All We Need is (Unconditional) Love

On March 24, 2017, Joe Gibes posted an entry on this blog, entitled “A ‘disabled’ person speaks out against a particular form of discrimination.”[1] That post featured links to several stories about Kathleen Humberstone, a young woman with Down Syndrome who spoke at a recent UN event commemorating World Down Syndrome Day, which was observed on March 21.

After reading through Joe’s post and the stories to which his post links, I’d like to add the following two very basic observations (which I will only state here – further elaboration shall have to await another time):

  • OBSERVATION #1: Thankfulness and disability are entirely compatible – indeed, one can be genuinely thankful for one’s disability. “Thank you Down’s syndrome!” Kathleen says enthusiastically, in her prepared remarks for the UN event.[2] It’s hard to imagine she doesn’t mean this sincerely.
  • OBSERVATION #2: As Hans S. Reinders has said repeatedly,[3] often the thing that people with profound intellectual disabilities need most is simply to be chosen as friends. This point is easily generalizable to persons with any kind of disability—very often, what we “need” most is simply friendship, not “healing” or “relief” or “freedom” from the (supposed) “burden” of disability itself.

With continued developments in prenatal genetic testing techniques, including the relatively recent advent of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), it has become even easier to detect, at earlier and earlier points in pregnancy, the presence of disabilities such as Down syndrome. And this, of course, opens the door to so-called “selective termination” of unborn children who test “positive” for such conditions.

For Denise Humberstone, Kathleen’s mom, this makes no sense whatsoever. Why shouldn’t we accept all persons, Denise wonders, including those with Down syndrome and other disabling conditions, with the same kind of unconditional love that we would offer to any other, nondisabled person?

“Whatever happened to unconditional love?” she asks. “When did society decide we should want and love a child only if it is as perfect as medical research allows?”

In a Facebook post[4] written just prior to Kathleen’s speech at the UN event, Denise addresses the “unrealistic demands for perfection” that appear to drive so many of these decisions to abort unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome and other disabilities:

I’m also wondering if in parallel to scientific research, these unrealistic demands for perfection stem from the fact that we are also now living in a world where we can not only get anything we want off the internet but that item always comes with a return form should it not be up to your expectations. Not perfect? Bam! Return it, free-post, no questions asked, item will be replaced in no time….

What are we teaching our children? People are worthy of life and love only if they are perfect? We can’t cope with children unless they’re perfect? Your marriage/partnership won’t last unless your children are perfect? Siblings will be ok as long as they are all perfect? I can assure you that my friends are not happier because they don’t have a child with special needs…. There is always something to be unhappy about, it’s human nature.

So why can’t we just go back to the basics and try and love unconditionally? Why can’t we just deal with the hand we’ve been dealt… and rise up to the challenges that life throws at us?

Around the same time as Joe posted his blog entry about Kathleen Humberstone, quadriplegic and disability advocate Joni Eareckson Tada posted a blog entry[5] about World Down Syndrome Day. Here’s what she wrote:

I love smiling children… the image imparts such hope and joy, reminding us we are all made in the image of God. I especially delight in the smile of a child with Down syndrome. Anyone who has rubbed shoulders with someone who has Down syndrome will rave about the love, openness, and zest for life they bring to every family. Their laughter and joy is infectious. Today, as we celebrate World Down Syndrome Day, I’m reminded of a touching video I saw two years ago – titled “Dear Future Mom,” it shows children and teens with Down syndrome. Each has something brief and sweet to say about their disability. Then, they look into the camera and address the worries of any pregnant woman who is fearful about carrying a child with Down syndrome.

This video blessed me so much, I just had to share it with you. Perhaps you know of an expectant mother who has learned her baby has a genetic disorder. Please share this with her – the smiles on the faces of these young people will ease fears and give hope, helping her welcome her precious baby into the world.[6]

In the end, Kathleen Humberstone and the children and teens featured in “Dear Future Mom” remind us of what we all need the most: unconditional love.

 

[1] See http://blogs.tiu.edu/bioethics/2017/03/24/a-disabled-person-speaks-out-against-a-particular-form-of-discrimination/.

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39339338/downs-syndrome-teenager-addresses-the-un-in-geneva

[3] See, for example, his Receiving the Gift of Friendship: Profound Disability, Theological Anthropology, and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008).

[4] https://www.facebook.com/denise.humberstone/posts/10155948159319126?comment_id=10155950465429126&reply_comment_id=10155950568324126&notif_t=feed_comment_reply&notif_id=1488705525554890

[5] http://www.joniandfriends.org/blog/world-down-syndrome-day-2017/

[6] “Dear Future Mom” can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/Ju-q4OnBtNU.

A “disabled” person speaks out against a particular form of discrimination

Amidst lots of dark and tragic stories, a bright ray on the BBC website this week: Kathleen Humberstone, a 17 year-old English girl with Down syndrome, addressed the UN in Geneva to mark World Down Syndrome Day.

Rather than reading anything I have to say, a far better use of your time would be to read what Ms. Humberstone said. You can find the full text here; if you scroll down you can listen to her speech and an eloquent talk her mother gave afterwards.

The speech is only 3 minutes 42 seconds, and the mother’s talk 5 minutes 48 seconds. It is well worth every second of your time to listen to these women. However, for those of you who don’t have the time or place to listen, I will give a few highlights here.

From Kathleen’s talk (when she refers to “testing,” she’s talking about prenatal genetic testing to detect and abort fetuses suspected to have Down syndrome):

Bonjour, Hello! I can’t believe I’m here! I’m at the UN, in Geneva! Do you know why? Because I have 47 chromosomes. That’s just crazy!! Thank you Down syndrome! I’m here to talk to you about my life and why it is worth living . . . I love everybody. I can’t help it! I hope everybody loves me. I have Down syndrome. Yes. Is that so wrong? So, why all this testing? Why? My name is Kathleen Humberstone and I love my life!!

From Kathleen’s mother’s talk:

You know that trisomy 21 happens to be one of the easiest disabilities to identify at the moment in utero. More will follow. And eventually all disabilities will be identifiable in utero. So, parents of future generations will have quite a few choices to make. Now sadly, the real downfall of people with disabilities is that we parents still have not found this unit of measurement which would enable us to quantify all they bring to society. But how on earth do you quantify something so strong, so beautiful, and yet so invisible, so intangible, and therefore so worthless, so meaningless, and so easily dismissible to most people who can’t experience it? And how can you blame them? I long for the day when we can quantify this most powerful and almost magical je ne sais quoi, because you would finally understand that our children are not a burden; disabilities are not a burden; they are everything but. I’ll tell you what the burden is. It’s a growing lack of empathy and a thick-lined cloak of altruism: “We don’t want them to suffer.” But it’s not just a burden; it’s also a threat to people like my daughter. It’s time beings-in-the-making stop being discarded solely on the ground of their predicted disabilities. Because we are also doing away with a mountain of hidden abilities. . . you know what else is so sad? A society without disabilities, without diversity, without differences, will not be any happier than the one we’ve got now. It’s an illusion.

Also see here.

The Gift of Finitude

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about finitude. About limits. Incompleteness. Even failure.

Like the friend of a friend who is dying and has just been admitted to hospice, whose young teenaged daughter is facing the prospect of a life without her mother.

Like the colleague who is grieving the loss of both a spouse and a parent within a month of each other.

Like my power wheelchair that keeps breaking down, making everyday activities significantly more challenging.

Like the never-ending “to-do” list that seems to be anything but finite, and never quite seems to get any shorter.

Life is, in a word, full of limits. Boundaries. Unavoidable stopping points.

Or is it?

What if we could transcend our limits, as recent developments in genetic and related technologies (e.g., CRISPR) seem to promise? What if, through genetic manipulations of various sorts, we could significantly reduce our limitations—eliminate specific diseases and disabling conditions, improve cognitive function, “select” for desired physical traits, and so on?

If we could do these things, should we do them?

Of course, as anyone who has followed the field of bioethics for even a short period of time knows, these questions are neither new nor hypothetical. In many ways, the “future” is already here: we “enhance” ourselves, “transcend” limits and boundaries, and otherwise seek to “overcome” finitude in a myriad number of ways, on a daily basis. And much of this is salutary.

Still, it’s always worth pausing to consider: supposing finitude could be eliminated entirely from our lives (which seems extraordinarily doubtful), is it the sort of thing we ought to try to eliminate? Put differently: is there anything good about finitude, such that we ought to embrace it (even if in a qualified way)?

Gilbert Meilaender, a bioethicist and Distinguished Fellow of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, suggests that there is something good about finitude. In a reflection on the “created duality” of our human nature—we are simultaneously both “free” and “finite”—Meilaender observes that this “two-sidedness” to our nature both opens up possibilities and imposes certain limits upon us. We are, he observes,

created from dust of the ground—finite beings who are limited by biological necessities and historical location. We are also free spirits, moved by the life-giving Spirit of God, created ultimately for communion with God—and therefore soaring beyond any limited understanding of our person in terms of presently “given” conditions of life…. Made for communion with God, we transcend nature and history—not in order that we may become self-creators, but in order that, acknowledging our Creator, we may recognize the true limit to human freedom. Understanding our nature in this way, we learn something about how we should evaluate medical “progress.” It cannot be acceptable simply to oppose the forward thrust of scientific medicine. That zealous desire to know, to probe the secrets of nature, to combat disease—all that is an expression of our created freedom from the limits of the “given,” the freedom by which we step forth as God’s representatives in the world. But a moral vision shaped by this Christian understanding of the person will also be prepared to say no to some exercises of human freedom. The never-ending project of human self-creation runs up against the limit that is God. It will always be hard to state in advance the precise boundaries that ought to limit our freedom, but we must be prepared to look for them.[1]

I am inclined to agree with Meilaender. Moreover, as I have shared in an autobiographical essay published recently,[2] my own experiences as a person with a physical disability have taught me valuable life lessons that, arguably, might not have been learned otherwise—lessons such as the value of patience and endurance, accepting my limits (an ongoing struggle, I must admit!), and even the importance of having a sense of humor at the (sometimes ridiculous) circumstances in which one finds oneself. Our limits shape our character, our career, and our life choices as much as do our “freedoms”—often in surprising and unexpected ways, and frequently for the better.

None of these reflections, of course, even begin to scratch the surface of the “what?”, “where?”, “when?”, “how?”, or “why?” questions related to the ethical permissibility (or lack thereof) of pursuing various genetic, reproductive, or other technologies. Nor do they, by themselves, tell us whether (and when) we ought or ought not to avail ourselves of abortion, physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia and the like.

They do, however, remind us of one very simple, yet all-too-often overlooked fact: finitude is, in many ways, a gift. Let us not neglect it.

 

[1] Gilbert Meilander, Bioethics: A Primer for Christians, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 3-5.

[2] See “Why am I Disabled? Reflections on Life’s Questions and God’s Answers,” in the Beyond Suffering Bible (Tyndale, 2016), available at beyondsufferingbible.com and http://www.joniandfriends.org/bible/.

Gattaca validated

In the made-for-bioethics movie Gattaca, when the main character Vincent is born, a nurse in the delivery room draws a drop of his blood, places it in the nifty instant genetic analyzer, and intones, “Heart disorder: 99% probability. Early fatal potential: life expectancy 30.2 years.” (Spoiler alert!) However, Vincent doesn’t let this genetic version of a horoscope control his life, but goes on to beat the odds — and his society’s rampant genetic discrimination — to live and succeed, proving that, contrary to his society’s beliefs, genetics are not determinative.

Now a study in the New England Journal of Medicine has confirmed the message of Gattaca. The study examined patients who have genetic risk factors known to predict heart disease (“Heart disorder: 99% probability”). It also analyzed these patients’ heart-healthy behaviors: eating a reasonable diet, getting some exercise, avoiding smoking, and the like. The study showed that even for those with the highest genetic risk of heart disease, patients who practiced heart-healthy behaviors had less heart disease than patients who didn’t; and that the patients in the highest genetic risk group had the greatest reduction in risk when they practiced such behaviors. In fact, they cut their risk in about half.

Sure, genes confer risk for heart disease. But contrary to popular understanding, they do not confer inevitability.

Over and over I hear my patients say to me, “It’s in my genes. It must be genetic.” They usually are talking about something that they feel they have no control over. Too often they have swallowed the line from the press and pop science, the line that says that genes are determinative. If you are looking to absolve yourself of responsibility for who you are and what you do, the whole determinism thing is extremely convenient: “I can’t help it: it’s in my genes,” you say, smiling gently as you take one more drink too many with your mistress while driving 85mph down the highway, comforting yourself with the “facts” that alcoholism, infidelity, and risky behavior are all genetically determined.

However, if you feel that you’re a responsible human being whose choices actually mean something, you might be thinking that the whole determinism thing is a little fishy.

Genes do exert influence. They are a risk factor in many conditions. But they have been portrayed as way more controlling than is warranted. We are not puppets dangling on doubly-helical strings. There are many things influencing our lives: environmental and socio-economic and biologic and emotional and spiritual and, yes, genetic factors. They all affect and expand or limit our choices. But it is still we who must make the choice. To the situations that affect us we are to a greater or lesser extent able to make response — we are “response-able” — and must not take refuge in our genes, or any other abstracted part of our humanity, to reduce ourselves to automatons following an inexorably pre-determined path.

The surprisingly small benefit of some very (expensive) Big Ideas

Last week, JAMA published online a Viewpoint provocatively titled, “What Happens When Underperforming Big Ideas in Research Become Entrenched?” The overarching Big Idea to which the article refers is the “narrative positing that a combination of ever-deeper knowledge of subcellular biology, especially genetics, coupled with information technology will lead to transformative improvements in health care and human health.”

The article highlights three technologies that are integral to the Big Idea but that have not lived up to their promise. The first is genetics/genomics; as an example of unfulfilled promise, the authors trenchantly observe, “Sixty years after the discovery of the genetic defect, no targeted therapy has emerged for sickle cell anemia” — one of the simplest genetic diseases, caused by a single gene. The second is stem-cell therapies; the authors point out one analysis of studies of stem cell therapies, in which the supposed effectiveness of the therapy was directly proportional to the number of factual discrepancies in the published study. The third is electronic health records (EHRs), which have cost billions, but have not realized either the improved care and cost savings that were their major selling point.

Despite the lack of evidence of real benefit, these three technologies have received vast amounts of NIH and government monies. The article recommends changes such as the “NIH should fund many more high-risk, unconventional ideas instead of supporting the same familiar highly funded research fronts.” It also calls for accountability for funded studies to show real benefit.

The article’s title asks what happens when underperforming big ideas become entrenched — vast amounts of money and energy are wasted — and suggests solutions. But the article does not address why those Big Ideas have become entrenched in the face of all evidence, and this must be addressed before solutions can work. I do not pretend to have a definitive answer. But I think there is an even Bigger Idea that overlies all of these lesser ideas: the idea that more technology is inherently good, and in higher-tech medicine will be our salvation.

For example, look at those things that have been shown to make “transformative improvements” in mortality, morbidity, and life expectancy: Quitting smoking. Getting off the couch and doing a bit of exercise. Eating your fruits and veggies. Getting immunized.

Now, which sounds more exciting for research funding: stem cells that we confidently assert can cure Parkinson’s even though we can’t quite prove but it’s pretty obvious that they should, or finding ways to get more grocery stores into poor neighborhoods whose most affordable food source has golden arches in front of it?

Testing, testing: Prenatal genetic screening

The June 2016 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology includes a study of the conversations between patients and “Health Care Providers” about prenatal genetic screening (PGS). The objective of the study was to “assess how obstetric health care providers counsel patients regarding prenatal genetic screening and how these conversations influence patients’ screening decisions.” PGS refers to blood and ultrasound tests performed early in pregnancy to determine whether a fetus is at high risk for various chromosomal anomalies, especially the anomaly that leads to Down syndrome. Several findings of the study are troubling.

First troubling finding: providers’ counseling of patients about PGS lasts an average of 1.5 minutes.

Second troubling finding: False-positive rates of PGS are discussed so rarely that they could not be reliably analyzed in the study. The false-positive rate refers to how often the screening test is wrong when it suggests that an abnormality is present; when a test says the baby has Down syndrome, but the baby in fact does not have Down syndrome, it is a false-positive. The guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists suggest that false-positive rates ought to be discussed in counseling about PGS.

But counseling about false-positive rates is itself troubling. The false-positive rate of PGS is somewhere around 5%. Most of us hear this and think, “OK, 95% of the time the test is right when it says that the baby has Down Syndrome.” However, to answer the question, “What percentage of the time is a positive test correct?” you can’t look at the false-positive rate; instead, you have to know something called the Positive Predictive Value. And for PGS, the positive predictive value is only 10%. That means that 90% of the time when PGS says “Down syndrome,” the baby does not have Down syndrome. (Numbers are higher for cell-free fetal DNA testing; however, this test is fraught with its own problems, and the study under consideration here did not include this test.)

Third troubling finding: In 51% of the discussions analyzed, health care providers did not clarify the fact that PGS is not diagnostic. PGS is a screening test, not a diagnostic test. The difference is crucial. Since 90% of abnormal PGS tests are wrong, an abnormal test requires a follow-up procedure to actually make a diagnosis. That follow-up test is usually an invasive test involving a needle into the uterus and a small chance of causing a miscarriage. I have known of several women who didn’t understand the screening nature of the test when they had it performed; when the test came back showing high-risk for a genetic abnormality, they then refused the more definitive diagnostic test. The result was either they spent their entire pregnancy in needless anxiety until the child was born without the anomaly, or they aborted the child on the basis of a false test result.

Why is all of this so troubling? Because medical tests are a big deal. Our understanding — or misunderstanding — of the results of medical tests shape how we see and understand ourselves. And PGS medical tests are a bigger deal than most; because if the results of this study are true, parents are frequently getting cursory explanations (1.5 minutes) from “providers” who give inadequate information about PGS tests. They are then using that (mis)information to make life-or-death decisions for the children they carry. If we’re going to practice eugenics, we should at least make sure that we’re doing so in a fully-informed fashion.

Slouching Towards Gattaca

Genetics is the determinism of our age (“Your destiny is determined by your genes”). It appears more scientific than the determinisms of previous ages such as astrology (“Your destiny is in the stars”) or Marxism (“Your destiny is in economics”), and thus has much greater appeal to the people who look to science for The Answers. News headlines breathlessly report the discovery of the “gene for” this behavior or that behavior: the gene for losing your virginity early, the gene for adultery, the gene for lying. What the headlines leave out are the subtleties: yes, our genetics have an influence our behaviors and decisions, but they are not “determinative” in any sense that that word is commonly understood. The same holds true for the genetics of many diseases: genes for things like diabetes and heart disease and high blood pressure and even breast cancer can increase or decrease the likelihood that someone will develop that disease, but are not “determinative.” Many, many factors other than genetics also play a role in developing these diseases.

However, there are some diseases for which the genes do seem to be determinative; that is, if you have certain genes for a condition, you will inevitably develop that condition. Such genetic disorders are called “fully penetrant.” In these cases, destiny does seem to be in the genes . . .

Or maybe not? In a study published earlier this month in Nature Biotechnology, researchers combed through 589,306 genomes obtained from genomic databases such as 23andMe. In so doing, they found thirteen people who have the genes for eight fully-penetrant, usually lethal, childhood-onset disorders; but the adults with those genomes are healthy adults, without the disorders their genes code for.

Granted, thirteen out of 589,306 isn’t a lot. But extrapolate that to seven-plus billion people on the planet, plus all the fully-penetrant genetic conditions these researchers did not check for, and there are probably a lot of what the press calls “genetic superheroes” among us. In fact, this study is part of something called “The Resilience Project,” which aims to find a lot more people like these thirteen and figure out what makes them “resilient,” that is, able to carry fully-penetrant genes for lethal diseases without carrying the diseases themselves. In line with the reigning biogenetic paradigm, the project’s focus is searching for other genes that make these people resilient by canceling out the bad-disease genes. Maybe they will find them, and if so, be able to help those people with those diseases. But if not, I hope that they will also look outside of the genetic determinism paradigm for non-genetic factors; I hope that they will consider the possibility that we may not be simply the product of our genes.

This study should give us a great sense of humility that, despite wonderful advances in our understanding of the wonder of genetics, there is probably more that we don’t understand about how genes work than we do understand. This humility should lead us to question anyone who would attempt to efface our humanity or responsibility for our actions on the basis of an appeal to genetic determinism. And it should call into question the practice of using any genetic test, preimplantation or post-implantation, as the basis for deciding whether a human embryo or fetus lives or dies.

UK approves gene editing

This week, UK regulators gave approval to a group of scientists in London to genetically modify human embryos. Dr. Kathy Niakan, the researcher who will be performing the experiments, said, “We would really like to understand the genes needed for a human embryo to develop successfully into a healthy baby. The reason why it is so important is because miscarriages and infertility are extremely common, but they’re not very well understood.” Researchers will alter the genes in donated embryos, then destroy them at age seven days.

The story was reported, among other places, on the BBC news website. Reading the story there, I was arrested by the author’s description, in which he writes, “The experiments will take place in the first seven days after fertilisation. During this time we go from a fertilised egg to a structure called a blastocyst, containing 200-300 cells.”

The word in the description that captured my attention is “We.” We go. The author writes “We” — he, me, you — go from a fertilised egg to a blastocyst. I don’t know if the author had this implication in mind when he wrote “We,” but he is right: that little, profoundly inclusive word means that the human embryo, even at the blastocyst change, is one of us. One of our tribe, our group, our species. Human, like we are. All of us were at one time blastocysts; blastocysts, given the right conditions, will grow to be like we are. These are our own young.

Lest there be any confusion: the UK fertility regulator has approved experimentation on some of “us” — our fellow human beings. The experiments will involve genetic editing, following which researchers will “destroy” some of us. (Why does “destroy” sound less reprehensible than “kill” in this case?) The main difference between those of us performing the experiments and those of us being experimented upon is that the latter are smaller, younger, weaker — and have no voice.

 

Technique and Eugenics: my response to the question Jon Holmlund asks about gene editing

Jon Holmlund has asked in this blog whether germ-line modification for the purpose of eliminating genetic diseases (NOT for enhancement), if it could be done safely and equitably, would be ethically acceptable. I argue no, for at least three reasons: we humans are virtually incapable of limiting our use of technology, the technology of gene editing is inescapably eugenic, and we humans are incorrigibly eugenic. Following is an extremely abbreviated explanation of my argument.

First, there is no chance that this technology could be limited to the narrow usage Jon describes. We like to think that technology is value-neutral, that it’s just tools; so maybe we could just choose to use this tool for a particular good purpose without using it to create a Gattaca or a Brave New World in which we witness the Abolition of Man. But as Jacques Ellul has pointed out, “It is useless to think that a distinction can be made between [a] technique and its use, for techniques have specific social and psychological consequences independent of our desires. There can be no room for moral considerations in their use…” (Fasching, The Thought of Jacues Ellul, 18). Ellul called this characteristic of technique monism: a technique is inevitably applied everywhere it can be applied.

Second, as Neil Postman has written in Technopoly, every new technique carries within itself an idea, an ideology; the idea in the technique of germ-line modification, as in all genetic technologies, is eugenics. In medicine especially, we see again and again that technology is used “as defined by the capabilities of the technology . . . even contrary to the best interests of the sick person.” (Eric Cassell, “The sorcerer’s broom: medicine’s rampant technology.” Hastings Center Report, 1993;23:32-39.). One need not look far in medicine to see examples of technology employed in a manner defined not by patients’ best interests but by the technology itself: robotic surgery, CPR, or all of the permutations of infertility treatment.

Third, we humans seem to be incurably eugenic. From Plato’s Republic to Nazi Germany to today’s prenatal clinics, we pursue eugenics despite all warnings from history about what the inevitable conclusion of such policy is.

To recapitulate: In a technology-worshipping society such as ours, the “choice” to use a technique is virtually automatic. The idea at the heart of gene editing is eugenics. Our species, for whatever reason, possesses strong eugenic tendencies. Thus, since this technology could be used for eugenic purposes to edit genes to create “designer babies,” it will be used for those purposes. Therefore, I do not believe that it is ethical to pursue research in this area for the ostensibly good purposes that Jon postulates.

Bioethics Exam

In keeping with the evaluation-obsessed spirit of the time, here is a little bioethics test. No multiple-choice fill-in-the-bubbles here, no simple true/false; but bioethics usually isn’t so simple, is it? So it’s OK if you don’t have a No. 2 pencil, you can still take today’s exam!

_______________________

1. The patient-physician relationship depends on trust, and close observation, and appreciating subtleties, and giving one’s full attention to another person. So, who thought that making the doctor spend the office visit typing into a computer was actually a good idea???

2. Why does the NRA know better than physicians in Florida what they should be saying to their patients in the exam room?

3. What is just and right about a medical insurance system in which people have to stay in jobs they hate because of the fear of getting sick, and which bankrupts many people who get a serious illness? Give examples to support your answer.

4. If doctors have huge malpractice premiums, which they pay for by charging patients more for medical care, then essentially patients are paying doctors so the doctors can protect themselves from patients. Does this make sense? Explain.

5. Compare and contrast: Why should taking one’s own life be considered a more dignified death than any other? Is there really any dignity in death itself, or is it in the way that we face it?

6. Why should doctors be trusted more than anybody else with the right to kill someone?

7. If all of these prenatal genetic tests weren’t developed and marketed for specifically eugenic purposes, then just what were they developed and marketed for?

8. Is there any evidence that “evidence-based medicine” (aka statistic-based medicine) is better than whatever we did before?

9. Is abortion the problem, or is it the symptom of a lot of other problems?

10. In the DSM-V (the latest version of the official guidebook to diagnosing psychiatric illness), grief over the death of a loved one that lasts longer than two weeks can now be considered a disease and treated with medications. What will be the next normal human experience to be turned into a disease?

EXTRA CREDIT:

11. What does it mean to be human? Who gets to decide?

*  *  *

Since this is an ethics blog, you’re on your honor to score yourself fairly. Good providence!