Faculty Bibliography

Debates over vaccine mandates raise intense emotions, as reflected in the current controversy over whether to mandate the vaccine against human papilloma virus (HPV), the virus that can cause cervical cancer. Public health ethics so far has failed to facilitate meaningful dialogue between the opposing sides. When stripped of its emotional charge, the debate can be framed as a contest between competing ethical values. This framework can be conceptualized graphically as a conflict between autonomy on the one hand, which militates against government intrusion, and beneficence, utilitarianism, justice, and nonmaleficence on the other, which may lend support to intervention. When applied to the HPV vaccine, this framework would support a mandate based on utilitarianism, if certain conditions are met and if herd immunity is a realistic objective.

Caplan states that no animal has provoked more ethical hair-pulling than the sheep when it comes to genetic engineering. First, it was Dolly who provoked so much controversy about the morality of cloning. He further says that the mixing of sheep and human cells is certain to set off heated ethical debate

Caplan discusses the controversy over the new cervical cancer vaccine. He asserts that the real reason for all the negative publicity is the vaccine's high price tag

The "Today" show spent considerable time cooing about the births of two sets of sextuplets in such a short period of time. The show jumped right into the lives of the Phoenix family. Thirty seconds did not elapse during story promos or actual coverage without the word "miracle" being invoked. The NBC program was hardly alone in going weak-kneed over the births of so many babies. CNN chimed in with "good news" reports on its "American Morning" program. TV coverage in Phoenix described the births as "gifts" and "bundles of joy." Stations helped the family raise money and collect diapers and clothes. The Minnesota media did not miss a chance to refer to their local sextuplets as "blessings."

All of this nonsense set the stage for the next big scare about cloning, which was fueled by the debate over federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Opponents of that funding found they got the greatest traction for their desire not to see federal funds spent by invoking the word "clone" over and over again. Funding embryonic stem cell research likely meant a pod person would move in next door, some high-profile Republican legislators as well as President Bush would lead you to believe

The fact that this book is not widely acknowledged as the classic that it is, that it does not occupy pride of place in any listing of the bioethics 'canon' is a pity. Because not only is the book a paradigm of clear writing, careful sourcing and thoughtful use of legal documents and oral histories, it is the story of the single most important event in the rise of bioethics to prominence in the years since the book appeared in 1981

ARTHUR L

[...]arguments like Glannon's are often made, but they quickly fail