Tag: politics

Uncategorized

Don’t Feed the Trolls: Bold Climate Action in a New, Golden Age of Denialism

by Marcus Hedahl and Travis N. Rieder

ABSTRACT. In trying to motivate climate action, many of those concerned about altering the status quo focus on trying to convince climate deniers of the error of their ways. In the wake of the  2016 Election, one might believe that now, more than ever, it is tremendously important to convince those who deny the reality of climate science of the well-established facts. We argue, however, that the time has come to revisit this line of reasoning.  With a significant majority of voters supporting taxing or regulating greenhouse gases, those who want to spur climate action ought to focus instead on getting a critical mass of climate believers to be appropriately alarmed. Doing so, we contend, may prove more useful in creating the political will necessary to spur bold climate action than would engaging directly with climate deniers.

Less than a month after the 2016 presidential election, incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus stated that climate change denialism would be the “default position” of the Trump administration (Meyjes 2016). In March 2017, Scott Pruit, President Trump’s choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, expressed his belief—contrary to the estabilished scientific consensus—that carbon dioxide was not one of the primary contributors of climate change (Davenport 2107). Given this existence of climate denialism at the highest reaches of U.S. government, one might believe that, now more than ever, it is tremendously important to convince those who deny the reality of climate science of the well-established facts.[1] Surely, with truth on our side, we must trumpet the evidence, making deniers our primary target and acceptance of the truth of climate change our primary goal.

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

Deaths from a Health Care Bill?

July 10, 2017

Be the first to like.
Share

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has said “hundreds of thousands of people will die” if the Senate health care bill becomes law. But what does the research say about the impact of health insurance on mortality rates?

There are several studies backing up the idea that those who lack health insurance have a higher chance of dying prematurely than those with insurance, as we found when we looked at this issue in 2009.

But the research uses terms like “could” and “suggests” and “cannot definitively demonstrate a causal relationship,” not the definitive “will” favored by opponents of the bill. We can’t say whether any specific projection is a correct or valid number.

Democrats have made this a talking point. “We do know that many more people, hundreds of thousands of people, will die if this bill passes,” Pelosi said on “CBS This Morning” on June 26. In a July 2 interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Bernie Sanders said “tens of thousands of people every single year will die” if the Affordable Care Act were repealed entirely, without a replacement.

Later in that interview, Sanders said that “no one knows exactly the number” but that one study said “up to 28,000 people a year … will die” from the increase in the uninsured under the Republican bills. He and Pelosi are referring to an analysis by the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

We’ll explain how that study reached its conclusions, as well as what other research has found.

…Read More

Be the first to like.

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

Participants’ Testimonials: GBI Summer School a Smashing Success, (June 19-30), 2017

The GBI Summer School proved to be even better than anticipated or described. As a newcomer to the discipline, I had expected the course to provide a broad overview of topics and speakers. Indeed, while broad, the degree of expertise and timely subject material provided an excellent and comprehensive survey of the discipline in global and local settings. Moreover, the students provided another dimension of diversity, both in nationalities and areas of expertise. The speakers made their presentation materials readily available, answered questions, and were willing to address topics of interest offline. I would strongly recommend the course to both novices and subject matter experts alike. The course especially demonstrated the need, relevance, and desirability for global bioethics to be better incorporated into public policy formulation.

Geoffrey Pack, Prevention and Protection Officer, Office of Homeland and Security, City of San Diego, M.A.L.D., Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University in Cooperation with Harvard University

The GBI Summer School, in the heart of NYC’s Pace University Campus, is a fantastic opportunity! International scholars and professionals from all over the world attended the program, contributing their experiences and engaging with bioethics experts. The City of New York – with the nearby Pace University Campus, Brooklyn Bridge, City Hall, and 9/11 Memorial – provided the perfect setting to discuss the global ethical challenges in technology and medicine. Discussions ranged from law and politics to culture and psychology, encompassing the ethical dilemmas that define the 21st century. I have immensely enjoyed not just the internationally known faculty but also hearing from the learners who come from all over the world representing diverse fields.

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

Medical Decision-Making In the Tragic Life of Charlie Gard

by Craig Klugman, Ph.D.

On Friday, Charlie Gard is scheduled to have his life support discontinued. Charlie Gard is an 11-month-old baby born with RRM2B encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome—a rare genetic disorder with no cure. Those with the mutation live at most into early childhood with a multitude of life threatening conditions (lactic acidosis, ammonia build up, heart abnormalities). Charlie suffers from seizures, cannot independently breathe. He is also blind and deaf. Great Ormond Street Hospital (London) and Charlie’s doctors believe there is nothing more medically that can be done to benefit him and requested to remove his life sustaining treatment. Connie Yates and Chris Gard, his parents, believe that there is a chance of a miraculous cure in an experimental nucleoside treatment in the United States, even though the technique has never been tried for this condition. In the words of the unnamed U.S. specialist, nucleoside treatment would provide a “small hope” for helping

The case has gone through the British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, all of which agreed with the hospital. They declared that prolonging Charlie’s life would be “inhumane and unreasonable.” The courts believed that the experimental treatment in the US would be futile and could cause Charlie much suffering. The European Court ruled on July 4 that life support can be removed on Friday.

Under British law, when parents and physicians disagree on treatment, the courts normally intervene and are the final decision-makers. Unlike in the US, the highest value is the best interest (benefit) to the child rather than parental rights to make decisions for their child.

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

Identity politics, partisanship and healthcare by Maria Cecilia Dedios

The problem of intense polarization in politics -and in society more generally- has been on the spotlight for several months now. In the past couple of weeks, we’ve been bombarded by headlines, arguments, and op-eds that show the extent to which this polarization is impacting something that should not –at least in principle- be a matter of partisanship: The provision of healthcare for the American people. How did we get here? This month the web round-up focuses on some attempts at answering this question in various online outlets.

 

To begin with, there seems to be very different understandings of health along party lines, either as a right or as a commodity. One side understands health care similar to a right, arguing for equity in access to health care based on the idea of a societal obligation towards those who can’t afford access to health care, arguing that health care access represents a way to provide equal opportunities to everyone. The other side sees health care as a commodity, something that each person can freely decide whether to acquire or not. Also, this argument goes, the government should and could not pick up the bill when it comes to cover health care for all. That, the right argues, would be a government overstep with no constitutional basis.

 

Things are further complicated by identity politics, which is one of the most complex issues to deal with in relation to political polarization. Because the discussion becomes about who you are, and things are framed in an “us vs.

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

What’s At Stake in Speculation? by Matthew Wolf-Meyer

We’ve long been thinking about health, well-being, illness, sickness, and disease, in relation to risk. That things might not be maintained at their present levels, either individually, among our cared-for, or socially, is not something new, even if we’ve entered a period of intensification, with calls to ‘repeal and replace’ the Affordable Care Act, and the slow, often subtle chipping away at social safety net policies in the United States and throughout the North Atlantic in the spirit of austerity and for the sake of freedom. What might have been primarily personal and interpersonal concerns about health and disease have also expanded to include the environment and the species, as we continue to think through the Anthropocene and its consequences for exposures to environmental dangers – toxins and radiation foremost among them – and the spread of once localized diseases to the global stage, as the recent zika outbreak raised, and Ebola recurrently threatens. The intensification and generalization of risk may very well entail the intensification and generalization of speculation; what are our individual and collective possible futures? And what better way to confront our possible futures than through media that explicitly engages with the future, speculative and science fiction?

Is speculation fundamental to life itself? That’s the question that Steve Shaviro seeks to answer in his recent Discognition. Shaviro argues that sentience itself – which we might see operating in computer programs, plants, slime mold, and emergent technologies – is founded on the existence of the ability to speculate, to anticipate and plan. We may not be able to infer how speculation works for a sentient computer program or a slime mold, yet, they depend upon an ability to forecast, to imagine what may come next, so as to act appropriately in advance.

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

Senate Leaders Unveil Bill to Repeal the Affordable Care Act

June 22, 2017

Be the first to like.
Share

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans, who have promised a repeal of the Affordable Care Act for seven years, took a major step on Thursday toward that goal, unveiling a bill to cut Medicaid deeply and end the health law’s mandate that most Americans have health insurance.

The bill would create a new system of federal tax credits to help people buy health insurance, while offering states the ability to drop many of the benefits required by the Affordable Care Act, like maternity care, emergency services and mental health treatment.

The Senate bill — once promised as a top-to-bottom revamp of the health bill passed by the House last month — instead maintains its structure, with modest adjustments. The Senate version is, in some respects, more moderate than the House bill, offering more financial assistance to some lower-income people to help them defray the rapidly rising cost of private health insurance.

… Read More

Be the first to like.
Share

NY Times

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.

Uncategorized

Stakes of Life: Science, states, policies, publics and ‘the first thousand days’ by Fiona C. Ross

Welcome back to the “First Thousand Days of LifeSomatosphere series. Here we continue to explore the ways that a global health initiative driven by new findings in epigenetics and neuroscience and by a reframing of theories about health and disease in terms of developmental origins shape ideas about (global) health and population futures, invigorate campaigns, and take form and settle in localized contexts. Understanding the links between science, biomedicine, policy, population, well-being and relationship as simultaneously both meshed and contingent, our series posits questions about what affordances and limitations lie in new modalities of understanding human illness and well-being. It examines how policy is made and with what effects for its recipients, how states are implicated in health and its others, what forms of the everyday materialize under the lens of new findings in epigenetics and epidemiology, what modalities of knowing emerge and how they settle with older forms, and how ethnography might contribute.

Describing the research programme driven by the Thousand Days research group at the University of Cape Town, I noted that,

The emergent field both synergises a range of disciplines in the bio- and social sciences and develops new sites of humanitarian intervention, reframing current debates about population, well-being and ‘the best interests of the child’ in newly biological ways. As these findings are taken up in policy and practice, we are witnessing the making of a social object with material effects’ (www.thousanddays.uct.ac.za).

Our project has explored that making, its prior conditions and its effects.  As Michelle Pentecost noted in her opening to the Somatosphere series, the framing ‘offers fertile ground for careful thought about contemporary concepts of life, life-giving and care, offering spaces for critically assessing not only how states and people understand and enable health and well-being but also how life is conceptualized by different disciplines.’ 

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

Announcement: James Williams wins Innovative Thinking prize

OUC affiliated student, James Williams, has been awarded the inaugural $100,000 Nine Dots Prize.

Williams, a doctoral candidate researching design ethics, beat 700 other entrants from around the world with his 3,000-word answer to the set question ‘Are digital technologies making politics impossible?’ His entry Stand Out of Our Light: Freedom and Persuasion in the Attention Economy argues that digital technologies are making all forms of politics worth having impossible as they privilege our impulses over our intentions and are ‘designed to exploit our psychological vulnerabilities in order to direct us toward goals that may or may not align with our own.

Read more, including extracts, at Nine Dots website here: https://ninedotsprize.org/winners/james-williams/

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

Making the theoretical practical: Engaging undergraduate students in research methods by Hannah Mohammad

I am currently an undergraduate student in the Department of Global Health & Social Medicine at King’s College London. The Department’s UG program offers students the opportunity to study social aspects of health and medicine in a multi-disciplinary context with close collaboration between the social sciences, life sciences and biomedicine. In addition, a great emphasis is put on methods training to equip students to carry out their own empirical research projects.

Already in first year, the Research Practice and Design Studio course taught us theories and practices required for qualitative and quantitative research. However, in our undergraduate bubble, these late Tuesday afternoon sessions seemed somewhat distant from conducting actual research. In order to address this perceived disconnect, our course instructor, Dr Laurie Corna decided to adopt a problem-based learning approach that allowed us students to be positioned as emerging researchers whilst learning theoretically about a range of issues central to quantitative and qualitative research designs.

A new research methods course was designed around a series of case-based learning activities that culminated in students conducting their own mixed-methods research. Students’ assignments for the course involved working in teams of two on applying and executing various aspects of the research process in relation to the predefined topic “Physical activity in the city of London”.[1] That is, we learned how to articulate research questions, identify ethical problems, write a research proposal and develop related interview topic guides as well as survey questionnaires. Once we had conducted our research, we were tasked to present our findings in the form of a poster during a “Research Showcase” and create a final report on the research project.

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.