Topic: Politics
May 23, 2016 | Posted By Claire Horner, JD, MA and Paul Burcher, MD, PhD

Earlier this year, Utah passed a fetal pain bill that requires the use of general anesthesia on women seeking abortions at 20 weeks gestation or later.  This bill, which relies on a controversial claim that fetuses may feel pain as early as 20 weeks, has been heavily criticized as an attempt to abrogate abortion rights rather than serving a legitimate protective purpose. 

The issue of fetal pain has long been a source of contention in the scientific community, and the dispute has led to several states restricting or prohibiting abortions 20 weeks or later on the basis of potential fetal pain.  While many argue that this law is just one of many across the country aimed not at protecting health, but at restricting or eliminating abortion rights, this law, in fact, seems to be justified in its goal of minimizing the possible experience of suffering by the fetus. 

While studies have not proven that a fetus can feel pain prior to the third trimester, reasonable doubt about the possibility of fetal experience of pain exists.  As E. Christian Brugger argues in his article entitled “The Problem of Fetal Pain and Abortion: Toward an Ethical Consensus for Appropriate Behavior,” there is no moral certitude that fetuses do not feel pain after 20 weeks, and “a preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that fetal-pain experience beginning in the second trimester of pregnancy is a real possibility.”  Brugger makes the argument, drawing from several researchers of fetal neuroanatomy that all the neural structures for both pain perception and consciousness are in place by 18-20 weeks.  Furthermore, he argues that those who deny fetal consciousness until much later in pregnancy may be relying on outdated assumptions which place the seat of consciousness in the cerebral cortex, despite growing evidence that the upper brainstem and subcortical tissues may actually play a greater role.

 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

April 28, 2016 | Posted By Wayne Shelton, PhD

Much of American history can be described as the struggle to expand the moral community in which an increasing number of human beings are seen as having basic rights under the constitution. We forget sometimes that though the inclusion of all people was perhaps implied in our early documents, as in “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” from the Declaration of Independence, it has taken historical time and struggle to come closer to realizing that ideal. This struggle has been the quest for recognition of more and more individuals not assumed initially to have the right to vote and exercise control over their lives, which included African Americans, women, minorities, and more recently the LGBT community. The growing recognition of more and more individuals as being full fledged citizens has been a slow, often painful, birthing process of freedom, in the sense of unleashing human potential and possibilities, within the democratic process.

 

The recent uproar over the Anti-LGBT law passed in North Carolina is a reminder of how difficult it is for many states and communities to accept and accommodate historically marginalized people into the mainstream of society. This law was a quick reaction by the right wing North Carolina legislature and governor to an ordinance passed in Charlotte, similar to what other cities around the country are doing, allowing transgender people to use restrooms according to their gender identity. Perhaps this law also should be seen as a reaction to the Supreme Court ruling in 2015 legalizing same-sex marriage, which has been propelling society toward greater openness and acceptance of LGBT life styles, integrating them into the mainstream. Many who favor the Anti-LGBT law claim that individuals born as male, but are now identifying as female, could pose a risk to women and girls in public bathrooms, though there seems to be no substantial evidence whatsoever of such a risk. My sense is that the individuals who support this law in fact are using risk as a smokescreen in attempting to preserve what they perceive as waning values and norms in society: In the name of conservatism they hang on to an exclusionary vision of society that no longer fits the conditions of expanding freedom and opportunity.

 

 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

January 22, 2016 | Posted By Wayne Shelton, PhD

Normally, and rightly so, we take ethics far more seriously than we do etiquette.  After all ethics deals with what we take most seriously that relates to the good life, what we hold dear, our commitments to each other and ourselves, and all that is important to human life. From the Pre-Socratic thinkers forward, thinking about how we should live in order to achieve happiness and well being as a human being has been a theme of philosophical ethics, and still concerns us today in bioethics and clinical ethics. 

Etiquette on the other hand, deals with more superficial matters, such as how our actions appear to others, and whether or not they conform to common social standards for acceptable behavior. Etiquette then, at a minimum, pertains to a world of appearances and social custom, more of what someone is on the outside, not on the inside. 

No wonder we usually take etiquette less seriously, or should, than we do ethics. Many of us may enjoy someone showing a bit of irreverence toward social custom from time to time, especially if the social context is overly rigid and unforgiving. At times such irreverence can be not only humorous, but also important. But I want to argue that in general a certain amount of conformity to standards of etiquette is essential for any functioning society. 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.
March 13, 2015 | Posted By Wayne Shelton, PhD

Those of us who aspire to eventually having an affordable, quality, accessible healthcare system for all citizens, or even for most citizens, must first face an obvious but under-discussed challenge that uniquely American: The major players in the US healthcare system—including private insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical device and equipment makers, medical specialties and sub-specialties, healthcare organizations and their executives and shareholders, and all of their lobbyists—are motivated by their own economic self-interests first and foremost. Which means our aspirations must be viewed as a long-term struggle.

Healthcare in American is simply unfettered capitalism at work. Let me hasten to add, this is not to say that all of these entities don’t do some remarkable work—I owe my life to the U.S. healthcare system as do millions more. But the fact remains that much of the extravagantly high costs of medical care in the U.S. healthcare system has nothing to do with improving or adding quality care for patients and producing good outcomes. Rather it’s a reflection of how these key players pursue their own entrenched financial interests, while creating narratives to the public that the services they provide is essential for quality healthcare. Interestingly, over time, this bloated, inefficient system has been generally accepted by the public and therefore gained a façade of legitimacy that makes it virtually intractable to reform.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website. 

December 15, 2014 | Posted By Wayne Shelton, PhD

The vast majority of developed nations in the world provide universal healthcare coverage for its citizens. The only developed nations that do not are “…a few still-troubled Balkan states, the Soviet-style autocracy of Belarus, and the U.S. of A., the richest nation in the world.” 

Yet the United States (US) has the most expensive healthcare system in the world, by far—there really isn’t a close second—spending just under 18% of GPD and around $8,500.00 per person on healthcare. One might assume that given that type of expense, we would be getting a lot more than other countries in return for our investment. According to the research provided by Mirror, Mirror, from the Commonwealth Fund, the US sadly underperforms and often fails relative to other developed countries on major measures of performance. 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website. 

December 4, 2014 | Posted By John Kaplan, PhD

You may remember a movie, now twenty five years old in which two apparently unintelligent teens (Ted and Bill) use a time machine to prepare a history assignment. In this movie it appears that things may not turn out so well but a being from the future comes to help them out and save the world. The movie is, of course, fiction and a farce. It very much appears that we are, in a sense, reliving this sort of excellent adventure with an important difference. It appears to be a farce but unfortunately it is not fiction. It is also not likely to be excellent.

In January the 113th Congress of the United States of America will be convened with Republican majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives. In this new congress Senator James Mountain Inhofe, Republican from Oklahoma will almost certainly become Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committeehas oversight of pollution and those environmental issues which impact public works including highways and power plants. 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website. 

November 17, 2014 | Posted By Wayne Shelton, PhD

Let me emphatically state at the outset of this short blog: I have always thought the elective termination of pregnancy (ETOL) was a serious moral issue. As I have taught students over the years on this topic, to fully appreciate the moral conflict around abortion (or any other moral conflict) one must be willing to put oneself in the middle of two important value positions. In other words, one must be willing to hold and take seriously in one’s mind simultaneously two opposing thoughts or value positions in order to weigh them fairly.  

Though I don’t think that a fetus is a person with a personal or social identity, it is biologically human—and that alone is a relevant piece of moral information. The fetus has a unique genetic code and has the potential to grow to full term into a new baby and eventually grow into a child, adolescent, and adult human being. Because a fetus has the potential to become a full-fledged member of the human community, all things equal, we should not destroy it. But rarely in human life are all things equal.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

October 30, 2014 | Posted By Thomas Andersen, PhD

Implementation of medical quarantines in America brings into conflict various legitimate arguments regarding who, if anyone, should have the authority to restrict movements of citizens.  Quarantines are not new, but they exist now in a world with new dangers and new opportunities for abuse.

In teaching medical students in recent years, it became apparent that many students found the concept of a home quarantine to be abhorrent.  Many were aghast at the concept that a patient could be restricted from daily activities, and found it an egregious violation of civil liberties and ethical conduct.  Interestingly, these views were often not mitigated substantially when students were informed that, in former days, quarantines were fairly common in this country and elsewhere.  In a world before the Internet in which home confinement was really quite restrictive, medical quarantines for diseases such as small pox, tuberculosis, or even measles were not uncommon. Such quarantines were usually imposed by a local health official.  In addition, many families self-quarantined, or at least avoided exposure to potential sources of disease. For example, some people used to avoid many summer activities for fear of contracting polio.  Due largely to the development of vaccination, many of the diseases that would have invoked a quarantine in earlier years are no longer of concern, and the concept of quarantine has become a bit anachronistic, even in a world that offers many portals that would seemingly make confinement less onerous.  But the topic of quarantine requires renewed consideration in the world of today.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

October 10, 2014 | Posted By John Kaplan, PhD

When the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare was under consideration there was an unrelenting partisan attack against both the proposed legislation and the president who proposed it. We were told that millions would lose insurance coverage, that the cost of medical care would skyrocket, and that government bureaucrats would be interfering with the health care relationship between us and our physicians. We were told that death panels would be making decisions to end the life of the elderly and infirm. We were told all sorts of things that were so ridiculous that I cannot recall them. The fact is we were told lies. Interestingly and importantly none of these things have occurred. The Affordable Care Act was designed to increase the extent of medical insurance coverage and the corresponding access to health care permitted by insurance coverage. The Affordable Care Act was also designed to slow the growth of health care costs. While it is true that there were initial technical glitches in its rollout, now a year after people could begin to enroll, and still only months after the initiation of most of its provisions it is clearly apparent that it is doing just what it was designed and implemented to do. Yes, the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, is a success.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website

February 10, 2014 | Posted By John Kaplan, PhD

I have written before on the subject of stupidity in government. In most cases I have focused on the federal government and, in particular, the parts of congress that make science policy including the funding and regulation of those agencies in the federal government which fund scientific research. However, the stupidity of government is not limited to the federal. Today I will discuss the stupidity governing several states regarding what is allowed to pass as scientific education. Unlike scientific research where most public financial support and policy oversight comes from the federal government, the public support for education and education policy comes primarily from the states. Chris Kirk writing in Slate has recently described the state-by-state distribution of publically funded education that includes the teaching of creationism in science curricula.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

SEARCH BIOETHICS TODAY
SUBSCRIBE TO BIOETHICS TODAY
ABOUT BIOETHICS TODAY
BIOETHICS TODAY is the blog of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, presenting topical and timely commentary on issues, trends, and breaking news in the broad arena of bioethics. BIOETHICS TODAY presents interviews, opinion pieces, and ongoing articles on health care policy, end-of-life decision making, emerging issues in genetics and genomics, procreative liberty and reproductive health, ethics in clinical trials, medicine and the media, distributive justice and health care delivery in developing nations, and the intersection of environmental conservation and bioethics.
TOPICS