Tag: marriage

Bioethics Blogs

Medical Aid In Dying in Minnesota – Lessons Learned in Oregon and Colorado

Join me on Friday, September 29, 2017, for the MCDES Fall 2017 Conference: “Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD)—Lessons Learned in Oregon and Colorado.”


CEU’s will be available for professionals in Psychology, Marriage and Family Therapy, Social Work, Behavior Health and Therapy, Funeral Service and MN Nurses.


Speakers

  • David Grube, MD, is Board Certified in Family Medicine and retired after practicing for 35 years. He continues to teach medical students. He has been a leader in the Oregon Academy of Family Physicians and Oregon Academy of Family Physicians Foundation.
  • Kim Mooney, Certified Thanatologist, has 24 years of experience in the fi eld of dying, death, and grief. She has worked with hospices and as an independent consultant for corporations, faith communities, health care and mental health agencies. She lives and works in Colorado.
  • Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD, Director, Health Law Institute, Mitchell Hamline School of Law. He graduated from Georgetown University, where he received both his JD and a PhD in philosophy and bioethics.

Location
Doubletree by Hilton Hotel – Minneapolis North
Brooklyn Center, MN


Mission
To promote thoughtful deliberation about challenges faced by healthcare professionals and
healthcare systems as they create patient-centered policies to respond to medical aid in dying legislation and requests. We are neither promoting nor condemning aid in dying, but rather, focusing on how to achieve the best possible care for seriously ill patients and their families if medical aid in dying is legalized.


Pragmatic and Ethical Concerns

  1. How will practicing clinicians be educated to respond to requests for physician aid-in-dying, and to connect patients to resources, such as hospice and mental health, in the course of discussing these requests? 

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

Medical Aid In Dying in Minnesota – Lessons Learned in Oregon and Colorado

Join me on Friday, September 29, 2017, for the MCDES Fall 2017 Conference: “Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD)—Lessons Learned in Oregon and Colorado.”


CEU’s will be available for professionals in Psychology, Marriage and Family Therapy, Social Work, Behavior Health and Therapy, Funeral Service and MN Nurses.


Speakers

  • David Grube, MD, is Board Certified in Family Medicine and retired after practicing for 35 years. He continues to teach medical students. He has been a leader in the Oregon Academy of Family Physicians and Oregon Academy of Family Physicians Foundation.
  • Kim Mooney, Certified Thanatologist, has 24 years of experience in the fi eld of dying, death, and grief. She has worked with hospices and as an independent consultant for corporations, faith communities, health care and mental health agencies. She lives and works in Colorado.
  • Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD, Director, Health Law Institute, Mitchell Hamline School of Law. He graduated from Georgetown University, where he received both his JD and a PhD in philosophy and bioethics.

Location
Doubletree by Hilton Hotel – Minneapolis North
Brooklyn Center, MN


Mission
To promote thoughtful deliberation about challenges faced by healthcare professionals and
healthcare systems as they create patient-centered policies to respond to medical aid in dying legislation and requests. We are neither promoting nor condemning aid in dying, but rather, focusing on how to achieve the best possible care for seriously ill patients and their families if medical aid in dying is legalized.


Pragmatic and Ethical Concerns

  1. How will practicing clinicians be educated to respond to requests for physician aid-in-dying, and to connect patients to resources, such as hospice and mental health, in the course of discussing these requests? 

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

Incidental White Privilege

STUDENT VOICES

By Jade Reyes

Not every issue of morality that we are faced with is easily discernible— with an easily ascertainable correct action. Many of these issues are nuanced and multifaceted, affecting every person differently and involves a weighing process between imperfect alternatives. One of those issues is race or ethnicity and furthermore the perceptions and assumptions that come hand in hand. Race and racial prejudice are intricately woven into the fabric of American history. While the most prominent struggle between Whites and Blacks is entrenched in the legacy of slavery, another more subtle battle persists. This battle, in my personal experience, blurs the line of ethical and moral behavior in many settings; particularly social and business relations. This struggle is the plight of those who pass for another race– specifically those non-Whites who may be perceived as White, such as myself. This presents a unique moral and ethical challenge: having to toe the line between my ‘by chance’ white privilege and allegiance to my ethnic background.

Often the struggle to which I refer is given the name of colorism, in which light skin tones are preferred and fare better in arbitrary categories when compared to darker skin tones. There is this persistent trend; according to the historical record that having lighter skin regardless of your racial or ethnic origin is a good thing— a door opener if you will. For fair-skinned Latinas like myself, the identifier of white is available to me, but it comes as a powerful oxymoron to define myself as a white-Latino.

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

Incidental White Privilege

STUDENT VOICES

By Jade Reyes

Not every issue of morality that we are faced with is easily discernible— with an easily ascertainable correct action. Many of these issues are nuanced and multifaceted, affecting every person differently and involves a weighing process between imperfect alternatives. One of those issues is race or ethnicity and furthermore the perceptions and assumptions that come hand in hand. Race and racial prejudice are intricately woven into the fabric of American history. While the most prominent struggle between Whites and Blacks is entrenched in the legacy of slavery, another more subtle battle persists. This battle, in my personal experience, blurs the line of ethical and moral behavior in many settings; particularly social and business relations. This struggle is the plight of those who pass for another race– specifically those non-Whites who may be perceived as White, such as myself. This presents a unique moral and ethical challenge: having to toe the line between my ‘by chance’ white privilege and allegiance to my ethnic background.

Often the struggle to which I refer is given the name of colorism, in which light skin tones are preferred and fare better in arbitrary categories when compared to darker skin tones. There is this persistent trend; according to the historical record that having lighter skin regardless of your racial or ethnic origin is a good thing— a door opener if you will. For fair-skinned Latinas like myself, the identifier of white is available to me, but it comes as a powerful oxymoron to define myself as a white-Latino.

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

Lincoln in the Bardo in the Bardo/ by Russell Teagarden

Russell Teagarden is an Editor of the NYU Literature Arts and Medicine Database and helped lead the Medical Humanities elective at the School of Medicine this past winter. In this blog post, he experiments with creating a text collage from recent reviews of George Saunders novel, Lincoln in the Bardo.

Author’s note:
George Saunders is well known for his inventive and affecting short stories. Lincoln in the Bardo is his first novel, and as described by Charles Baxter in his review in the April 20, 2017 issue of The New York Review of Books, it “doesn’t resemble any of his previous books…nor does it really resemble anyone else’s novel, present or past. In fact, I have never read anything like it.” The story is told by a chorus of spirits or ghosts in a “bardo,” which is a Tibetan limbo of a sort for souls transitioning from death to their next phase. Saunders rarely gives any individual spirit more than 2 or 3 lines of dialog, and he intersperses short snippets from historical textsasome real, some notato provide contextual background. Of particular interest to the medical humanities community will be the focus on the well-trodden subject of grief through this experimental approach. The book has attracted the attention of many serious critics, so many in fact, that they can be assembled into a chorus to derive a review of the book in the book’s format. I have thus taken excerpts from published reviewsamost real, a few notato produce a review that covers how the book is laid out (I), how the bardo works (II), how the story flows (III), and how it’s critically received (IV) as can be told by a chorus of reviewers in a bardo of their own.

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

Why Addiction Narratives Matter

By Katie Givens Kime
Image courtesy of
Merrimack Repertory Theatre.

“My Higher Power is: Science!” proclaims Sean, a newly recovered alcoholic. “Sean” is the lead character in a comedic play, “The White Chip,” which premiered last year at Merrimac Repertory Theatre outside of Boston, Massachusetts. Written by Sean Daniels, the play dramatizes Daniels’ own near demise from alcoholism, and his experience of recovery. Neuroethics is writ large as the play tells the story of how critically important various addiction etiologies can be for those struggling with alcoholism, or addiction of any sort. In Sean’s case, the etiology is the brain disease model of addiction (BDMA) in a notable combination with the “Higher Power” understanding of 12-step programs, which he credits with saving his life. Behind the curious twists of the play, questions linger: which model of addiction should be presented to those in recovery, when so much conflict exists amongst addiction researchers, clinicians, and recovery care providers? At what point does an effective (potentially life-saving) narrative of addiction etiology supersede the obligation to provide all sides of the controversial matter of addiction modeling?

When Sean “hits bottom,” he has destroyed his career, his marriage, his health, and nearly lost his life while driving drunk. He enters a rehabilitation facility, but struggles with the suggestion that he find a “Higher Power.” Such a practice is reflective of the metaphysical claim central to Alcoholics Anonymous, and every other 12-step program: surrender to a Higher Power of the addict’s understanding, and is perhaps the most significant distinguishing feature separating 12-step methods from other recovery pathways.

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

Having a Baby at 50

Pop star Janet Jackson, who turns 51 this coming May, gave birth to her first child last week. She and her husband have allegedly been working with a fertility specialist for some time. Many people react with horror, or even disgust, to the idea of this. However, people have had similar emotional reactions to interracial and same-sex marriage. Rather than relying on emotion, I propose the following framework for evaluating reproductive technologies: procreative liberty and procreative responsibility.

— Delivered by Feed43 service

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

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.

Bioethics News

How LSD Saved One Woman’s Marriage

Ayelet Waldman, a novelist and former federal public defender, recalled the sunny spring morning she rolled out of bed in her Berkeley, Calif., home and experienced the most curious sensation: She felt alive

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

Altruism, Ethics, and Markets

Mario Macis, PhD, together with Vikram Chib, PhD and Jeffrey Kahn, PhD, MPH were awarded funding by the JHU Exploration of Practical Ethics program for their project titled “Altruism, Ethics and Markets: A Behavioral and Neuroscientific Experimental Study.” This is an experimental study at the intersection of ethics, economics and neuroscience that addresses controversial economic transactions, such as receiving financial compensation for organ donation. The research team will create an experimental laboratory setting that reproduces several of the features of organ donation, and will study the ethical and economic implications of different institutional regimes of procurement. By measuring neural activity (through fMRI) and behavior, this study will provide insight into how altruism, the desire for economic gain, and the tolerance for physical pain interact to produce outcomes. The study will also consider how those interactions depend on institutional arrangements and will examine the neural mechanisms associated with people’s preferences.

 

Dr. Macis answers our questions.

 

Explain the different scenarios in which participants can “donate” in this experiment.

 

Participants are presented with three scenarios. In the first two scenarios, in exchange for a physical cost (i.e., pain from an electric shock), participants will have the possibility to earn some money for a charity of their choice (“pure altruism”), or for both a charity and themselves (“paid altruism”). In the third scenario, participants are given the opportunity to transfer a certain amount of their endowment as a payment to another person who agrees to take a given shock, and a charity receives a given sum of money (“market”).

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.