Our Editor’s Pick for our March 2018 issue is “Ethical Guidelines for Genetic Research on Alcohol Addiction and Its Applications,” by Audrey R. Chapman, Adrian Carter, Jonathan M. Kaplan, Kylie Morphett, and Wayne Hall. In this important paper, Chapman and her coauthors examine the ethical issues surrounding genetic research on alcohol addiction. The authors take on this multiply complicated issue, where difficult questions arising out of genetic research combine with the urgent ethical issues alcoholism and other addictions raise, and conclude that “genetic testing is not yet ready for use in the prediction of alcohol dependence liability.” With ever-improving genetic technology and renewed public attention to the social issues addiction raises, this paper takes up questions that are of immediate practical significance.
Category: Editor’s Pick
Our Editor’s Pick for our December 2017 issue is Joe Stramondo’s paper, “Disabled By Design: Justifying and Limiting Parental Authority to Choose Future Children with Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis.” In this fascinating paper, Stramondo takes up the increasingly visible question of when and whether eugenic steps to create a disabled child—for instance, to select an embryo with Achondroplasia or genetic deafness—can be morally permissible. Stramondo rejects some extreme views and argues that “future parents are not morally required to use PGD to select some vision of an objectively “best” child, but should be permitted to use PGD to select embryos according to their own conception of the good life, even if that conception of the good life includes disability.” This paper takes up important questions, provides nuanced analysis, and challenges our intuitions about what it means to care properly for the well-being of our future children.
Our Editor’s Pick for September 2017 is Yechiel Michael Barilan’s paper, “The Role of Doctors in Hunger Strikes.” Barilan provides “a critical examination of the social history of prisoners’ hunger strikes, the philosophy of nonviolence, and the debate on its medicalization.” As he notes in the paper, three paradigms dominate the existing literature on hunger strikes. These are: the “communicative,” the “extreme violence,” and the “psychiatric” paradigms. Barilan argues that another paradigm is needed, and in his paper develops the “wounded combatant” paradigm, “according to which hunger strikers are like enemy soldiers who are injured in battle.”
Our Editor’s Pick for December 2016 is Bertha A. Manninen’s paper, “Sustaining a Pregnant Cadaver for the Purpose of Gestating a Fetus: A Limited Defense.” Manninen argues that “there are times it is morally permissible to keep a brain-dead pregnant woman on life support” for the “sole purpose of allowing her fetus to gestate until it is able to be born as healthy as possible.” She then goes on to argue that this claim is compatible with a pro-choice perspective on abortion.
Our Editor’s Pick for September 2016 is Jing-Bao Nie and Ruth Fitzgerald’s article, “Connecting the East and the West, the Local and the Universal: The Methodological Elements of a Transcultural Approach to Bioethics.” Nie and Fitzgerald argue that scholars working in transcultural bioethics have “seriously problematic methodological habits in approaching cultural differences,” such as “radically dichotomizing the East and the West, the local and the universal.” In light of this, Nie and Fitzgerald’s paper seeks to develop new methodologies for transcultural bioethics.
Our Editor’s Pick for June 2016 is Brian Earp’s groundbreaking article, “Between Moral Relativism and Moral Hypocrisy: Reframing the Debate on ‘FGM.’” Earp tackles the ethics of female genital cutting or “mutilation” (an ethically loaded term). This is a difficult topic that brings on board gender inequity, the integrity of the body, the value of cultural traditions, sexuality, colonialism, ethnocentrism, and other fraught axes of reflection.
This issue of KIEJ also features three commentaries on Earp’s article by Richard Schweder, Jamie Nelson, and Robert Darby that you may read here.
The Editor’s Pick for March 2016 is Franklin Miller and Marco Annoni’s paper, “Placebo Effects and the Ethics of Therapeutic Communication: A Pragmatic Approach.” This paper challenges one of the most fundamental metaethical pillars of traditional bioethics: the distinction between therapy and communication about therapy. Traditionally, we think that protecting autonomy requires communication about therapeutic possibilities before any therapy can begin; imposing therapy before obtaining informed consent may be beneficent, but it constitutes a paternalistic violation of autonomy. Miller and Annoni examine “therapeutic communication”: communication that enhances placebo effects in virtue of its manipulation of patient expectations. Placebo studies “demonstrate that the way in which health professionals communicate, disclose, frame, and contextualize information to patients may modulate symptoms across an array of highly prevalent conditions.” Thus “communication by clinicians has the power to turn diagnoses and prognoses into parts of the treatment.” Hence there is not always a neat distinction between communication and therapy, or between beneficence and autonomy considerations. This is a crucial challenge to the nearly universally presupposed division of ethical labor in medical care.
The editor’s pick for the September 2015 issue is “Enhancement and Obsolescence: Avoiding an ‘Enhanced Rat Race’” by Robert Sparrow. Sparrow identifies a social concern about making enhancements that increase productivity (including cognitive and physical enhancements) widely available: if these enhancements are not “upgradable” or are only upgradable at extravagant cost, we might end up with a situation in which every few years, a new crop of young adults renders their elders literally obsolete. His portrayal of the technological possibility of obsolescent people is powerful. This “enhanced rat race” would, Sparrow argues, intensify the competitive, class-divided, socially stratified, stressful character of capitalist culture at its worst. An important philosophical byproduct of his argument is that there are significant ethical distinctions between upgradable and permanent enhancements, as well as previously unnoticed ethical issues that arise if we make enhancements available to those with sufficient personal resources.
The editor’s pick for June is a timely pair of papers by Mark Navin and Heidi Malm that extend the contentious vaccination debates taking place in the United States to the domain of immigration justice.
First, in “HPV and the Ethics of CDC’s Vaccination Requirements for Immigrants,” Navin offers a defense of immunization mandates for migrants. He begins by critiquing the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) short-lived, pre-2009 policy that was used to exclude female immigrants who were not vaccinated for human papillomavirus (HPV). He then evaluates CDC’s new criteria, arguing that they replace the murky ethical commitments of the old policy with explicit moral reasons that can be justified from within competing perspectives on immigration justice. Thus on his view the policy shift constitutes a clear instance of moral progress that preserves the rights of both migrants and nation states. But even in light of this progress, Navin believes the new criteria may have been misapplied. He concludes by suggesting how they could still license exclusion based HPV vaccination status—a startling conclusion, given that the criteria were designed to avoid this very result.
In response, Heidi Malm argues against Navin’s narrower claim that an HPV vaccine mandate is justifiable. In “Immigration Justice and the Grounds for Mandatory Vaccinations,” Malm agrees that the new CDC criteria are vastly superior to the old, but she doubts how well they apply to the case of HPV. After providing a history of the stigma created by the health and immunization requirements for immigration into the US, Malm argues that uninfected, unvaccinated persons do not pose the right kind of threat to ‘herd immunity’ or public health to warrant exclusion.
This quarter’s editor’s pick is “Risks, Benefits, Complications and Harms: Neglected Factors in the Current Debate on Non-therapeutic Circumcision,” by Robert Darby. Darby offers a vivid critique of our current justifications for routine male circumcision. His critique focuses less on the practice itself than on how we have discussed the ethics of circumcision. He argues that our analyses of the ‘risks and benefits’ of the procedure have focused on narrowly medical concerns, and made invisible the layered symbolic, personal, and psychological significance of the foreskin and the attendant harms that may result from removing it without consent. He covers some of the fascinating social history of our attitudes towards circumcision, and develops an extended and effective analogy with mastectomy: while our current practices recognize and incorporate the potentially powerful personal significance of the female breast to identity and gender, our circumcision practices have no such sensitivity. This paper can be difficult to read, as it can be a challenge to confront a clear-headed critique of a procedure that many readers underwent or had performed on their sons with little reflection.