Tag: rights

Bioethics Blogs

The Implications of Libertarianism for Compulsory Vaccination

Guest Post: Justin Bernstein

Paper: The Case Against Libertarian Arguments for Compulsory Vaccination

In a recent political controversy, libertarian Senator Rand Paul articulated his opposition to a policy of compulsory vaccination, stating that he was “all for [vaccines],” but that he was “also for freedom.” U.S. opponents of vaccines often object to compulsory vaccination on the (false) grounds that vaccines cause autism. But Paul’s claim that he was “for freedom” suggests a distinct, libertarian-minded rationale for opposing compulsory vaccination.

Libertarians deny that the state has the right to restrict individual liberty in order to promote welfare. A policy of compulsory vaccination promotes welfare by ensuring herd immunity. But such a policy also restricts individual liberty because it requires parents to subject their children to a medical procedure, and permits the state to punish non-compliance. So, a policy of compulsory vaccination certainly seems at odds with the libertarian’s commitment to liberty–even if herd immunity is threatened.

Some libertarians, however, attempt to avoid the controversial conclusion that libertarianism is incompatible with compulsory vaccination. In my recent paper, “The Case Against Libertarian Arguments for Compulsory Vaccination,” I argue that such attempts are unsuccessful, and so libertarians must either develop new arguments, or join Senator Paul in opposing compulsory vaccination.

How might a libertarian try to defend compulsory vaccination? One argument is that going unvaccinated exposes others to risk, and this violates their rights. Since the state is permitted to use coercive measures to protect rights, the state may require parents to vaccinate their children. But for libertarians, this argument has two shortcomings.

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

Global Health Policy: Trump and the Reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule

By: Jorge Luis Rivera-Agosto

On January 23, 2017, President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum reinstating the so-called Mexico City Policy. The Memorandum conditions U.S. global health and family planning assistance to a strict rule that precludes foreign non-governmental organizations (also known as “NGOs”) from promoting or performing abortion as a method of family planning. Also known as the “global gag rule,” this policy represents a blow specifically to women’s health worldwide. Thanks to this new action, it will become harder, like in past years when it was in effect, to have resources to support family planning and reproductive health services, such as “family counseling, contraceptive commodities, condoms, and reproductive cancer screenings.” Even though the U.S. government won’t retract from the Memoranda until this Administration ceases, global efforts should be made to ameliorate the negative effects the new policy will cause.

The Mexico City Policy was first enacted by President Reagan in 1984 – and at the time, it represented an expansion of existing legislative restrictions of the use of U.S. funds for abortions internationally. It was then rescinded by President Clinton in 1991; reinstated by President Bush in 2001; rescinded by President Obama in 2009; and reinstated and expanded by President Trump in 2017. The policy requires foreign NGOs “to certify that they will not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning, using funds from any source (including non-U.S. funds), as a condition for receiving U.S. government global family planning assistance and any other U.S. global health assistance.” The reason given to enact such policy was that the U.S.

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

An Assessment of Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy

By: Alexa Woodward

Last year, a baby boy was born from an embryo that underwent mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT). MRT was used to prevent this child from inheriting a mitochondrial disease from his mother, specifically infantile subacute necrotizing encephalomyelopathy – a disease that affects the central nervous system and usually results in death within the first few years of life. While controversial, assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) such as MRT provide prospective parents with additional options and have the potential to improve the quality of human life by preventing disease.

This story is of bioethical interest because this technique results in germline modification, which is the alteration of DNA in the reproductive cells of humans that will be passed on to their offspring. Implementing MRT in humans has consequentially garnered much criticism, from simple health-related implications (such as unknown harms to potential offspring and eugenics concerns) to the futuristic next logical step of scientific intervention; directly editing the nuclear genome.

With MRT, modifications affect the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA), not the nuclear genome. Researchers emphasize the lack of bearing that mtDNA has on personal characteristics and the overall maintenance of “genetic integrity,” especially when compared to using the whole donor egg with an “unrelated” nuclear genome.1 Even so, additional concerns arise regarding the long-term anthropological effects, blurring the distinction between therapy and enhancement, and issues of resource allocation.

Mutations and deletions  in the mitochondrial genome can result in mitochondrial diseases affecting the neurological, musculoskeletal, cardiac, gastrointestinal, renal, and other systems, all of which are incurable.  MRT uses the intended parents’ nuclear DNA in conjunction with a donor’s mitochondria.

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

Governments Should Fight Corporations, Not Collaborate With Them

Our former Greenwall Fellow, Jonathan Marks, delivers a TED talk that challenges this conventional wisdom, showing how governments can jeopardize public health, human rights and the environment when they partner with industry

Source: Bioethics Bulletin by the Berman Institute of Bioethics.

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 Forgotten Woman of Socialized Medicine [1]

In Sweden, there is an ongoing battle in midwifery between conscience rights and abortion rights and abortion rights are presently winning. A recent Wall Street Journal article provides an excellent background and summary of the situation of one Ellinor Grimmarck, a 40-year-old Christian, mother of two, who quit her job in 2007 to return to school to become a midwife. In Sweden, there is an… // Read More »

Source: bioethics.net, a blog maintained by the editorial staff of The American Journal of Bioethics.

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

Sanctuary Cities & NFIB v. Sebelius

Ironic that the leading argument against the President’s Executive Order 13768 on Sanctuary Cities is none other than the states’ rights / coercion arguments that convinced 7 Justices to make the Medicaid expansion voluntary.  Backstory on this element of NFIB from … Continue reading

Source: Bill of Health, examining the intersection of law and health care, biotech & bioethics.

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 ethnographic case: series conclusion by Emily Yates-Doerr

Editors note: This entry concludes the series “The Ethnographic Case” which ran every other Monday between June 2015 and July 2016. The bookCase, which holds 27 cases, can be accessed here.

One day, early on in the series, we received two submissions. Their similar anatomy was striking. Each featured a medical waiting room. Someone entered the space with a gift for the clinical personnel, the gift was accepted, and something shifted in the resulting care.

In Aaron Ansell’s case, set within gardens of an informal clinic in Piauí, Brazil, the gift was a small satchel of milk. Rima Praspaliauskiene’s was set in a Lithuanian public hospital and the gift was a rich chocolate cake. Aaron, who works and teaches on legal orders, analyzed the exchange as a challenge to hospital norms of equalitarianism. He helped us to see how the give-and-take of milk interrupts the requirements of a deracinated liberal democracy, offering instead the warm sociality of personal affinity. Rima, who focuses on medical care and valuing, used the object of the cake to query the social scientist’s impulse to explain why people do what they do. She shows us how this impulse may rest upon the linearity and equivalence of rational calculation, uncomfortably treating sociality as a commodity.

The juxtaposition of these submissions is emblematic – a case, if you will – of something we have seen throughout this series: the art of ethnographic writing resides in a relation between what is there and what is done with it.

Beginnings

We might trace the origin of the series to a business meeting at the AAAs, when we offered the idea of “the ethnographic case” for a Somatosphere series.

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

Penny-Foolish

April 07, 2017

by Sean Philpott-Jones, Chair, Bioethics Program of Clarkson University & Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Penny-Foolish

The 2018 federal budget battle has barely begun and already critics – including myself – are questioning the wisdom of Trump’s proposal to drastically cut key agencies like the US Department of State, Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency in order to build a wall that no one wants, to buy fighter jets that no one needs, and to give tax breaks that no one earned.

The Trump Administration claims that the President’s proposal will make Americans safer, healthier, and wealthier, but the unprecedented cuts and reallocations in this budget are likely to make us poorer, sicker, and endangered. They are also likely to do irreparable harm to America’s image overseas. Although Ronald Reagan famously described America as “a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere,” we will soon be seen as the exact opposite as the very programs that save lives, promote equality, combat poverty, and advance human rights – the very values and ideals that Americans cherish – are dismantled.

Consider, for example, Trump’s plan to cut funding from a program that provides life-saving treatment to those living with HIV/AIDS across the globe. Known as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), that program was created in 2003 by then President George W. Bush. It would not be hyperbole to describe PEPFAR as President Bush’s greatest legacy, redeeming an otherwise disastrous administration best known for embroiling America in an unjust and seemingly unending war in the Middle East and for trigger the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression.

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

Toxicologist Aims To Label Ethical Standards

Toxicologist Alan Goldberg knows what an industrial pig nursery should look and smell like. So one with no pigs, no slop, and no aroma was certainly surprising. Goldberg toured such a sanitized—and possibly staged—facility in 2006 while he was part of the 15-member Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, tasked to examine how industry practices impact human health, animal welfare, the environment, and rural communities.

 

The facilities with actual animals in them told a different tale. He recalls one poultry shed in Arkansas that housed 45,000 chickens clustered on a dirt floor that had likely not been cleaned since before the last harvest. Inside, the potent mix of nitrous oxide and ammonia, a byproduct of the chicken feces and urine, made the commissioners’ eyes burn. “The word the Pew Commission used to describe the conditions we saw was ‘inhumane.’ Personally, I would say ‘cruel,’” says Goldberg, a professor of environmental health and engineering at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and the founding director of the school’s Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing.

 

THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE PROJECT IS TO CREATE A TEMPLATE OF ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR THE FOOD INDUSTRY AND BETTER INFORM CONSUMERS ABOUT THEIR CHOICES.

In its 2008 landmark report, the commission condemned the state of industrial production and made sweeping recommendations, including the ban of nontherapeutic anti­biotics, improved management of food animal waste to lessen contamination of waterways, and the phasing out of intensive animal confinement.

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

Rights of aborted foetal remains. Recognised by different countries

Fetal remains  can not be treated as clinical waste

Texas will bury or cremate aborted children. From 19 December 2016, abortion clinics can no longer treat the bodies of the victims (fetal remains) as clinical waste but will have to bury or cremate them, whichever the parents decide. The local reform is part of a new trend to recognise the rights of victims of abortion.

Along the same line of respect for foetal remains, the Austrian government is also permitting parents to inscribe children weighing less than 500 g who die before birth in the country’s Civil Registry. They can also obtain birth and death certificate where the baby’s name appears.

Austria sets a precedent to recognise the right to life of the unborn. In this case, the government, led by the Social Democrats, has obtained sufficient support to go ahead with a reform that allows parents to inscribe children who die before birth weighing less than 500 g in the Civil Registry.

This measure gives parents a birth certificate for their deceased child, as well as a death certificate where the baby’s name appears.

For now, it is the first European country to approve a measure with similar characteristics, but it is a great step towards recognising not only that children who are conceived are human beings, but that they have their own legal entity.

The Austrian Family Minister, Sophie Karmasin, is satisfied with the measure, according to Austrian newspaper Kurier, claiming that it is a measure “that will help parents to overcome the death of their children”.

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.