Tag: internet

Bioethics News

Young female-to-male transsexual wants to become a girl again after receiving hormonal treatment

A dysfunctional family, complicated adolescence, transsexual propaganda on the internet, medical misdiagnosis, prognosis and all type of facilities to change sex without a thorough examination and an evaluation of the effects of hormonal treatment risks.
This is the cocktail lived by Zahra Cooper, a young 21-year-old who became transsexual and who now wants to become a girl again, although the consequences of everything that she has done are very palpable and difficult to reverse. The case of this New Zealander is not unique, and what happened with Cooper shows that there are numerous circumstances that are not taken into account, and which mark the life of these young people forever. In many cases, the ideology (see video https://youtu.be/GLxwNzx21mk ) weighs more than the health of these people. Her case has been published in a detailed report in The New Zealand Herald and shows the suffering that she went through, including two suicide attempts, along with a road that she should never have taken.

See video testimony of Zahra Cooper

La entrada Young female-to-male transsexual wants to become a girl again after receiving hormonal treatment 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

A Modest Proposal

FDA should regulate digital games, and potentially other apps, as medical devices.

Why, pray tell?

One doesn’t have to look very hard to find a growing belief (recognition?) that video games are addicting.  CBS has been on the story since at least 2007.  In 2014, “60 minutes” suggested that a violent video game could prompt murder.  Well, they posed it as a question, but to raise it as they did sounds kind of like asking someone, “have you stopped beating your wife?”  And this past April, they did a piece with a former Google employee who suggested that tech companies are designing games, if not apps in general, to draw people into compulsive use.  They revisited the topic, with the same interviewee, in June, using the term “brain hacking.”  Frontline on PBS did a series on the topic in 2010, looking at concerns about internet addiction as well as arguments that some games may hone desirable skills.

Concern about the effect our entertainment media have on us, especially on our kids, is certainly not new.  Remember Tipper Gore, who, among other things, wrote a book about the subject 30 years ago?

The difference comes if our apps and games are not just addictive and self-reinforcing, but if their creators and marketers not only know it but make them that way on purpose.

According to the FDA, a medical device, subject to premarketing and postmarketing regulatory controls by the FDA, is defined in Section 201(h) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as (emphasis mine in what follows):

  • “an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including a component part, or accessory which is:
    • recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopoeia, or any supplement to them,
    • intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, OR
    • intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of any of its primary intended purposes.”

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

FDA recall of pacemaker raises questions about cybersecurity

by Karola Kreitmair, PhD

The FDA has issued a recall of 465,000 pacemakers on the grounds that they are vulnerable to hacking. It was discovered that unauthorized users could remotely access the implanted cardiac device and modify its programming, thereby delivering inappropriate shocks or rapidly draining the battery. In effect, a nefarious actor could hack into the very thing tasked with sustaining someone’s life and turn it into the device that kills them.

Now, luckily, patients with affected pacemakers do not need to have the device removed, an in-office software update suffices, and there have been no reports, so far, of anyone being harmed. But it does provide a poignant reminder that allowing cyber-vulnerable technology into our lives and into our bodies comes with serious risks and drawbacks. Beyond pacemakers, individuals rely on an array of wearable devices to monitor and control their health, such as wearable EMG devices to monitor seizures, or wearable patches to deliver personalized medication transdermally. A much broader group of people uses personal technology to enhance their wellbeing through devices such as fitness trackers, sleep trackers, or mental health apps. Moreover, with the internet of things (IoT), technologies are now more interconnected than ever, with cyber pathways opening up between smart household appliances and personal medical devices, via the central role of the smartphone. This makes us vulnerable not only to hackers interfering with the programming of devices, with the possibility of deadly consequences, but also to the massive theft of highly sensitive data.

We should enter into the personalized health and wellness technology era with eyes wide open.

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

Abortion pills at home: the new sinister face of the global abortion business

Dutch website “Women on web” is offering to deliver abortion drugs based on mifepristone (RU-486) and misoprostol for use at home, through a simple request on their website (there are lots of sites like this, after which they ask for “a donation of at least 90, 80 or 70 euro”. The website literally states that “a medical abortion can be done safely at home as long as you have good information and have access to emergency medical care in the rare case that there are complications”. Both drugs legally require a medical prescription, so their sale on the internet is illegal.

Abortion pills at home

A woman who feels tempted to make an “abortion” request on this site should know that the side effects of RU-486 are common and objective (see HERE), particularly vaginal bleeding, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and fatigue [2]. In some cases, the intensity of the vaginal bleeding requires a blood transfusion  [3], [4]. A total of 607 adverse events were reported between September 2000 and September 2004 : 237 hemorrhages, which included 1 fatal, 42 life-threatening, 168 serious, and 68 requiring blood transfusions; 66 infections, which included 7 cases of septic shock, 3 of which were fatal while 4 were life-threatening; 513 patients required a subsequent secondary surgical intervention, 235 urgent and 278 non-urgent. The need to have a surgical abortion after failure of the chemical abortion can be considered a side effect, and occurs in between 1% and 10% of cases. This second surgical intervention can increase the risk of permanent sterility http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1345/aph.1G481a.

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

Cyber Security & Implanted Bio-Monitoring Devices

Dylan Roskams Edris describes risks associated with implantable remote bio-monitoring devices.

__________________________________________

Over the past few years, there has been a rapid growth in the development of implantable remote bio-monitoring systems for medical purposes. For example, implantable monitors that allow for constant monitoring of blood glucose and heart status are being tested in clinical trials. A defining feature of implantable monitors for medical care is the ability to transmit the data they collect wirelessly without patient intervention. Suzanne E. Spaulding, former Under Secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said that: “It has been predicted that by 2020 the internet will expand to include 50 billion connected devices.”  We can expect that this will include the expansion of bio-monitoring systems.

The appeal of such technology is clear. For chronic conditions like diabetes, the early detection of hypoglycemia can let the patient or healthcare professional take emergency action or notify paramedics before the patient has a potentially fatal seizure. In addition, if a physician or sufficiently sophisticated medical system can access data related to a chronic condition on a remote basis preventive measures can be taken to stop dangerous acute symptoms from occurring in the first place.

However, the uptake of implantable remote bio-monitoring also poses several risks. First, there is a risk that bio-monitoring devices could be illegally hacked or intercepted. If the operation of a device is dependent on the transfer of information between the device and some centralized healthcare system then interference with information going in either direction could affect the device’s function.

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

Charlie Gard: An Ethical Analysis of a Legal non-Problem

(Cross-posted from EJIL: Talk!)

For those with an internet connection and an interest in current affairs, the story of Charlie Gard been hard to avoid recently.  A decent précis is available here; but it’s worth rehearsing.

Shortly after his birth, Charlie’s health began to deteriorate, and he was diagnosed with a terminal and incurable mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome.  By March 2017, Charlie needed artificial ventilation, and doctors at Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital (GOSH) applied to the High Court for confirmation that removing that ventilation would be lawful, having judged that it was not in his best interests.  This was contested by his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates; the High Court ruled in favour of GOSH.  This was confirmed by the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.  During all this time, Charlie remained ventilated.

In the High Court, Mr Justice Francis said that his decision was subject to revision should new evidence emerge favouring continued treatment; in July, Charlie’s parents returned to the High Court, claiming that Charlie might benefit from an experimental treatment being offered by Professor Michio Hirano of Columbia University.  However, as proceedings advanced, it became clear that Hirano’s proposed treatment had never been used on patients like Charlie, that he had neither seen Charlie nor read his notes when he offered the treatment, and that he had a financial interest in that treatment.  The position statement issued by GOSH on the 24th July barely hides the hospital’s legal team’s exasperation.  On the 24th July, Charlie’s parents dropped their request for continued treatment. 

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

Prime Health: Should Amazon Purchase a Hospital Chain?

Cross-posted from Medium. By Nicolas Terry The devotees of digital health and disruption recently lit up the Internet after reports that Amazon had deployed a secret health tech team codenamed 1492 (presumably a reference to healthcare visionary Columbus). The real surprise would … 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.

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 Blogs

All the Difference in the World: Gender and the 2016 Election

by Alison Reiheld

ABSTRACT. In this paper, I analyze multiple aspects of how gender norms pervaded the 2016 election, from the way Clinton and Trump announced their presidency to the way masculinity and femininity were policed throughout the election. Examples include Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and Gary Johnson. I also consider how some women who support Trump reacted to allegations about sexual harassment. The difference between running for President as a man and running for President as a woman makes all the difference in the world.

 

IMAGE DESCRIPTION: This image shows Donald Trump on the left and Hillary Clinton on the right. Trump’s eyes are narrowed, his brow furrowed. He looks serious, and there is no hint of a smile. On the right, Clinton has a composed look with a slight, close-mouthed smile, her eyes open to a typical degree. Both are white and have greying blonde hair.

The May 21, 2007 cover of TIME magazine showed a close-up image of Mitt Romney’s face with the cover tagline “. . . he looks like a President . . .”, the first of many such claims. In 2011, as Texas Governor Rick Perry geared up for a run at the presidency, Washington Post opinion writer Richard Cohen said that Perry “actually looks like a President” (Cohen 2011). The term, here, is used as praise. Yet the power of its use as an epithet when people fail to look adequately presidential cannot be understated. During the primaries for the 2016 election, while watching Republican candidate Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump said in front of a reporter, “Look at that face!

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

Fake News and Partisan Epistemology

by Regina Rini

ABSTRACT. This paper does four things: (1) It provides an analysis of the concept ‘fake news.’ (2) It identifies distinctive epistemic features of social media testimony. (3) It argues that partisanship-in-testimony-reception is not always epistemically vicious; in fact some forms of partisanship are consistent with individual epistemic virtue. (4) It argues that a solution to the problem of fake news will require changes to institutions, such as social media platforms, not just to individual epistemic practices.

Did you know that Hillary Clinton sold weapons to ISIS? Or that Mike Pence called Michelle Obama “the most vulgar First Lady we’ve ever had”? No, you didn’t know these things. You couldn’t know them, because these claims are false.[1] But many American voters believed them.

One of the most distinctive features of the 2016 campaign was the rise of “fake news,” factually false claims circulated on social media, usually via channels of partisan camaraderie. Media analysts and social scientists are still debating what role fake news played in Trump’s victory.[2] But whether or not it drove the outcome, fake news certainly affected the choices of some individual voters.

Why were people willing to believe easily dis-confirmable, often ridiculous, stories? In this paper I will suggest the following answer: people believe fake news because they acquire it through social media sharing, which is a peculiar sort of testimony. Social media sharing has features that reduce audience willingness to think critically or check facts. This effect is amplified when the testifier and audience share a partisan orientation.

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.