Complications following cell therapy

So far, the law in the Federal Republic of Germany still allows the injection of fresh-cell preparations from animals as a roborant to increase the vitality of the organism and to strengthen the body's immune defense system. The use of "sicca-cell" preparations was provisionally forbidden in 1987 by the Federal Health Organization (Bundesgesundheitsamt; BGA). Prohibition of fresh-cell injections would have exceeded the authority of this office, although the same serious reservations also applied in the case of this treatment method. Several publications that have appeared since 1955 have reported serious complications of this therapy, some life-threatening and some even lethal. Two further cases are now added: (1) A woman aged 69 had been receiving treatment with cell injections for 9 years. Immediately after an injection of sicca cells she collapsed and was hospitalized; 7 days thereafter she developed an ascending paralysis with increasing inability to swallow or breathe. She died 25 days after the injection as a consequence of central and peripheral respiratory failure. Autopsy revealed the alterations typical for acute Landry-Guillain-Barré-Strohl syndrome. (2) A 76-year-old healthy woman had been receiving treatment with fresh-cell preparations for several years. After an injection of cell suspensions a painful local swelling was observed. The symptoms were interpreted as the consequence of an iatrogenic local hematoma, and repeated punctures were performed to obtain blood. The patient was transferred to a surgical department for further therapy. Two days after the injection she suddenly died with signs of acute cardiovascular failure. Autopsy revealed the signs of a fulminating clostridial infection and also the characteristic signs of Landry-Guillain-Barré syndrome with involvement of the autonomic nervous system. In both cases the development of an inflammatory process in the peripheral nervous system could be interpreted as an immune-mediated allergic disease, related to the repeated injection of heterologous antigenic material containing nervous tissues. This hypothesis would also explain the two other cases already published and would be consistent with the observed perivenous leukoencephalopathy of the central nervous system. The human disease pictures correspond to the well-established animal models of EAEM (experimental allergic encephalomyelitis) and EAN (experimental allergic neuritis). The pathogenesis is discussed; the major role of the central and peripheral nervous system is stressed, with special reference to the risk of acute autonomic failure. The need for specific autopsy techniques for the investigation of the entire nervous system, including spinal cord, roots, spinal ganglia and peripheral nerves with sympathetic chains, is raised.     

Self-defense injuries in homicides caused by penetrating forces

101 homicides caused by stabbing were examined for the presence of defence-injuries. 50 victims showed 174 defence-injuries on hands and forearms (133 incision wounds, 26 stab wounds and 15 cutting through). More than two thirds of lesions were found on left arm. That those lesions mostly were found on left arm is caused by the interaction between perpetrator and victim. Victims left arm is nearest to the perpetrator therefore it is used as a mean of defence first of all. The probability that defence-injuries can be seen is rising with the number of stab wounds. Localisation of a defence-injury on the extensor side ("passive") or on the flexor side ("active") is conditioned by accidentalities. Such a differentiation should be given up because no conclusions on the readiness of defence can be drawn.     

Brief for 885 law professors in support of maintaining adherence to the Roe decision

This brief opposes the overturn of "Roe v. Wade" and resists weakening "Roe's central holding" that would allow states to overturn legal abortion. The brief was written for 885 law professors. "Roe" was not a "constitutional aberration," or "an exercise of raw, judicial power." Some members of the Supreme Court seem to think that the state has "an overriding interest" in protecting fetal life. Some Court members have questioned "Roe's" trimester framework. A person's decision to abort should be done privately. If women are not free to choose abortion, they will not have equality. There is an absence of "express rights of privacy and procreational freedom" in the Constitution. "Roe" was 1 instance of the Court's recognition of constitutional rights that are not named explicitly. Historical materials are drawn on to show the link between trends in society and the "judicial recognition of unenumerated rights." The most serious questions about "Roe" deal with its trimester framework. Justice Blackmun's majority opinion said that the 1st trimester of pregnancy was personal. "Roe" said that abortions created a medical risk at the beginning of the 2nd trimester. Therefore, the government was more interested in the health of the mother at that time. The state could then regulate abortion "in ways that are reasonable related to maternal health." The start of the 3rd trimester was when the fetus was viable. The right of a woman to end her pregnancy "offends powerful moral forces." Some of "Roe's" critics had their scientific facts wrong. Medical authorities think Justice O'Connor is mistaken when she says that "Roe" is "on a collision course with itself." The 23rd to 24th week of pregnancies where the fetal organs can "sustain life outside the womb." This has not changed since "Roe" was decided in 1973, nor is it likely to in the future. Some "amici" believe that the state can never have an interest in the fetus. The state can not have an interest in the fetus distinct from the woman who will give birth to it. During previability, restricting a woman's procreational rights would not be scientifically supportable. The state does have an interest in "upholding the value of human life." "Roe" is "within the mainstream" of constitutional jurisprudence and should be reaffirmed.     

Webster and women's equality

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and the Women's Legal Defense Fund (WLDF) co-authored an "amicus curiae" brief in "Webster." The brief was written for 77 organizations who believe in equality of women. The brief said that constitutional protection of a woman's right to choose is guaranteed by the right to privacy. The brief said that if abortions were illegal, women would not be able to take place in society equally with men. Liberty would be taken away from women. If the state interferes with abortion, the principle of bodily integrity is violated. In "Winston v. Lee," the Supreme Court found that the state could not compel a criminal to undergo an invasive surgical procedure to retrieve a bullet necessary for the state to prosecute with. 1 in 4 women have a cesarean section, which requires a larger incision in the abdomen, and has many risks. Bearing and raising children often puts a damper on women's employment opportunities. Therefore, if the Supreme Court denied women the right to bear children when and where they wanted, women would not have the right to plan their futures. If the Supreme Court were to agree that "interest in potential life outweighs" a woman's tight to procreate autonomously, states could declare all abortions illegal, investigate them to see if they were induced on purpose, and murder women who induced them. Contraceptive devices could be declared illegal. Laws could be used to force women to submit to cesarean sections and other fetal surgery. Pre-viability abortion restrictions should be rejected because they have old-fashioned notions of women's role in society. They reinforce stereotypes. Missouri's law stresses aiding "potential," rather than actual life.     

The "utility" principle within the scope of forensic determination of blood kinship using serostatistics

A "realistic" prior probability is always based on case experience (Akten-a-priori). In serological opinions pertaining to parentage, the realistic prior probability is only one piece of information in the whole body of evidence before the judge and does not have any special significance per se. There is no such thing as a "neutral" prior probability. It either implies "ignorance," in which case it cannot be "information," or it must be taken in connection with the utility principle, in which case it is not a "probability." The utility principle is defined in law and cannot be expressed in figures. The utility principle takes effect only when the judge reaches a decision (on the basis of all the evidence before him). It determines the relative importance of the participant's objects of legal protection which are at issue in the case. The expert is bound to apply a neutral utility component, i.e., in a two-hypothesis case (the normal situation) the significance of both the null and the counter hypothesis must carry the same weight. A null and/or a counter hypothesis can combine several single hypotheses; the mean value of their frequencies is taken. As a rule, one should avoid using a "prior case probability" ("Akten-a-priori") when calculating a W value. An "expectation of error" should be as realistic as possible and hence be obtained using a "prior case probability."