Archive

Twenty years ago today, Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was withdrawn with court approval, commencing a cruel deprivation of sustenance that resulted in her death by dehydration 13 days later. For those who may not remember, the case became the most hotly contested bioethics issue since Roe v. Wade as Terri’s husband Michael fought in courts and in the media with her parents and siblings over his desire to remove all Terri’s food and fluids. In the end, he won — and Terri died. Now, two bioethicists on the influential Hastings Center blog decry the case as wrongly brought. They get some facts wrong and omit crucial information — like that Michael was living with another woman with whom he fathered Read More ›

Only a philosopher could claim seriously that humans owe significant moral duties to microbes. But NYU bioethicist Jeff Sebo delivers precisely that thesis in his new book The Moral Circle: Who Matters, What Matters, and Why (W.W. Norton, 192 pp.). Don’t look for a sanctity of human life argument here. Rather, Sebo takes readers on a step-by-step simplified course in moral philosophy. He writes that moral standing depends on whether duties are owed to the entity or being under consideration. If so, these entities or beings belong in “the moral circle” and possess “intrinsic value.” The general idea that most life has at least some intrinsic value is unobjectionable. But Sebo takes it to an extreme. He advocates widening the Read More ›

As many Western countries reverse their former embrace of so-called “gender-affirming care” as it applies to children, the American medical establishment has obstinately pretended that puberty blockers and transition surgeries are medically uncontroversial. The latest example: An advocacy article published in the February 12, 2025 New England Journal of Medicine — yet again — decrying laws passed to protect children from transition interventions. From “Advancing Transgender Health amid Rising Policy Threats” (citations omitted): Gender-affirming care is a cornerstone of multidisciplinary health support for transgender and nonbinary people; it is widely recognized as essential, evidence based, and often lifesaving. The standards of care issued by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health emphasize the critical role of interventions such as pubertal Read More ›

For those who may not remember, Terri Schiavo was a profoundly cognitively disabled woman who became the subject of a legal and cultural battle that made international headlines. The case became a bitter and protracted conflict between Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband who wanted to pull her feeding tube, and the Schindler family that fought to save their child and sister’s Read More ›

Wesley J. Smith joined host Simon O’Connor on Family Matters, a show from Family First New Zealand, to discuss human exceptionalism. Together, they discuss what makes humans different from animals, the problem with mainstream bioethics today, why euthanasia is wrong, and more!

Animal rights activists keep attempting to grant “rights” to animals through novel — and I would say, frivolous — lawsuits. PETA sued SeaWorld, claiming that the orcas were “slaves.” The Nonhuman Rights Project has sued three times to have chimpanzees and elephants declared “persons” entitled to writs of habeas corpus. Those suits failed. But animal rights activists never give up. Now, PETA is suing the NIH and the National Institute of Mental Health, claiming that the agency’s refusal to allow them to receive closed-circuit monitoring of research monkeys and communicate directly with them violates the animal rights fanatics’ First and Fifth Amendment rights. The irrationality begins in the complaint’s first and second paragraphs when the complaint alleges PETA has a Read More ›

Yesterday was “Stand Up for Science 2025” day, which featured rallies around the country to “defend science as a public good and pillar of social, political, and economic progress.” But that isn’t what it was really all about. From the “Stand Up for Science” website’s listed policy goals: 1. End Censorship and Political Interference in Science Science thrives on open inquiry and evidence-based decision-making. We demand: An end to government censorship: Prohibit all forms of political censorship in scientific research, including restrictions on the topics of scientific research that are eligible for federal funding… A commitment to freedom of scientific expression: Protect scientists’ rights to communicate their findings freely, without fear of retaliation or suppression. Well, that’s ironically rich. Former NIH head Francis Collins spoke (and sang) at Read More ›

No matter election outcomes, presidential executive orders, and the ebbing support for the “woke” agenda among the general public, the medical establishment — epitomized by the New England Journal of Medicine — continues to push DEI ideology in medical school admissions policies. A recent advocacy article in the NEJM pledges fervid fealty to DEI, primarily focusing on gender ideology. From, “Facing Political Attacks on Medical Education — The Future of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Medicine” (citations omitted): In recent years, the United States has seen an onslaught of legislation aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in higher education, including medical education. Although these legislative actions are often construed as focusing only on race, they also explicitly or implicitly target members of Read More ›

With Texas experiencing a measles outbreak, some might expect RFK to play down vaccines or damn them with faint praise. Nope. He wrote an op-ed piece for Fox News praising the MMR vaccines — in a manner consistent with his belief that the decision to inoculate should be a matter of choice. From “Measles Outbreak Is Call to Action for All of Us:” Parents play a pivotal role in safeguarding their children’s health. All parents should consult with their healthcare providers to understand their options to get the MMR vaccine. The decision to vaccinate is a personal one. Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to Read More ›

The push to impose rule by “scientific consensus” continues apace — even as the American people clearly rejected that view in the last election (thanks in no small part to how the public health consensus blew the Covid response). But the science powers that be refuse to learn. In fact, they appear to be doubling down. Now, Ethan Siegel, an astrophysicist and award-winning science writer, advocates for criminally and civilly punishing violators of the “scientific consensus.”

First, Siegel defines what he means by “scientific consensus.” From, “4 Key Steps to Transform the USA Back into a Scientific Nation:”

Only in the presence of decisive evidence can consensus be achieved. Consensus is not “the end goal” of science, but rather a starting point for future advances: the foundation of what is not just known, but is widely accepted for good reason, at present. Consensus is, to be blunt, what the overwhelming majority of professionals have concluded is already strongly established by the existing evidence so far.

But conformity of belief does not make it right. The supposed scientific consensus can be more ideology than science. Take eugenics. For decades in the early 20th century, the scientific consensus supported dividing human beings into the “fit” and “unfit.” That consensus became so motivating that many states passed laws requiring involuntary sterilizations, a pernicious policy supported by an 8-1 decision in the Supreme Court, with Buck v Bell (1927) becoming one of history’s great injustices.