GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: What are bioethicists doing to stop gun violence?

domingo, 25 de febrero de 2018

BioEdge: What are bioethicists doing to stop gun violence?

BioEdge: What are bioethicists doing to stop gun violence?

Bioedge

What are bioethicists doing to stop gun violence?

by Michael Cook | 25 Feb 2018 |

After the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 people died, America has been convulsed with arguments about gun control. Where is the input from bioethicists, asks Craig Klugman, of DePaul University.

Although gun-related violence is a major public health issue in the United States, Klugman complains that bioethicists have shown little interest in it. He searched PubMed for “bioethics” plus “gun,” “firearm,” violence,” or “control” and found only handful of articles and blog posts.

Bioethics is supposed to be the great facilitator of moral discourse on issues of health in the modern era. After all, we came into being as activists to bring autonomy into medical decision-making, to bring to light wrongs in human subjects research, and to help people make difficult health care decisions, usually difficult because of the existence of a new technology. Bioethics has taken a public role, applying ethical analysis and discussion on issues in the public arena in such areas as human subjects research, stem cells, cloning, neuroscience, Ebola, secondary findings, genome sequencing, synthetic biology, abortion and much more.

Our expertise is in facilitating difficult conversations and moral deliberations. We can provide strong ethical analysis, engage in debate and conversation, weigh arguments, and help create consensus. These are valuable tools in the hospital and they are valuable tools in the public.

While bioethics has been criticized for shying away from issues of public health and social justice, the discourse on firearms is near silent. It is time for that silence to end.

BioEdge is a bioethical gadfly, nipping and biting at what we perceive to be bad arguments and unhealthy developments. But the recent story about a Japanese man who fathered 13 children with the help of mothers hired in Thailand suggests that almost any bioethical approach is better than none – and “none” was the position of the Bangkok judge who awarded him custody.

"The petitioner is an heir and president of a well-known company listed in a stock exchange in Japan, owner and shareholder in many companies ... which shows the petitioner has professional stability and an ample income to raise all the children. Therefore, it is ruled that all the 13 children are legal children of the petitioner … and the petitioner is their sole guardian."

Any bioethicist would immediately comment that this decision ignores many important issues. Are children just property? What about the rights of the surrogate mothers? Is it right to raise 13 boys without mothers? Is it right to raise 13 boys together like cattle? Is wealth a substitute for parenting? Is fatherhood simply a matter of sperm donation?

It sounds as though the judge merely wanted to hand the boys over to Japan. In his words (as reported) I can detect no inkling of the fact that the issue is more complicated than a commercial property transaction. It sounds as though Thailand urgently needs bioethics education.