Really, Maine?
Well, it looks like Maine’s Question 1 passed with 53% of the vote. I have to say, Maine, I’m disappointed in you. I had so much hope when you were the first state to lift the ban on same-sex marriage through the legislature rather than the courts. But no.
This would be so much easier to stomach if I had ever heard a single coherent reason why there’s any downside to legal same-sex marriage. At all. (And no, “it’s just icky to me” does not count.)
Questionable Ethics #3
Welcome back to another edition of Questionable Ethics, where we demonstrate to Randy Cohen and the rest of the New York Times Magazine staff that ethics aren’t something you can simply decree. Let’s get right to it; here’s this week’s column and here’s the first letter.
My daughter, in her late 20s, has a same-sex partner. Most of our very large, very Catholic family knows this except my husband’s parents.They have a summer home, and their rule is that nonmarried children and their opposite-sex partners may not share a bedroom. My daughter and her partner often claim a small room for two, and her grandparents regard the girls, who live together, as good friends. My younger daughter thinks it unfair that she and her boyfriend must sleep in separate rooms. We have a family reunion coming up. Should I say something to my in-laws about my older daughter? NAME WITHHELD
Cohen says that it’s unethical for the writer to out her daughter without her knowledge or consent (unless some crazy monster threatens the globe, but can only be stopped by a lesbian). That seems straightforward enough. Then he goes on to assert that the daughter should “adhere to that rule or find another place to stay.” Sounds like a reasonable call, but what does it mean to adhere to the rule?
Perhaps the daughter and the girlfriend ought to admit that they are “nonmarried” and claim separate rooms. This will be confusing to everyone, since they have been sharing a room in the past. It effectively forces them to come out to the grandparents, which we’ve agreed is an unethical thing to do. (Ditto if they opt out and find their own room. What for? everyone will ask.) Additionally, the odds are pretty small that this family lives in a state where it is possible that this couple can currently become married. So they can’t stay in separate rooms as a nonmarried couple, and they can’t share a room as a married couple. It’s hardly ethical to compel a person to comply with a paradoxical rule like this.
Maybe this daughter simply can’t win with her grandparents. They disapprove of her sexual orientation, they disapprove of sex before marriage, they disapprove of same sex marriage. Yet she is (I assume) in a caring, committed, long-term relationship with someone she wants her extended family to get to know. At some point, one may certainly argue, the daughter is justified in defying rules which are oppressive and unfair. The spirit of the law her grandparents have laid down is that committed relationships are important, and promiscuity is to be discouraged. She is obeying the spirit of the law, and harming no one by ignoring the letter.
On a different course, one might point out that it’s unlikely the grandparents have no idea that these two young women are a couple. They’ve lived together for years. The friend always comes along on family trips, and is coming to a family reunion. I’ve never had that kind of relationship with a roommate, and I don’t know any people who have. One could suggest that the most ethical thing to do is to encourage the daughter to explain the situation to her grandparents, and allow the grandparents to decide which of their “family values” is most important: no homosexuality, no sex before marriage, or actually valuing your family.
Letter number two:
I locked my bicycle to a fence outside my building a few times over two weeks. One morning, it was gone. My landlady had the police remove it, claiming she tried to alert the owner by letting the air out of the tires. She left no note. At the precinct, an officer said she told them the bike had been there for three months. Fortunately, I reclaimed it undamaged. Unfortunately, the police cut the locks: replacement costs are $150. Should my landlady cover that? NAME WITHHELD, NEW YORK
Cohen claims that while the landlady had the legal right to have the bike removed, the ethical thing is for her to replace the broken locks and apologize. However, several points of fact are left ambiguous here. Perhaps they were trimmed out of the letter before publication. I am left wondering: does the fence count as part of the rental property? If so, then surely the writer is entitled to use it, just as one would have use of a lawn or a driveway that came along with a rental. Unless there was a clearly signed and established rule that bikes were not to be chained to the fence, it’s no more ethical (or legal) for the landlady to take the bike than it would be for her to go into the writer’s apartment and walk away with the television set. Of course, the entire building is technically the landlady’s property, but these rights of (reasonable) use are what is signed over in the lease.
If the fence is somehow distinctly part of the landlady’s property—for example, the writer rents a room or two in the landlady’s house, and all the other rooms in the house are considered solely hers—then it would appear that she acted completely within her rights and behaved appropriately. If you leave a bunch of your personal stuff on your neighbor’s porch without informing them, you effectively gave them your stuff. They have no obligation, legally or ethically, to tape a sign on it and wait ten days to see if anyone claimed it. That would actually seem kind of crazy. They are free to throw it away if they want to. The landlady’s actions could be seen as analogous to that sort of situation.
In the absence of answers to these questions, I don’t see how it’s possible to determine who is at fault, and who owes what to whom, and I don’t see how Randy Cohen can purport to have such authoritative knowledge on what is ethical here.
Not in their control
I’ve been doing some thinking since I read this post over on Friendly Atheist. Hemant Mehta reported on a vote in Goshen, IN to add sexual orientation and gender identity to its list of qualities protected in its anti-discrimination laws. They didn’t—the proposal failed 4-3.
In response to a man who asked in a local news interview, “Where do we draw the line?” Hemant said:
You draw the line in favor of helping people who are being discriminated against for things that are not in their control. That’s what the moral thing to do would be.
It really got me thinking about how some people make the crazy argument that by allowing same-sex marriage, the government is endorsing pedophilia and all sorts of other actually objectionable things. That argument is still crazy, but Hemant’s statement gave me a little bit of insight into where that argument might be coming from. (I say “might” because I doubt that many people are actually thinking it through to this degree. There is some chance that what I’m about to explain is happening on a subconscious level, and in any case, I think having logically sound reasons for our beliefs is important, even if no one has noticed a hole in your logic yet. But I’m getting ahead of myself.)
The point it sounds like Hemant is making is that if a quality is innate to you, you shouldn’t be treated poorly because of it. This is almost true, but it raises some big questions about free will. What about people who were “just born with” violent tendencies or compulsive urges to steal? Is it discrimination to charge them with assault or robbery? In the limited context of this story, it’s being used to say that LGBT orientations are something that people are born with, and nobody chooses what they are attracted to or what gender they identify with. But what about people who are attracted to young children? It’s easy to imagine that they didn’t choose that attraction, any more than people choose what body type or hair color appeals to them most. I have no idea what goes on in the mind of a pedophile, but it seems reasonable to contend that they “didn’t choose it.”
Of course, even if you are sexually attracted to children, we believe you have an obligation not to act on those desires, and it’s okay for society to punish you if you do. And if you were born a violent person (whatever that means), it’s okay for society to punish you if you allow yourself to act on your violent inclinations. But! But! protests the Religious Right. Can’t we make the same argument about homosexuals?
And there we have our problem. Because you can make the same argument. But that was never the real argument in the first place. The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia isn’t that one is innate and the other isn’t, it’s that one is fine and one is bad. There’s nothing actually wrong with homosexuality; it doesn’t hurt anyone in any way. Two individuals of the same gender freely consenting to be in a romantic relationship with each other? That’s great for both of them, and as good for the rest of society as every other stable relationship. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that even if someone has certain brain chemicals that make them want to molest children, acting on those desires still constitutes coercion and assault, and it’s completely acceptable to punish them.
When we make laws about how people should be treated, we have to think about what is good for society (or at least, what society is indifferent to) and what is bad for society. The innateness of a particular quality only comes into play insofar as it means we have to be more careful to be right when we come to a conclusion about its goodness or badness. (See: strict scrutiny.) I don’t know if it’s possible to have a public discussion about discrimination against homosexuals on these terms, but it feels more intellectually honest than simply repeating, “That’s just who they are!”
New York isn’t special
Well, it looks like it’s my turn to rip on the New York Times editorial page. Two days ago the editorial staff put together this piece they call “The Dairy Quandary,” about extra subsidies for dairy farmers. It doesn’t seem like much of a quandary to me; I think they’re really reaching in order to justify conclusions they know can’t be right. They write:
We do not like agricultural subsidies or price supports, and we have opposed dairy subsidy programs. They tend to push farmers in the wrong directions, and they blunt the impact of market forces on farms. But there is a special argument to be made in this case.
What’s the special argument? They heart New York.
Nearly 2.5 million acres in New York state are directly tied to dairy farming. The milk crisis is severe enough to put many farms at risk, raising the potential of abandoned farmland susceptible to development. … This kind of dairy is a relatively benign use of the land, a means of protecting open space, a form of stewardship that is more acceptable than most others. We think it is right to keep the state’s dairy farmers on their farms, even if we are not happy with this way of going about it.
Nice try. There’s nothing different about New York dairy farmers that makes subsidies okay in their case. They’re still getting pushed in the wrong direction, encouraged to keep farming because it’s artificially profitable. Market forces are being blunted just the same. But it’s okay this time, they say, because … open space should be protected? People are using large open fields to produce commodities that are worth less than they cost, but that’s okay because they’re preserving those open fields! Silly me, I thought we had some state and federal organizations that kept an eye on that sort of thing. And, erm, does this really count as preserving open space? Sure, there aren’t any office buildings there, but there are, you know, cows. And the crop fields get sprayed with pesticides. And they’re surrounded by barbed-wire fences. It’s not like New Yorkers get to hike through the dairy farms to appreciate nature. (Also: do they really mean to imply that it’s important to preserve open space in New York, but not in Missouri or Nebraska? I know it might not feel like it from Manhattan, but New York is not that short on open space.)
It gets even stranger when they start parroting arguments from the pro-subsidy handbook:
Feed costs, the recession, a change in consumers’ milk consumption have all played a part in the dairy crisis, which affects organic farms as well as conventional ones. Like most commodity farmers, dairy farmers are essentially locked into the one product they have invested in producing, making it very hard to change quickly.
Right, “like most commodity farmers”—so why suggest that dairy farmers are a special case here? They agree that “[change] will have to come — including a revamping, if not a dismantling, of the maze of dairy price supports.” The bottom line is that that change will feel quick whenever it happens. Subsidies, even short-term ones, just push the timeline out to next quarter, or next year, or a couple years from now. (And when we get there, we’ll need more “short-term” subsidies.) The New York Times editorial board knows the correct policy on farm subsidies, and they should have the courage to advocate for it even when it hits a little closer to home.
Health care and crazy people
I am far from the only one who is kind of baffled by the recent spurt of crazy nutjobs showing up at town hall meetings and likening the Democratic health care plan to some sort of secret Nazi plot. Lots of people have tried to explain it, and I think a lot of the explanations have a bit of truth to them. There is a segment of society (largely white, rural, religious, etc.—typical Republican base) that is losing the power that they recently had, and they’ve bought into a mythology where they’ve always had that power and deserve to retain it. (It’s the “real America” stuff, along with older things like praise for “the heartland.”) To some extent, any remotely liberal policy Obama chose to start out his administration pushing for would have led to claims that he was “stealing our country” and things of that sort.
I think, though, that health care reform—particularly the way it’s being done now—is an issue particularly favorable to conspiracy theorists and nutjobs. That’s because it’s incredibly complicated. In some ways, if Obama was actually proposing nationalized or single-payer healthcare, it’d be better in this respect. Those are huge changes to the system, but at least they’re straightforward and easy to understand. Instead, what we’re getting is a messy patchwork system of fixes for the status quo. People are confused. Telling a crowd of people that you’re going to set up a “health care exchange” doesn’t really clear up the confusion. Saying that instead of a public option you’ll have a “health care cooperative” doesn’t help either. These phrases are stand-ins for complicated, messy policy proposals. Even if someone was willing to take the time to explain it, they’d be incapable, because there are several different plans floating around and no final proposal. Each plan differs on huge issues of policy. The same piece of policy might be good in one plan and bad in another, depending on what other policy decisions are made elsewhere in the bill.
I understand the general outlines of the proposals, but I definitely don’t understand all the details. Even I am not willing to put in the time necessary to understand things well enough to make a truly intelligent judgment on the matter. I support the reforms for two simple reasons. First, I know very well that the current system is awful. Second, I trust those proposing the reforms much more than I trust the opponents. Those reasons aren’t going to be enough to win over enough of the population to push borderline senators into voting yes. Democrats need to agree on some plan that at least 55 of them in the Senate are ready to vote for. Then, they need to consolidate all the proposals, come up with more clear ways to explain what they’re proposing, and really go out campaigning for it. If the public doesn’t know what’s going on, some are going to tune out, some are going to revert to partisan predispositions, and some are going to go batshit insane. That is not a good way to make policy.
Inside an abortion clinic
You have to read this breathtaking piece from Esquire. It’s eight pages long, but please, bookmark it and read it when you have the time. It’s about Dr. Warren Hern, who is apparently the last American doctor specializing in late abortions. The reporter spent some time shadowing him, not long after the murder of Dr. George Tiller, another late abortion provider as well as Dr. Hern’s friend. It’s very vivid, and lends a perspective I think we should all have when we’re talking about abortion law. Take this excerpt, for example:
The patients can be upsetting too. They’re under terrible stress, of course, but sometimes they come in very angry. One had conjoined twins and would have died giving birth, but she exploded when he told her she couldn’t smoke in the office. And some treat him with contempt and disgust [Z's note: italics here indicates quotation of Dr. Hern], usually the ones who have been directly involved in antiabortion activities. They hate all abortion except for their special case. One even said they should all be killed. Only fourteen, she came with her mother. What brings you here? he asked. I have to have an abortion. Why? I’m not old enough to have a baby. But you told the counselor we should all be killed? Yes, you should all be killed. Why? Because you do abortions. Me too? Yes, you should be killed too. Do you want me killed before or after I do your abortion? Before.
He told her to leave. Her mother was very upset. But he isn’t an abortion-dispensing machine. He’s a physician. He’s a person.
Or this:
The abortionist comes in, remembers that the U. S. marshals don’t like him to use this room because the window is too exposed, and walks right back out. You follow, asking about the patients who were supposed to see Dr. Tiller.
The patient I just finished was very unhappy to see me. I think they are very antiabortion. She had a fetal abnormality, and she and her husband are just devastated. Stuff like that.
What kind of fetal abnormalities are we talking about?
One was Down syndrome, another was a lethal brain abnormality along with a lethal heart abnormality. Another one had a catastrophic — we’re not talking about cleft lip, we are talking about cleft face. There was no face.
The takeaway message, I think, is that this is an immensely complicated issue with no easy, pleasant solutions. No normal person enjoys the prospect of an abortion on its own, but many different people still find Dr. Hern’s services invaluable. If you consider yourself pro-choice, you should read this to get a feel of the reality of the situation. An abortion isn’t a magic spell that makes a fetus disappear; it can be devastating and tragic for everyone involved. If you consider yourself pro-life, you should read this to understand the difficult places that women, that couples, find themselves in when they go to see abortion doctors and how they are helped by these doctors. You should understand how the hateful anti-abortion rhetoric fuels the fire of violence, and forces doctors and their families and employees to live in constant fear.
I’m sorry to leave you with mostly these big blockquotes, but I just can’t add much to this article. It speaks for itself. Go read it, whoever you are.
Guest post at The Big Stick
I have a guest post up at The Big Stick today, on Judge Sonia Sotomayor and her comments about making better decisions as a “wise Latina woman.” Check it out!
GAO on DSHEA
Sorry about the acronyms; just wanted to keep things brief and to-the-point. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report [PDF] recommending increased oversight of dietary supplements. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) has allowed many pseudoscientific products to hide their fraud behind a disclaimer. I’ve discussed this issue here before.
Orac pointed out, I think correctly, that the GAO’s recommendations, while well-intentioned, are “mere Band-Aids on a sucking chest wound.” Nevertheless, it’s nice to see that the government is paying attention to problems like this one, and I’ll take a Band-Aid for starters.
Vigilante justice
The ever-fabulous Dinosaur Comics raises some poignant legal issues today. Here’s one panel for a teaser. Go read the rest!
Oh, dear
It seems Italy just wrapped up their own version of the Terri Schiavo case. From BBC News:
Eluana Englaro, the Italian woman at the centre of a right-to-die debate, has died, the health minister has said.
Maurizio Sacconi made the announcement in Italy’s Senate as politicians were debating a law that would have forced doctors to continue feeding her.
Ms Englaro, 38, had been in a persistent vegetative state since being injured in a car crash in 1992.
…Ms Englaro’s father, Beppino, had been battling with the courts in Italy to let his daughter die since 1999, insisting it was her wish.
It’s still a sad story. People so obsessed with their own outlook on life that they assume everyone else must share it, and worse that it’s appropriate to legally mandate it. But that’s old news. Rather than rehash it, I’d like to call your attention to this choice bit at the end of the BBC article.
Italy does not allow euthanasia. Patients have a right to refuse treatment, but they are not allowed to give advance directions on the treatment they wish to receive if they become unconscious.
Are. You. Kidding. Me. They agree with the principle that patients should be legally able to refuse treatment. They’re just not okay with allowing those patients to put that refusal down on paper, to remove ambiguity. In other words, patients have the right to refuse treatment, except for the vast majority of cases in which patients might want to refuse treatment.
Oh, dear.