Tag: discrimination

Bioethics Blogs

National Right to Life Tackles End of Life Medicine

Several sessions at next week’s National Right to Life Conference address end-of-life medicine, including the general session: How to Prevent an Assisted Suicide Roe v. Wade.


Assisted Suicide Battles Rage in Nearly Every State: Is Your State Next?
Mary Hahn Beerworth, Scott Fischbach
The threat of doctor-prescribed suicide is advancing in the states. Moreover, the next Supreme Court nomination could lead to legalization of euthanasia nationwide. Assisting suicide is now legal in California, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and, via the courts in Montana. With battles raging in states
across the country, the ongoing battle in Vermont will be discussed as will other battles nationwide. This workshop will give background and break open the myths surrounding doctor-prescribed suicide. The speakers will cover the current legal and legislative landscape, describe some different kinds of successful winning (and losing strategies), and talk about what you can do in your own state. In the wake of massive state legislative push and upcoming Supreme Court nominations, it is more important than ever that doctor-prescribed suicide be stopped in its tracks.


The Battle Against Simon’s Law: How Dirty Tricks Lost To Smart Negotiations
Kathy Ostrowski
When hospitals choose to fight against parental decision-making rights – the battle for life can take two paths, and only one leads to life. This workshop will provide a firsthand account of those who fought for Simon’s Law in Kansas. Simon’s Law is a very significant pro-life measure that combats selectively “rationed” care and medical discrimination against children with life-limiting diagnoses.  Kathy Ostrowski will share how the triumph of artful dialogue beat back bullying tactics and whisper campaigns.

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

Using AI to Predict Criminal Offending: What Makes it ‘Accurate’, and What Makes it ‘Ethical’.

Jonathan Pugh

Tom Douglas

 

The Durham Police Force plans to use an artificial intelligence system to inform decisions about whether or not to keep a suspect in custody.

Developed using data collected by the Force, The Harm Assessment Risk Tool (HART) has already undergone a 2 year trial period to monitor the accuracy of the tool. Over the trial period, predictions of low risk were accurate 98% of the time, whilst predictions of high risk were accurate 88% of the time, according to media reports. Whilst HART was not so far been used to inform custody sergeants’ decisions during this trial period, the police force now plans to take the system live.

Given the high stakes involved in the criminal justice system, and the way in which artificial intelligence is beginning to surpass human decision-making capabilities in a wide array of contexts, it is unsurprising that criminal justice authorities have sought to harness AI. However, the use of algorithmic decision-making in this context also raises ethical issues. In particular, some have been concerned about the potentially discriminatory nature of the algorithms employed by criminal justice authorities.

These issues are not new. In the past, offender risk assessment often relied heavily on psychiatrists’ judgements. However, partly due to concerns about inconsistency and poor accuracy, criminal justice authorities now already use algorithmic risk assessment tools. Based on studies of the past offenders, these tools use forensic history, mental health diagnoses, demographic variables and other factors to produce a statistical assessment of re-offending risk.

Beyond concerns about discrimination, algorithmic risk assessment tools raise a wide range of ethical questions, as we have discussed with colleagues in the linked paper.

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

Canada’s Biggest Health Problem: Indigenous Health

Alison Reiheld calls attention to André Picard’s assertion that Indigenous health is currently the most urgent issue in Canada.

__________________________________________

In a recent interview in Chatelaine with André Picard, a well-known Canadian health columnist for the Globe and Mail, Picard discusses the deficits and merits of Canada’s healthcare system. For anyone working on Canadian healthcare or on health policy anywhere, it is worth reading. He discusses dental care, home care, long-term care, the effect of an aging population, and more. One of his takeaway quotes no doubt is “Nearly 40 countries in the world have universal healthcare, and it’s all more universal than ours.” But something interesting, important, and under-attended is raised when the interviewer asks Picard, “What is the most urgent issue in Canada right now?” Picard’s answer:

Indigenous health. It’s been a problem for more than 100 years. There’s a real opportunity to make a dramatic difference, quickly. The indigenous community is young and the fastest growing by far – more than 50 percent of indigenous people in Canada are under the age of 15. This is the time to stop generation after generation of disaster, poverty, isolation, addiction and suicide – we’ve created all that. We have an apartheid system designed to oppress people and it’s given the exact results it was designed to produce. Take away their culture, their language, their ability to earn money, their ability to have land, and then, oh, we’re surprised they’re the most unhealthy people in our country? It’s not a surprise at all.

Island Lake, First Nations Community

The problems are many for Canada’s indigenous people (Aboriginals, including First Nations, Métis, and Inuit).

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

Sex and gender. New findings, new controversy

‘Patients who had undergone sex reassignment surgery at his hospital, stated that the problems presented by patients before the surgery had not been resolved, at either human relationship, work or emotional level.’

Introduction

Sex and gender. Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, an epidemiologist specialising in Psychiatry, and Dr. Paul R. McHugh, said to be the most important American psychiatrist of the last half century, have recently published a study entitled “Sexuality and Gender” in the journal The New Atlantis (see HERE), which offers an exhaustive review of more than five hundred scientific articles related with this matter. “I was alarmed to learn that the LGBT community bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole”, says Dr. Mayer, one of the authors of the article. 1

Background

In November 2014, Dr. McHugh had already published a report on the website First Things2, in which he explained his decision as head of the Psychiatry Department at John Hopkins hospital in Baltimore, US, to no longer propose any sex reassignment surgery, in view of the negative findings that he obtained after a retrospective examination of patients who had undergone the procedure.

In the current article, the authors looked at studies published in recent years, in an attempt to establish statistically significant, well-proven evidence. Compared to other related studies, which often offer contradictory results on the topic, this one is distinguished by the large amount of data from many different sources, which gives it special credibility, as well as the backing of its indisputably eminent authors.

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

The Virginia Senate prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex marriage

On 9th February, the Virginia Senate approved a bill that would prevent people from being obliged to participate in “the solemnization of any marriage” and protect them from government discrimination for believing only in natural marriage between a man and a woman (same-sex couples, transgender people, single mothers). Senate law 1324, which was passed with 21 votes in favour to 19 against, strengthens the freedom of those who believe in natural marriage to live in accordance with their beliefs and prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex “marriage”. If it becomes law, non-profit organisations cannot be refused concessions or government funding solely based on their stance on marriage (see HERE).

La entrada The Virginia Senate prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex marriage 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 News

The Virginia Senate prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex marriage

On 9th February, the Virginia Senate approved a bill that would prevent people from being obliged to participate in “the solemnization of any marriage” and protect them from government discrimination for believing only in natural marriage between a man and a woman (opposed to same-sex couples, transgender people, single mothers). Senate law 1324, which was passed with 21 votes in favour to 19 against, strengthens the freedom of opponents same-sex marriage to live in accordance with their beliefs and prohibits the government from penalising them. The law states that non-profit organisations cannot be refused concessions or government funding solely based on their stance on marriage (see HERE).

View more HERE

La entrada The Virginia Senate prohibits the government from penalising organisations that oppose same-sex marriage 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

The Very Early Embryo & Its Moral Signifiance

by Andrew J. Prunty

As technology and biological research continue to develop in the twenty-first century, it is necessary to address and further define the ethical considerations of embryonic research and the appropriate rights that may limit the extent of human research on zygotes, blastocysts, and fetal scientific advancement. Because the area of harvesting embryonic stem cells remains significantly undefined, both legally and morally, there are vastly different opinions between researchers and bioethicists, mainly because of ethical limitations, on the rights that should be granted to cells with the potential to develop into human beings and the consequences of neglecting significant scientific research or advancement.

Current laws in the United States differ at the federal and state level, but there is no consistency in recognizing human embryos as humans, or affording them the same legal rights granted to a child; in fact, legal precedent actually detracts certain rights from developing embryos, favoring a human’s ability to destroy a potential human being (i.e. Roe v. Wade[i]) or the categorization of embryos as property (i.e. Davis v. Davis[ii], A.Z. v. B.Z.[iii], Marriage of Dahl[iv], or Reber v. Reiss[v]). These case law samples suggest the courts’ inability to reach a conclusion as to what is the status of an embryo.

The debate is not only circumscribed to matters of research, but to fundamental controversial and intertwined issues of bioethics such as: when life begins, embryonic stem cells, fetal rights, abortion, et cetera. All these topics are contentious and when one topic arises, they begin to comingle.

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 Ethics of In Vitro Gametogenesis

Françoise Baylis comments on the ethics of using gametes derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells for future human reproduction.

__________________________________________

A recent New York Times article, provocatively titled “Babies from Skin Cells? Prospect is Unsettling to Some Experts,” has once again drawn attention to controversial research by scientists at Kyushu University in Japan who succeeded in making fertile mouse pups using eggs created through in vitro gametogenesis (IVG). This is a reproductive technology that involves creating functional gametes (sperm and eggs) from induced pluripotent stem cells. Induced pluripotent stem cells are cells derived from adult body cells (such as skin cells) that have the ability to become other body cells including reproductive cells (sperm and eggs).

Supporters of this reproductive technology eagerly anticipate similar research in humans. Indeed, enthusiasts are quick to trumpet the potential benefits of in vitro gametogenesis. These benefits fall into three general categories.

First, we are told that research to derive human gametes from induced pluripotent stem cells is important for basic science. It will advance our understanding of gamete formation, human development, and genetic disease. In turn, this increased understanding will create new options for regenerative medicine.

Second, we are told that this research will allow clinicians to improve fertility services. For example, with in vitro fertilization (IVF), women typically have to undergo hormonal stimulation and egg retrieval. This can be onerous in terms of the time required for interviews, counseling, and medical procedures. It can also be harmful. Potential psychological harms include significant stress and its sequelae.

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

Inner Sense and Gender Dysphoria

Steve Phillips posted on “Caring for people with gender dysphoria” almost one year ago. In his post, he referenced a talk at a previous CBHD Summer Conference by Prof. Robert George, where Dr. George posited that the concept that the belief that one’s gender is based one’s innate or inner sense rather than one’s biological/physical sex is rooted in the Gnostic idea that human beings consist of a personal mind that lives in a non-personal body and that this stands in contrast to the longstanding Christian understanding of unity of non-material soul/spirit and material body making up the whole person. I did not attend that talk but offer a recent paper by Dr. George which covers the same ground as backdrop to this post.

The reason for the discussion of Gnosticism related to an earlier point in that same blog referencing the opinion of Dr. Paul McHugh, retired psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins University, who has over the past few years published comments arguing that gender dysphoria is a result of disordered thinking, that is, a mental disorder, requiring treatment, not surgery to complete a gender transition. Dr. McHugh has made much of the fact that Johns Hopkins, despite being an early leader in gender transition surgery, decided very early on that gender transition surgery was not sufficiently efficacious and discontinued the practice.

What a difference a year can make. Johns Hopkins has recently decided to resume what they are calling gender-affirming surgery and specifically point out that when “individuals associated with Johns Hopkins exercise the right of expression, they do not speak on behalf of the institution.”

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.