Tag: economics

Uncategorized

From Harry Potter to Jesus – A transfigurative conference report by Laura Perler

 

Credit: Transcultural Studies, University of St. Gallen

Conference report on the anniversary conference: ‘Transfigurationen: Medizin macht Gesellschaft macht Medizin’, 17-18 February 2017, organised by the working group Medical Anthropology Switzerland of the Swiss Anthropological Association (SEG), Wiener Dialoge der Medizinanthropologie (Vienna Dialogues on Medical Anthropology) and the Work Group Medical Anthropology of the German Anthropological Association (GAA).

As medical anthropologists, we expect to learn about diverse places and people, and topics ranging from birth to death. We might not, however, anticipate hearing repeatedly about Harry Potter and Jesus. Both were named by multiple panellists at the tri-national conference on ‘Transfigurations’ in Basel as key figures in their quest to grasp the conference’s topic. Transfigurations?! Is it the kind of magical transformation from rat to tea cup as described in JK Rowling’s novels, or does it reference the pivotal moment when Jesus was transfigured and became radiant in glory upon a mountain? If it be either of these, what is the connection to medical anthropology? Transfigurations?! Is it just an intellectual phantasm of the conference organisers, bored by transformations and figurations, and inspired by the widely used trans– prefix? Transfigurations?! Or is it in the end just another word for assemblages? Read this conference report and you might be inspired by the diverse interpretations and applications of the term, and perhaps even feel yourself transfigured by transfigurations…

 

Panels

The first panel, ‘Therapeutic landscapes: Pharmaceuticals, commodification and epistemologies’, was chaired by Angelika Wolf (Freie Universität Berlin). Stephan Kloos (Austrian Academy of Sciences) began with his talk on the transfigurations of traditional Asiatic medicine.

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.

Uncategorized

40th Annual Health Law Professors Conference

If you teach health law, come to the 40th Annual Health Law Professors Conference, June 8-10, 2017, at Georgia State University College of Law in Atlanta.  Here is the schedule:


Thursday, June 8, 2017
8:00-12:00 AM Tour of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Separate registration is required. Participants meet in the lobby of Georgia State Law to take a shuttle to the CDC.)


9:45 – 11:15 AM Tour of Grady Health System (Separate registration is required. Participants meet in the lobby of Georgia State Law and will walk over to Grady as a group.)


2:00 – 5:00 PM Conference Registration – Henson Atrium, Georgia State Law


3:00 – 5:00 PM Jay Healey Teaching Session – Knowles Conference Center, Georgia State Law
Experiential Teaching and Learning in Health Law
The format for this session is World Café roundtables, with plenty of opportunity for the collegial exchange of teaching ideas and insights among your colleagues. Come prepared for a lively, interactive workshop.
World Café Hosts:
Dayna Matthew, University of Colorado Law School
Charity Scott, Georgia State University College of Law
Sidney Watson, Saint Louis University School of Law
Invited Discussants and Participants:
Rodney Adams, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Health Administration
Christina Juris Bennett, University of Oklahoma College of Law
Amy Campbell, University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law
Michael Campbell, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Erin Fuse Brown, Georgia State University College of Law
Cynthia Ho, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law
Danielle Pelfrey Duryea, University of Buffalo School of Law, State University of New York
Jennifer Mantel, University of Houston Law Center
Elizabeth McCuskey, University of Toledo College of Law
Laura McNally-Levine, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Jennifer Oliva, West Virginia University College of Law and School of Public Health
Thaddeus Pope, Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Lauren Roth, St.

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.

Uncategorized

The economics of patient safety:adopting a value based approach

By John Tingle The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) have recently published a report on the economics of patient safety.The report is in two main sections, section 1, the cost of failure and section 2, reducing harm effectively and … Continue reading

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.

Uncategorized

Neuroeconomics and Reinforcement Learning: The Concept of Value in the Neuroscience of Morals

By Julia Haas
Julia Haas is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Rhodes College. Her research focuses on theories of valuation and choice.
Imagine a shopper named Barbara in the pasta aisle of her local market.  Just as she reaches for her favorite brand of pasta, she remembers that one of the company’s senior executives made a homophobic statement. What should she do? She likes the brand’s affordability and flavor but prefers to buy from companies that support LGBTQ communities. Barbara then notices that a typically more expensive brand of pasta is on sale and buys a package of that instead. Notably, she doesn’t decide what brand of pasta she will buy in the future.

Barbara’s deliberation reflects a common form of human choice. It also raises a number of questions for moral psychological theories of normative cognition. How do human beings make choices involving normative dimensions? Why do normative principles affect individuals differently at different times? And where does the feeling that so often accompanies normative choices, namely that something is just right or just wrong, come from? In this post, I canvass two novel neuroethical approaches to these questions, and highlight their competing notions of value. I argue that one the most pressing questions theoretical neuroethicists will face in the coming decade concerns how to reconcile the reinforcement learning-based and neuroeconomics-based conceptions of value.
One popular approach to the problem of normative cognition has come from a growing interest in morally-oriented computational neuroscience. In particular, philosophers and cognitive neuroscientists have turned to an area of research known as reinforcement learning (RL), which studies how agents learn through interactions with their environments, to try and understand how moral agents interact in social situations and learn to respond to them accordingly.

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.

Uncategorized

Biofinance: Speculation, Risk, Debt, and Value from Bios: A conference report by Danya Glabau

How does the financialization of life itself figure as a new means of producing value in modern technoscience? That is the question that motivated Kirk Fiereck to convene the panel “Biofinance: Speculation, Risk, Debt, and Value from Bios” at the 2016 American Anthropological Association meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota this November. Fiereck, panelists Melina Sherman, Danya Glabau, and Emily Xi Lin, discussant Kristin Peterson, and chair David Pederson, offered new ways to think about how financialized life is a source of value, and what this means for the ethics and practice of biomedicine in sites throughout the globe.

In writing this conference report, Fiereck, Sherman, and Glabau each contributed short comments about their talks, which were edited together in the unified first half of this report. The second half includes further reflections that we have attributed to each scholar individually as a way to illustrate the diverse, possibly divergent, uses of “biofinance” as a concept.

 

The Papers

Melina Sherman opened the panel with, “Biofinancial Investments and Disinvestments: Examining the U.S. Opioid Epidemic,” which focused on the cultural and institutional construction of pharmaceutical markets – in particular, the market for prescription painkillers. Markets, especially those situated within the bioeconomy – an economic space in which capital is organized through life (bios) in its various forms – constitute the broader context in which biofinancial practices are situated. Her paper explored the ways in which the selective investments and divestments of federal regulators and opioid consumers condition the growth of this market. The market for prescription opioids is a good example of what Sherman calls an “addiction market” (see also Lovell, 2006), where addiction (understood as a destructive attachment – in this case, of a person to a prescription drug) is built-in to the cultural and economic processes that drive market formation and growth.

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.

Uncategorized

Disrupting the Death Care Paradigm: Challenges to the Regulation of the Funeral Industry and the American Way of Death

Wake Forest University School of Law is hosting a symposium today:  “Disrupting the Death
Care Paradigm: Challenges to the Regulation of the Funeral Industry and the American Way of Death.”


There have been a number of academic conferences addressing death and deathcare, but this symposium is unique because it is focused on the very active legal, political, and grassroots challenges to the funeral industry and the dominant paradigm of death care in this country. 


There are two main fronts of challenge to the existing paradigm – first, from those primarily concerned with the occupational licensing regime that shapes the funeral industry and the choices available to the public (i.e. court challenges to the casket laws and the ready to embalm laws); and second, from those primarily concerned with promoting new methods of memorialization and disposition. 


PART I: CHALLENGES TO THE REGULATION OF THE FUNERAL INDUSTRY

Regulated to Death: Re-Imagining the Funeral Services Market –  Tanya D. Marsh, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University School of Law

Taking the Pulse of Funeral Markets: The Effects of Government Regulations and Private Agents on Funeral Markets – David Harrington, Himmelright Professorship in Economics, Kenyon College

Economic Liberty: Constitutional Challenges to Funeral Director Licensing Laws – Jeff Rowes, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

There is a Funeral Rule for a Reason: Why it Matters and Why it Needs Modernizing – Josh Slocum, Executive Director, Funeral Consumers Alliance
Panel Discussion: Challenges to Regulation of the Funeral Industry – David Harrington, Tanya Marsh, Jeff Rowes & Josh Slocum

PART II: CHALLENGES TO THE AMERICAN WAY OF DEATH

Jessica Mitford was Wrong – Tanya D.

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.

Uncategorized

Part I: LOVING and Bioethics The Right to Marry

[embedded content]LOVING – Official Trailer from Mill Valley Film Festival on Vimeo.

Courtesy Focus Films
LOVING was the closing night film of the 39th Mill Valley Film Festival. Jeff Nichols is its writer/director. At 38 years old, born in Little Rock, Arkansas, Nichols is a master at breaking stereotypes about cultures, especially those below the Mason Dixon Line.  

LOVING is based on the lives of Mildred  and Richard Loving. The portrayals by Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton in the title roles is an exquisitely intimate, internal portrait. The main characters met young, fell in love in a poor rural neighbor of Virginia where races interacted socially. The love aspect of the story is prominent but the underclass nature of interracial life in the region is equally as strong. In 1958, the couple were forbidden to marry because their state was among many with anti-miscegenation laws.  

Nichols’ LOVING is as much about class— working poor—as it is about race. As long as Mildred and Richard kept within the constraints of the geo-social ‘Bottoms’ the state powers would not care. They weren’t so much jailed because Mildred was Black while Richard White but because they dared want their love and children legitimated. Anti-miscegenation laws stemmed, above all else not from morality but economics—controlling who could own property, historically determined by parentage. The law they violated was a vestige of slavery in their state.

LOVING, the feature length fictional film, evolved from director Nichols’ admiration for a documentary made years before. Nichols LOVING defies the Hollywood Film industries tendency to make heroism only a characteristic of overtly  “charismatic people.”

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.

Uncategorized

JHU Projects Explore Ethical Challenges

Hub Staff Report/Crossposted from the HUB

 


 

“Why is it that most of the university’s focus on contemporary ethical issues is concentrated on health care, public health, and the biomedical sciences? Surely other professions and other disciplines also face important real world ethical issues—shouldn’t Hopkins faculty, staff, and students be addressing these issues as well?”

 

That question, posed by Johns Hopkins University trustee Andreas Dracopoulos to the Berman Institute of Bioethics, helped inspire and drive the JHU Exploration of Practical Ethics program, a grant program to fund research into interdisciplinary fields of ethics.

 

“IT IS EASY FOR US TO STAY AWAY FROM ISSUES LIKE WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO GRAPPLE WITH THESE ISSUES IN A THOUGHTFUL WAY, AND TO HAVE OUR OWN THOUGHT LEADERS COME TOGETHER.”

Sunil Kumar, JHU provost

The program provided funds for nine projects—some of which are still under way—that examine issues relating to criminal justice, higher education, economics, and environmentalism. At a symposium Tuesday, those projects were presented to members of the university community.

 

“Andreas’ provocative question—and it was provocative—set in motion a process of exploration among university leadership initiated by [JHU] President [Ronald J.] Daniels,” said Ruth Faden, the former director of the Berman Institute, in her remarks opening the symposium. “The goal of this process is to assess whether the university should expand its footprint beyond the traditional territories of bioethics and take on the full range of ethical challenges facing society.”

 

     Jon Spaihts, screenwriter of Passengers, and Prometheus, hosts the symposium

 

Some of the projects centered on ethical dilemmas surrounding climate change and pollution.

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.

Uncategorized

The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Health Law

The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Health Law is now available.

Part I An Overview of the Legal Governance of Healthcare

  • Relating Health Law to Health Policy: A Frictional Account – William M. Sage
  • The Relationship between Bioethics and U.S. Health Law: Past, Present, and Future – I. Glenn Cohen
  • What Health Reform Reveals about Health Law – Allison K. Hoffman
  • A View from a Friend and Neighbor: A Canadian Perspective on U.S. Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act – Colleen Flood and Bryan Thomas
  • Healthcare Federalism – Abigail R. Moncrieff and Joseph Lawless

Part II Caring and Receiving Care

A. Access to Healthcare

  • Accessing Hospitals and Health Professionals – Eleanor D. Kinney
  • Access to Health Insurance and Health Benefits – Timothy Stoltzfus Jost
  • Legal Battles against Discrimination in Healthcare – Dayna Bowen Matthew

B. Legal Issues in Information Exchange

  • Health Information Law – Frank Pasquale
  • The Promise of Informed Consent – Robin Fretwell Wilson 
  • Communicating Loyalty: Advocacy and Disclosure of Conflicts in Treatment and Research Relationships – Robert Gatter 
  • Medical Privacy and Security – Sharona Hoffman

C. Ethics and Law of Treatments

  • New, Experimental, and Life-Saving Therapies – B. Jessie Hill
  • Mental Health and Other Behavioral Health Services – John V. Jacobi
  • Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Abortion – Judith Daar
  • Conscientious Refusals of Care – Elizabeth Sepper
  • Disability and Health Law – Leslie Francis, Anita Silvers, and Michael Ashley Stein
  • Autonomy and Its Limits in End-of-Life Law – Rebecca Dresser

D. Recourse for Injury

  • Medical Malpractice Liability: Of Modest Expansions and Tightening Standards – Barry R.

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.