Influential Ethics For May

In the blocks below, please find your weekly bio-politics articles in a blog-style layout. If you have any questions or concerns about the research or writing, please reach out to me! I post one bio-ethics blogacle a week followed by an international relations/propaganda piece the following week. These topics are either about current issues or issues I find important yet not discussed enough.

Questions to consider

In the context of a prison, what types of crimes are there? Do all crimes count for prison time or are some crimes acceptable given special circumstances?

Week One:

Criminals and Healthcare: Should They Receive the Same Treatment? (Part Four of Five)

This brings me to the later part of this argument, is the health reality of the person who broke the law enough to change the reality of those who believe they shouldn’t receive healthcare? Who decides that they shouldn’t receive healthcare based on their crimes? If the deciding person is a layman (someone who is familiar with the topic but doesn’t have any education knowledge), how would this person get to their assumption that the criminal (of whatever crime) needs to rot in jail without access to healthcare? Many, if not most decisions are based on personal experiences, cultural and/or religious upbringing, and family values and expectations.

If these family families are of a social nature where crime is considered a social problem because of the societal strains on the criminal, this family would most likely be more lenient and understanding of the criminal’s health needs. They (the family, not the criminal) could understand that although the person broke the law, their humanity and contributions to themselves and others shouldn’t be stripped away. It could be assumed that since the person is already in prison, they are serving their time and they shouldn’t be punished further. As a layperson, this mentality is progressive stance in comparison to the alternative where others could wish harm or death on the criminal. This mentality is shared by the prison system in the sense of “You are doing your time, you deserve to be treated like a human being.”

Yes, there could be guards and wardens who disagree with this, but at the end of the day, prisoners—much like orphaned babies and children—are the property of the state and they are treated as such, as a means to get through the guard’s and warden’s days as part of their job. This mentality can be vastly different from others who believe that once someone has committed a crime, their humanity should be stripped. “They broke the law, how else are they going to learn?” is the mentality for many people in this group, and, ethics aside (not really, but that’s for next week), this type of thinking is problematic if shared by the general population and a few branches of prison medical and nutritional staff.

In theory, designated people in these professions should be unbiased towards their clients (the prison system and the inmates) but an unbiased approach requires a few additional steps when making decisions, a level of empathy and understanding being one of them. While true that those in the prison service industry may not know what each criminal has done, they would know whether or not they are serving a maximum or minimum security prison and could use that information to their advantage when deciding on what type of people they are feeding and healing.

While it is unlikely (and illegal in most countries) to interfere with the transportation of state resources (since prisons are usually owned by the state), the concept of “This person doesn’t deserve to live, but I have to do my job.” can be seen in many cases of prison food and medical tampering over the past few years from the service industry or other prisoners who may believe they don’t have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

Whether or not the person who did the tampering did it because of the aforementioned mentality is almost irrelevant: They chose to treat the inmates as less than human by tampering with life saving (food and medicine) equipment, deciding their fate instead of allowing the prison system to take its course. Why is this important for the question in the title? Part of the medical field in and out of prisons is the concept of informed consent and patient autonomy.

Medical doctors who have a grudge against a specific inmate/patient may not care as much about informed consent compared to how this inmate would be treated on the outside. This inmate/patient could have attacked the physician in the past so naturally, the physician could be jaded because of this experience, and there could be a race issue involved. Regardless of the race of whom, racial prejudices run deep and in many communities, these prejudices are reinforced by social behaviour and external factors like harassment and unjust handling of crimes.

For example, if the inmate is white while their physician is black, the physician could use a minimal (less effective) amount of anesthetic when performing a local operation (where the patient is awake and given local anesthetic instead of going under general anesthetic) because of an internal hatred against white people because of how people of colour (not only black people) were treated by slave masters in the United States and Europe (before the European Union was formed) during the Atlantic slave trade in the early 1500s.

On the other hand, if the inmate/patient is black or hispanic and they have a black physician, the inmate may not have as much access to mental health resources as they are entitled to. The examples of the mental and emotional health issues inmates may face from last week include anxiety-related disorders and clinical depression, bipolar disorder is often seen as a non-issue in black culture. The reasons for this vary from fear of the stigma of having a “broken child/family member” and a focus on physical strength to illustrate their worth in society, among many others. While these might be outdated and harmful to the current narrative of those who suffer from these illnesses, old habits and customs die hard which puts inmates and patients at risk of poor or low treatment of non-physical illnesses.

Then there is the gender issue regarding medicine and how much men and women can handle before something changes. Through the ages, women have been seen as the weaker sex regarding pain and emotional turmoil because of how this is presented. While it’s true that women give birth, this is seen as a given and the pain must be necessary. Outside of the birthing hospital, women are frequently dismissed at doctor’s office’s while in pain because “It can’t be that bad.” This is true when it comes to pre- and post-op care for gynecological procedures or any minor operation that men just brush off as a part of the deal (the minor procedures, not so much the gynecological procedures).

It could be said that men brush these off and get on with it because they don’t really have a choice: They have to work and provide for their family regardless of their state because no one else is going to do it. *Yes, I know women are also breadwinners, but in the prison system, men outnumber women 13–1, so for the purpose of this blogacle, I’m only speaking about the men who can go to prison and experience medical issues at the hands of unethical physicians.

I will post the references and the Questions from Piece in the final part.

Questions to consider

What type of contributions can criminals offer society? Should they be given the option to contribute at all?

If people are individuals, can they be property of the state as well? How would this work?

How do people form unbiased opinions? If opinions are based on personal experience, is there such a thing as an unbiased opinion?

In this context, the prison service industry forms the food and medical service industry. Do you think there is a difference between the normal service industry and the prison service industry? Why/why not?

I've discussed patient autonomy before, but what do you understand by informed consent?

Do you think racial issues are increased in the prison system or is everyone seen as a criminal, regardless of their skin colour?

Do you think the effectiveness of a medication needs to be tested before given to people or is it a 'one dose heals all' kind of mentality? Why do you think that?

What do you understand as emotional health issues which can create issues in prison?

What do you understand by 'the weaker sex'? Is this a biological sex issue or an emotional gender issue? Why do you think that?

What do you understand as an 'unethical physician' in the context of a prison?

Questions to consider

Week Two:

Property of State: Influence of propaganda. (Part One of Five)

What is property? In an earlier blogacle, I went into the definition of state, non-state actors, propaganda, and influence (if you haven’t read it, here is the link) but what is property? In politics and law, property and residence are two different things, and in the context of this blogacle, these two differences aren’t that far apart. Property in the context of the law is a physical item that you have ownership of, and this can include your apartment or house but this isn’t always the case because you might be a renter. You could have a residence (where you live or a work space) and a piece of property if you own hour apartment or house, while you could have a residence without a piece of property if the land and building belong to someone else.

Another form of property is a vehicle, an appliance, or any furniture you own (not as part of a lease agreement). These pieces of property can reside in your residence but as a separate entity compared to the residence, which is just a building, not a piece of ownership. Why is this distinction important in propaganda and international relations? If you read the fine print of most constitutions and pay attention to what happens when a suicide attempt is made in some countries, it becomes clear that your body is owned by the state: You might have freedoms and liberties within the state, but as an individual, your presence is state-bound. How else is mandatory conscription and abortion rights (or a lack thereof) controlled by the state? They have autonomy over what happens to your body when and if intervention is necessary.

The difference is that this isn’t explicitly stated by the constitutions; it’s implied using laws and by-laws because if it was stated explicitly, many citizens could feel trapped by the words of 'ownership,' and understandably so. Let’s look at a few countries or regions that have the following:

abortion bans at any stage of the pregnancy (not limited to the trimester, for any reason, not just in the case of rape and incest)
mandatory military conscription
punitive measures regarding tax fraud or omittance
punitive measures regarding failed suicide attempts

As in my other blogacle’s, I’m going to use the United States and the European Union in these comparisons and how these regions define ownership of the person according to state requirements and the list above. Since the U.S. is a large territory with different laws in each state, I’ll only go into the states where there are total abortion bans. The states that have abortion bans today (May, 2026), are the following:

Alabama
Arkansas
Idaho
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
West Virginia

Before we look into how the state own a person’s body to an extent where they can choose to decide what happens to it before death, we should go into the possible reasons for these abortion bans. In the U.S., the abortion ban is largely attributed to religion, more particularly Christianity, where the sanctity of life is revered as important as life itself once the life is given breath. This ownership of these decisions on behalf of the majority of Christians are often at odds with other cultures and religious beliefs, but since Christianity is the overarching and accepted (not always mutually exclusive) religion, those whose beliefs don’t forbid abortion have to comply with these laws.

For example, in the Jewish faith, abortions are legal if the fetus endangers the mother’s life, or if the mother’s mental health will suffer greatly because of the pregnancy and/or the circumstances in which the expectant family finds themselves. If the family or mother is homeless, and will live on the street as a mother, for example, or if the baby will begin their life as a terminally ill baby, or if the baby has a severe disability (among other reasons).

Non-believers are also subjected to these religious anti-abortion laws, and in some states, they receive even less care because of the stigma attached to atheism or agnosticism in a highly religious society. If an atheist needed a life-saving abortion and they lived in any of the above states, they would either have to leave the state to have the abortion elsewhere (which may be unsafe if their life is already in danger), leave it to chance and die, or go to a back-alley doctor who may not have the applicable credentials and medical training necessary for this level of care. If the mother-in-danger would go to a legitimate doctor, the doctor could refuse her, report her, and in dire circumstances, she would be forced to give birth in jail where the baby would be put up for adoption without the mother’s consent.

All these decisions are made at a state level, above the influence of those they affect and, to an extent, above the medical board that allows or forbids these procedures in the first place. There could be another reason for these bans on a statewide level: Senators who want to win the favor of conservatives because they know there are more conservatives in the U.S. compared to liberals at a ratio of 7:5 (conservatives: liberals).

The minimal difference between these two figures could mean a lot when voting comes around and these senators will most likely use whatever tactics they can to get their vote, even if it means harming those in their state to achieve this goal. The state’s decision took precedence over the decision making capabilities of the individuals in the state.

Does this mean the individual is a subject of the state, unable to act in their best interests because of the influence of the current laws, or does this mean both the individual and the senator is property of the state because they must both conform to what the state wants? The individual must conform to disallow their abortion, and the senator must conform to the expectations bestowed upon them by their political party, where the alternative is removal from the political race.

I will post the references and the Questions from Piece in the final part.

Questions to consider

Why do you think differences are important for definitions in politics and propaganda?

Have you read the fine print of the constitution of your country? Why or why not? If you don't live in the country you were born in, have you read both constitutions? What differences could you find? Were there many discrepencies?

Should all laws of the country be stated explicitly? Why or why not?

Why do you think I make these comparisons and not other regional comparisons like the African Union and the East??

Are all reasons for abortion valid if they were thought out enough? What classifies as a 'thought out' reason?

Do you think the mother's mental health is as important as her physical health during pregnancy? Why do you think this?

Do you think non-believers should be exempt from religious laws? Why or why not?

What do you think 'mother-in-danger' is? How would you know if they were in danger without them explicitly telling you?

How would they know there were more conservatives? Would this be from past political races, or do political parties in your country complete independent surveys?

Do you think the state should be in control of all decisions of their citizens? Why or why not?

Is it possible to conform to disallow something? Don't you usually conform to allow something that you usually wouldn't?

Questions to consider

Week Three:

Criminals and Healthcare: Should They Receive the Same Treatment? (Final Part)

What about those who use the prison system as a means for ‘free’ healthcare? When dealing with women in this system, regardless if their physicians believe them when they say it’s bad, these women and subsequent families are often treated as second class citizens because of the assumption that a happy family is the goal and an inmate for a family member means the family is doomed. While it might be true that women’s health and sexual/emotional needs aren’t prioritized in prison, the data that states their needs are met 100% outside the prison paints a different picture as well. In general, women have less autonomy over their bodies compared to men: Their male doctors can refuse the right to an abortion (even if medically necessary), their husbands can isolate them from their family and call it “moving for work”, and in some countries, girls who are not even women yet are forced to marry and bear children according to their husband’s and family’s wishes.

What does this have to do with criminals and healthcare, you ask? Healthcare for most countries is a human right and when the population is roughly 50/50 male and female, only focusing on half of the (male) population would do a great disservice to the women in prison who have to be subjected to male-oriented decision making. The question, in this case, could be “Could they (women) receive the same treatment (as the men since there are more male inmates)?” and the answer to this isn’t as simple as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ regarding the humanity aspect discussed last week. Conjugal visits illustrate the importance of physical needs and relationships for men and women alike, so in a way, the prison system of those who allow this have answered my question already where the answer is yes because they understand that their inmates should receive, or have access to, the same level of care and treatment they would have had access to outside.

These two concepts (female health and sexual health) asks two further questions: What type of health is considered necessary for those who have taken a life or disrupted a livelihood in the past? They might be treated like criminals in the prison system because of what they have done (to get them in there), but they themselves might not believe they deserve to be treated as human beings. Guilt is a really powerful emotion and in a way, it’s more a state of being than an emotion.

This might be because emotions and feelings are seen a soft science with the mentality of “Feelings don’t matter, no one cares.” particularly when someone is on the way to prison. In reality, their feelings and emotions hold very little sway while being processed, and this level of dehumanization would make anyone doubt their worthiness. In this case, the prison health officials can give inmates access to the best possible care, but if these inmates don’t feel worthy of this care, it’s not going to matter. As a state of being, guilt works more as a means to live by as a code of conduct because of the actions or inaction of someone living with a guilty conscience.

Does this mean the same treatment should be applied to you if you go to prison as a criminally guilty person or an emotionally guilty person? For example, if Cera is in prison because she was responsible for a hit with a death as a result but now feels guilty for what she did, she could go on a hunger strike while in prison because she could have found out that her victim’s children won’t have a mother to feed them. At its core, there isn’t anything prison officials can do to force Cera to eat. She will have to come to terms with what she deserves and what she needs to do to prove her worth to society again.

*I use 'men' and 'women' a lot in this blogacle. This is meant as a general statement and pertains to whichever you prefer. Biological men and women plus non-biological will share the same level of care in the prison system according to their external genders, not what they identify as.

Questions to Consider

Should the right to healthcare and emotional support be removed as a form of punishment at all?
Why do you think this?
Should officials force inmates to seek medical care?
What can health officials do to encourage inmates to eat and seek healthcare if they decide they are not worthy?
Can they do anything?
What happens if the crime the inmates committed is more heinous than theft? Should they be seen last because of all the safer criminals in the prison?
Would it help in the long run or just add additional stress to the prison system because of all the sick inmates?

References:

Doleac, J.L. (2018). New Evidence That Access to Health Care Reduces Crime. [online] Brookings. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-evidence-that-access-to-health-care-reduces-crime/.
Enggist, S., Møller, L., Galea, G. and Udesen, C. (2014). Prisons and Health. [online] Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/hiv-aids/publications/Prisons_and_other_closed_settings/2014_WHO_UNODC_Prisons_and_Health_eng.pdf.pdf.
GOV.UK. (2011). Prison Life. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/life-in-prison/healthcare-in-prison.
Konczal, E. (2022). Physical Disabilities. [online] kines.rutgers.edu. Available at: https://kines.rutgers.edu/dshw/disabilities/physical/1060-physical-disabilities.
Leaman, J. (2016). Rapid Review of Evidence of the Impact on Health Outcomes of NHS Commissioned Health Services for People in Secure and Detained Settings to Inform Future Health Interventions and Prioritisation in England. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f586de5274a2e87db54a9/Rapid_review_health_outcomes_secure_detained_settings_.pdf.
Niveau, G. (2007). Relevance and Limits of the Principle of ‘equivalence of care’ in Prison Medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(10), pp.610–613. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2006.018077.
Poulter, M., Coe, S., Graham, C.A.-M., Leach, B. and Tammam, J. (2024). A Systematic Review of the Effect of Dietary and Nutritional Interventions on the Behaviours and Mental Health of Prisoners. British Journal of Nutrition, [online] 132(1), pp.1–32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114524000849.
Saloner, B., Eber, G.B., Sufrin, C.B., Beyrer, C. and Rubenstein, L.S. (2022). A Human Rights Framework for Advancing the Standard of Medical Care for Incarcerated People in the United States in the Time of COVID-19. Health and Human Rights, [online] 24(1), p.59. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9212822/.
World Health Organization (2025). Mental Disorders. [online] World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-disorders.

Questions to consider

Do you think healthcare can ever be free or is it just a case of someone else paying for it?

Do you think the people who force marriage should be accountable for what happens if that marriage becomes violent? If it does and the married spouse is jailed as a result, should the person who forced the marriage be [ut in jail as well?

What do you understand by conjugal visists? Do you agree with them? Why or why not?

Do you think these inmates should have as much access to the sun as their victims who are no longer able to experience this? At what point do their victims enjoy less freedoms than those who harmed them?

Do you think belief in oneself makes a difference in prison or is everyone just a number, regardless of who they are?

In the prison system, who is responsible for the healthcare of the criminals? Only the officials and wardens or do/should the criminals be responsible for their health in a small or large portion too?

Do you think the guilt Cera may have felt would be lessened had she not killed anyone or will the grind of the prison system create that guilt regardless?

Do you think this is or should be legal? Even those in the prison system have rights, so should the person be subjected to extreme measures to eat or left to their own devices to eat in their own time?

Questions to consider

Week Four:

Questions to consider