Lizette Alvarez
The New York Times
Originally posted February
Here is an excerpt:
A federal appeals court cleared the way on Thursday for Florida doctors to talk to their patients about gun safety, overturning a 2011 law that pitted medical providers against the state's powerful gun lobby.
In its 10-to-1 ruling, the full panel of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit concluded that doctors could not be threatened with losing their license for asking patients if they owned guns and for discussing gun safety because to do so would violate their free speech.
"Florida does not have carte blanche to restrict the speech of doctors and medical professionals on a certain subject without satisfying the demands of heightened scrutiny," the majority wrote in its decision. In its lawsuit, the medical community argued that questions about gun storage were crucial to public health because of the relationship between firearms and both the suicide rate and the gun-related deaths of children.
A number of doctors and medical organizations sued Florida in a case that came to be known as Docs v. Glocks, after the popular handgun.
The article is here.
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Why You Should Donate Your Medical Data When You Die
By David Martin Shaw, J. Valérie Gross, Thomas C. Erren
The Conversation on February 16, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
But organs aren’t the only thing that you can donate once you’re dead. What about donating your medical data?
Data might not seem important in the way that organs are. People need organs just to stay alive, or to avoid being on dialysis for several hours a day. But medical data are also very valuable—even if they are not going to save someone’s life immediately. Why? Because medical research cannot take place without medical data, and the sad fact is that most people’s medical data are inaccessible for research once they are dead.
For example, working in shifts can be disruptive to one’s circadian rhythms. This is now thought by some to probably cause cancer. A large cohort study involving tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals could help us to investigate different aspects of shift work, including chronobiology, sleep impairment, cancer biology and premature aging. The results of such research could be very important for cancer prevention. However, any such study could currently be hamstrung by the inability to access and analyze participants’ data after they die.
The article is here.
The Conversation on February 16, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
But organs aren’t the only thing that you can donate once you’re dead. What about donating your medical data?
Data might not seem important in the way that organs are. People need organs just to stay alive, or to avoid being on dialysis for several hours a day. But medical data are also very valuable—even if they are not going to save someone’s life immediately. Why? Because medical research cannot take place without medical data, and the sad fact is that most people’s medical data are inaccessible for research once they are dead.
For example, working in shifts can be disruptive to one’s circadian rhythms. This is now thought by some to probably cause cancer. A large cohort study involving tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals could help us to investigate different aspects of shift work, including chronobiology, sleep impairment, cancer biology and premature aging. The results of such research could be very important for cancer prevention. However, any such study could currently be hamstrung by the inability to access and analyze participants’ data after they die.
The article is here.
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
The Moral Insignificance of Self-consciousness
Joshua Shepherd
European Journal of Philosophy
First published February 2, 2017
Abstract
In this paper, I examine the claim that self-consciousness is highly morally significant, such that the fact that an entity is self-conscious generates strong moral reasons against harming or killing that entity. This claim is apparently very intuitive, but I argue it is false. I consider two ways to defend this claim: one indirect, the other direct. The best-known arguments relevant to self-consciousness's significance take the indirect route. I examine them and argue that (a) in various ways they depend on unwarranted assumptions about self-consciousness's functional significance, and (b) once these assumptions are undermined, motivation for these arguments dissipates. I then consider the direct route to self-consciousness's significance, which depends on claims that self-consciousness has intrinsic value or final value. I argue what intrinsic or final value self-consciousness possesses is not enough to generate strong moral reasons against harming or killing.
The article is here.
European Journal of Philosophy
First published February 2, 2017
Abstract
In this paper, I examine the claim that self-consciousness is highly morally significant, such that the fact that an entity is self-conscious generates strong moral reasons against harming or killing that entity. This claim is apparently very intuitive, but I argue it is false. I consider two ways to defend this claim: one indirect, the other direct. The best-known arguments relevant to self-consciousness's significance take the indirect route. I examine them and argue that (a) in various ways they depend on unwarranted assumptions about self-consciousness's functional significance, and (b) once these assumptions are undermined, motivation for these arguments dissipates. I then consider the direct route to self-consciousness's significance, which depends on claims that self-consciousness has intrinsic value or final value. I argue what intrinsic or final value self-consciousness possesses is not enough to generate strong moral reasons against harming or killing.
The article is here.
A Computer to Rival
Kelly Clancy
The New Yorker
February 15, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Computers are often likened to brains, but they work in a manner foreign to biology. The computing architecture still in use today was first described by the mathematician John von Neumann and his colleagues in 1945. A modern laptop is conceptually identical to the punch-card behemoths of the past, although engineers have traded paper for a purely electric stream of on-off signals. In a von Neumann machine, all data-crunching happens in the central processing unit (C.P.U.). Program instructions, then data, flow from the computer’s memory to its C.P.U. in an orderly series of zeroes and ones, much like a stack of punch cards shuffling through. Although multicore computers allow some processing to occur in parallel, their efficacy is limited: software engineers must painstakingly choreograph these streams of information to avoid catastrophic system errors. In the brain, by contrast, data run simultaneously through billions of parallel processors—that is, our neurons. Like computers, they communicate in a binary language of electrical spikes. The difference is that each neuron is pre-programmed, whether through genetic patterning or learned associations, to share its computations directly with the proper targets. Processing unfolds organically, without the need for a C.P.U.
The article is here.
Note: Consciousness is a product of evolution. Artificial intelligence is a product of evolved brains.
The New Yorker
February 15, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Computers are often likened to brains, but they work in a manner foreign to biology. The computing architecture still in use today was first described by the mathematician John von Neumann and his colleagues in 1945. A modern laptop is conceptually identical to the punch-card behemoths of the past, although engineers have traded paper for a purely electric stream of on-off signals. In a von Neumann machine, all data-crunching happens in the central processing unit (C.P.U.). Program instructions, then data, flow from the computer’s memory to its C.P.U. in an orderly series of zeroes and ones, much like a stack of punch cards shuffling through. Although multicore computers allow some processing to occur in parallel, their efficacy is limited: software engineers must painstakingly choreograph these streams of information to avoid catastrophic system errors. In the brain, by contrast, data run simultaneously through billions of parallel processors—that is, our neurons. Like computers, they communicate in a binary language of electrical spikes. The difference is that each neuron is pre-programmed, whether through genetic patterning or learned associations, to share its computations directly with the proper targets. Processing unfolds organically, without the need for a C.P.U.
The article is here.
Note: Consciousness is a product of evolution. Artificial intelligence is a product of evolved brains.
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Chimpanzees’ Bystander Reactions to Infanticide
Claudia Rudolf von Rohr, Carel P. van Schaik, Alexandra Kissling, & Judith M. Burkart
Human Nature
June 2015, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 143–160
Abstract
Social norms—generalized expectations about how others should behave in a given context—implicitly guide human social life. However, their existence becomes explicit when they are violated because norm violations provoke negative reactions, even from personally uninvolved bystanders. To explore the evolutionary origin of human social norms, we presented chimpanzees with videos depicting a putative norm violation: unfamiliar conspecifics engaging in infanticidal attacks on an infant chimpanzee. The chimpanzees looked far longer at infanticide scenes than at control videos showing nut cracking, hunting a colobus monkey, or displays and aggression among adult males. Furthermore, several alternative explanations for this looking pattern could be ruled out. However, infanticide scenes did not generally elicit higher arousal. We propose that chimpanzees as uninvolved bystanders may detect norm violations but may restrict emotional reactions to such situations to in-group contexts. We discuss the implications for the evolution of human morality.
The article is here.
Human Nature
June 2015, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 143–160
Abstract
Social norms—generalized expectations about how others should behave in a given context—implicitly guide human social life. However, their existence becomes explicit when they are violated because norm violations provoke negative reactions, even from personally uninvolved bystanders. To explore the evolutionary origin of human social norms, we presented chimpanzees with videos depicting a putative norm violation: unfamiliar conspecifics engaging in infanticidal attacks on an infant chimpanzee. The chimpanzees looked far longer at infanticide scenes than at control videos showing nut cracking, hunting a colobus monkey, or displays and aggression among adult males. Furthermore, several alternative explanations for this looking pattern could be ruled out. However, infanticide scenes did not generally elicit higher arousal. We propose that chimpanzees as uninvolved bystanders may detect norm violations but may restrict emotional reactions to such situations to in-group contexts. We discuss the implications for the evolution of human morality.
The article is here.
Experiments suggest dogs and monkeys have a human-like sense of morality
Bob Yirka
Phys.org
Originally posted February 15, 2017
A team of researchers from Kyoto University has found that dogs and capuchin monkeys watch how humans interact with one another and react less positively to those that are less willing to help or share. In their paper published in the journal Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, the team describes a series of experiments they carried out with several dogs and capuchin monkeys and what they discovered about both species social preferences.
The article is here.
Target Article:
James R. Anderson et al, Third-party social evaluations of humans by monkeys and dogs, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (2017).
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.01.003
Phys.org
Originally posted February 15, 2017
A team of researchers from Kyoto University has found that dogs and capuchin monkeys watch how humans interact with one another and react less positively to those that are less willing to help or share. In their paper published in the journal Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, the team describes a series of experiments they carried out with several dogs and capuchin monkeys and what they discovered about both species social preferences.
The article is here.
Target Article:
James R. Anderson et al, Third-party social evaluations of humans by monkeys and dogs, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (2017).
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.01.003
Monday, March 6, 2017
Almost All Of You Would Cheat And Steal If The People In Charge Imply It's Okay
Charlie Sorrel
www.fastcoexist.com
Originally posted February 2, 2017
Would you cheat on a test to get money? Would you steal from an envelope of cash if you thought nobody would notice? What if the person in charge implied that it was acceptable to lie and steal? That's what Dan Ariely's Corruption Experiment set out to discover. And here's a spoiler: If you're like the rest of the population, you would cheat and steal.
Ariely is a behavioral scientist who specializes in the depressingly bad conduct of humans. In this lecture clip, he details his Corruption Experiment. In it, participants are given a die, and told they can take home the numbers they throw in real dollars. The twist is that they can choose the number on the top or the bottom, and they only need to tell the person running the experiment after they throw. So, if the dice comes up with a one on top, they can claim that they picked the six on the bottom. Not surprisingly, most of the time, people picked the higher number.
The article and the video is here.
www.fastcoexist.com
Originally posted February 2, 2017
Would you cheat on a test to get money? Would you steal from an envelope of cash if you thought nobody would notice? What if the person in charge implied that it was acceptable to lie and steal? That's what Dan Ariely's Corruption Experiment set out to discover. And here's a spoiler: If you're like the rest of the population, you would cheat and steal.
Ariely is a behavioral scientist who specializes in the depressingly bad conduct of humans. In this lecture clip, he details his Corruption Experiment. In it, participants are given a die, and told they can take home the numbers they throw in real dollars. The twist is that they can choose the number on the top or the bottom, and they only need to tell the person running the experiment after they throw. So, if the dice comes up with a one on top, they can claim that they picked the six on the bottom. Not surprisingly, most of the time, people picked the higher number.
The article and the video is here.
Cultivating Moral Resilience
Cynda Rushton
American Journal of Nursing:
February 2017 - Volume 117 - Issue 2 - p S11–S15
doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000512205.93596.00
Here is an excerpt:
To derive meaning from moral distress, one must first change the relationship with the suffering that it causes. Human beings have the potential to consciously decide what mindset they will bring to a given situation; they have the option to choose a path of mindful awareness and inquiry over one of helplessness and frustration. When people are mired in the “judger pit,” the tone of their conversation is punctuated by negativity, closed thinking, and judgment of themselves and others.40 Alternatively, when in an inquiring mindset, they are more inclined to remain positive—despite their distress—and are able to ask questions that may help reveal unknown or overlooked possibilities.
Shifting the focus from helplessness to resilience offers promising possibilities in designing interventions to help mitigate the effects of moral distress. Resilience—an umbrella concept that has been applied in diverse fields of study—can be psychological, physiologic, genetic, sociologic, organizational or communal, or moral. Although there is no unifying definition, resilience generally refers to the ability to recover from or healthfully adapt to challenges, stress, adversity, or trauma. One definition characterizes it as “the process of harnessing biological, psychosocial, structural, and cultural resources to sustain wellbeing.”
Psychological resilience, for example, “involves the creation of meaning in life, even life that is sometimes painful or absurd, and having the courage to live life fully despite its inherent pain and futility.”
The article is here.
American Journal of Nursing:
February 2017 - Volume 117 - Issue 2 - p S11–S15
doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000512205.93596.00
Here is an excerpt:
To derive meaning from moral distress, one must first change the relationship with the suffering that it causes. Human beings have the potential to consciously decide what mindset they will bring to a given situation; they have the option to choose a path of mindful awareness and inquiry over one of helplessness and frustration. When people are mired in the “judger pit,” the tone of their conversation is punctuated by negativity, closed thinking, and judgment of themselves and others.40 Alternatively, when in an inquiring mindset, they are more inclined to remain positive—despite their distress—and are able to ask questions that may help reveal unknown or overlooked possibilities.
Shifting the focus from helplessness to resilience offers promising possibilities in designing interventions to help mitigate the effects of moral distress. Resilience—an umbrella concept that has been applied in diverse fields of study—can be psychological, physiologic, genetic, sociologic, organizational or communal, or moral. Although there is no unifying definition, resilience generally refers to the ability to recover from or healthfully adapt to challenges, stress, adversity, or trauma. One definition characterizes it as “the process of harnessing biological, psychosocial, structural, and cultural resources to sustain wellbeing.”
Psychological resilience, for example, “involves the creation of meaning in life, even life that is sometimes painful or absurd, and having the courage to live life fully despite its inherent pain and futility.”
The article is here.
Sunday, March 5, 2017
What We Know About Moral Distress
Patricia Rodney
AJN, American Journal of Nursing:
February 2017 - Volume 117 - Issue 2 - p S7–S10
doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000512204.85973.04
Moral distress arises when nurses are unable to act according to their moral judgment. The concept is relatively recent, dating to American ethicist Andrew Jameton's 1984 landmark text on nursing ethics. Until that point, distress among clinicians had been understood primarily through psychological concepts such as stress and burnout, which, although relevant, were not sufficient. With the introduction of the concept of moral distress, Jameton added an ethical dimension to the study of distress.
Background
In the 33 years since Jameton's inaugural work, many nurses, inspired by the concept of moral distress, have continued to explore what happens when nurses are constrained from translating moral choice into moral action, and are consequently unable to uphold their sense of integrity and the values emphasized in the American Nurses Association's Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements. Moral distress might occur when, say, a nurse on a busy acute medical unit can't provide comfort and supportive care to a dying patient because of insufficient staffing.
The article is here.
AJN, American Journal of Nursing:
February 2017 - Volume 117 - Issue 2 - p S7–S10
doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000512204.85973.04
Moral distress arises when nurses are unable to act according to their moral judgment. The concept is relatively recent, dating to American ethicist Andrew Jameton's 1984 landmark text on nursing ethics. Until that point, distress among clinicians had been understood primarily through psychological concepts such as stress and burnout, which, although relevant, were not sufficient. With the introduction of the concept of moral distress, Jameton added an ethical dimension to the study of distress.
Background
In the 33 years since Jameton's inaugural work, many nurses, inspired by the concept of moral distress, have continued to explore what happens when nurses are constrained from translating moral choice into moral action, and are consequently unable to uphold their sense of integrity and the values emphasized in the American Nurses Association's Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements. Moral distress might occur when, say, a nurse on a busy acute medical unit can't provide comfort and supportive care to a dying patient because of insufficient staffing.
The article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)