Tag: compassion

Bioethics Blogs

Web Roundup: Opioids as a National Emergency by Katherine Warren

After several years in the headlines, the U.S. opioid crisis has been in the news this summer as the federal government debates its status as a national emergency. On July 31st, the President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, led by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, released its interim report on the state of the U.S. opioid crisis. As their “first and most urgent recommendation” for President Trump, the members of the Commission urged him to “[d]eclare a national emergency under either the Public Health Service Act or the Stafford Act.”

The report emerged just as federal officials published a widely cited study showing that 91.8 million (37.8%) U.S. adults had used prescription opioids in 2015, 11.5 million (4.7%) had misused them, and 1.9 million (0.8%) had an opioid use disorder. Nearly half (40.8%) of the individuals who had misused opioids had obtained them for free from family or friends. News reports on the study also declared that “[o]pioid abuse started as a rural epidemic” of “hillbilly heroin” but has now become a “national one.”

President Trump did not initially declare a national opioid emergency, vowing instead in a briefing on August 8th to focus on prevention, increased law enforcement and drug-related prosecutions, and more aggressive policing of U.S. borders. By August 10th, after significant criticism, Trump told reporters, “We’re going to draw it up and we’re going to make it a national emergency.” As of September 1st, the Trump administration had yet to take the legal steps to formally declare a national emergency around the opioid crisis.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Faith and Morality and Medical Aid in Dying (Minnesota)


Join Compassion and Choices Minnesota on October 5 for Rev. Dr. Ignacio Castuera
Pastor of Trinity United Methodist Church in
Pomona, California.


Drawing on his experience advocating for California’s End-of-Life Option Act, Rev. Castuera will describe the morality of medical aid in dying in the context of his faith tradition, the role of tolerance for diverse spiritual perspectives, and the personal nature of end-of-life decisions.


Thursday, October 5, 2017
7:00 p.m. (doors open at 6:30)
Centennial United Methodist Church
1524 W. Co. Rd. C2
Roseville, Minnesota


There is no cost to attend, but seating is limited.
RSVP

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Refugees, Narratives, or How To Do Bad Things with Words

By Anna Gotlib

ABSTRACT. This paper addresses and critiques the anti-refugee rhetoric and policies, as well as their uncritical uptake, which developed around the candidacy of Donald Trump. My intent is to examine some of this election’s cruelest, most violent, and most racist rhetoric, reserved for Syrian (and other) refugees, and to consider some possible responses to such speech in the future. To that end, I problematize the representations and treatment of refugees within the United States from three distinct groups: European Jewish refugees of the Second World War; the Eastern Bloc refugees of the mid- and late twentieth century; and the current Syrian, largely Muslim refugees. I begin by defining the concepts of homelessness and moral luck. Second, I examine the three varying histories of refugee policies in the context of these two notions. Finally, I conclude with a combination of despair and hope: First, I offer a few observations about the role of language in the recent presidential election; second, I propose alternatives to the resulting linguistic and political violence by extending Hilde Lindemann’s notion of “holding” into sociopolitical contexts.

“How odd I can have all this inside me and to you it’s just words.”
― David Foster Wallace, The Pale King

I.  Introduction

The American election of 2016 was, in its vitriol, polarization, and outcome, unlike any in recent memory. This paper addresses and critiques the anti-refugee rhetoric and policies, as well as their uncritical uptake, which developed around the candidacy of Donald Trump. My intent is to examine and confront the fact that some of this election cycle’s cruelest, most violent, and most racist rhetoric was reserved for Syrian (and other) refugees, and to consider some possible responses to such speech in the future.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

UK government appointed  ‘guardian’, for speak for Charlie Gard in Court, euthanasia activist

Charlie Gard’s parents angry that baby’s lawyer is head of charity that backs assisted dying 

Charlie Gard’s parents have privately expressed their concern after discovering that the lawyer appointed to represent their 11-month-old son in court heads a charity that backs assisted dying.

Victoria Butler-Cole, who speaks on Charlie’s behalf in court, is chairman of Compassion in Dying, a sister organisation to Dignity in Dying which campaigns for a change in the law to make assisted dying legal in the UK. Dignity in Dying used to be called the Voluntary Euthanasia Society.

Connie Yates and Chris Gard, from Bedfont, in west London, believe they, as his parents, should speak for Charlie in court hearings that are deciding his fate. They don’t believe their son should have a guardian representing him in court.

Charlie Gard’s lawyer backs assisted dying. Is there a conflict of interest?

As we already know, Great Ormond Street Hospital is seeking to switch off his life support machine and has been backed in court by Charlie’s state-appointed guardian, represented by Mrs. Butler-Cole.

A source close to the parents told The Daily Telegraph: “The family finds it astonishing that the lawyer that appointed the barrister to act in the interests of Charlie Gard is the chairman of Compassion in Dying, the sister body of Dignity in Dying, formerly known as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. The implication is obvious. It looks like a profound conflict of interest.” (The Telegraph, 7 – 18 – 2017).

See our Charlies Grant’s Special Report, a medical and ethical assessment.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

La abogada de Charlie Gard es una reconocida activista pro eutanasia

Charlie Gard está siendo representado en la Corte por una reconocida activista pro eutanasia, y sus padres han pedido defender ellos mismos a su hijo

La abogada elegida para representar a Charlie Gard en la Corte es una reconocida activista pro eutanasia. Por ello, los padres del bebé de 11 meses gravemente enfermo, han expresado su preocupación al saber que Victoria Butler-Cole dirige una organización que respalda la muerte asistida.

La organización, “Compassion in Dying”, es  hermana de “Dignity in Dying”, y hace campaña por un cambio en la ley para legalizarla la muerte asistida y la eutanasia en el Reino Unido.

Connie Yates y Chris Gard, padres de Charlie, creen que deberían  ser ellos los que hablen directamente en las audiencias judiciales, y no creen que su hijo deba de tener un tutor que lo represente en la Corte.

¿Existe un conflicto de intereses?

Una fuente cercana a los padres afirmó  que “La familia encuentra asombroso que el Gobierno inglés haya designado un abogado pro eutanasia para actuar en interés de Charlie” (The Telegraph, 7 – 18 – 2017).

*Foto: The Libertarian Republic

La entrada La abogada de Charlie Gard es una reconocida activista pro eutanasia aparece primero en Observatorio de Bioética, UCV.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Charlie Gard, the sick baby hospital doctors want to disconnect. Our medical and ethical assessement

He and his parents await the Judge’s decision regarding the possibility of withdrawing or not the life support who keep him alive and the possibility of receiving an experimental treatment in the United States

Medical aspects

Charlie was born on 4 August 2016. In October the same year, he was admitted to Great Osmond Street Hospital (GOSH-NHS) in London, and diagnosed with a disease that affects mitochondrial function, called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS). This means that he cannot obtain sufficient energy for his muscles, kidneys, brain and other organs, which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.

Although there seemed to be no specific treatment for the mitochondrial abnormality at that time, in January 2017, his mother became aware of an experimental treatment using nucleosides that was being evaluated in the United States in patients with a disease similar to Charlie’s. Consequently, his parents assessed the possibility of taking him to the US for treatment because, according to them, it might improve their son’s health by at least 10%.

At the same time, British newspaper “The Guardian” announced that the US Hospital that had the medication offered to ship it so that Charlie could be treated immediately, but GOSH (NHS hospital) disagreed, proposing instead to withdraw the child’s respiratory support.

In effect, New York-Presbyterian Hospital and Irving Medical Center, also in New York, published a statement saying that they were willing to admit and clinically evaluate Charlie, as they had FDA approval for the use of an experimental treatment using nucleosides.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Human Contamination: The Infectious Border Crossings of Jeff VanderMeer’s Area X by Sophia Booth Magnone

“What if an infection was a message, a brightness a kind of symphony? As a defense? An odd form of communication? If so, the message had not been received, would probably never be received” (Acceptance 490).

“What if containment is a joke?” (Acceptance 576).

It all begins with a thorn: the delicate, glittering prickle of an unidentified plant growing at the base of a lighthouse in a sleepy coastal town. On a peaceful sunny day, the thorn pricks a man’s thumb, an act of violence so mild, so mundane, it scarcely attracts notice. Yet the end of the world starts there, where one organism pierces the skin of another. That tiny rift swells to a full-fledged invasion; the man and his lighthouse become the first targets of an inexplicable transformative force. When the initial cataclysm subsides, the coast has been purged of all human life, its inhabitants dead or transformed beyond recognition. The rest of the world is left only with questions. What exactly happened at the lighthouse? What lies dormant in that lonely landscape? Most importantly, how can whatever remains there be contained?

This nebulous, quietly sinister premise forms the foundation of Jeff VanderMeer’s novels Annihilation, Authority, and Acceptance, collectively known as the Southern Reach trilogy. The novels take place, for the most part, thirty years after the mysterious event at the lighthouse, which has been officially categorized an “environmental disaster” and, by most people, forgotten about entirely. Only the government organization known as the Southern Reach continues to investigate the cordoned-off region now designated “Area X”: from the byzantine depths of its crumbling bureaucracy, the Southern Reach dispatches research expeditions, interprets findings, and scrabbles desperately at the possibility of defensive action.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Press Statement: Gard Legal Decision Questionable on Secular Ethical Grounds

Julian Savulescu

Charlie Gard should have been allowed to go to US for experimental treatment back in April (or better January when it was first considered) because there was some possibility of him having a life worth living after treatment. That possibility may have been slim, but it does not appear (to me) to have been zero. The rational strategy was to give a trial of treatment, say 3 months, and agree with family to withdraw ventilation if there was no improvement. If this had been done, we would now have some information on whether there is any prospect of improvement..

The critical quote in the judgment of Justice Francis in the High Court back in April is from the independent US expert in nucleoside replacement therapy, Dr I:

“He said that he thought that the treatment, if administered, was unlikely to be of any benefit to Charlie’s brain. He described the probability as low, but not zero.”

Dr I said that if Charlie were his patient, he would push for a trial of treatment.

Is 3 months of suffering associated with intensive care worth taking for, say, a 1/10 000 of improvement? This is a value judgement about which there is reasonable disagreement. Sadly, Charlie has experienced the pains and discomforts of intensive care for more than six months, now without any treatment with any prospect of improving his condition.

The state should not have to pay for expensive experimental treatment with low prospect of success but Charlie’s parents have raised the funds. Charlie should have been allowed to go straight away (and saved hundreds of thousands of pounds of scarce British taxpayer funds which have been used to provide months of intensive care) provided a reasonable physician would treat him in the US.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Is It Unethical to Design Robots to Resemble Humans?

June 22, 2017

Be the first to like.
Share

So goes the scene in Mike Judge’s cult classic film Office Space, which is a cathartic release from the constant indignities of the modern worker. The printer is a source of chagrin for its regular paper-jam notifications and its inability to properly communicate with its human users. There is no trigger to feel compassion toward this inanimate object: It is only a machine, made of plastic, and filled with microchips and wires. When the printer met its demise, the audience felt only joy.

But what if this brutal assault had been on a human-looking machine that had cried out to its attackers for mercy? If instead of a benign-looking printer, it was given a name and human characteristics? Would we still mindlessly attack it? Would we feel differently?

As technology progresses from inanimate objects governed by numbers to human-looking machines controlled with conversations, it raises questions as to the compassion owed to artificial intelligence—and each other.

… Read More

Image via Flickr AttributionShare Alike Some rights reserved by tellumo

Be the first to like.
Share

Qz

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Caregiving: Can It Be An Attribute of Our Healthcare System?

By David C. Leach

An old joke begins by asking that you imagine a man drowning 100 feet offshore while a conservative and a liberal are observing.  The conservative throws him a 50 foot rope and says: “swim the extra distance, it’s good for you.”  The liberal, on the other hand, throws him a 100 foot line and then promptly drops his end of the line in order to go and do another good deed.

While offering insight into our politics the story also illuminates some of our habits around caregiving in our current healthcare system and the policies supporting that system.  Certainly individual stories of near heroic caring can be found, but the system itself is designed around processes and structures that seem to diminish the importance of the caring relationships at the heart of our work.  Caregivers frequently depend on work arounds.  What would it take to develop a system that respects, rewards, or at least enables genuine caregiving?

Caregiving, of course, is an attribute of humans, not systems.  To care for another requires a voluntary opening of the heart to compassion; it requires noticing and acknowledging the uniqueness of the other and a willingness to enter into their context.  Keenan defines mercy as the willingness to enter into the chaos of the other.  (1) The biblical story of the Good Samaritan (Luke, 10:33) illuminates an interesting attribute of caregiving that may indicate why humans can care and systems cannot; the clue is in the voice of the verbs used.  The story is well known: a traveler has been assaulted and robbed.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.