Posted on 09/04/2009 5:07:08 AM PDT by angkor
Journal of the American Medical Association
Vol. 302 No. 1, July 1, 2009
The Obligation to Participate in Biomedical Research
G. Owen Schaefer, BA; Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD; Alan Wertheimer, PhD
JAMA. 2009;302(1):67-72.
Abstract: The current prevailing view is that participation in biomedical research is above and beyond the call of duty. While some commentators have offered reasons against this, we propose a novel public goods argument for an obligation to participate in biomedical research. Biomedical knowledge is a public good, available to any individual even if that individual does not contribute to it. Participation in research is a critical way to support an important public good. Consequently, all have a duty to participate. The current social norm is that individuals participate only if they have a good reason to do so. The public goods argument implies that individuals should participate unless they have a good reason not to. Such a shift would be of great aid to the progress of biomedical research, eventually making society significantly healthier and longer lived.
In any case the logic revealed in the above abstract demonstrates the underlying belief of Ezekiel J. Emanuel and his Stalinist cohorts that your body belongs to the state, so you'd better let them do whatever experimentation he and his colleagues deem necessary.
It is "your duty," you serf.
There is a very serious and very twisted logic driving this latter-day Dr. Menegle, the self-professed "medical ethicist."
Dr. Mengele big time. For those that know the name, but not his history, look up memgele and the experiments he performed. SAME REASON as listed for emmanual, for the public good.
Hey,who knows? Maybe you can even get his right to vote reinstated in the bargain.
ping
I’m sure that the real Dr. Mengele (like Rahm Emanuel’s brother) also thought of his medical experimentation on human beings to be very “ethical.”
Serial killers - whether loners or Nazi exterminators or the Khmer Rouge - *always* think of themselves as meeting some kind of bizarro whackadoodle “higher calling.”
Sounds like what the Japs said to the Chinese during WWII
Good catch.
This needs to go viral in the MSM.
Although I don’t believe there is any obligation to participate in biomedical research, I think it would be great if people would become organ donors, voluntarily, for the good of society.
The vast majority of his publications are ‘social science / bioethics’ papers that involve no hypothesis testing etc., and are essentially opinion pieces. So, he falls into that category of physicians that in my view have the least credibility in their views on how the system should run. Specifically, this is the category of physicians who have little clinical exposure to patients, if any, who don't take call and work hard as actual physicians, but who by virtue of their choice to pursue non-clinical ‘social’ aspects of medicine have a soap box from which to push their personal views. To me, many (but in fairness certainly not all) of these people are personally lazy, and have found a nice ‘scam’ that allows them to make money, call themselves physicians, puff their chest out as ‘do gooders’, while at the same time avoiding the hard work in the trenches.
People like Emanuel are arrogant in their belief that THEY know what is best for the world, and this arrogance quite frequently blinds them to the truth. They don't reflect deeply or honestly enough to realize that their crusade to force others to do what they think is right is actually self serving, selfish, and reflective of a degree of narcissism. They don't realize that ultimately all good comes voluntarily from the hearts and minds of individuals - individuals making their own choices based on their own consciences and their free will. Forcing views upon others never ends well.
If one knows the phenotype of this category of physicians, one can pretty much predict what they will say and what their policy recommendations will be. I would suggest to Dr. Emanuel that wisdom as a physician doesn't come as much from reading philosophy as it does from the self reflection that occurs in the middle of the night when you've just dealt with a dying patient you're trying to stop from dying, and when you are sitting alone, exhausted, drinking bad coffee out of a vending machine at some nursing station at 3am, wondering about that patient’s place in the world, and your own.
The bottom line is that those who want to dictate how others live are not the virtuous of the world, no matter how much they've deluded themselves that they are.
IMHO, if 'dr' Zeke favors medical experimentation on humans so much I suggest he start with his own family, like his brother Rahm and then his own wife & children (if he has any).
Or step up and volunteer himself. I can come up some 'biomedical experiments' to perform on him.
>>> I think it would be great if people would become organ donors, voluntarily, for the good of society. <<<<
Ditto, no doubt about that. Voluntarily.
That was a very fine comment, thanks for taking the time to write and post it.
I was going to indulge in some sloppy amateur psychology about Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel and his ethics, but I think you’ve said all that needs to be said.
Here is the url....http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/search?
FIRSTINDEX=10&quicksearch_submit.y=15&quicksearch_submit.x=11&fulltext=ezekiel+emanuel
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.