The Telegraph Monday November 22, 2013

Brendan O'Neill

Brendan O'Neill is editor of the online magazine spiked and is a columnist for the Big Issue in London and The Australian in, er, Australia. His satire on environmentalism, Can I Recycle My Granny and 39 Other Eco-Dilemmas, is published by Hodder & Stoughton. He doesn't tweet.

Five things that Brave New World got terrifyingly right

Today is the 50th anniversary not only of John F Kennedy’s death but also of Aldous Huxley’s. So amid all the Kennedy commemorating let us also mark Huxley’s passing with a reminder of how scarily prescient his most famous novel was. Here are five ways in which the nightmare fiction of Brave New World has become our nightmare reality.

1) The tyranny of “happiness”

The authoritarian state in Brave New World is obsessed with making people “happy” – even if they don’t want to be. Its aim is “universal happiness” because if people are happy there’s more likely to be social stability. People must be made to “like their unescapable social destiny”, officials insist. One modern-day politician is also pretty obsessed with boosting the masses’ happiness levels: David Cameron. He has pumped massive amounts of cash and staff into something called a “happiness agenda”, through which he hopes to create a “more content, happier society”. In Brave New World, the antihero known as “the Savage” rebels against the happiness agenda, telling his smiley-faced rulers: “I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin… I’m claiming the right to be unhappy.” We should claim the same right against Cam’s happy-clappy meddling in our emotional lives.

2) Drugging the populace

The people of Brave New World are kept chilled with a drug called soma. Described as having “all of the advantages of Christianity and alcohol [and] none of their defects”, it’s a psychoactive drug that induces feelings of calm, thus negating any need to discover and potentially tackle the true source of one’s sorrow. Soma subdues all “malice and bad tempers”. Modern society uses antidepressants in a disturbingly similar way. This week a report discovered that prescriptions for antidepressants have “surged across the rich world”. A

British psychiatrist is worried that antidepressants are being dished out not to combat serious depression but merely to “get rid of unhappiness”. Ritalin use among children has “soared” in Britain, as parents and doctors take to drugging kids who seem overly pesky. As in Brave New World, we prefer to supress “malice and bad tempers” with drugs rather than ask what travails might lie behind such emotions and how they might be addressed.

3) The fashion for euthanasia

In Brave New World, death is celebrated. Most of those who reach 60, and become economically useless, are euthanised. Hearses are “gaily coloured”. People are sent to die in comfortable, primrose-coloured apartment blocks, which are “alive with gay synthetic melodies” and where there’s a TV at the foot of every bed. Today, people aren’t euthanised en masse, of course, but there is a fashion for euthanasia, or what we must now bizarrely call “the right to die”, particularly in liberal-leaning circles. The bright, gay death centres of Brave New World find their equivalent in the euthanasia clinics of modern Europe, where one can request a “good death” in comfortable surroundings if one is suffering from a terminal illness or, in the case of Belgium, simply from depression. Baroness Warnock has said elderly people should ask themselves if they have a “duty to die”, because “if you are demented… you are wasting the resources of the NHS”. A Times columnist recently said we should legalise voluntary euthanasia in order to address society’s “unaffordable explosion in dementia and age-related illness”. That isn’t a million miles from Brave New World’s use of euthanasia to limit the number of resource-sucking sick people and keep the economy healthy.

4) Malthusian miserabilism

The society depicted in Brave New World is depressingly Malthusian – like ours. Officials in Huxley’s dystopia carry out “Malthusian drills” to remind people of the necessity of not having too many kids, and encourage women to wear “Malthusian belts” packed with contraceptives, all in the name of keeping the human population limited to two billion. That’s the “optimum population”, they claim, the highest number of people we can have in relation to Mother Nature’s scarce resources – the exact same claim made today by Population Matters, formerly the Optimum Population Trust, whose big-name supporters include Sir David Attenborough. The idea that there are too many people making too many demands on poor Gaia’s depleted larder of stuff is alarmingly commonplace today, especially among environmentalists, who, just like the miserabilist officials in Brave New World, are obsessed with “the problem of human numbers in their relation to natural resources”. Indeed, we are now so surrounded by hectoring Greens telling us to modify our behaviour and fecundity in order to preserve natural resources that we no longer even recognise the deeply misanthropic and authoritarian bent to such arguments.

5) Bashing the family

In Brave New World, promiscuity is encouraged and family life is frowned upon. The family is viewed as a drain on people’s creativity. Having a family demands “a narrow channelling of impulse and energy”, officials insist, as they mock “the frictions of tightly packed [family] life, reeking with emotion”. Today, too, the family is sneered at. Feminists depict it as a site of abuse, especially of women and children; bookshop shelves creak with misery memoirs about wicked mothers and violent fathers; Cameron complains of Britain’s thousands of “chaotic families”, who apparently need state guidance. The number of people across the globe who live alone rather than as part of a family unit has “skyrocketed”, rising from 153 million in 1996 to 280 million today. As in Brave New World, today not only are we surrounded by misanthropy, authoritarianism and emotion-modifying drugs in public life, but even that once quiet, private sphere of family life, that old heart in a heartless world, is being thoroughly undermined.

http://www.helpguide.org/mental/anxiety_medication_drugs_treatment.htm

HELPGUIDE.com

Anxiety MedicationWhat You Need to Know About Anti-Anxiety Drugs

Medication can relieve some symptoms of anxiety, but it also comes with side effects and safety concerns—including the risk of addiction. Non-drug treatments may not relieve your anxiety as quickly as medication, but they can produce lasting results. To decide if anxiety medication is right for you, it’s important to talk to your doctor and weight the benefits against the drawbacks. Once you’ve researched your options, including other therapies and lifestyle changes that may help, you can make an informed decision.

In This Article:

Understanding anxiety medication Anti-anxiety drugs (benzodiazepines) Other types of medications for anxiety Safety concerns and risk factors Deciding if anxiety medication is right for you Medication alone is not enough Guidelines for taking anxiety medication Drug dependence and withdrawal

Understanding anxiety medication This information is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice. If you are taking a medication for anxiety, do not change your dosage without consulting your physician!

Many different types of medications are used in the treatment of anxiety disorders, including traditional anti-anxiety drugs such as benzodiazepines, and newer options like antidepressants and beta-blockers.

These medications can be very effective, but they shouldn’t be thought of as a cure. Anxiety medication can provide temporary relief, but it doesn’t treat the underlying cause of the anxiety disorder. Once you stop taking the drug, the anxiety symptoms often return in full force.

It’s important to be aware of the risks of anxiety medication, too. Anxiety medication can cause a wide range of unpleasant and sometimes dangerous side effects. Many medications for anxiety are also habit forming and physically addictive, making it difficult to stop taking them once you’ve started.

The bottom line

If you have severe anxiety that’s interfering with your ability to function, medication may be right for you. However, many people use anti-anxiety medication when therapy, exercise, or self-help strategies would work just as well or better—minus the side effects and risks.

Therapy and self-help strategies can help you get to the bottom of your underlying issues and develop the tools to beat anxiety for good. So while drug treatment can be beneficial, it’s by no means the only answer. There are other effective treatment approaches that can be taken in addition to or instead of medications. It's up to you to evaluate your options and decide what's best for you.

Anti-anxiety drugs (tranquilizers / benzodiazepines)Anti-anxiety drugs, also known as tranquilizers, are medications that relieve anxiety by slowing down the central nervous system. Their relaxing and calming effects have made them very popular: anti-anxiety drugs are the most widely prescribed type of medication for anxiety. They are also prescribed as sleeping pills and muscle relaxants.

Benzodiazepines are the most common class of anti-anxiety drugs. They include:

Xanax (alprazolam) Klonopin (clonazepam)

Valium (diazepam) Ativan (lorazepam)

Benzodiazepines are fast acting—typically bringing relief within thirty minutes to an hour. Because they work quickly, benzodiazepines are very effective when taken during a panic attack or another overwhelming anxiety episode. But despite their potent anti-anxiety effects, they have their drawbacks.

Side effects of anti-anxiety drugs

Anti-anxiety drugs like benzodiazepines work by reducing brain activity. While this temporarily relieves anxiety, it can also lead to unwanted side effects.

The higher the dose, the more pronounced these side effects typically become. However, some people feel sleepy, foggy, and uncoordinated even on low doses of benzodiazepines, which can cause problems with work, school, or everyday activities such as driving. Some even feel a medication hangover the next day.

Because benzodiazepines are metabolized slowly, the medication can build up in the body when used over longer periods of time. The result is oversedation. People who are oversedated may look like they’re drunk.

Common side-effects of benzodiazepines or tranquilizers

Drowsiness, lack of energy Clumsiness, slow reflexes Slurred speech Confusion and disorientation Depression

Dizziness, lightheadedness Impaired thinking and judgment Memory loss, forgetfulness Nausea, stomach upset Blurred or double vision

Benzodiazepines are also associated with depression. Long-term benzodiazepine users are often depressed, and higher doses are believed to increase the risk of both depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts and feelings. Furthermore, benzodiazepines can cause emotional blunting or numbness. The medication relieves the anxiety, but it also blocks feelings of pleasure or pain.

Paradoxical effects of anti-anxiety drugs

Despite their sedating properties, some people who take anti-anxiety medication experience paradoxical excitement. The most common paradoxical reactions are increased anxiety, irritability, and agitation. However, more severe effects can also occur, including:

Mania Hostility and rage

Aggressive or impulsive behavior Hallucinations

While rare, these adverse effects are dangerous. Paradoxical reactions to these anxiety medications are most common in children, the elderly, and people with developmental disabilities.

Other types of medications for anxiety

Because of the many safety concerns linked to anti-anxiety drugs, other medications for treating anxiety have gained in popularity. The alternatives to the anti-anxiety tranquilizers include antidepressants, buspirone, and beta blockers.

Antidepressant medications for anxiety

Many medications originally approved for the treatment of depression have been found to relieve symptoms of anxiety. These include certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), and the newer atypical antidepressants.

Antidepressants are often preferred over the traditional anti-anxiety drugs because the risk for dependency and abuse is smaller. However, antidepressants take up to 4 to 6 weeks to begin relieving anxiety symptoms, so they can’t be taken “as needed.” For example, antidepressants wouldn’t help at all if you waited until you were having a panic attack to take them. Their use is limited to chronic anxiety problems that require ongoing treatment.

The antidepressants most widely prescribed for anxiety are SSRIs such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Lexapro, and Celexa. These work by regulating serotonin levels in the brain to elevate mood and have been used to treat panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).

Common side effects include:

Nausea Nervousness Headaches Sleepiness

Sexual dysfunction Dizziness Stomach upset Weight gain

Although physical dependence is not as quick to develop with antidepressants, withdrawal can still be an issue. If discontinued too quickly, antidepressant withdrawal can trigger symptoms such as extreme depression and fatigue, irritability, anxiety, flu-like symptoms, and insomnia.

Antidepressant suicide risk

All antidepressants are required by the FDA to carry a warning about the risk of suicidal thoughts, hostility, and agitation. There is also the risk that antidepressants will cause an increase, rather than a decrease, in depression and anxiety.

Buspirone (BuSpar)

Buspirone, also known by the brand name BuSpar, is a newer anti-anxiety drug that acts as a mild tranquilizer. Buspirone relieves anxiety by increasing serotonin in the brain as the SSRIs do and decreasing dopamine. Compared to traditional anti-anxiety medications like Xanax, buspirone is slow acting. It takes about two weeks to start working on anxiety. However, it has several advantages over the older anti-anxiety drugs: it’s not as sedating, it doesn’t impair memory and coordination, it’s not very addictive, and the withdrawal effects are minimal.

Common side effects of buspirone include:

Nausea Headaches Dizziness Drowsiness

Upset stomach Constipation Diarrhea Dry mouth

Since the risk of dependence is low and it has no serious drug interactions, buspirone is a good option for older individuals and people with a history of substance abuse. However, its effectiveness is limited. It works for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), but doesn’t seem to help the other types of anxiety disorders.

Beta blocker medications for anxiety

Beta blockers are a type of medication used to treat high blood pressure and heart problems. However, beta blockers are also prescribed off-label for anxiety. Beta blockers work by blocking the effects of norepinephrine, a stress hormone involved in the fight-or-flight response. This helps control the physical symptoms of anxiety such as rapid heart rate, a trembling voice, sweating, dizziness, and shaky hands.

Because beta blockers don’t affect the emotional symptoms of anxiety such as worry, they’re most helpful for phobias, particularly social phobia and performance anxiety. If you’re anticipating a specific anxiety-producing situation (such as giving a speech), taking a beta blocker in advance can help reduce your “nerves.”

Beta blockers include drugs such as propranolol (Inderal) and atenolol (Tenormin). Common side effects include:

Light-headedness Sleepiness

Nausea Unusually slow pulse

Anti-anxiety medication safety concerns and risk factorsBeyond the common side effects, medication for anxiety comes with additional risks. While the tranquilizing anti-anxiety drugs are relatively safe when taken only occasionally and in small doses, they can lead to severe problems when combined with other substances or taken over long periods of time. Furthermore, some people will have adverse reactions to any amount of anti-anxiety medication. They are not safe for everyone, even when used responsibly.

Drug interactions and overdose

Used alone, anti-anxiety medications such as Xanax or Valium rarely cause fatal overdose, even when taken in large doses. But when combined with other central nervous system depressants, the toxic effects of these anxiety medications increase.

Taking anti-anxiety medication with alcohol, prescription painkillers, or sleeping pills can be deadly. Dangerous drug interactions can also occur when anti-anxiety drugs are taken with antihistamines, which are found in many over-the-counter cold and allergy medicines. Antidepressants such as Prozac and Zoloft can also heighten their toxicity. Always talk to your doctor or pharmacist before combining medications.

Anti-anxiety drug risk factors

Anyone who takes anti-anxiety medication can experience unpleasant or dangerous side effects. But certain individuals are at a higher risk:

People over 65. Older adults are more sensitive to the sedating effects of anti-anxiety medication. Even small doses can cause confusion, amnesia, loss of balance, and cognitive impairment that looks like dementia. Anti-anxiety drug use in the elderly is associated with an increased risk of falls, broken hips and legs, and car accidents.

Pregnant women. Expectant mothers should avoid anti-anxiety drugs. Since these anxiety medications cross the placenta, their use during pregnancy can lead to dependence in the baby. Following birth, the baby will then go through withdrawal, with symptoms such as muscle weakness, irritability, sleep and breathing problems, and trembling. These anxiety drugs are excreted in breast milk, so they should be avoided while breastfeeding, too.

People with a history of substance abuse. Anyone with a current or former problem with alcohol or drugs should avoid anti-anxiety drugs or use them only with extreme caution. The greatest benefit of benzodiazepines is that they work quickly, but this also makes them addictive. This can quickly lead to their abuse, often in dangerous combination with alcohol or other illicit drugs.

The connection between anxiety medication and accidents

Anti-anxiety medication causes drowsiness and poor coordination, which contributes to accidents at home, at work, and on the road. Studies show that taking anti-anxiety medication increases your risk of having a serious traffic accident.

Deciding if anxiety medication is right for you

If you’re trying to decide whether or not to treat your anxiety with medication, it’s important to weigh the pros and cons in conjunction with your doctor. It’s also important to learn about the common side effects of the anxiety medication you are considering. Side effects of anxiety medication range from mild nuisances such as dry mouth to more severe problems such as acute nausea or pronounced weight gain. For any anxiety medication, you will have to balance the side effects against the benefits.

Questions to ask yourself and a mental health professional

Is medication the best option for my anxiety problem? Am I willing to put up with unpleasant side effects in return for anxiety relief? What non-drug treatments for anxiety might help? Do I have the time and am I willing to pursue non-drug treatments such as cognitive-behavioral therapy? What self-help strategies might help me get my anxiety under control? If I decide to take anxiety medication, should I pursue other therapy as well?

Questions to ask your doctor

How will the medication help my anxiety? What are the drug’s common side effects? Are there any food and drinks I will need to avoid? How will this drug interact with my other prescriptions? How long will I have to take the anxiety medication? Will withdrawing from the medication be difficult? Will my anxiety return when I stop taking the medication?

Medication alone is not enoughRemember, anxiety medications aren’t a cure. Medication may treat some symptoms of anxiety, but can’t change the underlying issues and situations in your life that are making you anxious. Anxiety medication won’t solve your problems if you’re anxious because of mounting bills, a tendency to jump to “worst-case scenarios”, or an unhealthy relationship. That’s where therapy and other lifestyle changes come in.

There are many treatment alternatives to medication, including cognitive-behavioral therapy, which is widely accepted to be more effective for anxiety than drugs. To overcome anxiety for good, you may also need to make major changes in your life. Lifestyle changes that can make a difference in anxiety levels include regular exercise, adequate sleep, and a healthy diet. Other effective treatments for anxiety include talk therapy, meditation, biofeedback, hypnosis, and acupuncture.

The advantage of non-drug treatments for anxiety is that they produce lasting changes and long-term relief. If your anxiety is so severe that it interferes with therapy, medication may be useful in the short-term to get your symptoms under control. Once your anxiety is at a manageable level, other forms of behavior and talk therapy can be successfully pursued.

Guidelines for taking anxiety medicationIf you decide to take medication for your anxiety disorder, it is important to learn all you can about your prescription and to take it as directed. The more you know about your anxiety medication, the better equipped you’ll be to identify and deal with side effects, avoid dangerous drug interactions, and minimize other medication risks.

Some suggestions if you decide to take anxiety medication:

Be patient. It takes time for most anxiety medications to reach their full therapeutic effect. While you may want immediate relief, it’s important to have realistic expectations. You will need to work closely with your doctor to find the right dosage and evaluate the anxiety drug’s effectiveness.

Avoid alcohol. Alcohol and anxiety medications don’t mix. The combination can even be lethal. But even in less toxic doses, alcohol and anxiety medication can cause poor coordination and impaired thinking, increasing the risk of motor vehicle accidents and other injuries.

Monitor your medication response. Keep a close eye on your reaction to the anxiety medication, including any physical and emotional changes you’re experiencing. Everyone reacts differently to medications, so it’s impossible to predict what

side effects you will have or how well your anxiety drug will work. If you’re taking benzodiazepines (Valium, Xanax, etc.), don’t drive or operate heavy machinery until you know how the drug affects you.

Talk to your doctor. Be open and honest about side effects your anxiety drug is causing. Don’t be afraid to discuss problems or concerns. And while you should never stop your anxiety medication without talking to your doctor first, ultimately the decision is up to you. If you’re unhappy with how the pills make you feel, ask your doctor to help you taper off.

Continue therapy. Medication can control the symptoms of anxiety, but it doesn’t treat the underlying problem. Therefore, it’s crucial to pursue therapy or some other form of anxiety treatment. Therapy can help you get to the root of your anxiety problem and develop better coping skills.

If you're taking a benzodiazepine

Make regular appointments with a psychiatrist who specializes in the treatment of anxiety disorders and who is up on the latest research on benzodiazepines and other anxiety medications and therapies.

DO NOT discontinue your medication without talking to your psychiatrist first. If you’ve been taking benzodiazepines for over a month, you should gradually reduce your dose under your doctor’s supervision.

Finding the right dosage is a trial and error process, but you should be concerned if it keeps increasing. If you need higher and higher doses to achieve the same effect, this is a sign of a developing drug dependency.

Anti-anxiety drug dependence and withdrawalAnti-anxiety medications including popular benzodiazepines such as Xanax, Klonopin, Valium, and Ativan are meant for short-term use. However, many people take anti-anxiety drugs for long periods of time. This is risky because, when taken regularly, benzodiazepines quickly lead to physical dependence. Drug tolerance is also common, with increasingly larger doses needed to get the same anxiety relief as before. According to the American Academy of Family Physicians, benzodiazepines lose their therapeutic anti-anxiety effect after 4 to 6 months of regular use.

Most people become addicted to their anti-anxiety drug within a couple of months, but problems may arise sooner. For some, drug dependency develops after a few short weeks. Once you’re physically dependent on an anxiety medication, it’s difficult to stop taking it. The body is used to the medication, so withdrawal symptoms occur if the dose is decreased or discontinued.

Psychological dependence can be an issue, too. If you’ve been relying on an anti-anxiety drug to keep your anxiety in check, you may lose confidence in your own abilities to deal with life’s difficulties and start to think you “need” the medication to survive.

You may be dependent on benzodiazepines if:

You have taken benzodiazepines for four months or longer. You rely on your pills to cope. You have ever cut down or stopped taking your pills and have felt ill or anxious or experienced unusual symptoms. You feel your pills are not having the same effect as when you first started taking them. You take an extra pill during a stressful time. You tried cutting down or stopped taking your pills and could not sleep a wink. You have increased your dose. You have increased your alcohol intake. The benzodiazepines are interfering with your life in some way (sick days off work, family or relationship problems,

difficulty coping, difficulty remembering things). You always make sure you never run out of your pills. You carry your pills with you “just in case.”

Source: Reconnexion Inc.

If you’re physically dependant on anti-anxiety medication and would like to quit, it’s important to do so under the guidance of a medical health professional. The key is to slowly decrease your dose over a period of time. If you abruptly stop taking your medication, you may experience severe withdrawal symptoms such as:

Increased anxiety Insomnia Confusion

Pounding heart Sweating Shaking

Gradually tapering off the drug will help minimize the withdrawal reaction. However, if you’ve taken anti-anxiety medication for a few months, you may still experience some withdrawal symptoms. Anxiety, insomnia, and depression may last for months after you’ve quit. Unfortunately, these persistent withdrawal symptoms are frequently mistaken for a return of the original problem, causing some people to restart the medication.

HUFFINGTON POST

Terry NewellFounder, Leadership for a Responsible Society

Humility and Hubris in Science and Technology Posted: 05/21/2012 10:28 am Follow

Science , Genetic Engineering , Hubris , Humility , Nanotechnology , Robotics , Technology , Science News

share this story

674Submit this story

Americans seem to love people with a swagger in their step, a self-assuredness that shouts confidence and success. We like people who dominate in their professions and get the job done. That is, for sure, much of what is right about America.

We also admire those who sacrifice for others, who see a goal larger than themselves, who know that, in the end, their life ought to mean something more than just focusing on "me." This is also much of what is right about America.

The question worth asking is one of balance. Have we put too much emphasis on one or the other? A society without enough self-confidence loses its innovation and direction. A society with too much can be driven to disaster through hubris. A society with too much humility can find itself lost in the agendas of others. A society without enough can forget its values and virtues.

We seem more alert to this question of balance in areas of our national life that are the most public -- politics, religion, sports, entertainment, and, to some degree, business. Much of the work -- and works -- of people in these areas is visible. We have a sense about whether a politician has deserted his principles for private pleasure (John Edwards). We can tell if an athlete sees something in life more than the size of his contract (Tim Tebow). We also have some experience -- even if as spectators -- with how the work is done and what its moral boundaries ought to be.

But in science and technology, the balance between humility and hubris is harder to judge. Much of the work goes on out of view -- in laboratories, manufacturing plants, and literally, at the molecular or atomic scale. The workers do not have star quality and most are not covered by popular media. Most of us lack the knowledge to evaluate -- or even understand -- the work itself. It is only when that work hits us commercially or via disaster, that we seem to notice. Our lives do not lend us an easy way to evaluate the moral dimensions of science and technology, and sometimes it is only its downstream effects (e.g. asbestos-induced disease or oil spills) that allow us, quite late, to raise questions.

This is a dangerous place for us to be. Those who work at the frontiers of science and technology are subject to huge financial and commercial pressures. The "space race" followed the race to build the bomb, and both have now been replaced by the race to

commercialize genetic manipulation, nanotechnology, and robotics. Those whose lives are driven by discovery, whose reason and imagination are the fuel for progress, can too easily overlook the moral dangers of what they do, as Icarus seemed oblivious to the fate that his desire to fly held in store.

In April, researchers discovered that the dysbindin-1 gene may be linked to general cognitive ability. This was reported in scientific journals but its potential impacts were not seriously discussed. Bill McKibben, in Enough, a breathtaking rumination on the dangers of technology without humility and moral reflection, would have us contemplate the implications of being able to insert genes for intelligence in embryos. The prospects are initially exciting (who would not want to help ensure their child could be smarter?) but ultimately frightening (smarter than the parents? than the older siblings who have only version 1.0 of the gene? wondering if her achievements were the result of her own hard work or just germline engineering?).

Scientists may be humble as they face the unknown and the majesty of their ignorance, but this is easy to overcome when mechanics and money push morality lower in the prioritization of their values. The antidote may need to be a citizenry whose education in science and engineering is much better, a profession whose focus on ethics is much greater, and a government that insists on much more funding for exploring the moral and societal implications -- and controls -- of what the race for discovery and commercialization makes possible.

http://cgge.aag.org/PopulationandNaturalResources1e/CF_PopNatRes_Jan10/CF_PopNatRes_Jan108.html

Population and Natural Resources module: Conceptual FrameworkAAG Center for Global Geography Education

Malthusian Theory of PopulationThomas Robert Malthus was the first economist to propose a systematic theory of population.  He articulated his views regarding population in his famous book, Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), for which he collected empirical data to support his thesis. Malthus had the second edition of his book published in 1803, in which he modified some of his views from the first edition, but essentially his original thesis did not change.

In Essay on the Principle of Population,Malthus proposes the principle that human populations grow exponentially (i.e., doubling with each cycle) while food production grows at an arithmetic rate (i.e. by the repeated addition of a uniform increment in each uniform interval of time). Thus, while food output was likely to increase in a series of twenty-five year intervals in the arithmetic progression 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and so on, population was capable of increasing in the geometric progression 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and so forth.  This scenario of arithmetic food growth with simultaneous geometric human population growth predicted a future when humans would have no resources to survive on.  To avoid such a catastrophe, Malthus urged controls on population growth. (See here for graphs depicting this relationship.)    

On the basis of a hypothetical world population of one billion in the early nineteenth century and an adequate means of subsistence at that time, Malthus suggested that there was a potential for a population increase to 256 billion within 200 years but that the means of subsistence were only capable of being increased enough for nine billion to be fed at the level prevailing at the beginning of the period. He therefore considered that the population increase should be kept down to the level at which it could be supported by the operation of various checks on population growth, which he categorized as "preventive" and "positive" checks. 

The chief preventive check envisaged by Malthus was that of "moral restraint", which was seen as a deliberate decision by men to refrain "from pursuing the dictate of nature in an early attachment to one woman", i.e. to marry later in life than had been usual and only at a stage when fully capable of supporting a family. This, it was anticipated, would give rise to smaller families and probably to fewer families, but Malthus was strongly opposed to birth control within marriage and did not suggest that parents should try to restrict the number of children born to them after their marriage. Malthus was clearly aware that problems might arise from the postponement of marriage to a later date, such as an increase in the number of illegitimate births, but considered that these problems were likely to be less serious than those caused by a continuation of rapid population increase.

He saw positive checks to population growth as being any causes that contributed to the shortening of human lifespans. He included in this category poor living and working conditions which might give rise to low resistance to disease, as well as more obvious factors such as disease itself, war, and famine. Some of the conclusions that can be drawn from Malthus's ideas thus have obvious political connotations and this partly accounts for the interest in his writings and possibly also the misrepresentation of some of his ideas by authors such as Cobbett, the famous early English radical.  Some later writers modified his ideas, suggesting, for example, strong government action to ensure later marriages. Others did not accept the view that birth control should be forbidden after marriage, and one group in particular, called the Malthusian League, strongly argued the case for birth control, though this was contrary to the principles of conduct which Malthus himself advocated.

Birth Control Yes, Government Control No - WSJ.com

1 Opinion: Scott Pruitt: ObamaCare's

Birth Control Yes, Government Control No Intolerance is at the heart of the ObamaCare mandate.Email Print Save 255 CommentsBy JAMES TARANTO February 13, 2012New York Times editorials are often worth reading--stop laughing, we're serious!--because they provide a window into the mindset of the liberal left, the ideological tendency that dominates many major cultural institutions and, for at least the next 11 months, the executive branch of the federal government.Times editorialists write for people who think alike and seek reinforcement of their prejudices. Unconstrained by any need for compromise or political sensitivity, they provide an honest distillation of left-liberalism, something you can't always get from politicians who need to appeal broadly enough to win electoral majorities or even from the leaders of other institutions that serve a more diverse audience or clientele. What you learn from reading Times editorialists is that the fundamental attitude of left-liberalism today is one of contemptuous ignorance.Thus after President Obama made a symbolic concession to religious liberty last week, the Times once again employed scare quotes to sneer at the entire idea. This time it was in the very first phrase of its Saturday editorial:In response to a phony crisis over "religious liberty" engendered by the right, President Obama seems to have stood his ground on an essential principle--free access to birth control for any woman. . . .Nonetheless, it was dismaying to see the president lend any credence to the misbegotten notion that providing access to contraceptives violated the freedom of any religious institution. Churches are given complete freedom by the Constitution to preach that birth control is immoral, but they have not been given the right to laws that would deprive their followers or employees of the right to disagree with that teaching.In truth, no one denies that individuals have "the right to disagree with that teaching," and the religious institutions that object to the mandate do not claim the authority to police their employees' private lives or opinions. Rather, they oppose the government's attempt to coerce them into facilitating the practices they preach against.The editorial continues by assuring the Times's readers that everyone who disagrees is dishonest, because the Times knows what they really think: "The president's solution, however, demonstrates that those still angry about the mandate aren't really concerned about religious freedom; they simply don't like birth control and want to reduce access to it." The evidence for this assertion is laughable:Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican of Florida, has introduced a bill that would allow any employer to refuse to cover birth control by claiming to have a religious objection. The House speaker, John Boehner, also supports the concept. Rick Santorum said Friday that no insurance policy should cover it, apparently unaware that many doctors prescribe birth control pills for medical reasons other than contraception.

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

The world is too big for us. Too much going on. Too many crimes. Too much violence and excitement.

Try as you will, you get behind in the race. It's an incessant strain to keep pace and still you lose ground.

Science empties discoveries on you so fast that you stagger beneath them in hopeless bewilderment. Everything is high pressure. Human nature cannot endure much more.

--Editorial in Atlantic Journal, May 16, 1833

There can be little question that the fruits of scientific inquiry and technological innovation rank as the premier shapers of the human condition over the past two centuries. Among the numerous sociological strategies for approaching the relationships between science and technology with self and society is to examine the world views of different generations.

The world of my young sons features two working parents, day care, Nintendo, shopping malls, microwave meals, and a suburban neighborhood filled with kids. They are raised to assume that if one pushes the right buttons the garage door will open or the television comes on, that Dad can be talked to--even though he is miles away--from Mom's car phone, that Grandma can be visited in two hours even though she lives 600 miles away, and that people have walked on the moon and returned home at speeds of 25,000 miles an hour.

Their grandparents were raised in a society of farms and small towns, in which children often worked to help support the family by milking the cows or selling loaves of bread for a dime apiece. They were raised to assume that the human voice can travel via radio waves, that some people have telephones but must wait until others are off the community line to place a call, that grandparents living 600 miles away can be reached in a day and a half by train, and that speeds of 200 miles an hour have been reached in airplanes.

Then there's the perspective of the boys' great-grandparents, who were born in the late nineteenth century when Victoria was the queen of England, or in the early twentieth century during the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt. Most people entered the world not in hospital delivery rooms but in the family home by the light of a kerosene lamp. Most were raised on remote farms on the plains and in the Far West, where they played with imaginary friends, socialized during weekend visits to town, and received their formal education from their parents.

With such generational differences in mind, consider the following graph. It summarizes the results of the 1993 NORC General Social Survey when a random sample of Americans were asked: "In the past 12 months did you record a TV program so you could watch it later?"

Click here to see Having programmed a VCR by age and education

EXAMINING AMERICANS' PERSPECTIVES OF SCIENCE

In its 1988 General Social Survey, NORC posed the following questions to Americans:Here are some things that have been said about science. Would you tell me if you tend to agree or disagree with them?

Science will solve our social problems like crime and mental illness. (variable SCISOLVE, 23% agreed)

One trouble with science is that it makes of way of life change too fast. (SCICHNG, 41% agreed)

Scientists always seem to be prying into things that they really ought to stay out of. (SCIPRY, 35% agreed)

One of the bad effects of science is that it breaks down people's ideas of right and wrong. (SCIMORAL, 33% agreed)

Responses to the bottom three questions proved to be highly correlated, with SCIMORAL producing the strongest relationships. Let's examine Americans' responses to these with some of the standard predictors from the sociological arsenal. First, looking at the relationships produced by education and age we see how antipathy toward science generally decreasing with education and increasing with age:

PERCENT AGREEING WITH SCIENCE ISSUES

EDUCATION AGE0-11 YRS HSGRD

SOME COLL

4+YRSCOL

18-30 31-44 45-64  65+

SCICHNG 59% 45% 33% 21% 40% 32% 42% 55%SCIPRY 54 40 28 9 27 27 41 49

SCIMORAL 49 36 28 12 33 23 35 45

Second, observe how religious faith and religiosity shape Americans' responses. In general, whether or not individuals were strongly religious most affected their responses to SCIMORAL (strongly religious folks were one-third more likely to agree [40%] than those not strongly religious [30%], with those not strongly religious resembling those with no religious affiliation.

PERCENT AGREEING WITH SCIENCE ISSUES BYRELIGIOUS FAITH AND RELIGIOSITY (STRong, NOT strong)

FUND PROT CATHOLIC MODER PROT LIBRAL PROT JEWNO AFFIL

RELIOSITY STR NOT STR NOT STR NOT STR NOT STR NOTSCICHNG 49 45 40 39 33 41 40 38 29 24 30SCIPRY 45 45 40 31 27 27 26 27 14 19 24

SCIMORAL 49 39 39 25 34 22 32 29 0 5 27

To push this analysis further, let's consider the causal model where age, education, religion (limiting ourselves to Protestants and Catholics), and religiosity are predictors of SCIMORAL. We find:

When comparing those 65 and older with those 18-30, nearly 60% of the original percentage difference in agreement with SCIMORAL is explained when education, religion and religiosity are controlled. Education does most of the explaining, being about twice as potent as religiosity.

When comparing fundamentalist Protestants against other Protestants and Catholics, about 40% of the original difference in agreement with SCIMORAL is explained when age, education and religiosity are controlled.

Among those strongly religious, education has the greatest dampening effect on agreement with SCIMORAL among liberal Protestants (among whom 47% of high school dropouts agreed vs. 7% of those with four or more years of college) and least among moderate and fundamentalist Protestants.

THEORY OF EVOLUTION

July 2005 marked the eightieth anniversary of the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial.   Despite the fact that the theory of evolution is probably one of the best-tested and supported of scientific paradigms, a surprising proportion of Americans do not subscribe to its tenets. (Americans are not the only ones harboring doubts.  (See Turkey's Harun Yahya's Evolution Deceit: The Scientific Collapse of The Theory of Evolution and Ideological Background of the Theory.) According to the 1993 NORC General Social Survey, when asked if "human beings developed from earlier species of animals" only 15% of American adults said it was definitely true, 33% said it was probably true, 15% said probably not true, and 37% said it definitely was not true. Click here to see bearing of education, religious faith and religiosity on these beliefs.  In 2004, according to the National Center for Science Education, some forty states were dealing with challenges to the teaching of evolution.

The Scope anniversary was but a warm-up act for the 2009 bicentennial observances of the birth of Charles Darwin--and the sesquicentennial of the publication of On the Origin of Species.  From the National Science Foundation, "The Evolution of Evolution."

Click here to see

Belief in evolution by age and education Belief in evolution by education and religiosity Belief in evolution by religious faith, religiosity, and education

First edition of The Origin of Species PBS "American Experience" on the Monkey Trial NPR's eightieth anniversary observance: "Remembering the Scopes Monkey Trial" Fossil Hominids The Theory of Evolution--Arguments against Fossil Hominids Mark Isaac's Index to Creationist Claims

To see the resources anti-evolutionists have online (thanks to Swarthmore's Colin Purrington) check out:

Intelligent Design Network "seeking objectivity in origins science"

Center for Science and Culture for "cutting-edge research that challenges Darwinian evolution and validates the intelligent design of life and the universe "seeking objectivity in origins science"

Institute for Creation Research "where science and the Bible are fully integrated"

GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE STUDIESHow worried are you about global warming and the so-called "greenhouse effect?" (See the June 2000 report, "Climate Change Impacts on the United States:   The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change," sponsored by the U.S. Global Change Research Project, Global Warming: Early Warning Signs, Mercury Rising: Bearing Witness to Climate Change (requires Flash 5 player), and the special reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)   On the other hand, there are those, such as the  members of the Greening Earth Society, who view carbon dioxide buildups positively.

In the 1993 and 1994 General Social Surveys, NORC interviewers posed the following question to random samples of Americans (with % so answering): "Do you think that a rise in the world's temperature caused by the 'greenhouse effect' is: extremely dangerous for you and your family (14%), very dangerous (22%), somewhat dangerous (35%), not very dangerous (15%), not at all dangerous (3%), can't choose (12%)."

Let's explore who was most likely to perceive the greatest danger.

PERCENT SAYING "EXTREMELY" OR "VERY" DANGEROUSBY AGE AND EDUCATION

  AGE  0-11 YRS  HS GRAD SOMECOLL 4+ YRS COLL   TOTAL18-29 51% 38% 49% 44% 45%

30-39 37 32 42 38 37%40-49 38 33 37 47 39%50-59 30 31 31 34 31%60-69 18 34 30 31 28%

70+ 22 27 38 16 25%TOTAL 31% 33% 40% 39% 36%

As can be seen, President Clinton had his work cut out trying to convince Americans that there is a climactic crisis and that government intervention is needed.  His successor didn't bother.  The likelihood of voting increases with age but, as can be seen in the TOTALS column above, concerns are generally inversely related with age. Further, liberals are significantly more likely to believe that rising temperatures are extremely or very dangerous personally (45%) than are moderates (35%) and conservatives (30%). Further, just between 1993 and 1994, the percentage of Americans feeling personally threatened declined from 38.2% to 32.6%.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change --whose 2007 report is the most compelling. Its 2001 report predicted that the world's average temperature will rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit and the sea level by between 4 and 35 inches by the year 2100.

Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall's "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and its Implications for United States National Security" (Pentagon study of 2003)

The World Bank Group's Climate Change EPA Global Warming Site Global Warming links from EnviroLink US Global Change Research Information Office Home Page

EL NIÑONOAA/PMEL/TAO - What is an El Nino (ENSO)? NOAA/PMEL/TAO El Nino Theme Page - access distributed climate data and information related to the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenum The 1997 El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO 97-98) El Nino Links NWS - SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA EL NINO PAGE El Nino Links

METEOROLOGYStorm Event Database from the National Climatic Data Center WeatherNet National Weather Service Austin/San Antonio Home Page WashingtonPost.com: Welcome to WeatherPost! The Weather Channel ®Home Page National Climatic Data Center Home Page NOAA Defense Meteorological Satellite Program at NGDC Home Page

National Hurricane Center Storm Chaser Homepage The Tornado Project Online!

World Climate: Weather rainfall and temperature data UofI - The Daily Planet EPA & Ozone Depletion

TECHNOLOGY

Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.

--Julius Sextus Frontinus, highly regarded Roman engineer of 1st century A.D.

Everything that can be invented has been invented.

--Charles H. Duell, Commissioner of the Patent and Trademark Officeto President McKinley in 1899

Since the industrial revolution, technology has become a major shaper of our social organization, our values (abortions, total war, right to die), our everyday expectations (telephone, jet travel, being plugged into the world system through satellite networks), our hopes and dreams (interplanetary travel, universal peace, end of cancer or even of death), the nature of the work we do, and the style by which we think (new math, computer/calculator logic, causality). However, a 1994 survey revealed 46% of Americans feeling that they were being "left behind" by technological change.

Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?

Pro & Con Quotes Readers' Comments (290)

PRO (yes) CON (no)The American Civil Liberties Union stated in its 1996 amicus brief in Vacco v. Quill that:

"The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. In particular, this Court's recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death.

A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide -- as applied to competent, terminally ill patients who wish to

The American Medical Association (AMA) stated in its June 1996 article "Decisions Near the End of Life," available at www.ama-assn.org:

"It is understandable, though tragic, that some patients in extreme duress--such as those suffering from a terminal, painful, debilitating illness--may come to decide that death is preferable to life. However, permitting physicians to engage in euthanasia would ultimately cause more harm than good. Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.

The involvement of physicians in euthanasia heightens the significance of its ethical prohibition. The physician who performs euthanasia assumes unique responsibility for the act of ending the patient's life. Euthanasia could also readily be extended to incompetent patients and other vulnerable

avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death -- substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained."

1996 - The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)  

Margaret P. Battin, PhD, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Adjunct Professor of Internal Medicine at the University of Utah, and Timothy E. Quill, MD, Professor of Medicine, Psychiatry, and Medical Humanities at the University of Rochester, stated the following in their 2004 book Physician-Assisted Dying: The Case for Palliative Care & Patient Choice:"We firmly believe that physician-assisted death should be one--not the only one, but one--of the last-resort options available to a patient facing a hard death. We agree that these options should include high dose pain medication if needed, cessation of life-sustaining therapy, voluntary cessation of eating and drinking, and terminal sedation. We also believe, however, that physician-assisted dying, whether it is called physician-assisted death or physician aid in dying or physician-assisted suicide, should be among the options available to paients at the end of life."

2004 - Margaret P. Battin, PhD  

Timothy E. Quill, MD  

Jasper Emmering, MD, research physician, stated the following in a June 9, 2007 email to ProCon.org:

"I support legal euthanasia for a number of reasons. First comes the principle of sovereignty of the individual over his own body. Then there is a practical matter: the moral distinction between abstaining from life-saving treatment, palliative sedation and euthanasia is very murky, for me it doesn't exist at all. Therefore it makes no sense that the first two are legal while the third is not.

Lastly, I think that 'involuntary euthanasia' (euthanasia without the patient's permission, i.e. murder) may very well be more common in countries where doctors can go to jail just for suggesting euthanasia as an option. Of course there's no data on this, but my common sense tells me that when the doctor is not afraid to ask, you don't have to be afraid that he'll do it without asking."

June 9, 2007 - Jasper Emmering, MD  

populations.

Instead of engaging in euthanasia, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. Patients should not be abandoned once it is determined that cure is impossible. Patients near the end of life must continue to receive emotional support, comfort care, adequate pain control, respect for patient autonomy, and good communication."

June 1996 - American Medical Association (AMA)  

Courtney S. Campbell, PhD, Professor of Ethics, Science, and the Environment in the Department of Philosophy at Oregon State University, stated the following in a May 16, 2007 email to ProCon.org:"I am opposed to the legalization of voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill patients as administered by physicians (it goes without saying I would opposed involuntary euthanasia as well). While I respect and advocate for patients to have control and dignity in dying, it is contrary to the vocation of medicine to intentionally hasten or cause death. In all cases (medical or non-medical), taking human life should be a last resort, and until our society has given appropriate attention to pain control, hospice care, and advance directive, we will not have met the criteria of last resort with respect to legalized euthanasia. I accept refusal or non-treatment of patients with terminal conditions wherein the underlying cause of death is a disease or organic pathology."

May 16, 2007 - Courtney S. Campbell, PhD  

Daniel Callahan, PhD, Director of International Programs at the Hastings Center, stated the following in his 2004 book The Case Against Assisted Suicide: For the Right to End-of-Life Care:"This path to peaceful dying rests on the illusion that a society can safely put in the hands of physicians the power directly and deliberately to take life, euthanasia, or to assist patients in taking their own life, physician-assisted suicide... It threatens to add still another sad chapter to an already sorry human history of giving one person the liberty to take the life of another. It perpetuates and pushes to an extreme the very ideology of control--the goal of mastering life and death--that

Jack Kevorkian, MD, a retired pathologist also known as 'Dr. Death' who has aided over 130 people in ending their lives, stated the following in a 1990 interview with Cornerstone magazine:"I believe there are people who are healthy and mentally competent enough to decide on suicide. People who are not depressed. Everyone has a right for suicide, because a person has a right to determine what will or will not be done to his body. There’s no place for people to turn today who really want to commit suicide. Teenagers, and the elderly especially, have nowhere to turn. But when they come to me, they will obey what I say because they know they’re talking to an honest doctor."

1990 - Jack Kevorkian, MD  

The 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso, PhD), spiritual leader and Head of State of the Tibetan government in exile, stated the following in a 1985 letter to Asiaweek:"In the event a person is definitely going to die and he is either in great pain or has virtually become a vegetable, and prolonging his existence is only going to cause difficulties and suffering for others, the termination of his life may be permitted according to Mahayana Buddhist ethics."

1985 - Tenzin Gyatso, PhD  

Marcia Angell, MD, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, stated the following in her July 11, 2006 article "The Quality of Mercy," published in the Willits News:

"There is no right way to die, and there should be no schism between advocates for better palliative care and advocates for making it possible to hasten death with a physician's help. Good palliative care and the right to make this choice are no more mutually exclusive than good cardiologic care and the availability of heart transplantation. To require dying patients to endure unrelievable suffering, regardless of their wishes is callous and unseemly. Death is hard enough without being bullied. Like the relief of pain, this too is a matter of mercy...

I've never taken a public position on euthanasia, only on physician-assisted suicide (which I support)."

July 11, 2006 - Marcia Angell, MD  

created the problems of modern medicine in the first place. Instead of changing the medicine that generates the problem of an intolerable death (which, in almost all cases, good palliative medicine could do), allowing physicians to kill or provide the means to take one's own life simply treats the symptoms, all the while reinforcing, and driving us more deeply into, an ideology of control."

2004 - Daniel Callahan, PhD  

Pope Benedict, XVI, 265th Pope of the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church, stated the following in his July 2004 article "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles," available at www.vatican.va:"The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin...

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia... While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

July 2004 - Pope Benedict XVI  

Michael Manning, MD, author and former medical practitioner, stated the following in his 1998 book Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring?:"I believe the evidence leads to the conclusion that we must not legalize euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Instead, our society should mobilize a life-giving health care system that includes compassionate care for the dying, adequate analgesia and human comforts near the end of life, and widespread education about the right to refuse burdensome medical care."

1998 - Michael Manning, MD  

Bernard Baumrin, PhD, MD, Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York, stated the following in his 1998 article "Physician, Stay Thy Hand!," in the book Physician Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate:

Faye Girsh, EdD, Senior Adviser at the Final Exit Network, stated the following in her Winter 2001 article "How Shall We Die," published in Free Inquiry:"At the Hemlock Society we get calls daily from desperate people who are looking for someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their lives which have lost all quality... Americans should enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights--the right not to be forced to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent."

Winter 2001 - Faye Girsh, EdD  

Philip Nitschke, MD, Director and Founder of Exit International, stated the following in his June 5, 2001 interview "Euthanasia Sets Sail," published in the National Review Online:"My personal position is that if we believe that there is a right to life, then we must accept that people have a right to dispose of that life whenever they want... I do not believe that telling people they have a right to life while denying them the means, manner, or information necessary for them to give this life away has any ethical consistency."

June 5, 2001 - Philip Nitschke, MD  

Martin Gold, JD, Partner at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, stated the following in his Oct. 1996 "Brief of Amicus Curiae Bioethicists Supporting Respondents," Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg:

"[P]hysicians, in carrying out their ethical duty to relieve the pain and suffering of their terminally-ill patients, should be legally permitted to accede to the desire of a patient to hasten death when the patient's decision is voluntarily reached, a patient is competent to make the decision, and the patient has been fully informed of the diagnosis and prognosis of an incurable, fatal disease which has progressed to the final stages...

The right to physician-assisted suicide should be recognized by this Court as a fundamental right... Moreover, the amicus group agrees with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Quill that the denial of physician-assisted suicide is a denial of equal protection to terminally-ill patients who do not have the option of hastening death by requesting the removal of life support systems."

"Doctors must not engage in assisting suicide. They are inheritors of a valuable tradition that inspires public trust. None should be even partly responsible for the erosion of that trust. Nothing that is remotely beneficial to some particular patient in extremis is worth the damage that will be created by the perception that physicians sometimes aid and even abet people in taking their own lives."

1998 - Bernard Baumrin, PhD, MD  

Wesley Smith, JD, anti-euthanasia activist, stated the following in his 1997 book Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope From Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder:"The equality-of-human-life ethic requires that each of us be considered of equal inherent moral worth, and it makes the preservation and protection of human life society's first priority. Accepting euthanasia would replace the equality-of-human-life ethic with a utilitarian and nihilistic 'death culture' that views the intentional ending of certain human lives as an appropriate and necessary answer to life's most difficult challenges. As I hope to demonstrate in this book, the dire consequences that would flow from such a radical shift in morality are profound and disturbing."

1997 - Wesley J. Smith, JD  

Robert Beezer, LLB, Judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, stated the following in his 1996 dissenting opinion in Compassion in Dying v. Washington:"Constitutional protection for a right to assisted suicide might spawn pressure on the elderly and infirm--but still happily alive--to 'die and get out of the way.' Also at risk are the poor and minorities, who have been shown to suffer more pain (i.e. they receive less treatment for their pain) than other groups... Further, like the elderly and infirm, they, as well as the handicapped, are at risk of being unwanted and subjected to pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide rather than continued treatment...

The poor, the elderly, the disabled and minorities are all at risk from undue pressure to commit physician-assisted suicide, either through direct pressure or through inadequate treatment of their pain and suffering. They cannot be adequately

Oct. 1996 - Martin Gold, JD  

Barbara Coombs Lee, JD, President of Compassion and Choices, stated the following in her Apr. 29, 1996 testimony before the US House Subcommittee On The Constitution concerning the legality of assisted suicide:

"The problem is that medical science has conquered the gentle and peaceful deaths and left the humiliating and agonizing to run their relentless downhill course. The suffering of these individuals is not trivial and it is not addressed by anything medical science has to offer. Faced with this dilemma, the problem for many is that the law turns loving families into criminals. It separates loved ones at the end, when it is most important to be close. It encourages patients to choose violent and premature deaths while they still have the strength to act. And it forces some to suffer through a slow and agonizing death that contradicts the very meaning and fabric of their lives...

When we know that certain rare and desperate cases call for a compassionate response in the form of assisted death our democratic heritage demands that the law be consistent with that knowledge."

Apr. 29, 1996 - Barbara Coombs Lee, JD  

Patrick Hopkins, PhD, Professor of Philosophy at Millsaps College, stated the following in his May 1, 1997 article "Why Does Removing Machines Count as 'Passive' Euthanasia?," published in the Hastings Center Report:"[I]f we are cruel in refusing to let nature free patients from the trap of technology, we are both cruel and conceptually blind when we refuse to let technology free patients from the trap of nature... When we remove machines playing these functional roles from hurting and hopeless patients, we kill those 'trapped by technology.' But this is not a bad thing. It is bad when we refuse to grant people trapped by nature the same benefit."

1997 - Patrick Hopkins, PhD  

Frances M. Kamm, PhD, Lucius Littauer Professor of Philosophy and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, stated the following in her 1998 article "Physician-Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia, and Intending Death," published in Physician-Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate:

protected by procedural safeguards, if the Dutch experience is any indication. The only way to achieve adequate protection for these groups is to maintain a bright-line rule against physician-assisted suicide."

1996 - Robert Beezer, LLB  

The Family Research Council stated the following on its webpage "Human Life and Bioethics," available at www.frc.org (accessed Jan. 21, 2009):"Disabling diseases and injuries, including those for which there is a terminal diagnosis, are tragic. However, there is no such thing as a life not worth living. Every life holds promise, even if disadvantaged by developmental disability, injury, disease, or advanced aging. FRC believes that every human life has inherent dignity, and that it is unethical to deliberately end the life of a suffering person (euthanasia), or assist or enable another person to end their life (assisted suicide). While extraordinary means of life support, such as assistance with respiration and heart function, may be withdrawn from a terminally ill person if that is the person's expressed wish, nutrition and hydration are normal and not extraordinary means of maintaining life, and severe disability is not the same as terminal illness. True compassion means finding ways to ease suffering and provide care for each person, while maintaining the individual's life and dignity."

Jan. 21, 2009 - Family Research Council (FRC)  

Sissela Bok, PhD, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, stated the following in the 1998 article "Physician-Assisted Suicide," in the book Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: For and Against:"I continue to find great and needless risks in moving toward legalizing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. I also remain convinced that such measures will not deal in any way adequately with the needs of most persons at the end of life, least of all in societies without adequate health care insurance available to all. No society has yet worked out the hardest questions of how to help those patients who desire to die, without endangering others who do not. There is a long way to go before we arrive at a social resolution of

"We have constructed a three-step argument for physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: Assuming patient consent, 1) we may permissibly cause death as a side effect if it relieves pain, because sometimes death is a lesser evil and pain relief a greater good; 2) we may permissibly intend other lesser evils to the patient, for the sake of her greater good; 3) therefore, when death is a lesser evil, it is sometimes permissible for us to intend death in order to stop pain. Call this the Three-Step Argument."

1998 - Frances M. Kamm, PhD  

Helene Starks, PhD, MPH, Assistant Professor in the Department of Medical History and Ethics at the University of Washington at Seattle, stated the following in a Jan. 5, 2007 email to ProCon.org:"I believe that physician-assisted suicide should be legalized because that allows for more scrutiny and application of the safeguards. The practice is happening regardless of the legal status; keeping it illegal has the potential to cause more harm than good as it restricts access to knowledgable social services and health care providers who may help patients and families explore other options to achieving a good death, leaving PAS [physician-assisted suicide] as truly an option of last resort."

Jan. 5, 2007 - Helene Starks, PhD, MPH  

Michael White, JD, Member of the Board of Directors at the Death With Dignity National Center, stated the following during an Apr. 22, 1997 speech, "Should Physician-Assisted Suicide be Legalized?," at the Fred Friendly Seminar:"Physician-assisted suicide should be a lawful medical procedure for competent, terminally ill adults, because it is a compassionate response to relieve the suffering of dying patients."

Apr. 22, 1997 - Michael White, JD  

The Death With Dignity National Center stated the following on its website page "About Death With Dignity." accessable at www.deathwithdignity.org (accessed Jan. 21, 2009):

"The greatest human freedom is to live, and die, according to one's own desires and beliefs. The most common desire among

those questions that does not do damage to our institutions."

1998 - Sissela Bok, PhD  

Leon Kass, MD, PhD, Addie Clark Harding Professor at the University of Chicago, stated the following in his Winter 1989 article "Neither for Love nor Money: Why Doctors Must Not Kill," published in Public Interest:"The prohibition against killing patients... stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the Hippocratic Oath, as medicine's primary taboo: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect'... In forswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient's choice for death can make killing him right. For the physician, at least, human life in living bodies commands respect and reverence--by its very nature."

Winter 1989 - Leon Kass, MD, PhD  

Diane Coleman, JD, Founder and President of Not Dead Yet, stated the following in her article "Assisted Suicide and Disability," www.abanet.org (accessed Feb. 9, 2007):"Assisted suicide has been marketed to the American public as a step toward increasing individual freedom, but choice is an empty slogan in a world full of pressures on people with chronic illnesses and disabilities. Now is not the time to establish a public policy securing the profits of a health care system that abandons those most in need and would bury the evidence of their crime."

Feb. 9, 2007 - Diane Coleman, JD  

The American College of Physicians stated the following in its Aug. 7, 2001 position paper "Physician-Assisted Suicide," published in the Annals of Internal Medicine:"The American College of Physicians–American Society of Internal Medicine (ACP–ASIM) does not support the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. The routine practice of physician-assisted suicide raises serious ethical and other concerns. Legalization would undermine the patient–physician relationship and the trust necessary to sustain it; alter the medical profession’s role in

those with a terminal illness is to die with some measure of dignity. From advance directives to physician-assisted dying, death with dignity is a movement to provide options for the dying to control their own end-of-life care.

Death with Dignity National Center (DDNC) is the leader in this movement, successfully establishing, advancing and defending the landmark Oregon Death with Dignity Act."

Jan. 21, 2009 - Death with Dignity National Center (DDNC)  

Peter Rogatz, MD, MPH, Vice President of Compassion and Choices of New York, stated the following in his Nov. - Dec. 2001 article "The Positive Virtues of Physician-Assisted Suicide: Physician-Assisted Suicide is Among the Most Hotly Debated Bioethical Issues of Our Time," The Humanist:"Physician-assisted suicide isn't about physicians becoming killers. It's about patients whose suffering we can't relieve and about not turning away from them when they ask for help. Will there be physicians who feel they can't do this? Of course, and they shouldn't be obliged to. But if other physicians consider it merciful to help such patients by merely writing a prescription, it is unreasonable to place them in jeopardy of criminal prosecution, loss of license, or other penalty for doing so."

Nov. - Dec. 2001 - Peter Rogatz, MD, MPH  

society; and endanger the value our society places on life, especially on the lives of disabled, incompetent, and vulnerable individuals. The ACP–ASIM remains thoroughly committed to improving care for patients at the end of life."

2001 - American College of Physicians  

The Islamic Medical Association stated the following in its May 13, 1996 article "Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide," available at www.islam-usa.com:"The IMA [Islamic Medical Association] endorses the stand that there is no place for euthanasia in medical management, under whatever name or form (e.g., mercy killing, suicide, assisted suicide, the right to die, the duty to die, etc.). Nor does it believe in the concept of a willful and free consent in this area. The mere existence of euthanasia as a legal and legitimate option is already pressure enough on the patient, who would correctly or incorrectly, read in the eyes of his/her family the silent appeal to go."

May. 13, 1996 - Islamic Medical Association  

The International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide stated the following in its "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Frequently Asked Questions," available at www.internationaltaskforce.org (accessed Jan. 21, 2009):"The government should not have the right to give one group of people (e.g. doctors) the power to kill another group of people (e.g. their patients).

Activists often claim that laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are government mandated suffering. But this claim would be similar to saying that laws against selling contaminated food are government mandated starvation.

Laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. They are not, and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer."

Jan. 21, 2009 - International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide  

William Burke, MD, PhD, Professor at Saint Louis University Health Sciences Center, stated the following in a Jan. 4, 2007 email to ProCon.org:

"In many states it is now legal to euthanize disabled persons by starvation and dehydration without any evidence of their wishes based on the 'best interest' form of substituted judgement... In my view this is not only murder it is torturing a person to death. Why do state and Federal law allow this barbaric behaviour?"

Jan. 4, 2007 - William Burke, MD, PhD  

The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law stated in its 1994 book When Death Is Sought: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context:"American society has never sanctioned assisted suicide or mercy killing. We believe that the practices would be profoundly dangerous for large segments of the population, especially in light of the widespread failure of American medicine to treat pain adequately or to diagnose and treat depression in many cases. The risks would extend to all individuals who are ill. They would be most severe for those whose autonomy and well-being are already compromised by poverty, lack of access to good medical care, or membership in a stigmatized social group. The risks of legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia for these individuals, in a health care system and society that cannot effectively protect against the impact of inadequate resources and ingrained social disadvantage, are likely to be extraordinary."

1994 - New York State Task Force on Life and the Law  

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated the following in its Sep. 12, 1991 article "Statement on Euthanasia," posted on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website:

"As Catholic leaders and moral teachers, we believe that life is the most basic gift of a loving God--a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion. Our tradition, declaring a moral obligation to care for our own life and health and to seek such care from others, recognizes that we are not morally obligated to use all available medical procedures in every set of circumstances. But that tradition clearly and strongly affirms that as a responsible steward of life one must never directly intend to cause one's own death, or the death of an innocent victim, by action or omission...

We call on Catholics, and on all persons of good will, to reject proposals to legalize euthanasia."

Sep. 12, 1991 - United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

FUTURE TENSE: Drunk on Gadgets http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/10/politicians_don_t_understand_science_so_they_expect_it_to_do_too_much_.html

Politicians don’t understand science and technology, so they expect it to do too much.By Konstantin Kakaes

This article arises from Future Tense, a partnership of Slate, the New America Foundation, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies and their implications for policy and society. On Tuesday, Oct. 9, Future Tense will host an event at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C., on the role science and technology issues have played in the 2012 presidential campaign. For more information and to RSVP, visit the New America Foundation website.

President Barack Obama looks through a microscope as he tours a biotech classroom

Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

In his inaugural address, Barack Obama promised to “restore science to its rightful place.” This was a soothing phrase to those who felt that his predecessor had ignored the scientific consensus on climate change and environmental issues, on stem cells, and on the teaching of evolution in schools, among other subjects. But it is the second, forgotten half of Obama’s sentence that best embodies a misapprehension of science shared by Democrats and Republicans alike. Obama promised to “wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its costs.”

In thinking of technology as capable of magic, Obama echoed Richard Nixon, who declared a “War on Cancer” in December 1971, saying “[T]his year of preparation for an all-out assault on cancer comes to a climax with the signing of the National Cancer Act. The new organizational structure which this legislation establishes will enable us to mobilize far more effectively both our human and our financial resources against this dread disease.” But more than 40 years later, cancer, of course, continues to kill many. The limiting factor in tackling cancer is not “organizational structure” but rather the fundamental difficulty in understanding how cells divide. Just as curing cancer couldn’t be achieved by changing bureaucratic structures, health care costs cannot be reined in through the wielding of technological wonders.

As C.P. Snow, a novelist who had a Ph.D. in physics, wrote in his essay Science and Government, “[A]nyone who is drunk with gadgets is a menace. Any choice he makes—particularly if it involves comparison with other countries—is much more likely to be wrong than right.” The mesmerizing power of gadgets is perhaps best illustrated by claptrap missile defense technologies, as Lawrence Krauss recently wrote in Slate .

But the reality of technology, and of science, is that though both have great capacity to be harnessed in the betterment of mankind, the yoke does not rest easy on them—they are fickle and plow in the direction that they, not politicians, choose. Nixon’s War on Cancer

set in motion a dramatic rise in the budget of the National Institutes of Health, which climbed from $6.8 billion in 1971 to just over $30 billion in 2012 (in constant 2012 dollars). But cancer death rates hardly budged—except for lung cancer, which declined dramatically not because of any scientific breakthrough but because everyone quit smoking. The NIH budget went up by about $9.2 billion (again, in constant dollars) under Clinton and another $7.8 billion under George W. Bush. This was not because of any conspicuous success of the NIH in their stated mission—it was because the scientific classes came to a consensus that biology should have its moment, and because the NIH proved good at bureaucratic infighting, as Arizona State University President Michael Crow has described.

Politicians are not irrelevant. On rare occasions, they can dramatically alter the relationship between science and society—as when Franklin Roosevelt decided to develop the nuclear bomb. But these monumentally important decisions do not typically come as consequences of the democratic process: Roosevelt was the man in the room, and the electorate had no direct say in his decision, which was taken in secret, as many such decisions about the development and use of technology are. Politicians often look to Roosevelt as a model, calling for a “Manhattan Project” for this or that. But the failure of Nixon’s war on cancer is the apt parallel for the present, not the exceptional development of the atom bomb.

Part of the reason politicians promise so much on behalf of science is the same sort of grandstanding that they do more generally. But it also stems from a genuine misapprehension of how much science can do. Herbert Hoover, a mining engineer, is the only president trained as a scientist or engineer—though that didn’t make his presidency conspicuously successful. Better understanding of science is necessary, though not sufficient. There are 55 lawyers in the Senate, but just three M.D.s, one veterinarian, and one optometrist. The House has a physicist, a chemist, a biologist, six engineers, and 22 people with medical training among its 435 members. Scientific knowledge among legislators is very scarce, and they often condescend to scientists, even as they ask a lot of science.

The “rightful place of science,” to appropriate Obama’s phrase, is somewhere more humble than the pedestal on which politicians would place it. Technology is not a magic wand, even if presidents would like to wield it as if it were. But it takes serious engagement with science to understand its difficulties and limitations. Lowering the cost of health care cannot be done by gadget, nor can gadgets intercept putative missiles reliably, save the economy, or keep people from crossing the border. Gadgets can’t stop terrorism, and they can’t solve the climate crisis. Instead, politicians themselves must confront these dilemmas, the trade-offs and the tough choices. It’s what they are paid for.