Tag: vulnerable populations

Bioethics Blogs

Fordham University’s Dr. Celia Fisher Awarded APA Ethics Educator Award for Outstanding Contributions to Ethics Education

Click to view slideshow.

Fordham University’s Center for Ethics Education Director Dr. Celia Fisher, PhD is the 2017 recipient of the ninth annual American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Committee Ethics Educator Award for her outstanding contributions to ethics education at the national level! Dr. Fisher was presented with the award earlier this month by APA Ethics Committee Chair Patricia L. Watson, PhD, at the 125th APA Annual Convention in Washington, D.C.

Psychologists are awarded the Ethics Educator Award for demonstrating outstanding and innovative contributions to the profession of psychology through ethics education activities. These ethics education activities include presentations, workshops, publications and more.

Dr. Fisher is the Mary Ward Doty University Chair in Ethics at Fordham University, a professor of Psychology and the director of Fordham University HIV and Drug Abuse Prevention Research Ethics Training Institute. In addition to chairing the 2002 revision of the American Psychological Association’s Ethics Code, Fisher’s Decoding the Ethics Code: A Practical Guide for Psychologists is now in its fourth edition from Sage Publications. Dr. Fisher’s federally funded research programs focus on ethical issues and well-being of vulnerable populations, including ethnic minority youth and families, active drug users, college students at risk for drinking problems, LGBT youth and adults with impaired consent capacity.

Please visit Dr. Celia Fisher’s webpage for more information about her work, as well as the Fordham University Center for Ethics Education Research page.

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

Fordham University’s Dr. Celia Fisher Awarded APA Ethics Educator Award for Outstanding Contributions to Ethics Education

Click to view slideshow.

Fordham University’s Center for Ethics Education Director Dr. Celia Fisher is the 2017 recipient of the ninth annual American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Committee Ethics Educator Award for her outstanding contributions to ethics education at the national level! Dr. Fisher was presented with the award earlier this month by APA Ethics Committee Chair Patricia L. Watson, PhD, at the 125th APA Annual Convention in Washington, D.C.

Psychologists are awarded the APA Ethics Committee Ethics Educator Award for demonstrating outstanding and innovative contributions to the profession of psychology through ethics education activities. These ethics education activities include presentations, workshops, publications and more.

Dr. Fisher is the Mary Ward Doty University Chair in Ethics at Fordham University, a professor of Psychology and the director of Fordham University HIV and Drug Abuse Prevention Research Ethics Training Institute. In addition to chairing the 2002 revision of the American Psychological Association’s Ethics Code, Fisher’s Decoding the Ethics Code: A Practical Guide for Psychologists is now in its fourth edition from Sage Publications. Dr. Fisher’s federally funded research programs focus on ethical issues and well-being of vulnerable populations, including ethnic minority youth and families, active drug users, college students at risk for drinking problems, LGBT youth and adults with impaired consent capacity.

Please visit Dr. Celia Fisher’s webpage for more information about her work, as well as the Fordham University Center for Ethics Education Research page.

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

2nd Biennial Kaiser Permanente National Bioethics Symposium – Social Justice, Vulnerable Populations, and Bias

This November join Kaiser Permanente for its 2nd Biennial National Bioethics Symposium – Social Justice, Vulnerable Populations, and Bias.

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

Some Comments about Being a Philosopher of Color and the Reasons I Didn’t Write a (Real) Paper for this (Seemingly) Ideal Venue for my Work

by Sean A. Valles

ABSTRACT. This special issue conspicuously lacks work by Philosophers of Color (with the exception of this commentary). I have been given this opportunity to discuss the impediments that kept me from submitting my relevant work, offered as a small step toward recognizing the impediments faced by other Philosophers of Color. I highlight factors including direct and indirect consequences of a disproportionately White community of US philosophers, and some underrecognized risk-reward calculations that Philosophers of Color face when choosing an article project. I urge further discussion of the topic, starting with an exhortation to choose the right phenomenon and accordingly frame the right question: Why are White philosophers deliberating the “ethical and social issues arising out of the 2016 US presidential election” in a prestigious journal, while Philosophers of Color are deliberating the same issues in tense classrooms, closed offices, and on-/off-campus forums?

This is not a real article. But in this special issue on the 2016 US election and Trump it is, to my knowledge, the only contribution written by a Philosopher of Color. It is a commentary about the fact that it is the only contribution written by a Philosopher of Color.

After Editor-in-Chief Rebecca Kukla expressed consternation that the issue was full of excellent papers, but written by a roster of White philosophers, I offered to say something about why I didn’t submit any of my relevant philosophical work (on nativism, racism, health policy, Latinx health, etc.), and why it didn’t surprise me that almost none of the other well-qualified Philosophers of Color did either.

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

Bioethics Symposium – More Legitimacy: Social Justice, Vulnerable Populations and Bias

Join Kaiser Permanente from November 2-4, 2017, in Berkeley for “Bioethics Symposium – More Legitimacy: Social Justice, Vulnerable Populations and Bias.”

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

Bioethics Symposium – More Legitimacy: Social Justice, Vulnerable Populations and Bias

Join Kaiser Permanente from November 2-4, 2017, in Berkeley for “Bioethics Symposium – More Legitimacy: Social Justice, Vulnerable Populations and Bias.”

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

Fetuses and Full Disclosure

Medicine has a notoriously long history of paternalism, particularly with regards to reproductive health. The past century has seen everything from forced sterilization of people of color and those with intellectual disabilities to nondisclosure of sexually transmitted diseases. Physicians have fought to regain the trust of the community through disclosure of key medical information and shared decision making, both of which are essential underpinnings of the bioethical principle of autonomy. Given the incredible emphasis on these concepts in contemporary medical training, it is surprising that the following law has now passed Texas Senate approval:

SB 25. A cause of action may not arise, and damages may not be awarded, on behalf of any person, based on the claim that but for the act or omission of another, a person would not have been permitted to have been born alive but would have been aborted. (b) This section may not be construed to eliminate any duty of a physician or other health care practitioner under any other applicable law.

In short, there can be no legal penalty against physicians who knowingly choose to withhold information from pregnant patients if the physician thinks it will prevent an abortion. This does not absolve the physician in question from professional consequences, like action from the Texas Medical Board. However, it does set an important precedent – namely, that the belief structure of the physician takes precedence over the rights of the patient. From a bioethical standpoint, this is an inexcusable violation of autonomy. Disclosure of all relevant information is critical to informed decision making, which is the bedrock of autonomy in the complex, jargon-laden world of modern medicine.

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

Fetuses and Full Disclosure

Medicine has a notoriously long history of paternalism, particularly with regards to reproductive health. The past century has seen everything from forced sterilization of people of color and those with intellectual disabilities to nondisclosure of sexually transmitted diseases. Physicians have fought to regain the trust of the community through disclosure of key medical information and shared decision making, both of which are essential underpinnings of the bioethical principle of autonomy. Given the incredible emphasis on these concepts in contemporary medical training, it is surprising that the following law has now passed Texas Senate approval:

SB 25. A cause of action may not arise, and damages may not be awarded, on behalf of any person, based on the claim that but for the act or omission of another, a person would not have been permitted to have been born alive but would have been aborted. (b) This section may not be construed to eliminate any duty of a physician or other health care practitioner under any other applicable law.

In short, there can be no legal penalty against physicians who knowingly choose to withhold information from pregnant patients if the physician thinks it will prevent an abortion. This does not absolve the physician in question from professional consequences, like action from the Texas Medical Board. However, it does set an important precedent – namely, that the belief structure of the physician takes precedence over the rights of the patient. From a bioethical standpoint, this is an inexcusable violation of autonomy. Disclosure of all relevant information is critical to informed decision making, which is the bedrock of autonomy in the complex, jargon-laden world of modern medicine.

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

Assisted Suicide Heads to Colorado

By: Tyler Cosmer

While the outcome of our recent election cycle have represented a country with polarized viewpoints of America’s future policies, one ballot initiative has emerged as a force of consensus. Voters in Colorado overwhelmingly passed Proposition 106 with a clear 64.6% in favor to 35.4% not in favor.[1]  Proposition 106, more commonly known as the “End of Life Options Act,” now gives eligibility for self-administered aid-in-dying medication to terminally ill Coloradans, provided they only have six months or less to live and that they are mentally competent.[2]  Colorado is now the sixth in the United States to sanction physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill citizens, joining Oregon, Washington, California, Montana, and Vermont.[3]  This vote is pivotal for Colorado, marking the latest opportunity for public reflection and debate centered upon how we think about the end of life.

Medical error is the third leading cause of death, behind heart disease and cancer.[11] Opponents to Proposition 106 cite the possible scenario in which an individual is given access to end of life medication, and prematurely ends their life when they might have been able to overcome their prognosis.  Yet, as access to physician-assisted suicide continues to grow, richer data sets regarding impacts of the practice have become available. A 2007 inquiry on how physician-assisted suicide impacts vulnerable populations found no evidence of heightened risks in end of life decision-making in Oregon and in the Netherlands.[12]  

Proposition 106 borrows heavily upon Oregon’s pioneering Death with Dignity Act of 1997.[4]  Similar to Oregon’s Act, Colorado’s version indicates that the request to receive life-ending medication must be the sole initiative of the patient.

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.