FINAL POST: The Ethics of Harm Reduction

Hi everyone! Today we will be speaking about harm reduction.

Harm reduction offers a “pragmatic yet compassionate set of strategies designed to reduce the harmful consequences of addictive behavior for both drug consumers and the communities in which they live.” (Marlatt)

So what are some examples of harm reduction you can think of?

One example that I think of is having a designated driver when a group of people attend a party where there will be alcohol. Another one I can think of is teaching children about condom use during sex education. Even seatbelts are an example of harm reduction!

While harm reduction is a rather broad topic and can relate to many different areas, I will be focusing on harm reduction as it relates to substance use, with a specific focus on opioid drug use.

So, we’re talking about reducing potential harms, but what exactly are these harms associated with drug use? Keep in mind that these harms affect not only the individual but society as well. We can divide them up into direct and indirect harms. Direct harms are more what affects strictly that person’s health while indirect harms have more to do with society and situation.

Direct 

-substance use disorder

-bloodborne illnesses (HIV, hepatitis C)

-injection-related bacterial infections (local and systemic)

-overdose complications, including death

Indirect

-violence, homicide, property crime

-involvement in the sex trade

-public stigmatization (It is important to avoid using older, stigmatizing terms when discussing this topic: https://www.bmc.org/addiction/reducing-stigma)

-homelessness

-incarceration

While attempting to stop illegal drug use, current policies have also contributed to poverty, mass incarceration, and racial disparities. (Vearrier) Harm reduction is designed to decrease HIV transmission and overdose risk while keeping in mind these consequences.

Now, I will be talking about three types of harm reduction used in the U.S. for injection drug use. The first is OEND, or Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution. Naloxone is a narcotic that is an antidote for opioid overdose. It is an opioid antagonist, which means that it binds to the sites that opioids usually bind to. Thus, it can reverse or block any effects of other opioids. The point of this harm reduction strategy is to educate people about overdose prevention, what overdose looks like, and what to do in the case of an overdose.




(https://www.co.marion.or.us/HLT/MH/Pages/Narcan-Distribution-Program.aspx)

Next, I’ll talk about the needle and syringe exchange program which many of you have probably heard of before. This program designates sites to collect syringes and dispose of them safely, which is important because diseases such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C can be spread through this mode. They also provide sterile syringes and other supplies to people. There are 11 official sites in Tennessee and 2 unofficial sites. (Tennessee Harm Reduction)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needle_and_syringe_programmes)

Now, we'll take a look at opioid maintenance therapy, which is where relatively safer opioids are given to patients who struggle with an opioid use disorder. Methadone and suboxone are longer-acting opiates that are taken orally (safer!). However, a patient can get dependent on both of these, and they do have some street value. There are many regulations in place for these medications to be dispensed. For example, methadone can only be dispensed from specialized clinics, and at the beginning of treatment, patients are actually required to swallow the pills while in the clinic and submit to random urine drug screens and pill counts.




(https://www.northpointrecovery.com/blog/opioid-replacement-therapy-risks-methadone-vs-buprenorphine/)

So now that we’ve talked about these strategies, let’s examine them using the four guiding principles of ethics.

-Autonomy: Yes, we are meeting patients where they are. ("come as you are, and I’ll treat you” & “whether you are using or not, I’ll help you”)
-Beneficence: Yes. This will decrease HIV and overdose risk, doctors get informed consent from patients before prescribing anything, and it decreases the indirect harms associated with drug use.
-Non-maleficence: We could essentially cause harm--a patient could previously be addicted to heroin and now be addicted to or even overdose on methadone. However, we use the equation "total harm = average harm per use x total use" to understand the amount of harm involved. A doctor may have hurt or even led to someone's death with the prescription, but if we look at all the people who have used these opiates and survived many uses because of the prescription, it is good overall.
-Justice: Yes. These harm reduction strategies play a part in eliminating racial disparities and decreasing the amount of people who are incarcerated and houseless.

Now, let’s take this a step further. Let’s talk about two other harm-reduction strategies that are not yet accepted and widely used in the United States. The first is safe injection sites. Basically, safe injection sites provide someone who uses drugs a safe place to come in and use, and there are trained staff present to keep an eye on them. And if they observe signs of overdose, the staff has naloxone on hand and can call for medical help. There are a few of these sites in New York. Per the federal government, the possession of these drugs are illegal, so the sites make a pact with the local law enforcement and agree that these patients will not be prosecuted for possession.




(https://capitalandmain.com/moving-the-needle-science-supports-supervised-injection-sites-why-dont-politicians-agree-1024)

Next, for patients who continue to use heroin despite being prescribed suboxone and methadone, medical-grade heroin can dispensed. There is one site in Canada that does this. What do you guys think about this?

So while the ultimate goal is abstinence, when patients are not able to abstain or are not willing to abstain, rather than ignoring their needs or using punitive measures, harm reduction allows us to meet them where they are and offer some strategies to decrease harm not only to them but also to society.

Some important things to keep in mind are:

1. Getting informed consent

2. Clearly defining the parameters within which these harm reduction strategies will be implemented to minimize risk (train doctors, understand how these treatments work, minimize risk of diversion, minimize risk of overdose)

3. For optimal effects, there may need to be changes to our laws and public opinion so they can go hand-in-hand with the harm reduction strategies we want to implement.

Sources:

Hedrich D, Alves P, Farrell M, Stöver H, Møller L, Mayet S. The effectiveness of opioid maintenance treatment in prison settings: a systematic review. Addiction. 2012 Mar;107(3):501-17. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03676.x. PMID: 21955033.

Khalid, Farhan et al. “Social Stigmatization of Drug Abusers in a Developing Country: A Cross-Sectional Study.” Cureus vol. 12,9 e10661. 26 Sep. 2020, doi:10.7759/cureus.10661

Marlatt, G.Alan. “Harm Reduction: Come as You Are.” Addictive Behaviors, vol. 21, no. 6, 1996, pp. 779–788., https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(96)00042-1.

Stoljar N. Disgust or Dignity? The Moral Basis of Harm Reduction. Health Care Anal. 2020 Dec;28(4):343-351. doi: 10.1007/s10728-020-00412-y. Epub 2020 Oct 24. PMID: 33098488.

Vearrier L. The value of harm reduction for injection drug use: A clinical and public health ethics analysis. Dis Mon. 2019 May;65(5):119-141. doi: 10.1016/j.disamonth.2018.12.002. Epub 2018 Dec 29. PMID: 30600096.

 

Your dog is a good boy, but that's not necessarily because of its breed

BECKY SULLIVAN

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/28/1095390872/dog-breeds-behavior-study

 

Labrador retrievers fetch, border collies herd, huskies howl: It's conventional wisdom that many dog breeds act in certain ways because they've been bred to do so over the course of many generations.

But a new study to be published Friday in the journal Science finds that though some dog behaviors are indeed associated with particular breeds, breed plays less of a role overall than that conventional wisdom holds.

 

"We found things like German shorthaired pointers were slightly more likely to point, or golden retrievers were slightly more likely to retrieve, or huskies more likely to howl, than the general dog population," says Kathryn Lord, a researcher at the UMass Chan Medical School and an author of the study.

Researchers surveyed the owners of more than 18,000 dogs and analyzed the DNA of about 2,100 animals to see if physical traits and behaviors can be correlated with dog breeds.

Overall, the study found that about 9% of the variation in an individual dog's behavior can be explained by its breed.

Article Continues Here

Final Blog Post - Why social security running out is concerning

 What is Social Security?

The United States Social Security Administration is an independent agency of the United States federal government that administers Social Security. Social Security is a social insurance program that consist of retirement, disability, and survivor benefits. Social Security was created to promote economic security for the people of the nation. It began August 14, 1935. It was a direct following after the effects of the Great Depression. The Great Depression was a very serve worldwide economic depression between 1929 to 1939. The major causes of this depression were; the stock market crash of 1929; the collapse of world trade to the Smoot-Hawley; government policies; bank failures and panics; and the collapse of the money supply. This all led to president Roosevelt signing the social security act. This social security act was a part of the "New Deal". This deal refers to a program that focuses on what historians call the "3 R's". The 3 R's refers to; Relief for the unemployed and for the poor, Recovery of the economy back to normal levels, and reform of the finical system to prevent a repeat depression. Social security works by people working paying taxes. Those funds are added to the social security system. When people retire they or any dependent gain monthly benefits depending on earnings from time when working. Social security is helpful to those with limited resources, accessibility, income, and any other situations out of people's control. The Social Security Act has become the most successful, most popular domestic programs in the nations history. Social security can affect future generations who may need to rely of these funds from the government in stations where a person had been severely injured or has become disabled. Social security is something we are all familiar with, so what happens if this goes away?

What Happens If/When Social Security Runs Out?

As mentioned previously, the money put in social security is directly from the citizen's of the United States. By the year 2030, it had been determined that there may only be two workers who pay into social security for each beneficiary. This is a result of many citizens not working, and some not wanting to work anymore. A lot of this has derived from Covid and benefits lost after. People are not wanting to work, because issues and stakes are incredibly high but pay has not been improved for certain positions. As of right now the worst-case senecio would be for social security to run out in 2034 and benefits going down by 22%. Covid has been proven to be a direct correlation to the cause of social security running out. Other factors are an aging population, more people dying than being born, and of course more money being withdrawn than money being put into social security. There are many jobs open right now, but not for good reason. Many jobs are not paying employees well amongst the issues following the pandemic. Many jobs that pay minimum wage, have increased their pay but has still not be proven helpful, because if the lost of hours and employees. This causes some too work maybe too much or too little. The main risks of social security running out are the lost of benefits, increased wage taxes, and increase retirement age. If no changes are made before the social security funds run it, there would be a reduction in the benefits that are paid out. If the only funds available in the social security is what current wages being paid in, the social security administration would be able to pay around 75% of promised benefits for this qualified. A 25%  reduction in benefits will significantly hurt those who plan on retiring and relying on their social security benefits, but it will be far less damaging than the complete shut down of the program. With the potential for benefits being reduced, some retirees may want to apply for their benefits early before the fund completely runs out. This could hurt their situation more. If you start taking benefits out sooner than initially planned, they will reduce to 70% of your full-retirement age benefits. Comparing this to the 75% deduction, it is a little better to wait to keep that 5% of retiree's benefits. Increased wage taxes,  could be done to avoid benefit reduction. It is possible that congress votes to increase social security taxes charged on employees. Taxes would need to increase from 6.2% to 8%. This would provided an additional nine hundred dollars in taxes paid annually for an employee making around $50,000 per year. The average income in the U.S. is around $31000. The other tax wages proposal is for anyone with an income over $400,000 would have a new wage rather than increasing for everyone. This proposal has become the most popular in recent years, and personally seems like the most logical solution to me. Raising taxes on everyone does more harm than good. Most people are barely able to afford living in the United States now, raising taxes would only make matters worst. I think people who can afford to pay higher taxes should be the ones being taxed more. A different proposal that has been mentioned is increasing the full retirement age. It is said that regardless of social security running out or not, the age of retirement is likely to increase within the next 7 years. The reasoning for this is the increased life expectancy of humans in today's time. The average life expectancy today is around 82 years old, compared to just a few years ago where it was 78 years old. It is predicted that the life expectancy of humans will only get longer with our rise of technology and medical findings. The retirement age 2 years ago was 65 years old. It is now 67. The time that people will have to work before going into full retirement will only grow. This truly sounds exhausting for us future generations. 

Why This is Concerning.. 

While Social Security seems like it wouldn't be completely eliminated in the next 10 years, it is inevitable benefits will be reduced significantly if things do not change in the next few years. A change needs to occur to insure that our retirement plans are secure. This situation affects the elderly and future generations directly. As I mentioned earlier, the life expectancy of humans is significantly longer than pass generations. This will cause the retirement age to increase, which increases a person's time in the work force. For the younger generation who will be dealing with these issues, we would be looking at longer work time before getting that retirement and relaxation that people work towards. Social Security funds are also greatly used, and depended on by those who go through mental and physical health declines. Without this fall back money in the future, it's scary to think we may may not have anything to help us or our loved ones during these tough times. I think this is such an important topic, that needs a lot more attention that is getting. Hopefully things will begin to get better, to ensure that we and future generations have a more secure future. 

More Articles About Topic: 

Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program

Covid took one year off the financial life of the Social Security retirement fund

Why Is Social Security Running Out of Money? 

FINAL POST

 

Investigating George Gey: The Physician behind HeLa Cells

Firstly, a tribute to Henrietta Lacks:

It would not be right for me to present on George Gey without first giving honor where honor is due… 

Henrietta Lacks a young mother of five, ventured into The John Hopkins Hospital with complaints of vaginal bleeding. After the discovery of a large, malignant tumor on her cervix, she began radium treatments for her cervical cancer. At the time of her disease, this was the best treatment available. A sample of cells was unknowingly taken from Henrietta’s cervix and sent to Dr. George Gey, a cancer and virus researcher who had previously had no luck with other cancer cell biopsies… until he took a look at Henrietta’s cells under the microscope. 

George Gey:

For 8 years, George Gey was in and out of medical school due to the lack of funds to complete his program. After finally graduating with his medical degree, he immediately began his 37-year teaching career at John Hopkins Medical School. Year after year and trial after trial, him and his lab assistant would contain cells, isolate them, and unfortunately watch them die. This was all until he met the cervical cells of Henrietta Lacks. It is reported that his lab assistant was close to giving up and at the possession of Henrietta’s cells the lab assistant did not even want to plate them because she was sure they would turn out like the rest- dead. To their surprise, these cells grew and even in the absence of a glass surface, meaning that they essentially had no space limit. 

Soon, the HeLa cells were being shared with scientists all over the world, with George Gey taking some credit for the discovery. While George Gey is recorded as keeping Henrietta’s name and family out of the matter- not even sharing her identification or where the cells had originated- the discussion still lives: were his actions okay? 

It is recorded that Gey never made any profit from the cells; however he claimed credit for their use in research. 

-Henrietta Lacks’ family today:

In October, on the 70th anniversary of the taking of her cells, her family decided to fight back. The family members say they have not received any profit from the research and use of Lacks' cells. They say they believe the time is now to be compensated and they are aware they will have to fight as many as 100 defendants, the first being Thermo Fisher. Thermo Fisher currently sells the HeLa cells on their website. 

‘"Thermo Fisher Scientific's business is to commercialize Henrietta Lacks' cells—her-living bodily tissue—without the consent of or providing compensation to Ms. Lacks" the lawsuit states. "All the while, Thermo Fisher Scientific understands—indeed, acknowledges on its own website—that this genetic material [is] stolen from Ms. Lacks."

The lawsuit is also asking the court to order Thermo Fisher Scientific to "disgorge the full amount of its net profits obtained by commercializing the HeLa cell line to the Estate of Henrietta Lacks."’The company earns close to $35 billion in revenue each year.

Henrietta’s daughter-in-law started this investigation in 1973 and made a promise to her family that she would not let the name of her mother-in-law go without mention. Since then, Henrietta’s daughter-in-law has declined in health; however, her passion and fight for justice has since encouraged her son, Ron Lacks, to also fight for justice. 

Ron Lacks, Henrietta’s grandson, states the following:

“"Every time I walk into my mother's room, she gives me strength because I know I'm doing it for her. She started this in 1973. She started this, so when I walk into her room and feed her, change her, I know I'm doing this for her. When you are fighting for your family, you come off with all guns blazing, you don't stop until you succeed or they knock me down," he added.

During the October 2021 trial, WHO acknowledged the importance of reckoning with past scientific injustices, and advancing racial equity in health and science. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD said, “It’s also an opportunity to recognize women -- particularly women of color -- who have made incredible but often unseen contributions to medical science.”

-Similar situations: 

According to Cancer Today, “Consent is still not required for much of tissue research. If a researcher takes tissues specifically for research and the “donor’s” name is attached, federal law requires informed consent. But if the tissue is taken for some other purpose—a routine biopsy or a fetal blood test—as long as the patient’s identity is removed from the sample, consent isn’t required.”

With this insert in mind, if big companies such as Thermo Fisher Scientific were required to give profit to the family of Henrietta Lacks, then would every patient who has undergone a biopsy and as a result had their cells used in research also be expectant of profit? Where is the line drawn?

-HeLa today: what has it done? 

HeLa has contributed to multiple medical breakthroughs throughout the years. Some of which including the following:

1950s: 

1953: Laying the groundwork for the Polio Vaccine 

1956: Understanding the effects of x-rays on human cells 

1956: developing cancer research methods 

1960s:

1964: Going to outer space

1964: Shedding light on treatments for blood disorder 

1970s:

1973: Determining how Salmonella causes infection 

1980s:

1985: Making strides against cervical cancer

1985: Slowing cancer growth 

1988: Advancing understanding of HIV infection 

1989: Learning how cells age 

1990s: 

1993: Exploring how tuberculosis makes people sick 

2000s:

2001: Innovating single cell imaging 

2001: Understanding the infectivity of Ebola and HIV

2010s: 

2010: Repurposing Thalidomide to fight cancer 

 

 

Discussion questions: 

1. Do the benefits of the HeLa cells outweigh their unfortunate come about? 

2. How should the Lacks family be repaid? 

3. How do we know situations like Lack’s are not happening today? 

 

Potential exam questions: 

1. True or False: George Gey received profit from HeLa cells. 

2. Where were Henrietta’s cells taken from (part of body and what hospital)? 

3. How much profit has Thermo Fisher Scientific made off of HeLa cells total? 

 

Answers: 

1. False. 

2. Cervix; John Hopkins. 

3. $35 billion annually. 

Thank you for a great semester!!!

Myth Dispelled

The flu vaccine cannot
give you the flu, I tell him.
It’s dead virus, there’s
nothing alive about it.
It can’t make you sick.
That’s a myth.
But if we bury it in
the grassy knoll
of your shoulder,
an inch under the stratum
corneum, as sanctioned by
your signature
in a white-coated ceremony
presided over by
my medical assistant
and then mark the grave
with a temporary
non-stick headstone,
the trivalent spirit
of that vaccine
has a 70 to 90 percent
chance of warding off
the Evil One,
and that’s the God’s
honest truth.

Adam Possner, MD “Myths Dispelled.” © 2012 Adam Possner, MD.
WA

20 Best Bioethics Blogs and Websites To Follow in 2022

We're #5!

 

 Researchers discover serious gene defect in Inuit populations

by Aarhus University

A newly discovered gene defect among people of Inuit ancestry in Greenland, Canada and Alaska will possibly lead to screening of all newborn Inuits as they will otherwise be at risk of dying from child vaccines or simple viral infections.

The gene defect was discovered in close collaboration between researchers from Aarhus University and Newcastle University as well as pediatricians and clinical immunologists in Denmark, Greenland, Alaska and Montreal in Canada...

Link to Article

Final Version-Investing in Preventative Healthcare and Public Health: An Ethical and Economical Choice

 

Ethics can sometimes seem at odds with decisions that are the most cost effective. However, it doesn't always have to be this way. What if there was a decision that was both ethical and economical? Here, we will explore the benefits of investing in public health, specifically in disease prevention. We will also consider how this could lead to lower healthcare costs (or at least more effective healthcare spending), and most importantly, a healthier country.

The United States spends more on healthcare than any other OECD nation, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). 

Despite this investment in health, the U.S. falls short in many health metrics including life expectancy, avoidable mortality, and overweight/obesity compared to other OECD countries. This indicates that the U.S. healthcare system is inefficient. We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world, so it seems like a lack of resources is not the main issue. Though there could be many contributing factors for this discrepancy, one reason is the lack of investment in public health. Some researchers estimate that the U.S. spends as low as 1.5% of total health expenditures on population-level public health initiatives. This seems contradictory to evidence that suggests investing in public health can make more people healthier and reduce costs. After all, as Benjamin Franklin was known to say:

To consider why this may be the case, we must look at the view of health in the United States.

Healthcare can be generally divided into primary, secondary, and tertiary care:

• Primary care is where public health has the most influence. When successful, public health initiatives will promote health at a population and community-level and prevent people from getting sick in the first place. 
• Secondary care describes more specific screening measures, seeing primary care physicians, and getting short-term treatments to prevent health issues from growing e.g., responsible use of antibiotics in response to bacterial infections. 
• Tertiary care is where a disease has already been established and specialists work to manage long-term care to prevent the disease from worsening. This would include controlling diabetes, treating cancer, or managing COPD. 

Common sense tells us that investing the most in primary prevention strategies would be the most effective. These population based initiatives impact the most people and prevent disease from even occurring. However, the U.S. seems to have this "healthcare pyramid" flipped upside down, focusing primarily on tertiary care.

This needs to change if we want to be serious about not only making healthcare spending more efficient but also creating healthier communities. Neglecting public health can lead to dire consequences, and one of the most relevant examples can be found in the current pandemic. To be fair, health emergencies are difficult to plan for because there are many unknowns. However, ten plus years worth of underfunding U.S. public health is one of the reasons many states did not feel prepared for COVID-19.

Lately, public health, and medicine in general, have received a lot of attention from the general public and government leaders. Some hope that this could lead to a renewed effort to build up public health infrastructure. However, many fear that this will be the same cycle of neglect, panic, and repeat. When there is no current public health crisis (at least not on the surface), it is relatively easy to turn to other issues. A crisis such as the pandemic or ebola outbreaks, stirs the public and lawmakers enough to start making large investments. Then, the crisis goes away, and the cycle starts over. 

One of the reasons for this cycle is that when public health is working well, it is often invisible. It is like electricity, you don't think about it until it gets dark and the power goes out. 

With all this being said, it is important to note that a few studies have found that some prevention strategies could be extremely costly and might exceed the savings from preventing illness. However, objecting to public health initiatives based on these findings is problematic on multiple fronts: 

• For one thing, some of these studies made generalities, expecting programs to be implemented across the board regardless of matching interventions with specific populations. A relatively new concept called "Precision Public Health," could be a solution to this issue. It utilizes technology and large datasets to help make public health policies and initiatives more targeted and effective. 

• Another issue with this objection is related to ethics. Even if such prevention interventions were more costly than treating the disease itself, don't we have an ethical obligation to prevent disease when we have the power to do so? I am not talking about changing genomes of embryos or anything like that (I will leave that topic up to others). I am talking about having a clear intervention known to work and not using it solely due to financial considerations.

In addition to neglecting public health, a Harvard Study indicated that other areas have led to the high cost of U.S. healthcare, including administrative costs, expensive pharmaceuticals, and high physician and nurse salaries. This can be a complex situation to fix. Though looking at these issues more closely reveals that investment in the public health system could ultimately reduce the need for as many healthcare professionals and medication.

While it is clear that there is not a simple solution (there rarely is one), it would be extremely detrimental to forget about the need for public health. As citizens of this nation and the world, it should be our hope that all people get to live healthy and fulfilling lives. The fact that investing in public health could lower healthcare costs is a bonus but should not be the sole incentive. By utilizing precision public health techniques, we could increase health equity, prevent diseases, and promote a more community-centered approach to healthcare.

Discussion questions

1. What could the United States do better in terms of preventative care?
2. How can we make the accomplishments of public health more visible to the public on a everyday basis? 
3. Do you think we have an ethical obligation to invest in our public health system?
4. Do you think that focusing on primary prevention could make healthcare spending more efficient? Or do you think that this could be too narrowminded and not account for the complexities of the system?
5. What do you see as stepping stone to the larger issue of U.S. healthcare and public health reform?

Lyceum Wednesday (27th)

Applied Philosophy Lyceum-DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES, IN THE COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS

Richard Eldridge
Swarthmore College

Imagining Life Together: Psychosexual Intimacy, Social Roles, and Contemporary Comedies of Remarriage

Can a successful romantic comedy that takes seriously the separateness and distinctness of persons any longer be made in the contemporary world? If so, what general shape might such a successful romantic comedy of this kind have? Addressing these questions requires and enables us to consider what psychosexual intimacy and erotic friendship are, what their value is, and whether they are any longer possible in the contemporary world. Professor Eldridge will address these questions in the context of several films, including Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

Professor Eldridge, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, was the Charles and Harriett Cox McDowell Professor of Philosophy at Swarthmore College, specializing in aesthetics and philosophy of language.

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

at 4:30 pm,

COE, Room 164

An Informal Reception to Follow-free food, byob

Richard Eldridge is Charles and Harriett Cox McDowell Professor of Philosophy at Swarthmore College (USA). He has held visiting appointments at the universities of Sydney, Brooklyn, Freiburg, Erfurt, Bremen, Stanford, and Essex. He is the author of seven books and over one hundred articles in Romanticism, the philosophy of language, the philosophy of art (especially literature, music, and film), and German Idealism, including, most recently, Werner Herzog: Philosophical Filmmaker (Bloomsbury, 2019) and Images of History: Kant, Benjamin, Freedom, and the Human Subject (Oxford, 2016), and Literature, Life, and Modernity (Columbia, 2008). He is the general series editor of Oxford Studies in Philosophy and Literature.

Some of his reviews in the LA Review of Books here...

==

Postscript. My recap of the event...

In conclusion

“There is no conclusion. What has concluded, that we might conclude in regard to it? There are no fortunes to be told, and there is no advice to be given.–Farewell!” --William James, August 1910

Just kidding, there is at least one crucial bit of advice: 

Final Blog Post: How Florida's New Law Endangers Our Kids

 

    Florida's new "Don't Say Gay" bill was signed into law in late March of this year.  Governor DeSantis and other supporters of this law have declared themselves saviors of childhood innocence, but when we think critically about this law, there are dangerous implications for young children - especially young LGBTQ children.  

    The law's official name of this law is the "Parental Rights in Education" law. It lists the new rights of parents to intervene in the education of their children, noting specifically the restrictions placed around LGBTQ subjects.  This law also gives parents the power to decide what services their child can receive, including physical and mental health check-ups.  This particularly raises red flags because any child in an abusive household with neglectful or harmful parents can have restricted access to resources that can help them get out of dangerous home situations.  

    Another aspect of the law that is equally troubling is the requirement to report things a student might tell school personnel in private. Lines 82-88 of the bill state "2. A school district may not adopt procedures or student support forms that prohibit school district personnel from notifying a parent about his or her student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being, or a change in related services or monitoring, or that encourage or have the effect of encouraging a student to withhold from a parent such information."  This language is fairly vague, leaving its specific requirements up to school faculty/staff interpretation.  With reporting requirements as broad as these, students are less likely to report things like bullying, feelings of depression or anxiety, trouble in school, all for fear of their parents being told, resulting in a possibly unsafe home environment.

    This presentation is going to explore these themes especially when it comes to the teaching of LGBTQ topics in the classroom.  Florida's new law also states that “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards" (lines 97-101). This language is again vague, which will likely lead to teachers and staff erring on the side of caution and avoiding these topics altogether. This means discussion of LGBTQ families, parents, or student identities will be forbidden from classrooms. This kind of restriction of subjects in school is an unfortunately common theme we've seen in the past few years (e.g. inclusive families, the truths about American history, critical race theory conversations). With this discussion of limiting LGBTQ subject matter in schools, we will also explore the history of LGBTQ lives in America.

    The fact that we as the public allow this to continue, allow the government to decide what is and is not appropriate to teach to our youngest Americans is not only wrong, but perpetuates prejudices and biases throughout the most formative years of a young academic's life.

  

    In addition to these discussion questions, please see the possible test questions below.

1. What is the official name of Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law?

2. When was gay marriage legalized?

Feel free to review my presentation here and browse the sources below for more information:

1. LGBTQ history in America
2. Picture/infographic credits
3. Read Florida's new law here (PDF version)

    This law has dangerous implications, not only for queer kids, but for every kid.  Children have a constitutional right to education - with that right comes access to resources that help kids, including physical and mental wellness checks, peer networks, and trusted adults who undergo extensive training to aid children in need.  The government should not have a final say in the intricate inner workings of the nuanced components in education.