Human Accidents

Dukes of Douches is a relatively new and interesting blog concerned with hypocrisy and injustice on the world stage and often in the US mainstream media. It sometimes sinks to the level of a celebrity tabloid, but shines through with insight and relevance when its attention is turned to the larger issues of mankind and its leaders. I was particularly impressed by the recent post regarding the Bopal criminal decision. The post makes reference to the Yes Men, producers of two films everyone should see.

The recent Bopal court decision sets dangerous precedent and the topic fits in well with our previous post on Environmental Accidents. We are witnessing an incomprehensible lack of punishment of Union Carbide or compensation for the victims of an industrial and environment disaster. Such court decisions only incentivise companies to externalise their costs - even in the form of human lives and suffering.

We must recognise that by design, Corporations are psychopathic. We should not expect them to make moral or socially responsible decisions. Instead, they should be assumed to maximise their own profit potential while minimising financial risk, even if it means placing enormous costs on others. Rather than worrying about whether corporations are good or evil, the laws and the enforcement of laws must effectively internalize costs to the corporation and guarantee prohibitory insurance requirements for companies who in an extreme scenario might inflict costs on other lifeforms. Courts bear the brunt of the responsibility to ensure these requirements are enforced so as to protect human life and the environment from the inexorable profit maximisation calculations and occasional incompetence of industry.

Designer Babies

Assuming humanity is not destroyed by its own poor decisions nor by a cosmic event, the human species will flourish, become far more varied, and eventually speciate into unrecognisable multifarious forms most beautiful and wonderful, to borrow from Darwin. This process would occur naturally, but humanity's knowledge about its own genetic makeup will greatly accelerate the process. What starts with "Designer Babies" now to eliminate disease from the population, will certainly expand into mere cosmetic engineering, life extension, and superhuman abilities. When in vitro fertilisation was developed, many ignorant reactionaries even questioned if the children born of this would have a soul (while of course assuming that the rest of us do). Now that your best friend could be a test tube baby, the mob has for the most part come to terms with in vitro fertilisation and often see it as a necessity and a right for couples with fertility difficulties. Being a proponent of adoption, I discourage test tube babies for environmental and social reasons. Nonetheless, I do not have an inherent problem with the technology. Similarly, genetically engineered people are as inevitable as genetically engineered crops. You may wish to stay organic, but that will not stop anyone else from moving forward towards greater health, prosperity, and complexity. I instead would call for further research and development and government sponsorship of this technology and its implementation. After all, it is in society's best interests.

The position of the Roman Catholic Church in this matter prompted these thoughts.

Infectious Disease in Prison

Yet again, civilised society owes safety, decent treatment, and proper medical care to all its prisoners. In this case, Susan Oakie writes in the NEJM about public health in US prisons. Clearly, much more needs to be done to prevent the spread of deadly infectious diseases among inmates. Russian prisons have managed to breed extremely deadly multi-drug resistant tuberculosis which kills 40-60% of those infected. In addition to the measures recommended in Oakie's article, I suggest that all prisoners placed in general population should have compulsory testing for transmissible diseases and those who are infected should be publicly labeled as such if not quarantined while regularly educating prisoners on modes of transmission. Moreover, prison managers - in many cases private corporations in the United States - should be held to pay damages to families of prisoners who die as a result of infections they received in prison. Clearly making sex, drugs and tattooing in prisons 'illegal' is not getting the job done; they are prisoners after all. The human rights situations in prisons are tenuous enough without the possibility for prisoners to be infected with pathogens.

Healthcare and Human Rights in Prisons

The Fyodor Dostoevsky quote from this post is again pertinent. The ruling in this case to compensate prisoners who were not given proper access to treatment for opiate addiction while in prison was a sensible decision by the court (relative to the unspecified amount of compensation).

One could argue that the provision of extremely expensive noncritical care , such as brain surgery, is above and beyond the financial responsibility of a state which does not already provide universal care. However, where socialised medicine exists, such as the UK, all prisoners deserve the same level of medical care as everyone else including drug treatment programmes. To deny medicine or access to care to a prisoner is a violation of human rights and compensation is due in such cases.