Bloodlines : technology hits home

Part one “Who is a parent?” presents three scenarios relating to legal parenthood. In scenario one, Luanne Buzzanca found herself fighting to be declared mother to a child with 5 parents: a child conceived with a donor egg, donor sperm, and carried by a surrogate mother, at the request of Luanne and her husband. When Luanne’s husband files for divorce shortly before the child is born, he also denies fatherhood of the child. The courts initially declare the child to have no legal parents. Upon appeal, this decision is reversed on the grounds of intent: Luanne and her husband intended to become parents, and therefore are the legal parents. The Buzzanca case provides precedent in the following two scenarios:

• A lesbian couple looks for a way to guarantee parental rights to both mothers. One woman donated the eggs, while the other bore their children.
• A surrogate mother finds herself in a situation where the intended parents refuse to accept the twins she carries for them. In reverse of the Buzzanca decision, she has to fight to be declared the legal mother (in order to be able to legally give them up for adoption).

“What is Human?” Part two looks at human-animal genetic engineering. One researcher applies for a patent for human-chimpanzee embryos, with the intent of forcing a look at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s policy regarding patents on living organisms. Because these chimeras could be created to provide replacement organs for humans, the question of what is human and therefore has human rights is significant.

In the next scenario, a patient with Parkinson’s disease who has responded well to experimental treatment that involved injecting pig cells into his brain states that the animal cells have made him more of human being because he is has regained control of his body. A case such as this one creates an argument in favor of further human-animal genetic engineering.

The final segment relates to part two as it examines whether someone, such as an employer, has the right to test for genetic predisposition to disease or injury. “Who has Rights?” presents the case of Dave and Gary. Long time employees of a railroad company, both have developed carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). In spite of independent diagnoses, both are asked to submit to additional testing to verify worker’s comp claims. When Dave reports that seven vials of blood were drawn for supposedly routine tests, Gary’s RN wife is suspicious. After some persistence, she learns that the extra blood was for genetic testing. In the class action suit that ensues with the support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is revealed that the company was attempting to test for a genetic predisposition to CTS (mistakenly believing that an accurate test existed). Ethical issues raised include whether employers could use genetic information to deny employment and/or whether insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Production values are excellent. Script is well done as is the cinematography. Supporting materials are also excellent. Study guide includes case-driven questions and activities relating to video segments plus additional scenarios. An extensive website includes additional reading, viewing, and discussion.

Filmmaker Noel Schwerin is a veteran of several PBS programs examining ethical issues in scientific research. Interestingly, major funding was provided by the Human Genome Project at the U.S. Department of Energy. This film has received numerous awards and recommendations.

Bloodlines is highly recommended and is sure to spark considerable discussion, especially when used with the study guide and/or website. Viewers will most likely find that they are able to argue valid points on the ethics on either side of each of the issues presented. Bloodlines is effective whether viewed in its entirety or for a single case study.