Posts Tagged ‘Issue’

Carnegie Council Presents “Ethics & International Affairs” Summer 2014 Issue Featuring Articles on Human Rights, Drones, and Much More

Ethics & International Affairs Journal

(PRWEB) June 16, 2014

Carnegie Council’s journal “Ethics & International Affairs” is pleased to announce the publication of its summer 2014 issue.

This issue features essays by Roger Berkowitz on “Drones and the Question of ‘The Human'” and Alan Sussman on the philosophical foundations of human rights; a special centennial roundtable on “The Future of Human Rights,” featuring Beth A. Simmons, Philip Alston, James W. Nickel, Jack Donnelly, and Andrew Gilmour; a review essay by Jens Bartelson on empire and sovereignty; and book reviews.

The entire issue is free online for a limited time.

Go to http://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org

ESSAYS

Drones and the Question of “The Human”

Roger Berkowitz

In our headlong embrace of drone technology, we are forgetting to ask two basic questions: What is a drone? And what does it mean that the once obvious boundary separating human and machine intelligence is being diminished?

Why Human Rights Are Called Human Rights

Alan Sussman

No one can engage in commerce when deprived of liberty or autonomy. No one can create or imagine or love when consumed by fear. We need human rights to permit ourselves the possibility of being human.

ROUNDTABLE: THE FUTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Future of the Human Rights Movement

Beth A. Simmons

More than twenty years have passed since the end of the Cold War, and the time when people spoke in triumphal terms of the global success of Western values is now a fading memory. The modern human rights movement is at a critical juncture in its history.

Against a World Court for Human Rights

Philip Alston

A World Court is not just an idea whose time has not yet come. The very idea fundamentally misconceives the nature of the challenges confronting an international community dedicated to eliminating major human rights violations

What Future for Human Rights?

James W. Nickel

The field of human rights covers many different beliefs, norms, institutions, and activities, and these may well have different futures. Some may flourish while others wither—along with the social movements that support them.

State Sovereignty and International Human Rights

Jack Donnelly

An increasingly robust international politics of human rights will provide valuable support to domestic advocates, help to impede backsliding, and in at least a few cases decisively tip the balance in favor of human rights at moments of transition.

The Future of Human Rights: A View from the United Nations

Andrew Gilmour

It is with respect to human rights that the UN has experienced some of its greatest shortcomings. The new “Rights up Front” plan may help remedy that deficiency.

REVIEW ESSAY

From Empire to Sovereignty—and Back?

Jens Bartelson

How do empires and sovereign states relate, conceptually as well as historically? It is no coincidence that many historians of political thought are in the process of rewriting the history of sovereignty in light of its changing status.

REVIEWS

Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World by John Broome

Review by Dale Jamieson

This book greatly contributes to our attempts to meet the challenge of climate change and to answer the difficult questions that it raises.

Global Justice and Avant-Garde Political Agency by Lea Ypi

Review by Tom Bailey

In this book, Ypi proposes that theory begin with a specific political conflict, diagnose the failure of existing practices and norms to resolve it, and, in this light, develop better practices and norms.

Fairness in Practice: A Social Contract for a Global Economy by Aaron James

Review by Simon Cotton

This book brings political economy, international relations, and development economics into conversation with moral philosophy, making a critical contribution to the ethics of globalization.

Founded by Andrew Carnegie in 1914, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs is an educational, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that produces lectures, publications, and multimedia materials on the ethical challenges of living in a globalized world. To learn more, go to http://www.carnegiecouncil.org.

©Copyright 1997-, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.

Disability Rights Organizations Led By Not Dead Yet Issue Open Letter Criticizing Respecting Choices Program for Bias Against Feeding Tubes and Breathing Devices

Rochester, NY (PRWEB) December 20, 2013

Led by Not Dead Yet, eleven national and twenty-three state and local disability organizations, as well as individuals, have sent an open letter to Respecting Choices, a prominent advance care planning program operated by Gundersen Health Systems in LaCrosse, Wisconsin. The letter criticizes two “Fact Sheets” distributed nationally by the program because they discourage people from choosing to use feeding tubes, “BiPAP” breathing devices and ventilators, despite the fact that the alternative is usually death.

The documents, entitled “Tube Feeding: What You Should Know” and “Help With Breathing: What You Should Know”, have been posted with permission on the website of an Ohio hospice. They are sold on the Respecting Choices website for use in advance care planning.

The Gundersen documents express a strong bias against long-term use of feeding tubes, BiPAPs and ventilators, discouraging health care consumers and medical professionals from using these life-sustaining devices except for short-term recovery and not as part of a viable disability lifestyle. The Not Dead Yet letter was signed by twenty-five individuals who have successfully used one or more of these devices for years, and in some cases for decades.

“By their own explicit terms, these advance care planning documents are not only for people who are close to death no matter what they do, but also for people who could live a long time if they choose to use these health care devices,” said Diane Coleman, president and CEO of Not Dead Yet who has used a BiPAP breathing device at night for twelve years.

Cathy Ludlum of Manchester, Connecticut, who uses both a feeding tube and BiPAP, was involved in drafting the letter. “Feeding tubes and breathing devices are portrayed in these so-called fact sheets as uncomfortable and ineffective, especially for those of us with long-term, progressive conditions,” said Ludlum, a leader of Second Thoughts Connecticut. “But I have lived many healthy and happy years with the help of a feeding tube and a BiPAP.” Both Coleman and Ludlum have neuromuscular disabilities.

“Not every technology works for everyone, and people should certainly make their own choices,” Ludlum added. “But choice is only possible when people receive full, accurate, and unbiased information.”

The disability advocates hope that the letter will serve as a first step in a process to resolve the their concerns. They call on the Respecting Choices program to take four steps to address the disability community concerns:

    Stop marketing and distributing “Tube Feeding: What You Should Know” and “Help With Breathing: What You Should Know.”
    Send a formal notice to all known purchasers and users of these documents directing that they no longer be used due to their misleading nature and offering to refund any related payments received for their purchase.
    Issue a press release and post an announcement on the Respecting Choices website about the “recall” of these products due to their misleading, biased and harmful content.
    Convene a Task Force to consider other corrective action steps that must be taken to remedy the harm done by these documents. This Task Force should be composed of a majority of individuals who use these technologies, as well as suppliers and professionals with significant knowledge and experience with their long-term use.

National organizations that signed onto the letter include the American Association of People With Disabilities, Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Disability Rights Center, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Little People of America, National Council on Independent Living, Not Dead Yet, National Disability Rights Network, The Arc of the United States and United Spinal.

©Copyright 1997-, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.