Ethics committee clears BLM-supporting doctors of hypocrisy over protests
by Michael Cook | 29 Aug 2020 |
No social distancing while protesting lockdowns: not OK
Four American doctors and ethicists from the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) Ethics Committee have compared the morality of participating in rallies for Black Lives Matters versus rallies against lockdowns.
Writing in the blog of The Hastings Center, they say:
Physicians have been vocal in condemning the anti-lockdown protests, while endorsing and even participating in the Black Lives Matter protests. This has led to criticism of the medical community for being inconsistent and hypocritical. These allegations are serious as the perceived hypocrisy of physicians can erode trust in expert opinion at a time where decisive and coordinated action is necessary to minimize the death toll of Covid-19.
Using a four-box ethical analysis based on Beauchamp and Childress’s four principles of medical ethics, they conclude that BLM protesters are justified but anti-lockdown protesters are not.
Why? Mainly because they believe that BLM protests will help dismantle systemic racism, which leads to worse health outcomes for African-Americans and other minorities. The anti-lockdown movement, on the other hand, is protesting against essential public health measures. It is quite clear to the authors that “the societal costs of Covid-19 would end up being higher with inadequate containment measures than with lockdown measures because of a higher disease burden and a more prolonged recession”.
QED, doctors are not being hypocritical in supporting peaceful BLM protests while backing bans on anti-lockdown protests.
Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge
Like the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, Republican President Donald Trump touched upon a number of bioethical issues when he accepted his nomination this week.
I found it surprising that Trump devoted so much time to broadcasting his anti-abortion, pro-life message. It's not surprising -- his Administration has worked against Planned Parenthood and backed nominees to the Supreme Court who appeared to be anti-abortion.
But Trump did so boldly and without equivocation when he could have just settled for some boilerplate, His team must have calculated that it is an election-winning issue, no matter how polarising it appears to be. Is this a sign that public opinion is changing on this key bioethical issue?
Michael Cook
Editor
I found it surprising that Trump devoted so much time to broadcasting his anti-abortion, pro-life message. It's not surprising -- his Administration has worked against Planned Parenthood and backed nominees to the Supreme Court who appeared to be anti-abortion.
But Trump did so boldly and without equivocation when he could have just settled for some boilerplate, His team must have calculated that it is an election-winning issue, no matter how polarising it appears to be. Is this a sign that public opinion is changing on this key bioethical issue?
Michael Cook
Editor
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Takes a strong stand against abortion and lockdownsby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Bert Keizer says that expanding the criteria for euthanasia eligibility is the path of progressby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Mother fights to use frozen sperm to create a grandchildby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Anti-lockdown protests, however, are not justifiableby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Staff claim that some hospitals had a “no admissions” policy– even for conditions such as heart attacksby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
A fascinating intersectional analysis of the UK’s shortageby Michael Cook | Aug 29, 2020
Theodore Dalrymple wields his scalpel in a new bookIN DEPTH THIS WEEK
by Alexandra Minna Stern | Aug 29, 2020
More than 60,000 people were sterilized in 32 states during the 20th century based on the bogus “science” of eugenicsBioEdge
L1, Unit 7, 11 Lord Street · Botany, NSW 2019 · Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario