Bioethics

Falsely Describing Bad Research To Advocate Irresponsible Policies Is No Way To Serve On The Supreme Court, Justice Jackson…[Corrected And Expanded]

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

UPDATE: A critical Ethics Alarms reader informed me that in his view the text of this post was too similar to that of its main source, The Daily Signal, in an article by Jay Greene. Although I linked to the piece and also credited Greene with a quote, upon reviewing the post I agree that it included too many substantially similar sentences and phrasings. I apologize to the Daily Signal, Jay, and Ethics Alarms readers. I was using several articles in preparing the piece (including one from another source that was also extremely close to the Signal article), and for whatever reason, did not notice that I had leaned so heavily on Green’s phrasing. It has happened before over the past 13 years, though not often, and never with the intention to deceive. Thus I have revised the post; in the future, if anyone feels that an Ethics Alarms article does not properly credit sources or seems insufficiently original, the favored response is to alert me, rather than to accuse me in obnoxious terms of “plagiarism.”

Fans of affirmative action reacted to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s depressing defense of racial discrimination by praising her remarkably hypocritical dissent in the recent 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court declaring Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina’s admission policies unconstitutional. Those who believe that Justices should base their analyses on law rather than group loyalties were appropriately critical. Both, however missed some really ugly trees for the metaphorical forest, as Jackson injected false statistics into her dissent. They were, of course—we’re used to this phenomenon—uncritically accepted and used in subsequent media propaganda condemning the decision.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in part,

“Beyond campus, the diversity that UNC pursues for the betterment of its students and society is not a trendy slogan. It saves lives. For marginalized communities in North Carolina, it is critically important that UNC and other area institutions produce highly educated professionals of color. Research shows that Black physicians are more likely to accurately assess Black patients’ pain tolerance and treat them accordingly (including, for example, prescribing them appropriate amounts of pain medication). For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.”

Wow! Racial discrimination saves lives! The problem, or rather problems, are that as Jay Greene of the Daily Signal points out, 1) the claim that survival rates for black newborns double when they have black physicians attending is based on a misleading analysis 2) Even if the results of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study were as Justice Jackson claimed, they are unbelievable and 3) even if Jackson had described the results of the study accurately, and even if those results were credible, they still wouldn’t justify the use of racial preferences in medical school admissions.

Continue reading →

It’s The Wuhan Virus, And Attention Should Be Paid

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Boy, have I gotten a lot of grief for never capitulating to the thought-control demand that the contagion responsible for the pandemic, the lockdown, my business losing 45% of its income for two years (and counting), my sister wearing a mask in her car, seven-inning baseball games, an untrustworthy 2020 election and more be called the anodyne name “Covid 19,” or just “Covid” to its mask-obsessed friends. Here at Ethics Alarms, it is the Wuhan virus and always has been, because it was obvious from the start that China’s province is where this disaster (and its equally disastrous cover-up) started, but as usual of late, the mainstream media and progressives decided to use the adoption of a fair and informative name that ensures permanent responsibility, if not accountability, for millions of deaths and the savaging of the US economy for its favorite hobby of race-baiting. Yes, once again, the truth was racist, and censorship necessary because assholes incapable of rational thought would abuse facts to justify beating up and terrorizing anyone who looked Asian.

Continue reading →

Great Moments In Unethical Polling Manipulation: Grinnell College On “Gender-Affirming Care”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

We should expect activists, politicians and journalists to engage in rampant deceit in their use of language to confuse and mislead the public. The abortion debate, a complex and ethically crucial societal controversy that requires clarity and honesty, has been just about permanently distorted by the routine use of deliberately deceptive cover-terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” One should we able to rely on educational and research institutions to be careful to avoid this malady, but as polls prove repeatedly, we can’t.

Continue reading →

Ethics Villains: House Democrats

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Is there any political issue in American history that was more corrupting than abortion rights? Based on last week’s House vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, I don’t think so.

The bill stated that any infant born alive after an attempted abortion is a “legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States.” Doctors would be required to care for those infants as a “reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive.” How could anyone who doesn’t endorse legalized infanticide oppose that measure? [You can read the whole bill here.]

Yet the bill only narrowly passed, 220-210, because every Democrat except two voted “no.” (We all know that the Democratic Senate will block passage anyway.)  Only one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, voted for the bill with one other Democrat, Rep. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, courageously voting “present.” All of the rest, totally in thrall to the most extreme pro-abortion activists, want doctors to have the option of dashing out the brains of a living new-born who has survived an abortion against the nearest wall. Don’t think they won’t: doctors who botch abortions get sued. But hey, no baby, no problem! Continue reading →

The Bottom Line On The Moderna Booster Scandal: Apologies Please, And Now

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

It is nice to see CNN practicing journalism again. though.

A CNN report published yesterday revealed that the pharmaceutical company Moderna withheld data from both U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine advisers last summer pointing to “the possibility that the updated booster might not be any more effective at preventing Covid-19 infections than the original shots.”

The booster’s impact on actual infections, based on trials, indicated that “1.9% of the study participants who received the original booster became infected” while “those who got the updated bivalent vaccine – the one that scientists hoped would work better – a higher percentage, 3.2%, became infected.” The FDA authorized the Moderna bivalent vaccine on August 31, and did not publicize the previously omitted infection data until September 13. Continue reading →

Unethical Quote Of The Month: Rep. Ilhan Omar

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

“I think it would be [hypocritical] for [Speaker McCarthy] to remove, you know, the first African-born on the subcommittee on Africa on the Foreign Affairs Committee, where I’ve had the opportunity to not only represent my constituents but the voice of so many people who have never had a voice on the Foreign Affairs Committee.”

—Rep. Omar (D-Minn), playing the race card, as usual.

I take no stand at this point regarding the tit-for-tat move of Speaker Kevin McCarthy to pull Omar from the the Foreign Affairs Committee, presumably because of her frequent anti-Semitic outbursts. The Democratic House had kicked Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene off the Budget and as well as the  Education and Labor Committees in February 2021 over her comments pushing conspiracy theories about Jews. McCarthy is simply applying the standards Nancy Pelosi established. (Both Greene and Omar are unethical Congresswomen who embarrass the institution as well as the districts that elected them.)

However, Omar’s claim that “historic” officials (translation: some combination of black, foreign-born, female, Muslim, gay or trans) should be held to different (translation: lower) standards of conduct than others is, while wholly predictable,  unethical by definition, as well as self-serving, discriminatory, and nauseating.

But that’s Rep. Omar.

And her party.

And the progressives who make up most of the membership of that party.

And the various tribal groups they cluster in.

Does The Medical Profession Think That “Shoulder Width Reduction Surgery” Is The Ethical Practice Of Medicine?

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Shoulder width reduction is an extreme form of surgery designed to allow men transitioning to glorious womanhood look the way they feel. The procedure involves a surgeon sawing sections of the patient’s clavicle off and  fusing the remaining pieces back together with a metal plate. The surgery generally costs  thousands of dollars;  you can see it being performed here. There is also the reverse procedure for women who have decided to be male, or who want to look like Joan Crawford.

Once upon a time, before the medical profession was completely perverted by fear of lawsuits and the love of money, surgery that served no functional purpose was regarded as unethical. The gold mine that is cosmetic surgery changed all that, along with greasing many slippery slopes. If a teenage girl’s parents felt she would be more popular and happy with a cute little turned up nose, then that was sufficient benefit to make the surgery ethical. Next it was just a few slips down the slope to similarly justify surgery to give some whacko pointy ears like an elf, or a split tongue like a lizard, or to make someone look like a doll…

Or a cat….

Continue reading →

The NY “Body-Snatchers” Case: Why Do Good People Do Bad Things? It May Be That They Aren’t The Good People They Think They Are….

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

I intended to write a post after seeing Tony Dye’s 2010 documentary “Body Snatchers of New York” a few years ago. Through a series of interviews with law enforcement officials, lawyers, journalists and victims, it tells the story of a sensational case out of Brooklyn in 2006 where a former dentist and his associates operating a company called Biomedical Tissue Services of Fort Lee, New Jersey, conspired with funeral homes to steal human bone and skin from dead bodies. The tissue was then sold to various processing companies to make medical products, including dental implants and spinal disc replacements. These, in turn were sold to hospitals to be transplanted.

In some cases, the families of the deceased individuals were told that their loved ones had been cremated when in truth they had been carved up and skinned. One such body belonged to the late Masterpiece Theater host, Allistair Cooke. Biomedical Tissue Services made as much as $250,000 from processing each body. In addition to lying to families and not receiving consent to distribute tissue and bone from corpses, the company also routinely sold body remnants from dead individuals who had suffered from drug and alcohol addiction, cancer, AIDS, hepatitis, and other diseases that compromised the safety of the tissue without informing their purchasers, tissue recipients or their doctors.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce Flashback, Abortion Division: Pete Buttigieg

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

This is the second time I’ve used that photo in a post this week. It’s a third-trimester fetus, and it’s up because it is important to remember what we’re talking about, or, in this case, what current Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was talking about in his usual intellectually lazy, ethically-inert manner in a 2019 exchange with Chris Wallace.

Most of my Facebook friends block me from seeing their political blatherings because I have a tendency to call them on badly-reasoned pandering to the woke, and they can’t handle it. They just want “likes” on their regurgitated talking points and usually aren’t equipped to defend them. I was just scrolling down to see if anyone had left a substantive post on my feed, and to my horror, an old friend whom I regard as generally sharp and perceptive had tracked down the interview (from a Fox News town hall) and pronounced it “the only acceptable answer” regarding late term abortions. Here is what he called “acceptable”:

Whereupon my head exploded.

As he has proven repeatedly, Buttigieg is a facile, intellectually lazy, platitude-mouthing pandering phony, and this is vintage Pete. In matters of law and lives, the government draws the line: that’s called “civilization.” The “fundamental question” in late term abortion is how society balances the competing interests of two parties. “I trust women to draw the line when it’s their own health” is a deceitful and offensive statement, ducking the issue and muddying vital considerations. No one, and no law, denies a woman the right to place her own survival over that of her unborn child. The question of balancing interests only comes into play when the mother’s “health” involves lesser factors that might reasonably be considered subordinate to another human life. “I trust women” is just flag-waving: I don’t trust anyone to make a decision involving their personal interests and the competing interests of someone else. Such decision-makers have a conflict of interest; that why we have laws.

Tellingly, Buttigieg tries to escape dealing with substance by dismissing late-term abortions as “hypotheticals.” They aren’t hypothetical, they are real, and they are important because ending a pregnancy when the fetus is viable compels consideration of what abortions involve Extreme pro-abortion activists really hate that. It is hard to pretend the baby isn’t there in late-term abortions, and pretending there is no life being ended is crucial to the “choice” deception. Continue reading →

Ethics Signs And Portents, 5/10/2022: Langella’s Lament, Kellogg’s Indoctrination, Lightfoot’s Incitement, And Yellen’s idiocy.

/ Jack Marshall / 35 Comments

That photo of the dueling signs in my neighborhood (Alexandria, VA) is from the Washington Post last week. Ethics Alarms first noted this obnoxious phenomenon here in 2016, with several updates since.

That’s some scoop there, Lois Lane!

1. Now here’s an even more obnoxious sign of the times: cereal boxes presuming to indoctrinate kids. What possible excuse is there for this, on the side of this Kellogg’s box:

I don’t care about the box design or the cereal: it’s a product, and if a parent wants to buy it, swell. It’s a marketing gimmick. Yuck, but so what? However, this, on the side panel, steps over the line into the culture wars and indoctrination. Not on my breakfast table…

2. Oh, fine: the Treasury Secretary is an idiot as well as an Ethics Dunce. Janet Yellen is now on record as endorsing one of the more offensive and cretinous arguments in favor of Roe v. Wade: snuffing out more children in the womb is good for the economy! “I believe that eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades,” she said in response to a question at a Senate Banking Committee hearing. Continue reading →