Tag: competence

Bioethics Blogs

A Feminist Neuroethics of Mental Health

By Ann E. Fink
Ann Fink is currently the Wittig Fellow in Feminist Biology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, with an appointment in Gender and Women’s Studies and concurrent affiliations with Psychology and the Center for Healthy Minds. Her research in cellular and behavioral neuroscience has appeared in the Journal of Neuroscience, Journal of Neurophysiology, PNAS and other journals. Ann’s interdisciplinary work addresses the ethics of neuroscience in relation to gender, mental health and social justice. 

Emotionality and gender are tied together in the popular imagination in ways that permeate mental health research. At first glance, gender, emotion, and mental health seem like a simple equation: when populations are divided in two, women show roughly double the incidence of depression, anxiety, and stress-related disorders1-3. Innate biological explanations are easy to produce in the form of genes or hormones. It could be tempting to conclude that being born with XX chromosomes is simply the first step into a life of troubled mood. Yet, buried in the most simplistic formulations of mental illness as chemical imbalance or mis-wiring is the knowledge that human well-being is a shifting, psychosocial phenomenon. Learning and memory research offers a treasure trove of knowledge about how the physical and social environment changes the brain. Feminist scholarship adds to this understanding through critical inquiry into gender as a mode of interaction with the world. This essay explores how a feminist neuroethics framework enriches biological research into mental health. 
Problems with “Biology-from-birth” stories 
What if understanding gender and health isn’t a tale of two gonads (or genitalia, or chromosomes)?

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

In the Journals – July 2017 by Danya Glabau

American Quarterly

Regina Kunzel

Among the central themes of the eclectic field of mad studies is a critique of psychiatric authority. Activists and academics, from a range of positions and perspectives, have questioned psychiatry’s normalizing impulses and have privileged mad-identified knowledges over expert ones. One of the most successful assaults on psychiatric authority was launched by gay activists in the 1960s and early 1970s, resulting in the removal of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973. But if that event marked an inspirational victory against psychiatric power, it was also, as Robert McRuer notes, “a distancing from disability.”1Revisiting this history through analytic lenses offered by disability and mad studies defamiliarizes familiar historical narratives and unsettles the critique of psychiatric authority, especially when countered by claims to health.

 

Conflicts over the value, meaning, and efficacy of vaccination as a preventive practice suggest that vaccination resistance stages disagreement within modern biological citizenship. This paper explores how immunity circulates in both vaccination controversy and biopolitical philosophies. Two positions—one characterized by somatic individualism, flexible bodies, reflexive approaches to knowledge, and the idea of the immune system as “the essential relation the body has with its vulnerability,” and another characterized by the immunitary paradigm, biosecurity, trust in expert systems, and vaccination—emerge. Understanding that oppositional relation can reframe public understanding of vaccine skepticism and public health responses to it.

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

Criminal Law and Neuroscience: Hope or Hype?

By Stephen J. Morse

Stephen J. Morse, J.D., Ph.D., is a lawyer and a psychologist. He is Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law, Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry, and Associate Director of the Center for Neuroscience & Society at the University of Pennsylvania. Professor Morse is also a Diplomate in Forensic Psychology of the American Board of Professional Psychology. He has been working on the relation of neuroscience to law, ethics and social policy for over two decades, has written numerous articles and book chapters on these topics and has edited A Primer on Neuroscience and Criminal Law (Oxford University Press, 2013, with Adina Roskies). He was previously Co-Director of the MacArthur Foundation Law and Neuroscience Project and was a member of the MacArthur Foundation Law and Neuroscience Research Network. Professor Morse is a recipient of the American Academy of Forensic Psychology’s Distinguished Contribution Award, and a recipient of the American Psychiatric Association’s Isaac Ray Award for distinguished contributions to forensic psychiatry and the psychiatric aspects of jurisprudence. 

The discovery of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in 1991, which permits non-invasive imaging of brain function, and the wide availability of scanners for research starting in about 2000 fueled claims that what we would learn about the brain and behavior would transform and perhaps revolutionize criminal law. Most commonly, many thought that traditional notions of criminal responsibility would be undermined for various reasons, such as demonstrating that people really cannot control themselves as well as we believe, or as indicating that more action was automatic, thoughtless and non-rational than we think.

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

Burke and Wills: Why We Might All Fear the Judgment in Charlie Gard

The Case of Donald Wills

Donald Wills is a self-made man. He is billionaire British banker who has taken an interest in technology. He believes the Singularity is near and wishes to live as long as possible. He completes an advance directive to use his money to keep him alive at all costs, should he become ill and unable to express his wishes. He tells his wife about these desires.

Donald develops a rare condition where the mitochondria in all his cells stop working. The mitochondria are power packs for every cell. Donald’s muscles stop working and he is admitted to a famous London hospital and has to be put on a breathing machine. His brain is affected- he suffers fits which need to be controlled by medication. There is no known cure and he is going downhill.

Doctors call in his wife and explain his dismal prognosis. “It is,” they say, “in his best interests to stop this burdensome treatment in intensive care. He will never regain normal brain function but he is conscious at times and feels pain. He should be allowed to die with dignity.” After all, Donald is 75.

Donald’s wife, Melanie, is shattered. But she goes on the internet to see if anything can be done. She knows this is what Donald would want. She finds a world expert at a world class centre in Boston who has trialled a new treatment, X, on ten patients and has obtained significant results in one of them. She calls the expert and he tells her there is some chance of some improvement in her husband but it is low.

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

2nd International Conference on End-of-Life Law, Ethics, Policy, and Practice

Check out this remarkable collection of concurrent sessions coming up at the 2nd International Conference on End-of-Life Law, Ethics,
Policy, and Practice (ICEL) in Halifax.



The Ethics of POLST
Lloyd Steffen


The Perils of POLST
Jean Abbott


Advanced Directives and Advanced Care Planning
Peter Saul


“Rock, Paper, Scissors” – Ideologies of End of Life Care for Older People in Hospital
Laura Green


The Cultural Construction of End of Life Issues in Biomedicing: Anthropological Perspectives
Betty Wolder Levin


Caregiver Perspectives of Palliative and End of Life Care for Individuals at End-Stage Dementia in Newfoundland and Labrador: A Qualitative 
Phenomenological Perspective
Barbara Mason


End of Life Regulation and Recent Evolutions in France
Veronique Fournier


To Live and Let Die. Withholding and Withdrawing Life Sustaining Treatment in Argentina: From Therapeutic to Judicial Obstinacy
Maria Ciruzzi


When and How I Shan’t Live: Refusing Life-Prolonging Medical Treatment and Article 8 ECHR
Isra Black


Divorcing Mercy Killing from Euthanasia
Bryanna Moore


The Shift Away from Suicide Talk: Incorporating Voices of Experience
Phoebe Friesen


Elderly Who are Ready to Give Up on Life and the Right to Autonomy
Michelle Habets


Dutch GP’s Views on Good Dying and Euthanasia
Katja ten Cate


Medical Aid in Dying in New York State: Physician Attitudes and Impact of Framing Bias
Brendan Parent


Physicians’ Perceptions of Aid in Dying in Vermont
Ari Kirshenbaum


A New American Threat to Open Discussion of End-of-Life Issues
Robert Rivas


Demedicalised Assistance in Suicide
Martijn Hagens


The Human Rights Implications of the Blanket Ban on Assisted Suicide in England and Wales
Stevie Martin


A Year in Review: The Who, When, Why and How of Requests for Medical Aid in Dying in Quebec
Lori Seller and Veronique Fraser


Medical Aid in Dying: An Update from Québec
Michelle Giroux


Regulating MAiD: The Medical Regulatory Perspective
Andréa Foti


Patients with Parkinson’s Disease, Caregivers’, and Healthcare Providers’ Perspectives on Advance Care Planning on End-of-Life Care
Kim Jameson


‘You’re Going to Die.

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

The Campaign Trail as a Carnival of Virtues

by Andreas Kappes

@AnKappes

Imagine you are asked to evaluate candidates who apply for a job. The person who gets the job will interact with you a lot. What would be more important to you, that the person is friendly, honest, and overall a good person or that the person is competent, educated, and good at what they are doing?

Or imagine your adult child is bringing home a new partner, would you rather have that person to be honest and trustworthy or have a great job and a great salary?

Now, consider the next prime minster of Britain. Do you want to give the job to a person that has good intentions toward you and people you like, or do you want somebody who is fantastically efficient in implementing their policies?

Ideally, you want each of the people mentioned so far to have both but that is not how life often works. If you have to choose, then, what do you feel is the lesser evil (or the greater good)?

If you are like most people, the choice is easy: you strongly prefer a person that is benevolent toward you and yours over a person who lacks such compassion but is highly competent. And this is also true when we evaluate political candidates. Sure, both morality and competence are important, but morality dominates the picture. Morality here refers to whether you perceive the political candidate to be partial towards the well-being of you and others you care about. Just imagine how devastating it would be to have an evil, yet brilliant leader, and you will happily live with a nice, yet dull mind at the helm.

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

Gender Bias in the Sciences: A Neuroethical Priority

By Lindsey Grubbs
Lindsey Grubbs is a doctoral candidate in English at Emory University, where she is also pursuing a certificate in bioethics. Her work has been published in Literature & Medicine and the American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience, and she has a chapter co-authored with Karen Rommelfanger forthcoming in the Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics.   
In a March 29, 2017 lecture at Emory University, Dr. Bita Moghaddam, Chair of the Department of Behavioral Neuroscience at Oregon Health & Science University, began her talk, “Women’s Reality in Academic Science,” by asking the room of around fifty undergraduate and graduate students, “Who’s not here today?”
The answer? Men. (Mostly. To be fair, there were two.) Women in the audience offered a few hypotheses: maybe men felt like they would be judged for coming to a “women’s” event; maybe they wanted the women in their community to enjoy a female-majority space; maybe they don’t think that gender impacts their education and career.
Moghaddam seemed inclined to favor this third view: anecdotally, she has noticed a marked lack of interest from younger men when it comes to discussing gender bias in the sciences. More interested, she suggested, are older men who run laboratories or departments and watch wave after wave of talented women leave the profession, and those who have seen their partners or children impacted by sexism in science.
Dr. Moghaddam was invited to speak in Atlanta for her work against the systemic bias facing women in the sciences. She co-authored a short piece in Neuropsychopharmacology titled “Women at the Podium: ACNP Strives to Reach Speaker Gender Equality at the Annual Meeting.”

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

European Parliament document announced, as one of its priority, defend women right to abortion

The European Parliament recently announced its “priorities” for its next Commission on the Status of Women are “universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights.” The EU document implies that limiting access to abortion is an infringement of women’s rights. The EU Recommendation invites the EU Council to “counter the impact of the gag rule”, a term used by abortion advocates have used to denigrate Reagan-era policy which ensures US taxpayer only funds groups that promise not to promote or perform abortions. The text was drafted by the Committee on Women’s Rights (FEMM). FEMM’s rapporteurs described the policy as forms of “sexism and Trumpism”, and said somebody “in the Oval Office wants us to… stop repeating the claim ‘Our bodies – our rights‘”.

Critics of the document underline that the EU Council and Commission have repeatedly affirmed ‘that the organization lacks competence on abortion, a subject left to member states’ legislatures. Furthermore, the EU cannot adopt policies and actions on reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries that include abortion. “No support is to be given… to encourage sterilization or abortion”. The relevant rules on foreign aid must also provide that the EU cannot promote abortion as a method of family planning and that it most provide post-abortion counseling, which helps “to avoid repeat abortions”  (C-Fam – Washington USA, February 23, 2017).

La entrada European Parliament document announced, as one of its priority, defend women right to abortion aparece primero en Bioethics Observatory.

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

20 Years of Death with Dignity in USA

The nation’s first “death with dignity” law turns 20 this year.  Since the six other states have affirmatively legalized medical aid in dying.


A new analysis published in JAMA Oncology is taking a look back at how the law has been utilized in Oregon since it went into effect in 1997. 

  • Total Usage – A total of 1545 prescriptions were written, and 991 patients died by using legally prescribed lethal medication. 
  • Age & Gender – Of the 991 patients, 509 (51.4%) were men and 482 (48.6%) were women. The median age was 71 years (range, 25-102 years). 
  • Increase – The number of prescriptions written increased annually (from 24 in 1998 to 218 in 2015), and the percentage of prescription recipients dying by this method per year averaged 64%. 
  • Diagnoses – Of the 991 patients using lethal self-medication, 762 (77%) recipients had cancer, 79 (8%) had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, 44 (4.5%) had lung disease, 26 (2.6%) had heart disease, and 9 (0.9%) had HIV. 
  • Mental Health Screening – Of 991 patients, 52 (5.3%) were sent for psychiatric evaluation to assess competence. 
  • Race & Hospice – Most (953; 96.6%) patients were white and 92.2% were in hospice care. 
  • Insurance & Education – Most (118, 92.2%) patients had insurance and 92 (70.8%) had at least some college education. Most (94%) died at home. 
  • Duration – The estimated median time between medication intake and coma was 5 minutes (range, 1-38 minutes); to death it was 25 minutes (range, 1-6240 minutes). 
  • Complications – Thirty-three (3.3%) patients had known complications. 
  • Motivation – The most common reasons cited for desiring PAD were activities of daily living were not enjoyable (89.7%)

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

In the Journals–March 2017, Part II by Julia Kowalski

This is Part II of March’s article round-up. You can find part I here.

In addition to the articles below, Theory, Culture and Society features an interview with Michel Foucault from 1983.

New Genetics and Society

Everything and nothing: regulating embryo research in Canada

Alana Cattapan & Dave Snow

This article examines how medical and scientific professionals experience and engage with the governance of embryo research in Canada. Drawing on the history of embryo regulation in Canada and the findings of a survey conducted with lab directors in Canadian fertility clinics, we identify a disjuncture between the rules established by legislation, regulations, and research ethics guidelines and the real-life experiences of professionals in the field. This disjuncture, we argue, is the result of both the absence of implementation mechanisms that would give substance to the governing framework, as well as an inability on the part of medical and scientific professionals to engage in robust self-regulation. Overall, we demonstrate that in an ethically charged and highly technical area of policy-making like embryonic research, clarity about the roles and responsibilities of government and professionals in policy-making and implementation is critical to effective governance.

Not just about “the science”: science education and attitudes to genetically modified foods among women in Australia

Heather J. Bray & Rachel A. Ankeny

Previous studies investigating attitudes to genetically modified (GM) foods suggest a correlation between negative attitudes and low levels of science education, both of which are associated with women. In a qualitative focus group study of Australian women with diverse levels of education, we found attitudes to GM foods were part of a complex process of making “good” food decisions, which included other factors such as locally produced, fresh/natural, healthy and nutritious, and convenient.

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.