blogs.tiu.eduBioethics at TIU

Skip to content Menu Posts Posted on November 7, 2020 November 7, 2020 A Breath of (needed) Fresh Air After months of being wary of the air that I breathe, I inhaled a breath of fresh air yesterday. The rejuvenating experience came in the form of Speaking Peace & Seeking Reconciliation in a Fractured Culture , an online conversation with David Bailey and Marilyn McEntyre, sponsored by The Trinity Forum and Coracle. David Bailey (12:00 ff) quoted an African proverb that gives a needed perspective in these unsettled and unsettling times: When I saw them far away, I thought they were demons When they got closer, I thought they were animals When they got close, I saw they were human When they got face-to-face, I realized they are my brother and sister That proverb reminded me of something I had read in Roger Scruton’s On Human Nature . There, he wrote of “the kind to which we belong”: We are the kind of thing that relates to members of its kind through interpersonal attitudes and through the self-predication of its own mental states. . . . To understand your emotions I must understand how you conceptualize the world. I cannot simply describe your behavior as though it were a response to the-world-as-science-would-describe-it. [1] Scruton pointed out that Milton used Genesis to create an allegory that was not only “a portrait of our kind,” but also “an invitation to kindness.” That portrait, said Scruton, shows us as humans what we are and what we must aspire to be. When people are deprived of religion, philosophy, and the “higher aims of art,” however, Scruton saw dire consequences: Human nature, once something to live up to, becomes something to live down to instead. Biological reductionism nurtures this “living down,” which is why people so readily fall for it. It makes cynicism respectable and degeneracy chic. It abolishes our kind—and with it our kindness. [2] Amidst the divisions evident in our culture in recent days, it seems timely to take the advice offered in yesterday’s online conversation by Marilyn McEntyre. She talked about how poetry introduces truth in subversive and surprising ways; it plows up the ground or soil of our language. She recommended that we spend time listening to others, and “call each other’s attention to the very words we are using.” (14:54 ff) This is advice worth heeding, and now is not too early to begin. [1] Roger Scruton, “Human Kind,” in On Human Nature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017), p. 45. [2] Scruton, pp. 48-49. Posted on November 2, 2020 November 2, 2020 “Belly of the Beast” For those who are aware of the dreadful 1927 Supreme Court decision Buck v Bell , the subject of the forced sterilizations of ‘undesirable’ people is not new. In a blog written over three years ago after the publication of Adam Cohen’s book Imbeciles , I stated, “If we devalue a person simply because they do not meet our standard of what a person should be, we are all devalued. The story of Carrie Buck needs to be told and retold, and I am grateful to Cohen for retelling it.” But 1927 was a long time ago. Surely our society has moved past the awful eugenics program that devastated the lives of so many and is no longer capable of such barbaric actions. Not so fast. Thanks to her new documentary, “Belly of the Beast” , director Erika Cohn and her team take on the subject of forced sterilizations of women in the California state prison system. It has already been shown in virtual cinemas, but will be broadcast on PBS on November 23. The trailer can be seen here and a very interesting interview with the director, producer Angela Tucker, and subjects Cynthia Chandler and Kelli Dillon is available here . This is story needs to be told because it confronts something that many have long suspected: America’s infatuation with eugenics did not end with the defeat of the Nazis in World War II. It continues to the present day, with the majority of society looking away from such horrific examples, at least in part because the victims are women of color. The New York Times review of “Belly of the Beast” puts it this way: “Those on the frontline are not only fighting bad actors who abuse their power, they are also battling a public that at best does not care and at worst condones it.” If we seriously wish to honor the principle of justice in bioethics, we must address this issue head-on. Like so many honest treatments of injustice, “Belly of the Beast” will not be easy to watch, but we must learn its lessons well if we are truly to confront this evil. It is long past time to send Buck v Bell and everything done in its wake to the ash heap of history. Looking away is no longer an option. Posted on October 5, 2020 October 5, 2020 When the President has COVID-19 This fateful year took another sad and surprising turn last week with the announcement that both President Donald Trump and his wife Melania tested positive for COVID-19. The story became even more serious as we saw him being flown to Walter Reed Medical Center for treatment. We wish President Trump and the First Lady a speedy and full recovery. The media, of course, has raised important questions such as “When was he diagnosed?” and “Did he attend a political fundraiser while he was positive?” Of more immediate interest at the moment is, “How is he doing?” The president’s personal physician, Dr. Sean Conley, has addressed the media at least twice over the weekend, giving updates that have left many questions remain. The ethical treatment of any patient includes the patient’s right to have his or her personal health information kept private. Health care systems do not look kindly upon employees who reveal patient’s personal information to the press. HIPAA laws are designed to ensure this protection. The CDC website states it clearly: “The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a federal law that required the creation of national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge” When your patient is the president of the United States, the rules seem to be different. For example, over the weekend the Washington Post ran an article on the health of President Franklin Roosevelt as he was seeking his unprecedented fourth term in office. The Post quotes Jay Winik’s book, 1944: FDR and the year that changed history , and FDR’s visit with Dr Bruenn at the hospital that would become known as Walter Reed Medical Center: “Listening to Roosevelt’s heart and lungs with a stethoscope increased [Dr.] Bruenn’s sense of alarm: as Roosevelt inhaled and exhaled, Bruenn heard rales, telltale rattling or bubbling sounds indicating that fluid was building up inside the president’s lungs . . . Roosevelt was literally starting the slow process of drowning from within.” What would the public have done if they had known — vote for Republican nominee Governor Tom Dewey? It is difficult to imagine, but one never knows. There are other examples from history of the public not knowing the medical condition of the president. Ethically speaking, what does the public have the right to know, especially in an election year? Back to the present. On Saturday, October 3, Dr Conley gave a press conference updating President Trump’s health. Not much long after, the press received quite a different (and more negative) message, apparently from White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. On Sunday, Dr Conley addressed the discrepancy: “. . .I didn’t want to give any information that would steer the course of the illness in another direction. . .” It raises the question of how information given at a press conference could possibly steer the course of the illness. If he meant ‘steer our understanding of the course of the illness,’ he should have worded it that way. I do not envy Dr Conley’s role. At some level he is both the president’s physician and the president’s spokesman, with a very powerful audience of one. Any presi...