Comment on this entry
Bioethics and Health Insurance
Bioethicists might prefer to be seen as wise non-partisan sages, dispensing timeless wisdom. But now, albeit with great reluctance, they are forced to take an active role in the increasingly divided biopolitical landscape.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by veronica on 09/01 at 08:13 AM
"The Bush administration's appointment of Leon Kass's President's Council on Bioethics shattered American bioethicists' belief that they were above politics. The polarization of liberal and conservative bioethicists in the wake of Kass's ascendancy revealed bioethics to be proto-biopolitics ... President Obama will shortly be appointing his own bioethics advisory body, and the signals are that it will not only be again reflective of the liberal mainstream of bioethics..."
We shall see. So far, I'm not getting my hopes up. After all, our president has chosen a man as science czar (John Holdren) who once promoted the following:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
Posted by Abraham on 09/01 at 08:48 AM
"Let us urge the Obama administration and its bioethics advisors to have the courage to appoint proud and determined progressives to the body, and give up vain efforts at "balance.""
Is IEET about /evaluating/ the ethics of new policies, or /promoting/ them?
Posted by jhughes on 09/01 at 09:42 AM
@ Veronica
Working in your teabagger conspiracy theories around Holdren is cute. He is not an advocate of involuntary abortion or sterilization. However, I sincerely hope he is an advocate of world government since so am I.
@ Abraham
Most assuredly *promoting*.
Posted by veronica on 09/01 at 11:11 AM
Anyone wishing to see whether the bullet points above are "teabagging conspiracies" or not, simply Google on the first phrase "Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies" and read Holdren's own words (preferably in the "zombietime" link.)
Posted by Mark Plus on 09/01 at 11:40 AM
"• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;"
I thought liberals want single women to have and rear babies (with government assistance, of course) as part of their plan to destroy the family.
Posted by veronica on 09/01 at 12:07 PM
@jhughes: "and the signals are that it will not only be again reflective of the liberal mainstream of bioethics" +
"I sincerely hope he (Holdren) is an advocate of world government since so am I."
As far as world government is concerned, would you like Obama to choose leaders who /are/ or /are not/ reflective of the liberal mainstream?
Posted by jhughes on 09/01 at 02:43 PM
@veronica
As far as world government is concerned I would like to see direct, free elections to a world parliament. No appointments necessary.
But if Obama were in a position to appoint a world government I would hope it would be a progressive admniistration. But you don't have to worry: only right-wing Christians who arm themselves to fight the black helicopters will be sent to UN re-education camps. Good progressive Christians have nothing to fear.
Posted by veronica on 09/02 at 01:32 AM
Mr. Treder, can we have a survey at IEET asking the readers what their opinion is about world government? Thanks.
Posted by jhughes on 09/02 at 09:18 AM
BTW Veronica this may interest you:
http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=831
UN's Popularity on Rise in US and Worldwide
Majorities or pluralities in 19 of the 25 countries surveyed by Pew Research have a favorable view of the United Nations. Moreover, ratings of the U.N. have grown more positive since 2007 in 12 of the 25 countries. Currently, roughly six-in-ten (61%) in the U.S. hold a favorable view of the U.N. This represents a 13-point increase since 2007 in favorable ratings -- the largest increase of any public included in the survey. This is the highest favorability rating given to the U.N. since the question was first asked by the Pew Global Attitudes Project in 2004. Positive opinions of the U.N. also rose in Canada to 70% in 2009, and throughout the Western and Eastern European countries surveyed views remain largely positive. Favorable views of the U.N. are also widespread among the two African publics surveyed, though positive views, while still a high 76%, have declined in Kenya. Among Nigerians, a strong majority (71%) gives a favorable rating to the U.N. However, opinions of the U.N. are sharply negative among three of the publics in the Middle East. Almost six-in-ten (57%) in Jordan say they have an unfavorable view of the U.N. while Israelis and Palestinians find rare common ground in their dislike of the U.N., with roughly two-thirds of both publics saying they have an unfavorable opinion. Lebanese and Egyptian respondents stand apart from their neighbors, with majorities in both countries expressing a favorable opinion of the U.N.
Posted by Mike Treder on 09/02 at 11:21 AM
Veronica asked, "Can we have a survey at IEET asking the readers what their opinion is about world government?"
Good suggestion! We'll post a survey like that soon.
Posted by Robert N. Yanoshak DO on 09/02 at 08:32 PM
I am the Chairman of our Ethics committee at our local Hospital . I cannot believe the interpretations of Health reform policy that some Politicians perceive as facts. These statements about death panels and killing off our elderly will only polarize the American people. The truth is that we as physicians do a lousy job of discussing end of life issues. The politicians, who cannot understand the complexities of making end of life decisions should not make comments on issues that they have no expertise .
Giving incentives to physicians to discuss these important decisions is a start however, I feel that certain physicians may do more damage to peoples live beliefs because , they are not trained nor would they spend time becoming certified on being a "facilitator " concerning withdrawal of life sustaining therapies. The answer : Individual meetings featuring a health care providers trained in discussing end of life issues. Physcians should not be offered incentives unless they do the sensitive training that goes with the discussions om withdrawal of life sustaining therapies . See Polst form : Physician Order for Life Sustaining Therapies .
Posted by veronica on 09/11 at 05:17 AM
@ Hughes, speaking to me: "Working in your teabagger conspiracy theories around Holdren is cute. He is not an advocate of involuntary abortion or sterilization. "
What can I say, but paste some words from Holdren's book?
From p 787 of Holdren's and Ehrlich's book, Ecoscience:
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. "
Did you notice that that they say there are possible "difficult political, legal, and social" and technical questions" but no mention of moral questions.
Page 786: "A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. "
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog