#MeToo: Just Another Trend?

My post for October 24 on the Engage blog at bible.org:

A lot of people think it all started on October 5, 2017, when the New York Times first broke the story accusing Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment. Actually, as far as I know, the real first “Me Too” movement started a decade ago by the African-American activist Tarana Burke. And ten years from now, we’ll probably still need one.But about the recent one… Ten days after the NYT story hit, actress Alyssa Milano tweeted, “If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.”Soon, the #MeToo hashtag took over social media. Twitter alone had more than 500,00 uses. But Facebook had 12 million. Twelve. Million.I almost didn’t put the following post on Facebook. But I mustered the courage to hit “return”:  "So many have been groped, objectified, threatened, stalked, or violated at some point. Me too. And by the time I was 17, five of my friends had been raped—that I knew about. I believe you. #metoo"I went on to explain: In middle school two boys would stand together and daily comment on their assessment of my private body parts; in high school one of my dates drove us (against my will) to a remote place and kissed and groped me repeatedly, tho I told him in no uncertain terms to stop it; a male nurse lifted my blankets to peek at my body after surgery—till a doc in the recovery room who saw it called him out; a wrangler tried to grope me (after groping the two other women with me) while helping us off our horses; a student would not stop sending me inappropriate emails and letters. Etc.I almost didn’t post this to my FB wall, because my experience is way tamer than that of most women. But ultimately I told myself that this is not the Suffering Olympics. Nobody is competing for the worst abuse.I also almost didn’t post it, because women should not have to. But we live in an unideal world.And I had another reason for hesitating. People would think I was looking for sympathy.In the end, I decided to post anyway, for one reason: to normalize speaking up. And to de-normalize the abuse.Some wrote to remind me that God is in control. Amen. I never doubted that. But that was not a reason to remain silent.Some wondered if my post was rooted in bitterness. It wasn’t. But even if it was, that’s not the point.My speaking out, knowing my motives would be misunderstood, like that of many participants, was done to normalize speaking up in a context in which sexual harassment and abuse has been the “normal” it-happens-all-the-time-so-why-fight-it thing.One person told me there was nothing to be ashamed of. And of course that’s true. But I was and am absolutely not ashamed. I did nothing wrong. But even if I was or I did, that’s not the point.Many do feel shame. And that is part of the point of #MeToo. These women often think they are the only ones. Or if they did speak up at the time, people asked what they were wearing when they were violated. Or “were you walking alone”? As if such details forced the hand of their perpetrators, making the women complicit.The more people realize how widespread the problem is, hopefully the more they will believe those who come forward. And hopefully, the more people who have kept secret the wrong done to them can read others calling it wrong, they will recognize that what happened to them is not supposed to be normal.    Some have sought to make #MeToo a liberal vs. conservative thing, pointing to the hypocrisy of Hollywood and liberals. And sure, there’s plenty of that. But Hollywood and liberal politicians have no corner on the market when it comes to hypocrisy. You know who I’m talking about, right?Plus, Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes and Woody Allen and Bill Cosby still walk freely. So we have a lot of work left to do.One commenter said girls have to be taught to say no and tell. And that’s true. But boys also have to be taught that they must take responsibility for their actions. And that they can.The Weinstein travesty and #MeToo raises all sorts of issues about legitimate fears of speaking up and the reasons for it. One big reason violated women remain silent is that they risk character defamation, even though what happened wasn’t their fault.Our theology tells us we are all sinners. But we are also responsible for our choices… If we objectify others, if we fund the porn market, if we “banter,” if touch people's private parts without their consent, if we abuse power for sex, if we rape, if we blame others for our sin.... Guys are not helpless. And to suggest they are unable to control themselves on elevators and in alleys is an insult to men.I once walked through a village where a handsome, young man had to bathe in public in a barrel outside his home (he was poor). What did I do? I looked away. And walked away. If I had touched that guy, it would have been fully my fault. Even though he was naked in public. Which is why we must stop asking females who were raped what they were wearing or where they were when it happened. As if that had one whit to do with responsibility for the crime.Those of us who can speak up (and not all can for myriad reasons) have as our goal the normalizing of speaking up vs. allowing people to think that the evil behavior—anything from catcalls to groping to rape to holding women as sex slaves—is normal.Naming what happened for many has been the first acknowledgment of what was done to them, and helped them realize they have no reason for shame. A lot of women did that for the first time because of #MeToo.Many, many women who have spoken up in the past have been ignored. (Of course abuse happens to men; but, fortunately, they are usually believed.) Women are still being slandered. If someone accuses a famous man (and men with fame have more power, so are more difficult to hold accountable), people assume the accusation is fabricated. Rarely it might be. But #MeToo helps us demonstrate how often such abuse happens, so people realize the odds that a woman is telling the truth when she speaks up.Some say the whole #MeToo thing is just another fad, another trend that will change nothing.What if it is? “All sin and are falling short of the glory of God.” That won’t change. We will always have evil with us. But while we live in a devils-filled world that threatens to undo us, we are called to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. We are called to tell the truth in love. So we press on, often repeating and repeating what we’ve done and said before.The one thing we are not responsible for is the result.

Is Jesus Really a Friend to Women?

I received this question recently: If Jesus was so "for" women, why in Luke 14:25–27, when addressing the crowd (which obviously had women in it), did he basically exclude them or communicate they were not worth considering or addressing when he said "wife" and not "husband"?Great question. First, let's look at the text in question: Luke 14:25–27:^"Now large crowds were accompanying Jesus, and turning to them he said,  ^'If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.  Whoever does not carry his own cross and follow me cannot be my disciple . . . ."The person who wrote the question wonders why Jesus, when speaking of the cost of following him, exhorts husbands to hate wives, but does not tell wives to hate husbands. Why are wives recipients of hatred, but not husbands? Why is it assumed Jesus' disciples will be men, not women?Now, notice the couplets here:father and motherwife and childrenbrothers and sistersJesus could have indeed said "spouse and children." And doing so would have demonstrated a sense of justice where women are concerned. But if he had done so, male/female equality would have become the focus of his emphasis. And the word on which he wanted to place emphasis was the shocker: hate.Allow me to explain:Let's suppose a person concerned with gays being bullied alters lyrics to emphasize God's love for all people by singing this: “Gay and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight.” Only one word changes, and the one change is the thing that gets emphasized. Point: God loves everybody, including gays.Someone hearing that might say, “What about people from Semitic backgrounds? If the person singing is so big on loving all people, why not also include “tan” for Arabs and Jews? Our answer would be that Jesus does indeed love all people, but the point of the one altering the lyric is not to stop and add all colors of the rainbow. If they sang, "Gay and yellow and tan and black and white, they are precious in his sight..." we would not know if the point of the change was to emphasize treatment of gays or address anti-Semitic sentiments.The one thing changed is the thing that contributes to the precise point being made . The creator sticks to the known words and alters only one thing for emphasis.In Luke's pericope Jesus is speaking of the cost of following him. And to to so, he uses the common Hebrew speech habit of coupling nouns—of pairing things. And most likely he is quoting a poetic coupling created by someone else from a strictly male point of view. His listeners were probably used to hearing, “love father and mother, wife and children, brother and sister,” so Jesus shocks them by saying to hate father and mother, wife and children, brother and sister in comparison to how much they love him. Doubtless that got their attention, just like it still grabs ours all these centuries later.Elsewhere he does something similar with love/hate, only flipping it the other way:  “You have heard, ‘Hate your enemies…’ (known expression), but I say” (Jesus’ spin on that expression), “‘Love your enemies.””In both sermons, he gets the attention of his listeners, and us by extension, with what he is doing with love and hate. Others hate their enemies and love the people close to them. Followers of Jesus are to love our enemies and hate anyone in comparison to how much we love our Lord.

Does Paul Really Think Women are Gossips and Busybodies?

My post for this week at bible.org:In his first letter to Timothy, Paul told his protégé, “As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith (1 Tim. 1:3, NASB, emphasis mine).English-speaking evangelicals are three to four times more likely than the population at large to use male wording when the original author had “people” in mind. And 1 Timothy 1:3 is an example of an instance in which it hurts us to do so. While we know the word “men” can really mean “people,” we still tend to read the word “men” in 1 Timothy 1:3 as “males.” And that leaves us thinking that males were the ones doing all the teaching, including falsehood, in Ephesus.Yet the word rendered “men” in 1 Timothy 1:3 is indeed the neuter pronoun tisin. Tisin carries no suggestion of male or female (as the NET Bible’s rendering, “people,” correctly suggests). So Timothy was to teach certain people not to teach strange doctrines.We know that some of the younger widows were teaching false doctrine, because two chapters later, Paul writes the following description of them: “And besides that, going around from house to house they learn to be lazy, and they are not only lazy, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things they should not” (1 Tim. 5:13).When we read that women were “going from house to house,” we usually envision girlfriends hanging out at each others’ abodes and telling tales. But the phrase “house to house” is similar to how Luke describes the church meeting “from house to house” in Acts 2:46 and 5:42. And if we understand “house” here as a church gathering, that affects how we later read that some Ephesian heretics were worming their way “into homes” (2 Tim 3:6). Consider the possibility that young widows were teaching heresy from church gathering to church gathering.Now, the consensus of contemporary translators has been to describe these women as the stereotypically charged “gossips and busybodies,” suggesting that the content of their speech is people’s personal business that is none of their own. But interestingly, the same phrase rendered “gossips and busybodies” could instead be rendered as “those who practice magic.”[1]And there are two good reasons to go with this latter option. First, Paul’s follow-up epistle to Timothy actually mentions two magicians by name. Paul wrote, “Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are people of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected” (2 Tim. 3:8). The scriptures never mention Jannes and Jambres elsewhere. But we do find these two men in extra-biblical works. And in such contexts the men are among the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses.The second reason for going with “those who practice magic” is that it fits the context better. We know one of the major false teachings in Ephesus at the time related to magic. Indeed, Ephesus was Magic Central in the Roman Empire at the time of the earliest Christians.In the Book of Acts, written presumably by Luke after he spent time in Ephesus, we find a story about magicians in Ephesus who converted to Christianity, and in that context the same word (the one translated in 1 Timothy as “busybodies”) appears (Acts 19:19). The former magicians, upon trusting in Christ, brought out the expensive books of their trade and created a conflagration—the original Bonfire of the Vanities, if you will.According to Clinton E. Arnold in Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians, magicians in Ephesus charged exorbitant prices for love potions. People would also pay large sums to create curses using a combination of what was known as the “Ephesian letters”—probably a set of individual letters that people would throw like dice and to create combinations for magical spells.[2]Magic was actually looked down on in Rome—so much so that in 16 B.C. Rome had expelled all magicians from the city. Years later Vespasian (ruled AD 69–79) outlawed astrology, too. Yet because of his friendship with a famous Ephesian astrologer named Balbillus, Vespasian let Ephesus continue holding “sacred” games in Balbillus’s honor. Apparently the one place where Rome went easy on magic was Ephesus.Putting all this together we see that Paul is likely warning Timothy about young widows who are going from church to church teaching about magic—something they should not speak about.Because we’ve come to the text with the preconceived notion that women don’t teach, and certainly not in house churches, we’ve reasoned that Paul can’t be talking about women when he refers to false teachers. And because we tend to think of gossip as a particularly female vice, our stereotype affects both our translation and our interpretation options. We think that men taught false doctrine at church, while women were busybodies in living rooms.But both men and women were guilty of teaching false doctrine. And both men and women were guilty of believing it. The same is true today. Paul says as much in 2 Corinthians 11:3 when he tells the entire church that he is concerned that, as Eve was deceived, so they all might also be.The text of 1 Timothy suggests that women were doing more than privately slandering. They were probably going from “house to house” teaching spiritual content that was false. And Paul left Timothy in Ephesus to instruct some people, including them, that they must stop (1 Tim. 1:3).Some think the Bible teaches that women are more likely to gossip than men. They think women are more likely to stick their noses in others’ business than men. And they base such thinking on Paul. Paul gets a reputation for being no friend of women when, in fact, he truly was. It is our own stereotypes, not Paul’s, that have led us to misunderstand him.Does Paul think women are more prone than men to gossip? Nothing in the text suggests such an idea. Indeed, gossip is not a female weakness; it is a human one. Sticking our noses into others’ business is not a female weakness; it is a human one. And teaching false doctrine is not a male weakness; it is a human one. Let us be careful to avoid projecting gender stereotypes onto the Scriptures. Otherwise, we may fail to hear warnings intended for us all.[1] See Lloyd K. Pietersen, “Women as gossips and busybodies? Another look at 1 Timothy 5:13,” Lexington Theological Quarterly 42 no 1, Spr 2007: 19–35, for a full treatment of this option.[2]Arnold, C. E. Ephesians: Power and Magic. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1992.

Five Ways to Kill Your Women's Ministry

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]It was my week to blog at bible.org. So I posted on how to wreck your women's ministry:

1. Engage in gender stereotyping. Teach women that they are emotional and men are unemotional. Never mind that the ideal man wept (John 11:35, Luke 19:41) and cried loudly with tears (Heb. 5:7); that Paul warned the Ephesian elders night and day with tears (Acts 20:31); that the same elders wept loudly when Paul said goodbye (20:37); and that Paul remembered Timothy’s tears (2 Tim 1:4). Crying is for females. Also teach your women that God wired them only to receive love, not respect. That way those who fall outside this “norm” will know there is something wrong with them. And while you’re at it, segregate by age. Younger women don’t like to hang with older women, and vice versa

2. Assume women cannot handle rigorous Bible study. Women get lower test scores in math than men, don’t they? (Never mind that the difference is minimal and that women are often socialized to avoid the sciences.) If women can’t handle math, surely they also cannot handle Bible study that requires them to use their brains. So dumb it down and make it fluffy. Maybe some women can handle listening to NPR and PBS science shows, but such women are the exception. Insights from the languages and words like “theological” are for guys.

3. Stick to a rigid curriculum. Never mind that studies say adults learn best in community with give-and-take interaction. Because women need easy-peasy Bible study (see point two), you need to always bring in an outsider—a talking head who delivers content via video. Surely no one in your own congregation has the potential to teach. Also, never look at issues such as human trafficking and what women can do about it, because that might get you labeled as a liberal who embraces a social gospel. And there is no label worse than “liberal.”

4. Offer events only in the daytime. So what if 58.6 percent of women are labor-force participants. If you offer studies that accommodate working females, your women might think that employment matters, and we all know that a woman’s place is in the home. You need to focus all your efforts on stay-at-home moms, because being single is a sign that someone is not fully delighting in God (women who delight in God get the desires of their hearts, and we all know that God’s first-best is for every woman to be married with children). Never address how the Bible might apply in a work context and certainly never teach women how to lead anything. Having dominion is for radical feminists.

5. Never, ever use humor. Your meetings are for serious souls exploring serious topics. So no showing clips from Youtube videos. In fact, avoid social media at all costs—it’s from the devil. Watch this, and you'll see what I mean.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Child Brides and the Christian

This five-year-old child bride was spirited off to her wedding in the night by her uncle.

About one in every three girls worldwide becomes a bride before the end of her seventeenth year, and one girl in nine marries before age fifteen.[1] Many countries have passed laws outlawing child marriages, but often communities ignore the law. Child marriages disrupt education, limit girls’ economic potential, and correlate with high levels of sexual abuse and violence. Early marriage is also associated with increased rates of maternal and infant mortality. All of this perpetuates the cycle of poverty, reinforcing it, and making it hard to escape, and ultimately contributing to regional instability.

And that’s where we come in. Christians can do much to change attitudes and practices at a heart level. Here are some suggestions:

 Share the gospel and biblical resources online.  Many people without flush toilets own cell phones and access web content with them. The best way to change attitudes is through changed hearts. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that Internet and cellular phone technology through which people access online content means that “modern and international influences are felt” (p. 18). Speak on behalf of victims. Such speaking includes challenging rape-culture thinking and paying attention to how we talk about those who have been violated. In many communities, sexual violence becomes a reason to shame the victim. Challenge such thinking! Work to shift the dishonor from the victim to the criminal. Affirm those who have endured sexual abuse and violence when they speak out about their trauma.   Sponsor girls. Help girls stay in school. Their education is strongly connected with a family’s ability to pull itself out of poverty, and often parents will not let girls attend school unless someone sponsors them. Each additional year of age at marriage boosts the likelihood of literacy by 5 percentage points. And helping girls stay in school increases their literacy, which is correlated with many improvements in safety, health, and community stability.Train pastoral leaders. Teach all who speak and who perform weddings to embrace a biblical view of gender equality that eschews viewing girls as commodities. And encourage spiritual leaders to obey local laws about age at marriage. The report cited above—produced by an independent, nonpartisan think tank—suggests that trainers work with religious leaders across the world, “educating men and boys about why delaying marriage is beneficial to all” as “these two groups are influential in deciding the future of girls and women in many communities” (p. 16). In your conversations with nationals, raise questions about girls’ education, emphasizing how much you value making female education a priority. Express admiration, respect, and honor for those who demonstrate a high view of women and who teach that God views females as fellow heirs. Consider giving a public award that acknowledges those who have done so.If you are involved in relief work, factor the unique needs of girls into post-disaster planning. The periods immediately following such disasters are times of especially high vulnerability for females. Studies show that women and girls bear a disproportionate brunt of the long-terms effects of upheavals. In Uganda, for example, food crises due to climate change have forced girls into “famine marriages” (p. 37). Tsunamis, typhoons, civil war, and regional conflicts also drive up the child-bride and violence-to-women rates. Such crises disrupt education, too. So include in your efforts providing security and education for children in refugee camps. And support outreaches that work to educate child brides long-term, such as Arab Woman Today Ministires.Consider joining an education team going to a location where leaders are asking for teachers. A priest I met in Jordan asked for English-speaking volunteers to come for two weeks and help the students in his school improve their language skills. Your knowledge can help.

Genesis tells us that females are made in the image of God and that they share with males the mandate to have dominion over the earth. We demonstrate that we are fulfilling this mandate when we use our influence to bring about global good in the name of Christ—doing justice (Mic. 6:8) and speaking up for those who have no voice (Prov. 31:8–9).  

[1] Gayle T. Lemmon and Lynn S. ElHarake, “Child Brides, Global Consequences: How to End Child Marriage,” Council on Foreign Relations: New York, 2014, vii. 

Miss Representation

Tonight we watched an 88-minute documentary, Miss Representation, about how the media's often disparaging portrayals of women contribute to the under-representation of females in positions of high responsibility, creating another generation of women defined by beauty and sexuality, and not by their capacity as leaders. 

Controversial. Thought-provoking. A real discussion-starter.

OFFICIAL SELECTIONDENVERFILM FESTIVAL 2011

AUDIENCE AWARDSONOMAFILM FESTIVAL 2011

OFFICIAL SELECTIONNEW ZEALANDFILM FESTIVAL 2011

OFFICIAL SELECTIONNEWPORT BEACHFILM FESTIVAL 2011

OFFICIAL SELECTIONATLANTAFILM FESTIVAL 2011

OFFICIAL SELECTIONDALLASFILM FESTIVAL 2011

A Podcast in Which I Spout Off about Feminism, Sexism, and Gender

This week I was the guest of Game On Girl for their weekly podcast. And I would describe the experience as nothing short of a supreme blast. 

I first joined these women on episode 17, where hosts Dr. Regina McMenomy and Rhonda Oglesby andI talked about the origins and evolution of gender stereotypes. We return tothe basics of feminism, revisiting the differences between sex and gender, acommon conflation we've all noticed recently. We discuss other topics includingsexism in mainstream media, harassment, and yes, M. Cyrus. I consider the question, "Is she giving woman a bad name?" 

I also joined the hosts as they wrapped upthe week talking about what they're (we're) reading, watching on TV, and what gameswe're playing.  

To listen, go here. 

Bioethics in the News

U.S. measles cases in 2013 may be most in 17 years

The CDC says this year may be the worst for measles in more than a decade. Health officials blame people who refuse to vaccinate their children. (CNN)

Selling the Fantasy of Fertility 

Two former fertility patients tackle the hype related to IVF advertising. The success rates still aren't all that great, even after years of finessing process. (Op-ed, New York TImes) 

Childhood death rates down by 50% since 1990

Still, a staggering 6.6 million children under the age of 5 still died last year, according to UNICEF. A report said nearly half of these were in five countries: Nigeria, Congo, India, Pakistan and China. (Associated Press)

Sex-selection abortions cause of missing girls in India

The U.S. created sex-selection abortions as a population-control strategy, and the result is millions of missing girls in India, China and elsewhere, says a Congressional human rights panel. (Business Standard)

Most doctors oppose physician-assisted suicide, poll finds
A New England Journal of Medicine poll questioned readers about a hypothetical case of physician-assisted suicide and received more than 2,000 valid responses. Roughly two-thirds worldwide, —including 67 percent of replies from the U.S., —said they disapprove of physician-assisted suicide. (Medical Xpress)

Faulty stem cell regulation may contribute to cognitive deficits associated with Down syndrome
The learning and physical disabilities that affect people with Down syndrome may be due at least in part to defective stem cell regulation throughout the body, according to researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine.  (Medical Xpress)

Stem cells: Living adult tissue transformed back into embryo state

The living tissue inside an animal has been regressed back into an embryonic state for the first time, Spanish researchers say. But the journal Nature showed the technique led to tumors in mice. (BBC)

Physicians push off-label ketamine as rapid depression treatment, part 1
Ketamine, the anesthetic and illegal club drug, is now being repurposed as the first rapid-acting antidepressant drug and has been lauded as possibly the biggest advance in the treatment of depression in 50 years. (Scientific American)

Stem-cell bank reach for fountain of youth
Got $63,000 to spare? Maybe you want to freeze a backup of your adult self for potential use decades later. (Vancouver Sun)

Nanotechnology solutions to combat superbugs
The emergence of superbugs has made it imperative to search for novel methods, which can combat the microbial resistance. Thus, application of nanotechnology in pharmaceuticals and microbiology is gaining importance to prevent the catastrophic consequences of antibiotic resistance.  (Nanowerk)

The next step for end-of-life care
The hourly revenue generated by a physician discussing plans for care is $87. That same physician, when conducting a procedure such as a colonoscopy or a cataract extraction, will make more than $300 per hour. Renewed support for a bill that would better compensate U.S. doctors for providing end-of-life counseling highlights the value of these conversations; for patients, physicians, and the healthcare system. (The Atlantic)

Researchers uncover genetic cause of childhood leukemia
A genetic link specific to risk of childhood leukemia has now been identified, according to a team at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and other institutions. The discovery was reported online today in the journal Nature Genetics. (Medical Xpress)

Abortion: A decision that doesn’t serve the public interest 

A decision not to prosecute two abortion doctors who offered gender-specific terminations raises a host of questions about sexism. (The Telegraph)

Bioethics in the News

The Center for Bioethics and HumanDignity compiled this list of recent news articles:

U.S. abortions fall 5 pct, biggest drop in a decade
 U.S.abortions fell 5 percent during the recession and its aftermath in the biggestone-year decrease in at least a decade.  (Wall Street Journal)

Real-time genetics could squash“superbug” outbreaks before they spread
 Genetic sequencesof drug-resistant bacteria have helped scientists better understand how thesedastardly infections evolve —and elude treatment. But these superbugs are stillclaiming lives of many who acquire them in hospitals, clinics, and nursinghomes. And recent outbreaks of these hard-to-treat infections can spread easilyin healthcare settings. (Scientific American)

Women’s health in juvenile detention:How a system designed for boys is failing girls
 Sexual assault, pregnancy, and other unique needs are oftenoverlooked by a cursory and underfunded system. Poor physical health alsoincreases girls’ risk of recidivism. (The Atlantic)

Youth more aware of AIDS, but toomany still don’t know their HIV status
 As World AIDS Dayapproaches tomorrow, public health experts are turning the focus on teens andyoung adults who make up a remarkably high proportion of HIV infections in theU.S. (Time)

Mind-controlled artificial limbsfusing man and machine coming next year 
A postdoctoralstudent has developed a technique for implanting thought-controlled roboticarms and their electrodes directly to the bones and nerves of amputees, a movewhich he is calling “the future of artificial limbs.” The first volunteers willreceive their new limbs early in 2013. (Wired)

Medical tourism is a massiveopportunity for emerging nations like Thailand
 Interestingly, a more recent trend of emerging, and evenfrontier, nations developing medical tourism industries has sprouted. Unlikelyspots such as Thailand are getting in on the game. (Forbes)

Prescribe morning after pills inadvance, say pediatricians
 The American Academy ofPediatrics (AAP) on Monday called on the nation’s pediatricians to counsel allof their adolescent patients about emergency contraception and make advanceprescriptions for it available to girls under 17.  (Chicago Tribune)

Gattaca alert? Or should we welcomethe new age of eugenics? 
Dramatic developments ingenetics, including the ability to tinker with our inheritance, has thrust theissue of eugenics back into the headlines.  (Forbes)

Organ transplant pioneer talks aboutrisks and rewards
 Sir Roy Calne is a pioneer of organtransplants,— the surgeon who in the 1950s found ways to stop the human immunesystem from rejecting implanted hearts, livers, and kidneys. In 1968 heperformed Europe’s first liver transplant, and in 1987 the world’s firsttransplant of a liver, heart and lung. (New York Times)

Nanotechnology: Carrying Drugs
 Traditional chemotherapies can be toxic but nano-sizedcarriers can keep them out of healthy tissue and take old drugs to new places.(Nature)

Scientists see promise indeep-learning programs 
Using an artificialintelligence technique inspired by theories about how the brain recognizespatterns, technology companies are reporting startling gains in fields asdiverse as computer vision, speech recognition and the identification ofpromising new molecules for designing drugs. (New York Times)

“Irrational” factors may drive end oflife access to radiation

Access to radiation treatments toease cancer symptoms in the last days of life may be driven by costs and othernon-medical considerations, a new U.S. study concludes. (Reuters)

Gendercide

My friend Dorian sent me a copy of a chilling article from The Economist titled, "The Worldwide War on Baby Girls." Often we view gendercide as "an unintended consequence of China's one-child policy, or as a product of poverty or ignorance." Yet that can't be the whole story. Modernization and rising incomes make it easier and more desirable to select the sex of a child, which people do even in areas without the one-child policy. And that's bad news for girls. And to make matters worse, according to WHO, female suicide rates in China and South Korea are among the highest in the world. "The journalist Xiran Xue thinks they cannot live with the knowledge that they have aborted or killed their baby daughters."

Where have all the young girls gone?