NeuroStar TMS Therapy Depression Treatment

Posted on by

NeuroStar is widely reimbursed by most commercial and government health plans, including Medicare and Tricare.

Select Type of Insurance Commercial Government Select Insurance Company Aetna Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield Blue Cross Blue Shield Federal Employee Program Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida Blue Cross Blue Shield of Hawaii (HMSA Hawaii Medical Services Association) Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont Blue Cross Blue Shield of Western New York (Under Health Now) Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming Blue Cross of Idaho Blue Shield of California Blue Shield of Northeastern New York (Under Health Now) Cahaba Government Benefit Administrators, LLC - Alabama Cahaba Government Benefit Administrators, LLC - Georgia Cahaba Government Benefit Administrators, LLC - Tennessee Capital Blue Cross CGS Administrators, LLC - Kentucky CGS Administrators, LLC - Ohio Cigna Community Care of Oklahoma Emblem Health First Coast Service Options, Inc. - Florida First Coast Service Options, Inc. - Virgin Islands Geisinger Health Plan Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC) for BCBS of Illinois Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC) for BCBS of Montana Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC) for BCBS of New Mexico Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC) for BCBS of Oklahoma Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC) for BCBS of Texas Health Net Health New England Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey Independence Blue Cross - Commercial Independence Blue Cross - Medicare Advantage Plans Independent Health Association Medicaid of Vermont MVP Healthcare NGS (National Government Services, Inc.) - Connecticut NGS (National Government Services, Inc.) - Ilinois NGS (National Government Services, Inc.) - Maine NGS (National Government Services, Inc.) - Massachusetts NGS (National Government Services, Inc.) - Minnesota NGS (National Government Services, Inc.) - New Hampshire NGS (National Government Services, Inc.) - New York NGS (National Government Services, Inc.) - Rhode Island NGS (National Government Services, Inc.) - Vermont NGS (National Government Services, Inc.) - Wisconsin Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - Alaska Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - American Samoa Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - Arizona Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - California Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - Guam Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - Hawaii Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - Idaho Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - Montana Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - Nevada Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - North Dakota Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - Northern Mariana Islands Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - Oregon Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - South Dakota Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - Utah Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - Washington Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC - Wyoming Novitas Solutions, Inc. - Arkansas Novitas Solutions, Inc. - Colorado Novitas Solutions, Inc. - DC Novitas Solutions, Inc. - Delaware Novitas Solutions, Inc. - Louisiana Novitas Solutions, Inc. - Maryland Novitas Solutions, Inc. - Mississippi Novitas Solutions, Inc. - New Jersey Novitas Solutions, Inc. - New Mexico Novitas Solutions, Inc. - Oklahoma Novitas Solutions, Inc. - Pennsylvania Novitas Solutions, Inc. - Texas Optima Behavioral Health OPTUM by United Behavioral Health - Commercial OPTUM by United Behavioral Health - Medicare Advantage Oxford Health plans Palmetto GBA - North Carolina Palmetto GBA - South Carolina Palmetto GBA - Virginia Palmetto GBA - West Virginia Premera Blue Cross Priority Health Public Employees Insurance Agency (PEIA) Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield Regence Blue Shield Tricare Tufts Health Plan United Healthcare WPS - Indiana WPS - Iowa WPS - Kansas WPS - Michigan WPS - Missouri WPS - Nebraska

Visit link:

NeuroStar TMS Therapy Depression Treatment

Posted in Tms

Virtual Reality – Setting the Record Straight One Post at …

Posted on by

Weve just updated the VMware TCO Comparison Calculator to help customers see the true Total Cost of Ownership differences between VMware and Microsoft. Its easy to use just enter the basic parameters for your virtual infrastructure or private cloud environment, such as the number of VMs, type of servers and storage, and the product edition or features you need. The calculator will generate a complete TCO analysis that includes all the necessary elements of capital and operational expenses.

We created the TCO Comparison Calculator after hearing from existing and prospective VMware customers who were being told that alternative solutions based on Hyper-V would be much less expensive, or even free. The calculator totals cost elements that our competition leaves out of their oversimplified comparisons, such as: the system administrator labor costs to operate the environment (the largest component of TCO and one that independent testing shows to be much lower for VMware); effects of VM density (where VMware has an advantage according to analysts like Gartner); 247 phone support; and the need for third-party software to fill feature gaps.

When all those cost elements are combined, the VMware TCO Comparison Calculator shows that VMware solutions, ranging from a small business virtual infrastructure built with vSphere Essentials to a full-featured large enterprise private cloud based on vCloud Suite Enterprise, have the lowest TCO often by substantial margins.

When we updated the calculator, we saw that the VMware TCO advantage increased for some important reasons.

Another important enhancement weve made to the calculator is local currency support. Users can select USD, AUD, EUR, GBP, or JPY and the calculator will apply VMware and Microsoft list prices from those geographies.

This example from the VMware TCO Comparison Calculator shows that the 3-year TCO for a 500-VM environment built with vSphere with Operations Management Enterprise Plus will be 33% less than a comparable solution based on Microsoft Windows Server Hyper-V and System Center.

Our customers in the trenches running enterprise virtual infrastructures often tell us they know VMware offers the best and most cost effective solution, but they need help making the case for selecting VMware with purchasing managers or CFOs that have heard from other vendors claiming to be less expensive. If you find yourself in a similar position, use the VMware TCO Comparison Calculator to arm yourself with solid proof that VMware provides the lowest total costs.

While the operating assumption is that the OpenStack framework works best on open source components such as KVM, a just completed study by Principled Technologies and commissioned by VMware showed otherwise. Tests showed remarkably higher performance and substantially reduced costs when using OpenStack with VMware technology including vSphere when compared to OpenStack with Red Hat components.

In the study, OpenStack services were used to provision and manage the test configurations. The study equipment was identical except when published recommendations mandated a change. The test results showed:

The study recognized two trends in enterprise computing:

VMware innovations are helping customers get enterprise-class performance when exploring the OpenStack framework as a platform for large-scale application deployment. Among these innovations, the study showed that VMware Virtual SAN played an important role in providing performance advantages. Among the most significant findings related to VMware Virtual SAN, the study noted:

For the following tables, please refer to the full study for the complete test methodology and equipment setup.

Figure 1: The amount of YCSB (Yahoo Cloud Serving Benchmark) OPS achieved by the two solutions. Higher numbers are better.

Figure 2: The amount of IOPS achieved by the two solutions. Higher numbers are better. The workload was 70/30 R/W mix, random, and 4K block size.

Cost Comparison

The study showed that running OpenStack on VMware components required less hardware. Using VMware vSphere with Virtual SAN also lowered software costs. In total the study showed the 3 year costs were 26 percent lower. Because each OpenStack deployment and environment is different and support engagements vary widely from installation to installation, the costs of implementing the OpenStack framework were not included for either the VMware or the Red Hat platform.

Figure 3: Projected three-year costs for the two solutions. Lower numbers are better.

The study concludes:

In our testing, the VMware vSphere with Virtual SAN solution performed better than the Red Hat Storage solution in both real world and raw performance testing by providing 53 percent more database OPS and 159 percent more IOPS. In addition, the vSphere with Virtual SAN solution can occupy less datacenter space, which can result in lower costs associated with density. A three-year cost projection for the two solutions showed that VMware vSphere with Virtual SAN could save your business up to 26 percent in hardware and software costs when compared to the Red Hat Storage solution we tested.

As an enterprise customer, you have choices when it comes to implementing an OpenStack framework. Your selections will impact the performance and overall cost of your scale out infrastructure. With this study, VMware has demonstrated significant performance gains and cost savings in an OpenStack environment.

Read the full study here.

Amazon recently launched a new version of their Total Cost of Ownerships (TCO) Calculator that compares VMware on-premises solutions to Amazon Web Services (AWS) offerings. Our many customers choose us as their infrastructure platform and stay with us because we provide the best value. The Amazon calculator tries to create a different perception by using biased and inaccurate assumptions.

Stacking the DeckObviously

Amazon claims their calculator provides an apples-to-apples comparison, but in reality, it doesnt come close to doing so. Their calculator contains biased assumptions regarding VMwares TCO, which inflate the costs of an on-premises cloud and underestimate the true costs of using a public cloud solution.

For instance, Amazons calculator:

Another Take on VMware vs. AWS TCO:VMwares Own TCO Calculations

We decided to take a look at how costs might look using our math. The following is a VMware version of the TCO comparison against AWS. It compares costs associated with running conventional workloads on AWS and VMware infrastructure.

Conventional Workloads TCO Comparison

In a separate VMware TCO comparison calculation for a 100 VM environment, VMware TCO is $394K compared to AWSs $487K over a four-year period. This represents a 21% cost savings when choosing VMware.

This comparison uses the following 100 VMs for AWS:

Note that for this sample environment, the calculations assumed licenses for vSphere with Operations Management (vSOM) Standard, which offer more features and functionality than that of AWS and contain the features a customer truly needs for this scale environment. There are also additional AWS fees for things such as: data transfer, IP addresses, service monitoring, CloudWatch, etc. which are not captured in this TCO, but are a necessary part of running an application on AWS.

Conclusion

Clearly the AWS TCO Calculator does not represent a fair, apples-to-apples portrayal of the costs of an on-premises solution. Amazons calculator is underestimating AWS costs and overstating VMware costs. The costs of AWS instances are not the only factor to consider when choosing where to host workloads. Designing for AWS requires developer teams to significantly redesign their applications to account for the limitations and the quality of AWS infrastructure. With VMware, you have access to cost-effective, highly automated, secure infrastructure with a level of control and quality that provides superior value to IT and business units.

With the addition of vCloud Hybrid Service (vCHS), VMware now offers customers a public cloud option with faster time to value and the ability to add or reduce capacity dynamically through the use of hybrid, off-premises data centers. The combination of on-premises vSphere or vCloud Suite infrastructure with cloud-based infrastructure hosted on vCloud Hybrid Services or a vCloud Powered partner clearly provides the best hybrid cloud experience. With infrastructure running on a common technology platform (vSphere) and integrations with existing tools like vCenter, vCenter Operations, and vCloud Automation Center, VMware customers get all the benefits of a true hybrid cloud.

Edit: An earlier version of this post claimed that the VMware TCO was over a three-year time period. The correct time horizon of the VMware TCO is four years. The post has been updated to reflect this change.

The release of VMwares vSphere Data Protection 5.5 (VDP) seems to have caused a stir in the virtual backup industry. It appears we have hit a soft spot with some of the other vendors offering backup solutions for vSphere and have seen some confusing messaging coming from our partners/competitors in this market. While were certainly proud of the technology partner ecosystem built around VMware solutions I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight on vSphere Data Protection.

Well dive in to each of these a little bit to get to the truth about vSphere Data Protection.

Some vendors claim they require no agents to do vSphere backups, even for application aware backups of Exchange, MS SQL, and SharePoint, whereas VDP Advanced does require agents for these applications.

The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of VMs do not require agents because of the way our vSphere data protection APIs work. This is the case for VDP and every other vSphere certified backup solution. But, a proper application consistent backup of Exchange, MS SQL, SharePoint and other application does require an agent, even for vendors like Veeam. Need proof? Heres a quote from page 235 of the Veeam Backup & Replication Version 7.0 User Guide:

Call me crazy, but a runtime process injected on a VM via admin credentials to do indexing and other activities on behalf of another server is the very definition of an agent. The biggest difference between VDP and Veeams agent approach is that VDPs agents are a one-time install via wizard, whereas Veeams agents are installed and uninstalled each and every time a backup job runs.

And dont forget: our VDP Advanced agents also run on physical servers so you can backup your entire Exchange, SQL, or SharePoint environment with VDP Advanced.

First things first, it really doesnt matter which backup system you choose your backup files are useless without the backup servers. Further, if youve lost your backup infrastructure Id say the odds are good youve lost other critical parts of your infrastructure as well. In cases like this, perhaps backups arent the best option for getting up and running. You might want a disaster recovery solution like our Site Recovery Manager or vCloud Hybrid Service Disaster Recovery for this situation.

But what about smaller, localized issues? What if your backup server gets wiped out? First and foremost Id recommend you use a product that includes backup replication so you always have 2nd and 3rd copies of your backups, hopefully on-site and off-site. With VDP Advanced your backups could be replicated directly to another VDP Advanced virtual appliance so you could immediately restore from the 2nd appliance no additional configuration or setup needed. (Even if vCenter is down!)

So what happens if you have your backup files but your backup server is gone? Nothing! At least not until you re-install the backup server and database and maybe some proxies and repositories so that you can actually use those files, stealing precious minutes or hours from your recovery time objective.

Even if youre using our basic version of VDP, which is included with most versions of vSphere and which does not have built-in replication, keep in mind that everything you need to protect your backups the backup files, database, everything! is contained within a single VM. Simply copy the VM to secondary storage periodically to avoid a single point of failure.

VDP Advanced includes highly efficient, secure backup data replication across any link at no additional cost. How do we do it and why dont you see some special WAN accelerator configuration inside VDP Advanced? VDP Advanced is based on EMC Avamar and uses the same enterprise-class deduplication algorithm and replication engine as Avamar. What this means to you is VDP does all the required deduplication as soon as the backups are created, across all backups stored on the appliance. No additional steps are needed to further optimize the data for WAN transfers. Plus you get the added benefit of using less storage for the primary backups so you save money on your overall backup solution!

Instant Recovery is the hot marketing item in the backup world (its kind of a boring world). Strategies for restoring data quickly is a topic Id like to explore further in a more detailed article so we can look at how wed approach some common scenarios with VDP. For now I want to say this about instant recovery: the feature looks good in the brochure, but instant recovery techniques from nearly every vendor end up with VMs that are pinned to a single host, running from your backup storage, with IO shuttled through some sort of proxy VM. Add it all up and youre left with a significant performance and usability hit to the recovered VMs. If you later decide to move that VM from backup storage to production, it often requires multiple steps to move and rehydrate the VMDKs and then rebuild them from the delta disks that were written while the instant VM ran.

In contrast, VDP Advanced can utilize Changed Block Tracking to restore a VM directly on full production storage. This means only the blocks that have changed since the selected restore point will be restored. As a result, restore times can be dramatically reduced up to 6X versus traditional restore methods according to the VDP Advanced study performed by ESG Labs.

This myth is just plain wrong. VDP Advanced does include automated backup verification. And were not just talking about verifying a file checksum. A VDP backup verification job can be created to automatically restore and verify the full functionality of a VM on a scheduled basis, e.g., once per week. Results of the backup verification jobs are reported in the VDP Advanced user interface and email reports so that administrators have the utmost confidence that important VMs can definitely be restored when needed.

Weve designed VDP and VDP Advanced to offer a great value to our customers, who often struggle to setup a good backup system and cannot afford the high price of some of the enterprise backup solutions. We think VDP excels in many areas but especially with features like:

As I said at the start, were very proud of the ecosystem of partners weve built around vSphere, even those we compete with at times. While we at VMware focus on building products that are better together we realize that no single product will fit every customers needs and at the end of the day its you the customer who has to navigate the maze of features and jargon and figure out the solution thats best for you. I hope this article makes that task a little bit easier.

If youve had a chance to use the VMware TCO Comparison Calculator, you know that it factors in all the elements of a proper Total Cost of Ownership analysis to compare the true cost of building a virtual infrastructure on our vSphere and vSphere with Operations Management products to the cost of building a similar infrastructure on Microsofts Cloud OS their name for Windows Server Hyper-V and System Center. [VMware has an even more detailed ROI/TCO Calculator to show the financial savings of virtualization and private cloud vs. physical infrastructure.]

The results are eye-opening for many users who have seen the comparisons from our competitors that consider only the Windows operating system and virtualization software license costs. Including all the TCO elements shown above makes it very clear that the cost of virtualization software is just a small part of the overall TCO for a virtualized infrastructure.

Weve just updated the TCO Comparison Calculator with two important new features:

There are three key cost elements that work strongly in VMwares favor that show up in the calculator results:

A quick example from the VMware TCO Comparison Calculator shows just how much of an impact those VMware cost savings have. This example shows the two-year TCO for an infrastructure of 1,000 VMs on vSphere with Operations Management Enterprise Plus (our highest edition) vs. Microsoft Windows Server Hyper-V and System Center.

You can see that VMware delivers 30% lower TCO from its lower OpEx costs and features that preclude the need for third-party add-ons.

Heres an example showing that the two-year TCO for upgrading a 1000-VM vSphere Enterprise environment to our full-featured vCloud Suite Enterprise platform comes in 36% less than if that sameinfrastructure were migrated to Microsofts Cloud OS.

Whether youre new to virtualization and considering a greenfield server consolidation project or a long-time vSphere user weighing your options for a private cloud upgrade, give the VMware TCO Comparison Calculator a try youll see that you can get the best for less.

There is much rhetoric these days about cloud wars. Beyond the rhetoric, the hype is there for a reason: the value of hybrid cloud environments is becoming real, and the market opportunity even more real. We are proud to serve our customers as a leading provider of virtualization software and cloud infrastructure. And were equally proud of what our customers are achieving with VMware as a partner.

You can take a break from the hype cycle by checking out the rest of the blog post by Bogomil Balkansky,Sr. Vice President, CloudInfrastructure Platform here.

With the announcement of vSphere with Operation Management this week, it is truly exciting to not only see the advancements of management being tied so closely to the vSphere platform, but also bring our customers closer to the vision of the Software Defined Data Center. As we see both the vSphere platform mature along with our customers use of it, we also see an evolution of VMware operations management accelerating and leveraging the value of the platform in our customers environments.

This new offering signifies a number a key aspects in the evolution of virtualization and cloud management:

First, our customers have experienced and expressed the need for accurate and automated solutions to proactively manage performance and capacity and vCenter Operations Manager, as part of vSphere with Operations Management, has delivered. Leveraging a foundation of patented self-learning analytics, vCenter Operations Manager delivers the most comprehensive, scalable and automated management solution for vSphere. Utilizing the vSphere health model, vSphere with Operations Management further extrapolates and presents data for managing performance and capacity more effectively than any other current or promised solutions.

We invested in vCenter Operations to support our large infrastructure of 500 VMs and 40 hosts. It has enabled us to predict capacity needs and to easily locate any performance issues.

Eric Krejci , Systems Specialist, EPFL

Second, vSphere with Operations Management leverages true automated operations for vSphere environments. This VMware innovation reduces the administrative overhead and inaccuracies from tools using static thresholds (manual thresholds set for individual metrics) while analyzing all (not just a handful) of relevant vSphere performance metrics to ensure there are no performance or capacity blind spots. Furthermore, to automatically correlate and expose the bottlenecks (with associated metrics) along with best practice remediation, vSphere with Operations Management ensures accurate management alignment that supports and further leverages our customers investment in VMware.

Advanced analytics easily identifies and shows root-cause to problem areas

Finally, vSphere with Operations Management raises the bar by redefining what operations management needs to be in todays dynamic infrastructure. Cloud customers simply were not finding effective solutions from their traditional, legacy IT management frameworks, or even 3rd party tools that are built on the same premise. Even when considering other hypervisor / cloud products, the management ecosystem is at the heart of truly enabling the platform. VMware vSphere with Operations Management clearly demonstrates the next step in simplicity of both cost and value through reliable, proven and innovative technology.

Going to VMware Partner Exchange 2013? Be sure to check out these sessions on VMware management and the competition: MGMT1238, MGMT1369 & CI1523.

Twitter: @benscheerer

The idea of introducing multiple hypervisors into your data center and managing them seamlessly from a single tool might sound appealing, but in reality, products claiming that ability today cant deliver on that promise. You introduced virtual infrastructure to simplify operational tasks for your IT staff, so why would you want to handicap them with a management approach that adds costs and complexity? A study recently completed by the Edison Group and commissioned by VMware shows that is exactly what you will be doing if you introduce Microsoft System Center 2012 Virtual Machine Manager (SCVMM) with the hopes of using it to manage VMware vSphere hosts.

Microsoft touts SCVMM as a heterogeneous management tool with the ability to manage VMware vSphere and Citrix XenServer hosts in addition to those running Hyper-V. IT managers might find Microsofts claims that they can, easily and efficiently manage applications and services across multiple hypervisors, enticing. The suggestion by Microsoft is clear: dont worry about complicating the jobs of your system administrators by introducing Hyper-V into a VMware environment because SCVMM provides a do-everything single-pane-of-glass control panel. Are their claims true? Can Microsoft SCVMM really let you operate a multi-hypervisor data center without the cost penalties that come with staffing, training for, and operating across the isolated islands of management that would otherwise exist?

To find the truth behind Microsofts promises, we asked Edison Group to test VMware vSphere in their labs using both vCenter and the vSphere Client and Microsoft SCVMM 2012 to complete a set of 11 typical management tasks. Edisons analysts used their Comparative Management Cost Study methodology to measure the labor costs and administrative complexity of each task. The tasks Edison Group studied were those that any vSphere administrator performs on a regular basis, such as provisioning new vSphere hosts, deploying VMs, monitoring system health and performance, configuring virtual networks, etc.

Higher costs and complexity when managing vSphere with SCVMM 2012

The results were clear and conclusive managing VMware vSphere is much more efficient using vCenter than when attempting to manage it with Microsoft SCVMM 2012. To complete the 11 typical management tasks Edison Group tested took 36% less time and required 41% fewer steps using vCenter and the vSphere client compared to SCVMM 2012.

Figure 1 Managing vSphere using vCenter takes 36% less administrator time than with SCVMM 2012

Figure 2 vCenter management of vSphere requires 41% fewer steps than SCVMM 2012

Jack of some trades, master of none

Its not hard to understand why vCenter and the vSphere Client make life so much easier for vSphere administrators. As my colleague Randy Curry wrote, Microsoft SCVMM 2012 just doesnt do a very good job of enabling vSphere management. SCVMMs incomplete or missing support for even basic tasks forces administrators to constantly jump over to the vSphere Client to get any real work done. Microsoft was apparently more interested in being able to check the box for multi-hypervisor management when they built SCVMM 2012 than they were in providing a truly usable vSphere management tool. As Edison Group said in their report (available here or here):

Managing hypervisors using tools that are not specifically optimized to control all aspects of their operations risks impairing reliability, elegance, and ease of management, with potential adverse impact on the bottom line. Creating a truly successful solution requires deep integration and expertise in development.

Adding different hypervisors? Proceed with caution.

Multi-hypervisor IT shops are a trend that may be growing, but dont expect a simple single-pane-of-glass management experience if you bring in a different hypervisor. The testing by Edison Group clearly shows that management costs and complexity will be substantially higher if you attempt to use a partially implemented heterogeneous management tool like Microsoft SCVMM 2012 to manage a vSphere infrastructure. We at VMware realize that operating a 100% vSphere environment is not always possible and weve recently introduced our own multi-hypervisor management features with vCenter Multi-Hypervisor Manager and vCloud Automation Center to accommodate those cases. Rather than positioning those solutions as enablers of permanent multi-hypervisor environments, were offering them to help our customers manage heterogeneous pools of infrastructure until they can migrate their workloads to a VMware platform where they can benefit from our exclusive software-defined datacenter capabilities.

If youre weighing possible benefits of introducing a second hypervisor, you may want to take the advice of Gartners Chris Wolf and stick to a single hypervisor unless you want maintain and pay for separate islands of management:

Multi-hypervisor has serious tradeoffs if its the end goal for the production server workloads in your data center. Additional hypervisors for one-off siloed initiatives is often practical, but becoming less standardized in your data centers is anything but efficient.

Chris Wolf repeated that message at a session on heterogeneous virtualization we attended at the recent Gartner Data Center Conference. In fact, he stated there that no Gartner clients have succeeded in adopting a single-pane-of-glass multi-hypervisor approach. Thats refreshingly frank advice that should be heeded by anyone lured by Microsofts promises of multiple hypervisor nirvana.

Microsoft has published a blog article claiming that VMwares Cost-Per-Application Calculator admits VMwares costs are higher.

VMwares Cost-Per-Application calculator is designed to rebut Microsoft claims that Hyper-V is five to ten times cheaper.It shows that the acquisition cost with even VMwares highest edition vSphere Enterprise Plus is at parity with Microsoft and actually beats Microsoft for most configurations. For example, the blog shows a comparison result from the VMware calculator using servers that have 64GB RAM. A comparison using servers with 128GB RAM, the more common configuration, shows that the total cost with VMware is at parity with Microsoft.

Read the original post:

Virtual Reality - Setting the Record Straight One Post at ...

Immersion (virtual reality) – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Immersion into virtual reality is a perception of being physically present in a non-physical world. The perception is created by surrounding the user of the VR system in images, sound or other stimuli that provide an engrossing total environment.

The name is a metaphoric use of the experience of submersion applied to representation, fiction or simulation. Immersion can also be defined as the state of consciousness where a "visitor" (Maurice Benayoun) or "immersant" (Char Davies)'s awareness of physical self is transformed by being surrounded in an artificial environment; used for describing partial or complete suspension of disbelief, enabling action or reaction to stimulations encountered in a virtual or artistic environment. The degree to which the virtual or artistic environment faithfully reproduces reality determines the degree of suspension of disbelief. The greater the suspension of disbelief, the greater the degree of presence achieved.

According to Ernest W. Adams, author and consultant on game design,[1] immersion can be separated into three main categories:

Staffan Bjrk and Jussi Holopainen, in Patterns In Game Design,[2] divide immersion into similar categories, but call them sensory-motoric immersion, cognitive immersion and emotional immersion, respectively. In addition to these, they add a new category:

Presence, a term derived from the shortening of the original "telepresence," is a phenomenon enabling people to interact with and feel connected to the world outside their physical bodies via technology. It is defined as a person's subjective sensation of being there in a scene depicted by a medium, usually virtual in nature (Barfield et al., 1995).[full citation needed] Most designers focus on the technology used to create a high-fidelity virtual environment; however, the human factors involved in achieving a state of presence must be taken into account as well. It is the subjective perception, although generated by and/or filtered through human-made technology, that ultimately determines the successful attainment of presence (Thornson, Goldiez, & Le, 2009).[full citation needed]

Virtual reality glasses can produce a visceral feeling of being in a simulated world, a form of spatial immersion called Presence. According to Oculus VR, the technology requirements to achieve this visceral reaction are low-latency and precise tracking of movements.[4][5][6]

Michael Abrash gave a talk on VR at Steam Dev Days in 2014.[7] According to the VR research team at Valve, all of the following are needed to establish presence.

Immersive virtual reality is a hypothetical future technology that exists today as virtual reality art projects, for the most part.[8] It consists of immersion in an artificial environment where the user feels just as immersed as they usually feel in consensus reality.

The most considered method would be to induce the sensations that made up the virtual reality in the nervous system directly. In functionalism/conventional biology we interact with consensus reality through the nervous system. Thus we receive all input from all the senses as nerve impulses. It gives your neurons a feeling of heightened sensation. It would involve the user receiving inputs as artificially stimulated nerve impulses, the system would receive the CNS outputs (natural nerve impulses) and process them allowing the user to interact with the virtual reality. Natural impulses between the body and central nervous system would need to be prevented. This could be done by blocking out natural impulses using nanorobots which attach themselves to the brain wiring, whilst receiving the digital impulses of which describe the virtual world, which could then be sent into the wiring of the brain. A feedback system between the user and the computer which stores the information would also be needed. Considering how much information would be required for such a system, it is likely that it would be based on hypothetical forms of computer technology.

A comprehensive understanding of which nerve impulses correspond to which sensations, and which motor impulses correspond to which muscle contractions will be required. This will allow the correct sensations in the user, and actions in the virtual reality to occur. The Blue Brain Project is the current, most promising research with the idea of understanding how the brain works by building very large scale computer models.

The nervous system would obviously need to be manipulated. Whilst non-invasive devices using radiation have been postulated, invasive cybernetic implants are likely to become available sooner and be more accurate. Manipulation could occur at any stage of the nervous system the spinal cord is likely to be simplest; as all nerves pass through here, this could be the only site of manipulation. Molecular Nanotechnology is likely to provide the degree of precision required and could allow the implant to be built inside the body rather than be inserted by an operation.

A very powerful computer would be necessary for processing virtual reality complex enough to be nearly indistinguishable from consensus reality and interacting with central nervous system fast enough.

An immersive digital environment is an artificial, interactive, computer-created scene or "world" within which a user can immerse themselves.[9]

Immersive digital environments could be thought of as synonymous with virtual reality, but without the implication that actual "reality" is being simulated. An immersive digital environment could be a model of reality, but it could also be a complete fantasy user interface or abstraction, as long as the user of the environment is immersed within it. The definition of immersion is wide and variable, but here it is assumed to mean simply that the user feels like they are part of the simulated "universe". The success with which an immersive digital environment can actually immerse the user is dependent on many factors such as believable 3D computer graphics, surround sound, interactive user-input and other factors such as simplicity, functionality and potential for enjoyment. New technologies are currently under development which claim to bring realistic environmental effects to the players' environment effects like wind, seat vibration and ambient lighting.

To create a sense of full immersion, the 5 senses (sight, sound, touch, smell, taste) must perceive the digital environment to be physically real. Immersive technology can perceptually fool the senses through:

Once the senses reach a sufficient belief that the digital environment is real (it is interaction and involvement which can never be real), the user must then be able to interact with the environment in a natural, intuitive manner. Various immersive technologies such as gestural controls, motion tracking, and computer vision respond to the user's actions and movements. Brain control interfaces (BCI) respond to the user's brainwave activity.

Training and rehearsal simulations run the gamut from part task procedural training (often buttonology, for example: which button do you push to deploy a refueling boom) through situational simulation (such as crisis response or convoy driver training) to full motion simulations which train pilots or soldiers and law enforcement in scenarios that are too dangerous to train in actual equipment using live ordinance.

Computer games from simple arcade to massively multiplayer online game and training programs such as flight and driving simulators. Entertainment environments such as motion simulators that immerse the riders/players in a virtual digital environment enhanced by motion, visual and aural cues. Reality simulators, such as one of the Virunga Mountains in Rwanda that takes you on a trip through the jungle to meet a tribe of mountain gorillas.[10] Or training versions such as one which simulates taking a ride through human arteries and the heart to witness the buildup of plaque and thus learn about cholesterol and health.[11]

In parallel with scientist, artists like Knowbotic Research, Donna Cox, Rebecca Allen, Robbie Cooper, Maurice Benayoun, Char Davies, and Jeffrey Shaw use the potential of immersive virtual reality to create physiologic or symbolic experiences and situations.

Other examples of immersion technology include physical environment / immersive space with surrounding digital projections and sound such as the CAVE, and the use of virtual reality headsets for viewing movies, with head-tracking and computer control of the image presented, so that the viewer appears to be inside the scene. The next generation is VIRTSIM, which achieves total immersion through motion capture and wireless head mounted displays for teams of up to thirteen immersants enabling natural movement through space and interaction in both the virtual and physical space simultaneously.

New fields of studies linked to the immersive virtual reality emerges every day. Researchers see a great potential in virtual reality tests serving as complementary interview methods in psychiatric care.[12] Immersive virtual reality have in studies also been used as an educational tool in which the visualization of psychotic states have been used to get increased understanding of patients with similar symptoms.[13] New treatment methods are available for schizophrenia[14] and other newly developed research areas where immersive virtual reality is expected to achieve melioration is in education of surgical procedures,[15] rehabilitation program from injuries and surgeries[16] and reduction of phantom limb pain.[17]

Simulation sickness, or simulator sickness, is a condition where a person exhibits symptoms similar to motion sickness caused by playing computer/simulation/video games (Oculus Rift is working to solve simulator sickness).[18]

Motion sickness due to virtual reality is very similar to simulation sickness and motion sickness due to films. In virtual reality, however, the effect is made more acute as all external reference points are blocked from vision, the simulated images are three-dimensional and in some cases stereo sound that may also give a sense of motion. Studies have shown that exposure to rotational motions in a virtual environment can cause significant increases in nausea and other symptoms of motion sickness.[19]

Other behavioural changes such as stress, addiction, isolation and mood changes are also discussed to be side-effects caused by immersive virtual reality.[20]

Go here to see the original:

Immersion (virtual reality) - Wikipedia

Progress Lighting – Home

Posted on by

Select Category... Accessories Chandeliers Bath & Vanity Bath Fans Ceiling Fans Close-to-Ceiling Commercial Outdoor Directionals Exit Signs Flex Track System Hall & Foyer Landscape Modular Fluorescent Outdoor Pendants Recessed-Accessory Recessed-Housing Recessed-Trim Sconces Step Lights Track Undercabinet Wall Bracket

Select Style... Contemporary/Modern Contemporary/Soft Traditional/Casual Traditional/Classic Traditional/Formal Utilitarian/Commodity Utility/Landscape

Select Family ... 4 inch Pro-Optic LED Housing 6 inch Pro-Optic Fluorescent Housing 6 inch Pro-Optic LED Housing 8 inch Pro-Optic Fluorescent Housing 8 inch Pro-Optic LED Housing Academy Acrylic Globe Acrylic Round Acrylic Square Addison Address Light Adjustable Adjustable Bar Hangers Adorn AirPro AirPro Hugger Airtight Gasket Kit Alabaster Alabaster Glass Albalite Glass Trim Alexa Alpha Trak Kits Aluminum Cylinder Accessories Aluminum Squares Accessories Americana Andover Anson Appeal Applause Arch Archie Archives Arise Arrive Arts and Crafts Ashbury Ashmore Avalon Baffle Trim Balance Bath Fans Bay Court Bay Court Outdoor Bedford Beveled Glass Beyond Bingo Bliss Bollard Bound Beveled Glass Bounty BrassGUARD Lantern Bravo Broadway Brookside Builder Bath Cadence Cantata Caress Cast Aluminum Cast Lantern Ceiling Gasket Ceiling Mount Chain Chanelle Channel Glass Chloe Clayton Clich Clips for Complete Fixtures Close-to-Ceiling Club Compact Fluorescent Acrylic Wall Sconce Compact Fluorescent Glass Wall Sconce Compass Compel Complete Round Housing & Trim Complete Square Housing & Trim Cone Trim Copper CounterBrite Coventry Cranbrook Crawford Crestwood Cross Louver Trim Cuddle Cylinder Dazzle Deck Lighting Decorative Glass Deep Cone Trim Derby Dibs Outdoor Directional Dome Dome Shower Trim Door Chimes Draper Drop Opal Shower Trim Eclipse Economy Fluted Glass Edition Elina Emergency Battery Pack Enchant Endorse Energy Efficient Glass Sconces Engage Entice Equinox Essential Etched Glass Exit Signs Eyeball Trim Fairfield Fairview Fan Control Fan Downrod Fiorentino Fitter Five Light Flair Flat Glass Flat Glass Lantern Flatback Flood Light Flourish Fluorescent Format Fortune Free Form Fresnel Lens Furring Channel Gather Gimbal Glass Globes Glass Pendants Glendale Glenmont Goof Ring Greetings Greyson Hard-Nox Harmony Haven Heart Helium Helm Hide-a-Lite Hide-a-Lite 4 Hide-a-Lite II Hide-a-Lite III High Tech Home Theater Sconce IC Box Identity Illuma-Flex Incandescent Acrylic Wall Sconces Incandescent Glass Wall Sconces Indulge Inspire Invite Jack Janos Joy Kensington Kiss Lahara Lamps Landscape Accessory Le Jardin LED Deck Light LED Landscape LED Path Light LED Pro-Optic LED Recessed LED Spot Light LED Step Lights LED Track LED Undercabinet LED Well Light Legend Linear Linear Fluorescent Linear Fluorescent Bath Long Neck Baffle Trim Loop & Chain Loyal Lucky Lynzie Mac Madison Maier Mansard Markor Meadowlark Melbourne Melon Melon Glass Merge Meridian Merit Metal Shade Millford Mingle Miniature Halogen Mission Modular Fluorescent Motion Sensor Mounting Clips MR-16 line voltage Newport Nightsaver Niss Noir Non-Metallic Non-Metallic Incandescent North Park Nottington Oasis Onion Lantern Opal Glass Opal Globes Open Shower Trim Open Splay Trim Open Trim Orbitz Outdoor Posts Pagoda Par Lampholder Parker Pavilion Pedigree Peek-A-Boo Penfield Penn Piedmont Pinhole Trim Polycarbonate Outdoor Prairie Prestwick Prismatic Glass Promenade Random Rave Recessed Recessed Accessory Refuge Regatta Regressed Prismatic Trim Reign Remodel Clips Renovations Replay Residence Resort Revive Ribbed Linear Bath Ridge Riverside Rizu Roman Coach Round Clouds Round Glass Roundback Roxbury Salute Santiago Savannah School House Pendant Schoolhouse Sconce Scope Seeded Glass Semi-flush Shade Shallow Profile Shelton Shower Trim Sloped Ceiling Trim Slotted Trim Socket Tool Spirit Spot Light Spread Square Square Glass Squares Status Stem Kit Step Baffle Trim Step Lights Stroll Swing Swirled Glass Sync The Pointe Tiffany Torino Track Accessories Transformer Transformer Accessories Transit Trevina Trinity Undercabinet Accessory Universal Utility Lantern Valera Via Victorian Wall Pack Wall Pocket Wall Washer Trim Welbourne Well Lights Westport White Glass Wisten

Select Finish... Aged Copper Antique Brass Antique Bronze Antique Nickel Architectural Bronze Autumn Haze Beige Beige Linen Beige Silk Black Black Alzak Black Chiffon Black Parchment Black/Silver Blue-green Bright White Brushed Nickel Burnished Chestnut Burnished Silver Cherry Classic Silver Clear Clear Alzak Cognac Copper Copper Bronze Creme Creme Chiffon Dark Green Espresso Faux Alabaster Fieldstone Forged Black Forged Bronze Frosted Gilded Iron Gold Alzak Green Heirloom Kraft Metallic Gray Metallic Grey Natural Brass Natural Decking No Finish Off White Oil Rubbed Bronze Pebbles Polished Brass Polished Chrome Polished Nickel Red Roasted Java Satin Aluminum Seabrook Silver Ridge Solid Copper Stainless Steel Textured Black Textured Graphite Textured White Unfinished Urban Bronze Venetian Bronze Verde Verde Green Weathered Bronze White White Floral Pattern

Originally posted here:

Progress Lighting - Home

Nihilist movement – Wikipedia

Posted on by

The Nihilist movement was a Russian movement in the 1860s which rejected all authorities.[1] It is derived from the Latin nihil, meaning "nothing". After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, the Nihilists were known throughout Europe as proponents of the use of violence in order to bring about political change.

Russian nihilism (rus. "") can be dissected into two periods. The foundational period (1860-1869) where the 'counter-cultural' aspects of nihilism scandalized Russia, where even the smallest of indiscretions resulted in nihilists being sent to Siberia or imprisoned for lengthy periods of time, and where the philosophy of nihilism was formed.[2] The other period would be the revolutionary period of Nihilism (1870-1881) when the pamphlet The Catechism of a Revolutionist transformed the movement, which was waiting and only striking mild propaganda, into a movement-with-teeth and a will to wage war against the tsarist regime, with dozens of actions against the Russian state. The revolutionary period ends with the assassination of the Tsar Alexander II (March 13, 1881), by a series of bombs, and the consequential crushing of the nihilist movement.[3]

Mikhail Bakunin's (1814-1876) "Reaction in Germany" (1842) included a famous dictum, "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!"[4] This piece of literature anticipated and instigated the ideas of the nihilists. In Russia, Bakunin was considered a Westernizer because of his influences that spread the ideology of anarchism outside of his nation to the rest of Europe and Russia.[5] While he is inexorably linked to both the foundational and revolutionary periods of nihilism, Bakunin was a product of the earlier generation whose vision, ultimately, was not the same as the nihilist view. He stated this best as "I am a free man only so far as I recognize the humanity and liberty of all men around me. In respecting their humanity, I respect my own." This general humanitarian instinct is in contrast to the nihilist proclamations of having a "hate with a great and holy hatred" or calling for the "annihilation of aesthetics".[6]

Nikolay Chernyshevsky was the first to incorporate nihilism in the socialist agenda. The nihilist contribution to socialism in general was the concept that the peasant was an agent of social change (Chernyshevsky, A Criticism of Philosophical Prejudices Against the Obshchina (1858)),[7] and not just the bourgeois reformers of the revolutions of 1848, or the proletariat of Marx (a concept that wouldn't reach Russia until later). Agitation for this position landed Chernyshevsky in prison and exile in Siberia for the next 25 years (although the specific accusations with which he was convicted were a concoction) in 1864.[8] The first group inspired by nihilist ideas to form and work towards social change did so as a secret society, and were called Land and Liberty. This group's name was also taken by another, entirely separate group, during the Revolutionary Nihilist period, with the first Land and Freedom conspiring to support the Polish independence movement and to agitate the peasants who were burdened with debt as a result of the crippling redemption payments required by the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. Polish independence was not of particular interest to the nihilists, and after a plot to incite Kazan peasants to revolt failed, Land and Freedom folded (1863).[9]

After the failure, the Russian government began to actively hunt nihilist revolutionaries, so the first secret nihilist societies were created. One of the first to act in secrecy was called The Organization, and they created a boys' school in a Moscow slum in order to train revolutionaries. In addition they had a secret sub-group called Hell whose purpose was political terrorism, with the assassination of the Tsar as their ultimate goal. This resulted in the failed attempt by Dmitry Karakozov on the 4th of April 1866. Dmitry was tried and hanged at Smolensk Field in St Petersburg. The leader of The Organization, Nicholas Ishutin, was also tried and was to be executed before being exiled to Siberia for life.[10] Thus ended The Organization and began the White Terror of the rest of the 1860s.

The White Terror began by the Tsar putting Count Michael Muravyov (otherwise known as 'Hanger Muravyov' due to his treatment of Polish rebels in prior years) in charge of the suppression of the nihilists. The two leading radical journals (The Contemporary and Russian Word) were banned, liberal reforms were minimized in fear of reaction from the public, and the educational system was reformed to stifle the existing revolutionary spirit.[11] This action by the Russian state marks the end of the foundational period of nihilism.

The entrance on the scene of Sergei Nechayev symbolizes the transformation from the foundational period to the revolutionary period. Sergei Nechaev, the son of a serf, which was unusual as most nihilists came from a slightly higher social class, what we would call lower middle class, desired an escalation of the discourse on social transformation. Nechaev argued that just as the European monarchies used the ideas of Machiavelli, and the Catholic Jesuits practiced absolute immorality to achieve their ends, there was no action that could not be also used for the sake of the people's revolution.[12] A scholar noted that "His apparent immorality [more an amorality] derived from the cold realization that both Church and State are ruthlessly immoral in their pursuit of total control. The struggle against such powers must therefore be carried out by any means necessary."[13] Nechaev's social cache was greatly increased by his association with Bakunin in 1869 and extraction of funds from the Bakhmetiev Fund for Russian revolutionary propaganda.

The image of Nechaev is as much a result of his Catechism of a Revolutionist (1869) as any actions he actually took. The Catechism is an important document as it establishes the clear break between the formation of nihilism as a political philosophy and what it becomes as a practice of revolutionary action. It documents the revolutionary as a much transformed figure from the nihilist of the past decade. Whereas the nihilist may have practiced asceticism, they argued for an uninhibited hedonism. Nechaev assessed that the Revolutionary, by definition, must live devoted to one aim and not allow to be distracted by emotions or attachments.[14] Friendship was contingent on revolutionary fervor, relationships with strangers were quantified in terms of what resources they offered revolution, and everyone had a role during the revolutionary moment that boiled down to how soon they would be lined up against the wall or when they would accept that they had to do the shooting. The uncompromising tone and content of the Catechism was influential far beyond just the mere character Nechaev personified in the minds of the revolutionaries.[15] Part of the reason for this is because of the way in which it extended nihilist principles into a revolutionary program. The rest of the reason was that the catechism gave the revolutionary project a form of constitution and weight that the men `of the sixties' did not.

Bakunin, an admirer of Nechayev's zeal and stories of his organization's success, provided contacts and resources to send Nechayev back to Russia as his representative of the Russian Section of the World Revolutionary Alliance, which was also an imaginary organization.[citation needed] Upon his return to Russia, Nechayev formed the secret, cell based organization, People's Vengeance.[citation needed] One student member of the organization Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov[citation needed] questioned the very existence of the Secret Revolutionary Committee that Nechayev claimed to be the representative of.[citation needed] This suspicion of Nechayev's modus operandi required action. Author Ronald Hingley, wrote "On the evening of 21 November 1869 the victim [Ivanov] was accordingly lured to the premises of the Moscow School of Agriculture, a hotbed of revolutionary sentiment, where Nechayev killed him by shooting and strangulation, assisted without great enthusiasm by three dupes Nechayev's accomplices were arrested and tried."[16] Upon his return from Russia to Switzerland, Nechayev was rejected by Bakunin, for his taking of militant actions, and was eventually extradited back to Russia where he spent the remainder of his life at the Peter and Paul Fortress.[17] He did, due to his charisma and force of will, continue to influence events, maintaining a relationship to People's Will and weaving even his jailers into his plots.[citation needed] He was found dead in his cell in 1882.[citation needed]

Original post:

Nihilist movement - Wikipedia

U.S. Navy Held Meetings With Transhumanist to Discuss …

Posted on by

By Joseph Jankowski

The U.S. Navy has held meetings with American presidential hopeful and TranshumanistZoltan Istvan to discuss thepossibility of implanting humans with microchips fitted with global positioning (GPS) technology, reports The Sun.

AccordingtoVice Admiral Wisecup, who has retired from full-time service to work in a Navy department called the Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Studies Group, the meeting broadened our understanding of the merger of humans and machines.

A bunch of navy officers came to my house and one of the main topics was this chip implant strategy, Transhumanist and Futurist Istvan said.

Zoltan Istvan is currently running for president of the United States as a part of the Transhumanist Party.

The Transhumanist Party aims to uphold the energy and political might of millions of transhumanist advocates out there who desire to use science and technology to significantly improve their lives.

Istvan told The Sun that the Navy is worried that soldiers could enter service with chips already implanted into them and is struggling to create policy around this issue.

You can imagine how challenging that would be if someone had a non-authorized chip implant on a nuclear base, so policy has to be created and created soon, says Istvan.

I helped the US Navy do some policy work on this issue.

The presidential candidate believes that within 10 to 15 years, artificial intelligence will advance to the point of solving all of civilizations most vexing problems, including death, and he has even traveled around America in an immortality bus mocked up like a coffin to promote his ideas.

According to Istvan, themilitary has already experimented with chipping soldiers so they can be tracked.

Its crazy to me that we dont develop it and use it in ourselves (humans) more, and especially in our children, says the Transhumanist.

Istvan believes that GPS microchipping could be beneficial to parents who want to be able to keep track of their children and could have allowed investigators to find the body of Lane Graves, who was killed in an alligator attack, in just a matter of minutes.

As a father of a twoand five-year-old, Im a big believer in the future that all children will get chipped, perhaps like all children get vaccines in the US, Istvan told The Sun.

Joseph Jankowski is a contributor for Planet Free Will.com. His works have been published by recognizable alternative news sites like GlobalResearch.ca, ActivistPost.com, Mintpressnews.com andZeroHedge.com.

FollowPlanet Free Will onTwitter@twitter.com/PlanetFreeWill

Subscribe to our newsletter The Information Leak

Visit link:

U.S. Navy Held Meetings With Transhumanist to Discuss ...

Supreme Court Second Amendment Case Could Overrule Heller …

Posted on by

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Clifford Tyler is a law-abiding and peaceful citizen living in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In 1985, his wife of 23 years was having an adulterous affair. She ran off with the other man and took all of Cliffords money with her. His daughters found him so upset and depressed, banging his head on the floor, that they called the authorities, fearing he might harm himself.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Tyler was taken before a Michigan judge, who ruled there was sufficient reason to be concerned about the distraught man to commit him to a facility for psychiatric evaluation. A couple weeks later the doctors released him with a clean bill of health, saying that he was a perfectly normal person who had a really horrible day. Tyler continued to be a good citizen, a good employee, got remarried, has been a good father, and eventually even repaired his relationship with his unfaithful ex-wife.

Hes now age 74, and wanted to buy a handgun to keep at home for self-defense. But the government told him that federal law bars him from ever owning a gun, so he went to court to assert his Second Amendment rights.

In 2008, the Supreme Court inDistrict of Columbia v. Hellerone of the most famous decisions ever written by Justice Antonin Scaliaheld that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and as such does not allow the federal government to bar law-abiding and peaceable American citizens from keeping a handgun in their home. Heller was a 5-4 decision, and left other gun-rights questions for future cases.

Heller specified that it was not weighing in on certain issues, including laws that prohibit certain people from owning guns. Federal law in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) is one of these gun-control laws, providing that no one who has been committed to a mental institution can own firearms.

In 1986 President Ronald Reagan signed an NRA-supported law advancing Second Amendment rights, including 18 U.S.C. 925(c), which empowers the Justice Department to restore gun rights if the attorney general finds a particular person to be safe and sane. But Congress stopped funding that program in 1992, canceling out that Reagan-era protection for Americas 90 million gun owners.

So in 2007 Congress passed a new law empowering states to set up their own review process to restore gun rights. Most states have established such a program, but some statesincluding Michigan, where Tyler liveshave not.

The federal district court in Michigan ruled against Tyler, but a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. The Obama administration petitioned the Sixth Circuit to rehear the case en banc, meaning all the judges on the courtin this case, 16 judgeswould reconsider the case.

The petition was granted, and on Sept. 15, by a 10-6 vote in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriffs Department the full Sixth Circuit struck down 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) as a violation of the Second Amendment, and remanded the case back down to the district court for more hearings. The court noted that Heller said laws that kept mentally ill people from getting guns were allowed under the Second Amendment, but held that Section 922(g)(4) went too far by mandating that any person who has ever been involuntarily committed to a mental institutioneven for a single daycan never own a gun for the rest of his or her life.

Writing the lead opinion for six judges of the en banc court (which is less than a majority, but still the controlling opinion in this case), Judge Julia Gibbons explained that similar to several other appeals courts, the Sixth Circuit had recently adopted a two-step process for Second Amendment cases. The first step asks whether the challenged law burdens conduct that falls within the scope of the Second Amendment right, as historically understood, she wrote. If it does, then the government bears the burden of justifying the constitutionality of the law under a heightened form of scrutiny.

Specifically, these judges decided that intermediate scrutinya term invented decades ago by the Supreme Courtshould apply to this type of gun-control law. As Judge Gibbons wrote, intermediate scrutiny requires (1) the governments stated objective to be important and (2) a reasonable fit between the challenged regulation and the asserted objective. This standard is less stringent than strict scrutiny, which is another judge-made test.

The lead opinion noted that the Justice Department in this case failed to cite historical material or other evidence supporting Section 922(g)(4). In the absence of such evidence, it would be odd to rely solely on Heller to rubber stamp the legislatures power to permanently exclude individuals from a fundamental right based solely on a past involuntary commitment.

Judge Gibbons continued, Some sort of showing must be made to support Congresss adoption of prior involuntary commitments as a basis for a categorical, permanent limitation on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The judges thought this principle applied with special force in this case. Tylers [lawsuit and evidence] suggest that Tyler is thirty years removed from a brief depressive episode and that he has no intervening mental health or substance abuse problems since that time.

None of the governments evidence squarely answers the key question at the heart of this case: Is it necessary to forever bar all previously institutionalized persons from owning a firearm?, the court reasoned. Then noting Congresss own restoration program in Section925(c) and the 2007 law allowing for state restoration programs, added, But the biggest problem for the government is Congresss most recent answer to this very question: No, it is not.

Thus, the court concluded that since the Obama administration presented no evidence supporting this statute, There is no indication of the continued risk presented by people who were involuntarily committed many years ago and who have no history of intervening mental illness, criminal activity, or substance abuse.

The Sixth Circuit thereby invalidated this federal law, holding, As we see it, the government may justify 922(g)(4) in one of two ways: (1) with additional evidence explaining the necessity of 922(g)(4)s lifetime ban or (2) with evidence showing that 922(g)(4) is constitutional as applied to Tyler because he would be a risk to himself or others were he allowed to possess a firearm.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote a separate opinion, joined by several judges, as to why this federal law must be struck down.

Keep in mind that Tyler is not demanding a gun today, he wrote. He is demanding only what Congress used to permit and what most States still permit: an opportunity to show that he is not a risk to himself or others.

After a lengthy discussion, Judge Sutton continued, If there is one thing clear in American law today, it is that the government may not deny an individual a benefit, least of all a constitutional right, based on a sky-high generalization and a skin-deep assumption stemming from a long-ago diagnosis or a long-ago institutionalization.

Tyler has presented plenty of evidence that he is just fine, Judge Sutton concluded.

Judge Karen Moorea Clinton-appointed liberal who is a perfect example of the sort of judge Hillary Clinton would be expected to nominate to the Supreme Courtwrote an energetic dissent, joined by several other liberal judges. In it, she argued that Tyler should never be allowed to own a gun, and that Congress has all the power it needs to ban gun ownership by many other types of Americans as well.

Judge Moore also argued for the dissenting judges that Heller should be interpreted as saying that the Second Amendment does nothing to block federal gun-control power here, a reading that is utterly incompatible with what Justice Scalia actually wrote.

Although the Cincinnati-based appeals court reached the right result, it did not do so for the right reasons.

In fact, the only judge who followed Justice Scalias famous originalist approach in Hellerthe method of interpreting the Constitution and all laws according to the original meaning of their words, a method always followed by Justice Clarence Thomas, and often followed by Justice Samuel Alito as wellwas Judge Alice Batchelder.

Judge Batchelder faulted both the lead opinion and the dissenting opinion for failing to give adequate attention to the Second Amendments original public meaning in defining the contours of the mental health exception. And it is that meaning, informed as it is by the history and tradition surrounding the right, that counts.

She continued that the other opinions debate over strict and intermediate scrutiny gives little more than a nod to the originalist inquiry. This shortchanging of the Supreme Courts approach in Heller (and many other cases) thereby radically marginalizes the role played by the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, and it replaces them with a thoroughly modern (and judge empowering) regime of heightened-scrutiny review.

The appeals courts taking such a course here is a forbidden peregrination from the actual meaning of the Constitution into the realm of judicial policymaking. Instead of fixating on strict or intermediate scrutiny with only a glance at history, the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald put the historical inquiry at the center of the analysis, not at the margin.

Judge Batchelder then explored sources from the time of the Constitutions writing, examining what they said about mental illness, including the relevant factor here of when a person is unable to distinguish good from evil, and could be deprived by the law of certain rights.

She then noted that such deprivations were not once-for-all, and cited numerous sources from the time the Second Amendment was adopted to show that if a person regained their reason and sense of morality, they were no longer regarded as mentally ill.

Judge Batchelder then concluded:

As has been mentioned many times today, the dangers presented by guns are real, frightening, and obvious. Those realities will continue to factor heavily in the scrutiny analysis. Less obvious to the contemporary judicial mind are the Founding-era fears of tyranny and defenselessness that provided the impetus behind the Second Amendment. Whether the Founding generation struck a wise balance in ratifying that amendment is perhaps debatable. What is not debatable is that we federal judgesare neither philosopher kings empowered to fix things according to the dictates of what we fancy is our superior insight, nor rubber stamps, approving whatever laws the legislatures of this country happen to pass. We are bound, rather, by our oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and we must therefore show restraint when that document restrains us and be active when it commands action.

As important as the Sixth Circuits Tyler decision is, that is not the most newsworthy aspect of this case. Because now a federal appeals court has struck down an Act of Congress on constitutional grounds.

That means the Obama administrations solicitor general will now petition the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari to review this case. Under these rare circumstances, it is virtually 100 percent certain that the justices will grant review and hear the case.

That means that the Second Amendment will be back before the Supreme Court in 2017, after a ninth justice has been confirmed to replace Scalia. The Second Amendment has survived twice at the Supreme Court over the past decade, both by only 5-4 votes.

One of the ways that the justices could rule in favor of the federal government would be to overrule Heller, and hold that the Second Amendment does not apply at all to private citizens. [The leftist view of the Second Amendment is that its only meaning is that the federal government cannot stop state governments from arming their National Guard (i.e., militia) units with guns.]

So declarations from Donald Trump and Mike Pence that gun rights are in danger is no longer hypothetical. It is now certain. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, the Second Amendment can be effectively erased from the U.S. Constitution.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

Excerpt from:

Supreme Court Second Amendment Case Could Overrule Heller ...

Genetically modified food – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Genetically modified foods or GM foods, also known as genetically engineered foods, are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering techniques allow for the introduction of new traits as well as greater control over traits than previous methods such as selective breeding and mutation breeding.[1]

Commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its unsuccessful Flavr Savr delayed-ripening tomato.[2][3] Most food modifications have primarily focused on cash crops in high demand by farmers such as soybean, corn, canola, and cotton. Genetically modified crops have been engineered for resistance to pathogens and herbicides and for better nutrient profiles. GM livestock have been developed, although as of November 2013 none were on the market.[4]

There is a scientific consensus[5][6][7][8] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[9][10][11][12][13] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[14][15][16] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[17][18][19][20] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[21][22][23][24]

However, there are ongoing public concerns related to food safety, regulation, labelling, environmental impact, research methods, and the fact that some GM seeds are subject to intellectual property rights owned by corporations.[25]

Genetically modified foods, GM foods or genetically engineered foods, are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering as opposed to traditional cross breeding.[26][27] In the US, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) favor the use of "genetic engineering" over "genetic modification" as the more precise term; the USDA defines genetic modification to include "genetic engineering or other more traditional methods."[28][29]

According to the World Health Organization, "Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called 'modern biotechnology' or 'gene technology', sometimes also 'recombinant DNA technology' or 'genetic engineering'. ... Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods."[26]

Human-directed genetic manipulation of food began with the domestication of plants and animals through artificial selection at about 10,500 to 10,100 BC.[30]:1 The process of selective breeding, in which organisms with desired traits (and thus with the desired genes) are used to breed the next generation and organisms lacking the trait are not bred, is a precursor to the modern concept of genetic modification (GM).[30]:1[31]:1 With the discovery of DNA in the early 1900s and various advancements in genetic techniques through the 1970s[32] it became possible to directly alter the DNA and genes within food.

The first genetically modified plant was produced in 1983, using an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant.[33] Genetically modified microbial enzymes were the first application of genetically modified organisms in food production and were approved in 1988 by the US Food and Drug Administration.[34] In the early 1990s, recombinant chymosin was approved for use in several countries.[34][35] Cheese had typically been made using the enzyme complex rennet that had been extracted from cows' stomach lining. Scientists modified bacteria to produce chymosin, which was also able to clot milk, resulting in cheese curds.[36]

The first genetically modified food approved for release was the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994.[2] Developed by Calgene, it was engineered to have a longer shelf life by inserting an antisense gene that delayed ripening.[37] China was the first country to commercialize a transgenic crop in 1993 with the introduction of virus-resistant tobacco.[38] In 1995, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Potato was approved for cultivation, making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the USA.[39] Other genetically modified crops receiving marketing approval in 1995 were: canola with modified oil composition, Bt maize, cotton resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil, Bt cotton, glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, virus-resistant squash, and another delayed ripening tomato.[2]

With the creation of golden rice in 2000, scientists had genetically modified food to increase its nutrient value for the first time.[40]

By 2010, 29 countries had planted commercialized biotech crops and a further 31 countries had granted regulatory approval for transgenic crops to be imported.[41] The US was the leading country in the production of GM foods in 2011, with twenty-five GM crops having received regulatory approval.[42] In 2015, 92% of corn, 94% of soybeans, and 94% of cotton produced in the US were genetically modified strains.[43]

The first genetically modified animal to be approved for food use was AquAdvantage salmon in 2015.[44] The salmon were transformed with a growth hormone-regulating gene from a Pacific Chinook salmon and a promoter from an ocean pout enabling it to grow year-round instead of only during spring and summer.[45]

In April 2016, a white button mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) modified using the CRISPR technique received de facto approval in the United States, after the USDA said it would not have to go through the agency's regulatory process. The agency considers the mushroom exempt because the editing process did not involve the introduction of foreign DNA.[46]

The most widely planted GMOs are designed to tolerate herbicides. By 2006 some weed populations had evolved to tolerate some of the same herbicides. Palmer amaranth is a weed that competes with cotton. A native of the southwestern US, it traveled east and was first found resistant to glyphosate in 2006, less than 10 years after GM cotton was introduced.[47][48][49]

Genetically engineered organisms are generated and tested in the laboratory for desired qualities. The most common modification is to add one or more genes to an organism's genome. Less commonly, genes are removed or their expression is increased or silenced or the number of copies of a gene is increased or decreased.

Once satisfactory strains are produced, the producer applies for regulatory approval to field-test them, called a "field release." Field-testing involves cultivating the plants on farm fields or growing animals in a controlled environment. If these field tests are successful, the producer applies for regulatory approval to grow and market the crop. Once approved, specimens (seeds, cuttings, breeding pairs, etc.) are cultivated and sold to farmers. The farmers cultivate and market the new strain. In some cases, the approval covers marketing but not cultivation.

According to the USDA, the number of field releases for genetically engineered organisms has grown from four in 1985 to an average of about 800 per year. Cumulatively, more than 17,000 releases had been approved through September 2013.[50]

Papaya was genetically modified to resist the ringspot virus. 'SunUp' is a transgenic red-fleshed Sunset papaya cultivar that is homozygous for the coat protein gene PRSV; 'Rainbow' is a yellow-fleshed F1 hybrid developed by crossing 'SunUp' and nontransgenic yellow-fleshed 'Kapoho'.[51] The New York Times stated, "in the early 1990s, Hawaiis papaya industry was facing disaster because of the deadly papaya ringspot virus. Its single-handed savior was a breed engineered to be resistant to the virus. Without it, the states papaya industry would have collapsed. Today, 80% of Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered, and there is still no conventional or organic method to control ringspot virus."[52] The GM cultivar was approved in 1998.[53] In China, a transgenic PRSV-resistant papaya was developed by South China Agricultural University and was first approved for commercial planting in 2006; as of 2012 95% of the papaya grown in Guangdong province and 40% of the papaya grown in Hainan province was genetically modified.[54]

The New Leaf potato, a GM food developed using naturally occurring bacteria found in the soil known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), was made to provide in-plant protection from the yield-robbing Colorado potato beetle.[55] The New Leaf potato, brought to market by Monsanto in the late 1990s, was developed for the fast food market. It was withdrawn in 2001 after retailers rejected it and food processors ran into export problems.[56]

As of 2005, about 13% of the Zucchini (a form of squash) grown in the US was genetically modified to resist three viruses; that strain is also grown in Canada.[57][58]

In 2011, BASF requested the European Food Safety Authority's approval for cultivation and marketing of its Fortuna potato as feed and food. The potato was made resistant to late blight by adding resistant genes blb1 and blb2 that originate from the Mexican wild potato Solanum bulbocastanum.[59][60] In February 2013, BASF withdrew its application.[61]

In 2013, the USDA approved the import of a GM pineapple that is pink in color and that "overexpresses" a gene derived from tangerines and suppress other genes, increasing production of lycopene. The plant's flowering cycle was changed to provide for more uniform growth and quality. The fruit "does not have the ability to propagate and persist in the environment once they have been harvested," according to USDA APHIS. According to Del Monte's submission, the pineapples are commercially grown in a "monoculture" that prevents seed production, as the plant's flowers aren't exposed to compatible pollen sources. Importation into Hawaii is banned for "plant sanitation" reasons.[62]

In 2014, the USDA approved a genetically modified potato developed by J.R. Simplot Company that contained ten genetic modifications that prevent bruising and produce less acrylamide when fried. The modifications eliminate specific proteins from the potatoes, via RNA interference, rather than introducing novel proteins.[63][64]

In February 2015 Arctic Apples were approved by the USDA,[65] becoming the first genetically modified apple approved for sale in the US.[66]Gene silencing is used to reduce the expression of polyphenol oxidase (PPO), thus preventing the fruit from browning.[67]

Corn used for food and ethanol has been genetically modified to tolerate various herbicides and to express a protein from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that kills certain insects.[68] About 90% of the corn grown in the U.S. was genetically modified in 2010.[69] In the US in 2015, 81% of corn acreage contained the Bt trait and 89% of corn acreage contained the glyphosate-tolerant trait.[43] Corn can be processed into grits, meal and flour as an ingredient in pancakes, muffins, doughnuts, breadings and batters, as well as baby foods, meat products, cereals and some fermented products. Corn-based masa flour and masa dough are used in the production of taco shells, corn chips and tortillas.[70]

Genetically modified soybean has been modified to tolerate herbicides and produce healthier oils.[71] In 2015, 94% of soybean acreage in the U.S. was genetically modified to be glyphosate-tolerant.[43]

Starch or amylum is a polysaccharide produced by all green plants as an energy store. Pure starch is a white, tasteless and odourless powder. It consists of two types of molecules: the linear and helical amylose and the branched amylopectin. Depending on the plant, starch generally contains 20 to 25% amylose and 75 to 80% amylopectin by weight.[72]

Starch can be further modified to create modified starch for specific purposes,[73] including creation of many of the sugars in processed foods. They include:

Lecithin is a naturally occurring lipid. It can be found in egg yolks and oil-producing plants. it is an emulsifier and thus is used in many foods. Corn, soy and safflower oil are sources of lecithin, though the majority of lecithin commercially available is derived from soy.[74][75][76][pageneeded] Sufficiently processed lecithin is often undetectable with standard testing practices.[72][not in citation given] According to the FDA, no evidence shows or suggests hazard to the public when lecithin is used at common levels. Lecithin added to foods amounts to only 2 to 10 percent of the 1 to 5 g of phosphoglycerides consumed daily on average.[74][75] Nonetheless, consumer concerns about GM food extend to such products.[77][bettersourceneeded] This concern led to policy and regulatory changes in Europe in 2000,[citation needed] when Regulation (EC) 50/2000 was passed[78] which required labelling of food containing additives derived from GMOs, including lecithin.[citation needed] Because of the difficulty of detecting the origin of derivatives like lecithin with current testing practices, European regulations require those who wish to sell lecithin in Europe to employ a comprehensive system of Identity preservation (IP).[79][verification needed][80][pageneeded]

The US imports 10% of its sugar, while the remaining 90% is extracted from sugar beet and sugarcane. After deregulation in 2005, glyphosate-resistant sugar beet was extensively adopted in the United States. 95% of beet acres in the US were planted with glyphosate-resistant seed in 2011.[81] GM sugar beets are approved for cultivation in the US, Canada and Japan; the vast majority are grown in the US. GM beets are approved for import and consumption in Australia, Canada, Colombia, EU, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Russian Federation and Singapore.[82] Pulp from the refining process is used as animal feed. The sugar produced from GM sugarbeets contains no DNA or proteinit is just sucrose that is chemically indistinguishable from sugar produced from non-GM sugarbeets.[72][83] Independent analyses conducted by internationally recognized laboratories found that sugar from Roundup Ready sugar beets is identical to the sugar from comparably grown conventional (non-Roundup Ready) sugar beets. And, like all sugar, sugar from Roundup Ready sugar beets contains no genetic material or detectable protein (including the protein that provides glyphosate tolerance).[84]

Most vegetable oil used in the US is produced from GM crops canola,[85]corn,[86][87]cotton[88] and soybeans.[89] Vegetable oil is sold directly to consumers as cooking oil, shortening and margarine[90] and is used in prepared foods. There is a vanishingly small amount of protein or DNA from the original crop in vegetable oil.[72][91] Vegetable oil is made of triglycerides extracted from plants or seeds and then refined and may be further processed via hydrogenation to turn liquid oils into solids. The refining process[92] removes all, or nearly all non-triglyceride ingredients.[93] Medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs) offer an alternative to conventional fats and oils. The length of a fatty acid influences its fat absorption during the digestive process. Fatty acids in the middle position on the glycerol molecules appear to be absorbed more easily and influence metabolism more than fatty acids on the end positions. Unlike ordinary fats, MCTs are metabolized like carbohydrates. They have exceptional oxidative stability, and prevent foods from turning rancid readily.[94]

Livestock and poultry are raised on animal feed, much of which is composed of the leftovers from processing crops, including GM crops. For example, approximately 43% of a canola seed is oil. What remains after oil extraction is a meal that becomes an ingredient in animal feed and contains canola protein.[95] Likewise, the bulk of the soybean crop is grown for oil and meal. The high-protein defatted and toasted soy meal becomes livestock feed and dog food. 98% of the US soybean crop goes for livestock feed.[96][97] In 2011, 49% of the US maize harvest was used for livestock feed (including the percentage of waste from distillers grains).[98] "Despite methods that are becoming more and more sensitive, tests have not yet been able to establish a difference in the meat, milk, or eggs of animals depending on the type of feed they are fed. It is impossible to tell if an animal was fed GM soy just by looking at the resulting meat, dairy, or egg products. The only way to verify the presence of GMOs in animal feed is to analyze the origin of the feed itself."[99]

A 2012 literature review of studies evaluating the effect of GM feed on the health of animals did not find evidence that animals were adversely affected, although small biological differences were occasionally found. The studies included in the review ranged from 90 days to two years, with several of the longer studies considering reproductive and intergenerational effects.[100]

Rennet is a mixture of enzymes used to coagulate milk into cheese. Originally it was available only from the fourth stomach of calves, and was scarce and expensive, or was available from microbial sources, which often produced unpleasant tastes. Genetic engineering made it possible to extract rennet-producing genes from animal stomachs and insert them into bacteria, fungi or yeasts to make them produce chymosin, the key enzyme.[101][102] The modified microorganism is killed after fermentation. Chymosin is isolated from the fermentation broth, so that the Fermentation-Produced Chymosin (FPC) used by cheese producers has an amino acid sequence that is identical to bovine rennet.[103] The majority of the applied chymosin is retained in the whey. Trace quantities of chymosin may remain in cheese.[103]

FPC was the first artificially produced enzyme to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.[34][35] FPC products have been on the market since 1990 and as of 2015 had yet to be surpassed in commercial markets.[104] In 1999, about 60% of US hard cheese was made with FPC.[105] Its global market share approached 80%.[106] By 2008, approximately 80% to 90% of commercially made cheeses in the US and Britain were made using FPC.[103]

In some countries, recombinant (GM) bovine somatotropin (also called rBST, or bovine growth hormone or BGH) is approved for administration to increase milk production. rBST may be present in milk from rBST treated cows, but it is destroyed in the digestive system and even if directly injected into the human bloodstream, has no observable effect on humans.[107][108][109] The FDA, World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association and the National Institutes of Health have independently stated that dairy products and meat from rBST-treated cows are safe for human consumption.[110] However, on 30 September 2010, the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, analyzing submitted evidence, found a "compositional difference" between milk from rBGH-treated cows and milk from untreated cows.[111][112] The court stated that milk from rBGH-treated cows has: increased levels of the hormone Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1); higher fat content and lower protein content when produced at certain points in the cow's lactation cycle; and more somatic cell counts, which may "make the milk turn sour more quickly."[112]

Genetically modified livestock are organisms from the group of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, birds, horses and fish kept for human consumption, whose genetic material (DNA) has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. In some cases, the aim is to introduce a new trait to the animals which does not occur naturally in the species, i.e. transgenesis.

A 2003 review published on behalf of Food Standards Australia New Zealand examined transgenic experimentation on terrestrial livestock species as well as aquatic species such as fish and shellfish. The review examined the molecular techniques used for experimentation as well as techniques for tracing the transgenes in animals and products as well as issues regarding transgene stability.[113]

Some mammals typically used for food production have been modified to produce non-food products, a practice sometimes called Pharming.

A GM salmon, awaiting regulatory approval[114][115][116] since 1997,[117] was approved for human consumption by the American FDA in November 2015, to be raised in specific land-based hatcheries in Canada and Panama.[118]

The use of genetically modified food-grade organisms as recombinant vaccine expression hosts and delivery vehicles can open new avenues for vaccinology. Considering that oral immunization is a beneficial approach in terms of costs, patient comfort, and protection of mucosal tissues, the use of food-grade organisms can lead to highly advantageous vaccines in terms of costs, easy administration, and safety. The organisms currently used for this purpose are bacteria (Lactobacillus and Bacillus), yeasts, algae, plants, and insect species. Several such organisms are under clinical evaluation, and the current adoption of this technology by the industry indicates a potential to benefit global healthcare systems.[119]

There is a scientific consensus[120][121][122][123] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[124][125][126][127][128] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[129][130][131] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[132][133][134][135]

Opponents claim that long-term health risks have not been adequately assessed and propose various combinations of additional testing, labeling[136] or removal from the market.[137][138][139][140] The advocacy group European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), disputes the claim that "science" supports the safety of current GM foods, proposing that each GM food must be judged on case-by-case basis.[141] The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment called for removing GM foods from the market pending long term health studies.[137] Multiple disputed studies have claimed health effects relating to GM foods or to the pesticides used with them.[142]

The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[143][144][145][146] Countries such as the United States, Canada, Lebanon and Egypt use substantial equivalence to determine if further testing is required, while many countries such as those in the European Union, Brazil and China only authorize GMO cultivation on a case-by-case basis. In the U.S. the FDA determined that GMO's are "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS) and therefore do not require additional testing if the GMO product is substantially equivalent to the non-modified product.[147] If new substances are found, further testing may be required to satisfy concerns over potential toxicity, allergenicity, possible gene transfer to humans or genetic outcrossing to other organisms.[26]

Government regulation of GMO development and release varies widely between countries. Marked differences separate GMO regulation in the U.S. and GMO regulation in the European Union.[148] Regulation also varies depending on the intended product's use. For example, a crop not intended for food use is generally not reviewed by authorities responsible for food safety.[149]

In the U.S., three government organizations regulate GMOs. The FDA checks the chemical composition of organisms for potential allergens. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) supervises field testing and monitors the distribution of GM seeds. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for monitoring pesticide usage, including plants modified to contain proteins toxic to insects. Like USDA, EPA also oversees field testing and the distribution of crops that have had contact with pesticides to ensure environmental safety.[150][bettersourceneeded] In 2015 the Obama administration announced that it would update the way the government regulated GM crops.[151]

In 1992 FDA published "Statement of Policy: Foods derived from New Plant Varieties." This statement is a clarification of FDA's interpretation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to foods produced from new plant varieties developed using recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology. FDA encouraged developers to consult with the FDA regarding any bioengineered foods in development. The FDA says developers routinely do reach out for consultations. In 1996 FDA updated consultation procedures.[152][153]

As of 2015, 64 countries require labeling of GMO products in the marketplace.[154]

US and Canadian national policy is to require a label only given significant composition differences or documented health impacts, although some individual US states (Vermont, Connecticut and Maine) enacted laws requiring them.[155][156][157][158] In July 2016, Public Law 114-214 was enacted to regulate labeling of GMO food on a national basis.

In some jurisdictions, the labeling requirement depends on the relative quantity of GMO in the product. A study that investigated voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%.[159]

In Europe all food (including processed food) or feed that contains greater than 0.9% GMOs must be labelled.[160]

Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done using molecular techniques such as PCR and bioinformatics.[161]

In a January 2010 paper, the extraction and detection of DNA along a complete industrial soybean oil processing chain was described to monitor the presence of Roundup Ready (RR) soybean: "The amplification of soybean lectin gene by end-point polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was successfully achieved in all the steps of extraction and refining processes, until the fully refined soybean oil. The amplification of RR soybean by PCR assays using event-specific primers was also achieved for all the extraction and refining steps, except for the intermediate steps of refining (neutralisation, washing and bleaching) possibly due to sample instability. The real-time PCR assays using specific probes confirmed all the results and proved that it is possible to detect and quantify genetically modified organisms in the fully refined soybean oil. To our knowledge, this has never been reported before and represents an important accomplishment regarding the traceability of genetically modified organisms in refined oils."[162]

According to Thomas Redick, detection and prevention of cross-pollination is possible through the suggestions offered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Suggestions include educating farmers on the importance of coexistence, providing farmers with tools and incentives to promote coexistence, conduct research to understand and monitor gene flow, provide assurance of quality and diversity in crops, provide compensation for actual economic losses for farmers.[163]

The genetically modified foods controversy consists of a set of disputes over the use of food made from genetically modified crops. The disputes involve consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, environmental and political activists and scientists. The major disagreements include whether GM foods can be safely consumed, harm the environment and/or are adequately tested and regulated.[138][164] The objectivity of scientific research and publications has been challenged.[137] Farming-related disputes include the use and impact of pesticides, seed production and use, side effects on non-GMO crops/farms,[165] and potential control of the GM food supply by seed companies.[137]

The conflicts have continued since GM foods were invented. They have occupied the media, the courts, local, regional and national governments and international organizations.

The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.

Domingo, Jos L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Gin (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37: 734742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.

Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40: 132. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.

And contrast:

Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology: 15. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN0738-8551. PMID26767435. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.

and

Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96: 18511855. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011).

Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.

Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 8, 2016.

"REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2016. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

"Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved March 21, 2016. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.

The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.

Domingo, Jos L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Gin (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37: 734742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.

Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40: 132. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.

And contrast:

Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology: 15. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN0738-8551. PMID26767435. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.

and

Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96: 18511855. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011).

Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.

Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 8, 2016.

"REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2016. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

"Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved March 21, 2016. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.

Continue reading here:
Genetically modified food - Wikipedia

Free euthanasia Essays and Papers – 123helpme

Posted on by

Title Length Color Rating The Case for Euthanasia - In order to provide a framework for my thesis statement on the morality of euthanasia, it is first necessary to define what euthanasia is and the different types of euthanasia. The term Euthanasia originates from the Greek term eu, meaning happy or good and thanatos, which means death, so the literal definition of the word Euthanasia can be translated to mean good or happy death. The different types of Euthanasia are active or passive euthanasia and voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. Passive Euthanasia generally refers to the ending of a persons life by removing the person from a life-sustaining machine, such as a respirator.... [tags: Pro Euthanasia Essays] :: 5 Works Cited 2340 words (6.7 pages) Term Papers [preview] Euthanasia in Australia - Although euthanasia is a complex and controversial subject, under certain conditions people should have the right to decide to end their own lives. Is euthanasia murder or mercy. We need to understand what Mercy, Murder and Euthanasia are before we can form any opinion. (Oxford dictionary) Mercy / (say mersee) Compassionate or kindly forbearance shown towards: an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power; compassion, pity, or benevolence. Murder / (say merduh) Unlawful killing of a human being by an act done: with intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm.... [tags: Argument for Euthanasia] 1842 words (5.3 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia: A law meant to be broken? - Euthanasia: A law meant to be broken? The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government . (Thomas Jefferson.) Advancements in contemporary medical technologies have served to deny individuals the right to die. However, it may be argued euthanasia has emerged with the purpose of reclaiming that right. The expression euthanasia derives from the Greek words, eu meaning well and thanatos translating to death. According to Webster dictionary, the term euthanasia is defined as an act of killing or permitting death on, incurable sick persons in a painless way, for reasons of mercy .... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 1228 words (3.5 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Exploring the Different Types of Euthanasia - Life is held dear by many, and cherished by most. Many of us can take life for granted when we are healthy and happy. In the same token; one should consider a terminally ill patient, and where such a person may fit in; when it comes to their quality of life. When dealing with unforeseen special circumstance that present themselves, could logic and reasoning be set aside. One could argue that the element of life forms a different comparison; when applied to the average healthy person. This is where the controversy begins, and morals become touchy issues for most people.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 1258 words (3.6 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Examining the Different Types of Euthanasia - Euthanasia also called mercy killing is defined as the act of putting someone to die painlessly or allowing them to die. It is a power of life and death. A doctors method of ending a life to prevent intolerable suffering. For example a person suffering from an incurable disease being taken off life support and allowed to pass away. Murder on the other hand can be defined as the act of violence against another human being. For example a man being shot and killed. The victim dies at a time which is forced by the killer whose sole purpose is to harm.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 673 words (1.9 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia = Murder - Did you ever think about what you would do once you were no longer able to take care of yourself. The pain and the suffering that you may go through, and without your consent a doctor decides to pull the plug on you. Although that may be what you want, that would be known as human euthanasia. Why would someone want to legalize such a thing. Dont you value your life enough to hope to stay alive. If euthanasia were legal, how would people think of doctors who practiced this form of homicide. Doctors are supposed to be our healers and protectors of the sick and disabled.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 1102 words (3.1 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Pros and Cons of Euthanasia - Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending life of another person to relieve that person's suffering and where the act is the cause of death.(Gupta, Bhatnagar and Mishra) Some define it as mercy killing. Euthanasia may be voluntary, non voluntary and involuntary. When terminally ill patient consented to end his or her life, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when the suffering person never consented nor requested to end a life.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 5 Works Cited 1265 words (3.6 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Ethics of Euthanasia - As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 5 Works Cited 1466 words (4.2 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia Should Not Be Legalized - Euthanasia is a Greek word which means gentle and easy death. However, it is the other way around. It is not a gentle or easy death because there is not a type of death which called gentle in the world. According to writer Prof. Ian Dowbiggin, in Ancient Greece people used euthanasia without the patient's permission. It means that in Ancient Greece they did not care about the voluntariness. Also, there are just few doctors who obey the rules of the Hippocratic Oath. (250) After Christianity, the church found out how evil suicide was and they told people killing another person or themselves was a brutal behavior.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 15 Works Cited 1276 words (3.6 pages) Good Essays [preview] Euthanasia Should Not Be Legal - Euthanasia is a word that comes from ancient Greece and it refers to good death. In the modern societies euthanasia is defined as taking away peoples lives who suffer from an incurable disease. They usually go through this process by painlessness ways to avoid the greatest pains that occurs from the disease. A huge number of countries in the World are against euthanasia and any specific type of it. One of the most important things being discussed nowadays is whether euthanasia should be legalized or not.... [tags: Euthanasia is Murder] :: 5 Works Cited 1065 words (3 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia Should Be Legal - Euthanasia has been an ongoing debate for many years. Everyone has an opinion on why euthanasia should or should not be allowed but, it is as simple as having the choice to die with dignity. If a patient wishes to end his or her life before a disease takes away their quality of life, then the patient should have the option of euthanasia. Although, American society considers euthanasia to be morally wrong euthanasia should be considered respecting a loved ones wishes. To understand euthanasia, it is important to know the rights humans have at the end of life, that there are acts of passive euthanasia already in practice, and the beneficial aspects.... [tags: Reasons for Euthanasia, Pro-Euthanasia] :: 4 Works Cited 2051 words (5.9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Active Euthanasia Pros and Cons - Abstract Euthanasia is a long debated topic, going back for decades in our country alone. Both sides of the topic have valid points morally and ethically. The Netherlands have had euthanasia laws in effect since 1973. America has very few states with legislation on the books: Oregon enacted in 1997, Washington 2008. Germany experimented with Active Euthanasia in the 1930s, resulting in one of the most horrendous genocides in the past millennium. No where else do we have a cohort more at risk than the elderly, as they fall prey to the pressures of getting out of the way, and with a burgeoning population of baby boomers now becoming the elderly our system already strained now faces even mor... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 9 Works Cited 1625 words (4.6 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia: A Painless Deaceful Death - Euthanasia is a painless peaceful death. Euthanasia is defined as the deliberate putting to death of a person suffering from a painful, incurable disease(New Standard Encyclopedia Dictionary). People use other terms to describe euthanasia: mercy killing, assisted suicide, and physician assisted suicide. Euthanasia can be unresponsive, (inactive) or active. Unresponsive euthanasia occurs when an incurably ill person refuses life sustaining medical support. Active euthanasia happens when another person deliberately causes the death of a terminally ill person, such as when someone gives a terminally ill person a lethal injection.... [tags: Argument for Euthanasia] 2120 words (6.1 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia: The Right to Die - Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someones life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 5 Works Cited 1655 words (4.7 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Is Euthanasia Morally and Philosophically Justifiable? - When considering whether the piece of legislation titled The Death with Dignity Act is morally and philosophically justifiable, the moral and philosophic viability of what is referred to as active voluntary euthanasia must first be evaluated. Because active voluntary euthanasia seeks to reduce the amount of suffering of the patients as well as offer individuals greater control over their life it can be justified, and the Death with Dignity Act outlines a responsible method for enacting active voluntary euthanasia.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 877 words (2.5 pages) Good Essays [preview] The Catholic View of Euthanasia - The catholic view of euthanasia is that euthanasia is morally wrong. it has always been taught the importance of the commandement "you shall not kill". The church has said that "nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent person, whether a foetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying". the church says any law permitting euthanasia is a unjust law. the catholic church does not accept that people have a right to die.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 845 words (2.4 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia: The Right to Decide - The definition of euthanasia is good death. There are two kinds of euthanasia one being active the other passive. Active euthanasia is the purposeful killing of a person by a medical professional either by administering a lethal injection or by prohibiting necessary means of survival. Passive euthanasia is where a patient has medical care withheld. I believe that either a terminally ill person or a severely handicapped one should have the right to decide if they wish to live or to die. I think this right is one that should be able to be chosen by any human being provided they are of sound mind and know exactly what they are asking for, and any consequences that may come with their decision... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 2 Works Cited 874 words (2.5 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia is Morally Wrong - The matter of euthanasia continues to be a contentious issue within todays society. Over the past years, there have been a slew of debates that have tried to justify the practice of assisted suicide, otherwise known as euthanasia. Gallups survey in 2007 served to illustrate this fact by showing that over 75 percent of Americans believe that euthanasia should be permitted. However, what Americans have failed to discern is that legalizing any form of euthanasia goes against the sanctity of life and will result in no limitations to the justifications of why it is being performed.... [tags: Against Euthanasia ] :: 10 Works Cited 1829 words (5.2 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia Should Be Legal - Dogs do not have many advantages over people, but one of them is extremely important: euthanasia is not forbidden by law in their case; animals have the right to a merciful death. Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many people believe that doctors should not prescribe any medication that ends a persons life since it is considered to be against the Hippocratic Oath.... [tags: Benefits of Euthanasia] :: 12 Works Cited 2448 words (7 pages) Term Papers [preview] Death with Dignity (Euthanasia) - What is the value of life exactly. Who decides whether or not someones life is valuable. These and many other questions are asked when the controversial topic of euthanasia is discussed. Certain groups and different politicians disapprove of the legalization of euthanasia, arguing that it is immoral and unethical. Doctors use modern medicine and expanding technology to extend ones life. However, court mandates and/or politicians should not decide our rights. Especially when it involves our own bodies.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 7 Works Cited 1501 words (4.3 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia Should Be Legal - Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.... [tags: Argument for Euthanasia] :: 13 Works Cited 3709 words (10.6 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia: Unethical And Immoral - Despite ones medical condition, euthanasia should not be an end of life choice. But what is euthanasia or doctor-assisted suicide. Euthanasia is defined as "the bringing about of a gentle and easy death for a person suffering from a painful incurable disease," while Suicide on the other hand, is "the intentional killing of oneself." Doctor-assisted suicide combines both of these definitions with the idea of a physician helping a terminally ill patient to die. Doctors can perform euthanasia by giving a patient a lethal injection or by prescribing a lethal dose of drugs (Euthanasia).... [tags: Ethics of Euthanasia] 2107 words (6 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia is Morally Wrong - According to Websters Dictionary, Euthanasia is conceding painless death to a patient who is considered to be hopelessly ill, because of a non-curable disease. The term is used to refer to the act of deliberately taking the life of a sick person, especially those who are sick from terminal illnesses. Patients in this category are normally those who are nearing their death from a persistent terminal illness and medicine does not to have much effect on them. Different scholars hold different opinions on whether to legalize the practice.... [tags: Against Euthanasia ] :: 4 Works Cited 2422 words (6.9 pages) Research Papers [preview] Why Euthanasia is Wrong - Thou Shalt Not Kill (Exodus 20: 13-14). One of the Ten Commandments put forward by God to Moses at the top of Mount Sinai. The killing of another human being is morally wrong and unacceptable. No one has the right to take away another persons life, whether it be through hatred and disgust, or compassion and love. Murder is murder. So why should those select few who work in the clinics of Switzerland, whose occupation is to assist in a persons suicide, become immune from this law against murder.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 1251 words (3.6 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Should Euthanasia be Prohibited? - Imagine a man, sixty years of age, who has just been told by a medical doctor that his wife of forty-three years has contracted an incurable and terminal disease. The medical doctor informs the man that his spouses condition will begin to deteriorate. The disease will lead to chronic acute pain in the body, followed by loss of motor functions, and eventually death. The man is living in the moment knowing that nothing can be done to prevent his wifes disease from progressing, and in despair he chooses to over medicate her with painkillers.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 11 Works Cited 1550 words (4.4 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia: Not Morally Acceptable - Abstract In the following essay, I argue that euthanasia is not morally acceptable because it always involves killing, and undermines intrinsic value of human being. The moral basis on which euthanasia defends its position is contradictory and arbitrary in that its moral values represented in such terms as mercy killing, dying with dignity, good death and right for self-determination fail to justify taking ones life. Introduction Among other moral issues, euthanasia emerged with modern medical advancement, which allows us ever more control over not only our life but also death.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 1644 words (4.7 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia a Controversial and of Risky Practice - Euthanasia is a huge problem in the world today. There are many different controversies on the subject and many different ideas from people and the government. Euthanasia is often referred to as physician-assisted suicide ("Euthanasia") or mercy killing ("debate.org"). Euthanasia is referred to as the right of terminally ill people to end their suffering with a quick and dignified death ("Euthanasia"). Euthanasia can be seen as essential, profitable, or just plain unacceptable to the world but should it be legal in the United States.... [tags: death with dignity, unvoluntary euthanasia] :: 10 Works Cited 1325 words (3.8 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Argument Analysis: Euthanasia and the Right to Die - The right to die and euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, have long been topics of passionate debate. Euthanasia is simply mercy killing while the phrase physician-assisted suicide regards the administering or the provision of lethal means to aid in the ending of a persons life. The right to die entails the belief that if humans have the governmental and natural right to live and to prolong their lives then they should also have the right to end their life whenever desired. Articles such as Gary Cartwrights Last Rights and Margaret Somervilles The Role of Death provide the life support for these two topics will likely never fade away.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 2 Works Cited 1034 words (3 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia: Biologically Dead or Technologically Alive - Marc Weides mom decided she wanted to die and her death was scheduled in less than a week. She was diagnosed with terminal cancer and after having several nights of unbearable suffering, decided she preferred to die sooner than later. Her decision was spontaneous, and the answer she received was sooner than expected. She had to plan her funeral, her goodbyes and her last days in less than a week. Her family knew they could not interfere, not with her decision, and certainly not with the end of her life.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 7 Works Cited 1320 words (3.8 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Arguments For And Against Euthanasia - Euthanasia is the practice of ending an individual's life in order to relieve them from an incurable disease or unbearable suffering. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for "good death" and originally referred to as intentional killing ( Patelarou, Vardavas, Fioraki, Alegakis, Dafermou, & Ntzilepi, 2009). Euthanasia is a controversial topic which has raised a great deal of debate globally. Although euthanasia has received great exposure in the professional media, there are some sticky points that lack clarity and need to be addressed.... [tags: Euthanasia Pros and Cons] :: 6 Works Cited 1956 words (5.6 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia Must Not Be Legalized - Presently, many cases of euthanasia had occurred around the world. Many a time we will stop and ask whether the person has anymore hope to live as a normal person. At the end it is left to the court to decide whether the people live or die. But why does the patient or the guardian choose euthanasia when they can live a longer time with their loved ones. Some might ask whether it is worth to see your loved ones suffering, wouldnt it be better to end the suffering. To answer this question we must know what euthanasia means.... [tags: Arguments Against Euthanasia] :: 9 Works Cited 2090 words (6 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Argument in Favor of Euthanasia - Debate about the morality and legality of voluntary euthanasia has been a phenomenon since the second half of the 20th century. The ancient Greeks and Romans did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were tolerant of suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or when a person no longer cared for their life (Young). In the 4th century BC, the Hippocratic Oath was written by Hippocrates, the father of medicine. One part of the Oath states, I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause and abortion (Brock).... [tags: Euthanasia, Argumentative Essay] :: 10 Works Cited 2090 words (6 pages) Better Essays [preview] Argument in Favor of Euthanasia - Introduction Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature. (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, killing is always considered murder, and while life is present, so is hope are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population.... [tags: Pro Euthanasia Essays] :: 10 Works Cited 1897 words (5.4 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Is Euthanasia Morally Acceptable? - Is it right to intentionally bring about the death of a person. The vast majority of people would instinctively answer this question no, unless it related to an act of war or perhaps self-defense. What if taking the life of the person would benefit that person by ending their suffering. Would it be morally acceptable to end their suffering. Questions like these are debated by those considering the morality of euthanasia, which is a very controversial topics in America. Euthanasia can be defined as bringing about the death of another person to somehow benefit that person (Pojman).... [tags: Pros and Cons of Euthanasia] :: 4 Works Cited 2344 words (6.7 pages) Research Papers [preview] Euthanasia Devalues Human Life - Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a patient to limit the patients suffering. The patient in question would typically be terminally ill or experiencing great pain and suffering. The word euthanasia itself comes from the Greek words eu (good) and thanatos (death). The idea is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, and undignified death, euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively good death. The technical definition of euthanasia is the act of ending life painlessly, often someone suffering from an incurable illness.... [tags: Arguments Against Euthanasia] 2070 words (5.9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] History of Euthanasia in America - History of Euthanasia in America 1973- The American Medical Association issues the Patient Bill of Rights. The groundbreaking document allows patients to refuse medical treatment. 1976- The New Jersey Supreme Court rules that the parents of Karen Ann Quinlan, who has been in a tranquilizer-and-alcohol-induced coma for a year, can remove her respirator. She dies nine years later. 1979- Jo Roman, a New York artist dying of cancer, makes a videotape, telling her friends and family she intends to end her life.... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] 899 words (2.6 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Argument For Legalizing Euthanasia - A patient is diagnosed with brain tumors that have spread to their bones and muscles. The doctor gives them three months to live, but only with the continuation of treatment. They spend most of their remaining time in a hospital receiving chemotherapy and radiation treatments. They must be pushed in a wheelchair because they are too sick to walk and spend the rest of their few months in pain, knowing they will die but not sure when. That is how the last few months of Cristy Grayson's life was spent.... [tags: Pro Euthanasia Essay] :: 14 Works Cited 2981 words (8.5 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia Essay: Eugenics To Euthanasia - Eugenics To Euthanasia This essay presents the appeal which euthanasia has to modern society. What is this appeal based on. Is it a valid appeal. These and other questions are addressed in this paper. See if this story sounds familiar: A happily married couple - she is a pianist; he a rising scientist - have their love suddenly tested by a decline in the wife's health. Diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, she falls victim to a steady loss of muscle control and paralysis. The desperate husband uses all his professional skills to save her.... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] :: 1 Works Cited 1001 words (2.9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia Should Be Performed By Medical Professionals - Although, euthanasia was widely discussed in the eighteenth century (the era of enlightenment), this controversial topic only gained national publicity in the year 1915 when Dr. Haiselden refused to perform a lifesaving surgery on a deformed child, leading to the childs death (Doug, 2013). The morality of Dr. Haiseldens action became scrutinized, as America asked, Is it moral for someone to let another die through actions or lack thereof. There are differences of opinion concerning the morality of euthanasia; however, I conclude that physician-assisted suicide of the terminally ill is morally acceptable because not only is it permissible to kill terminally ill patients but also the goals... [tags: Euthanasia and Medical Ethics] :: 11 Works Cited 3063 words (8.8 pages) Research Papers [preview] Top Ten Reasons For Legalizing Euthanasia - Euthanasia has always been a taboo subject in some cultures. People all over the world so openly engage in conversation in matters of life. But when it comes to the other half of life, death, no one likes discussing it. Only terrorists claim how glorious death will be. These are some of the reasons that many people in society feel that euthanasia is morally wrong. Who is to say when it is time for someone to die or how much a person should suffer before they are allowed to end their life. How does someone know what the right age is that people should die.... [tags: Argument in Favor of Euthanasia] :: 5 Works Cited 2067 words (5.9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Defending Euthanasia - Margaret Somerville, who has authored, edited, and co-edited a number of books and newspaper articles opposing the use of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and who also is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, and Founding Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law at McGill University, Montreal, wrote the internet article titled Against Euthanasia. In the article Somerville blatantly states that any type of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is completely and totally wrong under all circumstances.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 1049 words (3 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Legalize Euthanasia - Euthanasia is very controversial topic in the world today. Euthanasia, by definition, is the act of killing someone painlessly ,especially someone suffering from an incurable illness. Many people find euthanasia morally wrong, but others find people have control over thier own bodies and have a right to die. A solution to this problem is to have the patient consent to euthansia and have legal documentation of the consent. Euthanasia and assisted suicide is a rising controversial problem in the world.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 4 Works Cited 690 words (2 pages) Better Essays [preview] America Needs Voluntary Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide - When people hear the word suicide it invokes controversy. Although it is a taboo subject; if a loved one was faced with a terminal illness becoming extremely critical this would pose a moral question. Could a person be willing to accept the fact their family member intended to use medical assisted suicide. Very few individuals would agree with this, but in the same instance should a human being want their relative to be in unbearable pain. According to the author, Indeed, physician-assisted suicide implies not a resistance to but an extension of medical power over life and death (Salem).... [tags: euthanasia, ethics] :: 5 Works Cited 1071 words (3.1 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Should Euthanasia be Allowed? - Every day, numerous people around the world acquire diseases that have no cure. Whether a person attempts vigorously to rid the disease or does nothing at all, some diseases contracted will never disappear. In fact, some diseases will cause much pain and struggle throughout one's fight for life, but in the end, these incurable diseases may kill that person leaving him/her fighting for nothing but death. If an individual will endure months of suffering and will most likely die, would it stand acceptable to allow that person a peaceful death.... [tags: euthanasia, assisted suicide, peaceful death] 1672 words (4.8 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Non-Voluntary Euthanasia: The Future of Euthanasia - Non-Voluntary Euthanasia: The Future of Euthanasia Non-voluntary euthanasia seems to be the natural direction in which euthanasia practice evolves. In the Netherlands at the present time, there is a fear on the part of the aged, about being taken to the hospital - where the doctor may have the last word about life and death. This essay digs into this evolutionary process of voluntary euthanasia evolving into the non-voluntary type. Advocates of legalised euthanasia almost always insist that they only want voluntary euthanasia (VE) - a they say they are as opposed to the taking of life without the subject's knowledge or consent, that is, non-voluntary euthanasia (NVE), as anyone... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 12 Works Cited 2940 words (8.4 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia Essay - Concerns About Euthanasia - A medical examiner from Oakland County, Michigan and three researchers from the University of South Florida have studied key characteristics of 69 patients whose suicides were assisted by Jack Kevorkian between 1990 and 1998. Their findings are published in the December 7 New England Journal of Medicine. Autopsies show that only 25 percent of Kevorkian's clients were terminally ill when he helped them kill themselves. "Seventy-two percent of the patients had had a recent decline in health status that may have precipitated the desire to die." However, "no anatomical disease was confirmed at autopsy" in 5 of the 69 people.... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 5 Works Cited 1277 words (3.6 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia is Murder - Euthanasia is the Greek word meaning good death. Euthanasia is the act of assisting in ending ones life, killing a person or an animal in a painless or minimally painful way. There are 3 different types of euthanasia. Volantary - which means that the doctor, or whoever performed the assisted death got full permission from the patient to kill them. Nonvolantary - without full consent of the patient or if the patient did give them their full consent, they werent fully decisionally-competent. And Involantary - this is when the person is killed against their will, they refuse to die but they are still killed.... [tags: Euthanasia Essay] 590 words (1.7 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia is Moral - Missing Works Cited Recent debates over active euthanasia, "killing" a terminally ill patient, in Holland, has raised the question whether euthanasia is immoral or a simple human right. Doctors seem to have no doubt. They made an oath. The definition of Euthanasia depends on whether it is active or passive. Active Euthanasia I only allowed in Holland, and it means that the doctor takes direct measures to put a patient to sleep, whereas passive Euthanasia only involves stopping pill consumption, or stopping treatment.... [tags: Argument for Euthanasia] 2629 words (7.5 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Legalization of Euthanasia: The Case of The influence Chantal Sebire - Imagine a person goes to the doctor and finds out that he or she has inoperable or advanced stage cancer, AIDS or some debilitating disease like Lou Gehrigs or Multiple Sclerosis. Death is an inescapable fact of life, but in scenarios with cancer, AIDS and other fatal diseases, it is closer and might be more painful than one hopes. Recent developments in Belgium pertaining to the legalization of euthanasia in terminally ill children , as well as the coverage of the case of French citizen Chantal Sebire, who was s suffering from esthesioneuroblastoma( a rare, incurable cancer of the nasal cavity which would progressively damage her brain and eventually kill her) remind us of the top... [tags: Death, cancer, euthanasia] :: 9 Works Cited 1373 words (3.9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia Moral Isuue in the United States - Every day thousands of people are turning to a controversial practice for solving their health problems. This unique practice that ends the individuals life that is suffering from a terminal illness, disease, or an incurable condition by the means of lethal injection (Emanuel) thus ceasing the persons life is called Euthanasia. Euthanasia is also referred to as a mercy killing, which is, the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition(Goel).... [tags: euthanasia bill, mercy killing, lethal injection] :: 5 Works Cited 1871 words (5.3 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia in the Netherlands - As most countries abstain from the right to euthanasia, the Lower House of Parliament on November 28, 2000 passed a bill, legalizing euthanasia in the Netherlands. Will this law impact the beliefs and ideals of other countries and cause them to re-evaluate their medical procedures. In Why Physicians. Reflections on the Netherlands New Euthanasia Law, Jos V. M. Welie provides a descriptive overview of the history of the Dutch penal code on euthanasia in the Netherlands. In Euthanizing Life, John F.... [tags: Euthanasia, Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 2 Works Cited 859 words (2.5 pages) Better Essays [preview] The Bible and Euthanasia - Euthanasia is a controversial issue in today's society. It is defined as the intentional ending of a life with the purpose of relieving pain or suffering. Many people believe that it is within a human's right to die a peaceful, dignified death with assistance. While others believe that euthanasia is an immoral act and that legalising the deliberate killing of humans will undermine the legal system in the UK. Currently in the UK, it is illegal for a doctor or another person to deliberately do something that causes the patient to die - e.g.... [tags: Euthanasia, Physician Assisted Suicide] 603 words (1.7 pages) Good Essays [preview] Euthanasia/Physician Assisted Suicide Should Not be Legalized - I. Introduction An admired man, loved and respected by his family, was burdened with a life or death situation; his. At the age of 72, this man was diagnosed with cancer and being middle class, the costs of treatment seemed more painful than the cancer itself. He was distressed with the thought of putting his family through financial hardships. Living in Oregon, with the Measure 16 law just passing for the legalizing of euthanasia, he felt he had no other choice. Knowing his family would disagree, he decided to ask for his doctors advice.... [tags: Euthanasia, argumentative, persuasive] :: 1 Works Cited 1350 words (3.9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Active Euthanasia: Benefiting The Patient is not The Worse Act - Despite passive euthanasia being more morally permissible to the majority of society, it can most certainly be argued that the action of active euthanasia results in a better consequence. Passive euthanasia is the withdrawing or withholding of a patients life-sustaining medication and active defined as the act of purposely bringing someone to their deaths. Through years of debate and criticism over methods of euthanasia, it has been concluded in the medical profession that the acts of euthanasia should be beneficial.... [tags: passive euthanasia, moral consequences] :: 7 Works Cited 1223 words (3.5 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Societys View on Abortion, Euthanasia and the Death Penalty - When it comes to the issues of dying by abortion, euthanasia or the death penalty society views each issue passionately. As we look at the issues and as the circumstances change, society will dictate how it reacts. When it comes to abortion there are two complex opposing groups, pro-lifers and pro-choicers, each group think that their position is the right position. The pro-lifers argues that abortion is not acceptable, because the fetus a viable human being, having a distinctive life of its own, to have an abortion is deliberately taking a life and that is murder.... [tags: Abortion, Euthanasia, Death Penalty] :: 1 Works Cited 1378 words (3.9 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia in Australia - When we hear the phrase voluntary euthanasia people generally think of one of two things: the active termination of life at the patient's or the Nazi extermination program of murder. Many people have beliefs about whether euthanasia is right or wrong, often without being able to define it clearly. Some people take an extreme view, while many fall somewhere between the two camps. The derivation means gentle and easy death coming from the Greek words, eu - thanatos. Euthanasia was formerly called "mercy killing," euthanasia means intentionally making someone die, rather than allowing that person to die naturally.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 2588 words (7.4 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Speech on Euthanasia - Speech on Euthanasia I stand before you today in confrontation. I stand before you today equal to any man. I stand before you today with a challenge. I challenge any man who deems, their morals, their ethics, their beliefs, their conscience enough to find themselves fit to judge others. I challenge any man who deems himself fit to pass judgement upon anothers life. I challenge any man who believes they can play god. I challenge any man who believes in euthanasia. How can you believe in something you cannot justify.... [tags: Euthanasia is Murder] 1153 words (3.3 pages) Good Essays [preview] Euthanasia - Dr. Jack Kevorkian - Euthanasia - Dr. Jack Kevorkian Is euthanasia murder or is it actually saving someone from extra pain and suffering. This is just one of the questions that are causing so much debate in our society today. Should euthanasia be illegal. Is it right that a person has to suffer through three months of life support before they die just because the law says that even though a person is going to die soon that it is wrong to help them end their suffering because that would be considered murder. Many people believe that euthanasia should be legalized.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 5 Works Cited 922 words (2.6 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia Should Be A Legal Option - Euthanasia is a controversial subject, not only because there are many different moral dilemmas associated with it, but also in what constitutes its definition. At the extreme ends of disagreement, advocates say euthanasia, also known as physician aid in dying, is a good or merciful death. Opponents of euthanasia say it's a fancy word for murder. There are reasons that would make a person lean toward the side of euthanasia, and there are also reasons that would turn someone away from euthanasia.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] :: 5 Works Cited 3415 words (9.8 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Moral Views on Abortion and Euthanasia - Moral Views on Abortion and Euthanasia The argument of the sanctity of life lies at the heart of all ethical debates on embryo experiments, abortion and euthanasia. In 1967, a nationwide debate was instigated in Britain, regarding whether abortion was a violation of the sanctity of life. Pro-life groups were angered by the legalisation of abortion, many believing that abortion was to destroy a sacred gift from God. Pro-choice groups, on the other hand, welcomed the reform, as they believed women should have the freedom to decide what is best for themselves.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 3087 words (8.8 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Pro Legalization of Euthanasia - I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint, my heart is like wax, it is melted within my breast, my mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws, you lay me in the dust of death (Psalm 22) Some might say euthanasia is wrong, it is murder, it is an inhumane act. But is it not inhumane to see another persons unbearable suffering and not release them when they long to be released. Is it not cruel to watch a person in a vegetative state, with no brainwaves showing, fed by a machine, breathing with the help of a machine and not let them be liberated from their pain.... [tags: Argument for Euthanasia] :: 8 Works Cited 1914 words (5.5 pages) Term Papers [preview] Exploration of Euthanasia - Exploration of Euthanasia Euthanasia is when an ill person or somebody with a major disability wants to end their own life to stop their pain or so their family and friends can be free of looking after them, it's not just when somebody is ill but it is also when they decide enough is enough. There are many types of euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia - when the ill person chooses to ask to die but is incapable of committing suicide without any help. This is often called 'assisted suicide' Involuntary euthanasia - when other people decide that it would be best if someone's life ends because he or she is not able to make such a decision.... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] 698 words (2 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia and Religion - Euthanasia and Religion In the world today, medical technology is so advanced that a terminally ill patient can be kept alive for months or even years - sometimes against the will of the patient. When did suicide become a sin, and who decided that it was. "Opinion polls consistently show a majority of people professing all varieties of faiths support a change in the law for voluntary euthanasia. Even amongst Roman Catholics, more people support euthanasia than oppose (a poll in Scotland showed over 50% support), in spite of the church's opposition" (Religion and the Right to Die 1).... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 10 Works Cited 2181 words (6.2 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia and Religion - Euthanasia and Religion Euthanasia is the inducement of a gentle and easy death. It is considered to be a form of suicide. Yet the procedure requires the assistance of a third party, due to the potential incapacity of the individual requesting this procedure be carried out. The case could then be turned into one of homicide. As a result of this, it is incredibly difficult to find an individual who is willing to aid in the conduct of euthanasia, as they could face prosecution in a criminal court on the charge of murder.... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] 840 words (2.4 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Doctors and Euthanasia - The Australian Medical Association opposes euthanasia. The Canadian Medical Association opposes euthanasia. The American Medical Association opposes euthanasia. The British Medical Association opposes euthanasia. This essay tries to explain why. During the debate in 1995-7 over the Northern Territory's temporary legalization of euthanasia, the Australian Medical Association was a major factor in convincing the nation's parliament to reverse the law. Canadian doctors watched with great interest the national debate in the United States leading up to the Supreme Court decision of June of '97.... [tags: Euthanasia, Physician Assisted Suicide] 498 words (1.4 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Euthanasia Debate - Euthanasia in this paper is examined in those countries which have legalized the procedure. And is found to be more of a burden than a blessing, indicating from the Dutch experience that it becomes an uncontrollable force once it has been legalized. There are welcome alternatives, for which proper training is necessary on the part of medical professionals. The original or first broad euthanasia program was for the purpose of "purifying" the German race under Hitler. It was a creation of German physicians, not of Hitler.... [tags: Pros and Cons of Euthanasia] :: 10 Works Cited 2473 words (7.1 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Euthanasia Debate - Qualifying euthanasia by calling it active or passive, direct or indirect, voluntary, non-voluntary, involuntary, or assisted suicide only confuses the picture. Euthanasia is when the doctor kills the patient. This simplification is made at the outset as an assist to the reader in more easily understanding the essential meaning without getting lost in hair-splitting verbiage. This approach does not compromise any of the excellent sources documenting this essay. The original or first broad euthanasia program was for the purpose of "purifying" the German race under Hitler.... [tags: Pros and Cons of Euthanasia] :: 11 Works Cited 3048 words (8.7 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Abortion and euthanasia - Abortion And Euthanasia The Roman Catholic Church believe that life begins when the baby is made (conception). From this belief it influences its attitude to issues such as contraception, euthanasia and suicide. Roman Catholics say that life is sacred. What they mean by that is that life is special to God. For them, every person is a separate living human being and all have the rights to live. All Roman Catholics are against abortion, they believe that abortion is a murder and should have the rights to life.... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] 715 words (2 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia: Everyone Has the Right to Die - One of the reasons I picked Euthanasia is a subject that I am unfamiliar with. I want to learn both sides of the argument and how people from each side thought about it. So in this paper I will talk about both sides of the argument, the people on each side, and the different types of Euthanasia. The subject of Euthanasia is a heated battle, in which lines have been drawn between warring social, religious and political groups. Many people want this controversial institution erased from the volumes of lawful medicine, but others say that we should be able to choose our fates in extreme cases.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays] 1489 words (4.3 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Debate on Euthanasia in the United Kingdom - The Debate on Euthanasia in the United Kingdom One of the biggest controversies in the UK today is Euthanasia. Arguments about Euthanasia often hinge on the right to life and right to die, should it be legalised. Originally the word Euthanasia meant a gentle and easy death, however nowadays it is the act of inducing an easy death. Why the change in meaning and everybodys new found view that Euthanasia is in fact murder. Many people have diverse views on the issue. Humanists live by moral principles and promote happiness and fulfillment in this life; they believe that voluntary euthanasia is morally correct, whilst upholding the need for safeguards to preven... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] 647 words (1.8 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia should not be legalized in America - Euthanasia refers to the intentional bringing about of the death of a patient, either by killing him/her, or by letting him/her die, for the patients sake to prevent further pain or suffering from a terminal illness. Euthanasia is a complex issue in many underlying theological, sociological, moral, and legal aspects. Its legalization is heavily debated around the world, with strong arguments made for both sides of the issue. The supporters of euthanasia often repeated that We have to respect the freedom of the patient" or people should be able to exercise control over their own lives and death. However, Euthanasia, by nature, is wrongfully killing or mercy killing, and if we al... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] 898 words (2.6 pages) Strong Essays [preview] A Reasonable Approach to Euthanasia - A Reasonable Approach to Euthanasia One of the biggest controversies of this decade is euthanasia. Euthanasia is "inducing the painless death of a person for reasons assumed to be merciful?(Henrickson and Martin 24). There are four types of euthanasia voluntary and direct, voluntary but indirect, direct but involuntary, and indirect and involuntary. Voluntary and direct euthanasia is "chosen and carried out by the patient.. Voluntary but indirect euthanasia is chosen in advance. Direct but involuntary euthanasia is done for the patient without his or her request.... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 8 Works Cited 1570 words (4.5 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia is the Right to Kill - Euthanasia is the Right to Kill In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley shows an example of the widely debated topic of doctor-assisted deaths, or euthanasia. Formerly called mercy killing, euthanasia means making someone die rather than allowing them to die naturally. In Huxleys novel the futuristic World-State uses euthanasia for everyone who is no longer useful to society. Death with dignity, has become a catch phrase used by euthanasia activists, but theres nothing dignified about killing someone.... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] 604 words (1.7 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia: Each Case is Unique - Which is better - suffering, agonizing, and holding onto life for a short period of time or just being laid to rest in peace. Nine out of ten people would pick the latter if just asked that question without a scenario, but when given an example containing their family they might change their opinion. This is when the question of whether or not euthanasia should be an option comes into play. Euthanasia is a topic to which many people do not give a lot of thought. When reading about euthanasia and having to make the decision whether or not I support or oppose it, I came to the conclusion that I support euthanasia - but only in certain cases.... [tags: Euthanasia, Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 1 Works Cited 755 words (2.2 pages) Better Essays [preview] Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide and the Law - Euthanasia and the Law A severely handicapped or terminally ill person should have the right to choose to live or die. The right to live; the right to choose to live or die should not only be a right allocated for bodied individuals of sound mind but for all human beings. Euthanasia is a controversial issue which encompasses the morals, values and beliefs of our society. Euthanasia, literally defined means "good death". There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive.... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] 1865 words (5.3 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia: Not Just for the Terminally Ill - Euthanasia: Not Just for the Terminally Ill Euthanasia or assisted suicide would not only be available to people who are terminally ill. This popular misconception is what this essay seeks to correct. There is considerable confusion on this point, perhaps further complicated by statements in the media. There are two problems here - the definition of "terminal" and the changes that have already taken place to extend euthanasia or assisted suicide to those who aren't "terminally ill. There are many definitions for the word "terminal." For example, Jack Kevorkian who participated in the deaths of more than 130 people before he was convicted of murder said that a terminal illness... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 12 Works Cited 1389 words (4 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia Not Only at Patient's Request - Euthanasia Not Only at Patient's Request No indeed, euthanasia and assisted suicide would not only be at a patient's request. This false presumption has been disproven time and again by the practical working-out of euthanasia and assisted suicide in locales where it has been legalized. And yes, there are complications, which are not given great media exposure, but which appear in journals devoted to this debate. It is the intention of this essay to correct these false notions - with copious professional documentation.... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 19 Works Cited 2391 words (6.8 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Moral and Ethical Issues of Euthanasia - Moral and Ethical Issues of Euthanasia As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life. Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it.... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 5 Works Cited 1525 words (4.4 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Active Euthanasia, Free Will and Autonomy - Active Euthanasia, Free Will and Autonomy "Medicine in the hands of a fool has always been poison and death." -C. J. Jung Euthanasia, from the Greek, quite literally means "the good death." Advocates of euthanasia, offer it as a solution for the emotional, psychological and physiologic suffering of terminally ill patients. The type of euthanasia, which is presently under debate, is called "active euthanasia" and is defined as an act performed by an individual to bring about the death of another person.... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide] :: 5 Works Cited 1933 words (5.5 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Dr. Kevorkian and the Benefits of Euthanasia - Everybody at one time or another will inevitably have death knocking at the door. And no it will not be Brad Pitt. Coping with death is a very difficult concept to deal with. Dying comes in one of three ways: homicide, suicide and natural causes. There is no debate with regards to homicide, a person takes the life of another person. Suicide is the taking of one's own life, similarly a paper cannot be written for or against it. Last but not least is death by natural causes. I would not want to write a paper on why a one hundred-fifty year old person passes away; could it have been that the person was really really old.... [tags: Euthanasia, Physician Assisted Suicide] 1936 words (5.5 pages) Strong Essays [preview]

Read more here:

Free euthanasia Essays and Papers - 123helpme

Taking Life: Humans, by Peter Singer – Utilitarian

Posted on by

In dealing with an objection to the view of abortion presented in Chapter 6, we have already looked beyond abortion to infanticide. In so doing we will have confirmed the suspicion of supporters of the sanctity of human life that once abortion is accepted, euthanasia lurks around the next comer - and for them, euthanasia is an unequivocal evil. It has, they point out, been rejected by doctors since the fifth century B.C., when physicians first took the Oath of Hippocrates and swore 'to give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel'. Moreover, they argue, the Nazi extermination programme is a recent and terrible example of what can happen once we give the state the power to MI innocent human beings.

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show in this chapter, however, this is not something to be regarded with horror, and the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly misleading. On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that - as we saw in Chapter 4 - collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.

'Euthanasia' means, according to the dictionary, 'a gentle and easy death', but it is now used to refer to the killing of those who are incurably ill and in great pain or distress, for the sake of those killed, and in order to spare them further suffering or distress. This is the main topic of this chapter. I shall also consider, however, some cases in which, though killing is not contrary to the wishes of the human who is killed, it is also not carried out specifically for the sake of that being. As we shall see, some cases involving newborn infants fall into this category. Such cases may not be 'euthanasia' within the strict meaning of the term, but they can usefully be included within the same general discussion, as long as we are clear about the relevant differences.

Within the usual definition of euthanasia there are three different types, each of which raises distinctive ethical issues. it will help our discussion if we begin by setting out this threefold distinction and then assess the justifiability of each type.

TYPES OF EUTHANASIA

Most of the groups currently campaigning for changes in the law to allow euthanasia are campaigning for voluntary euthanasia - that is, euthanasia carried out at the request of the person killed.

Sometimes voluntary euthanasia is scarcely distinguishable from assisted suicide. In Jean's Way, Derek Humphry has told how his wife Jean, when dying of cancer, asked him to provide her with the means to end her life swiftly and without pain. They had seen the situation coming and discussed it beforehand. Derek obtained some tablets and gave them to Jean, who took them and died soon afterwards.

Dr Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan pathologist, went one step further when he built a 'suicide machine' to help terminally ill people commit suicide. His machine consisted of a metal pole with three different bottles attached to a tube of the kind used to provide an intravenous drip. The doctor inserts the tube in the patient's vein, but at this stage only a harmless saline solution can pass through it. The patient may then flip a switch, which will allow a coma-inducing drug to come through the tube; this is automatically followed by a lethal drug contained in the third bottle. Dr Kevorkian announced that he was pre- pared to make the machine available to any terminally ill patient who wished to use it. (Assisting suicide is not against the law in Michigan.) In June 1990, Janet Adkins, who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, but still competent to make the decision to end her life, contacted Dr Kevorkian and told him of her wish to die, rather than go through the slow and progressive deterioration that the disease involves. Dr Kevorkian was in attendance while she made use of his machine, and then re- ported Janet Adkins's death to the police. He was subsequently charged with murder, but the judge refused to allow the charge to proceed to trial, on the grounds that Janet Adkins had caused her own death. The following year Dr Kevorkian made his device available to two other people, who used it in order to end their lives.

In other cases, people wanting to die may be unable to kill themselves. In 1973 George Zygmaniak was injured in a motorcycle accident near his home in New Jersey. He was taken to hospital, where he was found to be totally paralysed from the neck down. He was also in considerable pain. He told his doctor and his brother, Lester, that he did not want to live in this condition. He begged them both to kill him. Lester questioned the doctor and hospital staff about George's prospects of recovery: he was told that they were nil. He then smuggled a gun into the hospital, and said to his brother: 'I am here to end your pain, George. Is it all right with you?' George, who was now unable to speak because of an operation to assist his breathing, nodded affirmatively. Lester shot him through the temple.

The Zygmaniak case appears to be a clear instance of voluntary euthanasia, although without some of the procedural safeguards that advocates of the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia propose. For instance, medical opinions about the patient's prospects of recovery were obtained only in an informal manner. Nor was there a careful attempt to establish, before independent witnesses, that George's desire for death was of a fixed and rational kind, based on the best available information about his situation. The killing was not carried out by a doctor. An injection would have been less distressing to others than shooting. But these choices were not open to Lester Zygrnaniak, for the law in New Jersey, as in most other places, regards mercy killing as murder, and if he had made his plans known, he would not have been able to carry them out.

Euthanasia can be voluntary even if a person is not able, as Jean Humphry, Janet Adkins, and George Zygmaniak were able, to indicate the wish to die right up to the moment the tablets are swallowed, the switch thrown, or the trigger pulled. A person may, while in good health, make a written request for euthanasia if, through accident or illness, she should come to be incapable of making or expressing a decision to die, in pain, or without the use of her mental faculties, and there is no reasonable hope of recovery. In killing a person who has made such a request, who has re-affirmed it from time to time, and who is now in one of the states described, one could truly claim to be acting with her consent.

There is now one country in which doctors can openly help their patients to die in a peaceful and dignified way. In the Netherlands, a series of court cases during the 1980s upheld a doctor's right to assist a patient to die, even if that assistance amounted to giving the patient a lethal injection. Doctors in the Netherlands who comply with certain guidelines (which will be described later in this chapter) can now quite openly carry out euthanasia and can report this on the death certificate with- out fear of prosecution. It has been estimated that about 2,300 deaths each year result from euthanasia carried out in this way.

Involuntary Euthanasia

I shall regard euthanasia as involuntary when the person killed is capable of consenting to her own death, but does not do so, either because she is not asked, or because she is asked and chooses to go on living. Admittedly this definition lumps two different cases under one heading. There is a significant difference between killing someone who chooses to go on living and killing someone who has not consented to being killed, but if asked, would have consented. In practice, though, it is hard to imagine cases in which a person is capable of consenting and would have consented if asked, but was not asked. For why not ask? Only in the most bizarre situations could one conceive of a reason for not obtaining the consent of a person both able and willing to consent.

Killing someone who has not consented to being killed can properly be regarded as euthanasia only when the motive for killing is the desire to prevent unbearable suffering on the part of the person killed. It is, of course, odd that anyone acting from this motive should disregard the wishes of the person for whose sake the action is done. Genuine cases of involuntary euthanasia appear to be very rare.

Non-voluntary Euthanasia

These two definitions leave room for a third kind of euthanasia. If a human being is not capable of understanding the choice between life and death, euthanasia would be neither voluntary nor involuntary, but non-voluntary. Those unable to give con- sent would include incurably ill or severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved, with- out having previously requested or rejected euthanasia in these circumstances.

Several cases of non-voluntary euthanasia have reached the courts and the popular press. Here is one example. Louis Repouille had a son who was described as 'incurably imbecile', had been bed-ridden since infancy and blind for five years. According to Repouille: 'He was just like dead all the time.... He couldn't walk, he couldn't talk, he couldn't do anything.' in the end Repouille killed his son with chloroform.

In 1988 a case arose that well illustrates the way in which modern medical technology forces us to make life and death decisions. Samuel Linares, an infant, swallowed a small object that stuck in his windpipe, causing a loss of oxygen to the brain. He was admitted to a Chicago hospital in a coma and placed on a respirator. Eight months later he was still comatose, still on the respirator, and the hospital was planning to move Samuel to a long-term care unit. Shortly before the move, Samuel's parents visited him in the hospital. His mother left the room, while his father produced a pistol and told the nurse to keep away. He then disconnected Samuel from the respirator, and cradled the baby in his arms until he died. When he was sure Samuel was dead, he gave up his pistol and surrendered to police. He was charged with murder, but the grand jury refused to issue a homicide indictment, and he subsequently received a suspended sentence on a minor charge arising from the use of the pistol. Obviously, such cases raise different issues from those raised by voluntary euthanasia. There is no desire to die on the part of the infant. It may also be questioned whether, in such cases, the death is carried out for the sake of the infant, or for the sake of the family as a whole. If Louis Repouille's son was 'just like dead all the time', then he may have been so profoundly brain- damaged that he was not capable of suffering at all. That is also likely to have been true of the comatose Samuel Linares. In that case, while caring for him would have been a great and no doubt futile burden for the family, and in the Linares case, a drain on the state's limited medical resources as well, the infants were not suffering, and death could not be said to be in, or contrary to, their interests. It is therefore not euthanasia, strictly speaking, as I have defined the term. it might nevertheless be a justifiable ending of a human life.

Since cases of infanticide and non-voluntary euthanasia are the kind of case most nearly akin to our previous discussions of the status of animals and the human fetus, we shall consider them first.

JUSTIFYING INFANTICIDE AND NON-VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA

As we have seen, euthanasia is non-voluntary when the subject has never had the capacity to choose to live or die. This is the situation of the severely disabled infant or the older human being who has been profoundly intellectually disabled since birth. Euthanasia or other forms of killing are also non- voluntary when the subject is not now but once was capable of making the crucial choice, and did not then express any preference relevant to her present condition.

The case of someone who has never been capable of choosing to live or die is a little more straightforward than that of a person who had, but has now lost, the capacity to make such a decision. We shall, once again, separate the two cases and take the more straightforward one first. For simplicity, I shall concentrate on infants, although everything I say about them would apply to older children or adults whose mental age is and has always been that of an infant.

Life and Death Decisions for Disabled Infants

If we were to approach the issue of life or death for a seriously disabled human infant without any prior discussion of the ethics of killing in general, we might be unable to resolve the conflict between the widely accepted obligation to protect the sanctity of human life, and the goal of reducing suffering. Some say that such decisions are 'subjective', or that life and death questions must be left to God and Nature. Our previous discussions have, however, prepared the ground, and the principles established and applied in the preceding three chapters make the issue much less baffling than most take it to be.

In Chapter 4 we saw that the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self-conscious beings. We saw in our discussion of abortion that the potential of a fetus to become a rational, self-conscious being cannot count against killing it at a stage when it lacks these characteristics - not, that is, unless we are also prepared to count the value of rational self-conscious life as a reason against contraception and celibacy. No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.

The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.

It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.

Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it. Some parents want even the most gravely disabled infant to live as long as possible, and this desire would then be a reason against killing the infant. But what if this is not the case? in the discussion that follows I shall assume that the parents do not want the disabled child to live. I shall also assume that the disability is so serious that - again in contrast to the situation of an unwanted but normal child today - there are no other couples keen to adopt the infant. This is a realistic assumption even in a society in which there is a long waiting- list of couples wishing to adopt normal babies. It is true that from time to time cases of infants who are severely disabled and are being allowed to die have reached the courts in a glare of publicity, and this has led to couples offering to adopt the child. Unfortunately such offers are the product of the highly publicised dramatic life-and-death situation, and do not extend to the less publicised but far more cormnon situations in which parents feel themselves unable to look after a severely disabled child, and the child then languishes in an institution.

Infants are sentient beings who are neither rational nor self- conscious. So if we turn to consider the infants in themselves, independently of the attitudes of their parents, since their species is not relevant to their moral status, the principles that govern the wrongness of killing non-human animals who are sentient but not rational or self-conscious must apply here too. As we saw, the most plausible arguments for attributing a right to life to a being apply only if there is some awareness of oneself as a being existing over time, or as a continuing mental self. Nor can respect for autonomy apply where there is no capacity for autonomy. The remaining principles identified in Chapter 4 are utilitarian. Hence the quality of life that the infant can be expected to have is important.

One relatively common birth disability is a faulty development of the spine known as spina bifida. Its prevalence, varies in different countries, but it can affect as many as one in five hundred live births. In the more severe cases, the child will be permanently paralysed from the waistdown and lack control of bowels or bladder. Often excess fluid accumulates in the brain, a condition known as hydrocephalus, which can result in intellectual disabilities. Though some forms of treatment exist, if the child is badly affected at birth, the paralysis, incontinence, and intellectual disability cannot be overcome.

Some doctors closely connected with children suffering from severe spina bifida believe that the lives of the worst affected children are so miserable that it is wrong to resort to surgery to keep them alive. Published descriptions of the lives of these children support the judgment that these worst affected children will have lives filled with pain and discomfort. They need repeated major surgery to prevent curvature of the spine, due to the paralysis, and to correct other abnormalities. Some children with spina bifida have had forty major operations before they reach their teenage years.

When the life of an infant will be so miserable as not to be worth living, from the internal perspective of the being who will lead that life, both the 'prior existence' and the 'total' version of utilitarianism entail that, if there are no 'extrinsic' reasons for keeping the infant alive - like the feelings of the parents - it is better that the child should be helped to die without further suffering. A more difficult problem arises - and the convergence between the two views ends - when we consider disabilities that make the child's life prospects significantly less promising than those of a normal child, but not so bleak as to make the child's life not worth living. Haemophilia is probably in this category. The haemophiliac lacks the element in normal blood that makes it clot and thus risks prolonged bleeding, especially internal bleeding, from the slightest injury. if allowed to continue, this bleeding leads to permanent crippling and eventually death. The bleeding is very painful and although improved treatments have eliminated the need for constant blood transfusions, haemophiliacs still have to spend a lot of time in hospital. They are unable to play most sports and live constantly on the edge of crisis. Nevertheless, haemophiliacs do not appear to spend their time wondering whether to end it all; most find life definitely worth living, despite the difficulties they face.

Given these facts, suppose that a newborn baby is diagnosed as a haemophiliac. The parents, daunted by the prospect of bringing up a child with this condition, are not anxious for him to live. Could euthanasia be defended here? Our first reaction may well be a firm 'no', for the infant can be expected to have a life that is worth living, even if not quite as good as that of a normal baby. The 'prior existence' version of utilitarianism sup- ports this judgment. The infant exists. His life can be expected to contain a positive balance of happiness over misery. To kill him would deprive him of this positive balance of happiness. Therefore it would be wrong.

On the 'total' version of utilitarianism, however, we cannot reach a decision on the basis of this information alone. The total view makes it necessary to ask whether the death of the haemophiliac infant would lead to the creation of another being who would not otherwise have existed. In other words, if the haemophiliac child is killed, will his parents have another child whom they would not have if the haemophiliac child lives? If they would, is the second child likely to have a better life than the one killed?

Often it will be possible to answer both these questions affinnatively. A woman may plan to have two children. If one dies while she is of child-bearing age, she may conceive another in its place. Suppose a woman planning to have two children has one normal child, and then gives birth to a haemophiliac child. The burden of caring for that child may make it impossible for her to cope with a third child; but if the disabled child were to die, she would have another. It is also plausible to suppose that the prospects of a happy life are better for a normal child than for a haemophiliac.

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.

The total view treats infants as replaceable, in much the same way as it treats non-self-conscious animals (as we saw in Chapter 5). Many will think that the replaceability argument cannot be applied to human infants. The direct killing of even the most hopelessly disabled infant is still officially regarded as murder; how then could the killing of infants with far less serious problems, like haernophilia, be accepted? Yet on further reflection, the implications of the replaceability argument do not seem quite so bizarre. For there are disabled members of our species whom we now deal with exactly as the argument suggests we should. These cases closely resemble the ones we have been discussing. There is only one difference, and that is a difference of timing - the timing of the discovery of the problem, and the consequent killing of the disabled being.

Prenatal diagnosis is now a routine procedure for pregnant women. There are various medical techniques for obtaining information about the fetus during the early months of pregnancy. At one stage in the development of these procedures, it was possible to discover the sex of the fetus, but not whether the fetus would suffer from haemophilia. Haemophilia is a sex- linked genetic defect, from which only males suffer; females can carry the gene and pass it on to their male offspring without themselves being affected. So a woman who knew that she carried the gene for haemophilia could, at that stage, avoid giving birth to a haemophiliac child only by finding out the sex of the fetus, and aborting all males fetuses. Statistically, only half of these male children of women who carried the defective gene would have suffered from haernophilia, but there was then no way to find out to which half a particular fetus belonged. Therefore twice as many fetuses were being killed as necessary, in order to avoid the birth of children with haemophilia. This practice was widespread in many countries, and yet did not cause any great outcry. Now that we have techniques for identifying haemophilia before birth, we can be more selective, but the principle is the same: women are offered, and usually accept, abortions in order to avoid giving birth to children with haemophilia.

The same can be said about some other conditions that can be detected before birth. Down's syndrome, formerly known as mongolism, is one of these. Children with this condition have intellectual disabilities and most will never be able to live in- dependently, but their lives, like those of small children, can be joyful. The risk of having a Down's syndrome child increases sharply with the age of the mother, and for this reason prenatal diagnosis is routinely offered to pregnant women over 35. Again, undergoing the procedure implies that if the test for Down's syndrome is positive, the woman will consider aborting the fetus and, if she still wishes to have another child, will start another pregnancy, which has a good chance of being normal.

Prenatal diagnosis, followed by abortion in selected cases, is common practice in countries with liberal abortion laws and advanced medical techniques. I think this is as it should be. As the arguments of Chapter 6 indicate, I believe that abortion can be justified. Note, however, that neither haemophilia nor Down's syndrome is so crippling as to make life not worth living, from the inner perspective of the person with the condition. To abort a fetus with one of these disabilities, intending to have another child who will not be disabled, is to treat fetuses as interchangeable or replaceable. If the mother has previously decided to have a certain number of children, say two, then what she is doing, in effect, is rejecting one potential child in favour of another. She could, in defence of her actions, say: the loss of life of the aborted fetus is outweighed by the gain of a better life for the normal child who will be conceived only if the disabled one dies.

When death occurs before birth, replaceability does not conflict with generally accepted moral convictions. That a fetus is known to be disabled is widely accepted as a ground for abortion. Yet in discussing abortion, we saw that birth does not mark a morally significant dividing line. I cannot see how one could defend the view that fetuses may be 'replaced' before birth, but newborn infants may not be. Nor is there any other point, such as viability, that does a better job of dividing the fetus from the infant. Self-consciousness, which could provide a basis for holding that it is wrong to kill one being and replace it with another, is not to be found in either the fetus or the newborn infant. Neither the fetus nor the newborn infant is an individual capable of regarding itself as a distinct entity with a life of its own to lead, and it is only for newborn infants, or for still earlier stages of human life, that replaceability should be considered to be an ethically acceptable option.

It may still be objected that to replace either a fetus or a newborn infant is wrong because it suggests to disabled people living today that their lives are less worth living than the lives of people who are not disabled. Yet it is surely flying in the face of reality to deny that, on average, this is so. That is the only way to make sense of actions that we all take for granted. Recall thalidomide: this drug, when taken by pregnant women, caused many children to be born without arms or legs. Once the cause of the abnormal births was discovered, the drug was taken off the market, and the company responsible had to pay compensation. If we really believed that there is no reason to think of the life of a disabled person as likely to be any worse than that of a normal person, we would not have regarded this as a tragedy. No compensation would have been sought, or awarded by the courts. The children would merely have been 'different'. We could even have left the drug on the market, so that women who found it a useful sleeping pill during pregnancy could continue to take it. If this sounds grotesque, that is only because we are all in no doubt at all that it is better to be born with limbs than without them. To believe this involves no disrespect at all for those who are lacking limbs; it simply recognises the reality of the difficulties they face.

In any case, the position taken here does not imply that it would be better that no people born with severe disabilities should survive; it implies only that the parents of such infants should be able to make this decision. Nor does this imply lack of respect or equal consideration for people with disabilities who are now living their own lives in accordance with their own wishes. As we saw at the end of Chapter 2, the principle of equal consideration of interests rejects any discounting of the interests of people on grounds of disability.

Even those who reject abortion and the idea that the fetus is replaceable are likely to regard possible people as replaceable. Recall the second woman in Parfit's case of the two women, described in Chapter 5. She was told by her doctor that if she went ahead with her plan to become pregnant immediately, her child would have a disability (it could have been haemophilia); but if she waited three months her child would not have the disability. If we think she would do wrong not to wait, it can only be because we are comparing the two possible lives and judging one to have better prospects than the other. Of course, at this stage no life has begun; but the question is, when does a life, in the morally significant sense, really begin? in Chapters 4 and 5 we saw several reasons for saying that life only begins in the morally significant sense when there is awareness of one's existence over time. The metaphor of life as a journey also provides a reason for holding that in infancy, life's voyage has scarcely begun.

Regarding newborn infants as replaceable, as we now regard fetuses, would have considerable advantages over prenatal diagnosis followed by abortion. Prenatal diagnosis still cannot detect all major disabilities. Some disabilities, in fact, are not present before birth; they may be the result of extremely pre- mature birth, or of something going wrong in the birth process itself. At present parents can choose to keep or destroy their disabled offspring only if the disability happens to be detected during pregnancy. There is no logical basis for restricting parents' choice to these particular disabilities. If disabled newborn infants were not regarded as having a right to life until, say, a week or a month after birth it would allow parents, in consultation with their doctors, to choose on the basis of far greater knowledge of the infant's condition than is possible before birth. All these remarks have been concerned with the wrongness of ending the life of the infant, considered in itself rather than for its effects on others. When we take effects on others into account, the picture may alter. Obviously, to go through the whole of pregnancy and labour, only to give birth to a child who one decides should not live, would be a difficult, perhaps heartbreaking, experience. For this reason many women would prefer prenatal diagnosis and abortion rather than live birth with the possibility of infanticide; but if the latter is not morally worse than the former, this would seem to be a choice that the woman herself should be allowed to make.

Another factor to take into account is the possibility of adoption. When there are more couples wishing to adopt than nor- mal children available for adoption, a childless couple may be prepared to adopt a haemophiliac. This would relieve the mother of the burden of bringing up a haemophiliac child, and enable her to have another child, if she wished. Then the replaceability argument could not justify infanticide, for bringing the other child into existence would not be dependent on the death of the haemophiliac. The death of the haemophiliac would then be a straightforward loss of a life of positive quality, not outweighed by the creation of another being with a better life.

So the issue of ending life for disabled newborn infants is not without complications, which we do not have the space to discuss adequately. Nevertheless the main point is clear: killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.

Other Non-voluntary Life and Death Decisions

In the preceding section we discussed justifiable killing for beings who have never been capable of choosing to live or die. Ending a life without consent may also be considered in the case of those who were once persons capable of choosing to live or die, but now, through accident or old age, have permanently lost this capacity, and did not, prior to losing it, express any views about whether they wished to go on living in such circumstances. These cases are not rare. Many hospitals care for motor accident victims whose brains have been damaged beyond all possible recovery. They may survive, in a coma, or perhaps barely conscious, for several years. In 1991, the Lancet reported that Rita Greene, a nurse, had been a patient at D.C. General Hospital in Washington for thirty-nine years without knowing it. Now aged sixty-three, she had been in a vegetative state since undergoing open heart surgery in 1952. The report stated that at any given time, between 5,000 and 10,000 Americans are surviving in a vegetative state. In other developed countries, where life-prolonging technology is not used so aggressively, there are far fewer long-term patients in this condition.

In most respects, these human beings do not differ importantly from disabled infants. They are not self-conscious, rational, or autonomous, and so considerations of a right to life or of respecting autonomy do not apply. If they have no experiences at all, and can never have any again, their lives have no intrinsic value. Their life's journey has come to an end. They are biologically alive, but not biographically. (If this verdict seems harsh, ask yourself whether there is anything to choose between the following options: (a) instant death or (b) instant coma, followed by death, without recovery, in ten years' time. I can see no advantage in survival in a comatose state, if death without recovery is certain.) The lives of those who are not in a coma and are conscious but not self-conscious have value if such beings experience more pleasure than pain, or have preferences that can be satisfied; but it is difficult to see the point of keeping such human beings alive if their life is, on the whole, miserable.

There is one important respect in which these cases differ from disabled infants. In discussing infanticide in the final section of Chapter 6, 1 cited Bentham's comment that infanticide need not 'give the slightest inquietude to the most timid imagination'. This is because those old enough to be aware of the killing of disabled infants are necessarily outside the scope of the policy. This cannot be said of euthanasia applied to those who once were rational and self-conscious. So a possible objection to this form of euthanasia would be that it will lead to insecurity and fear among those who are not now, but might come to be, within its scope. For instance, elderly people, knowing that non-voluntary euthanasia is sometimes applied to senile elderly patients, bedridden, suffering, and lacking the capacity to accept or reject death, might fear that every injection or tablet will be lethal. This fear might be quite irrational, but it would be difficult to convince people of this, particularly if old age really had affected their memory or powers of reasoning.

This objection might be met by a procedure allowing those who do not wish to be subjected to non-voluntary euthanasia under any circumstances to register their refusal. Perhaps this would suffice; but perhaps it would not provide enough reassurance. if not, non-voluntary euthanasia would be justifiable only for those never capable of choosing to live or die.

JUSTIFYING VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA

Under existing laws in most countries, people suffering unrelievable pain or distress from an incurable illness who beg their doctors to end their lives are asking their doctors to risk a murder charge. Although juries are extremely reluctant to convict in cases of this kind the law is clear that neither the request, nor the degree of suffering, nor the incurable condition of the person killed, is a defence to a charge of murder. Advocates of voluntary euthanasia propose that this law be changed so that a doctor could legally act on a patient's desire to die without further suffering. Doctors have been able to do this quite openly in the Netherlands, as a result of a series of court decisions during the 1980s, as long as they comply with certain conditions. In Ger- many, doctors may provide a patient with the means to end her life, but they may not administer the substance to her.

The case for voluntary euthanasia has some common ground with the case for non-voluntary euthanasia, in that death is a benefit for the one killed. The two kinds of euthanasia differ, however, in that voluntary euthanasia involves the killing of a person, a rational and self-conscious being and not a merely conscious being. (To be strictly accurate it must be said that this is not always so, because although only rational and self-conscious beings can consent to their own deaths, they may not be rational and self-conscious at the time euthanasia is contemplated - the doctor may, for instance, be acting on a prior written request for euthanasia if, through accident or illness, one's rational faculties should be irretrievably lost. For simplicity we shall, henceforth, disregard this complication.)

We have seen that it is possible to justify ending the life of a human being who lacks the capacity to consent. We must now ask in what way the ethical issues are different when the being is capable of consenting, and does in fact consent.

Let us return to the general principles about killing proposed in Chapter 4. 1 argued there that killing a self-conscious being is a more serious matter than killing a merely conscious being. I gave four distinct grounds on which this could be argued:

1. The classical utilitarian claim that since self-conscious beings are capable of fearing their own death, killing them has worse effects on others. 2. The preference utilitarian calculation that counts the thwarting of the victim's desire to go on living as an important reason against killing. 3. A theory of rights according to which to have a right one must have the ability to desire that to which one has a right, so that to have a right to life one must be able to desire one's own continued existence. 4. Respect for the autonomous decisions of rational agents.

Now suppose we have a situation in which a person suffering from a painful and incurable disease wishes to die. if the individual were not a person - not rational or self-conscious - euthanasia would, as I have said, be justifiable. Do any of the four grounds for holding that it is normally worse to kill a person provide reasons against killing when the individual is a person who wants to die?

The classical utilitarian objection does not apply to killing that takes place only with the genuine consent of the person killed. That people are killed under these conditions would have no tendency to spread fear or insecurity, since we have no cause to be fearful of being killed with our own genuine consent. If we do not wish to be killed, we simply do not consent. In fact, the argument from fear points in favour of voluntary euthanasia, for if voluntary euthanasia is not permitted we may, with good cause, be fearful that our deaths will be unnecessarily drawn out and distressing. In the Netherlands, a nationwide study commissioned by the government found that 'Many patients want an assurance that their doctor will assist them to die should suffering become unbearable.' Often, having received this assurance, no persistent request for euthanasia eventuated. The availability of euthanasia brought comfort without euthanasia having to be provided.

Preference utilitarianism also points in favour of, not against, voluntary euthanasia. Just as preference utilitarianism must count a desire to go on living as a reason against killing, so it must count a desire to die as a reason for killing.

Next, according to the theory of rights we have considered, it is an essential feature of a right that one can waive one's rights if one so chooses. I may have a right to privacy; but I can, if I wish, film every detail of my daily life and invite the neighbours to my home movies. Neighbours sufficiently intrigued to accept my invitation could do so without violating my right to privacy, since the right has on this occasion been waived. Similarly, to say that I have a right to life is not to say that it would be wrong for my doctor to end my life, if she does so at my request. In making this request I waive my right to life.

Lastly, the principle of respect for autonomy tells us to allow rational agents to live their own lives according to their own autonomous decisions, free from coercion or interference; but if rational agents should autonomously choose to die, then respect for autonomy will lead us to assist them to do as they choose.

So, although there are reasons for thinking that killing a self-conscious being is normally worse than killing any other kind of being, in the special case of voluntary euthanasia most of these reasons count for euthanasia rather than against. Surprising as this result might at first seem, it really does no more than reflect the fact that what is special about self-conscious beings is that they can know that they exist over time and will, unless they die, continue to exist. Normally this continued existence is fervently desired; when the foreseeable continued existence is dreaded rather than desired however, the desire to die may take the place of the normal desire to live, reversing the reasons against killing based on the desire to live. Thus the case for voluntary euthanasia is arguably much stronger than the case for non-voluntary euthanasia.

Some opponents of the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia might concede that all this follows, if we have a genuinely free and rational decision to die: but, they add, we can never be sure that a request to be killed is the result of a free and rational decision. Will not the sick and elderly be pressured by their relatives to end their lives quickly? Will it not be possible to commit outright murder by pretending that a person has requested euthanasia? And even if there is no pressure of falsification, can anyone who is ill, suffering pain, and very probably in a drugged and confused state of mind, make a rational decision about whether to live or die?

These questions raise technical difficulties for the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia, rather than objections to the under- lying ethical principles; but they are serious difficulties nonetheless. The guidelines developed by the courts in the Netherlands have sought to meet them by proposing that euthanasia is acceptable only if

Euthanasia in these circumstances is strongly supported by the Royal Dutch Medical Association, and by the general public in the Netherlands. The guidelines make murder in the guise of euthanasia rather far-fetched, and there is no evidence of an increase in the murder rate in the Netherlands.

It is often said, in debates about euthanasia, that doctors can be mistaken. In rare instances patients diagnosed by two competent doctors as suffering from an incurable condition have survived and enjoyed years of good health. Possibly the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia would, over the years, mean the deaths of a few people who would otherwise have recovered from their immediate illness and lived for some extra years. This is not, however, the knockdown argument against euthanasia that some imagine it to be. Against a very small number of unnecessary deaths that might occur if euthanasia is legalised we must place the very large amount of pain and distress that will be suffered if euthanasia is not legalised, by patients who really are terminally ill. Longer life is not such a supreme good that it outweighs all other considerations. (if it were, there would be many more effective ways of saving life - such as a ban on smoking, or a reduction of speed limits to 40 kilometres per hour - than prohibiting voluntary euthanasia.) The possibility that two doctors may make a mistake means that the person who opts for euthanasia is deciding on the balance of probabilities and giving up a very slight chance of survival in order to avoid suffering that will almost certainly end in death. This may be a perfectly rational choice. Probability is the guide of life, and of death, too. Against this, some will reply that improved care for the terminally ill has eliminated pain and made voluntary euthanasia unnecessary. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, whose On Death and Dying is perhaps the best-known book on care for the dying, has claimed that none of her patients request euthanasia. Given personal attention an the right medication, she says, people come to accept their deaths and die peacefully without pain.

Kubler-Ross may be right. It may be possible, now, to eliminate pain. In almost all cases, it may even be possible to do it in a way that leaves patients in possession of their rational faculties and free from vomiting, nausea, or other distressing side-effects. Unfortunately only a minority of dying patients now receive this kind of care. Nor is physical pain the only problem. There can also be other distressing conditions, like bones so fragile they fracture at sudden movements, uncontrollable nausea and vomiting, slow starvation due to a cancerous growth, inability to control one's bowels or bladder, difficulty in breathing, and so on.

Dr Timothy Quill, a doctor from Rochester, New York, has described how he prescribed barbiturate sleeping pills for 'Diane', a patient with a severe form of leukaemia, knowing that she wanted the tablets in order to be able to end her life. Dr Quill had known Diane for many years, and admired her courage in dealing with previous serious illnesses. in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr Quill wrote:

It was extraordinarily important to Diane to maintain control of herself and her own dignity during the time remaining to her. When this was no longer possible, she clearly wanted to die. As a former director of a hospice program, I know how to use pain medicines to keep patients comfortable and lessen suffering. I explained the philosophy of comfort care, which I strongly believe in. Although Diane understood and appreciated this, she had known of people lingering in what was called relative com- fort, and she wanted no part of it. When the time came, she wanted to take her life in the least painful way possible. Knowing of her desire for independence and her decision to stay in control, I thought this request made perfect sense.... In our discussion it became clear that preoccupation with her fear of a lingering death would interfere with Diane's getting the most out of the time she had left until she found a safe way to ensure her death.

Not all dying patients who wish to die are fortunate enough to have a doctor like Timothy Quill. Betty Rollin has described, in her moving book Last Wish, how her mother developed ovarian cancer that spread to other parts of her body. One morning her mother said to her:

I've had a wonderful life, but now it's over, or it should be. I'm not afraid to die, but I am afraid of this illness, what it's doing to me.... There's never any relief from it now. Nothing but nausea and this pain.... There won't be any more chemotherapy. There's no treatment anymore. So what happens to me now? I know what happens. I'll die slowly .... I don't want that .... Who does it benefit if I die slowly? if it benefits my children I'd be willing. But it's not going to do you any good .... There's no point in a slow death, none. I've never liked doing things with no point. I've got to end this.

Betty Rollin found it very difficult to help her mother to carry out her desire: 'Physician after physician turned down our pleas for help (How many pills? What kind?).' After her book about her mother's death was published, she received hundreds of letters, many from people, or close relatives of people, who had tried to die, failed, and suffered even more. Many of these people were denied help from doctors, because although suicide is legal in most jurisdictions, assisted suicide is not.

Perhaps one day it will be possible to treat all terminally ill and incurable patients in such a way that no one requests euthanasia and the subject becomes a non-issue; but this is now just a utopian ideal, and no reason at all to deny euthanasia to those who must live and die in far less comfortable conditions. It is, in any case, highly paternalistic to tell dying patients that they are now so well looked after that they need not be offered the option of euthanasia. It would be more in keeping with respect for individual freedom and autonomy to legalise euthanasia and let patients decide whether their situation is bearable.

Do these arguments for voluntary euthanasia perhaps give too much weight to individual freedom and autonomy? After all, we do not allow people free choices on matters like, for instance, the taking of heroin. This is a restriction of freedom but, in the view of many, one that can be justified on paternalistic grounds. If preventing people from becoming heroin addicts is justifiable paternalism, why isn't preventing people from having themselves killed?

The question is a reasonable one, because respect for individual freedom can be carded too far. John Stuart Mill thought that the state should never interfere with the individual except to prevent harm to others. The individual's own good, Mill thought, is not a proper reason for state intervention. But Mill may have had too high an opinion of the rationality of a human being. It may occasionally be right to prevent people from making choices that are obviously not rationally based and that we can be sure they will later regret. The prohibition of voluntary euthanasia cannot be justified on paternalistic grounds, how- ever, for voluntary euthanasia is an act for which good reasons exist. Voluntary euthanasia occurs only when, to the best of medical knowledge, a person is suffering from an incurable and painful or extremely distressing condition. In these circumstances one cannot say that to choose to die quickly is obviously irrational. The strength of the case for voluntary euthanasia lies in this combination of respect for the preferences, or autonomy, of those who decide for euthanasia; and the clear rational basis of the decision itself.

NOT JUSTIFYING INVOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA

Involuntary euthanasia resembles voluntary euthanasia in that it involves the killing of those capable of consenting to their own death. It differs in that they do not consent. This difference is crucial, as the argument of the preceding section shows. All the four reasons against killing self-conscious beings apply when the person killed does not choose to die.

Would it ever be possible to justify involuntary euthanasia on paternalistic grounds, to save someone extreme agony? It might be possible to imagine a case in which the agony was so great, and so certain, that the weight of utilitarian considerations favouring euthanasia override all four reasons against killing self-conscious beings. Yet to make this decision one would have to be confident that one can judge when a person's life is so bad as to be not worth living, better than that person can judge herself it is not clear that we are ever justified in having much confidence in our judgments about whether the life of another person is, to that person, worth living. That the other person wishes to go on living is good evidence that her life is worth living. What better evidence could there be?

The only kind of case in which the paternalistic argument is at all plausible is one in which the person to be killed does not realise what agony she will suffer in future, and if she is not killed now she will have to live through to the very end. On these grounds one might kill a person who has - though she does not yet realise it - fallen into the hands of homicidal sadists who will torture her to death. These cases are, fortunately, more commonly encountered in fiction than reality.

If in real life we are unlikely ever to encounter a case of justifiable involuntary euthanasia, then it may be best to dismiss from our minds the fanciful cases in which one might imagine defending it, and treat the rule against involuntary euthanasia as, for all practical purposes, absolute. Here [R. M.] Hare's distinction between critical and intuitive levels of moral reasoning (see Chapter 4), is again relevant. The case described in the preceding paragraph is one in which, if we were reasoning at the critical level, we might consider involuntary euthanasia justifiable; but at the intuitive level, the level of moral reasoning we apply in our daily lives, we can simply say that euthanasia is only justifiable if those killed either

1. lack the ability to consent to death, because they lack the capacity to understand the choice between their own continued existence or non-existence; or 2. have the capacity to choose between their own continued life or death and to make an informed, voluntary, and settled decision to die.

ACTIVE AND PASSIVE EUTHANASIA

The conclusions we have reached in this chapter will shock a large number of readers, for they violate one of the most fundamental tenets of Western ethics - the wrongness of killing innocent human beings. I have already made one attempt to show that my conclusions are, at least in the area of disabled infants, a less radical departure from existing practice than one might suppose. I pointed out that many societies allow a pregnant woman to Ml a fetus at a late stage of pregnancy if there is a significant risk of it being disabled; and since the line between a developed fetus and a newborn infant is not a crucial moral divide, it is difficult to see why it is worse to kill a newborn infant known to be disabled. In this section I shall argue that there is another area of accepted medical practice that is not intrinsically different from the practices that the arguments of this chapter would allow.

I have already referred to the birth defect known as spina bifida, in which the infant is born with an opening in the back, exposing the spinal cord. Until 1957, most of these infants died young, but in that year doctors began using a new kind of valve, to drain off the excess fluid that otherwise accumulates in the head with this condition. In some hospitals it then became standard practice to make vigorous efforts to save every spina bifida infant. The result was that few such infants died - but of those who survived, many were severely disabled, with gross paralysis, multiple deformities of the legs and spine, and no control of bowel or bladder. Intellectual disabilities were also common. in short, the existence of these children caused great difficulty for their families and was often a misery for the children themselves.

After studying the results of this policy of active treatment a British doctor, John Lorber, proposed that instead of treating all cases of spina bifida, only those who have the defect in a mild form should be selected for treatment. (He proposed that the final decision should be up to the parents, but parents nearly always accept the recommendations of the doctors.) This principle of selective treatment has now been widely accepted in many countries and in Britain has been recognised as legitimate by the Department of Health and Social Security. The result is that fewer spina bifida children survive beyond infancy, but those who do survive are, by and large, the ones whose physical and mental disabilities are relatively minor.

The policy of selection, then, appears to be a desirable one:but what happens to those disabled infants not selected for treatment? Lorber does not disguise the fact that in these cases the hope is that the infant will die soon and without suffering. it is to achieve this objective that surgical operations and other forms of active treatment are not undertaken, although pain and discomfort are as far as possible relieved. If the infant happens to get an infection, the kind of infection that in a normal infant would be swiftly cleared up with antibiotics, no antibiotics are given. Since the survival of the infant is not desired, no steps are taken to prevent a condition, easily curable by ordinary medical techniques, proving fatal.

All this is, as I have said, accepted medical practice. in articles in medical journals, doctors have described cases in which they have allowed infants to die. These cases are not limited to spina bifida, but include, for instance, babies born with Down's syndome and other complications. In 1982, the 'Baby Doe' case brought this practice to the attention of the American public. 'Baby Doe' was the legal pseudonym of a baby born in Bloomington, Indiana, with Down's syndrome and some additional problems. The most serious of these was that the passage from the mouth to the stomach - the oesophagus - was not property formed. This meant that Baby Doe could not receive nourishment by mouth. The problem could have been repaired by surgery - but in this case the parents, after discussing the situation with their obstetrician, refused permission for surgery. Without surgery, Baby Doe would soon die. Baby Doe's father later said that as a schoolteacher he had worked closely with Down syndrome children, and that he and his wife had decided that it was in the best interests of Baby Doe, and of their family a whole (they had two other children), to refuse consent f the operation. The hospital authorities, uncertain of their leg position, took the matter to court. Both the local county court and the Indiana State Supreme Court upheld the parents' rig] to refuse consent to surgery. The case attracted national made attention, and an attempt was made to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court, but before this could happen, Baby Doe died.

One result of the Baby Doe case was that the U.S. government headed at the time by President Ronald Reagan, who had come, to power with the backing of the right-wing religious 'Moral Majority', issued a regulation directing that all infants are to be given necessary life-saving treatment, irrespective of disability. But the new regulations were strongly resisted by the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. In court hearings on the regulations, even Dr C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon-general and the driving force behind the attempt to ensure that all infants should be treated, had to admit that there were some cases in which he would not provide life sustaining treatment. Dr Koop mentioned three conditions in which, he said, life-sustaining treatment was not appropriate anencephalic infants (infants born without a brain); infants who had, usually as a result of extreme prematurity, suffered such severe bleeding in the brain that they would never be able to breathe without a respirator and would never be able even to recognise another person; and infants lacking a major part of their digestive tract, who could only be kept alive by means o a drip providing nourishment directly into the bloodstream.

The regulations were eventually accepted only in a watered down form, allowing some flexibility to doctors. Even so, a subsequent survey of American paediatricians specialising in the care of newborn infants showed that 76 percent thought that the regulations were not necessary, 66 percent considered the regulations interfered with parents' right to determine what course of action was in the best interests of their children, and 60 percent believed that the regulations did not allow adequate consideration of infants' suffering.

In a series of British cases, the courts have accepted the view that the quality of a child's life is a relevant consideration in deciding whether life-sustaining treatment should be provided. In a case called In re B, concerning a baby like Baby Doe, with Down's syndrome and an intestinal obstruction, the court said that surgery should be carried out, because the infant's life would not be'demonstrably awful'. in another case, Re C, where the baby had a poorly formed brain combined with severe physical handicaps, the court authorised the paediatric team to refrain from giving life-prolonging treatment. This was also the course taken in the case of Re Baby J: this infant was born extremely prematurely, and was blind and deaf and would probably never have been able to speak.

Thus, though many would disagree with Baby Doe's parents about allowing a Down's syndrome infant to die (because people with Down's syndrome can live enjoyable lives and be warm and loving individuals), virtually everyone recognises that in more severe conditions, allowing an infant to die is the only humane and ethically acceptable course to take. The question is: if it is right to allow infants to die, why is it wrong to kill them?

This question has not escaped the notice of the doctors involved. Frequently they answer it by a pious reference to the nineteenth-century poet, Arthur Clough, who wrote:

Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive Officiously to keep alive.

Unfortunately for those who appeal to Clough's immortal lines as an authoritative ethical pronouncement, they come from a biting satire - 'The Latest Decalogue' - the intent of which is to mock the attitudes described. The opening lines, for example, are:

Thou shalt have one god only; who Would be at the expense of two. No graven images may be Worshipped except the currency.

So Clough cannot be numbered on the side of those who think it wrong to kill, but right not to try too hard to keep alive. is there, nonetheless, something to be said for this idea? The view that there is something to be said for it is often termed 'the acts and omissions doctrine'. It holds that there is an important moral distinction between performing an act that has certain consequences - say , the death of a disabled child - and omitting to do something that has the same consequences. if this doctrine is correct, the doctor who gives the child a lethal injection does wrong; the doctor who omits to give the child antibiotics, knowing full well that without antibiotics the child will die, does not.

Read more:

Taking Life: Humans, by Peter Singer - Utilitarian

Communes: the pros & cons of intentional community …

Posted on by

My fianc and I are curious about commune living, community co-ops, or intentional living communities for our future living arrangements but we need advice. What should we know before we decide whether to take the dive into this world?

Oh, do I ever have the inside scoop on this one. See, my mom runs an intentional community called Sacred Groves on the property where I grew up. For those who have read my book, our wedding reception happened at Sacred Groves, so all the shenanigans that took place that night were hosted by the Groves.

That in mind, I decided to bring in my mom to answer this question. Take it away, Ma!

By Therese Charvet, of Sacred Groves Living in community is as old as the human race. Our modern lifestyle with singles, couples and single-families living in isolated housing units is relatively modern, and uncommon in much of the world. Conventional houses and apartments offer much privacy and reduce the hassles of sharing, but they can also breed isolation, loneliness and can put a strain on marriages. Intentional Communities, Communes and Co-housing situations offer an alternative to this model, one more akin to our traditional roots. Andreas doing a community yoga class at Sacred Groves Every community is different but the basic premise is that you live in proximity with a group of people with whom you share the use of certain common facilities, and things are set up in such a way as to promote connection and familiarity amongst the residents. Generally speaking, this is the definition of "Intentional Community." Dozens of models of intentional communities exist, some with only a few people, some with hundreds, some with a charismatic leader, others with a commitment to consensus.

There is quite a movement afoot in the U.S. toward community living. In fact, a national organization exists and a national directory of intentional communities is available for people looking for housing. For more description and definition of Intentional Communities, see Wikipedia and/or the website for The Fellowship of Intentional Communities.

In late 2005, my current partner Tere and I decided it was time to make the land where we live, Sacred Groves, an "intentional community." We transformed the downstairs of the log cabin (with kitchen, bathroom and dining area) into "common space" and used the upstairs rooms plus three nearby cabins as private space for residents' bedrooms. A couple women friends who happened to be looking for housing at that time decided to join our experiment and the four of us formed the first rendition of a Sacred Groves Intentional Community.

It is nearly always heart-warming and sometimes very challenging to live in this way with people. Some of the challenges include getting enough quiet/private time, figuring out chores, working out disagreements in a functional way, staying out of each other's business. Each of us has to deal with our personal control issues regularly; community living does not make it easy to be a control freak. It flushes out what you are attached to, that's for sure! But the rewards are worth the effort! These rewards include spiritual and personal development and participating in the evolution of human consciousness toward a more cooperative society. That's big work, work the world really needs right now.

In closing let me say that I love this lifestyle and hope to live in community until old age. I don't understand those 90 year olds who want to live alone in their own house until they die. I love living around children and young adults, it keeps me flexible and up to date, it gives me a place to share my stories, my skills, my time and my gifts. It makes me smile to hear the children laughing uproariously as they jump on the trampoline. Life is good!

If you're interested in learning more about my mom's community, you can see photos of Sacred Groves on their website or on Flickr. Oh and my mom tells me they miiiiight have openings for new Grovesmates in the coming months. Click here if you're interested in that sort of thing.

I'd also love to hear from Homies who may have had experience living in community. I know from my times out at Sacred Groves, that it can be a challenging and rewarding experience for folks who are suited to that kind of living. Anybody got any stories to share?

Original post:

Communes: the pros & cons of intentional community ...

How Long Before Superintelligence? – Nick Bostrom

Posted on by

This is if we take the retina simulation as a model. As the present, however, not enough is known about the neocortex to allow us to simulate it in such an optimized way. But the knowledge might be available by 2004 to 2008 (as we shall see in the next section). What is required, if we are to get human-level AI with hardware power at this lower bound, is the ability to simulate 1000-neuron aggregates in a highly efficient way.

The extreme alternative, which is what we assumed in the derivation of the upper bound, is to simulate each neuron individually. The number of clock cycles that neuroscientists can expend simulating the processes of a single neuron knows of no limits, but that is because their aim is to model the detailed chemical and electrodynamic processes in the nerve cell rather than to just do the minimal amount of computation necessary to replicate those features of its response function which are relevant for the total performance of the neural net. It is not known how much of the detail that is contingent and inessential and how much needs to be preserved in order for the simulation to replicate the performance of the whole. It seems like a good bet though, at least to the author, that the nodes could be strongly simplified and replaced with simple standardized elements. It appears perfectly feasible to have an intelligent neural network with any of a large variety of neuronal output functions and time delays.

It does look plausible, however, that by the time when we know how to simulate an idealized neuron and know enough about the brain's synaptic structure that we can put the artificial neurons together in a way that functionally mirrors how it is done in the brain, then we will also be able to replace whole 1000-neuron modules with something that requires less computational power to simulate than it does to simulate all the neuron in the module individually. We might well get all the way down to a mere 1000 instructions per neuron and second, as is implied by Moravec's estimate (10^14 ops / 10^11 neurons = 1000 operations per second and neuron). But unless we can build these modules without first building a whole brain then this optimization will only be possible after we have already developed human-equivalent artificial intelligence.

If we assume the upper bound on the computational power needed to simulate the human brain, i.e. if we assume enough power to simulate each neuron individually (10^17 ops), then Moore's law says that we will have to wait until about 2015 or 2024 (for doubling times of 12 and 18 months, respectively) before supercomputers with the requisite performance are at hand. But if by then we know how to do the simulation on the level of individual neurons, we will presumably also have figured out how to make at least some optimizations, so we could probably adjust these upper bounds a bit downwards.

So far I have been talking only of processor speed, but computers need a great deal of memory too if they are to replicate the brain's performance. Throughout the history of computers, the ratio between memory and speed has remained more or less constant at about 1 byte/ops. Since a signal is transmitted along a synapse, on average, with a frequency of about 100 Hz and since its memory capacity is probably less than 100 bytes (1 byte looks like a more reasonable estimate), it seems that speed rather than memory would be the bottleneck in brain simulations on the neuronal level. (If we instead assume that we can achieve a thousand-fold leverage in our simulation speed as assumed in Moravec's estimate, then that would bring the requirement of speed down, perhaps, one order of magnitude below the memory requirement. But if we can optimize away three orders of magnitude on speed by simulating 1000-neuron aggregates, we will probably be able to cut away at least one order of magnitude of the memory requirement. Thus the difficulty of building enough memory may be significantly smaller, and is almost certainly not significantly greater, than the difficulty of building a processor that is fast enough. We can therefore focus on speed as the critical parameter on the hardware front.)

This paper does not discuss the possibility that quantum phenomena are irreducibly involved in human cognition. Hameroff and Penrose and others have suggested that coherent quantum states may exist in the microtubules, and that the brain utilizes these phenomena to perform high-level cognitive feats. The author's opinion is that this is implausible. The controversy surrounding this issue won't be entered into here; it will simply be assumed, throughout this paper, that quantum phenomena are not functionally relevant to high-level brain modelling.

In conclusion we can say that the hardware capacity for human-equivalent artificial intelligence will likely exist before the end of the first quater of the next century, and may be reached as early as 2004. A corresponding capacity should be available to leading AI labs within ten years thereafter (or sooner if the potential of human-level AI and superintelligence is by then better appreciated by funding agencies).

Notes

It is possible to nit-pick on this estimate. For example, there is some evidence that some limited amount of communication between nerve cells is possible without synaptic transmission. And we have the regulatory mechanisms consisting neurotransmitters and their sources, receptors and re-uptake channels. While neurotransmitter balances are crucially important for the proper functioning of the human brain, they have an insignificant information content compared to the synaptic structure. Perhaps a more serious point is that that neurons often have rather complex time-integration properties (Koch 1997). Whether a specific set of synaptic inputs result in the firing of a neuron depends on their exact timing. The authors' opinion is that except possibly for a small number of special applications such as auditory stereo perception, the temporal properties of the neurons can easily be accommodated with a time resolution of the simulation on the order of 1 ms. In an unoptimized simulation this would add an order of magnitude to the estimate given above, where we assumed a temporal resolution of 10 ms, corresponding to an average firing rate of 100 Hz. However, the other values on which the estimate was based appear to be too high rather than too low , so we should not change the estimate much to allow for possible fine-grained time-integration effects in a neuron's dendritic tree. (Note that even if we were to adjust our estimate upward by an order of magnitude, this would merely add three to five years to the predicted upper bound on when human-equivalent hardware arrives. The lower bound, which is based on Moravec's estimate, would remain unchanged.)

Software via the bottom-up approach

Superintelligence requires software as well as hardware. There are several approaches to the software problem, varying in the amount of top-down direction they require. At the one extreme we have systems like CYC which is a very large encyclopedia-like knowledge-base and inference-engine. It has been spoon-fed facts, rules of thumb and heuristics for over a decade by a team of human knowledge enterers. While systems like CYC might be good for certain practical tasks, this hardly seems like an approach that will convince AI-skeptics that superintelligence might well happen in the foreseeable future. We have to look at paradigms that require less human input, ones that make more use of bottom-up methods.

Given sufficient hardware and the right sort of programming, we could make the machines learn in the same way a child does, i.e. by interacting with human adults and other objects in the environment. The learning mechanisms used by the brain are currently not completely understood. Artificial neural networks in real-world applications today are usually trained through some variant of the Backpropagation algorithm (which is known to be biologically unrealistic). The Backpropagation algorithm works fine for smallish networks (of up to a few thousand neurons) but it doesn't scale well. The time it takes to train a network tends to increase dramatically with the number of neurons it contains. Another limitation of backpropagation is that it is a form of supervised learning, requiring that signed error terms for each output neuron are specified during learning. It's not clear how such detailed performance feedback on the level of individual neurons could be provided in real-world situations except for certain well-defined specialized tasks.

A biologically more realistic learning mode is the Hebbian algorithm. Hebbian learning is unsupervised and it might also have better scaling properties than Backpropagation. However, it has yet to be explained how Hebbian learning by itself could produce all the forms of learning and adaptation of which the human brain is capable (such the storage of structured representation in long-term memory - Bostrom 1996). Presumably, Hebb's rule would at least need to be supplemented with reward-induced learning (Morillo 1992) and maybe with other learning modes that are yet to be discovered. It does seems plausible, though, to assume that only a very limited set of different learning rules (maybe as few as two or three) are operating in the human brain. And we are not very far from knowing what these rules are.

Creating superintelligence through imitating the functioning of the human brain requires two more things in addition to appropriate learning rules (and sufficiently powerful hardware): it requires having an adequate initial architecture and providing a rich flux of sensory input.

The latter prerequisite is easily provided even with present technology. Using video cameras, microphones and tactile sensors, it is possible to ensure a steady flow of real-world information to the artificial neural network. An interactive element could be arranged by connecting the system to robot limbs and a speaker.

Developing an adequate initial network structure is a more serious problem. It might turn out to be necessary to do a considerable amount of hand-coding in order to get the cortical architecture right. In biological organisms, the brain does not start out at birth as a homogenous tabula rasa; it has an initial structure that is coded genetically. Neuroscience cannot, at its present stage, say exactly what this structure is or how much of it needs be preserved in a simulation that is eventually to match the cognitive competencies of a human adult. One way for it to be unexpectedly difficult to achieve human-level AI through the neural network approach would be if it turned out that the human brain relies on a colossal amount of genetic hardwiring, so that each cognitive function depends on a unique and hopelessly complicated inborn architecture, acquired over aeons in the evolutionary learning process of our species.

Is this the case? A number of considerations that suggest otherwise. We have to contend ourselves with a very brief review here. For a more comprehensive discussion, the reader may consult Phillips & Singer (1997).

Quartz & Sejnowski (1997) argue from recent neurobiological data that the developing human cortex is largely free of domain-specific structures. The representational properties of the specialized circuits that we find in the mature cortex are not generally genetically prespecified. Rather, they are developed through interaction with the problem domains on which the circuits operate. There are genetically coded tendencies for certain brain areas to specialize on certain tasks (for example primary visual processing is usually performed in the primary visual cortex) but this does not mean that other cortical areas couldn't have learnt to perform the same function. In fact, the human neocortex seems to start out as a fairly flexible and general-purpose mechanism; specific modules arise later through self-organizing and through interacting with the environment.

Strongly supporting this view is the fact that cortical lesions, even sizeable ones, can often be compensated for if they occur at an early age. Other cortical areas take over the functions that would normally have been developed in the destroyed region. In one study, sensitivity to visual features was developed in the auditory cortex of neonatal ferrets, after that region's normal auditory input channel had been replaced by visual projections (Sur et al. 1988). Similarly, it has been shown that the visual cortex can take over functions normally performed by the somatosensory cortex (Schlaggar & O'Leary 1991). A recent experiment (Cohen et al. 1997) showed that people who have been blind from an early age can use their visual cortex to process tactile stimulation when reading Braille.

There are some more primitive regions of the brain whose functions cannot be taken over by any other area. For example, people who have their hippocampus removed, lose their ability to learn new episodic or semantic facts. But the neocortex tends to be highly plastic and that is where most of the high-level processing is executed that makes us intellectually superior to other animals. (It would be interesting to examine in more detail to what extent this holds true for all of neocortex. Are there small neocortical regions such that, if excised at birth, the subject will never obtain certain high-level competencies, not even to a limited degree?)

Another consideration that seems to indicate that innate architectural differentiation plays a relatively small part in accounting for the performance of the mature brain is the that neocortical architecture, especially in infants, is remarkably homogeneous over different cortical regions and even over different species:

Laminations and vertical connections between lamina are hallmarks of all cortical systems, the morphological and physiological characteristics of cortical neurons are equivalent in different species, as are the kinds of synaptic interactions involving cortical neurons. This similarity in the organization of the cerebral cortex extends even to the specific details of cortical circuitry. (White 1989, p. 179).

One might object that at this point that cetaceans have much bigger corticies than humans and yet they don't have human-level abstract understanding and language . A large cortex, apparently, is not sufficient for human intelligence. However, one can easily imagine that some very simple difference between human and cetacean brains can account for why we have abstract language and understanding that they lack. It could be something as trivial as that our cortex is provided with a low-level "drive" to learn about abstract relationships whereas dolphins and whales are programmed not to care about or pay much attention to such things (which might be totally irrelevant to them in their natural environment). More likely, there are some structural developments in the human cortex that other animals lack and that are necessary for advanced abstract thinking. But these uniquely human developments may well be the result of relatively simple changes in just a few basic parameters. They do not require a large amount of genetic hardwiring. Indeed, given that brain evolution that allowed Homo Sapiens to intellectually outclass other animals took place under a relatively brief period of time, evolution cannot have embedded very much content-specific information in these additional cortical structures that give us our intellectual edge over our humanoid or ape-like ancestors.

These considerations (especially the one of cortical plasticity) suggest that the amount of neuroscientific information needed for the bottom-up approach to succeed may be very limited. (Notice that they do not argue against the modularization of adult human brains. They only indicate that the greatest part of the information that goes into the modularization results from self-organization and perceptual input rather than from an immensely complicated genetic look-up table.)

Further advances in neuroscience are probably needed before we can construct a human-level (or even higher animal-level) artificial intelligence by means of this radically bottom-up approach. While it is true that neuroscience has advanced very rapidly in recent years, it is difficult to estimate how long it will take before enough is known about the brain's neuronal architecture and its learning algorithms to make it possible to replicate these in a computer of sufficient computational power. A wild guess: something like fifteen years. This is not a prediction about how far we are from a complete understanding of all important phenomena in the brain. The estimate refers to the time when we might be expected to know enough about the basic principles of how the brain works to be able to implement these computational paradigms on a computer, without necessarily modelling the brain in any biologically realistic way.

The estimate might seem to some to underestimate the difficulties, and perhaps it does. But consider how much has happened in the past fifteen years. The discipline of computational neuroscience did hardly even exist back in 1982. And future progress will occur not only because research with today's instrumentation will continue to produce illuminating findings, but also because new experimental tools and techniques become available. Large-scale multi-electrode recordings should be feasible within the near future. Neuro/chip interfaces are in development. More powerful hardware is being made available to neuroscientists to do computation-intensive simulations. Neuropharmacologists design drugs with higher specificity, allowing researches to selectively target given receptor subtypes. Present scanning techniques are improved and new ones are under development. The list could be continued. All these innovations will give neuroscientists very powerful new tools that will facilitate their research.

This section has discussed the software problem. It was argued that it can be solved through a bottom-up approach by using present equipment to supply the input and output channels, and by continuing to study the human brain in order to find out about what learning algorithm it uses and about the initial neuronal structure in new-born infants. Considering how large strides computational neuroscience has taken in the last decade, and the new experimental instrumentation that is under development, it seems reasonable to suppose that the required neuroscientific knowledge might be obtained in perhaps fifteen years from now, i.e. by year 2012.

Notes

That dolphins don't have abstract language was recently established in a very elegant experiment. A pool is divided into two halves by a net. Dolphin A is released into one end of the pool where there is a mechanism. After a while, the dolphin figures out how to operate the mechanism which causes dead fish to be released into both ends of the pool. Then A is transferred to the other end of the pool and a dolphin B is released into the end of the pool that has the mechanism. The idea is that if the dolphins had a language, then A would tell B to operate the mechanism. However, it was found that the average time for B to operate the mechanism was the same as for A.

Why the past failure of AI is no argument against its future success

In the seventies and eighties the AI field suffered some stagnation as the exaggerated expectations from the early heydays failed to materialize and progress nearly ground to a halt. The lesson to draw from this episode is not that strong AI is dead and that superintelligent machines will never be built. It shows that AI is more difficult than some of the early pioneers might have thought, but it goes no way towards showing that AI will forever remain unfeasible.

In retrospect we know that the AI project couldn't possibly have succeeded at that stage. The hardware was simply not powerful enough. It seems that at least about 100 Tops is required for human-like performance, and possibly as much as 10^17 ops is needed. The computers in the seventies had a computing power comparable to that of insects. They also achieved approximately insect-level intelligence. Now, on the other hand, we can foresee the arrival of human-equivalent hardware, so the cause of AI's past failure will then no longer be present.

There is also an explanation for the relative absence even of noticeable progress during this period. As Hans Moravec points out:

[F]or several decades the computing power found in advanced Artificial Intelligence and Robotics systems has been stuck at insect brain power of 1 MIPS. While computer power per dollar fell [should be: rose] rapidly during this period, the money available fell just as fast. The earliest days of AI, in the mid 1960s, were fuelled by lavish post-Sputnik defence funding, which gave access to $10,000,000 supercomputers of the time. In the post Vietnam war days of the 1970s, funding declined and only $1,000,000 machines were available. By the early 1980s, AI research had to settle for $100,000 minicomputers. In the late 1980s, the available machines were $10,000 workstations. By the 1990s, much work was done on personal computers costing only a few thousand dollars. Since then AI and robot brain power has risen with improvements in computer efficiency. By 1993 personal computers provided 10 MIPS, by 1995 it was 30 MIPS, and in 1997 it is over 100 MIPS. Suddenly machines are reading text, recognizing speech, and robots are driving themselves cross country. (Moravec 1997)

In general, there seems to be a new-found sense of optimism and excitement among people working in AI, especially among those taking a bottom-up approach, such as researchers in genetic algorithms, neuromorphic engineering and in neural networks hardware implementations. Many experts who have been around, though, are wary not again to underestimate the difficulties ahead.

Once there is human-level AI there will soon be superintelligence

Once artificial intelligence reaches human level, there will be a positive feedback loop that will give the development a further boost. AIs would help constructing better AIs, which in turn would help building better AIs, and so forth.

Even if no further software development took place and the AIs did not accumulate new skills through self-learning, the AIs would still get smarter if processor speed continued to increase. If after 18 months the hardware were upgraded to double the speed, we would have an AI that could think twice as fast as its original implementation. After a few more doublings this would directly lead to what has been called "weak superintelligence", i.e. an intellect that has about the same abilities as a human brain but is much faster.

Also, the marginal utility of improvements in AI when AI reaches human-level would also seem to skyrocket, causing funding to increase. We can therefore make the prediction that once there is human-level artificial intelligence then it will not be long before superintelligence is technologically feasible.

A further point can be made in support of this prediction. In contrast to what's possible for biological intellects, it might be possible to copy skills or cognitive modules from one artificial intellect to another. If one AI has achieved eminence in some field, then subsequent AIs can upload the pioneer's program or synaptic weight-matrix and immediately achieve the same level of performance. It would not be necessary to again go through the training process. Whether it will also be possible to copy the best parts of several AIs and combine them into one will depend on details of implementation and the degree to which the AIs are modularized in a standardized fashion. But as a general rule, the intellectual achievements of artificial intellects are additive in a way that human achievements are not, or only to a much less degree.

The demand for superintelligence

Given that superintelligence will one day be technologically feasible, will people choose to develop it? This question can pretty confidently be answered in the affirmative. Associated with every step along the road to superintelligence are enormous economic payoffs. The computer industry invests huge sums in the next generation of hardware and software, and it will continue doing so as long as there is a competitive pressure and profits to be made. People want better computers and smarter software, and they want the benefits these machines can help produce. Better medical drugs; relief for humans from the need to perform boring or dangerous jobs; entertainment -- there is no end to the list of consumer-benefits. There is also a strong military motive to develop artificial intelligence. And nowhere on the path is there any natural stopping point where technofobics could plausibly argue "hither but not further".

It therefore seems that up to human-equivalence, the driving-forces behind improvements in AI will easily overpower whatever resistance might be present. When the question is about human-level or greater intelligence then it is conceivable that there might be strong political forces opposing further development. Superintelligence might be seen to pose a threat to the supremacy, and even to the survival, of the human species. Whether by suitable programming we can arrange the motivation systems of the superintelligences in such a way as to guarantee perpetual obedience and subservience, or at least non-harmfulness, to humans is a contentious topic. If future policy-makers can be sure that AIs would not endanger human interests then the development of artificial intelligence will continue. If they can't be sure that there would be no danger, then the development might well continue anyway, either because people don't regard the gradual displacement of biological humans with machines as necessarily a bad outcome, or because such strong forces (motivated by short-term profit, curiosity, ideology, or desire for the capabilities that superintelligences might bring to its creators) are active that a collective decision to ban new research in this field can not be reached and successfully implemented.

Conclusion

Depending on degree of optimization assumed, human-level intelligence probably requires between 10^14 and 10^17 ops. It seems quite possible that very advanced optimization could reduce this figure further, but the entrance level would probably not be less than about 10^14 ops. If Moore's law continues to hold then the lower bound will be reached sometime between 2004 and 2008, and the upper bound between 2015 and 2024. The past success of Moore's law gives some inductive reason to believe that it will hold another ten, fifteen years or so; and this prediction is supported by the fact that there are many promising new technologies currently under development which hold great potential to increase procurable computing power. There is no direct reason to suppose that Moore's law will not hold longer than 15 years. It thus seems likely that the requisite hardware for human-level artificial intelligence will be assembled in the first quarter of the next century, possibly within the first few years.

There are several approaches to developing the software. One is to emulate the basic principles of biological brains. It is not implausible to suppose that these principles will be well enough known within 15 years for this approach to succeed, given adequate hardware.

The stagnation of AI during the seventies and eighties does not have much bearing on the likelihood of AI to succeed in the future since we know that the cause responsible for the stagnation (namely, that the hardware available to AI researchers was stuck at about 10^6 ops) is no longer present.

There will be a strong and increasing pressure to improve AI up to human-level. If there is a way of guaranteeing that superior artificial intellects will never harm human beings then such intellects will be created. If there is no way to have such a guarantee then they will probably be created nevertheless.

Go to Nick Bostrom's home page

.

The U.S. Department of Energy has ordered a new supercomputer from IBM, to be installed in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the year 2000. It will cost $85 million and will perform 10 Tops. This development is in accordance with Moore's law, or possibly slightly more rapid than an extrapolation would have predicted.

Many steps forward that have been taken during the past year. An especially nifty one is the new chip-making techniques being developed at Irvine Sensors Corporation (ISC). They have found a way to stack chips directly on top of each other in a way that will not only save space but, more importantly, allow a larger number of interconnections between neigboring chips. Since the number of interconnections have been a bottleneck in neural network hardware implementations, this breakthrough could prove very important. In principle, it should allow you to have an arbitrarily large cube of neural network modules with high local connectivity and moderate non-local connectivity.

Is progress still on schedule? - In fact, things seem to be moving somewhat faster than expected, at least on the hardware front. (Software progress is more difficult to quantify.) IBM is currently working on a next-generation supercomputer, Blue Gene, which will perform over 10^15 ops. This computer, which is designed to tackle the protein folding problem, is expected to be ready around 2005. It will achieve its enormous power through massive parallelism rather than through dramatically faster processors. Considering the increasing emphasis on parallel computing, and the steadily increasing Internet bandwidth, it becomes important to interpret Moore's law as a statement about how much computing power can be bought for a given sum of (inflation adjusted) money. This measure has historically been growing at the same pace as processor speed or chip density, but the measures may come apart in the future. It is how much computing power that can be bought for, say, 100 million dollars that is relevant when we are trying to guess when superintelligence will be developed, rather than how fast individual processors are.

The fastest supercomputer today is IBM's Blue Gene/L, which has attained 260 Tops (2.6*10^14 ops). The Moravec estimate of the human brain's processing power (10^14 ops) has thus now been exceeded.

The 'Blue Brain' project was launched by the Brain Mind Institute, EPFL, Switzerland and IBM, USA in May, 2005. It aims to build an accurate software replica of the neocortical column within 2-3 years. The column will consist of 10,000 morphologically complex neurons with active ionic channels. The neurons will be interconnected in a 3-dimensional space with 10^7 -10^8 dynamic synapses. This project will thus use a level of simulation that attempts to capture the functionality of individual neurons at a very detailed level. The simulation is intended to run in real time on a computer preforming 22.8*10^12 flops. Simulating the entire brain in real time at this level of detail (which the researchers indicate as a goal for later stages of the project) would correspond to circa 2*10^19 ops, five orders of magnitude above the current supercomputer record. This is two orders of magnitude greater than the estimate of neural-level simulation given in the original paper above, which assumes a cruder level of simulation of neurons. If the 'Blue Brain' project succeeds, it will give us hard evidence of an upper bound on the computing power needed to achieve human intelligence.

Functional replication of the functionality of early auditory processing (which is quite well understood) has yielded an estimate that agrees with Moravec's assessment based on signal processing in the retina (i.e. 10^14 ops for whole-brain equivalent replication).

No dramatic breakthrough in general artificial intelligence seems to have occurred in recent years. Neuroscience and neuromorphic engineering are proceeding at a rapid clip, however. Much of the paper could now be rewritten and updated to take into account information that has become available in the past 8 years.

Molecular nanotechnology, a technology that in its mature form could enable mind uploading (an extreme version of the bottom-up method, in which a detailed 3-dimensional map is constructed of a particular human brain and then emulated in a computer), has begun to pick up steam, receiving increasing funding and attention. An upload running on a fast computer would be weakly superintelligent -- it would initially be functionally identical to the original organic brain, but it could run at a much higher speed. Once such an upload existed, it might be possible to enhance its architecture to create strong superintelligence that was not only faster but functionally superior to human intelligence.

Follow this link:

How Long Before Superintelligence? - Nick Bostrom

Pros and Cons of Cloning – Buzzle

Posted on by

Cloning is the process of creating a copy of a biological entity. In genetics, it refers to the process of making an identical copy of the DNA of an organism. Are you interested in understanding the pros and cons of cloning?

Advertisement

When Dolly, the first cloned sheep came in the news, cloning interested the masses. Not only researchers but even common people became interested in knowing about how cloning is done and what pros and cons it has. Everyone became more curious about how cloning could benefit the common man. Most of us want to know the pros and cons of cloning, its advantages and its potential risks to mankind. Let us understand them.

Cloning finds applications in genetic fingerprinting, amplification of DNA and alteration of the genetic makeup of organisms. It can be used to bring about desired changes in the genetic makeup of individuals thereby introducing positive traits in them, as also for the elimination of negative traits. Cloning can also be applied to plants to remove or alter defective genes, thereby making them resistant to diseases. Cloning may find applications in the development of human organs, thus making human life safer. Here we look at some of the potential advantages of cloning.

Organ Replacement

If vital organs of the human body can be cloned, they can serve as backups. Cloning body parts can serve as a lifesaver. When a body organ such as a kidney or heart fails to function, it may be possible to replace it with the cloned body organ.

Substitute for Natural Reproduction

Cloning in human beings can prove to be a solution to infertility. It can serve as an option for producing children. With cloning, it would be possible to produce certain desired traits in human beings. We might be able to produce children with certain qualities. Wouldn't that be close to creating a man-made being?!

Help in Genetic Research

Cloning technologies can prove helpful to researchers in genetics. They might be able to understand the composition of genes and the effects of genetic constituents on human traits, in a better manner. They will be able to alter genetic constituents in cloned human beings, thus simplifying their analysis of genes. Cloning may also help us combat a wide range of genetic diseases.

Obtain Specific Traits in Organisms

Cloning can make it possible for us to obtain customized organisms and harness them for the benefit of society. It can serve as the best means to replicate animals that can be used for research purposes. It can enable the genetic alteration of plants and animals. If positive changes can be brought about in living beings with the help of cloning, it will indeed be a boon to mankind.

Like every coin has two sides, cloning has its flip side too. Though cloning may work wonders in genetics, it has some potential disadvantages. Cloning, as you know, is copying or replicating biological traits in organisms. Thus it might reduce the diversity in nature. Imagine multiple living entities like one another! Another con of cloning is that it is not clear whether we will be able to bring all the potential uses of cloning into reality. Plus, there's a big question of whether the common man will afford harnessing cloning technologies to his benefit. Here we look at the potential disadvantages of cloning.

Detrimental to Genetic Diversity

Cloning creates identical genes. It is a process of replicating a genetic constitution, thus hampering the diversity in genes. In lessening genetic diversity, we weaken our ability of adaptation. Cloning is also detrimental to the beauty that lies in diversity.

Invitation to Malpractices

While cloning allows man to tamper with genes in human beings, it also makes deliberate reproduction of undesirable traits, a possibility. Cloning of body organs may invite malpractices in society.

Will it Reach the Common Man?

In cloning human organs and using them for transplant, or in cloning human beings themselves, technical and economic barriers will have to be considered. Will cloned organs be cost-effective? Will cloning techniques really reach the common man?

Man, a Man-made Being?

Moreover, cloning will put human and animal rights at stake. Will cloning fit into our ethical and moral principles? It will make man just another man-made being. Won't it devalue mankind? Won't it demean the value of human life?

Cloning is equal to emulating God. Is that easy? Is it risk-free? Many are afraid it is not.

Manali Oak

Last Updated: August 8, 2016

Don't Miss

The Legal and Ethical Issues of Cloning That Make it Controversial

Human Cloning Facts

Human Cloning Benefits

Human Cloning: The Pros and Cons Highlight Its Risk

Is Cloning Good or Bad?

More From Buzzle

Cloning: The Intriguing Recent History of Human Cloning

Raising Awareness About the Risks of Cloning

See the article here:

Pros and Cons of Cloning - Buzzle

What is Evolution – explanation and definitions

Posted on by

By Heather Scoville

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory that essentially states species change over time. There are many different ways species change, but most of them are based on the idea of Natural Selection. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection was the first scientific theory that put together evidence of change through time as well as a mechanism for how it happens.

The idea that traits are passed down from parents to offspring has been around since the ancient Greek philosophers' time. In the middle 1700s, Carolus Linnaeus came up with his taxonomic naming system, which grouped like species together and implied there was an evolutionary connection between species within the same group.

The late 1700s saw the first theories that species changed over time. Scientists like the Comte de Buffon and Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, both proposed that species changed over time, but neither man could explain how or why they changed.

continue reading below our video

10 Best Universities in the United States

They also kept their ideas under wraps due to how controversial the thoughts were compared to accepted religious views at the time.

John Baptiste Lamarck, a student of the Comte de Buffon, was the first to publicly state species changed over time. However, part of his theory was incorrect. Lamarck proposed that acquired traits were passed down to offspring. Georges Cuvier was able to prove that part of the theory incorrect, but he also had evidence that there were once living species that had evolved and gone extinct.

Cuvier believed in catastrophism, meaning these changes and extinctions in nature happened suddenly and violently. James Hutton and Charles Lyell countered Cuvier's argument with the idea of uniformitarianism. This theory said changes happen slowly and accumulate over time.

Sometimes called "survival of the fittest," Natural Selection was most famously explained by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species. In the book, Darwin proposed that individuals with traits most suitable to their environments lived long enough to reproduce and passed down those desirable traits to their offspring. If an individual had less than favorable traits, they would die and not pass on those traits. Over time, only the "fittest" traits of the species survived. Eventually, after enough time passed, these small adaptations would add up to create new species.

Darwin was not the only person to come up with this idea at that time. Alfred Russel Wallace also had evidence and came to the same conclusions as Darwin around the same time. They collaborated for a short time and jointly presented their findings. Armed with evidence from all over the world due to their various travels, Darwin and Wallace received favorable responses in the scientific community about their ideas. The partnership ended when Darwin published his book.

One very important part of the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is the understanding that individuals cannot evolve; they can only adapt to their environments. Those adaptations add up over time and eventually the entire species has evolved from what it was like earlier. This can lead to new species forming and sometimes extinction of older species.

There are many pieces of evidence that support the Theory of Evolution. Darwin relied on the similar anatomies of species to link them. He also had some fossil evidence that showed slight changes in the body structure of the species over time, often leading to vestigial structures. Of course, the fossil record is incomplete and has "missing links." With today's technology, there are many other types of evidence for evolution. This includes similarities in the embryos of different species, the same DNA sequences found across all species, and an understanding of how DNA mutations work in microevolution. More fossil evidence has also been found since Darwin's time, although there are still many gaps in the fossil record.

Today, the Theory of Evolution is often portrayed in the media as a controversial subject. Primate evolution and the idea that humans evolved from monkeys has been a major point of friction between scientific and religious communities. Politicians and court decisions have debated whether or not schools should teach evolution or if they should also teach alternate points of view like Intelligent Design or Creationism.

The State of Tennessee v. Scopes, or the Scopes "Monkey" Trial, was a famous court battle over teaching evolution in the classroom. In 1925, a substitute teacher named John Scopes was arrested for illegally teaching evolution in a Tennessee science class. This was the first major court battle over evolution, and it brought attention to a formerly taboo subject.

The Theory of Evolution is often seen as the main overarching theme that ties all topics of Biology together. It includes Genetics, Population Biology, Anatomy and Physiology, and Embryology, among others. While the Theory has itself evolved and expanded over time, the principles laid out by Darwin in the 1800s still hold true today.

For definitions of evolution-related terms, see our glossary.

Go here to see the original:

What is Evolution - explanation and definitions

Nick Bostrom’s Home Page

Posted on by

ETHICS & POLICY

Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development Suns are illuminating and heating empty rooms, unused energy is being flushed down black holes, and our great common endowment of negentropy is being irreversibly degraded into entropy on a cosmic scale. These are resources that an advanced civilization could have used to create value-structures, such as sentient beings living worthwhile lives... [Utilitas, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2003): 308-314] [translation: Russian] [html] [pdf]

Human Enhancement Original essays by various prominent moral philosophers on the ethics of human enhancement. [Eds. Nick Bostrom & Julian Savulescu (Oxford University Press, 2009)].

Enhancement Ethics: The State of the Debate The introductory chapter from the book (w/ Julian Savulescu): 1-22 [pdf]

TRANSHUMANISM

Transhumanist Values Wonderful ways of being may be located in the "posthuman realm", but we can't reach them. If we enhance ourselves using technology, however, we can go out there and realize these values. This paper sketches a transhumanist axiology. [Ethical Issues for the 21st Century, ed. Frederick Adams, Philosophical Documentation Center Press, 2003; reprinted in Review of Contemporary Philosophy, Vol. 4, May (2005)] [translations: Polish, Portugese] [html] [pdf]

RISK & THE FUTURE

Global Catastrophic Risks Twenty-six leading experts look at the gravest risks facing humanity in the 21st century, including natural catastrophes, nuclear war, terrorism, global warming, biological weapons, totalitarianism, advanced nanotechnology, general artificial intelligence, and social collapse. The book also addresses over-arching issuespolicy responses and methods for predicting and managing catastrophes. Foreword by Lord Martin Rees. [Eds. Nick Bostrom & Milan Cirkovic (Oxford University Press, 2008)]. Introduction chapter free here [pdf]

TECHNOLOGY ISSUES

THE NEW BOOK

"I highly recommend this book."Bill Gates

"terribly important ... groundbreaking" "extraordinary sagacity and clarity, enabling him to combine his wide-ranging knowledge over an impressively broad spectrum of disciplinesengineering, natural sciences, medicine, social sciences and philosophyinto a comprehensible whole" "If this book gets the reception that it deserves, it may turn out the most important alarm bell since Rachel Carson's Silent Springfrom 1962, or ever."Olle Haggstrom, Professor of Mathematical Statistics

"Nick Bostrom makes a persuasive case that the future impact of AI is perhaps the most important issue the human race has ever faced. ... It marks the beginning of a new era."Stuart Russell, Professor of Computer Science, University of California, Berkley

"Those disposed to dismiss an 'AI takeover' as science fiction may think again after reading this original and well-argued book." Martin Rees, Past President, Royal Society

"Worth reading.... We need to be super careful with AI. Potentially more dangerous than nukes"Elon Musk

"There is no doubting the force of [Bostrom's] arguments ... the problem is a research challenge worthy of the next generation's best mathematical talent. Human civilisation is at stake." Financial Times

"This superb analysis by one of the world's clearest thinkers tackles one of humanity's greatest challenges: if future superhuman artificial intelligence becomes the biggest event in human history, then how can we ensure that it doesn't become the last?" Professor Max Tegmark, MIT

"a damn hard read" The Telegraph

ANTHROPICS & PROBABILITY

Cars In the Other Lane Really Do Go Faster When driving on the motorway, have you ever wondered about (and cursed!) the fact that cars in the other lane seem to be getting ahead faster than you? One might be tempted to account for this by invoking Murphy's Law ("If anything can go wrong, it will", discovered by Edward A. Murphy, Jr, in 1949). But there is an alternative explanation, based on observational selection effects... [PLUS, No. 17 (2001)]

PHILOSOPHY OF MIND

DECISION THEORY

BIO

Bostrom has a background in physics, computational neuroscience, and mathematical logic as well as philosophy. He is the author of some 200 publications, including Anthropic Bias (Routledge, 2002), Global Catastrophic Risks (ed., OUP, 2008), Human Enhancement (ed., OUP, 2009), and the academic book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (OUP, 2014), which became a New York Times bestseller. He is best known for his work in five areas: (i) existential risk; (ii) the simulation argument; (iii) anthropics (developing the first mathematically explicit theory of observation selection effects); (iv) impacts of future technology, especially machine intelligence; and (v) implications of consequentialism for global strategy.

He is recipient of a Eugene R. Gannon Award (one person selected annually worldwide from the fields of philosophy, mathematics, the arts and other humanities, and the natural sciences). He has been listed on Foreign Policy's Top 100 Global Thinkers list twice; and he was included on Prospect magazines World Thinkers list, the youngest person in the top 15 from all fields and the highest-ranked analytic philosopher. His writings have been translated into 24 languages. There have been more than 100 translations and reprints of his works.

BACKGROUND

I was born in Helsingborg, Sweden, and grew up by the seashore. I was bored in school. At age fifteen or sixteen I had an intellectual awakening, and feeling that I had wasted the first one and a half decades of my life, I resolved to focus on what was important. Since I did not know what was important, and I did not know how to find out, I decided to start by trying to place myself in a better position to find out. So I began a project of intellectual self-development, which I pursued with great intensity for the next one and a half decades.

As an undergraduate, I studied many subjects in parallel, and I gather that my performance set a national record. I was once expelled for studying too much, after the head of Ume University psychology department discovered that I was concurrently following several other full-time programs of study (physics, philosophy, and mathematical logic), which he believed to be psychologically impossible.

For my postgraduate work, I went to London, where I studied physics and neuroscience at King's College, and obtained a PhD from the London School of Economics. For a while I did a little bit stand-up comedy on the vibrant London pub and theatre circuit.

During those years, I co-founded, with David Pearce, the World Transhumanist Association, a nonprofit grassroots organization. Later, I was involved in founding the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, a nonprofit virtual think tank. The objective was to stimulate wider discussion about the implications of future technologies, in particular technologies that might lead to human enhancement. (These organizations have since developed on their own trajectories, and it is very much not the case that I agree with everything said by those who flock under the transhumanist flag.)

Since 2006, I've been the founding director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. This unique multidisciplinary research aims to enable a select set of intellects to apply careful thinking to big-picture question for humanity and global priorities. The Institute belongs to the Faculty of Philosophy and the Oxford Martin School. Since 2015, I also direct the Strategic Artificial Intelligence Research Center.

I am in a very fortunate position. I have no teaching duties. I am supported by a staff of assistants and brilliant research fellows. There are virtually no restrictions on what I can work on. I must try very hard to be worthy of this privilege and to cast some light on matters that matter.

CONTACT

For administrative matters, scheduling, and invitations, please contact my assistant, Kyle Scott:

Email: fhipa[atsign]philosophy[dot]ox[dot]ac[dot]uk Phone: +44 (0)1865 286800

If you need to contact me directly (I regret I am unable to respond to all emails): nick[atsign]nickbostrom[dot]com.

VIRTUAL ESTATE

http://www.fhi.ox.ac.ukFuture of Humanity Institute

http://www.anthropic-principle.comPapers on observational selection effects

http://www.simulation-argument.comDevoted to the question, "Are you living in a computer simulation?"

http://www.existential-risk.orgHuman extinction scenarios and related concerns

On the bank at the end Of what was there before us Gazing over to the other side On what we can become Veiled in the mist of nave speculation We are busy here preparing Rafts to carry us across Before the light goes out leaving us In the eternal night of could-have-been

CRUCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

A thread that runs through my work is a concern with "crucial considerations". A crucial consideration is an idea or argument that might plausibly reveal the need for not just some minor course adjustment in our practical endeavours but a major change of direction or priority.

If we have overlooked even just one such consideration, then all our best efforts might be for naughtor less. When headed the wrong way, the last thing needed is progress. It is therefore important to pursue such lines of inquiry as might disclose an unnoticed crucial consideration.

Some of the relevant inquiries are about moral philosophy and values. Others have to do with rationality and reasoning under uncertainty. Still others pertain to specific issues and possibilities, such as existential risks, the simulation hypothesis, human enhancement, infinite utilities, anthropic reasoning, information hazards, the future of machine intelligence, or the singularity hypothesis.

High-leverage questions associated with crucial considerations deserve to be investigated. My research interests are quite wide-ranging; yet they all stem from the quest to understand the big picture for humanity, so that we can more wisely choose what to aim for and what to do. Embarking on this quest has seemed the best way to try to make a positive contribution to the world.

SOME VIDEOS AND LECTURES

SOME ADDITONAL (OLD, COBWEBBED) PAPERS

On this page.

INTERVIEWS

POLICY

MISCELLANEOUS

The rest is here:

Nick Bostrom's Home Page

U.S. Transhumanist Party PUTTING SCIENCE, HEALTH …

Posted on by

Gennady Stolyarov II

The Transhumanist Party is pleased to announce the revitalization of an ongoing official activism project one that all members, irrespective of geographical location, can easily join. This is a project that utilizes our favored approach of direct, individually attainable action toward the creation of a brighter future.

You can personally help advance the fight against a multitude of diseases such as Alzheimers Disease, Parkinsons Disease, and many cancers.

The Longevity Meme Folding@home team a group of volunteers who donate their computing power to perform protein-folding simulations that could one day result in cures for major diseases and the lengthening of human lifespans has been operating for years, contributing otherwise idle computer resources to actual meaningful biological research.

To take part in this effort, just download the client for the Folding@home project at http://folding.stanford.edu/. Then join The Longevity Meme team here, and your computer will do the rest over time. I have personally been engaged in this effort for over six years.

If you would like a digital reward for contributing to this project, I am able to give five levels of digital Open Badges via Credly. Here is a page describing the various tiers of badges.Once you have reached the requisite number of Folding@home points to claim each badge, just contact me via e-mailhere with a message that includes your user name and an e-mail address.

The Transhumanist Party supports Lifespan.io and CellAge in their work towards groundbreaking scientific life-extension research. Finding a way to repair age-related damage to senescent cells would be a fundamental breakthrough for transhumanism, and we offer our best wishes and support for those striving towards these new technologies.

From Lifespan.io and CellAge:

Our society has never aged more rapidly one of the most visible symptoms of the changing demographics is the exponential increase in the incidence of age-related diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular diseases and osteoarthritis. Not only does aging have a negative effect on the quality of life among the elderly but it also causes a significant financial strain on both private and public sectors. As the proportion of older people is increasing so is health care spending. According to a WHO analysis, the annual number of new cancer cases is projected to rise to 17 million by 2020, and reach 27 million by 2030. Similar trends are clearly visible in other age-related diseases such as cardiovascular disease. Few effective treatments addressing these challenges are currently available and most of them focus on a single disease rather than adopting a more holistic approach to aging.

Recently a new approach which has the potential of significantly alleviating these problems has been validated by a number of in vivo and in vitro studies. It has been demonstrated that senescent cells (cells which have ceased to replicate due to stress or replicative capacity exhaustion) are linked to many age-related diseases. Furthermore, removing senescent cells from mice has been recently shown to drastically increase mouse healthspan (a period of life free of serious diseases).

Here at CellAge we are working hard to help translate these findings into humans!

CellAge, together with a leading synthetic biology partner, Synpromics, are poised to develop a technology allowing for the identification and removal of harmful senescent cells. Our breakthrough technology will benefit both the scientific community and the general public.

In short, CellAge is going to develop synthetic promoters which are specific to senescent cells, as promoters that are currently being used to track senescent cells are simply not good enough to be used in therapies. The most prominently used p16 gene promoter has a number of limitations, for example. First, it is involved in cell cycle regulation, which poses a danger in targeting cells which are not diving but not senescent either, such as quiescent stem cells. Second, organism-wide administration of gene therapy might at present be too dangerous. This means senescent cells only in specific organs might need to be targeted and p16 promoter does not provide this level of specificity. Third, the p16 promoter is not active in all senescent cells. Thus, after therapies utilizing this promoter, a proportion of senescent cells would still remain. Moreover, the p16 promoter is relatively large (2.1kb), making it difficult to incorporate in present gene therapy vehicles. Lastly, to achieve the intended therapeutic effect the strength of p16 promoter to drive therapeutic effect might not be high enough.

CellAge will be constructing a synthetic promoter which has a potential to overcome all of the mentioned limitations. A number of gene therapy companies, including uniQure, AGTC and Avalanche Biotech have successfully targeted other types of cells using this technology. With your help, we will be able to use same technology to develop tools and therapies for accurate senescent cell targeting.

Gennady Stolyarov II

The United Nations Public Administration Network (UNPAN) has taken notice of the Transhumanist Party on its website, where it republished an article originally written by Dylan Love of NBC News. This November 18, 2016, article is titled The Next Global Race Aims to Perfect Artificial Intelligence and highlights Zoltan Istvans discussion of possibilities for the future of artificial intelligence, as well as concerns about geopolitical competition over AI development.

An excerpt from the article shows how the Transhumanist Party has contributed to discussion of this issue in a manner that the UN has deemed noteworthy:

Zoltan Istvan is founder of the Transhumanist Party, a legally recognized and PR-minded political effort that calls attention to what tomorrows mainstreaming of todays rapidly developing technology could mean for human life.

Istvan campaigned for the U.S. presidency in 2016 on the platform of harnessing existing technologies to maximize both the quality and duration of ones life. Though his theoretical thinking may seem to border on the fantastic, Istvan has enough street cred at the intersection of politics and technology that he has consulted with the U.S. Navy on the geopolitical implications of artificial intelligence. He readily identifies it as nothing less than a national security concern.

The Transhumanist Party encourages a diversity of perspectives from its members regarding the future potential, promise, and risks of artificial intelligence. In accord with its stepwise shift to a more participatory and member-driven governance model, the Transhumanist Party will soon be hosting discussion panels on a wide array of emerging technologies and their political and societal implications. Artificial intelligence will be among the first areas of technology discussed.

Gennady Stolyarov II

The following is the draft sample ballot generated thus far as a compilation of the suggestions provided during the 30-day exposure period for the Transhumanist Bill of Rights. The exposure period will continue until 12:01 a.m. U.S. Pacific Time on December 25, 2016,and comments will continue to be solicited until that time, with any further reasonable suggestions incorporated into the draft sample ballot until the end of the exposure period.

The draft sample ballot is a work in progress and will be revised on this page as further input is received. The purpose of releasing the sample ballot at this time is to provide insight into the structure of the voting and the options that have already been generated, so as to enable any interested members of the Transhumanist Party to read and understand the available options and propose further refinements and alternatives.

After the exposure period, a 7-day electronic voting period will occur from 12:01 a.m. U.S. Pacific Time on December 25, 2016, to 12:01 a.m. U.S. Pacific Time on January 1, 2017. Instructions for electronic voting will be sent to members of the U.S. Transhumanist Party via e-mail. All individuals who are members of the U.S. Transhumanist Partyas of the end of the exposure periodand who have expressed agreement with its threeCore Idealswill be eligible to vote thereafter.

Electronic voting will be conducted by a ranked-preference method on individual articles where more options are possible than would be accommodated by a simple Yes or No vote. Members should keep in mind that the ranked-preference method eliminates the incentives for strategic voting so members are encouraged to vote for the options that reflect their individual preferences as closely as possible, without regard for how other members might vote.

NOTE: The titles of the questions and potential Articles are descriptive and informational only and will not appear in the final adopted Transhumanist Bill of Rights. They are intended as concise guides to the subject matter of the questions and potential Articles. Likewise, the numbers or letters assigned to Articles within this ballot will not reflect the numbering in the final adopted Transhumanist Bill of Rights, which will depend on which Articles are selected by the membership. For purposes of convenient distinction, the original Articles developed by Zoltan Istvan are assigned Arabic numerals (1 through 6), while the new Articles proposed by the membership are assigned Latin letters (A through R, thus far).

NOTE II:The inclusion of any proposals on this ballot doesnot indicate any manner of endorsement for those proposals by the U.S. Transhumanist Party at this time except to place those proposals before the members to determine the will of the members with regard to whether or not the Transhumanist Bill of Rights should incorporate any given proposal.

Rank-order the Preamble Options that you support. Choose 1 for your most highly favored option, 2 for your second-most highly favored option, etc. If you choose Abstain, then do not rank-order any options, as you will be considered to have skipped this question.

Preamble Option 1 [Original Text by Zoltan Istvan]. Whereas science and technology are now radically changing human beings and may also create future forms of advanced sapient and sentient life, transhumanists establish this TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS to help guide and enact sensible policies in the pursuit of life, liberty, security of person, and happiness.

Preamble Option 2. Transhumanist evolution is underway and establishes life principles that allow a sentient entity to alter, augment, and perform self-improvement efforts utilizing science and technology to achieve supreme intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. This TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS extends sentient rights to enhanced neo-humans, cybernetic, transgenic, anthropomorphic, and avatar beings. The TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS provides a sentient entity the right to procreate, clone, and form, the right to expand and extend life beyond biological fundamental boundaries, and to live life without illness, aging, and catastrophic loss of self in pursuit of immortality. This TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS provides principles for intellectual and inclusive policies for all sentient entities in pursuit of life, liberty, eternal existence, and freedom to be different.

The TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS is not static. As the collective of sentient entities continues to unravel the mysteries of the Universe and discover more facts, the TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS will change. We (sentient entities) must be malleable, inclusive, and understanding in thought and spirit at the same pace as society evolves. We must continue to aspire, gain knowledge, and improve life.

Preamble Option 3. Transhumanist evolution is underway and establishes life principles that allow a sentient entity to alter, augment, and perform self-improvement efforts utilizing science and technology to achieve supreme intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities; to provide a sentient entity the rights to procreate, clone, and adapt form; to expand and extend life beyond present-day boundaries; and to live life without illness and loss of self in pursuit of immortality. We organize to provide principles for intellectual and inclusive policies for all sentient entities in pursuit of life, liberty, and eternal existence. This TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS extends sentient rights to all humans, cyborgs, transgenic, anthropomorphic, avatar, and yet-to-be-identified beings as defined herein.

The TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS is not static. As the collective of sentient entities continues to unravel the mysteries of the Universe and discover more facts, the TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS will change. We (sentient entities) must be malleable, inclusive, and understanding in thought and spirit at the same pace as society evolves. We must continue to aspire, gain knowledge, and improve life.

Preamble Option 4 [Usable if Option II(e) or Option II(f) below is adopted as well]. Transhumanist evolution is underway and establishes life principles that allow a sentient entity to alter, augment, and perform self-improvement efforts utilizing science and technology to achieve greaterintellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. This TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS extends sentient rights to enhanced neo-humans, cybernetic, transgenic, anthropomorphic, and avatar beings as well as any other being that demonstrates meta-cognition and self-directed awareness, which is capable of simultaneously modeling itself and its relation to the external reality, and whose cognitive processes can be described as lucid (characterized by continuous integration of information at Level 5 or a higher level as defined herein). The TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS provides a sentient entity the right to procreate, clone, and form, the right to expand and extend life beyond unenhanced biological fundamental boundaries, and to live life without illness, aging, and catastrophic loss of self in pursuit of immortality. This TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS provides principles for intellectual and inclusive policies for all sentient entities in pursuit of life, liberty, eternal existence, and self-actualization.

The TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS is not static. As the collective of sentient entities continues to unravel the mysteries of the Universe and discover more facts, the TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS will change. We (sentient entities) must be malleable, inclusive, and understanding in thought and spirit at the same pace as society evolves as we push mankind forward. We must continue to aspire, gain knowledge, and improve life.

Abstain.

Version 1 of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights uses the enumeration of human beings, sentient artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and other advanced sapient life forms in each Article to refer to the entities encompassed by that Article. It has been suggested, instead, that a more concise term might be used in the Preamble to encompass all of the above-enumerated entities and perhaps others.

Such phrasing would be of the following form:

As used in this TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS, the term [CHOSEN TERM] includes human beings, sentient artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and other advanced sapient life forms.

Shall the Preamble be amended to include the above-quoted statement and, in all Articles, replace the enumeration of human beings, sentient artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and other advanced sapient life forms withthe term selected as [CHOSEN TERM]?

Rank-order your preference for whether to use such a more concise all-encompassing term and, if so, what that term might be. Choose 1 for your most highly favored option, 2 for your second-most highly favored option, etc. If you choose Abstain, then do not rank-order any options, as you will be considered to have skipped this question.

Option II(a). Keep the enumeration of human beings, sentient artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and other advanced sapient life forms in each article.

Option II(b). Use thought-capable individuals as the chosen term.

Option II(c). Use advanced sapient life forms as the chosen term and remove that term from the longer descriptive listing. If this option is chosen, advanced sapient life forms will be defined to mean human beings, sentient artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and other beings of comparable cognitive capability.

Option II(d). Use sentient entities as the chosen term.

Option II(e).Use sentient entities as the chosen term, with a hierarchical definition of sentience as described below:

Sentient entities are defined by information-processing capacity such that this term should not apply to non-self-aware lifeforms, like plants and slime molds. Biological processing substrates are referred to as using an analogue intelligence, whereas purely electronic processing substrates are referred to as digital intelligence (instead of sentient artificial intelligences), and processing substrates that utilize quantum effects would be considered quantum intelligence.

Sentience is ranked as Level 5 information integration according to the following criteria:

Option II(f).Use sentient entities as the chosen term, with a further clarification that sentient entities include all entities exhibiting Level 5 information integration, or lucidity meaning that any such entity is meta-aware aware of ones own awareness, aware of abstractions, aware of ones self, and therefore able to actively analyze each of these phenomena.

Abstain.

Shall the definition of beings to whom the Transhumanist Bill of Rights applies include a specific mention of Gods and Archangels? Select one of the following options?

Yes.

No.

Abstain.

Shall the definition of beings to whom the Transhumanist Bill of Rights applies include a specific mention of genetically modified humans? Select one of the following options.

Yes.

No.

Abstain.

Shall the definition of beings to whom the Transhumanist Bill of Rights applies include a specific mention of intellectually enhanced, previously non-sapient animals? Select one of the following options.

Yes.

No.

Abstain.

Shall the definition of beings to whom the Transhumanist Bill of Rights applies include a specific mention of any species of plant or animal which has been enhanced to possess the capacity for intelligent thought? Select one of the following options.

Yes.

No.

Abstain.

Rank-order the Article 1 Options that you support. Choose 1 for your most highly favored option, 2 for your second-most highly favored option, etc. You may include the option for No Article of this sort in your rank-ordering, and it does not need to be your most favored option if you do so. (For instance, some voters might favor some options but think that no language is preferable to some of the other options.)

If you choose Abstain, then do not rank-order any options, as you will be considered to have skipped this question.

Option 1-1 [Original Text by Zoltan Istvan]. Human beings, sentient artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and other advanced sapient life forms are entitled to universal rights of ending involuntary suffering, making personhood improvements, and achieving an indefinite lifespan via science and technology.

Option 1-2. Any sentient entity is entitled to enhance bodily and sensory capabilities, expand life, live free, and achieve eternal existence without suffering by utilizing science and technology.

Option 1-3.All human beings, sentient artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and other advanced sapient life forms have the right to pursue transcendence of physical and mental limitations.

Option 1-4. Human beings, sentient artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and other advanced sapient life forms are entitled to universal rights of ending involuntary suffering, making personhood improvements, and achieving an indefinite lifespan via science and technology, as well as any other behaviors constituting life enhancement.

Option 1-NO. No Article of this sort.

Abstain.

Rank-order the Article 2 Options that you support. Choose 1 for your most highly favored option, 2 for your second-most highly favored option, etc. You may include the option for No Article of this sort in your rank-ordering, and it does not need to be your most favored option if you do so. (For instance, some voters might favor some options but think that no language is preferable to some of the other options.)

If you choose Abstain, then do not rank-order any options, as you will be considered to have skipped this question.

Option 2-1 [Original Text by Zoltan Istvan]. Under penalty of law, no cultural, ethnic, or religious perspectives influencing government policy can impede life-extension science, the health of the public, or the possible maximum amount of life hours citizens possess.

Option 2-2. Under penalty of law, no cultural, ethnic, or religious perspectives influencing government policy can impede life-extension science, the health of the public, body modification, morphological enhancement, or the possible maximum amount of life hours citizens possess.

Option 2-3. Legal safeguards should be established to protect individual free choice in pursuing peaceful, consensual life-extension science, health improvements, body modification, and morphological enhancement. While all individuals should be free to formulate their independent opinions regarding the aforementioned pursuits, no hostile cultural, ethnic, or religious perspectives should be entitled to apply the force of law to erode the safeguards protecting peaceful, voluntary measures intended to maximize the number of life hours citizens possess.

Option 2-4. Legal safeguards should be established to protect individual free choice in pursuing peaceful, consensual life-extension science, health improvements, body modification, and morphological enhancement. While all individuals should be free to formulate their independent opinions regarding the aforementioned pursuits, no intolerant cultural, ethnic, or religious perspectives should be entitled to apply the force of law to erode the safeguards protecting peaceful, voluntary measures intended to maximize the number of life hours citizens possess.

Option 2-5. No government or irrational group should be permitted to systematically deny any person or persons access to a life-enhancing technology or the freedom to pursue scientific and technological avenues for their betterment.

Option 2-6. No government or irrational group should be permitted to systematically deny any sapient beingaccess to a life-enhancing technology or the freedom to pursue scientific and technological avenues for their betterment or self-actualization.

Option 2-7. No government or private entity should be permitted to systematically deny any person or persons access to a life-enhancing technology or the freedom to pursue scientific and technological avenues for their betterment.

Option 2-8. Under penalty of law, no cultural, ethnic, or religious perspectives influencing government policy can impede efforts at transcending physical and mental limitations, improving the health of the public, or the possible maximum amount of life hours citizens possess.

Option 2-NO. No Article of this sort.

Abstain.

Rank-order the Article 3 Options that you support. Choose 1 for your most highly favored option, 2 for your second-most highly favored option, etc. You may include the option for No Article of this sort in your rank-ordering, and it does not need to be your most favored option if you do so. (For instance, some voters might favor some options but think that no language is preferable to some of the other options.)

If you choose Abstain, then do not rank-order any options, as you will be considered to have skipped this question.

Option 3-1 [Original Text by Zoltan Istvan].Human beings, sentient artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and other advanced sapient life forms agree to uphold morphological freedomthe right to do with ones physical attributes or intelligence (dead, alive, conscious, or unconscious) whatever one wants so long as it doesnt hurt anyone else.

Option 3-2. Human beings, sentient artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and other advanced sapient life forms agree to uphold morphological freedomthe right to do with ones physical attributes or intelligence (dead, alive, conscious, or unconscious) whatever one wants so long as it does not harm others.

Option 3-3. Human beings, sentient artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and other advanced sapient life forms agree to uphold morphological freedomthe right to do with ones physical attributes or intelligence whatever one wants so long as it does not harm others.

Option 3-4. Human beings, sentient artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and other advanced sapient life forms agree to uphold morphological freedomthe right to do with ones physical attributes or intelligence whatever one wants so long as it does not harm others. This right includes the prerogative for a sentient intelligence to set forth in advance provisions for how to handle its physical manifestation, should that intelligence enter into a vegetative, unconscious, or similarly inactive state, notwithstanding any legal definition of death.

Option 3-5. Human beings, sentient artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and other advanced sapient life forms agree to uphold morphological freedomthe right to do with ones physical attributes or intelligence whatever one wants so long as it does not harm others. This right includes the prerogative for a sentient intelligence to set forth in advance provisions for how to handle its physical manifestation, should that intelligence enter into a vegetative, unconscious, or similarly inactive state, notwithstanding any legal definition of death. For instance, a cryonics patient has the right to determine in advance that the patients body shall be cryopreserved and kept under specified conditions, in spite of any legal definition of death that might apply to that patient under cryopreservation.

Option 3-NO. No Article of this sort.

Abstain.

If Article 3 on morphological freedom is adopted, shall one of the followingsentences be appended after the base text of the article?

Choose 1 for your most highly favored option, 2 for your second-most highly favored option, etc. You may include the option Do not add anysentence of this sort in your rank-ordering, and it does not need to be your most favored option if you do so. (For instance, some voters might favor some options but think that no language is preferable to some of the other options.)

Read the original here:

U.S. Transhumanist Party PUTTING SCIENCE, HEALTH ...

Stem Cell Treatment May Help Ease Osteoarthritis Pain …

Posted on by

Last year, Patricia Beals was told she'd need a double knee replacement to repair her severely arthritic knees or she'd probably spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair.

Hoping to avoid surgery, Beals, 72, opted instead for an experimental treatment that involved harvesting bone marrow stem cells from her hip, concentrating the cells in a centrifuge and injecting them back into her damaged joints.

"Almost from the moment I got up from the table, I was able to throw away my cane," Beals says. "Now I'm biking and hiking like a 30-year-old."

A handful of doctors around the country are administering treatments like the one Beals received to stop or even reverse the ravages of osteoarthritis. Stem cells are the only cells in the body able to morph into other types of specialized cells. When the patient's own stem cells are injected into a damaged joint, they appear to transform into chondrocytes, the cells that go on to produce fresh cartilage. They also seem to amplify the body's own natural repair efforts by accelerating healing, reducing inflammation, and preventing scarring and loss of function.

Christopher J. Centeno, M.D., the rehab medicine specialist who performed Beals' procedure, says the results he sees from stem cell therapy are remarkable. Of the more-than-200 patients his Bloomfield, Colo., clinic treated over a two-year period, he says, "two thirds of them reported greater than 50 percent relief and about 40 percent reported more than 75 percent relief one to two years afterward."

According to Centeno, knees respond better to the treatment than hips. Only eight percent of his knee patients opted for a total knee replacement two years after receiving a stem cell injection. The complete results from his clinical observations will be published in a major orthopedic journal later this year.

The Pros and Cons

The biggest advantage stem cell injections seem to offer over more invasive arthritis remedies is a quicker, easier recovery. The procedure is done on an outpatient basis and the majority of patients are up and moving within 24 hours. Most wear a brace for several weeks but still can get around. Many are even able to do some gentle stationary cycling by the end of the first week.

There are also fewer complications. A friend who had knee replacement surgery the same day Beals had her treatment developed life-threatening blood clots and couldn't walk for weeks afterwards. Six months out, she still hasn't made a full recovery.

Most surgeries don't go so awry, but still: Beals just returned from a week-long cycling trip where she covered 20 to 40 miles per day without so much as a tweak of pain.

As for risks, Centeno maintains they are virtually nonexistent.

"Because the stem cells come from your own body, there's little chance of infection or rejection," he says.

Not all medical experts are quite so enthusiastic, however. Dr. Tom Einhorn, chairman of the department of orthopedic surgery at Boston University, conducts research with stem cells but does not use them to treat arthritic patients. He thinks the idea is interesting but the science is not there yet.

"We need to have animal studies and analyze what's really happening under the microscope. Then, and only then, can you start doing this with patients," he says.

The few studies completed to date have examined how stem cells heal traumatic injuries rather than degenerative conditions such as arthritis. Results have been promising but, as Einhorn points out, the required repair mechanisms in each circumstance are very different.

Another downside is cost: The injections aren't approved by the FDA, which means they aren't covered by insurance. At $4,000 a pop -- all out of pocket -- they certainly aren't cheap, and many patients require more than one shot.

Ironically, one thing driving up the price is FDA involvement. Two years ago, the agency stepped in and stopped physicians from intensifying stem cells in the lab for several days before putting them back into the patient. This means all procedures must be done on the same day, no stem cells may be preserved and many of the more expensive aspects of the treatment must be repeated each time.

Centeno says same day treatments often aren't as effective, either.

But despite the sky-high price tag and lack of evidence, patients like Beals believe the treatment is nothing short of a miracle. She advises anyone who is a candidate for joint replacement to consider stem cells first.

"Open your mind up and step into it," she says. "Do it. It's so effective. It's the future and it works."

Read the rest here:

Stem Cell Treatment May Help Ease Osteoarthritis Pain ...

Spirituality Books – Goodreads

Posted on by

Enter for your chance to win a FREE paperback book, SOUL MUSIC, Discover your personality type so YOU can lead a life of happiness & success.

Wouldn't it be fascinating to know what your favorite song says about you? Soul Music will show you this & much more. Through "Song Reads" (Personality reports based on an intuitive reading of the energy patterns held in your favorite song along with the energy patterns held within you as you listen to your favorite song) author Awen Finn has pinned down the traits most common to people who share the same favorite song. You may even discover something new about yourself.

All you need to understand yourself better, is your favorite song!

Using psychic intuition, "Soul Music" is a wholly unique book that reveals your strengths, weaknesses, & major issues while providing practical advice & life guidance. It is a must have for every library & anyone even remotely interested in the dynamics of personality. While you study your profile you will find it hard to resist examining those of family & friends. "Soul Music" helps you to better understand yourself & celebrates our differences and similarities as human beings.

Even total nonbelievers will find this attractive book fun to read. Everyone loves to read about him or herself. It makes for a fascinating & entertaining party game, to find out just how true you think these comments are for you. Its possible that everyone you know will say they've been nailed to a Tee by this book.

See the article here:

Spirituality Books - Goodreads

Bodhi – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Bodhi (Sanskrit: ; and Pali) in Buddhism is the understanding possessed by a Buddha regarding the true nature of things. It is traditionally translated into English with the word enlightenment, although its literal meaning is closer to "awakening." The verbal root "budh" means to awaken.

Bodhi is presented in the Nikayas as knowledge of the causal mechanism by which beings incarnate into material form and experience suffering. Although its most common usage is in the context of Buddhism, the term buddhi is also used in other Indian philosophies and traditions.

Bodhi is an abstract noun formed from the verbal root *budh- (to awake, become aware, notice, know or understand) corresponding to the verbs bujjhati (Pli) and bodhati or budhyate (Sanskrit).

The feminine Sanskrit noun of *budh- is buddhi.

The soteriological goal of Indian religions is liberation or moksha (also called mukti). Liberation is simultaneously freedom from suffering and the endless round of existences. Within the Sramanic traditions one who has attained liberation is called an arhat (Sanskrit; Pali: arahant), an honorific term meaning "worthy" acknowledging the skill and effort required to overcome the obstacles to the goal of nirvana.

According to the Buddha[citation needed] the path to liberation is one of progressively coming out of delusion (Pali: Moha). This path is therefore regarded as a path of awakening. Progressing along the path towards Nirvana one gains insight into the true nature of things. A Buddha is one who has attained liberation and an understanding of the causal mechanism by means of which sentient beings come into existence. This mechanism is called pratitya samutpada or dependent origination. The knowledge or understanding of this is called bodhi.

In the suttapitaka, the Buddhist canon as preserved in the Theravada-tradition, a number of texts can be found in which Gautama Buddha tells about his own awakening.

In the Vanapattha Sutta (Majjhima, chapter 17) the Buddha describes life in the jungle, and the attainment of awakening. After destroying the disturbances of the mind, and perfecting concentration of mind, he attained three knowledges (vidhya):

Insight into the Four Noble Truths is here called awakening. The monk (bhikkhu) has

...attained the unattained supreme security from bondage.

Awakening is also described as synonymous with Nirvana, the extinction of the passions whereby suffering is ended and no more rebirths take place. The insight arises that this liberation is certain:

Knowledge arose in me, and insight: my freedom is certain, this is my last birth, now there is no rebirth.

So awakening is insight into karma and rebirth, insight into the Four Noble Truths, the extinction of the passions whereby Nirvana is reached, and the certainty that liberation has been reached.

The Buddhist tradition gives a wide variety of descriptions of the Buddhist Path (magga) to liberation. Tradition describes the Buddha's awakening, and the descriptions of the path given in the Sutta Pitaka.[web 1][web 2] By following this path Buddhahood can be attained. Following this path dissolves the ten fetters and terminates volitional actions that bind a human being to the wheel of samsara.

The Theravada-tradition follows the Path to purification described by Buddhaghosa in his Visuddhimagga. It features four progressive stages culminating in full enlightenment. The four stages are Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami and Arahat.[web 3]

Three types of buddha are recognized:

The term bodhi acquired a variety of meanings and connotations during the development of Buddhist thoughts in the various schools.

In early Buddhism, bodhi carried a meaning synonymous to nirvana, using only some different metaphors to describe the insight, which implied the extinction of lobha (greed), dosa (hate) and moha (delusion). In Theravada Buddhism, bodhi and nirvana carry the same meaning, that of being freed from greed, hate and delusion.

In Mahayana-thought, bodhi is the realisation of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana, and the unity of subject and object. It is similar to prajna, to realizing the Buddha-nature, realizing sunyata and realizing suchness.

Mahayana discerns three forms of bodhi:

Within the various Mahayana-schools exist various further explanations and interpretations.

In the Tathagatagarbha and Buddha-nature doctrines bodhi becomes equivalent to the universal, natural and pure state of the mind:

Bodhi is the final goal of a Bodhisattva's career [...] Bodhi is pure universal and immediate knowledge, which extends over all time, all universes, all beings and elements, conditioned and unconditioned. It is absolute and identical with Reality and thus it is Tathata. Bodhi is immaculate and non-conceptual, and it, being not an outer object, cannot be understood by discursive thought. It has neither beginning, nor middle nor end and it is indivisible. It is non-dual (advayam) [...] The only possible way to comprehend it is through samadhi by the yogin.

According to these doctrines bodhi is always there within one's mind, but requires the defilements to be removed. This vision is expounded in texts such as the Shurangama Sutra and the Uttaratantra.

In Shingon Buddhism, the state of Bodhi is also seen as naturally inherent in the mind. It is the mind's natural and pure state, where no distinction is being made between a perceiving subject and perceived objects. This is also the understanding of Bodhi found in Yogacara Buddhism and the mind's natural and pure state as in Dzogchen.

To achieve this vision of non-duality, it is necessary to recognise one's own mind:

... it means that you are to know the inherent natural state of the mind by eliminating the split into a perceiving subject and perceived objects which normally occurs in the world and is wrongly thought to be real. This also corresponds to the Yogacara definition... that emptiness (sunyata) is the absence of this imaginary split

During the development of Mahayana Buddhism the various strands of thought on Bodhi were continuously being elaborated. Attempts were made to harmonize the various terms. The Buddhist commentator Buddhaguhya treats various terms as synonyms:

For example, he defines emptiness (sunyata) as suchness (tathata) and says that suchness is the intrinsic nature (svabhava) of the mind which is Enlightenment (bodhi-citta). Moreover, he frequently uses the terms suchness (tathata) and Suchness-Awareness (tathata-jnana) interchangeably. But since Awareness (jnana) is non-dual, Suchness-Awareness is not so much the Awareness of Suchness, but the Awareness which is Suchness. In other words, the term Suchness-Awareness is functionally equivalent to Enlightenment. Finally, it must not be forgotten that this Suchness-Awareness or Perfect Enlightenment is Mahavairocana [the Primal Buddha, uncreated and forever existent]. In other words, the mind in its intrinsic nature is Mahavairocana, whom one "becomes" (or vice versa) when one is perfectly enlightened.

See the original post:

Bodhi - Wikipedia

Negative and Positive Liberty | Libertarianism.org

Posted on by

Jason Brennan opens the second chapter of Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know with the question: How do libertarians define liberty? He answers his question by distinguishing between two major kinds of liberty: negative liberty and positive liberty. Negative liberty, Brennan explains, signifies an absence of obstacles, impediments, or constraints. Positive liberty, in contrast,

is the power or capacity to do as one chooses. For instance, when we talk about being free as a bird, we mean that the bird has the power or ability to fly. We do not mean that people rarely interfere with birds.

Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles; positive liberty is the presence of powers or abilities.

Brennans bird does not serve his purpose; it is a poor example. When we speak of being free as a bird, we dont usually mean what Brennan claims we mean. To be free as a bird suggests more than the power or ability to fly. It also suggests that the exercise of that ability is not hindered by external constraints. The fantasy of being free as a bird is linked to the desire to be free from external constraintsor, as Brennan puts it in his account of negative liberty, to act in the absence of obstacles.

The connection between the ability to fly and negative freedom is expressed in these famous lyrics from The Prisoners Song:

Now, if I had the wings of an angel, Over these prison walls I would fly.

When we speak of a bird as being free to fly, we assume that the bird in question has not been confined in a cage. We would not normally speak, for example, of a caged canary as being free to fly. This way of speaking suggests that a bird can exercise its ability to fly without external constraints, such as by being locked in a cage. The notion of negative freedom is, at the very least, an implicit presupposition of all such examples.

Of course, a caged bird may be free to fly around inside his cage to some extent, just as a human prisoner in solitary confinement may be free to walk within the confines of his tiny cell. Such cases illustrate the fact that negative freedom, or liberty (the terms are normally used interchangeably), may exist in varying degrees. But to say that a prisoner possesses the positive freedom to walk merely because he possesses the power or ability to walk (as Brennans bird is said to be free to fly in virtue of its ability to fly) is to use the word freedom in a peculiar way.

According to the positive conception of freedom (as summarized by Brennan), the fact of imprisonment would not even diminish a prisoners freedom to walk, so long as he remains able to walk. Even a prisoner bound tightly in chains would still be free to walk in the positive sense, provided he retained the ability to walk. When we say that a chained prisoner is not free to walk, we mean that he is constrained and therefore lacks the negative freedom to walk as he chooses, not that he lacks the power or ability to walk per se.

I may seem to be nitpicking here, and so I might be if not for Brennans attempt to incorporate positive liberty into libertarian theory. As he puts it (p. 27):

Until recently, most libertarians tended to argue that the only real kind of liberty is negative liberty. The believed the concept of positive liberty was confused. For a long time, the status quo was that libertarians and classical liberals advocated a negative conception of liberty, while left-liberals, socialists, and Marxists advocated a positive conception of liberty.

Brennan assures us that the status quo has begun to change: Recently, though, many libertarians have begun to accept both negative and positive liberty.

When contemporary libertarians say they want a free society, they mean that they want both (1) a society in which people do not interfere with each other and (2) a society in which most people have the means and ability to achieve their goals.

I confess to being unclear about the identity of the many libertarians who embrace positive liberty; but judging by Brennans subsequent mention of a book he co-authored with David Schmidtz, he appears to mean neoclassical liberals. In his recommended readings at the end of his book, Brennan lists four authors (including himself) under the heading Neoclassical Liberalism.

Now, there are probably a few more neoclassical liberals roaming the halls of academe, and I wont quibble over how many libertarians it takes to qualify as many libertarians. But when Brennan moves from many libertarians to his much broader statement about what contemporary libertarians supposedly believe about positive liberty, I must question his sense of proportion.

Consider Brennans next statement: Until recently, most libertarians rejected the concept of positive liberty. Until recently? Admittedly, I am not as active in the libertarian movement as I once was, but I doubt if I missed a sea change in regard to what most libertarians (including conventional classical liberals) think about the notion of positive liberty.

Brennan is again exaggerating the influence of his band of neoclassical liberals. A handful of academic philosophers does not a movement make.

Lets proceed to the more substantive problems in Brennans account. Why was the notion of positive liberty traditionally rejected by libertarians? According to Brennan, libertarians thought that if positive libertyunderstood as the power to achieve ones endscounted as a form of liberty, this would automatically license socialism and a heavy welfare state. Since they opposed socialism and a heavy welfare state, they rejected the concept of positive liberty.

This explanation is neither accurate nor fair; traditional libertarian objections to positive liberty were far more sophisticated than Brennan would have us believe. I will cover some of those objections in my next essay. For now, we should try to understand what the point of all this is. Why, for instance, do we find Brennan (p. 28) asking this loaded question: Why do many libertarians now accept positive liberty? Brennan explains:

Contemporary libertarians tend to embrace positive liberty. They agree that the power to achieve ones goals really is a form of liberty. They agree with Marxists and socialists that this form of liberty is valuable, and that negative liberty without positive liberty is often of little value.

Permit me to be blunt: contemporary libertarians, on the whole, tend to embrace no such thing. They do not agree with Marxists and socialists on this matter. On the contrary, they tend to argue that positive liberty is not a form of liberty at all, if by form we mean to suggest that positive and negative liberty are two species of the same genus. Rather, as Murray Rothbard wrote in Power and Market (p. 221), freedom pertains to interference by other persons. The word, in a social context, refers to absence of molestation by other persons; it is purely an interpersonal problem.

I see no evidence to indicate that the mainstream of libertarian thinking has changed substantially from this description of liberty given in 1773 by the American clergyman Simeon Howard:

Though this word [liberty] is used in various senses, I mean by it here, only that liberty which is opposed to external force and constraint and to such force and constraint only, as we may suffer from men. Under the term liberty, taken in this sense, may naturally be comprehended all those advantages which are liable to be destroyed by the art or power of men; everything that is opposed to temporal slavery.

According to this approach, negative liberty (the absence of coercive interference by others) is itself the fundamental means by which individuals are enabled to pursue their own values as they see fit. Brennan doesnt disagree with this assertion, as we see in his remark (p. 29) that protecting negative liberties is the most important and effective way of promoting positive liberty.

Thus, a commitment to positive liberty does not license socialism; it forbids it. Marxists say that positive liberty is the only real liberty. This real liberty is found in market societies, and almost nowhere else.

Brennan obviously wishes to turn the notion of positive liberty against socialists and other advocates of expansive governmental powers; whether his efforts are successful is a problem I shall take up at a later time. For now I wish only to point out that everything Brennan wants to say could easily be said without dragging in the notion of positive liberty at all. What we have here, in my judgment, is a type of political correctness run amok.

Will socialists, seduced by Brennans endorsement of positive liberty, see the light and agree that free markets are the best means to attain their cherished goal of positive liberty for everyone? As the old saying goes, there are two chances of this happening: fat and slim. By needlessly incorporating positive liberty into libertarian theory and, even worse, by claiming that negative liberty without positive liberty often has no value, Brennan has opened the barn door so wide as to admit all manner of anti-libertarian proposals.

Brennan appeals to historical fact to support his claim that free markets are the best way to achieve positive liberty. He would have gotten no objection from me if he had simply said, as Murray Rothbard put it in Power and Market (pp. 221-22), that it is precisely voluntary exchange and free capitalism that have led to an enormous improvement in living standards. Capitalist production is the only method by which poverty can be wiped out. But this straightforward claim wasnt good enough for Brennan, who succumbed to the desire to put old wine in a new libertarian bottle labeled positive liberty.

In short, Brennans attempt to incorporate positive liberty into libertarian theory accomplishes nothing more than to transform a strong argument for free markets into an argument that is perilously weak.

Anyone concerned with historical fact needs to understand why the notion of positive liberty proved so destructive to the negative liberty defended by classical liberals and libertarians. This will be the subject of my next essay.

Here is the original post:

Negative and Positive Liberty | Libertarianism.org