Hosed out of our sleeping pitch

Mike Di Scipio in a billboard he posted in New York City, 2004

As I said in the blog of 4 December “Charis Thompson: Why we should, in fact, pay for egg donation”, last Wednesday we learnt that the place where Declan gets his breakfast every weekday and I get my food for the day, the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre, is closed this week Monday to Wednesday, a first in over two years; and that I am pretty much on red alert: for example, two days after the date on a letter from the European Court of Human Rights advising that Declan’s case would be dealt with “as soon as practicable”, our main bag, containing all our money and documents, was robbed in the centre (see blog of 20 June “Letter from the European Court of Human Rights”). My eyes have been particularly on our sleeping pitch – since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps; prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch.

I’m afraid I could hardly be more spot-on: in addition to being told on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday night to stay away until 1.00am due to there being a “function” (we get up at 4.20am M-F; 6.20am on weekends), this morning I was convinced Declan and I were heading for the local City of London police station to seek to make a statement in respect of the hosing of our property by a cleaner at 4.30am this morning. We don’t disturb or obstruct anybody; nevertheless, as soon as we got up two cleaners came out of the building: one threw a bucket of water down the steps, and shortly after, the other, for twenty minutes, hosed around us, spraying both me and our bags in the process (by the time we had packed to leave, the approximately four-inch deep gulley on two sides of us was almost overflowing). In over two years as rough sleepers we have never experienced anything like it; the closest was on 9 June when, under the watchful eye of a City of London police officer who had just threatened us with arrest if we did not “move on”, two cleaners from the City of London’s Cleansing service washed around our groundsheet, water pouring down the two steps of the porch onto the pavement (see blog of 9 June “Letter to the City of London Police Commissioner”).

We find it all a bit odd, especially since communications started out cordial between us and employees: we were visited by an employee within days, and on three occasions within the first two weeks we were given food. Also, according to the website of the company that owns the building, they are well respected and not only fund raise for science education (Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells has been signed by 587 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Laureates), but run a project for the homeless.

However, even if we had gone to the police station, we would still be back in the place tonight: on 10 September, after we bedded down elsewhere, I was arrested for refusing to move on as a result of having nowhere else to sleep (see blog of 11 September “I am arrested for breach of the peace”). And I don’t have to be reminded of the eventful two years in the porch, despite it being located in London’s financial district (I slept on the outside, Declan on the inside with our well-tied bags): for example, within two weeks somebody sat on the right hand side of my face (see blog of 18 November 2006); I was dragged out of the porch by the ankles while I was in my sleeping bag, then a few hours later I was kicked in the back (see blog of 5 May 2007); a guy repeatedly kicked me in the chest and shoulders as his mates stood by (see blog of 22 September 2007); and I was urinated on (see blog of 2 August). Declan was also jumped on, feet first, as he slept in the porch, and was especially fortunate not to have bones broken (see blog of 14 June). Since we have no option but to be in the street (see blog of 21 October “European Court of Human Rights declares application inadmissible”), we prefer to be at the back of a building, off the streets; though it seems not everyone shares this preference with us.

I mentioned in the previous blog that I believe there is a link between the little sleep we have been getting since Wednesday (and now the hosing) and the work I started early last week on the compensation of egg donors to boost the supply of human eggs needed for therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). I expect the “functions”, and perhaps now also the hosing, will likely become a nightly occurrence, which is why in the previous blog I said that I am cutting my losses and concentrating exclusively on SCNT: I am putting together all the content that will be on my website in support of nuclear transfer – the blog of 1 November “Can a cell have a soul?” describes what this website will contain, including with respect to human embryonic stem (hES) cell research.

For two years we survived on the streets of London by selling The Big Issue, a magazine sold by homeless people on registered pitches throughout the UK. As I wrote in the blog of 17 November, our Big Issue pitches have been terminated (see blog of 11 November “Letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation Charity”); and although we can still sell the magazine on the pitches we had for two years, we have no priority whatsoever: we have to leave if the vendors to whom the pitches have been allocated come along, and not stand in on the pitches at all if a vendor is already there – the latter was experienced by Declan this evening (a first in over two weeks). The fact that we don’t have pitches any more is particularly serious for me, because I am facing possible prosecution for begging.

On the SCNT front, I was particularly interested to discover that the Empire State Stem Cell Board Ethics Committee (New York) is currently discussing the financial compensation of women who donate their eggs for research - the Committee makes recommendations regarding scientific, medical and ethical standards to the ESSC Board Funding Committee which oversees and administers $600 million in funding to promote stem cell research and development in New York State; $100 million was earmarked for FY 2007-2008 and $500 million was earmarked at $50 million per year for ten years beginning in FY 2008-2009. The minutes of the Committee’s meeting on 4 September reveals that Franciscan Friar Daniel Sulmasy, Professor of Medicine and Director of the Bioethics Institute of New York Medical College, “questioned whether New York State should go out on a limb and be the first to explicitly allow compensation of egg donors for research”. He also suggested that the Committee “should return to its discussions about the embryo and the unresolved issue of what the Committee means by ‘respect for the embryo’.” The Committee’s upcoming meeting is scheduled for 26 January.

Charis Thompson: Why we should, in fact, pay for egg donation

Yesterday morning we learnt that the place where Declan gets his breakfast every weekday and I get my food for the day, the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre, is closed next week Monday to Wednesday – a first in over two years. I am pretty much on red alert: for example, two days after the date on a letter from the European Court of Human Rights advising that Declan’s case would be dealt with “as soon as practicable”, our main bag, containing all our money and documents, was robbed in the centre (see blog of 20 June “Letter from the European Court of Human Rights”).

Primarily, I have my eyes on our sleeping pitch – since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps; prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch. Last Friday, we were told that we couldn’t bed down due to there being a “function” and had to stay away until 1.00am (see blog “Threatened with arrest”); and on 14 November dim bulbs in the spotlights above us were replaced with very powerful ones (see blog “Our sleeping pitch is targeted”). I, in particular, don’t need to be reminded that on 10 September, after we bedded down elsewhere, I was arrested for refusing to move on as a result of having nowhere else to sleep (see blog of 11 September “I am arrested for breach of the peace”).

I am right to be on alert: last night we had to again stay away until 1.00am due to a “function” – we get up at 4.20am M-F (6.20am on weekends) so we got less than three hours sleep. If all it takes to deprive us of sleep is some lights in the building and a couple of cars in the courtyard, I may very well take a stand and politely request they call the police, especially since we do not obstruct or disturb anyone. On 26 February police officer 9191 referred to me in our local train station as “a piece of shit” that should be put away (see blog of 1 March “Interception of communications”); after two years surviving in the street, I could still end up being put away.

And the emails I send to scientists and academics inviting them to sign Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells? Well, the vast majority of them are still being dumped into spam boxes: yesterday and the day before I sent a total of 248 emails which yielded three out-of-office autoreplies and just one signatory – to date the petition has been signed by 587 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Laureates.

An expected to be of high quality egg from a 32 year old woman

As I wrote in the blog of 26 November “Therapeutic cloning offers hope of treatment for Parkinson’s”, a chief objective of our campaign in support of therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), is to propagate the call of leading experts for a relaxation of rules restricting the compensation of egg donors to boost the supply of human eggs needed for nuclear transfer. I am still Googling leading bioethicist Insoo Hyun of Case Western Reserve University, Ohio – in a Nature commentary he called for women to be paid to donate eggs for stem cell research on the same basis that research participants are compensated for taking part in other medical research; we want to make his argument central to our campaign for nuclear transfer. I am also reading the 4 September meeting minutes of the Empire State Stem Cell Board Ethics Committee (New York) because they mention the payment issue – the Committee makes recommendations regarding scientific, medical and ethical standards to the ESSC Board Funding Committee which oversees and administers $600 million in funding to promote stem cell research and development in New York State.

Meanwhile, I have come across an argument from Charis Thompson, who is an associate professor in the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies at University of California Berkeley Stem Cell Center. The research article summary (published 27 February 2007): “Why we should, in fact, pay for egg donation”, reads:

In this perspective, I shall argue that women who donate eggs solely for human embryonic stem cell research ought to be compensated. My argument rests on three inter-related principles. First, it is important to recruit the healthiest possible egg donors to minimize the risks of donation. This would relieve pressure to donate on those suffering from diseases that might be treatable with stem cell-based therapies, who are likely to be at greater risk from donation. Second, I believe that it is crucial to be pro-active in building representative stem cell banks, especially in stem cell initiatives paid for, in part, by the public/government. The right of all groups to participate in and benefit from equitable and safe research must be developed for egg donors as for other kinds of research participants. Particular attention should be paid to the opinions and desires of women from historically underserved populations as to how to conduct donations and guide research so as to serve all members of society. Third, reasonable payment would undermine tendencies for domestic and international black and grey egg markets for stem cell research to develop. I then suggest replacing the question of compensation with the question of harm mitigation as the central donor protection issue.

Robert Steinbrook, a New England Journal of Medicine national correspondent, says in an article titled “Egg Donation and Human Embryonic Stem-Cell Research” that it is “inconsistent to compensate subjects for undergoing certain invasive procedures but not others or to allow compensation for egg donation for reproductive purposes but not for research.” He points out that the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine cites an estimate that egg donors spend “56 hours in the medical setting, undergoing interviews, counseling, and medical procedures related to the process”. Some bioethicists, he says, argue that egg donors should be compensated – on the basis of the time and discomfort associated with the process, not the number and quality of the eggs that are produced.

According to Bonnie Steinbock, a professor of philosophy at the State University of New York at Albany who has studied egg donation, in the absence of a consensus that no egg donor should be compensated, payment for donations for research is ethically acceptable. In an interview, Steinbock explained: “Any time that we ask people to do things that impose significant burdens and some degree of risk, fairness may require that they be adequately compensated. At the same time, there’s a general consensus that it would be improper to offer enormous sums of money to egg donors that could sway their judgment” (Steinbrook, NEJM, 26/1/06).

Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University, is quoted by the Washington Post as saying that participants in other kinds of biomedical research are compensated for their time, inconvenience and rigors of participating. So why, she asks, should egg donors be treated any differently? There are ways to guard against exploitation of vulnerable women, she said. One would be for local boards that oversee research to make sure that donors are recruited from a wide variety of groups rather than just the economically disadvantaged, she said. And limits can be set on the number of times any one woman can participate, she said (Ritter, Washington Post, 20/1/07).