Following in the footsteps of a doctor who sexually mutilated girls and then tested their sexual response to sex toys, pediatric endocrinologist Maria New and her collaborator Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg, of Columbia University, have gained notoriety this week for allegedly contemplating drug-based tampering with unborn girls — possibly without the informed consent of the parents.
Outrage over New’s conduct is focused upon her alleged off-label misuse of the steroid dexamethasone. New’s off-label use of the drug to treat congenital adrenal hyperplasia was already controversial: The drug is thought to cause negative side effects in mothers, and it may cause birth defects as well as prevent them. But New and Meyer-Bahlburg, their critics say, do not fully disclose risks to experimentees patients or perform followup.
The notoriety grew considerably with exposure of Meyer-Bahlburg’s comments seemingly promoting the drug as a potential means to inhibit personality traits in girls that are deemed by social conservatives to be reserved for men or lesbians.
The claims were announced in several venues:
- an article in Time magazine which noted the permanent damage that dexamethasone has done to unborn lab animals. as well as potential misuse of the drug to bypass parental and social phobia toward gender-variant children rather than to treat any genuine disorder in the children
- a press release by Northwestern University
- a related article published by Alice Dreger, Ellen K. Feder, and Anne Tamar-Mattis at the Hastings Center Bioethics Forum, criticizing what they say is New’s unauthorized and unsupervised experimentation upon girls, and calling for federal government investigation.
- a related commentary by Professor Dreger in Psychology Today
- a widely shared blog post by Dan Savage
- articles in the major news media, including United Press International
Dreger and her concerned colleagues warned that proponents of off-label use of dexamethasone have failed to perform rigorous follow-up studies for aftereffects of the drug. They further cite Meyer-Bahlburg’s comments about the drug’s potential to alter girls’ personality as lacking in ethical responsibility.
If the accusations are accurate, then the contemplated misuse of the drug to treat personality would represent a bold extension of the mental-health abuses already committed by antigay and conservative Christian activists against orientation- and gender-variant persons.
Off-label uses of drugs can be life-saving. But like ex-gay ideologists, some doctors and their pharmaceutical sponsors stand to profit from (mis)use of a treatment, particularly when no effort is made to monitor aftereffects and provide followup care that is free of bias.
Like the ideologues of NARTH, New allegedly promotes risky treatment as if it is safe and effective. NARTH counts upon a timid medical establishment to refrain from standing up and condemning its malpractice; are New or Meyer-Bahlburg possibly doing the same?
And critics are alarmed that, again like the ex-gay movement, Meyer-Bahlburg might be using medicine to promote social disorder — specifically, bigotry and discrimination against innocent gender- and orientation-variant people — by treating the innocent and natural as if they are diseased, and by treating unnatural social ignorance and prejudice as if they are innocent and beyond dispute.
In recent years, some among the ex-gay industry leadership at Exodus International have occasionally crept away from the absolutist insistence that sexual orientation is solely defined by bad parenting and abuse. To the limited extent that Exodus has done this, it has held out an unethical hope to bigoted churches that any biological origins for sexual orientation might one day be artificially manipulated by politically correct (evangelical) doctors.
In Meyer-Bahlburg and New, if their professional critics are correct, we may be witnessing a case where medical professionals are willing to dismiss important dangers, mislead parents, and possibly alter the gender and sexuality of the innocent, in pursuit of social or religious objectives that are contrary to sound health.
Apart from concerns about the alteration of politically incorrect personality traits, the controversy over treatment of CAH also touches somewhat upon the distinction between healthy and “disordered” intersex/transgender biology.
Some bloggers have compared this case to that of Nazi physician Josef Mengele. But a more apt and worrisome comparison might be made to the era yet to come: The era of Gattaca, in which — absent any ethical consideration — the unborn are medically manipulated to conform to ostensibly health-oriented social demands.
The 1997 movie Gattaca was considered by many to be the best science-fiction movie of its decade. The movie warned of what would happen to people who failed, as unborns, to be submitted to re-engineering — and who therefore would fail to conform to social expectations: These people — labeled “de-gene-erates” — were to be discriminated against and exiled from society.
That potential epoch of the master race seemed decades away, 13 years ago — but absent strong social and professional resistance and supervision, it may come sooner than anyone thought possible.
Tags: dexamethasone, eugenics, genetics, informed consent, Maria New, master race, medical ethics, medicine14 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Grain of salt.
Comment by Evan Hurst — July 2, 2010 @ 1:59 am
The most interesting conversation in that link, btw, is in the comments section.
It seems that New is a strange, unfriendly figure, but that some of the reporting on this has been a bit over the top. There’s a story here, but it seems like some of the truth of it is getting lost in hysteria.
Comment by Evan Hurst — July 2, 2010 @ 2:03 am
I agree that some of the blogging has been over the top. But the bioethics commentaries appeared solid to me, and I don’t see where New has responded to her professional critics.
Comment by Michael Airhart — July 2, 2010 @ 4:18 am
It seems to me that what’s getting lost is that this drug seeks to address a very real condition, and that it needs to be tested, and it also seems that it’s unfortunate that this crazy lady doctor is the one getting all the notoriety surrounding it, due to her bizarre views. I don’t know. Like I said, the out of the gate reporting on this just seemed hysterical. P.Z. Myers’ take on it was interesting. I would link to it, but ScienceBlogs has some sort of malware issue going on right now, so just read it in your Google Reader.
Comment by Evan Hurst — July 2, 2010 @ 4:32 am
I don’t know what could possibly justify manipulating a fetus’s development with drugs, esp. to “prevent them from being gay or tomboyish.” It’s stupid! Because ignorant and fearful homophobic parents can’t just deal with the possibility that their kids might be gay and love them for who they are, they have to go and do bullshit like this. It’s ridiculous! Because these people are too uncomfortable with gayness or people not conforming to their black-and-white gender perceptions, they need to fuck with their daughter’s biology in the womb??
It’s inexcusable. Who CARES if she’s a lesbian or tomboy? Let the girl grow up normally and don’t fuck with nature. She’ll be fine. What situation could possibly justify this, Evan? I say that society needs to just grow up and stop being so damn insecure about sexuality and gender issues, not avoid dealing with them by drugging their children.
Gay, straight, lesbian, bi, trans, it doesn’t matter! A person is essentially the same with any of these. It’s not like gayness causes a man to be any more promiscuous than a straight man with a high sex drive. Using the drug this way reeks of eugenics. It’s sick and must be prohibited.
Comment by Brandon — July 2, 2010 @ 5:29 am
For god sakes, it’s 2010! What was the women’s liberation movement for if not to allow women to think outside the box and not have to be relegated to strict gender roles? So what if she’s a lesbian or a little ‘boyish’? Big freakin deal! Is the sky falling? Let her be herself. The solution to ignorance and prejudice is NOT to genetically engineer our children, esp. before birth.
Comment by Brandon — July 2, 2010 @ 5:32 am
The problem, Brandon, is that all the attention is focused on this one woman, who herself has only prescribed the drug one time, when there is a very real condition involved, and no evidence that parents in any widespread way, or doctors in any widespread way, are trying to administer a drug to prevent fetuses which would become lesbians.
This is what I’m talking about when I refer to the hysteria in the reporting.
Far too few science reporters are being cited on this issue.
The drug needs to be studied, and obviously this Dr. New character is not the one to do it, because of her biases.
Comment by Evan Hurst — July 2, 2010 @ 5:48 am
My god. This sounds like something out of BRAVE NEW WORLD!
Comment by Angie — July 2, 2010 @ 10:33 am
Advocates for Informed Choice is a non-profit organization advocating for the legal and human rights of children with intersex conditions or differences of sex development, like the ones in this story. We work in collaboration with bioethicists, doctors, parents, affected adults, and many others. If you are interested in taking action to help protect these children, and to be sure that possible human rights violations are investigated, please join our Facebook page at http://ow.ly/20wTY or sign up for our Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/aiclegal. You can also donate to support our work at http://aiclegal.org/we-need-your-support…
- AIC Intern
Comment by AIC Intern — July 2, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
That sounds good, AIC intern, but it also seems like you’re spamming our comments section. Not cool.
Comment by Evan Hurst — July 2, 2010 @ 1:57 pm
Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg was on the DSV-IV subcommittee for Gender Identity Disorders – it’s frightening that he (and perhaps his colleague) have so much power in the medical profession.
Thank you for keeping us informed about this.
Comment by Christine — July 2, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
I wonder if the roman catholic church will speak out against this form of eugenics? I doubt it.
Comment by Gary (NJ) — July 3, 2010 @ 9:59 am
Evan, what ‘real condition’. As far as this doctor’s agenda is concerned, it’s not a condition that compromises competence or the ability to be happy and well adjusted.
What New is doing, is manipulating the minutae of individual gender EXPRESSION along with gender variance, which is NOT a medical condition but one of personal characteristics.
She’s also trying to manipulate what she considers maternal instincts in females. She wants to force wanting children on girls, when that too is something better left to individuals.
Not everyone is cut out to be a mother. That’s certainly true of hetero women, and not always true of lesbians.
And NOT wanting to have children, isn’t a medical or mental condition either.
And having the ability to effectively and lovingly care for a child is as much circumstances as it is individual ability.
So much of the impetus is rooted in the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.
Prejudice against females and the assumption that females are meant for and should be in very narrow definitions of their place in society.
Prejudiced people can make up all kinds of crazy shit to rationalize their abuses of an unpopular group.
In the 1850′s a medical doctor coined the name ‘drapetomania’ in black slaves. He considered their need and actions of running away to be a mental disorder to be cured by punishment and forceful disincentive.
Sound familiar as to how religious and medical professionals addressed homosexuality?
Which isn’t a ‘condition’ at all, now is it?
Evan the one persistent and considerably irrational mental condition that is dangerous to others, is the persistent and virulent need to be cruel to those who are gay or gender variant.
And also, considering conditions like Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, bi polar disorder and depression can render it’s sufferers disabled, and incapable of self reliance and there IS serious suffering involved, I’d say New’s and other endocrinologists attacking whatever makes people gay or gender variant to be exceptional in it’s folly when other mental health conditions are far more urgent and cruel.
Comment by Regan DuCasse — July 4, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
I think too…that submitting kids to this lab rat thing is appalling. Why subject gay or gender variant people to anything like this at all?
If any experimentation should be done, is allowing all equal rights, access and protections the laws allow everyone else.
And then see what happens when prejudice against the LGBT is attacked, instead of when gay people are.
That’s a brave new thing I’d like medical and psychiatric and religious professionals to engage in.
Seems like they are resolved to try and force gay people into intense scrutiny and have their lives and children be an open book, while at the same time keep gays and lesbians at a distance from even discussions on the laws and events that directly affect them. However negatively.
But are cowards when it comes to the OTHER side of what’s necessary in determining the outcome of their hypothesis.
Comment by Regan DuCasse — July 4, 2010 @ 3:29 pm