Mad scientists, eugenics apologies, and more on MAID
What does Robin Williams have to do with MAID in Canada?
Last week I asked if you’re experiencing ‘MAID fatigue’ from all the news stories I’ve been sharing and here’s what you said:
So here’s a compromise - I’m going to continue to give you the MAID stories but there will be other topics too! There’s nothing like eugenics and mad scientists to soften the harsh edges of MAID news, right?
In all seriousness, I appreciate your feedback! I found a lot to show you this week, and I have a lot to say, so keep scrolling for some interesting pieces from Science, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, plus a ‘euthanasia cinema’ trailer from 1981.
From Science.org (something lighthearted finally!):
An excerpt:
Cave Johnson is almost ready to start a new study in his secret underground facility. The founder of the Michigan-based technology company Aperture Science, he’s invented a portal gun that allows people to teleport to various locations. Now, he and his colleagues want to see whether they can make portals appear on previously unfit surfaces with a new “conversion gel” containing moon dust. “It may be toxic. We are unsure,” he wrote in a recent research proposal.
To test the gel, Johnson plans to recruit orphans, homeless people, and the elderly. They’ll get 60 bucks—compensation he feels is well worth the risk of their skin potentially peeling off, death due to an artificial intelligence guide becoming sentient, or worse.
Trigger warning (TW) for the following two links for Bioshock - it’s a violent game!
This was a fantastic interview! Though they don’t mention my favourite video game (TW) Bioshock, I always chuckled knowing the whole point of building a city in the ocean was to bypass the Research Ethics Board. See how great that (TW) turned out? The REB is there for a reason!
From Science.org:
An excerpt:
The apology stems from a yearlong ASHG project that resulted in a 27-page report documenting instances of injustices. They range from ASHG leaders who supported forced sterilization to the organization’s silence when genetics was used to justify discrimination against Black people. The findings are “painful” but need to be shared widely, says Brendan Lee, a pediatrician and a geneticist at Baylor College of Medicine and president of ASHG, which has some 8000 members. “How do you build trust if you don’t express remorse and decry what has really gone on inappropriately in the past?”
When you’re a bioethicist specializing in reproduction and fertility like me, you’ll start to see eugenics in many everyday things. While there are obvious historical (and current!) instances of hard eugenics, such as forced sterilization of people of colour as shared in the article, or the beliefs and practices of the Third Reich, it’s important not to forget the relevance of soft eugenics as well.
Why are some viable embryos disregarded because of a slightly elevated risk of autism spectrum disorder? Why are fetuses with Down’s syndrome aborted so frequently? Why is fair skin preferred in South Asia? Why do short men get less matches on dating apps?
While the apology from the American Society of Human Genetics is a sobering one, it sheds important light on how we might move forward, ethically, despite all the emerging technologies that tempt us into increasing control of genetics.
From the New York Times:
An excerpt:
Ross Douthat argues against aid in dying, saying it is an uncivilized product of liberal culture. Usually I enjoy his balancing conservative perspective, but on this issue I believe he is simply wrong.
My parents each had their secret lethal dose of barbiturates, to take or to offer to each other if either of their lives became intolerable, such as with excruciating pain in terminal illness. They never used it, but having the means to end their life gave them great peace of mind that they could avoid intolerable pain and retain their human dignity and control over their life, come what may. What is uncivilized about that?
I can’t believe I missed this Letter to the Editor piece from the NYT, but I’m so glad I stumbled upon it. Six readers sent in their reactions to an article published in early December by Ross Douthat, an American political analyst and NYT columnist, in which he described the state of MAID in Canada as ‘barbaric’ and ‘dystopian’. He attributes this to the lack of conservatism in Canadian society and implies that “…only conservatism seems to offer a stubborn obstacle to that dystopia…” in the United States.
American perspectives on MAID in Canada are always fascinating, aren’t they? The marriage of libertarianism and religiosity in the United States creates an intriguing, diverse environment where the issue of assisted death has yet to see widespread uptake. Euthanasia may be one of the most defining acts of liberty ever, don’t you think?
I highly recommend reading the Letters to the Editor. Some of the six authors are American and some are Canadian (even one from Dying with Dignity)! They dismantle Douthat’s points from many different angles; some emotional, some philosophical, some religious.
Something I’ve noticed in the international MAID coverage, and some Canadian coverage, is the conflation of MAID as it has been since 2016, and the expansion of MAID for mental illness. Am I alone in thinking the two points in the timeline are quite distinct?
Those who are pro-MAID circa 2016 may not necessarily be pro-MAID expansion, right?
What do you think?
From the Washington Post:
An excerpt:
Shortly after Robin Williams died by suicide on Aug. 11, 2014, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences tweeted an image of Aladdin tearfully hugging Williams’s character from the iconic Disney film. “Genie, you’re free,” read the caption. The tweet, as The Post’s Caitlin Dewey noted at the time, carried the “implication that suicide is somehow a liberating option” and was promptly blasted by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, whose chief medical officer warned “suicide should never be presented as an option.”
In Canada, however, consensus seems to be consolidating around a different conclusion: Suicide is, in fact, a liberating, acceptable option for whoever wants it.
Another American perspective. Worth a read. I do appreciate the legal discussion and the connection to the New Atlantis article I shared a couple of weeks ago.
Lastly, see the trailer of ‘Whose Life is it Anyway?’ (1981):
“Mr. Harris is not capable of making any rational decision about his life or his death.”
I hope you enjoyed this longer newsletter - there was just a lot to share with you this week! And I must thank all of you who reached out and shared how much you enjoy the Café Bioethics newsletter every week. It truly means the whole world.
Have a beautiful, sunny weekend! Again, wishing the same for me!
-Nipa
Why are you receiving this newsletter?
Since Café Bioethics began in 2018, you must have subscribed to our email list to keep up with our work! We are so grateful!
Here is a new initiative we’ve come up with - the Café Bioethics Substack. I’ve personally loved subscribing to Substack newsletters about ethics, economics, and food - I thought, Café Bioethics would fit right in to the scene.
Every week, I’m going to send you stuff I think you should know about. There is so much bioethics-related content out there; I will find it and send it your way. And if you find some of this bioethics-y content - send it my way! It might make it’s way on the newsletter!
To learn more about Café Bioethics, be sure to visit our updated website! Check out our podcasts, publications, past events, and call for papers! Of course, don’t forget to say hello. :)