Tag: muslims

Bioethics Blogs

Teaching Disability Studies in the Era of Trump by Pamela Block

In spring semester of 2017 we (Pam Block and Michele Friedner) co-taught the graduate course “Conceptual Foundations of Disability Studies.” Though the readings were the same as in previous iterations of the course, the emphasis and tone of the class shifted, not just because of the co-teaching but because we were now teaching in a context in which the rights and lives of disabled people are at increased risk. This essay will focus on one class session devoted to a discussion of how disability studies and eugenics are strikingly intertwined in some ways, and why it is salient and important to think about eugenics in the present moment, especially in relation to the current United States presidency.

Eugenics opens up a way to talk about immigration; traits and qualities of and in people; desirability; deservedness; “good” and “bad” science; and the making of facts. Eugenics comes to mind when we think of silencing and containing nasty women and ejecting bad hombres. While we are not arguing that Trump himself advocates eugenics, we argue that a study of the history of eugenics offers an entry point to considering the emergence of past and present norms and normals, especially in relation to perspectives on bodily variation. We also think that a discussion of eugenics affords different ways of conceptualizing what disability studies scholars Snyder and Mitchell (2010) call “able-nationalism,” (riffing off of Puar’s (2007) work on homonationalism). That is, a discussion of eugenics allows for consideration of how disability—and the values attached to it– is mobilized in different time periods, in the service to the nation.

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

Does Female Genital Mutilation Have Health Benefits? The Problem with Medicalizing Morality

By Brian D. Earp (@briandavidearp)

Please note: this piece was originally published in Quillette Magazine.

 

Four members of the Dawoodi Bohra sect of Islam living in Detroit, Michigan have recently been indicted on charges of female genital mutilation (FGM). This is the first time the US government has prosecuted an “FGM” case since a federal law was passed in 1996. The world is watching to see how the case turns out.

A lot is at stake here. Multiculturalism, religious freedom, the limits of tolerance; the scope of children’s—and minority group—rights; the credibility of scientific research; even the very concept of “harm.”

To see how these pieces fit together, I need to describe the alleged crime.

* * *

The term “FGM” is likely to bring to mind the most severe forms of female genital cutting, such as clitoridectomy or infibulation (partial sewing up of the vaginal opening). But the World Health Organization (WHO) actually recognizes four main categories of FGM, covering dozens of different procedures.

One of the more “minor” forms is called a “ritual nick.” This practice, which I have argued elsewhere should not be performed on children, involves pricking the foreskin or “hood” of the clitoris to release a drop of blood.

Healthy tissue is not typically removed by this procedure, which is often done by trained clinicians in the communities where it is common. Long-term adverse health consequences are believed to be rare.

Here is why this matters. Initial, albeit conflicting reports suggest that the Dawoodi Bohra engage in this, or a similar, more limited form of female genital cutting – not the more extreme forms that are often highlighted in the Western media.

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

Does Female Genital Mutilation Have Health Benefits? The Problem with Medicalizing Morality

Does Female Genital Mutilation Have Health Benefits? The Problem with Medicalizing Morality

By Brian D. Earp (@briandavidearp)

Please note: this piece was originally published in Quillette Magazine.

 

Four members of the Dawoodi Bohra sect of Islam living in Detroit, Michigan have recently been indicted on charges of female genital mutilation (FGM). This is the first time the US government has prosecuted an “FGM” case since a federal law was passed in 1996. The world is watching to see how the case turns out.

A lot is at stake here. Multiculturalism, religious freedom, the limits of tolerance; the scope of children’s—and minority group—rights; the credibility of scientific research; even the very concept of “harm.”

To see how these pieces fit together, I need to describe the alleged crime.

* * *

The term “FGM” is likely to bring to mind the most severe forms of female genital cutting, such as clitoridectomy or infibulation (partial sewing up of the vaginal opening). But the World Health Organization (WHO) actually recognizes four main categories of FGM, covering dozens of different procedures.

One of the more “minor” forms is called a “ritual nick.” This practice, which I have argued elsewhere should not be performed on children, involves pricking the foreskin or “hood” of the clitoris to release a drop of blood.

Healthy tissue is not typically removed by this procedure, which is often done by trained clinicians in the communities where it is common. Long-term adverse health consequences are believed to be rare.

Here is why this matters. Initial, albeit conflicting reports suggest that the Dawoodi Bohra engage in this, or a similar, more limited form of female genital cutting – not the more extreme forms that are often highlighted in the Western media.

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

Trump is Gross: Taking Political Taste (and Distaste) Seriously

by Shelley Park 

ABSTRACT. This paper advances the somewhat unphilosophical thesis that “Trump is gross” to draw attention to the need to take matters of taste seriously in politics. I begin by exploring the slipperiness of distinctions between aesthetics, epistemology, and ethics, subsequently suggesting that we may need to pivot toward the aesthetic to understand and respond to the historical moment we inhabit. More specifically, I suggest that, in order to understand how Donald Trump was elected President of the United States and in order to stem the damage that preceded this and will ensue from it, we need to understand the power of political taste (and distaste, including disgust) as both a force of resistance and as a force of normalization.

My 5-year-old granddaughter refers to foods, clothes, and people she does not like as “supergross.” It is a verbiage that I have found myself adopting for talking about many things Trumpian, including the man himself. The gaudy, gold-plated everything in Trump Towers; his ill-fitting suits; his poorly executed fake tan and comb-over; his red baseball cap emblazoned with “Make America Great Again;” his creepy way of talking about women (including his own daughters); his racist vitriol about Blacks, Muslims and Mexicans; his blatant over-the-top narcissism; his uncontrolled tantrums; his ridiculous tweets; his outlandish claims; his awkward hand gestures and handshakes; the disquieting ease with which he is seduced by flattery; his embarrassing disregard for facts; his tortured use of language; his rudeness toward other world leaders; the obsequious manner in which other Republicans are treating the man they despised mere months ago; the servility of many Democrats in the face of a military–industrial coup.

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 Specter of Authoritarianism

by Andrew J. Pierce

ABSTRACT. In this essay, I provide an analysis of the much-discussed authoritarian aspects of Donald Trump’s campaign and early administration. Drawing from both philosophical analyses of authoritarianism and recent work in social science, I focus on three elements of authoritarianism in particular: the authoritarian predispositions of Trump supporters, the scapegoating of racial minorities as a means of redirecting economic anxiety, and the administration’s strategic use of misinformation. While I offer no ultimate prediction as to whether a Trump administration will collapse into authoritarianism, I do identify key developments that would represent moves in that direction.

The unorthodox campaign and unexpected election of Donald Trump has ignited intense speculation about the possibility of an authoritarian turn in American politics. In some ways, this is not surprising. The divisive political climate in the United States is fertile soil for the demonization of political opponents. George W. Bush was regularly characterized as an authoritarian by his left opposition, as was Barack Obama by his own detractors. Yet in Trump’s case, echoes of earlier forms of authoritarianism, from his xenophobic brand of nationalism and reliance on a near mythological revisionist history, to his vilification of the press and seemingly strategic use of falsehoods, appear too numerous to ignore. In this essay, I attempt to provide a sober evaluation of the authoritarian prospects of a Trump administration. As presidential agendas inevitably differ from campaign platforms, much of this analysis will be unavoidably speculative. However, the nature of Trump’s carefully studied campaign, the early actions of his administration, and the wealth of philosophical reflections on earlier forms of authoritarianism provide ample resources to inform such speculation.

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

Rights to so close and yet, so far away

by Jenji Cassandra Learn

This is the second in a series of personal articles about living as a trans-woman facing insurance denial, discrimination, and medical mistreatment in the current political environment.

This New Year’s Day—Sunday the 1st, 2017—was supposed to be the first day that I and people like me had equal access to healthcare in America. It was supposed to the first time we were regarded as equal to our fellow citizens and not required to pay out-of-pocket for basic healthcare needs, or even surgery, without any help from insurance providers that the rest of America depends on and that we are never the less obliged to give our money to even while they regard us as non-entities and less-than. After decades of struggle and misery, all of that was finally about to change. It didn’t.

There is a tragic irony in the fact that, after a century of stigmatization and repression, trans*, intersex, and genderqueer people have finally come to be understood, respected, and treated humanely within much of the medical and scientific community… only to at the same time find ourselves in the most hostile, oppressive, and socially regressive political environment the United States has seen since beginning of the Cold War.

The assault on the civil-rights protections and the legal and political gains made by trans, intersex, and genderqueer Americans in recent years began at the state level even before Donald Trump was inaugurated, and his top rival in the Republican primary was openly demagoguing trans* and intersex women as a danger to children, advocating the segregationist HB 2 law in North Carolina, and having his guards lay hands on a trans teen and his mother at one of his campaign events while an angry mob cheered, for no reason other than his identity.

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 message of hope for inclusivity and equality

For many US citizens, as well as people around the world,
the last few months have been difficult and disappointing given the results of
the US presidential election. As a feminist bioethicist, I am particularly
concerned about how the Trump administration will treat vulnerable and
oppressed groups, such as women, individuals in the LGBTQ community, people of
color, individuals with disabilities, Muslims and other religious minorities in
the US, and poor individuals. I am also concerned that the Trump administration
will erode people’s access to healthcare and that this will disproportionately
affect these vulnerable and oppressed groups. Already, we have seen that one
of Trump’s first actions is to start the process of repealing the Affordable Care
Act
.

It is easy to be disheartened during these challenging
times, but I recently attended two events that gave me hope. First, on Friday,
January 20, I attended and co-organized the fifth annual Capital
District Feminist Studies Consortium Conference
which was held at the Albany
College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. When we chose the date for this
conference in the summer of 2016, we didn’t realize that we had scheduled the
conference for Inauguration Day. Had the presidential election turned out
differently, this may have affected our turnout, but as it stands, we had
approximately 80 people in attendance, which is great for a local conference. A
feminist conference was the perfect place to be on this Inauguration Day. In
order to address some of Trump’s antifeminist and other biased comments and actions,
the organizers put together an invited panel titled “Feminist Work in
Non-Feminist Surroundings: Survival in Challenging Times.”

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

Morals and Mandates: Who Is Responsible For The Healthcare Needs of Undocumented Immigrants?

By: Robyn Perry-Thomas

On January 28th, the day after President Trump’s executive immigration order was announced, airports brimmed with voices of discontent, disbelief and dismay of its consequences. Since then, a diverse array of stakeholders including teachers, lawyers, policy makers and medics have spoken out both in opposition and favour of what has been coined the president’s ‘Muslim ban’1, 2.

An important yet often-overshadowed concern is whether healthcare rights should be afforded to undocumented immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Whilst we may safely assume that access to basic healthcare is an accepted human right, simply recognising something as a right has limited use as it fails to tell us who is responsible for fulfilling that obligation3. There are two important questions that will help to answer this problem. Firstly, is a government morally obliged to provide healthcare to all within its population? And if so, do individuals living in a country illegally surrender this fundamental right?

These questions illustrate the notions of social responsibility and legal accountability- two concepts that are often found at war with one another4. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labour Act of the United States mandates that emergency services must be available to all, irrespective of insurance status and ability to pay5. This regulation pertains to ‘legal accountability’ and is largely uncontroversial- it would take the most inhumane of individuals to argue that someone should be left to die at the door of the Emergency Department solely due to their immigration status.

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

Crossing the Line: When Doctors’ Beliefs Endanger Patients’ Autonomy and Health

by Craig M. Klugman, Ph.D.

In 2016 the Illinois legislature passed and Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law Public Act 099-690 (SB 1564), an amendment to the Health Care Right of Conscience Act. This change states “It is also the public policy of the State of Illinois to ensure that patients receive timely access to information and medically appropriate care.” The change requires physicians to inform patients about legal treatment options including their factual risks and benefits, but does not require the physician to perform such services. If the hospital or physician has a conscientious objection to performing a procedure, then the patient must be referred to or transferred to someone or some facility that will.

For this effort, state officers have been sued in both state and federal courts by the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of a group of “pregnancy centers,” a doctor and her medical practice in Rockford, IL. Their complaint is that this law “forces them to promote abortion regardless of their ethical of moral views.” In other words, because the law requires doctors to allow patients to know all of their legal options indicated under standard of care and to be transferred elsewhere for services a physician or facility will not perform, this violates their religious freedom. The plaintiffs want it to be legal to lie, obfuscate, and keep information from patients and to keep patients away from legal and safe, medically indicated procedures. Specifically, this suit cites abortion.

Most surprisingly, a judge in a rural county has issued an injunction against the law going into effect (only) for the named plaintiffs.

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.