Nesson here:
From Cyberlaw
Nesson here: cross post from evidence and eon, weaving wiki threads together
Contents |
april 24
leon cass, former chairman of bush's bioethics commission, argues for inarticulate repugnance as a basis for ethical constraints, kind of like the i know it when i see it standard for judging porn. our challenge is to get past repugnance.
- define law, a sytem by which govt arbitrates interpersonal disputes to moderate rules
- define philosophy, search for some sort of universal truth to help us explain our surroundings
- define religion, study of our relation to a higher power
- define ethics, looking in a mirror, trying to draw a line in the sand between right and wrong
- metaphysics studies existence, what does it mean to be a person
- epistemology studies knowledge,
- aesthetics , is all of ethics aesthetics, making nice out of moral dilemmas
a taxonomy that parses the ethics field.
belmont principles: respect for persons; beneficence; justice
what are we talking about. does it all come down to the yuk intuitive stopping place.
schiavo: are courts or legislature in the power position.
lauren, looking for comparators, con law, for removing support; unprecedented invasion by legislature into individuals right to control decisions of life; constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, whether temporal or end of life; this is a right of privacy; govt has to show a compelling state interest to invade that right. courts determine facts. this argument is independent of whether she is or is not in a vegetative state. what could possibly be said against this?
brenda, has written out her argument and reads it so fast that it's hard to follow. surrogate decision where there is no advance directive but where she has made known her wishes. was jeb bush's decision based on a kind of yuk factor, a kind of commutation; bioethical principle is one of personal autonomy.
laurie, con law for putting back the tube; failure to put it back will kill her thus ending her ability to choose! arguing that there is no clear and convincing evidence; who says, and who decides;
david, bioethics, there is a right to life in our culture, fight for life, symbol is crucial, jeb bush decides in the context of all of this.
bioethicists were trying to relate to emotion, whereas lawyers were appealing to rules.
legal arguments felt irrelevant, terry schiavo not dealt with as individual but as symbol.
march 22
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:31:28 -0500
To: "Einer Elhague"
From: Charles Nesson
Subject: Fwd: [allprof]: April 5 Petrie-Flom Panel-- Pandemics: Law,
Ethics and Governance
Einer, if i can be of any help to you in connection with this event please feel free to ask, and if not, no problem. you might consider formatting part of the event in the form of the fred friendly hypothetical and recording and projecting it through cambridge community television with berkman internet partnership riding bit torrent with bicycle and possum so that what we produce for our creative commons can be shared with the community of the net. bicycle and possum are open source programs that allow a user with computer tv and net to download bit torrents and view them on their tv screen.
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:38:27 -0500
Subject: [allprof]: April 5 Petrie-Flom Panel-- Pandemics: Law, Ethics and Governance
From: Catherine Claypoole <claypool@law.harvard.edu>
To: "allprof@lists.law.harvard.edu" <allprof@hlssun1.law.harvard.edu>
Cc: <bfain@law.harvard.edu>
The Petrie-Flom Center Presents:
Pandemics: Law, Ethics and Governance
Wednesday, April 5, 2006, 4:30-6:30 p.m., Pound Hall 102
Recent news about avian flu and the potential for disease to be spread through bioterrorism has raised concerns about how the world would respond to the next pandemic. What are the legal, ethical and governance issues surrounding vaccination, quarantine and other policies that governments might plan and implement in response? This panel features Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, David Fidler, of the Indiana University School of Law, and Daniel Markovits of Yale Law School, and will be moderated by Michelle Mello of the Harvard School of Public Health.
RSVP to petrie-flom@law.harvard.edu.
A webcast will be available at www.law.harvardedu/programs/petrie-flom/ < http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/petrie-flom/> following the event.
email with me may show up on my blog
unless privacy requested
< http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eon>
march 6
thank you doctornic for posting Human Animal Chimera Patent Rejected. i had missed how interesting this is. the issue of what is human reminds me of the issue of when does a fetus become a human being for purposes of murder statues, an issue that the heart of a manslaughter prosecution of a boston doctor who performed an abortion back in the seventies in the immediate wake of Roe v. Wade. the legal arguments offered in opposition to the issuance of the chimera patent are as fascinating as the strategy of the case. i look forward to further discussion.
march 1
are you aware of any student who would like to write a brief under my supervision to the New England Journal of Medicine governing board making the case for open access peer review, likewise to the membership, board and consuming public for Harvard Law Review.
february 22
Jonathan Zittrain's first blog post adds an element to our doctors-taking-detainees-to-the-brink-of-torture" discussion. Zittrain blogging promises to be a wonderful addition to blogspace. i encourage you to read and comment.
february 21
At 09:57 PM 2/19/2006, Mike Pykosz wrote:
Professor Nesson,
I am having trouble figuring out how to post a message on the Wiki. I emailed Dustin, but have not heard back from him. I was hoping you can explain to me how to write a post.
Thanks alot, and I am looking forward to class tomorrow,
Mike Pykosz
---
hi mike,
under "journals" on our biotech front page notice that your name. how did your name get there? someone (you?) clicked on "edit" at the top of the screen and typed in your name between double brackets. click on edit to see for yourself.
your name is a clickable link to a file which is yours to fill. your link is red while others are blue because your file is yet empty whereas the blue links lead to content
click on your name and wiki takes you to an empty editing box that invites your input. say hello in whatever way you wish. scroll to the bottom of the screen and "save page." the next time you go to the journals page your name will be blue.
-crn
message exchange with me may wind up blogged unless confidentiality requested
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/nesson/blog
- <)
==february 14== morning, valentine's day, new york times open beneath my laptop to harvard's president at odds again, just clicked past Connie Casey's face on eon thinking her oped responds to the biotech story front page of the business section, C1, about how world opinion has slowed the development of biogenetics.
At the outset of class 2: Please meet in groups of eight and discuss for fifteen minutes, than share for another fifteen, before we meet Teo Dagi.
february 13
So here i am with teo talking technology, ethics, process, patent, profits. promise to product, bench to bedside, drugs a business for everyone. his talk describes an environment in which we see biotech as the growing plant. How fragile it is, far enough out in the wilds of creating futures to be vulnerable to winds of public opinion, not so fundamental to powerful industry that pols and regulators will vote for it against the wishes of popular constituency. Big Pharma's business is sales, not research.
Biotech Winter in 2001, what caused it, what caused it to be over? is ther hope here of responsible constraint?
Drugs can be given which have no profitability, a striking idea. is there the hope of economy here?
february 8
Outrage is not sufficient to stem the pressure for human experimentation. The Nuremberg Code, if left for compliance to agents of institutions and companies that benefit from such experimentation, will be no more effective as a constraint than leaving issues of surveillance and torture to a lawyer chosen by a president who believes such practices are necessary to accomplish his mission. Law and codes, viewed from this perspective, are impediments to doing what must be done, used by an opposition consisting of political opponents, plaintiffs lawyers and rabble-rousing media, collectively seen as “enemy”.
