?

We created 4 different categories, to represent each candidate’s position on the issues: ethical (blue); unethical (red) ambivalent (grey); and unknown for any specific policies (white).

But in some cases, a candidate may have changed his opinion from that of previous years (for example for laws concerning ethical issues) compared to his current position during the electoral campaign. Thus there are 2 different colors to represent a change in policy. This is especially the case for the 3 subjects listed at the bottom of the table.

For example in the first category, concerning human embryo research, only 3 candidates voiced specific opinions: the primary “cursor” evaluated the candidate’s position for the 2013 law which removed the precept of prohibition for this particular research, and created guidelines to authorize it under specific conditions.

In our opinion, François Fillon voiced an ethical opinion when the law was voted (since he voted against), but he recently voiced an unethical point of view, since he clearly stated he was not in favor of abrogating this law. Marine Le Pen and Nicolas Dupont-Aignan also had an ethical position at the time the law was voted, but currently we don’t know if they want to abrogate it as they have not yet stated their positions on this particular issue. Therefore, the table attempts to make a distinction between these different positions taken at different periods of time. In order to keep the same cursor for all the candidates, we had to make a distinction between the two different situations.

In fact, the idea is to « compare like with like », with the same benchmarks for each candidate and for each issue. Otherwise, the candidates are not being compared with the same reference criteria.

This same principle was used during the last reform to enforce a wider scope of “numerical obstruction” to abortion: we specifically emphasized François Fillon’s position to abrogate on this last issue, compared with his previous one on embryo research.

Even if this is merely one single issue, whereas others were taken during the 5-year term, in our viewpoint, this kind of resistance has considerable political impact after years of subordination under a deconstructive ideology.

Our trend indicator is updated periodically, in function of the latest known position for the candidates. We underline not only simple statements, but well-founded implications, since we expect candidates to have the courage to “repair the deconstructive damage” to our society.

4° How is an overall appreciation established for each candidate?

The objective of the trend indicator is not to establish an ideal « providential » candidate who would be readily obvious….since that candidate doesn’t exist! Some profiles appear to assure an overall ethical coherence. But when looking at the details for each candidate, there are certain incoherencies, either in the historical development of his or her convictions, or on various issues. Many do not state their positions; therefore we have no way of knowing what they really think.

Everyone must form their own opinion, by consulting the files of the candidates’ declarations for further details, by comparing each issue, by seeking additional information, by discussing with friends, etc. The final decision to vote for a candidate may be made in function of multiple criteria, among those cited, but also in function of other issues, as mentioned above.

As for many French citizens, we have observed that political utterances are increasingly short-lived, and the candidates’ promises are increasingly unstable. Regardless of how specific the trend indicator is, these aforementioned conditions may affect its validity, or its scope. But this requires us to act in a responsible manner, not naively, blindly or passively to give any candidate whomsoever a blank check. Regardless of the election results, this is the reason we continue to remain committed, involved and active, not only until the legislative elections, but continually throughout the coming five-year term.

Euthanasia: Completely Biased Opinion Poll to Influence Presidential Campaign

by | April 14, 2017 | News

On March 18, 2017, the Association for the Right to Die in Dignity published its latest survey, carried out by the IFOP institute. The association thus proclaimed that: “95% of French citizens are in favor of euthanasia”. Those who ordered the survey to be conducted then used this statistic to pressure presidential election candidates.

The French program « Envoyé special» (Special Reporter) mentioned this figure in their report televised on April 13, 2017. The journalist declared that it is “an enormous figure conveniently reported in the middle of the electoral campaign (…). It is very rare to have a survey with such a high percentage.” The journalist sought to detect the manner in which the question was formulated: “Some individuals with unbearable suffering and incurable diseases sometimes request euthanasia from their doctors, meaning putting an end to their life, without suffering. In your opinion, should doctors be authorized by law to end their lives without suffering, for these individuals with unbearable suffering and incurable diseases if they so request?”

Wondering if these questions were formulated to influence the responses, the journalist question Alain Garrigou, the director at the Observatory for opinion polls. He declares that it is absolutely flagrant when reading the questions: “I see suffering mentioned twice…unbearable…incurable. Herein is a question of compassion.(…) This is a question which incites compassion, and anyone who would not accept this would be kind of a bastard. To ask the question in a neutral manner, it should rather be formulated: in your opinion, should we vote for a law authorizing euthanasia? I accuse IFOP of committing a blatant offense of methodological error. This question is anything but neutral.”

When questioned “is the question hereby trying to manipulate the polls” the latter replied: “There is a simple answer: who ordered the opinion survey?” We replied that it was an association in favor of euthanasia.

“So, there is your answer”.

In 2014, the group « Relieve Suffering without Killing » had IFOP carry out a survey on the end-of-life issue.

For the question:

« When you imagine the end of your own life, among the following points, which two points are priorities for you?” The following answers were given:

Only 34% of those who were polled said they would request euthanasia. This figure is a far cry from the 95% cited previously, which is emphasized today by Franceinfo in their article comparing the two opinion polls.

According to Frédéric Dabi, who edited the opinion poll for the Right to Die in Dignity Association, “this is a historical question”. In fact the association has been asking the same question regularly for the past several years.

“In reality, French citizens responded affirmatively to a badly formulated question, a type of dialectical trap. A question which makes the answer so obvious, that one cannot help but answer « yes », without appearing to be completely insane or uninformed. On one side there is « unbearable suffering » and on the other a solution « without suffering ».

The question repeatedly insists on comparing both extremes, two times in the same question. Tell me, do you know many individuals who would accept enduring intolerable situations? In principle, if a situation is intolerable, it should be immediately terminated. Thus 100% of French citizens should have answered “yes” and not only 92 or 96%! We are faced with a choice that has been rigged, a manipulation with ideological objectives, which voids the poll of any conclusive value, as for the two previous years.”

Henri de Soos comments: « The Association for the Right to Die in Dignity continues its insistence on asking the same biased question, it shouldn’t fool anyone. Relieving suffering at the end-of-life has always been a medical and social objective, and it’s completely untrue to assert that only euthanasia can alleviate constant suffering.

This is why Alliance VITA has been requesting an ambitious development strategy for developing palliative care and harshly criticizes this ongoing lack of action during the past 5-year term. Only at the end of 2015, after 3 years of embarrassing inactivity, did the government finally decide to create an inadequate strategy well-below current needs. Palliative care and quality humane accompaniment remain the best solutions to French citizens worried about the end of their lives.

Forbidding killing protects citizens, especially those who are the most vulnerable. This principle should remain the founding pillar of trust between caregivers and patients, to which the French people are so committed.”

An Open Letter Calling for a Ban on Reproductive Human Genome Modification

by | April 13, 2017 | Uncategorized

In November 2015, the American organization “Center for Genetics and Society” * published an open letter signed by over 175 research scholars, scientists, health professionals, and public interest advocates, calling for strengthened prohibitions against using modification techniques on human gametes and embryos.

Those signing this letter represent a broad spectrum of professions, with a wide range of opinions on many questions involving the uses of gene modification.

They all agreed unanimously that a serious warning must be sounded: “All of us agree, however, about one of its potential applications: We must not alter the genes we pass on to our descendants.”

The open letter declares: “implementation of heritable human genetic modification – often referred to as the creation of ‘genetically modified humans’ or ‘personalised babies’ – could irrevocably alter the nature of human species and society.” The letter warns that: “experiments with human germline intervention could lead to miscarriage, maternal injury, and stillbirth. Genetically modified children who seem healthy at birth could develop serious problems later in life, some perhaps introduced by purported enhancements. Other harmful consequences of germline modification might only present themselves in subsequent generations. Such outcomes would represent individual tragedies”.

The letter responds to a recurring argument, stating: “Some suggest that germline modification be allowed for therapeutic purposes but not for ‘enhancement.’ ” However, letter continues: “But the distinction between these applications is subjective and would be difficult or even impossible to implement as policy. Permitting germline intervention for any intended purpose would open the door to an era of “high-tech consumer eugenics” in which affluent parents seek to choose socially preferred qualities for their children. At a time when economic inequality is surging worldwide, heritable genetic modification could inscribe new forms of inequality and discrimination onto the human genome.”

By this open letter, the Center for Genetics and Society recall that human germline modification is explicitly prohibited by the Oviedo Convention.

The signatories declare being concerned because until now the focus has been primarily on technical issues of efficience and safety (implying that if it were safe it would be acceptable), whereas the genuine issues should focus on broader ethical and social implications.

In conclusion the letter affirms: “there is no justification for, and many arguments against human germline modification for reproductive purposes.” They call for a prohibition on such germline modification and a robust and broadly inclusive discussion on the socially responsible uses of this and other emerging genetic technologies.

Among those signings from France, there were two research scientists from “Inserm” (National Medical Research Institute) and one from “INRA”(National Institute for Agricultural Research).

*The Center for Genetics and Society is a nonprofit information and public affairs organization working to encourage responsible uses and effective societal governance of human genetic and reproductive technologies and other emerging technologies. They work with a growing network of scientists, health professionals, and civil society leaders.

————————–

Initiating Signatories :

  • Jill E. Adams, JD, Executive Director, Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice, UC Berkeley School of Law
  • Enola Aird, Founder, Mothers for a Human Future
  • Rodolfo John Alaniz, PhD, University of California, Berkeley
  • Dr. Michael Antoniou, Head, Gene Expression and Therapy Group, King’s College London; Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Guy’s Hospital, London
  • Tom Athanasiou, Director, Ecoquity.org
  • Dr. Patricia A. Baird, University Killam Distinguished Professor Emerita, University of British Columbia, Canada
  • Carlos Andrés Barragán, University of California, Davis
  • Diane Beeson, PhD, Alliance for Humane Biotechnology
  • Emily Beitiks, PhD, Associate Director, Paul K. Longmore Institute on Disability, San Francisco State University
  • Ruha Benjamin, Department of African American Studies, Princeton University
  • Rajani Bhatia, Assistant Professor, Department of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, SUNY at Albany
  • Catherine Bliss, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of California, San Francisco
  • Deborah Bolnick, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin
  • Catherine Bourgain, Researcher in Human Genetics, INSERM (French National Institute for Health and Medical Research); Fondation Sciences Citoyennes
  • * Deborah Burger, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Beth Elpern Burrows, (retired) President-Director, The Edmonds Institute
  • Dr. Katayoun Chamany, Associate Professor of Biology, Eugene Lang College for Liberal Arts, The New School
  • Claudia Chaufan, Associate Professor of Sociology and Health Policy, University of California San Francisco
  • Jonathan Chernoguz, Center for Genetics and Society
  • Adele E. Clarke, PhD, Sociology, University of California, San Francisco
  • Francine Coeytaux, Pro-Choice Alliance for Responsible Research
  • Zenei Cortez, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Eugene P. Coyle, PhD, Public Interest Advocate
  • Jessica Cussins, Master’s candidate, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
  • Alex Dajkovic, Micalis, INRA, France
  • Gwen D’Arcangelis, Assistant Professor, scholar of gender, race, and science studies, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California
  • Marsha J. Tyson Darling, PhD, Professor of History & Interdisciplinary Studies; Director, Center for African, Black & Caribbean Studies Programs, Adelphi University, Garden City, New York
  • Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, Executive Director, Center for Genetics and Society, Berkeley, California
  • Miranda Davies, Journal Managing Editor, CoramBAAF, London
  • Prof. Lennard Davis, Distinguished Professor of Arts and Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago
  • Shamita Das Dasgupta, PhD, Cofounder, Manavi, New Jersey
  • Eniko Demény, Junior Researcher, Center for Ethics and Law in Biomedicine, Budapest, Hungary
  • Kathy Dennis, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Christina L. Desser
  • Giovanna Di Chiro, PhD, Swarthmore College
  • James M. Diamond, M.D., FAAP
  • Prof. Donna Dickenson, Emeritus Professor of Medical Ethics and Humanities, University of London
  • Pierre Divenyi, PhD, Consulting Professor, Stanford University
  • Kathy Souza Donohue, RN, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Ole Döring, Professor of Sinology, Department of History and Cultural Studies, The Free University of Berlin
  • Mark Dowie, Writer
  • Elaine Draper, PhD, JD, Professor of Sociology and Director of Law and Society Program, California State University, Los Angeles
  • Justine Durrell, Durrell Law
  • Jerzy Eisenberg-Guyot, University of Washington
  • Carl Elliott, Professor, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota
  • Bunny Engledorf, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Steven Epstein, Professor of Sociology, Northwestern University
  • George Estreich, Author
  • Jonathan Ewbank, Research Director, INSERM (French National Institute for Medical Research)
  • Hedva Eyal, Isha L’Isha, Haifa Feminist Center
  • Connie Field, Filmmaker
  • Anne Finger, Writer
  • Michael J. Flower, Professor of Interdisciplinary Science Studies, Emeritus, University Studies Portland State University, Portland, Oregon
  • Susan Berke Fogel, JD, Pro-Choice Alliance for Responsible Research
  • Marlene Gerber Fried, Professor of Philosophy, Hampshire College
  • Alexander Gaguine, President, Appleton Foundation
  • Dr. Adam Garfinkle, Editor, The American Interest
  • Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Professor of English; Co-Director, Disability Studies Initiative, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Charles Garzon, Director of Finance and Administration, Center for Genetics and Society
  • * Genetic Support Foundation
  • Dr. Sabu Mathew George, Centre for Women’s Development Studies, New Delhi
  • Daniel Gibbs, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Neurosciences, Gibbs Lab for CNS Gene Delivery and Therapy, Center for Neural Repair, Translational Neurosciences Institute, University of California, San Diego
  • Scott Gilbert, Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology (emeritus), Swarthmore College
  • Cokie Giles, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Mickey Gjerris, Asscoiate Professor in Boethics, PhD, University of Copenhagen; Member of the Ethical Council of Denmark
  • Marilyn Golden, Senior Policy Analyst, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
  • Alan Goodman, Hampshire College
  • Gene Grabiner, SUNY Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus
  • Rosann Greenspan, PhD, Center for the Study of Law and Society
  • Jeremy Gruber, Former President, Council for Responsible Genetics
  • David H. Guston, Professor and Founding Director, School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University
  • Barbara Haber, Psychotherapist
  • Dr. Hille Haker, Richard McCormick Endowed Chair in Ethics, Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois
  • Linda Hamilton, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Charles Halpern, Emeritus Member, National Academy of Medicine
  • Jaydee Hanson, Policy Director, International Center for Technology Assessment
  • Donna Haraway, Distinguished Professor Emerita, History of Consciousness Dept., University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California
  • J. P. Harpignies, Author, Editor, Environmental Activist
  • Dr. Betsy Hartmann, Professor Emerita, Development Studies, Senior Policy Analyst, Population and Development Program, Hampshire College
  • Richard Hayes, PhD, founding and former Executive Director, Center for Genetics and Society
  • Martha R. Herbert, PhD, MD, Neurology, Harvard Medical School
  • Karen Higgins, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Daniel Martinez HoSang, Associate Professor of Political Science and Ethnic Studies, University of Oregon
  • Elliot Hosman, JD, Senior Program Associate, Center for Genetics and Society
  • Emilia Ianeva, JD, PhD, California State University East Bay; Alliance for Humane Biotechnology
  • Lisa Ikemoto, Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor, University of California-Davis School of Law
  • Jonathan Xavier Inda, Professor and Chair, Department of Latina/Latino Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
  • Michael Jackson, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Burt Jacobson, Founding Rabbi, Kehilla Community Synagogue
  • Bruce Jennings, Director of Bioethics, Center for Humans and Nature
  • Sujatha Jesudason, PhD, former Executive Director, Generations Ahead
  • Jonathan Kahn, Professor, Hamline University School of Law
  • Jo Ellen Green Kaiser, Executive Director, The Media Consortium
  • Margie Keenan, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Catherine Kennedy, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director, International Center for Technology Assessment
  • David King, PhD, Human Genetics Alert, London
  • David Koepsell, Comision Nacional de Bioetica, Mexico
  • Dr. Suhas Kolhekar, Molecular Virologist and Health Activist, Jan Swasthya Abhiyan / People’s Health Movement, India
  • Regine Kollek, PhD, Professor of Biomedical Technology Assessment; Director of the Research Centre for Biotechnology, Society and the Environment, University of Hamburg
  • Nancy Krieger, PhD, Professor of Social Epidemiology, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University
  • Catherine Kudlick, PhD, Professor of History and Director, Paul K. Longmore Institute on Disability, San Francisco State University
  • Martha Kuhl, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • * Matthew Legge, Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers)
  • Trudo Lemmens, LicJur, LLM (bioethics), DCL, Professor and Scholl Chair in Health Law and Policy, Faculty of Law, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, and Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto
  • Rabbi Michael Lerner, Editor, Tikkun Magazine
  • Judith Levine, Writer
  • Susan Lindee, Janice and Julian Bers Professor of the History and Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania
  • Heidi Lindh, MS, LCGC, Genetic Support Foundation
  • Abby Lippman, PhD, Professor Emerita, McGill University (Montréal, Québec)
  • Margaret F. Lynch, PhD, San Francisco State University
  • Dr. Calum MacKellar, Director of Research, Scottish Council on Human Bioethics
  • John Maguire, University of Pittsburgh
  • Laura Mamo, Professor, Health Equity Institute, San Francisco State University
  • Becky Mansfield, Professor of Geography, Ohio State University
  • Gina Maranto, Director, Ecosystem Science and Policy, University of Miami
  • Charles Margulis, Center for Environmental Health
  • Malinda Markowitz, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Mary Ann Mason, Professor of the Graduate School, University of California, Berkeley
  • Michelle McGowan, PhD, Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies; Associate Professor of Bioethics, The Pennsylvania State University
  • Bill McKibben, Author
  • Philip McManus, President, IF: People Seeking Possibilities; Board, Appleton Foundation
  • Everett Mendelsohn, Professor of the History of Science, Emeritus, Harvard University
  • Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of The Oakland Institute
  • Shree Mulay, Professor, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, Newfoundland, Canada
  • Ari Ne’eman, President, Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Former Member, National Council on Disability
  • Stuart A. Newman, PhD, Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy, New York Medical College
  • Richard Norgaard, Professor Emeritus of Energy and Resources, University of California, Berkeley
  • Judy Norsigian, Founder and former Executive Director, Our Bodies Ourselves
  • Aaron Panofsky, Associate Professor, Institute for Society and Genetics, Public Policy, and Sociology; ISG Vice Chair for Undergraduate Education, University of California, Los Angeles
  • Brendan Parent, JD, Director of Applied Bioethics, New York University School of Professional Studies
  • * Erich Pica, President, Friends of the Earth – U.S.
  • Beth Piknick, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Tony Platt, Center for the Study of Law & Society, University of California, Berkeley
  • Robert Pollack, PhD, Professor of Biological Sciences, Columbia University
  • Carl Pope, Environmental consultant
  • Joan Rachlin, JD, MPH, Board Chair, Our Bodies Ourselves
  • Dr. Mohan Rao, MBBS, PhD, Professor, Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
  • Christoph Rehmann-Sutter, Professor of Theory and Ethics in the Biosciences, University of Lübeck, Germany
  • Milton Reynolds, Board Chair, Literacy for Environmental Justice
  • Dorothy Roberts, JD, George A. Weiss University Professor of Law and Sociology and the Raymond Pace and Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander Professor of Civil Rights, University of Pennsylvania
  • Janette Robinson Flint, Executive Director, Black Women for Wellness
  • Kathy Roemer, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Christine Rosen, Senior Editor, The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society; Future Tense Fellow, New America
  • Jean Ross, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Loretta Ross, Five Colleges Women’s Studies Research Center
  • Anne Rumberger, Marketing Manager, Verso Books
  • Jane C. Sandoval, RN, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Marsha Saxton, PhD, Director of Research, World Institute on Disability
  • Gerald S. Schatz, JD of the Bars of Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia
  • Prof. Dr. Silke Schicktanz, University Medical Center, Department for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Göttingen, Germany
  • Prof. Dr. Ingrid Schneider, Universitaet Hamburg, Centre for Biotechnology, Society and the Environment – Medicine/Neuronal Sciences
  • Susan Schweik, Professor of English, University of California, Berkeley
  • Peter Selman, Visiting Fellow, School of Geography, Politics & Sociology, Newcastle University, UK
  • Dr. Carmel Shalev, Department for Reproduction and Society, International Center for Health, Law and Ethics, Israel
  • Pete Shanks, Author; Consulting Researcher, Center for Genetics and Society
  • Stephen Shmanske, Emeritus Professor of Economics, California State University, East Bay
  • Evelyne Shuster, PhD Medical Ethics; Advisory Board Member, Global Lawyers and Physicians
  • John M. Simpson, Privacy Project Director, Consumer Watchdog
  • Jeffrey M. Skopek, Lecturer in Medical Law, Ethics and Policy, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge
  • Prof. Robert Song, Professor of Theological Ethics, Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University
  • Alexandra Minna Stern, University of Michigan
  • Tina Stevens, PhD, Director, Alliance for Humane Biotechnology
  • Katie Stoll, MS, LCGC, Genetic Support Foundation
  • Alan Stoskopf, University of Massachusetts, Boston
  • Shirley Sun, Associate Professor of Sociology, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
  • Elly Teman, PhD, Ruppin Academic Center, Israel
  • Charis Thompson, University of California Berkeley, London School of Economics
  • Sheila R. Tully, PhD, Department of Anthropology, San Francisco State University
  • Leif Wellington Haase, LWH Consulting
  • Gabriele Werner-Felmayer, PhD, associate professor, Division of Biological Chemistry, Biocenter and Bioethics Network Ethucation, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
  • Sally Whelan, Co-founder, Our Bodies Ourselves
  • Peter Whitehouse, Professor of Neurology and current Professor of Psychiatry, Neuroscience, Psychology, Cognitive Science, Bioethics, Nursing, History, and Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University; Strategic Advisor in Innovation and Visiting Scholar, Baycrest and Professor of Medicine and Institute of Life Course and Aging, University of Toronto; President, Intergenerational Schools International
  • Stacey Wickware, Social Science & Medical Ethics Educator
  • Donna Kelly Williams, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
  • Patricia Williams, James L. Dohr Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law
  • France Winddance Twine, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara; Research Justice Scholar, Mills College, Oakland
  • David Winickoff, Associate Professor of Bioethics, University of California, Berkeley
  • Lee Worden, University of California, San Francisco
  • Susan Wright, Professional Researcher, History of Science, Department of Politics, University of California, Santa Cruz
  • Jane Yett, Consultant
  • Gregg Pascal Zachary, Arizona State University, School for the Future of Innovation in Society
  • Barry Zuckerman, PhD, President, Adax, Inc.