Tag: killing

Bioethics Blogs

Casey Kasem Lawsuit re Homicidal Guardianship Scam”

Last week, the widow of radio and TV personality Casey Kasem filed a personal injury lawsuit against her late husband’s three adult children from a prior relationship, accusing them of participating in a “homicidal guardianship scam” that she says directly led to his death.


Jean Kasem alleges that the children rendered control of Casey Kasem’s medical care against a judge’s order, chemically restrained him and ordered hospital staff to withdraw food and water, killing him on June 15, 2014. The alleged motive was to gain control of Casey and Jean Kasem’s joint assets.

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

Insurers Battle Families Over Costly Drug for Fatal Disease

June 23, 2017

Be the first to like.
Share

Nolan and Jack Willis, twins from upstate New York, and just 10 other boys took part in a clinical trial that led to the approval last fall of the very first drug to treat their rare, deadly muscle disease.

Now the Willis boys are again test cases as a different type of medical question comes to the fore: whether insurers will cover the controversial drug, Exondys 51, which can cost more than $1 million a year even though it’s still unclear if it works.

The boys’ insurer, Excellus BlueCross BlueShield, refused to cover the cost of the drug because the twins, who are 15, can no longer walk. Their disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, overwhelmingly affects boys and causes muscles to deteriorate, killing many of them by the end of their 20s.

“I’m cycling between rage and just sadness,” their mother, Alison Willis Hoke, said recently, on the day she learned that an appeal for coverage had been denied. For now, the company that sells the drug, Sarepta Therapeutics, is covering the treatment’s costs, but Mrs. Hoke does not know how long that will last.

… Read More

Image via Flickr AttributionShare Alike Some rights reserved by Tracy O

Be the first to like.
Share

NYTimes

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

Targeted Killing and Black Boxes

Written By Mitt Regan and Michael Robillard

            Various aspects of the US targeted killing program have attracted considerable attention and some criticism in philosophy and international law. One important aspect of the program that deserves more attention is how targeted killing reflects how the growing number of conflicts involving non-state actors are eroding conventions regarding the use of violence.  Those conventions are based on the paradigm of conflict between states waged by uniformed armed forces on segregated battlefields.  In such conflicts, an individual’s status as a member of the armed forces makes him/her liable to lethal force without examining his/her specific conduct.  Non-state actors, however, do not wear uniforms and seek to be indistinguishable from civilians.  What, then, should be the basis for their liability?

While the traditional paradigm is based on status, it contains implicit assumptions about liable conduct.  These are that: (1) an individual in uniform poses a threat and (2) he voluntarily wears a uniform knowing this.  Voluntarily posing a threat is thus the implicit moral basis for liability on the traditional view of jus in bello. International law stipulates that this condition is met for someone in uniform.  Conflicts with non-state actors, however, require that we make this determination for each individual.  The debate over targeting killing vividly highlights that there is no consensus on what behaviour satisfies this condition aside from overt hostility.  In other words, we lack an accepted convention for determining liability to lethal force absent explicit demonstrations of hostile intent.

Seen in this light, the controversy over the US targeted killing program reflects a debate over what this convention should be.

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 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

Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics: Is Sex With Robots Rape? Written by Romy Eskens

This essay was the winner in the Graduate Category of the Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics 2017

Written by University of Oxford student, Romy Eskens

On The Permissibility of Consentless Sex With Robots

Recent movies and TV-series, such as Ex Machina and Westworld, have sparked popular interest in sex robots, which are embodied AI systems designed to provide sex for humans. Although for many it may seem absurd to think that humans will ever replace their human bedpartners with artificial machines, the first sexbots have already entered the commercial market. In 2010, TrueCompanion introduced Roxxxy, a sexbot with synthetic skin and an AI system that allows her to interact with her user through speech and affective communication. Another example of sexbots currently for sale are the RealDolls, which are silicone sexbots available in different models and upgradable with insertable faces and body parts. The question I address in this essay is: do humans require consent from sexbots for sexual activity to be permissible?

There are convincing ethical reasons to create sexbots. To begin with, sexbots can replace human sex workers, thereby reducing harmful practices such as sex slavery and sexual abuse.[i] Moreover, they can provide satisfying alternatives for individuals with sexual desires that could harm human beings if brought into practice, such as the desire to have sex with children or to engage in extremely violent or degrading sex. Furthermore, sexbots can provide a solution for individuals who experience difficulty in finding sexual partners, and can provide intimate companionship for those who feel lonely or isolated.

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

Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics: Secondary Intentions in Euthanasia, written by Isabel Canfield

This essay received an Honourable Mention in the Undergraduate Category of the Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics 2017

Written by University of Oxford student, Isabel Canfield

The debate about the moral permissibility of euthanasia is often presented as hinging upon the distinction between killing and letting die. This debate is often focused around a discussion of intention. This paper will attempt to answer the question, is there an additional level of intention, that has not been considered in the current debate on the moral permissibility of euthanasia, that should be considered?

It will be helpful to begin by outlining some of the terms that I will use throughout this paper. To this end, “euthanasia” is the act of killing someone else with the intention of avoiding the harm of living a continued life that is worse than death.[1 2] The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is complicated and at times not entirely clear. Typically, and for the purposes of this paper, active euthanasia is defined as an act that requires the agent who brings about death to do so purposefully. This purposeful action can be the completion of some task or tasks to accomplish this specific end. Meanwhile, passive euthanasia comes about when the agent who brings about death, if an agent can be said to bring about death at all in these cases, does so by purposefully not acting to continue to sustain the life of the person who dies.[3]

Any distinction in intention between active and passive euthanasia, supporters of active euthanasia argue, has been artificially created.

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

Five Ways the Meat on your Plate Is Killing the Planet

When we hear about the horrors of industrial livestock farming – the pollution, the waste, the miserable lives of billions of animals – it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt and conclude that we should eat less meat

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

Cross Post: Five ways the meat on your plate is killing the planet

Cross-posted from The Conversation

shutterstock

Francis Vergunst, Université de Montréal and Julian Savulescu, University of Oxford

When we hear about the horrors of industrial livestock farming – the pollution, the waste, the miserable lives of billions of animals – it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt and conclude that we should eat less meat. The Conversation

Yet most of us probably won’t. Instead, we will mumble something about meat being tasty, that “everyone” eats it, and that we only buy “grass fed” beef.

Over the next year, more than 50 billion land animals will be raised and slaughtered for food around the world. Most of them will be reared in conditions that cause them to suffer unnecessarily while also harming people and the environment in significant ways.

This raises serious ethical problems. We’ve compiled a list of arguments against eating meat to help you decide for yourself what to put on your plate.

1. The environmental impact is huge

Livestock farming has a vast environmental footprint. It contributes to land and water degradation, biodiversity loss, acid rain, coral reef degeneration and deforestation.

Nowhere is this impact more apparent than climate change – livestock farming contributes 18% of human produced greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. This is more than all emissions from ships, planes, trucks, cars and all other transport put together.

Climate change alone poses multiple risks to health and well-being through increased risk of extreme weather events – such as floods, droughts and heatwaves – and has been described as the greatest threat to human health in the 21st century.

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 Trial for Ontario Nurse Who Withdrew Life Support without Consent

Nurse Joanna Flynn goes on trial for manslaughter for shutting off Deanna Leblanc’s life support.


Flynn allegedly did this without authorization when she worked as an intensive care unit nurse at Georgian Bay General Hospital in March 2014.


The Globe & Mail recently reviewed “A History of Nurses Charged with Killing Patients.”

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.