Tag: taxes

Bioethics Blogs

In the Journals – August 2017 by Livia Garofalo

Here is the article round-up for August, put together in collaboration with Ann Marie Thornburg.  There is a special issue section of Social Science and Medicine out this month on Austerity, Health, and Wellbeing (abstracts below). Also of note is a recent ‘Takes a Stand’ statement on the End of AIDS published in Global Public Health by Nora Kenworthy, Richard Parker, and Matthew Thomann. You can take advantage of the article being temporarily free access and on early view here. Enjoy!

 

Cultural Anthropology (Open Access)

Tangles of Care: Killing Goats to Save Tortoises on the Galápagos Islands

Paolo Bocci

If calls to care for other species multiply in a time of global and local environmental crisis, this article demonstrates that caring practices are not always as benevolent or irenic as imagined. To save endemic tortoises from the menace of extinction, Proyecto Isabela killed more than two hundred thousand goats on the Galápagos Islands in the largest mammal eradication campaign in the world. While anthropologists have looked at human engagements with unwanted species as habitual and even pleasurable, I discuss an exceptional intervention that was ethically inflected toward saving an endemic species, yet also controversial and distressing. Exploring eradication’s biological, ecological, and political implications and discussing opposing practices of care for goats among residents, I move past the recognition that humans live in a multispecies world and point to the contentious nature of living with nonhuman others. I go on to argue that realizing competing forms of care may help conservation measures—and, indeed, life in the Anthropocene—to move beyond the logic of success and failure toward an open-ended commitment to the more-than-human.

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

Sterilization for Prisoners Is Not New and Shows That Studying History is Essential

by Craig Klugman, Ph.D.

In 1927, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled that Carrie Buck and her baby could be sterilized because of a perception that they were “mental defectives.” In the 20th century, 32 states had federally funded programs that sterilized “undesirable” populations. Approximately 60,000 people in the U.S. were sterilized without their consent or even knowledge of the procedure. This history made an unexpected reappearance last week when a Tennessee judge offered to reduce the jail sentences of prisoners if they underwent sterilization.

The inmates were offered vasectomies (males) or contraceptive implants (females) in exchange for him shaving 30 days off of their prison sentences. The offer was popular as 70 inmates signed up (32 women and 38 men). The inmates were convicted of drug offenses and Judge Sam Benningfield said he was offering them “an opportunity to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, to not to be burdened with children…This gives them a chance to get on their feet and make something of themselves.”

The primary purpose in this was to try to reduce the number of children born drug dependent or suffering the consequence of in vitro drug exposure…the number of children who would eventually wind up in foster care,” the Judge said in a statement. He claims that the offer was “strictly voluntary…no one is forced to participate…it is no way a eugenic program.” Of course, the Judge presumes that inmates have true freedom of choice in this matter.

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

Ethical Health Care Reform

Recently I heard a Christian TV personality refer to Obamacare as “iniquitous.” This started me thinking, What would make a health care funding reform scheme “iniquitous”? Or, although the words aren’t synonymous, what would make such a scheme unethical? What should go into ethical health care reform?

The answers to these questions are legion and conflicting. There are some who see government intervention as inherently wrong; for them, the free market is the key to ethical health care reform. There are others who distrust the free market, and consider some degree of governmental control to be the only ethical option. Some see personal mandates to buy insurance as unethical; others understand the mandates as ethical solidarity with our neighbor. Some ardently believe justice means everyone gets exactly the coverage or treatment they pay for; others just as ardently believe justice means everyone gets the same coverage and treatment.

What is ethical health care reform? There are many possible answers. I am not sure that Obamacare is any more or less ethical than the versions of Trumpcare that have been put forward. I am not sophisticated or smart enough to pontificate about the free market or theories of justice.

One thing I am certain of, however: Whether the system relies on markets or government regulations, whether there are more or fewer mandates or taxes, whether everyone gets the same coverage or not, one final measure of whether or not a health care system is ethical is how it treats those who are the poorest and most disadvantaged among us.

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

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.

Bioethics Blogs

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.

Bioethics News

New Zealand river declared a legal person

In the latest wrinkle in debates over personhood, a Māori iwi (tribe) in New Zealand has succeeded in getting Parliament to recognise the Whanganui River as a legal person.

“It’s not that we’ve changed our worldview, but people are catching up to seeing things the way that we see them,” Adrian Rurawhe, a Māori member of Parliament. The North Island river, New Zealand’s third longest, also known by its Māori name of Te Awa Tupua, will be represented by two legal guardians, one appointed by the iwi and the other by the government.

The settlement, which has been in dispute for at least 140 years, also includes NZ$80 million in financial redress and $30 million toward improving the environmental, social, cultural and economic health and wellbeing of Te Awa Tupua. 

Riverine personhood is an untested concept in a Western legal system. According to the government, Te Awa Tupua will now have its own legal personality with all the corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a legal person. Lawyers say that the river cannot vote and cannot be charged with homicide if people drown in it. But it will have to pay taxes, if liable. The gender of the river is unspecified at the moment.

“I know the initial inclination of some people will say it’s pretty strange to give a natural resource a legal personality,” said New Zealand’s Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson. “But it’s no stranger than family trusts, or companies or incorporated societies.”

As soon as the third reading of the bill passed, members of the gallery broke into a waiata (a song of celebration) which is well worth watching. 

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

Fee-for-service: an ethical conflict

Andrew Mitchell suggests that innovative institutional changes are needed to sustain universal healthcare in Canada.

__________________________________________

When Canadian provinces instituted universal healthcare, doctors were reluctant to become salaried employees, so a system of fee-for-service was developed. This payment model creates incentives for physicians to focus on quantity instead of quality of care and turns patients into bits of piecework. Indeed, most of us have experienced the whirlwind consultation with a doctor eager to get to the next patient.

Fees for specialist services are greater than those for family doctors. This encourages physicians-in-training to specialize and reduces the supply of family doctors. On average, doctors in Canada earn over $250,000 annually. Specialists often make twice this amount. Some specialists earn more than a million dollars a year. These kinds of salaries encourage individuals to enter medicine for reasons of high income and status, rather than a true desire to serve those who are sick.

Healthcare services are expensive and so they are rationed by provincial governments that restrict both the numbers of doctors and specialists, and the availability of operating rooms and diagnostic equipment. In this way, governments create an artificial, administered market for healthcare characterized by a scarcity of healthcare providers and high costs. This rationing often results in wait times for treatment, with some patients waiting for more than a year in pain and distress.

Physician associations have bargained with provincial governments and received benefits for doctors that usually would be considered employee benefits. In British Columbia, for example, the benefits include a disability plan and continuing education benefits.

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

Defeating Death (And Taxes)

“It is one of the most powerful tools our species has created. It helps doctors fight disease. It can predict global weather patterns. It improves education for children everywhere. And now, we unleash it…on your taxes.” Super Bowl 2017 was … Continue reading

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 Solution In Search of A Problem: Streamlining the FDA

by Craig Klugman, Ph.D.

A professional association for regulatory affairs posted an article on Wednesday reporting Trump’s comments “calling for a massive overhaul of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations.” Trump issued an executive that called for reducing the number of federal regulations (for each new one created, two must be retired). And he met with the heads of pharmaceutical companies, where he said that he plans to cut taxes, FDA regulations and approval times. He also criticized the companies for selling drugs that were too expensive.…

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 Rich People Hate Taxes — Hint: It’s Not for the Reasons You Think

I was raised in a family that hates taxes. Not hates taxes as in “Gosh, it’s too bad such a high percentage of my paycheck goes to the government.” More like: “How dare the government steal my hard-earned money and … Continue reading

The post Why Rich People Hate Taxes — Hint: It’s Not for the Reasons You Think appeared first on PeterUbel.com.

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.