Monday, January 31, 2022

Parties Split, in the Same House

The conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court is ushering in a new era of judicial activism. But if it overturns the 1973 abortion-rights precedent Roe v. Wade, as it seems poised to do, the same majority is walking into a conceptual trap.

The case against Roe rests on nearly 50 years of conservative argument that the landmark decision was the culmination of a liberal generational failure to exercise judicial restraint, of creating constitutional rights unsupported by constitutional principles. Hence the contradiction: Today’s conservative majority appears ready to issue an epoch-making decision endorsing restraint as it enters a period of aggressive activism.

Five justices can do whatever they think is right. Yet the history of Supreme Court activism indicates that today’s conservative majority will have to labor mightily to explain away the contradiction and ward off the taint of being unprincipled and outcome-oriented... continues here


!This discussion is not a matter of your opinion of abortion! It is to focus on opposing political party's backing. Republicans and the right have appealed to pro-life individuals and argue they are protecting the right of the fetus/embryo. Democrats and the left have adopted the pro-choice approach and argue they are honoring the right of the woman to choose. How much of an influence does this controversial topic have on voters? Would Libertarians (who hold freedom above all) side in protecting the freedom of a woman to choose, or protecting an embryo/fetus right to life? why?

A Polish woman, Agnieszka T., dies after, according to family, doctors refuse to abort fetuses.



"The 37-year-old woman identified only as Agnieszka T. is the latest pregnant woman to die in Poland just one year after the country passed some of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe. Women's human rights groups and her family blame the strict law, alleging doctors refused to carry out an abortion right away following the death of the fetus, a decision that they say cost Agnieszka her life, the Associated Press reported.

Agnieszka was pregnant with twins during her first trimester when she was admitted to the Blessed Virgin Mary Hospital in Częstochowa on December 21, 2021, with abdominal pain and vomiting, the AP said.

According to her family, she arrived at the hospital in "good physical and mental shape," according to The Guardian. After two days in the hospital, one of the heartbeats of the twins stopped.
...
According to her family, she arrived at the hospital in "good physical and mental shape," according to The Guardian. After two days in the hospital, one of the heartbeats of the twins stopped.
...
Following the terminated pregnancy, the woman remained in the hospital for weeks with deteriorating health. She ultimately died on January 25 from what her family suspects was septic shock. The Guardian reported that the cause of death was not released in a statement by the hospital on Wednesday."

Read more: Newsweek Article ; Information regarding 2020 abortion laws in Poland ; The Guardian article, on the topic

The autopsy has not been publicized regarding this woman's death, so discussion surrounding it is potentially speculation. There is a precedent however, as this is the third death (that I, a foreigner, knows of) that has resulted from the stringent abortion laws of Poland. These laws state abortion is only permitted in cases of sexual assault resulting in pregnancy or risk of fatality on the part of the mother, if pregnancy continues. The latter is left to the discretion of the doctors, and it's simple to point fingers at the doctors who make the wrong call in the situation. While malpractice or moral standing of the doctor may influence the wrong call (terminating a pregnancy to save the mother's life is inarguably the right call, as no government openly refuses this caveat), it may potentially also be caused by the fear of defending oneself against the strict abortion laws. These laws incentivize not aborting a fetus, which may result in waiting until it's too late to terminate for the mother's safety, as has been shown repeatedly in Poland. How long are we going to ignore a woman's autonomy, sometimes at risk of her mental or physical health? And how long are we going to selectively place greater value on the potentiality of life than on the actuality of it, and it's quality? 

Humans and the Cell: are we Sharing the Room with Microscopic Colleagues?

    As a human, your most basic biological component is the eukaryotic cell. This remarkable microscopic building block contains proteins and mechanisms for degradation of unnecessary components, for synthesis of the necessary ones, and for replication of itself.  Your body has so many different organ systems, made up of varying organs with extremely complex tissues.  This cell is the basis for this variety in your body; the cell is the reason you can breathe in and out, it's the reason you can read these words on your screen right now.  
    The coordination between tissues to achieve some of our most basic functions is insanely complicated, but it can be summarized in one simple sentence: cells sense one another and can receive and give signals to other cells to elicit some effect.  This effect could be transmitting light waves into neuronal signals to confer an image; it can be sound waves hitting your eardrum, causing fluids in your inner ear to vibrate, move hair cells, and trigger more neuronal signals to confer a sound.  Your heart is (hopefully) beating in perfect rhythm right now, all because the cells in your cardiac tissue are responding to the electrical signals they receive in perfect sync.  
    Many of us take for granted that our cells work in such harmony, but when discussing bioethics, I think we should be especially aware of this most basic concept.  When discussing veganism, animal research, even bacterial research, the ethical person must question the pain they may be inflicting.  So if a cell can sense its surroundings, can sense food and move towards it, can sense poisons and move away from it, doesn't this mean that cells can, in some sense, feel things? Should an ethical person take this into account, or is there some line to draw between feeling pain in the sense that humans do and feeling aversive stimuli in the sense that all biological systems do? 
    Where does the ethicist draw the line? Do organisms with nervous systems qualify as the only lifeforms that feel "pain" as humans do? This definition denies some multicellular animals without nervous systems the ability to feel pain.  In fact, this concept has denied a place in animal cruelty legislation for invertebrates (animals without a spinal cord). Is it that the afflicted organism must make some facial expression to express pain that is recognizable by man? This leaves out any organism without a mechanism for making recognizable facial expression (which includes some humans).
    The implication that cells can feel something like pain opens a whole new can of worms in several ethical arguments, but as bioethicists it's our job to examine these possibilities.  As Campbell talks about in the first chapter of Bioethics: The Basics, to make the best judgment in bioethics, it takes a combined knowledge of philosophical truths and scientific facts.  Knowing that cells sense and respond to their environment is an important part of the scientific facts puzzle.
    The cell is a truly remarkable biological unit. It is efficient and self-sustaining to some extent, and it continues to astound me in its abilities to sense and respond to its environment.  Knowing the extent of this sensing ability is imperative to several bioethical arguments (such as animal research and cruelty, veganism, lab grown meat, stem cell research, etc.).  In a broad sense, the only distinction between a human and a cell could be just the size of the room it's in.
    

Saturday, January 29, 2022

Trucks roll into Ottawa for protest against Canada's vaccine mandates

'Trucks rolled into Canada’s capital Ottawa on Saturday to stage what police say will be a massive protest against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates in front of parliament on a frigid winter day. The so-called "Freedom Convoy" - coming from east and west - started out as a rally against a vaccine requirement for cross-border truckers here, but has turned into a demonstration against government overreach during the pandemic with a strong anti-vaccination streak. “It’s not just about the vaccines. It’s about stopping the public health mandates altogether,”' article continues

At the end of the article, it states the Candian Trucking Alliance "opposes the demonstration and has said this is “not how disagreement with government policies should be expressed.”

Do you agree with this statement? why or why not? 

NYTimes.com: Weekly Health Quiz: Foods, Sleep and Brain Health

Friday, January 28, 2022

Thursday, January 27, 2022

Questions Feb 1

Clinical Ethics (Basics 4); Premonition 4

Basics

1. (T/F) Dignity, respect, and confidentiality are among the aspects of the clinical relationship which emphasize the importance of trust. 

2. What (according to most recognized oaths and conventions) must always be the deciding factor guiding professional decisions? 

3. The idea that the doctor always knows best is called what? 

4. Is a diagnosis of mental illness grounds for establishing a patient's lack of capacity to render competent consent to treatment? 

5. What general principle allows breach of confidentiality? 

6. What term expresses the central ethical concern about "designer babies"? What poet implicitly expressed it?

7. Why have organizations like the WHO opposed any form of organ trading?

8. Besides the Kantian objection, what other major ethical issue currently affects regenerative medicine?

9. What does palliative medicine help recover?

10. What would most of us consider an unwelcome consequence of not retaining the acts/omissions distinction with respect to our response to famine (for example)?

Premonition

1. What's the "real waste" in government?

2. What misdirected pandemic narrative did Bob Glass think Homeland Security got "wrapped up" in?

3. What hit Richard Hatchett light a lightning bolt or thunderclap?

4. What was the biggest difference between Expert and computer models of disease?

5. What in Rajeev's mind made Hatchett a "philosopher type"?

6. There's no better system for transmitting disease than what?

7. Who is least capable of original thought?

8. Why was the 1918 St. Louis death rate half of Philadelphia's?

9. What was the moment when the CDC accepted social distancing as a viable tool in a pandemic?


DQ


  • How do you generally go about establishing trust in a new relationship? Do such general considerations apply equally to the clinical relationship? How does "professionalism" relate to trust?
  • Considering the "demented professor" (81) and other instances of patients whose expressed "best interests" may conflict with a clinician's therapeutic impulses: how important is the patient's present happiness, in influencing your clinical evaluation?
  • What's wrong, if in fact the doctor does possess more accurate information and more relevant experience, with treating the patient after the analogy of parent and child?
  • What would Dr. House do about patients who make (in his opinion) foolish decisions regarding their care? Would you hire him to work in your hospital?
  • Under what circumstances would you NOT violate confidentiality and inform a patient's partner that they were HIV positive?
  • What concept is more relevant in evaluating the ethical status of abortion: viability, humanity, personhood, maternal rights, or... ?
  • What do you think of Thomson's violinist analogy (91-2)?
  • Can a baby really have five parents (as opposed to five co-progenitors)? How do you define parenthood?
  • Should surrogacy, organ trafficking, and transplant tourism be regulated? How, and by whom? 
  • Do you think our society has a healthy attitude towards mental illness? Is it possible to declare a politically and ideologically neutral standard of sanity?
  • How would you counsel patients who insist they no longer value their "quality of life" and refuse potentially effective treatment and medication?  
  • Can the medical profession ever fully embrace the concept of ars moriendi, the art of dying?
  • Can you imagine ever facilitating a suicide, professionaly or personally?
  • Is there anything wrong with displaying cadavers in a museum exhibit (as in "Bodies: The Exhibition")? What guidelines should be followed?


Golden Mean and Covid-19

        | Aristotle argues in Nicomachean Ethics that every ethical virtue is concerned with two conditions, one involving excess and the other deficiency. To Aristotle, finding a balance by “maintaining the Golden Mean” could seem appropriate, both at the micro (individual) and macro (societal) levels. A society should prioritize health, as well as employment since the lack of the second, might create problems in the first. The recent comment of the World Health Organization (2020) that in the post-Covid era, society will face a critical issue of psychosocial consequences clearly shows the imbalance of a choice between health and employment.

        Aristotle's concept of the “Golden Mean” seems relevant in today's hard decisions. There is a need to find a balance between protecting the health and respecting human rights. A quarantine is a legitimate state policy when the health systems are at emergency levels, but the state must also care for the well-being of individuals experiencing quarantine. This balancing of rights was foreseen in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2015), which speaks of limiting rights to respect the rights and freedoms of others while at the same time recognizing that each of us has “duties to the community.” Thus, co-responsibility further refers to a moral obligation to one another by being accountable for our own words and actions. |

Article continued at https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/scc.2020.0075

 


We should all be feminists

In Chapter 3 of Basics, Campbell brings up feminist approaches to bioethics. These approaches give us additional ways of thinking through ethical issues and remind us that equality is not a given but something that we must actively work to achieve. I see feminism as a belief in the equal opportunities and rights of everyone regardless of gender or sex. In this way, shouldn't we all consider ourselves feminists? This connects with virtue ethics since it seems reasonable that a virtuous person would seek justice and equality. 

In this interesting TedTalk, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie discusses her experiences and take on feminism:



What are your thoughts? How could this relate to bioethics? For me, I think about healthcare providers interactions with patients and unintended gender bias that could effect patient care. Campbell mentions that to make ethical decisions, we must have the facts. But if facts are too much distorted by our own biases, then how will we be able to make the right, or ethical, decision?

Neil Young pulls from Spotify to protest Rogan's vaccine misinformation.

    “I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them,” he [Neil Young] wrote. “Please act on this immediately today and keep me informed of the time schedule.”
     “I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform,” he  continued. “They can have [Joe] Rogan or Young. Not both.” Young is referencing the 
steady stream of misinformation about vaccines that Joe Rogan has peddled on The Joe Rogan Experience. Last month, 270 doctors, physicians, and science educators signed an open letter asking Spotify to stop spreading Rogan’s baseless claims.

The musician Neil Young has given the ultimatum to Spotify: Censor Rogan's misinformation or pull his music from Spotify. Spotify chose the former, likely due to the size discrepancy between Rogan's listeners and Young's. Me being a fan of Young aside, my opinion on these matters have been voiced slightly in class. I'm wholly in support of Young on these matters, Rogan has a responsibility as the largest podcaster (in the U.S. at least) to spread educated and beneficial information, considering the layout of the JRE is largely information/interview based. Spotify in turn has a responsibility to not support, financially or socially, dangerous misinformation. 

The conversation has roots in Bioethics, in regards to the handling of the pandemic, though matters such as this bleed into more cultural and social spheres of our world. Should we expect public figures and corporations to be held accountable or even forced to cease misinforming the population? Furthermore, should more artists and activists follow in Young's protests, or are they fruitless or, worse, detrimental in themselves somehow?


Wednesday, January 26, 2022

VOTE!

 Suggest questions you'd like to poll your classmates on, in the comments section below.

And if you have an opinion, vote in this poll too:

The strain of stress

 It's the birthday of Hans Selye, credited with discovering "stress"...

Selye chose the word “stress” to describe the general bodily responses to noxious agents. He was eventually fluent in eight languages and proficient in several more. But at the time he chose the word “stress” he wasn’t quite fluent in English. He didn’t understand the use of the word “stress” in physics where “stress” is the force on an object per unit area, whereas “strain” is the measurement of how an object responds to stress. For years afterward Selye said that if only he had understood the complexities of English better he would have chosen the word “strain” instead of “stress.” But by that time it was too late and the word “stress” was adopted not just in English but in many other languages as well; because there was no appropriate translation, other languages just used the English word “stress.” Selye devoted the rest of his life to studying stress and its effects on the human body. He usually worked 10 to 14 hours a day, every day, including weekends and holidays. He wrote several books, including The Stress of Life (1956) and Stress without Distress (1974).

Selye said, “The element of chance in basic research is overrated. Chance is a lady who smiles only upon those few who know how to make her smile,” and:

“Find your own stress level — the speed at which you can run toward your own goal. Make sure that both the stress level and the goal are really your own, and not imposed upon you by society, for only you yourself can know what you want and how fast you can accomplish it. There is no point in forcing a turtle to run like a racehorse or in preventing a racehorse from running faster than a turtle because of some ‘moral obligation.’ The same is true of people.” WA

Walking Just 10 Minutes a Day May Lead to a Longer Life (and better philosophizing!)

Ten minutes of moderate exercise daily would prevent more than 111,000 premature deaths a year, a new analysis found.

If almost all of us started walking for an extra 10 minutes a day, we could, collectively, prevent more than 111,000 deaths every year, according to an enlightening new study of movement and mortality. Published this week in JAMA Internal Medicine, the study used data about physical activity and death rates for thousands of American adults to estimate how many deaths every year might be averted if everyone exercised more. The results indicate that even a little extra physical activity by each of us could potentially stave off hundreds of thousands of premature deaths over the coming years... (continues)

Health Care Ethics: an overview

The major theoretical frameworks--consequentialism (utilitarianism, pragmatism etc.), deontology, Aristotetlian virtue ethics, the ethics of care (et al) surveyed:

Health care ethics is the field of applied ethics that is concerned with the vast array of moral decision-making situations that arise in the practice of medicine in addition to the procedures and the policies that are designed to guide such practice. Of all of the aspects of the human body, and of a human life, which are essential to one’s well-being, none is more important than one’s health. Advancements in medical knowledge and in medical technologies bring with them new and important moral issues. These issues often come about as a result of advancements in reproductive and genetic knowledge as well as innovations in reproductive and genetic technologies. Other areas of moral concern include the clinical relationship between the health care professional and the patient; biomedical and behavioral human subject research; the harvesting and transplantation of human organs; euthanasia; abortion; and the allocation of health care services. Essential to the comprehension of moral issues that arise in the context of the provision of health care is an understanding of the most important ethical principles and methods of moral decision-making that are applicable to such moral issues and that serve to guide our moral decision-making. To the degree to which moral issues concerning health care can be clarified, and thereby better understood, the quality of health care, as both practiced and received, should be qualitatively enhanced... (IEP, continues)

 






 

 

The unvaccinated owe a figurative debt to society that should be literal

BY LLOYD STEFFEN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/25/22 

Employees at JBS Meat Processors receive a $100 bonus for getting a COVID-19 vaccination. The Lidl grocery chain offers $200 to employees who get vaccinated. Trader Joe’s offers employees two hours of pay per dose of vaccine. In the city of Acworth, Ga., $200 gift cards await city workers who can show that they have received the vaccination.

Providing financial incentives to the unvaccinated does provide a visibly dramatic demonstration of the importance of moving to that 90 percent vaccination rate where herd immunity stops the further spread of the COVID virus.  

But as Arthur Caplan, a preeminent American bioethicist said in a Today Show interview:  “If you pay people to get vaccinated, the strong implication is it’s not safe, there’s something wrong, you have to use money to persuade them.”

Resorting to paying people for vaccinations that are free and scientifically proven to protect against serious illness, hospitalization and death, is curious, if not stupefying, given that vaccination is in the vital interests of those who receive it — as well as everyone who encounters the vaccinated. And Caplan is right: Paying people to get vaccinated is a bad idea if it sends a misleading and false message about safety. 

But a more important issue is that money for vaccine participation obscures a moral obligation. In a time of pandemic, vaccination imposes a duty to take care of ourselves and not burden others with preventable sickness and death. When vaccination is framed as a way to promote the good of others, we are in Golden Rule territory — ethics 101.

Continues at:  HTTPS://THEHILL.COM/OPINION/HEALTHCARE/591257-THE-UNVACCINATED-OWE-A-FIGURATIVE-DEBT-TO-SOCIETY-THAT-SHOULD-BE-LITERAL

Tuesday, January 25, 2022

Questions JAN 27

Perspectives (Basics 3); Premonition 3. Share your thoughts, questions (etc.) in the comments section below.

1. Chapter 3 begins by asking if our bioethical perspective ("vision") is skewed by _____... (a) cultural assumptions, (b) gender bias, (c) religious faith, (d) all of the above

2. What's the leading global cause of death among women of reproductive age?

3. (T/F) The "feminist critique" says bioethics has been dominated by culturally masculine thinking.

4. What ethical perspective did Nel Noddings (supported by Carol Gilligan's research) describe as the "feminine approach"?

5. What's a furor therapeuticus?

6. Does Campbell consider the outlawing of female genital mutilation culturally insensitive?

7. What's allegedly distinctive about "Asian bioethics"?

8. What western ethical preconception is "somewhat alien" in the eastern dharmic traditions?

9. What gives Buddhists and Hindus a "whole new perspective" on bioethical issues?

10. What does Campbell identify as a "tension in the Christian perspectives" on bioethics?

Premonition

1. What book "more of less" led to the invention of U.S. pandemic planning? Have you read it? Will its lessons again be forgotten before the next pandemic?

2. Who is Richard Hatchett? Do you think many people in health care possess the souls of poets?

3. What did Hatchett not know about "social distance"? Is that the best term for what it purports to describe?

4. What did Carter Mecher "notice" about most medical students? Would you expect a higher percentage of those who choose a medical career to be calm and collected in a health emergency than the general population, or better at learning from their mistakes?

5. What did Mecher think was a good way to reduce medical error?

6. What was the gist of Mecher's Lessons Learned report to the VA?


DQs:

  • How do you think your own attitudes and assumptions about gender, religion, etc. influence your Bioethical perspective?
  • What do Plato's Euthyphro and the Biblical story of Abraham & Isaac suggest to you about the place of religion in addressing biotethical issues? (61-2)
  • What is Buddhism's bioethical relevance? (69)
  • How should medical professionals treat and care for children whose parents object to medical intervention on religious grounds?
  • Is it best for caregivers to try and limit their personal knowledge of patients' particular perspectives, beliefs, identities (religious, political, cultural etc.) so as to avoid conscious or unconscious bias in treatment, or does this unduly sacrifice the humane dimension of medical practice?
  • Post your DQs


Small Covid Meme for funsies

 


Similar to most of my generation, I result to memes in bad times.
I was curious to see what you guys would make of this one. Do you agree? Did you slightly chuckle and then cringe? Let me know. 

Am currently a little under the weather myself and will be watching on D2L.



What Does It Mean to Be ‘Done With Covid’?

While the pandemic rages, normality isn't an option.

...what's standing in the way of normal life is Covid, not Covid prevention. In most cases where schools are closing, it's because too many people are out sick to staff them. The same is true of stores that are cutting back their hours and airlines canceling flights. To have more normalcy, we need less illness. That means doing all the things public health people drone on about, especially getting more people vaccinated and boosted, which still — even with the high number of Omicron breakthrough cases — reduces the risk of infection as well as hospitalization... Michelle Goldberg

Can I Reveal a Colleague’s Covid Diagnosis?

The Ethicist columnist on whether to keep a coworker's illness confidential, outing an unvaccinated colleague — and more.

...his decision to remain unvaccinated means that he could face an elevated risk of re-infection compared with a person in his situation who was also vaccinated and boosted. Particularly at a time when the rate of infection remains high, it would probably make sense for workers to comply with office precautionary policies more rigorously. Letting people know that they have interacted, unmasked, with someone who could have infected them might encourage greater vigilance... K. Anthony Appiah 

Monday, January 24, 2022

The Trolley Problem

    In the text, Bioethics: The Basics, while talking about consequentialism, the author mentions the example provided by James Griffin in the book Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs (1997). The example situation is that there is a group of surgeons who are operating on a man who lives alone and is detached from all of his friends and family, thereby no one being affected by his death. Furthermore, he has healthy organs which could help save the lives of many other patients. If he “accidentally” dies, and there is no one who would be affected by his departure, plus, his death can save other lives, why is it not morally okay for that to be done?

    This example situation reminds me of the thought experiment proposed by Phillipa Foot in 1967. Famously known as the Trolley Problem, the experiment has spawned various variations, one of which is a situation very similar to the above example. If 5 people could be saved by one healthy person’s organs, would you, as a doctor operating on them, kill the one healthy person to save the lives of the others. There are many variables that are then added to this to make this version more and more complicated as well. For my fellow TV show fans, there is a scene in the show “The Good Place” ( Season 2 Episode 6) that goes through this thought experiment in further detail with a few different variations. 
    
    The one thought that often comes to my mind about this problem is that if our worth as humans is determined by our relationships we have with people or if it is just by our mere existence.

A self-serving argument for carnivorous eating

(Or omnivorous, per Michael Pollan in "Omnivore's Dilemma"...)

If you care about animals, you should eat them. It is not just that you may do so, but you should do so. In fact, you owe it to animals to eat them. It is your duty. Why? Because eating animals benefits them and has benefitted them for a long time. Breeding and eating animals is a very long-standing cultural institution that is a mutually beneficial relationship between human beings and animals. We bring animals into existence, care for them, rear them, and then kill and eat them. From this, we get food and other animal products, and they get life. Both sides benefit. I should say that by ‘animals’ here, I mean nonhuman animals. It is true that we are also animals, but we are also more than that, in a way that makes a difference... aeon 

Trees also breathe

How Do You Mourn a 250-Year-Old Giant?

Protecting trees in public areas is a no-brainer. Protecting them on private land is a far greater challenge.

We need to stop thinking of trees as objects that belong to us and come to understand them as long-lived ecosystems temporarily under our protection. We have borrowed them from the past, and we owe them to the future... Margaret Renkl

Consequentialism and Decision Making in Healthcare

    Consequentialism, as discussed by Campbell in Bioethics: The Basics, is weighing pros and cons and choosing the option where the predicted good consequences outweigh the predicted bad ones.  Campbell discusses how this approach in bioethics isn't completely sound; it leaves one to ask what is a "good" outcome and what rules should be obeyed above others, it also relies on predictions that cannot be correct 100% of the time.  But consequentialism, for the average citizen, is a very common method of making decisions for oneself, even when it comes to healthcare decisions.  So how does consequentialism influence decisions made by the average patient when the ethical implications go beyond oneself (i.e. in cases of abortion or euthanasia)? Should doctors and healthcare professionals allow patients to have final say in these types of decisions or should the patient have limited control in their medical decisions?

    Humans are fallible and oftentimes forgetful of the weight their decisions hold.  This is the case when it comes to many healthcare decisions, but especially those surrounding abortion and euthanasia.  The moral implications of these types of decisions have been discussed endlessly, but in the real world what is a patient to think when they have an unexpected pregnancy or a loved one who is suffering a great deal? How is a person supposed to make decisions that they know will affect other people? 

    In medicine, professionals rely on medical laws that are somewhere in between consequentialism and deontology.  They're taught entire classes on how to make the "most right" decisions and some even offer advice on how to make good decisions; so maybe asking professionals for their opinions is the best way to make healthcare decisions with larger ethical consequences.  This can be impractical, but when morality is on the line, the greatest effort must be made to stay on the right side of it.

    The weight of making ethical health decisions usually lies on the healthcare provider, who has been given countless tools and how-to guides on making ethical decisions regarding their patients.  However, I think more resources are needed to inform patients of the ethical implications of their decisions.  Patients deserve the right tools to advocate for their healthcare decisions, which includes discussing the bioethical associations of the outcomes.  The average person can't rely on writing pros and cons lists forever without grave moral outcomes, and patients deserve better tools to maneuver through the thick weeds of healthcare decision making.     

Sunday, January 23, 2022

The Metaverse: We've seen this story before

During our last class, implications of the Metaverse were brought up. Are any of you familiar with Ready Player One? It's a sci-fi novel written by Ernest Cline in 2011. It was also made into a movie by Steven Spielberg in 2018. The basic premise is a dystopian in the near future of 2045 where the world is filled with the consequences of war, poverty, and climate change. The escape from their world? The Oasis--a sophisticated universe of virtual reality that is eerily similar to what the Metaverse may hope to one day become. Ready Player One brings up questions about what is lost with such dependence on this system including loss of real human connection. I found this quote particularly interesting:

"...I realized, as terrifying and painful as reality can be, it's also the only place where you can find true happiness. Because reality is real."

It seems like you can't deny the connection that can be made in the digital world. However, I don't think that it will ever be able to fully replace in-person interaction. If the pandemic has taught me anything, it's that seeing people on screens doesn't do justice to being with them face to face. Who knows? Maybe one day technology will advance to the point that meeting someone virtually will not feel any different than meeting in-person. I suppose time will tell.

Gertrude Elion

Sexist exclusion in the life sciences may be a more recent phenomenon than many of us realize.
Today is the birthday of pharmacologist Gertrude Elion, born in New York City in 1918. She was a bright girl who loved every subject in school and agonized when she had to choose just one path in college. The death of her beloved grandfather of cancer tipped the scales in favor of science; she wanted to use her intellect to fight the disease. She majored in chemistry at Hunter College and then hit a brick wall when she tried to enter the job market in her field. “Nobody … took me seriously. They wondered why in the world I wanted to be a chemist when no women were doing that. The world was not waiting for me.” She went to secretarial school so she could pay the bills, and finally, she got a job as an unpaid lab assistant. With World War II came more opportunities for female scientists and in 1944 she went to work for the pharmaceutical company Burroughs Wellcome. It was there that she formed a research partnership with Dr. George Hitchings that would last more than 40 years. Over the course of her career, Elion developed drugs to treat leukemia, malaria, herpes, and AIDS. She won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1988. WA

Saturday, January 22, 2022

The podcast misinformation experience

An open letter urging Spotify to crack down on COVID-19 misinformation has gained the signatures of more than a thousand doctors, scientists and health professionals spurred by growing concerns over anti-vaccine rhetoric on the audio app's hit podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience.

The medical and scientific experts slammed Rogan's track record of airing false claims about the coronavirus pandemic, vaccines and unproven treatments, calling it "a sociological issue of devastating proportions." Spotify, they say, has enabled him.

While audio apps so far have escaped the scrutiny that has befallen social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, the pressure on Spotify illustrates how podcasts have emerged as an influential source of misinformation... (continues)

(Thanks for the link, Ed.)

Questions JAN 25

Moral Theories (Basics 2); Premonition 2

1. (T/F) In Anna's story, why did she wish not to be resuscitated?

2. Which theory has been dominant in bioethics and often used by many health professionals?

3. In deontological theory, what is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives?

4. What ethical principle (and whose), in the name of rational consistency, absolute dutifulness, and mutual respect, "requires unconditional obedience and overrides our preferences and desires" with respect to things like lying, for example?

5. What would Kant say about Tuskegee, or about the murderer "at our door"?

6. What more do we want from a moral theory than Kant gives us?

7. What is the distinctive question in virtue ethics?

8. What Greek philosopher was one of the earliest exponents of virtue ethics?

9. What is the Harm Principle, and who was its author?

10. Name one of the Four Principles in Beauchamp and Childress's theories on biomedical ethics?

 [Premonition...]
11. What was Dr. Hosea's diagnostic style? (And of what classic Greek philosopher might it remind you?)

12. What misleading practice of self-promotion did doctors of orthopedic medicine engage in?

13. How did Dr. Dean learn to persuade elected officials to finance disease control?

14. What was the root of the CDC's reluctance to support Dr. Dean's decisions?

15. What famous ethical problem did the Casa Dorinda mudslide resemble?


DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
  • In Anna's story, do you find yourself more concerned with the specifying and insisting on the respective duties of Anna, her physician, and the ethics committee dealing with her DNR request, or with its consequences? 
  • Do you consider yourself more an ethical consequentialist/utilitarian, pragmatist, deontologist, virtue ethicist, or none of the above? Is it possible to be ethically responsible without first clarifying and claiming your own theoretical ethical commitments? 
  • Do you agree with Peter Singer that the ethical choice which best serves the goal of minimizing pain and suffering requires ending lives?
  • Is a felicific calculus such as Jeremy Bentham proposed possible, or practical?
  • Would life in Huxley's Brave New World really be nightmarish and dystopian, if universal happiness were its result?
  • Kant's categorical imperative requires always treating individuals respectfully, as ends in themselves and never as means to any other social or collective good. Can you imagine any scenario in which it would be ethically correct to violate that imperative, in the name of medical progress or social welfare?
  • Is virtue ethics "elitist and utopian" in its quest to articulate the conditions of a good life and death for all? Are virtues and vices culturally relative? 36-7


In Medicine, a Lack of Courage Has Helped Put Roe in Jeopardy

Stigma and fear of harassment have kept physicians from incorporating abortion into their practice.

...reports of protesters showing up outside clinics, openly carrying guns, menacing and frightening patients and staff. "We wouldn't tolerate this in any other medical field," she said. "If people saw it on their way to the dentist, it would be deemed unacceptable."

The passivity and silence of the medical establishment, of medical school deans and hospital officials, and of too many (privately) pro-choice physicians, is not the only reason such intimidation fails to elicit outrage, or even to be noticed, when it happens outside an abortion clinic. But it is definitely part of the reason. Thanks to their acquiescence, terrorism, intimidation and violence have won. nyt

Deborah Nickerson, Pioneering Genome Researcher, Dies at 67

Using the Human Genome Project as her guide, she helped find genes responsible for cardiovascular disease, autism and a rare disorder called Miller syndrome.

...Dr. Nickerson was an early adapter of technologies that made DNA sequencing less expensive; using them, she created a catalog of human genetic variation from a diverse population by sequencing the genes of more than 6,500 volunteers. She then made it available online to other researchers, who have advanced it further... nyt

Thursday, January 20, 2022

 

Pig-heart transplant raises ethical dilemma

Criminal record should have no bearing, experts say

Karen Weintraub

USA TODAY

When David Bennett Sr., 57, agreed to accept a pig heart as a replacement for his own failing one, he took a huge chance.

His surgeon said he couldn’t promise whether Bennett would survive an extra day, week or year with the new heart because a gene-edited pig heart had never been tested in a person before.

Some have questioned whether Bennett, who served time in prison for stabbing a man 34 years ago, should have been given a second shot at life.

But it’s not yet clear whether Bennett got a gift or a curse, said Art Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University Langone Medical Center.

“I have seen so many first, cutting-edge experiments fail,” Caplan said. “What’s going on here is more like: How do you pick which test pilot is going to fly the first new dangerous aircraft?”

The first recipient of a permanent artificial heart, Barney Clark, “suffered horribly, begged his investigator who gave him the artificial heart to shut the thing off and let him die and they wouldn’t do it,” Caplan said.

Clark died in 1983, 112 days after receiving the device. He never left the hospital.

Jesse Gelsinger, one of the first recipients of gene therapy, endured a “horrible death” when his immune system went into overdrive, Caplan said, and Stephanie Fae Beauclair, a newborn who lived for 21 days in 1984 with a baboon heart beating inside “would have died (anyway), but died more miserably than she would have if she hadn’t been in an experiment.”

Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and the BioSciences at Stanford School of Medicine, agreed that being first is a risky position.

“The odds that this is going to help him significantly in the long run … are very small,” Greely said. “Some people will say, ‘Yeah, but that’s better than dying.’ But that’s not necessarily true.” It’s not clear exactly what Bennett understood or expected about the surgery, which was carefully explained to him after all his other treatment options had been exhausted. He has not yet spoken publicly after the transplant, though his recovery is going well. But his son said he wanted to live and knew that even if he didn’t, the experience would help others.

“Bioethicists love to think that research participants are motivated by altruism,” Greely said. “Far more are probably motivated by probably exaggerated hope.” As to whether Bennett’s past should have influenced his shot at a new heart, the ethicists and doctors were unanimous: no.

Doctors treat the patient and don’t make judgments about whether the person is deserving or not, said Karen Maschke, a research scholar at The Hastings Center in Garrison, New York, who has a federal grant to study the ethics of using animal organs in people.

“Should doctors treat someone convicted of a financial crime but not a violent one?” Maschke said. Someone who was wealthy versus someone who wasn’t? “How do you make those kind of decisions about people’s behaviors?”

Caplan said a big question with an experiment like xenotransplantation is “when are you ready to try?”

At NYU, he came up with the idea of first testing the pig organ on a recently deceased person, just as he has suggested that drug companies and gene therapists first try their approach on the recently deceased before the living.

In September, NYU Langone transplant surgeon Robert Montgomeryexperimentally attached a pig kidney to a recently declared brain-dead person. The kidney seemed to function well and the woman’s body didn’t mount the kind of immediate immune reaction that has stopped xenotransplantation for decades.

As the researchers in Maryland, Montgomery used a pig whose genes had been edited to prevent rejection, though only one gene was deleted, while the University of Maryland School of Medicine researchers used a pig with 10 gene edits.

In an essay provided to Newsweek, lead surgeon Bartley Griffith said he’d long been inspired by “firsts” in medicine.

“I came out of that arena of gladiators. People who took on disease and were kicking and fighting their way to new knowledge to help patients,” he wrote.

Griffith said all he knew about Bennett was that he’d recently driven a bus for nursing home patients – not about his criminal record.

“We don’t look at incarceration history and things like that, I think that’s unethical,” Griffith wrote.

When Bennett woke up after the surgery, he thanked Griffith for saving his life.

“It made me cry. It’s simple, but he meant it and it was pretty special,” Griffith wrote. “All patients are precious to their surgeons. In the field I work in, you have to have selective memory in order to come to work every day. Not everything works out.”

Griffith said he’s proud to have been a part of the groundbreaking surgery and sees no ethical issues in placing a human life in front of a pig’s.

He said he would not agree to use organs from primates, but pigs are “far away from humans” genetically. “I’m honestly respectful of the opposite opinion.”

The ethicists said they see no problem sacrificing pigs for the sake of extending human lives.

Maschke said she hopes the scientific world will eventually move away from using animals, but that time hasn’t yet arrived.

Greely said he loves bacon and “if eating an animal is OK when there are lots of substitutes for that protein, using an organ to keep someone alive when there aren’t substitutes” should be OK too.

Caplan agreed. “The place to worry about animal welfare is breakfast not the medical use of pigs,” Caplan said.

“Those pigs, the ones that are genetically engineered are raised on special farms, obviously have to be very healthy, can’t be stressed and never suffer – they kill them, that’s true, but it’s not the same at all as factory farming and some of the terrible practices that millions and millions and millions of pigs are subjected to,” Caplan said. “The equation for me comes out (for) saving human lives.”

Caplan also quickly disposed of the argument some people have made that extending human lives will contribute to overpopulation.

“If you start down that road, you have to close down medicine,” he said. “The route to controlling overpopulation is doing something about reproduction, not letting the sick die.”

Caplan said he also hopes that Bennett understood that he would be subjected to public scrutiny by going public with his identity. The hospital might have done better by keeping his identity a secret, Caplan said. “Maybe if you protect patient identity, in terms of privacy, you don’t create this kind of whole tragic scenario,” where people are questioning whether Bennett deserved the heart.

Shouldn’t the public know about the background of a high-profile patient?

“The answer is no,” Caplan said.

Such publicity may deter future patients, and at minimum, a patient needs to be told about the potential consequences before they agree to make their identity public.” Caplan said.

Maschke said she has ethical questions about the procedure being allowed under the Food and Drug Administration’s “compassionate use” criteria, rather than as part of a clinical trial.

Although she trusts the scientific integrity of the University of Maryland team, she said there is no requirement now that they reveal details of their protocol or their criteria for selecting a patient, which would be a contribution to the scientific field. More can be learned as part of a clinical trial than a one-off procedure, she said.

It’s not clear what the FDA will do the next time doctors request permission to transplant a pig organ in an effort to save a person’s life. “That pathway is not without concern,” she said. Several groups are poised to request approval for clinical trials in xenotransplantation as soon as this year, she said. But even if that approval comes soon, it will be a long time before transplanting a pig organ into a person will be shown to be safe and effective.

Health and patient safety coverage at USA TODAY is made possible in part by a grant from the Masimo Foundation for Ethics, Innovation and Competition in Healthcare. The Masimo Foundation does not provide editorial input.

https://usatoday-va.newsmemory.com/?publink=1326effff_13482fc