Category: Foundations for Ethics

Foundations for Ethics

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Regarding the Kavanaugh situation, I for one am thrilled that there will be an FBI investigation. Several fascinating issues came up that would not have appeared in merely written statements.

Issue #1

Dr. Ford stated that she did not pay for the polygraph nor is she paying for legal fees. Her lawyer stated to the Committee (i.e. jail time if he lied) that all his team is working pro bono. So I hope the FBI is involved in making sure that every dime of the $700,000 GoFundMe money that was collected under false premise is returned. Otherwise, Dr. Ford would then have been paid $700,000 for bringing the allegation against Judge Kavanaugh, and that would seriously hurt her credibility. So I hope her lawyers have already started the refund process and it will be complete before the vote next week, just so everything is above board.


Issue #2

I hope the FBI can determine who leaked Dr. Ford’s letter. In her testimony she said only three groups had it: Feinstein’s office, her senator’s office, and her lawyers. From Feinstein’s indignation it is credible she did not leak it. The senator from California is too junior to make that much of a political suicide move. That leaves Dr. Ford’s lawyers. Who also failed to tell their client that her request for anonymity was acceptable to the Committee. Ford’s lawyers failed to tell her that in fact the normal way to handle such information as she wished to give the committee was private and her name would not be made public unless there were extenuating circumstances. Which leads directly to….


Issue #3

Lawyers in very expensive suits not taking money from their client failing to act in a manner that guaranteed their alleged sexual assault victim the privacy she requested. That does raise the question of where is the money coming from then? I do hope the FBI investigation uncovers that. There is not one lawyer, but at least 5 that were with Dr. Ford at the hearing, and that kind of time ranks up hundreds of thousands of dollars. Plus the polygraph administrator. Plus the hotel rooms and travel expenses of the lawyers. I certainly want to know who paid for all that. It does seem to substantiate Judge Kavanaugh’s claim that somebody is orchestrating a smear attack on his character. By all means, let’s have an FBI investigation into this entire matter.

Dr. José Baselga, the chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in 2015.
Foundations for Ethics

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Funding for research should come from a disinterested party.  This isn’t the reality we live in.  Most funding comes from large corporations who want validation for their existing products or expect a new product to be the result of the research.  Funding thus creates an inherent bias that is the antithesis of scientific research.  The reality of such funding has created new terminology within the field such as “corporate research” but the media has not adopted it.  The media gives the public heavily biased information that has the integrity of science glossed over it.  And dangerously, that conflict of interest bias is creeping into peer reviewed journals.

A recent CBS report stated: 
“One of the world’s top breast cancer doctors failed to disclose millions of dollars in payments from drug and health care companies in recent years, omitting his financial ties from dozens of research articles in prestigious publications like The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet.” (1)   

In this case, conflict of interest resulted misconduct such as: 
“At a conference this year and before analysts in 2017, he put a positive spin on the results of two Roche-sponsored clinical trials that many others considered disappointments, without disclosing his relationship to the company. Since 2014, he has received more than $3 million from Roche in consulting fees and for his stake in a company it acquired.” (2)

STRICTER CONFLICT REGULATIONS

While such corporate sponsorship has undoubtedly produced results beneficial to the public good, such a relationship puts a serious strain on the integrity of academic research.  The academy needs to enforce stricter rules mandating full disclosure of conflict of interest, including amounts individuals and organizations are paid.  And perhaps a limit on how much a corporation can pay to influence research.  One suggestion is the creation of a general corporate tax.  The money would go into a pool fund for research that is then distributed by the government.  This solution would raise its own problems.

Not all paid research produces untrustworthy results.  But the general public has a right to question whether these medicines and protocols are in our best interest.  Is research just producing the best financial results for big corporations?  Has a more efficient, less profitable solution been deliberately overlooked?  One has to suspect it may be if the researcher is being paid millions of dollars for his results.  Ergo, we need full disclosure.  Our lives may depend on it.

(1)(2) CBS News report

human life versus money on a scale
Foundations for Ethics

INTRINSIC VALUE

The meaning of life is at the heart of what ethics deals with.  Are we random mutations that have no plan or purpose for our existence?  Are we unique creations of a kind and loving God imbued with intrinsic value?  We will come up with very different answers to ethical problems depending on our position on a sliding scale between these two extremes.  Most religions fall somewhere closer to the latter. Most utilitarian approaches fall closer to the former.  While many people today want to live in a secular society, history has shown that choosing a position of intrinsic value is better for the people.

An example of how this plays out is that most Western countries have a high government standard regulating human testing of new products and medicine.  Western countries are historically high on the intrinsic value score.  So many researchers are turning to Third World countries that are low on the intrinsic value score.  There may be little or no government regulation.  They then perform research that many people would consider unethical.  There is often no informed consent.  Researchers can lie to subjects and mislead them about consequences and long term care.  Corporations justify such research by claiming it is for the greater good.  The quicker they develop their product, the more people they can help.  Humanity is taken as a conglomerate whole rather than individuals who have rights that should not be violated.

WHY SPEAK UP?

High intrinsic value scores grant the individual autonomy and informed consent.  Low intrinsic value scores use Utilitarian ethics and say that the primary principle is the most good for the most people.  While Utilitarian ethics sound good on the surface, the point is to get below the surface.  Utilitarian ethics can make a strong case for slavery as more people benefit than are abused.  Therefore, it is critical that while we embrace a secular society to be inclusive of all races and religions, we still maintain that human beings possess a fundamental dignity that governments and corporations cannot violate.

Finally, Utilitarian ethics seem to be chosen primarily by privileged individuals at the top getting the most good. Those of us in the middle need to speak up and add our voices  to the small group of people paying the price.  Circumstances can change and we might find ourselves in the smaller group one day.  Therefore, enlightened self interest insists on the ethics of bioethics and the intrinsic God-given value of life.

Foundations for Ethics

THE ESSENCE OF REASONING

Bioethics involves a great deal of reasoned debate, and unfortunately, a great deal of unreasonable debate as well. When people disagree they usually think there are a number of reasons for disagreeing. But it basically comes down to only 4 different components. People disagree due to FACTS, BELIEFS, LOYALTIES, and REASONING.

FACTS are empirically verifiable. Yet one person may have information the other doesn’t.  While facts should be the end of the argument, they  increasingly play a lesser role as society is becoming less analytical and more emotional.

BELIEFS are convictions that are not empirically verifiable. Many times people think their beliefs are factual, but the convictions have come from a variety of unproven sources that have gained credibility through repetition and emotional response. However, sometimes beliefs may be true because not all truth is empirical.

LOYALTIES come in a wide variety of flavors, and may be political, religious, ethnic, or cultural. Loyalties to one’s friends and family have a strong influence on what opinions people have and how deeply they feel about particular issues.   

REASONING: If we engage at the level of reasoning, and you are not getting anywhere, check and make sure you both have the same facts. Then check what is the person’s beliefs and loyalties that are influencing him or her in the situation.

Communicating is more than just throwing facts around. It starts with being genuine about your beliefs and loyalties. But it is critically important that these two do not contradict the facts.  Understanding this will help you clarify your position.  And hopefully it will make you more sensitive to the lived experience of others. The most important aspect to debates in bioethics is that we are working towards an understanding of the truth.  So we need to be genuine, but we also need to be truthful. 

Foundations for Ethics

WHAT IS BIOETHICS?

Bioethics tries to answer the Frankenstein question:  just because we can do something, does that necessarily mean we should do it?  It is the brain child of the Industrial Revolution.  It’s robots, cutting edge advances in medicine, genetically enhanced food, and technologically enhanced humans, just to name a few.  Technology is now an intimate part of almost every aspect of our 21st Century life.  But is technology producing a Utopia, or is there a darker Dystopia lurking in the background?  This blog will explore those subjects because we are the future everyone used to dream about.