Influential Ethics for August

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

What do you understand by euthanaisa?

When this form of euthanasia was first discussed, the legality and morality of it was contested. Do you know/think this morality was contested because this is a 'cruel' way to allow someone to die, or was it contested because those with contention misunderstood the methods and means of this type?

In these situations, the relief of misery as atarget is assumed to folow the patient, but emotional and financial struggles could influence a family's broader personal and financial goals. Is euthanasia more morally justified if more than one person benefits from the act?

Should the hospital or medical center have autonomy over their body and decisions if the patient/person has no next of kin? Do you think the hospital will decide based on personal need based on the patient, or personal and economical needs based on the hospital (including organ donations)?

Week One:

Is Euthanasia Permissible in the Eyes of Medicine?

Euthanasia—whether active, passive, physician–assisted suicide, or palliative sedation—has long been the center of moral debate. Philosophers and ethicists such as Tristram Engelhardt, Dan Brock, Felicia Cohn, and James Rachels have all contributed deeply to the discussion. In this article, I share my perspective on when euthanasia is morally justified, drawing from both sides of the argument.

Dan Brock, a prominent advocate for euthanasia, argues that autonomy is central to the morality of end-of-life decisions. He believes that in some special circumstances, taking life can be justified—especially when it preserves the patient's dignity and well-being in their final moments. According to Brock, safeguards are essential, and he outlines three main alternatives to euthanasia:

Voluntary stopping of eating and drinking (which I refer to as nutritional fasting),
Terminal sedation, and
Palliative care.

In nutritional fasting, food and fluids are voluntarily discontinued, allowing death to occur naturally over time. Terminal sedation involves rendering the patient unconscious to relieve suffering, with death resulting from dehydration or other causes. Both can be seen as extreme, but in cases of unbearable suffering with no chance of recovery, I believe these measures uphold the patient's dignity.

The issue of consent is important here. Brock notes that nutritional fasting allows the patient time to change their mind, which makes it a humane option for everyone involved. In terminal sedation, formal consent is required, shifting moral responsibility onto the patient.

James Rachels, another supporter of euthanasia, takes a utilitarian view: If euthanasia relieves misery and increases overall happiness, it can be morally justified. However, this perspective also demands we consider the wider social impact of such decisions.

Opponents like Felicia Cohn and Joanne Lynn raise important concerns. They argue that legalizing euthanasia could disproportionately affect vulnerable or minority groups, potentially leading to abuse or coercion. They also believe that with better access to palliative care and ongoing support, euthanasia would rarely, if ever, be necessary.

Another significant objection is the sanctity of life argument—the belief that life is inherently valuable and should be preserved. Critics claim euthanasia undermines medicine’s goal of healing and protection. Yet, I would argue that this view is subjective. What constitutes a "life worth living" can differ vastly from one person to another.

For instance, if a person has lost all autonomy due to irreversible brain damage, should they be kept alive against their earlier wishes? In such cases, I believe that forcing them to endure prolonged suffering may be more cruel than merciful.

The morality of euthanasia can't be viewed in black and white. I believe it is morally permissible when there are no viable alternatives to a life of constant pain and suffering—especially when the patient has clearly expressed their wishes and is beyond recovery. Dan Brock's idea of "special circumstances" aligns closely with this belief.

Healthcare decisions are never isolated; they affect families, physicians, caregivers, and society. While caution is necessary to prevent abuse, I believe compassionate, consent–based euthanasia offers relief, dignity, and closure for everyone involved.

Ultimately, death is a deeply personal and emotional journey. When carried out with empathy, clarity, and care, euthanasia can be a morally defensible response to unbearable suffering.

Notable philosophers:

None

Questions from piece:

If you knew of different forms of euthanasia before reading this, how did you find out?
In the event of a medical emergency, would you prefer a faimily member or a proxy to make decisions on your behalf? Why?
If someone you know is thinking about euthanasia, what would your response be?
Why do you think people confuse or associate euthanasia with 'normal' forms of suicide; does the medical setting make a big difference?
If you think so, why do you believe this?

Please let me know using this direct [ link ] to the optional forum in the header. Alternatively, you can use any of the email links from the contact [ page ]. If you want to answer the Questions to Consider (not required but you are welcome to!), you can also discuss these questions and answers here.

References:

Ally, M., Bentley, W., Cloete, M., Kretaschmar, L., Olivier, D.F. and van den Berg, M.E.S. (2010). Theoretical and Applied Ethics. The University of South Africa.
Beauchamp, T.L., Walters, L., Kahn, J.P. and Mastroianni, A.C. (2014). Contemporary Issues in Bioethics. 8th ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Questions to consider

Who decides these special circumstances? Why do they get to decide?

This is clearly not the same as a fasting diet. What do you understand by end–of–life nitritional needs?

What happens if the patient is unable to give consent once the process has started? Who should decide what is best for them in this case, while acknowledging that family members may want to prolong the dying process to spend more time with the person?

The term "sanctity of life" is very personal and is (usually) based on religious and moral grounds. If a life is void of quality of life improvements, is this life stil sanctified? Wouldn't Death be better if the patient's life and that of their family would suffer as a result of keeping them alive?

As a society, do you think we have the right to ask someone to choose not to be euthanized because they could lose out on days spent with us as thier family members, or should people who qualify for euthanasia be prioritized because they are lessening the load on society and medical expenses of the family and community as a whole?

This is clearly not the same as a fasting diet. What do you understand by end–of–life nitritional needs?

There are spaces without written content on either side of the page. This is by design and to avoid me waffling instead of adding thought–out pieces of writing.

These spaces can also be used to rest your eyes between blocks of text and give you, the reader, time to process and analyze what has been said on the page so far.

Not everything needs to be jam–packed with writing and an opportunity to respond. Sometimes we need the quiet moments and empty spaces to reflect and prepare ourselves for what comes next.

This is a website for reflection and asking questions! What type of writer would I be if I made readers like you tired on purpose, just so you can finish sooner and miss the opportunity to think about what you have read?

Questions to consider

Week Two:

Questions to consider

There aren't many questions to cosinder when dealing with definitions, unless you have the ability to change what these words mean.

Important Definitions in International Politics/Relations and Propaganda Itself. Part One

I know I should have had this as my first post for International Politics/Relations, but sometimes we get caught up on the definitions without considering what they mean in context of the grand scheme of global politics. For the first few weeks, my goal was to focus on the topic of International Politics/Relations and Propaganda for you as the reader to get a feel for my writing style and my position regarding these topics.

In the text below, there are 25 important definitions of International Relations/Politics while the definitions of Propaganda will be posted in week 4, since there is a lot of text! From a language perspective, definitions change all the time depending on the context and current or past understanding of these concepts.

Each set of International Relations/Politics definitions has three components:

A historical definition of how the word was understood before the onset of modern politics—between the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and the onset of World War I in 1914.
A modern definition of how the word is understood today in within the modern understanding of politics—it's widely believed that this happened after World War I, and
The most likely reason these words changed in definition, including (among others) a stark contrast between state diplomacy dominated by monarchs, empires, and balance-of-power politics.

International Relations Definitions

Alliance:

Historical Definition (in International Politics/Relations): Dynastic or religious pacts rather than ideological or democratic ones.

Modern Definition (in International Politics/Relations): A formal agreement between states to cooperate for mutual benefit.

Reason for Change in Definition: The emergence of the nation-state significantly altered traditional concepts, including sovereignty and nationalism.

Anarchy:

Historical Definition: A fragmented system with competing feudal and imperial authorities.

Modern Definition: The absence of a central governing authority in the international system.

Reason for Change: Theoretical developments in IR, particularly realism and neorealism, redefined anarchy as the structural condition of the international system, rather than a chaotic medieval context.

Balance of Power:

Historical Definition: Strategy used by European states to prevent any one state from becoming too dominant.

Modern Definition: A system where no single state is dominant, maintaining stability through power distribution.

Reason for Change: The evolution from regional European politics to a global system required a broader understanding of power distribution among multiple and diverse actors.

Bipolarity:

Historical Definition: Rare or informal power was distributed among many competing states or empires rather than two dominant powers.

Modern Definition: A distribution of global power dominated by two superpowers.

Reason for Change: The Cold War's unique division of global power between the U.S. and USSR solidified bipolarity as a central concept in modern international relations theory.

Collective Security:

Historical Definition: Early forms included alliances or leagues against common threats, e.g., the Holy League.

Modern Definition: A system in which states agree to jointly respond to threats against any member.

Reason for Change: The founding of the League of Nations and later the United Nations institutionalized collective security as a formal, global commitment among states.

Colonialism:

Historical Definition: Territorial conquest and control were primarily by European powers.

Modern Definition: The control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent territory.

Reason for Change: Post-colonial scholarship and decolonization movements reframed colonialism in terms of political domination and exploitation, beyond just territorial conquest.

Diplomacy:

Historical Definition: Formal envoys and royal marriages used to manage relations.

Modern Definition: The practice of managing international relations through negotiation and dialogue.

Reason for Change: The professionalization and institutionalization of diplomacy replaced informal royal practices with structured negotiation among sovereign states.

Economic Sanctions:

Historical Definition: Blockades or trade embargoes used as political tools.

Modern Definition: Penalties applied by one or more states to influence another state's policies.

Reason for Change: Sanctions evolved into systematic policy tools within international organizations and global markets, with clearer legal and political frameworks.

Globalization:

Historical Definition: Early trade networks and colonial expansion connecting continents.

Modern Definition: The process of increasing interconnectedness and interdependence among states and societies.

Reason for Change: Advances in technology, transportation, and economic integration broadened the concept from colonial trade to global interdependence.

Hard Power:

Historical Definition: The use of military force or economic pressure by empires or monarchies to achieve objectives.

Modern Definition: The use of military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies.

Reason for Change: The term was formalized to distinguish coercive means from soft power, especially during Cold War strategy discussions.

Hegemony:

Historical Definition: Dominance of empires like the Ottoman or Habsburg over regions.

Modern Definition: The dominance of one state or group over others in the international system.

Reason for Change: International Relations theory generalized the concept from historical empires to any dominant actor in the international system (e.g., the U.S. post-WWII).

Imperialism:

Historical Definition: Expansionist policies justified by religion, commerce, or civilizing missions.

Modern Definition: The policy of extending a nation's authority through territorial acquisition or political/economic control.

Reason for Change: Critiques of imperialism after decolonization expanded the definition to include political and economic domination, not just territorial conquest.

Intervention:

Historical Definition: Often justified by dynastic claims, religion, or balance-of-power politics.

Modern Definition: The interference by a state in the affairs of another state, often to protect interests or uphold norms.

Reason for Change: Modern international law and norms around sovereignty and humanitarianism reframed intervention in more legalistic and ethical terms.

International Law:

Historical Definition: Early customs and treaties, often enforced unevenly by powerful states.

Modern Definition: A body of rules that governs the conduct of states and international organizations.

Reason for Change: The expansion of treaties, international organizations, and legal norms created a formalized, codified system of rules for state behavior.

Multilateralism:

Historical Definition: Cooperation among multiple monarchies or empires, often informal and based on dynastic or religious ties.

Modern Definition: An approach where multiple countries work together on a given issue, often through international institutions.

Reason for Change: The creation of formal institutions like the UN and WTO structured multilateral efforts around institutional cooperation, not dynastic ties.

National Interest:

Historical Definition: Linked to dynastic survival, religious interests, and territorial gain.

Modern Definition: The goals and ambitions of a state in relation to security, economy, and ideology.

Reason for Change: State behavior became more ideologically and economically driven, moving beyond dynastic or religious motives to broader strategic goals.

Nationalism:

Historical Definition: Early forms focused on dynastic loyalty or emerging national identities, often linked with cultural revival.

Modern Definition: A political ideology focused on the interests and culture of a specific nation.

Reason for Change: Nation-states and mass politics replaced dynasties, and nationalism evolved into a widespread political ideology linked to identity and sovereignty.

Non-state Actors:

Historical Definition: Limited, but included religious orders, merchant guilds, and mercenaries.

Modern Definition: Entities other than states that influence international relations, like NGOs, corporations, and terrorist groups.

Reason for Change: Globalization, technological advances, and transnational challenges increased the visibility and impact of non-state actors on international affairs.

Power Transition:

Historical Definition: Shifts occurred with dynastic changes or conquests, but less formalized.

Modern Definition: The theory that global conflict occurs when a rising power challenges a dominant one.

Reason for Change: Modern International Relations theory developed structured models to explain rising and declining powers, especially during the Cold War and China's rise.

Realpolitik:

Historical Definition: Practical and pragmatic politics of survival among monarchies and empires.

Modern Definition: Politics based on practical objectives rather than ideological principles.

Reason for Change: The term broadened beyond monarchic strategy to describe pragmatic, interest-based politics in both authoritarian and democratic regimes.

Security Dilemma:

Historical Definition: Not explicitly theorized, but evident in military buildups among rival kingdoms and chiefdoms of the pre–industrial times.

Modern Definition: A situation where actions by one state to increase security cause insecurity in others, leading to an arms race.

Reason for Change: International Relations scholars formalized the concept to explain unintended escalation and arms races in a system defined by anarchy.

Soft Power:

Historical Definition: Influence achieved through cultural prestige, moral authority, and diplomacy without direct coercion.

Modern Definition: The ability of a state to influence others through attraction and persuasion using culture, values, and policies rather than coercion.

Reason for Change: Joseph Nye's theory introduced soft power as a counterbalance to coercive strategies, highlighting cultural and ideological influence in foreign policy.

Sovereignty:

Historical Definition: The emerging principle after Westphalia, emphasizing territorial control and non-interference.

Modern Definition: The supreme authority of a state to govern itself without external interference.

Reason for Change: Global legal norms and the UN Charter reinforced sovereignty as a formal principle, moving beyond early modern European origins.

Statecraft:

Historical Definition: Royal courts and advisors managing diplomacy and war.

Modern Definition: The art of managing state affairs and diplomatic strategy.

Reason for Change: As states became more bureaucratic and institutionalized, statecraft came to include formal strategies of governance and diplomacy.

Treaty:

Historical Definition: Formal agreements often sealed by monarchs or religious authorities.

Modern Definition: A formal and binding agreement between states.

Reason for Change: Modern treaties emerged from legal frameworks and democratic legitimacy, no longer dependent on royal authority or religious sanction.

Notable philosophers:

None

Questions from piece:

Why do you think there are different definitions for these words?
In modern times (after World War I), do you think the definitions changed because people understood the world differently or because those in power wanted to change the narrative?

References:

Baylis, J., Owens, P. & Smith, S. (2023). The Globalization of World Politics. 9th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society. Columbia University Press.
Claude, I.L. (1971). Swords Into Plowshares. University of London Press.
Ellul, J. (1973). Propaganda: The formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York: Vintage Books.
Jowett, G. and O’donnell, V. (2006). Propaganda and Persuasion. Thousand Oaks, Sage Cop.
Keohane, R.O. (1984). After Hegemony. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S. (1977). Power and Interdependence. Little Brown.
Morgenthau, H.J. (1948). Politics Among Nations. A.A. Knopf.
Nye, J.S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.
Taylor, P.M. (2003). Munitions of the Mind. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Waltz, K.N. (2010). Theory of International Politics. Waveland Press.
Wight, M. (1977). Systems of States. Bloomsbury Continuum.

In time, these words change, but the reasons for these changes are a lot more complicated than simple disagreements of semantics.

The reasons these definitions change allow us an important window into the mindset of the political sphere at the time. Some definitions are straight forward, while others are less obvious.

Questions to consider

Week Three:

Bio–Ethics is Largely an Issue of Resource Distribution.

The problem of distributing resources in healthcare is a common issue worldwide, primarily affecting impoverished countries or countries at war. Medical distributors often have very limited resources at their disposal, and often have to create make-shift clinics. Take Romania, for example. While it's an EU member, it still struggles with underfunded hospitals, aging infrastructure, and a serious shortage of doctors.

Many medical professionals emigrate to Western Europe for better pay and working conditions, leaving local systems stretched thin. Patients are forced to wait hours—sometimes days—for treatment in overcrowded public hospitals. For those with jobs, taking time off means lost income. For pensioners or those in rural areas, the barriers to access can feel insurmountable.

Financial constraints of an area play a big part in the availability and presence of medical resources. In theory, the larger the area, the higher the concentration of medical facilities, but this is not always the case. In countries like Bulgaria or Latvia, rural regions are often the hardest hit. Roads are poor, and small villages can be hours from the nearest hospital. In winter, when heavy snow blocks access where delays in treatment can be fatal.

These are not isolated cases—this is the reality for millions of people living outside major European cities. Cultural and political realities shape care too: In areas affected by war or instability—like parts of Ukraine, Georgia, or even parts of the Balkans—some procedures are banned or extremely risky to carry out because of infrastructure damage or lack of supplies. Doctors have to make impossible choices with what little they have.

Education and employment matter here, too. Without access to education, people are more likely to remain unemployed. Unemployment leads to reliance on free healthcare, which increases pressure on already–stretched government hospitals. Without trained professionals—from doctors to paramedic helicopter pilots—the system has no one to operate it. A lack of education leads directly to a lack of service providers, making the situation even worse.

These uneducated and unemployed people will have no choice but to use the free medical facilities, putting further strain on the government, which is responsible for the allocation of money for hospital resources. At the same time, each individual who has not studied for a medical degree of any kind will put strain on the medical community.

Regarding the international problem with the distribution of resources in healthcare, the United States is a good example of the implementation of medical schemes to help with the distribution problem. From 2012–2017, they started implementing medical programmes in order to minimise the inaccessibility problem that many people face. Within the medical community in the U.S., the majority of people within and without the medical community view accessibility as the most important aspect and argue that “Access is synonymous with the availability of financial and health system resources” (Aday & Anderson, 1974). They argued that access was an important concept for availability, and this helped the needy.

Cultural and social implications are also a factor in the U.S. and their medical studies of distribution channels. These factors play a big part for the patient being able to trust the medical practitioner's ability to communicate details about the distribution channels and how these are completed. It was argued that without this trust, the accessibility issue is minimal because no one would go to a doctor or clinic they don’t trust. Accessibility relies on care and the population and those who don’t go as a result of the lack of common ground, will put their entire community at risk. It is for this reason that accessibility and common ground are crucial factors regarding the distribution of healthcare services, specifically in impoverished areas.

China is also a good example of how the distribution of resources in healthcare is crucial regarding the well–being of the people. Tuberculosis is an epidemic in the country with 52% of people testing positive for the disease within the rural setting today. At the time of the original study in 2016, the percentage was 46%, which illustrates the importance of proper medical distribution channels. Rural villages play a big part in spreading the disease, and as a result, there are many out-of-hospital clinics, as Li Xiang et al (2016) stated that “only the most severe cases are sent to the general hospitals”.

As a result of the large number of patients and monetary aspects, the population is struggling to overcome their limited resource problem, and the Chinese government reimburses them. This leads/led to a problem maintaining such a large amount of people which puts immense strain on the country as a whole and the TB clinics, which are easily accessible, play an important role in the distribution problem. China started implementing effective strategies in order to cut down on the spread of the disease because their TB clinics were set up in remote areas, which removes the problem of inaccessibility. The important factor of distribution in China relies on their ability to effectively mobilise the ill and treat them accordingly.

“When healthcare is delayed, the situation worsens” (D.H. Peters et al, 2008), and there have been studies to track the link between poverty and access to healthcare. A cycle emerges regarding poverty feeding minimal healthcare, and minimal healthcare feeds poverty. Many scholars understand the need for timeous healthcare, and accessibility, once again, plays a large role. Accessibility factors are determined by geography, availability of resources and finances, alongside the acceptability of medicine practiced.
Health distribution is also reliant on the social factors within the community of distributors, and healthcare facilities are produced “by the cumulative experience of social conditions over the course of one’s life” (T.L.Beauchamp et al. 2012).

With this being said, previous health distributive factors also come into play. If not for modern medicine and modern facilities, previous ailments, such as Smallpox, would still riddle societies. Impoverished or isolated people don’t have the luxury of focusing on the past through medical records or other data because, number one, there are often no records at all as a result of the lack of resources, and number two, the seeking individual could be illiterate. Malaria has not yet been eradicated in Africa, even though it is a deadly disease, and this is reliant on the fact that the malaria–infected countries are countries that suffer from poverty and lack of resources, which hampers their ability to practice sufficient distributive medicine. Malaria has been eradicated from the US since the 1950s, and this illustrates how important the distribution of resources are within the medical community.

There is a problem regarding the distribution of health care because medical views and practices are not universal. Cultural differences, resource availability, and local finances play a big role in the distribution of healthcare because medical personnel can only work with what they have at hand. As an example, the Doctors without Borders campaign goes into poverty-stricken and/or war-torn countries, carrying only the basics on their backs. They have to practice medicine in dire conditions, and many medical procedures are banned as a result of the dangers of having limited resources. These doctors, or any other medical personnel, have to adapt to their conditions before being able to treat their patients, which puts adequate medication distribution at risk.

The distributive aspects of healthcare play a crucial role in the outcome of health in general, as well as the outcome of future-determining factors, such as in China, as seen earlier. Rural areas face major issues with diseases like tuberculosis. This was the case ten years ago, and it’s the case now. Clinics are often understaffed and underfunded, and Li Xiang and colleagues noted that only the most severe cases are sent to general hospitals, while small outposts handle the rest. It’s a strategy that eases pressure on urban hospitals, but the root issue—lack of resources—remains.

China’s example shows how smart distribution can help. Their TB clinics have been set up in remote areas to fight the problem of inaccessibility. This serves as a reminder that where you place your resources matters. It has become apparent that the distribution of healthcare facilities, specifically in impoverished nations, is reliant on many things, such as education, culture, finances, and accessibility. The region-specific illnesses are particularly susceptible to the distributive factors, such as Malaria and TB, and there has been a growing trend or cycle of poverty leading to distribution issues as a result of the lack of resources, and the lack of medical staff, or other resources, which leads to poverty in the long run.

Many regions like the European Union, the United States, and China are trying to curb the problem of distribution on their own way but since healthcare is so important, the important factor remains: Many impoverished countries/states and war–torn regions are simply running out of resources to aid their sick, elederly, and injured citizens, and they have no choice but to ask for help from the World Health Organisation, which in time, will become depleted too. This will result in an even bigger distribution crisis, and more impoverished areas will arise.

Distribution in healthcare, as a result, is an incredibly important matter and should be dealt with on a unified, global scale, with more pressure being put on it compared to the World Health Organisation, who only focuses on the countries belonging to the United Nations. Impoverished nations generally have a high population per capita, and therefore the amount of people living in close quarters lends itself to high infection and transmission rates, such as TB, and this can prove devastating to the community, adding to the desperate need for the distribution of healthcare in these area’s, and the need for proper resource management.

Notable philosophers:

None

Questions from piece:
What are medical resources?
What is the link between poverty, conflict, and healthcare?
What is the impact of healthcare and different cultural norms based on healthcare?
Who should be responsible for medical distribution channels?

References:

Aday, L.A. & Andersen, R. (1974). A framework for the study of access to medical care. PubMed, 9(3), pp.208–20.
Beauchamp, T.L. and Walters, L. (1994). Contemporary Issues in Bioethics. Cengage Learning.
CDC (2024). About malaria. [online] CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/index.html.
Ilie, L. (2024). Romanian hard-right takes healthcare on the road ahead of EU polls. Reuters. [online] 16 May. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/romanian-hard-right-takes-healthcare-road-ahead-eu-polls-2024-05-16/.
James, R., Scotter, C., Rogobete, A.F., Blidaru, T.C., Rafila, A., Rees, G., Novac, I., Kaiteladou, D., Andersen, Y., Al-alawy, K., Konstantakopoulou, O., Muscat, N.A., Zapata, T., and Dragoș Garofil, N. (2024). Strengthening Romania’s health workforce: Leading by example. The Lancet Regional Health, [online] 49, p.101191. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101191.
Peters, D.H., Garg, A., Bloom, G., Walker, D.G., Brieger, W.R. and Hafizur Rahman, M. (2008). Poverty and access to health care in developing countries. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, [online] 1136(1), pp.161–171. doi:https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1425.011.
Wagstaff, A. (2002). Poverty and health sector inequalities. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, [online] 80, pp.97–105. Available at: https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/Wagstaff-2002-Poverty.pdf.
Xiang, L., Pan, Y., Hou, S., Zhang, H., Sato, K.D., Li, Q., Wang, J. and Tang, S. (2016). The impact of the new cooperative medical scheme on financial burden of tuberculosis patients: Evidence from six counties in China. Infectious Diseases of Poverty, 5(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-015-0094-5.
Zapata, T., Blidaru, T.C., Rafila, A., Comsa, R., Muscat, N.A., Andersen, Y., Scotter, C., Buchan, J., Novac, I., Al-Alawy, K. and Garofil, N.D. (2025). Mitigating health workforce migration in Romania: Policy lessons for Europe. Human Resources for Health, 23(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-025-01003-5.

Questions to consider

What does limited resources mean in healthcare?

Is this ethical? Why should people be forced to wait for a human right?

What long term affects do you thiink delays in treatment will have on the general population?

Do you think war and instability recuse people from providing basic services? Why or why not?

If people remain unemployed, how much time do you think will pass before basic services are restored?

Do you think medical services should be accessable to all to avoid people being forced to use free services when necessary?

What other important aspects are there for the medical community?

When trust is broken, do you think a medical provider should be changed?

The figure from 2025 is higher than it was in 2016. Why do you think this is?

How do you think the municipality can maintain a large number of people while ensuring everyone's needs are met?

What does poverty feed?

What is a cumulative experience of the medical community?

Why do you think this is? What factors are at play?

Previous socities as in a previous medical technological society or a society in general?

Why is this? Is this a monetary or cultural reason?

Do you think it's possible to adapt to conditions while tryung to save lives or should the adaptation come first so the lives can be prioritized?

Why do you think this is still the case?

Are all of these avenues linked or should they be seen in isolation to get to the bottom of the issue?

Has modern medicine and distribution channels had a positive or negative affect on healthcare (keep in mind the fact that many of these channels are politically based)?

Do you think a high population per capita automatically attributes high medical needs? Why or why not?

There are spaces without written content on either side of the page. This is by design and to avoid me waffling instead of adding thought–out pieces of writing.

These spaces can also be used to rest your eyes between blocks of text and give you, the reader, time to process and analyze what has been said on the page so far.

Not everything needs to be jam–packed with writing and an opportunity to respond. Sometimes we need the quiet moments and empty spaces to reflect and prepare ourselves for what comes next.

There aren't many questions to cosinder when dealing with definitions, unless you have the ability to change what these words mean.

In time, these words change, but the reasons for these changes are a lot more complicated than simple disagreements of semantics.

Week Four:

Important Definitions in International Politics/Relations and Propaganda Itself. Part Two

In the text below, there are 25 important Propaganda definitions. From a language perspective, definitions change all the time depending on the context and current or past understanding of these concepts.

Each set of Propaganda definitions has three components:

A historical definition of how the word was understood before the onset of modern politics—between the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and the onset of World War I in 1914.
A modern definition of how the word is understood today in within the modern understanding of politics—it's widely believed that this happened after World War I, and
The most likely reason these words changed in definition, including (among others) a stark contrast between state diplomacy dominated by monarchs, empires, and balance-of-power politics.

International Relations Definitions

Agitation:

Historical Definition: Revolutionary or reformist pamphleteering.

Modern Definition: Propaganda aimed at stirring public unrest or encouraging political action.

Reason for Change: Mass politics and broader public engagement expanded the definition from elite pamphleteering to widespread political activism.

Censorship:

Historical Definition: Control of printed materials by monarchies or churches to suppress dissent.

Modern Definition: The suppression or restriction of speech, media, or information deemed harmful by authorities.

Reason for Change: Technological advances and democratic institutions required broader legal and political frameworks to regulate modern information flow.

Cultural Propaganda:

Historical Definition: Promoting the cultural superiority of a people or faith.

Modern Definition: Promoting cultural values or norms to align public attitudes with political goals.

Reason for Change: Globalization and identity politics reframed cultural propaganda as a strategic tool for shaping public ideology rather than asserting superiority alone.

Demonization:

Historical Definition: Portraying religious or political enemies as evil or heretics.

Modern Definition: Portraying opponents as evil or dangerous to justify opposition.

Reason for Change: Modern conflicts use secular and political justifications, expanding demonization beyond religious framing to general enemy vilification.

Disinformation:

Historical Definition: Spreading false rumors to confuse enemies during wars or political disputes.

Modern Definition: Deliberately false or misleading information is spread to deceive public opinion.

Reason for Change: Digital media and psychological operations in modern warfare have professionalized and systematized the use of deceptive information.

Emotional Appeal

Historical Definition: Appeals to faith, honor, and fear for a response from the masses to further the current cause.

Modern Definition: Propaganda that targets feelings to override rational analysis.

Reason for Change: Media saturation and behavioral psychology shifted propaganda focus from traditional values to emotionally charged messaging.

Indoctrination:

Historical Definition: Religious instruction aimed at loyalty and obedience, often through sermons and catechisms.

Modern Definition: The systematic inculcation of ideas and attitudes through media, education, or political institutions.

Reason for Change: The decline of religious monopoly on education broadened indoctrination to include ideological and state-controlled narratives.

Mass Communication:

Historical Definition: Pamphlets, broadsheets, and town criers.

Modern Definition: The dissemination of information to large audiences through various media platforms.

Reason for Change: The development of electronic and digital media transformed how information reaches mass audiences, beyond print and oral methods.

Media Control:

Historical Definition: Control over printing presses and public speeches by authorities.

Modern Definition: The regulation or manipulation of media outlets to influence content and narrative.

Reason for Change: State and corporate control over mass media platforms introduced new forms of narrative influence through regulation and ownership.

Media Saturation:

Historical Definition: Repeated sermons or public festivals to reinforce messages.

Modern Definition: Overwhelming exposure to certain messages to ensure dominance of a narrative.

Reason for Change: Modern media's constant availability allows for continuous reinforcement of messages, intensifying audience exposure.

Mobilization:

Historical Definition: Calls to arms through proclamations and religious fervor.

Modern Definition: Propaganda that encourages individuals to take political or military action.

Reason for Change: Mass politics, conscription, and protest movements expanded mobilization beyond military calls to broader political and civic action.

Narrative Framing:

Historical Definition: Creating stories of divine right or destiny.

Modern Definition: Crafting a particular story or context to shape understanding.

Reason for Change: Modern political communication emphasizes strategic storytelling to shape perception and agenda, not just divine justification.

Nationalism:

Historical Definition: Propaganda fostering emerging national identities through culture and myth.

Modern Definition: Propaganda that promotes pride and loyalty to the nation.

Reason for Change: Nation–states replaced dynastic rule, making nationalism a central theme in state identity and mass political propaganda.

Patriotism:

Historical Definition: Loyalty to the crown or faith rather than the state.

Modern Definition: Emotional appeal to the love of country to support government policies.

Reason for Change: Modern nation-states replaced loyalty to monarchs or religion with allegiance to national symbols and civic identity.

Political Messaging:

Historical Definition: Royal decrees and speeches used to justify war or policy.

Modern Definition: Communication strategies used to promote specific political agendas.

Reason for Change: Mass media and professional political communication expanded messaging from elite declarations to widespread audience targeting.

Propagandist Techniques:

Historical Definition: The use of exaggeration, repetition, and moral arguments.

Modern Definition: Specific methods like repetition, bandwagon, or fear appeals used to influence.

Reason for Change: Advances in communication and psychology systematized techniques into specific strategies for influence.

Psychological Warfare:

Historical Definition: The use of fear and public executions to deter opposition.

Modern Definition: The use of psychological tactics to weaken the morale and influence the perceptions of opponents, plus the use of strategic communication, misinformation, fear tactics, and influence operations to manipulate the adversary or 'the other' within the political sphere.

Reason for Change: Modern warfare and intelligence operations use psychological tactics beyond fear to influence behavior, morale, and perception.

Public Opinion:

Historical Definition: Managed through rumor, religion, and the church.

Modern Definition: The collective attitudes or beliefs of the public, which are often shaped by subtle propaganda techniques and emotional responses.

Reason for Change: Democratic participation and mass media made public opinion a measurable and influential political factor.

Rhetoric:

Historical Definition: Classical or religious persuasion techniques.

Modern Definition: The use of persuasive language and symbols to influence audiences.

Reason for Change: Modern communication platforms use a wider range of persuasive styles adapted from marketing, psychology, and entertainment.

Scapegoating:

Historical Definition: Blaming minorities or enemies for plagues or crises.

Modern Definition: Blaming a person or group for problems to divert blame or justify actions.

Reason for Change: Modern crises and political agendas continue to exploit scapegoating, now often tied to mass media and identity politics.

Spin:

Historical Definition: Royal advisors shaping narratives to maintain legitimacy.

Modern Definition: Presenting information in a biased way to influence perception positively.

Reason for Change: Professional political communication and public relations reframed narrative manipulation into a calculated messaging strategy.

Stereotyping:

Historical Definition: The use of racial or religious caricatures.

Modern Definition: Oversimplified generalizations are used to categorize groups for persuasion.

Reason for Change: Mass media and visual culture expanded stereotyping into powerful tools for shaping perception and reinforcing bias.

Symbolism:

Historical Definition: The use of royal crests, religious imagery, and national colors to promote an idea.

Modern Definition: The use of images or symbols to represent ideas or concepts emotionally.

Reason for Change: Mass culture and visual communication made symbols key in conveying complex ideas through emotional and cultural shorthand.

Visual Propaganda:

Historical Definition: The use of paintings, stained glass, monuments, heraldry, and to communicate the messages of the political field.

Modern Definition: The use of images, posters, and film to communicate persuasive messages.

Reason for Change: Photography, film, and digital imagery transformed visual propaganda into a dominant tool for political influence.

War Propaganda:

Historical Definition: Crusade rhetoric or noble manifestos calling for war.

Modern Definition: Communication designed to bolster support for war efforts and demonize enemies.

Reason for Change: Modern warfare and mass mobilization require sustained public support, leading to more systematic and media-driven war messaging.

Notable philosophers:

None

Questions from piece:

Why do you think there are different definitions for these words?
In modern times (after World War I), do you think the definitions changed because people understood the world differently or because those in power wanted to change the narrative?

References: (These are the same as Party Once because I used the same sources for the definitions, I just chose to split the words over two weeks)

Baylis, J., Owens, P. & Smith, S. (2023). The Globalization of World Politics. 9th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society. Columbia University Press.
Claude, I.L. (1971). Swords Into Plowshares. University of London Press.
Ellul, J. (1973). Propaganda: The formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York: Vintage Books.
Jowett, G. and O’donnell, V. (2006). Propaganda and Persuasion. Thousand Oaks, Sage Cop.
Keohane, R.O. (1984). After Hegemony. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S. (1977). Power and Interdependence. Little Brown.
Morgenthau, H.J. (1948). Politics Among Nations. A.A. Knopf.
Nye, J.S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.
Taylor, P.M. (2003). Munitions of the Mind. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Waltz, K.N. (2010). Theory of International Politics. Waveland Press.
Wight, M. (1977). Systems of States. Bloomsbury Continuum.

Questions to consider

The reasons these definitions change allow us an important window into the mindset of the political sphere at the time. Some definitions are straight forward, while others are less obvious.