Influential Ethics for September

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

Week One:

The Moral Responsibility of Others When Human and Medical Rights Are Violated

History and present–day events show us clearly how severe violations of human and medical rights by governments call for serious moral reflection, not only on the part of those who commit such acts but also on those who witness them and choose to stay silent. The Apartheid regime in South Africa (1948–1993) and Nazi Germany (1933–1945) drew global condemnation for their harsh disregard for basic humanity, including systematic breaches of medical ethics and rights. While some nations tried to intervene or apply pressure, many others—fully aware of these abuses—remained silent or were complicit. Their failure to act makes them partly responsible for allowing these crises to persist.

These violations go beyond apartheid or genocide; they include ongoing, systemic denial of medical rights by governments, directly attacking people's fundamental right to health care. For example, during Apartheid, medical services for black South Africans were deliberately neglected and underfunded. In many cities, black people were outright denied medical and legal rights.

The National Party’s policies institutionalized racial discrimination, silencing anyone who dared oppose the system by branding them traitors. Segregated hospitals and the lack of adequate maternal and child health care for non–white communities are clear state abuses of medical rights. Because black South Africans were barred from higher education, abuses of state power and the suffering of men, women, and children often went unnoticed and unchallenged.

International medical organizations and foreign governments often knew about these injustices and had a moral duty to raise awareness, offer aid, and penalize the regime. However, political and economic interests frequently took precedence over human rights advocacy. The National Party resisted outside interference fiercely, convinced they had the right to govern as they wished.

Crimes like rape, murder, and mutilation against black people went unpunished, and many of these victims were forcibly relocated to segregated “townships”, assigned areas for the non–white population to separate them from the whites. Medical facilities in these areas were hastily put together and under–resourced, which led to poor healthcare services for generations after Apartheid ended because funding for basic education and medical costs were prioritized white–only areas.

Under the Nazi regime (from 1933–1944), the horrific merging of medical ethics with state policies became horrifyingly clear. The government used the medical profession to push its deadly ideology and genocide. State doctors ignored universal medical principles—like respect for human dignity, informed consent, and doing good for the sake of goodness and not a reward—and instead carried out brutal experiments on prisoners in concentration camps without any consent, showing utter disregard for human life and abandoning the Hippocratic oath.

At the same time, state policies enforced euthanasia programs targeting disabled individuals deemed 'unworthy of life' mixing pseudoscience, ableism, and eugenics with medical practice. Medical professionals were not just doing orders but actively shaping these policies, showing how medical ethics became deeply corrupted and used as tools for state control and social engineering, turning healers into agents causing harm.

This complicity wasn’t limited to Nazi Germany’s borders. The global medical community and governments often stayed silent, inactive, or even cooperated—out of fear or a chance to curry to favor with the up–and–coming nation that had similar mindsets to those who agreed with the Nazi policies—which allowed these horrors to continue. Countries that gave refuge to Nazi's or looked the other way participated in a wider failure to uphold medical ethics and human rights. Political fears and self–interest often overshadowed a nation's ethical duty to intervene and protect people under the same flag.

This dark chapter of humanity teaches a powerful lesson: When governments misuse medical practice for harmful purposes and the international community fails to uphold ethics and human rights, the results are catastrophic. It highlights the urgent need for strong international safeguards to keep medical ethics independent from political interference, protecting medicine’s true purpose: To heal and respect human dignity.

This problem is not just in the past. Today, government violations of medical rights keep raising tough moral questions. In places where political prisoners are denied proper care or health services are weaponized to punish or control people, the world has a responsibility to act. For example, the denial of antiretroviral treatment to HIV/AIDS patients by the South African government under President Thabo Mbeki in the late 1990s and early 2000s resulted in unnecessary deaths. This denial was the result of a mistrust in the medical community as a whole and their ability to treat an illness that, at the time, took more lives per year than other natural or criminal causes combined.

Government policies that fell short of their medical obligation was the direct cause of medical rights violations, and the international medical community, NGOs, and foreign governments (including the African Union) had a moral imperative to press for policy change and intervention for the sake of their fellow country people. Their hesitance and slow to non–existent action exemplifies a failure of others who could make a difference to uphold a collective responsibility toward health rights.

The moral failure of bystanders was also illustrated in the case of Jeffrey Benzien, a police officer in the Western Cape during the Apartheid era who tortured those in his custody while his colleagues, aware of these abuses, did nothing. By their silence, they violated their duty to uphold human rights and the law and share responsibility for the harm done. The principle of medical and basic safety principles applies to all: To individuals, groups, and states who do not commit violations themselves but allow them through passivity or silence bear moral blame.

An example of the misuse of state policies can also be seen from before the Apartheid era started. The Dutch Vereenigde Oost–Indische Compagnie (VOC) landed in South Africa and used the coastal cities as a half–way point before sailing to India. They supported cruel policies by stripping indigenous people of basic rights like control over their children’s education and who they could marry, let alone where they could live. Though some Dutch officials opposed these acts, the overall silence and inaction of those who could have made a difference at the time enabled the continued oppression of their captives, showing us, again, that moral responsibility can't be separated or passed only to direct perpetrators.

Another important example is the Syrian Civil War, where government forces deliberately targeted hospitals and medical personnel as a war strategy, and by violating international humanitarian laws and medical ethics in the process. Protecting medical facilities and workers is not just Syria’s issue; neighboring countries, regional organizations like the Arab League (of which Syria was a member at the onset of the civil war), and the global community bear moral responsibility when interventions fail, whether in providing humanitarian aid or exerting diplomatic pressure. This duty goes beyond non–involvement to active help to relieve suffering and defend medical rights.

When neighboring countries or the global community fail to act amid obvious human rights abuses, including medical atrocities, they deepen the violations. The Bosnian and Rwandan genocides, followed by a slave trade and displacement, implicated the perpetrators and those who bought slaves or ignored the crises. This shared responsibility is a global humanitarian issue crossing borders. Limited intervention by the African Union and other regional bodies during the Egyptian uprising is another example of weak moral responsibility. Their failure to step in or support victims reflects a broader collective failure to prioritize medical and human rights in political turmoil.

Government violations of medical rights are often systemic, sustained not only by direct perpetrators but also by the silence and complicity of others. Moral responsibility extends beyond those who commit abuses to include governments, organizations, neighboring states, and the international community when they fail to act. Protecting medical and human rights requires a shared moral commitment, a commitment that demands awareness, acknowledgment, and active participation from all parts of society. Ignorance or indifference is not an excuse. It is a moral failure that feeds injustice and an excuse to sit on the side–lines.

Lessons from the past and present call for greater accountability and responsibility among all to prevent, confront, and remedy violations of fundamental human and medical rights.

With this being said, no one is telling you to take to the streets and riot for better treatment (medical and otherwise) of citizens, prisoners, and refugees. The most important thing we can do as a society is to understand when to take action and when to allow things to happen if our personal, political, or medical safety will be jeopardized.

Starting slowly, often in the shadows, is also a way to bring change and to fight for those who don’t have the strength or capacity to do so. I believe we have a moral responsibility to protect those who have had their medical and humanitarian rights removed, but protection for others isn’t possible if our own protection is needed as a result of our actions.

Notable philosophers:

None

Questions from piece:

Why did I tie the Apartheid regime, the Nazi policies, the Syrian war, and the Bosnian & Rwanda genocides together in this post?
How much of an influence do you believe the government should have on medical and bioethical issues in their countries?
In your country, are there regional organizations who have the power and authority to hold your government responsible if they choose to ignore human and medical rights?
Do you think slavery and the subjugation of people is ever acceptable if it's part of the status quo of their society?
If not, who has the ability and incentive to change their (the enslaved and involved governments) minds about the 'right' way to do things?
How do you know your (and your country's) way of doing things is the 'right' way?
Who should be accountable for the destruction of lives, infrastructure, and medical policies when a war has ended, those who start the war or the citizens of the country where reparations need to be performed?

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:

African Union (2011) Final Report of the African Union High–Level Panel for Egypt. [online] https://www.peaceau.org/en/article/final-report-of-the-african-union-high-level-panel-for-egypt
Bashour, B. (2025). How We Blame. Routledge.
Benzien, J. (2003) Renegotiating responsibility after apartheid. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 11(3), pp. 455–478. [online] https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=jgspl
Du Bois, F. & Du Bois-Pedain, A. (2008). Justice and reconciliation in post-Apartheid South Africa. Cambridge University Press.
de Gruchy, J.W. (2002) Reconciliation: Restoring justice. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. [online] https://books.google.com/books/about/Reconciliation.html?id=auja3DDuMRAC
Encyclopædia Britannica (n.d.) Dutch East India Company. [online] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dutch-East-India-Company\
Neog, B. (2023). What Responsibility? Whose Responsibility? Taylor & Francis.
Posel, D., Van Wyk, I., Brenner, J., Chevalier, S., Gastrow, C., Gupta, P., Masquelier, A., Mnisi, J., Orock, R. and Rink, B. (2019). Conspicuous Consumption in Africa. Witwatersrand University Press.
Shaw, W.H. (2016). Utilitarianism and the ethics of war. Routledge.
The Guardian (2011) Syria suspended from Arab League. [online] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/12/syria-suspended-arab-league

Questions to consider

What do you understand by 'severe' in this context? Is this an isolated answer or does it depend on what happens as a whole?

Do you think, under the scrutiny of those around you, it's okay to ignore human and medical rights because it's part of the lives around you?

Have you heard of this before from a South African sense? Can you think of other countries who practice this at the moment?

When you think of 'institutionalized', how many government agencies are involved? And what happens to those who don't comply?

As an international body, should these organizations step in for domestic matters? Why or why not?

Rape and mutilation are war crimes. Why was this allowed to continue for as long as it did?

What do you understand by 'informed consent' in this context (while the other definition was a medical definition alone).

There are many definitions of 'unworthy' when it comes to allowing people to live as part of eugenics or euthanasia program, even though euthanasia isn't the term used by those being euthanized. What other examples of 'unworthiness' can you think of regarding different types of people?

Do you think fear is a valid excuse to turn a blind eye to atrocities?

Misuse of government funds allocated for medical and general safety happens more than most people realize. Can you think of other countries where this is an issue? Are there any repercussions for these acts? Why or why not?

Responsibility is a buzz word in this article. Do you think responsibility can be shifted according to who is responsible for the (bad or immoral) act or is it a joint effort?

As a state president, why would Thabo Mbeki mistrust the medical community? Do you think his mistrust had a racial or medical cause? Why?

Do you think you fellow country people should be protected regardless of their race, religion, or political affiliation? Why or why not?

Is doing nothing just as bad as the act itself? Why or why not?

Who is accountable for those who introduce policies of cruelty to their fellow citizens? Should they be educated and retrained if possible to see the error of their ways, or should their colleagues hold them accountable? Why?

By doing this, the government broke their own rules of protection and insured that those needing help couldn't get it. Who holds the government responsible for these actions? Who should hold them responsible?

Why do you think interventions of this fail?

Slavery isn't a thing of the past, it has just changed the rules. This slave trade was used a form of punishment for the losing side. Does the reason for slavery make a difference?

Is this shared responsibility for the local and regional governments or is this a global shared responsibility for the protection of human rights? What happens when two countries have differing views on what a human right is?

When this protection fails, is the moral commitment extended to restoring this protection or educating people on why these protections are important? Or both? Why do you think this?

What do you understand by 'greater responsibility'? Are there more responsibilities to dish our or is there a greater population that controls these responsibilities?

Why is this understanding important?

Why and how does this (people not having the strength and capacity) happen? Is it a failure of the state to provide their citizens with the tools to fight in the open, or are the people responsible for ensuring they can change things from all angles?

Questions to consider

Week Two:

The Treat(y) of Money in Global Politics. How Does Money Influence The Messages for the Population?

It’s difficult to assume that money isn’t the means to an end for the trials and troubles of societies with a mercantile background. From the beginning of money as coins instead of the bartering system used before, money changes hands more frequently than most people realize. From the perspective of local economies (regardless of where these locales are), money is used for maintaining infrastructure, social endeavors like free clinics and soup kitchens worldwide to feed those who can’t afford a hot meal, and money is also used for keeping the peace. As taxpayers, this money is collected by our respective governments and used (in theory) for the benefit of individual communities.

In general, and at a personal level, money from taxpayers covers (or should cover):

Defence and protection institutions like the army, intelligence agencies, and protection of people in power, whether this is a president or a prime minister.
Maintaining public parks and recreation centers.
Municipal fees like trash collection.
Public school and university subsidies.
The cover of medical expenses or specialist roles in the medical field where necessary.
The police force, and
Other specific public needs your country has.

Since all of the above benefit the public at large—even if you, as the reader, don’t use all of these services—the funds allocated to these services come from the population of taxpayers and the governing body in control of public finance. With any government policy defining what should be spent on what and who should benefit the most from taxpayers’ pockets, there is a general consensus of what is right and wrong for the macro and micro communities of a nation.

Macro communities include decisions and policies made by the government and how these decisions affect the majority of the population. These macro communities have little need for individual rights and few interactions with individuals over corporations. Individual thought and what the minorities in any society within this population are not considered when governing bodies decide on the best course of action as a whole.

On the other hand, micro communities focus on you as the individual within a population and what your needs are from a political, social, and educational perspective. In most well–run states, these two communities work side by side within a specific population or group of people with different social values and economic needs.

You might read this and think “Where is the middle ground? Are my only options for a society that focuses on my needs and the needs of those around me at an individual and government level?” The middle ground of a macro and micro community is what is known as a mezzo community, but this term isn’t as widely accepted as its forebearers. A mezzo community is responsible for the middle ground between you as an individual and your government.

A micro community is focused around individuals, families, and small family or friend groups where individual decision making is prioritized and rewaded; a macro community has a focus on the government, laws to govern and control those within the individual communities; a mezzo community acts as the bridge between the macro and micro communities. There is a focus on institutions like schools where the micro community becomes aware of the macro community and how government agnecies and the police force affect individual actions; religious buildings where a state (macro) religion is given to the individual to help with personal (micro) decision.

The mezzo community also includes private workforces where the individual provides a service or creates a product which is sold to their fellow individuals while a portion of the money generated by these sales goes to the government in the form of tax. This tax money is then used by the macro community to improve public services, which the individual community uses. As a result, these three communities perform a full circle of economic and social integration for the sake of all involved.

Economic integration has a different meaning and function based on which community it serves. In the micro community, this meaning and function fall under the private sector, and economic integration is left to the individual and how they spend their money and time. These activities can be separate from the macro and mezzo community if the money changes hands with the community at hand and doesn’t go back into circulation for the macro community. Examples of this could include private sales of goods like a bake sale as a fundraiser, a community garden where individuals use private land and seeds bought with money taken from a communal pot, or a communal library not funded by the government.

In this case, each individual would donate their own books instead of buying books and adding them to the collection. As an individual (micro) community, these individuals contribute to economic and social integration by spreading ideas and strengthening bonds that the community could use to their advantage at a later stage: If one individual knows someone in the mezzo community, they could donate these items for greater circulation in the mezzo and eventual macro community. Micro communities have a large influence on charities based on individual needs, and these charities may become a part of the macro community if there is adequate need and interest for it.

A great example of a micro community that became a macro community staple is the formation of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) in the United States and the formation of Rare Diseases Europe (EURORDIS) in the European Union. The AA was founded in 1939 by two individuals struggling with alcoholism and a lack of a support group to provide counsel and encouragement on their path to sobriety. By the early 1940s, the organization that started as an individual endeavor became part of the national community of the United States with national recognition and official locations in countless cities across the country. The transition from the micro community at its inception to the macro community we know today took 12 years, not back for an individual movement that started from a personal need!

The formation of Rare Diseases Europe had a similar start, but it doesn’t include the national recognition the AA has in the United States. Founded in 1997, this micro then macro organization assisted individuals with rare diseases in the European Union connect with other to avoid social isolation—a common factor for chronically ill people, particlurly those with rare diseases because of the lack of funding and availabel information, generate interest groups for greater recognition of these diseases, and to gain access to additional resources about their illnesses.

Unlike the AA, EURORDIS was established by a combination of individuals and advocacy groups (mezzo community) who had the resources and funding required to start an organization. As a result, the organization gained recognition on a national level with its ability to influence how rare diseases are handled and treated within the European Union, even though they aren’t a national or international organization.

EURORDIS might not be a part of the macro community in the European Union, but its policies affect macro decision–making on behalf of the general population. An example of this includes the policies set out for the Orphan Drug Regulation. The Orphan Drug Regulation allows the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to provide early and continuous scientific guidance to developers and establishes a centralized marketing authorization. These agencies have contributed to the increase in treatments available for rare diseases in the EU, which shows us that a micro community has the possibility to become a macro community under the right circumstances.

When you read about these organizations, your first thought might not be centered around the title of this piece or focused on propaganda at all, but this is the power of subtle propaganda and the influence of global politics within the respective communities. All of these organizations that were discussed above were influenced by the individual. The individual who is the most suceptable to overt or covert propaganda, the individual who pays taxes for the above–mentioned services to be rendered to them, the individual who is affected by the treatment of their tax money and how they are treated once an economic–based treaty is signed, and the individual who can influece their own macro community by the micro decisions they make.

To answer the question in the title: “How does money influence the messages for the population?” I believe we have to answer this question first: Why does money have such a large influence on how the population understands the messages in their environment? The answer to that isn’t as complicated: These messages are funded by the government and people alike using different means. Without a means for the people to participate in their macro communities, the messages around them will hold more sway, and the government will have fewer means to control those who don’t fall in line with the macro agenda.

Notable philosophers:

None

Questions from piece:

Is there a difference between state money and population money?
How is propaganda tied to the state?
Who has more influence regarding the messages put out by governing authorities, the propagandists or those who use propaganda paraphernalia to their advantage?
Can a poor country still create and distribute propaganda paraphernalia?
Does a larger country correlate to more resources used for micro communities?
How does the macro community influence a mezzo community? Is this possible?

References:

20 Years of Achievements in the Rare Disease Community. (2017). https://download2.eurordis.org/20yrs/20years_AchievementsofRDCommunity_0117.pdf?.
Aa.org. (2022). The Start and Growth of A.A. [online] https://www.aa.org/the-start-and-growth-of-aa?.
Balaam, D.N. and Dillman, B.L. (2019). Introduction to International Political Economy. 7th ed. New York: Routledge.
eurordis.org. (n.d.). Who we are. [online] https://www.eurordis.org/who-we-are/our-vision-mission/.
Health.ec.europa.eu. (n.d.). Orphan Medicinal Products. [online] https://health.ec.europa.eu/medicinal-products/orphan-medicinal-products_en.

Questions to consider

Do you think is related to a system of government or their foreign policies?

Should everyone in a country pay tax? What about those who disagree with some (or all) of the government policies?

Do you agree with these points of what tax should cover? What would add or remove if you were in control of these tax allocations?

I've discussed the differences of a population before. Do you think these rules should apply the the nation as a population or specific populations affected by tax cuts/improvements?

Do you agree? Should macro and micro communities be completely separate regarding funds and decision making?

What defines a well–run state?

How much influence should individuals have on their government and vice versa?

Are individual decisions truly isolated from the macro community? How is this possible if the macro community governs the public spehere?

Are these actions affected by fellow individuals, those part of the mezzo community, or those part of the macro community?

If these products and services are created by the individua on thier terms, is the government entitled to this money in the form of tax?

What do you understand by "the private sector"? Does/should this include private security companies in cases were state police forces are inadequate?

Do these private sales include goods from private individuals with small companies or do private sales include the sale of state resources where the funds go into the private sector?

In the earlier paragraphs, I discussed economic integration alone. Do you think the economic and social sector are linked? Why or why why not?

Do you have the AA or a similar organization in your country? Is it run/funded by the state or private individuals?

Do you think sobriety for alcohol and drugs, or at least partial sobriety is the responsibilty of the individual or state?

Did you know of this organization prior to this article? If not, why do you think that is?

Where should/do individuals get resources and funding to start organizations like this? Do you think the state/ government should assist in these funds if the organization will benefit the nation as a whole?

Why do you think this organization has this name if they don't focus on the orphan's of Europe?

What do you think are the right circumstances are for a micro community to become a macro community?

Should subtle propaganda influence economic policies if these policies work for one population of people but not for the whole population?

What do you think some questions lead to more questions instead of answers? Is it because of the context or person asking the question?

Do think the participtation in macro communities outside necessity (government policies regarding health, eduction, and protection, etc.) is a necessity for micro communities and their influence on those around them?

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 Three:

A Two–Sided Approach of Adoption vs. Fertility Treatments in the E.U. and U.S. Part One (out of four)

I would like to preface this blogacle with the following: I am not a parent, and my husband and I have chosen not to have any children. With this, we haven’t experienced the heartbreak of trying for a baby, only to be told that we will never have one on our own. I know countless people with fertility issues, people who spent their lives waiting for the white picket fence and the nursery so they can start their family but are unable to do so.

I understand how devastating the news of “I’m so sorry, but you, as a couple, will never be pregnant” is. I understand how a complicated pregnancy (whether or not the pregnancy was carried to term) could reduce the chance of having more children, and how this interferes with your plan for a large or medium–sized family of your own.

On the other hand, I know parents who had to give their children up for adoption due to difficult circumstances. Although these children were also planned and wanted, the hand they were dealt wasn’t in their favor and they weren’t given the opportunity to be a part of a loving, biological family. Their new families were just as loving, but they weren’t the birth family, and from the child’s perspective, they had two families: Their birth family and their new family. Unfortunately, I also know of (not personally in this case, but through the grapevine) children who were placed with families who treated them poorly, or as a meal ticket.

Also, I use the United States and the European Union as examples throughout this blogacle. I understand that there are many different cultures and religions (that could affect or interfere with reproductive rights) throughout the United States and the European Union, but the overall population is relatively similar. Using the two areas as examples for a study of the adoption vs. fertility treatment debate could illustrate how these areas manage and maintain their reproductive health.

Ok, caveat over.

As part of this bio–ethical blog in the past three months (I can’t believe it’s been three months already!), I have discussed the medical side of bio—ethical issues, with some examples of the financial burden and responsibility of those who have the means to assist in healthcare and do so, or refrain based on different factors.

Another important component of bio–ethical issues—particularly in the modern era–is the social and ethical aspect of these decisions for the population as a whole. Remember, population doesn’t always mean the population of a country, it also includes a select population of the affected people. In this case, the select population includes the population of would–be parents who are unable to conceive via the normal way of ‘bumping uglies.’

The examples above (of the insistence of biological children over adoption) left a slightly controversial idea in my head: Is it right or ethical to insist on IVF when/if there are so many children and babies given up for adoption each year? Yes, I know I am not the only (or first) person to ask this question, but I thought I’d go through the different avenues to gauge both sides equally.

The choice and acceptance of adoption or biological children for couples with fertility issues or same–sex couples is something of a hot topic, while being simultaneously misunderstood and under–represented by the general public. For couples who want children and can’t have them because of fertility issues or biological issues of the same gender, the question of which option is best is frequently asked, and the answer is usually the first option: Biological children through IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) or surrogacy.

For this blogacle, I’m going to look at two populations: The population of would–be parents in the United States, and the population of would–be parents in the European Union. Let’s look at specific figures regarding the cost of fertility treatments compared to the adoption process first. In the United States, IVF treatment is (generally) not covered by medical insurance, which adds an additional bio–ethical concept to this question: If you don’t have the ability to conceive or to pay an exorbitant rate, is your fate sealed? That’s a question for later.

One distinction we need to look at in the case of IVF is the difference between receiving treatment and carrying a healthy baby to term, or receiving treatment and accepting a failed implantation or other complications, which could lead to a failed pregnancy or life–threating complications at birth for mom and baby. This is true for parents in the United States and the European Union, regardless of IVF methods and prenatal care during the pregnancy.

The United States Approach—IVF Success Rates:

A successful IVF depends on the following considerations:

The relative age of the egg donor or woman undergoing the IFV treatment.
Multiple embryo transfers (to increase the efficacy of the treatment), and
Complex cases of IVF where the donor or receiving woman is over 40 and require additional genetic testing.

A full round of IVF will cost approximately $58,000.00, over a span of four to six weeks, for a live birth. If, at any point, tests show that implantation was unsuccessful, the couple will have to stop their treatment and start again once the woman’s body is healthy enough to carry another baby. When this happens, the money the couple had already spent on IVF isn’t reimbursed and when they try again, they will be expected to start the IVF fund from scratch.

The United States Approach—The Adoption Process:

*In both the European Union and the United States, the adoption process is significantly cheaper but the process of adoption varies state by state in the United States and by member country in the European Union.*

For the adoption process in the United States, there are four different means of adoption, and each means has a different cost and process from start to finish. These means of adoption include:

The foster care adoption route is the cheapest option (in terms of adoption and IVF alternatives), but this isn’t always in the child’s best interest. The foster system is a government–controlled system but in this case, families and children have less freedom to choose who they want to join their family, and many children don’t have the opportunity to choose a family who they believe would be right for them.

The foster care system doesn’t always allow for one–on–one bonding with a child (and teen) because of differing family values and expectations, which could lead to behavioural issues down the line. If these behavioural issues aren’t addressed before the child (and teen) is placed with a new foster family, the cycle doesn’t necessarily end unless the family uses services available to them for this purpose. The average cost of foster care adoption is $2800.00 from start to finish.

Independent adoption is when the adoptive family works closely or directly with the birth parents of the child or teen, and as a result, they receive additional emotional and financial support for their process through private adoption agencies or additional support from the birth family to use towards the child. This (in theory) helps the child and new family navigate their new life with the blessing and financial support to ensure their child (of both sets of parents) have the best possible outcome. Independent adoptions can include cases of family and friends adopting within their circle if they feel they can offer the child (and teen) a better life.

This doesn’t mean the private adoption is less expensive (due to closer bonds), the birth family and any legal counsel still need to be reimbursed for their services. This is just a different way to help families reach their goal without lengthy waiting lists, which is often the case for other forms of adoption. The average cost of independent adoption is $30,000.00 from start to finish.

International adoption is when an adoptive family chooses to welcome a child or teen from another country into their home. This process involves working with legal and approved agencies that specialize in navigating international laws, immigration paperwork, and cultural differences. This is to ensure the adoption is recognized in the home country of the adoptee and in the United States.

Adoptive families are usually required to travel to the child’s birth country to complete legal steps on their side, meet with officials and prove they have the best intentions for the child or teen, and build an early bond with the child. International adoption often requires extensive documentation, translation attempts if the child or teen comes from a non–English country, travel expenses, and agency fees, making it one of the more costly options. Depending on the country and legal requirements, on average, the total cost of international adoption is $40,000.00 from start to finish.

Private agency adoption is when an adoptive family works with a licensed, non-governmental agency that specializes in adoption services. These agencies help the adoptive family and child or teen with every step of the process. This could include home studies; matching families with children; providing counseling for birth parents; and ensuring legal requirements are met. Families benefit from the agency’s structured support and resources, but the services come with significant fees.

While private agencies often help shorten waiting times compared to public adoption routes, they still require financial reimbursement for their services, which can include legal representation, birth parent support, and post-placement counseling. Private agency adoption often focuses on newborns or young babies after careful consideration from the agency and placement of the newborn or baby, and surrogacy is a common practice in this form of the adoption process. The average cost of independent adoption is $35,000.00 from start to finish.

I will add the completed Reference List and Questions to COnsider in the final part.

Questions to consider

Do you think fertility issues are a modern thing or are we just more aware of these issues thanks to social media and increased access to news?

What do you understand by the word 'parent'?

Do you believe couples or mom's who routinely and willingly give their babies and children up for adoption should be allowed to have more children? Why or why not?

Do you think these options should be chosen on behalf of the family or child? If the family can choose, should they be required to choose a less expensive and risky option, since these decisions will affect them for the rest of their lives, and the life od the new baby or child brought into the world?

How well do you know regarding the IVF process? Even if you aren't a parent, should you and the general public be made aware of the financial and social costs couples are subjected to during this process?

Do you think this is ethical? Should a family not be treated as a family as a family health insurance plan, regardless of how the family started?

Do you believe a family should be a llowed to try as many IVF procedures as possible to start their family or should they be guided to other options if IVF is unsuccessful?

Knowing what you do about the average yearly wage in the United States, do you think this is a feasable amount? Why or why not?

Do you think these couples should be forced to bear the brunt of these costs? What if the failure was a manufacturer/physician error? Should the couple still be liable for the full amount?

I'm sure you've heard the foster care story's—good and bad. Do you think the foster system in the United States should be as accessable as it is at the moment?

If there are any behavioural issues in children or teens in the foster system, who do you think should be responsible for these children to get the help they need?

Do you think a foster family should be able to choose the age of their foster child? Why or why not? When choosing the age, does thie benefit the child, parents, both, or neither?

This is a lot more than the foster system. Do you think it's fair that there is such a difference? Do you think families who can pay this will give their child or teen a better life? WHy or why not?

Why do you think this recognition is important? Do you think it makes a difference on the child's or teen's psyche?

How would these parents know what the best intentions are without developing a relationship beforehand? Or do you think this is a case of trial and error once the child or teen is placed in the home?

Who, do you think, should conduct these home studies? Social workers or dedicated parent volunteers who know what to look for—and what questions to ask—from personal experience?

Private agencies who focus on newborns or young babies are usually still in contact with the birth mother. Do you think the birth mother should be encouraged (if possible) to keep the baby for as long as possible for their emotional safety?

What type of careful considerations should these invlolve? Do you think these considerations should encompass all of the above or specific comsiderations per family on a case by case basis?

Can you think of any major differences between citizen autonomy now compared to then? What do you think autonomy entailed in the 1600s?

Questions to consider

Week Four:

Thomas Hobbes: How Plausible is it to Draw Comparisons Between the Political Theory of the 1600s to the 2020s?

Thomas Hobbes was considered a scientific thinker of his time, and his political philosophies, like the principles of discord, the “war of every man against man,” and his idea of the “state of nature, ”placed great pressure on the psychology of statehood in philosophy. His political theory leaned toward monarchy, with sovereign power as the only decision-maker, and this was achieved through the surrender of citizens’ autonomy.

Hobbes saw political order in naturalistic terms, believing people behave differently in times of war and peace, and that the role of the state was to ensure civil society through absolute rule. He also argued for a social contract, though he saw it as fragile and prone to collapse into the state of nature. In modern international politics, his view of a “common sovereign authority” remains extremely difficult to achieve without total control by the state, which is unlikely in democratic systems. Hobbes believed equality was vital for society, arguing that nature played an important role in equalizing human beings.

For Hobbes, equality implied survival, because the need for acceptance led to the surrender of autonomy to the state. He suggested that contentment was a sign of equality, but that safety and danger always had to be factored in. Hobbes also believed that individual perceptions of wisdom created conditions for equality, though this was undermined by ambition and fame. For him, prudence was simply experience, which allowed people to make rational decisions about their place within the state under one ruler.

This view of equality, however, raises questions for modern democracies. If the sovereign state is the absolute decision–maker, inequality inevitably follows, which clashes with democratic principles of choice and representation. Over time, this laid the groundwork for constitutionalism, limited government power, and even the dismissal of governments that abuse their authority.

The monarchical element in Hobbes’ thought makes this structure problematic, however, for influencing modern democratic societies, as monarchies today are often viewed as outdated and incompatible with constitutional principles. Hobbes also discussed what he called the “three principles of discord” regarding citizens and their roles in society.

The first was competition, which suggested that people invade for gain, but this only led to a cycle where the successful invader eventually became the next target. The second was distrust, where citizens believed in striking first to ensure their own safety. The third was glory, which centered on reputation—the desire for others to value you as you value yourself. Each principle implied forms of invasion, whether for gain, safety, or reputation.

For Hobbes, without a common power to bring peace, these principles led to destruction and war. For modern democracies, however, this logic is troubling, as it assumes constant conflict rather than cooperative choice-making, and it reinforces the idea of an absolute sovereign—something fundamentally at odds with democratic structures. Hobbes defined war as fighting without knowing the outcome, with men relying on their own strength and ingenuity while living in fear. He believed that without a common power, society would degenerate into civil war, since without law there could be no justice.

His “war of every man against man” allowed no real ownership, property, or distinction of rights, with force and fraud dominating instead. He believed that people could escape this through passion and reason, but the pre-contractual state of nature was always marked by fear, insecurity, and mistrust. For Hobbes, peace only arrived when citizens surrendered to a sovereign monarch, obeying absolute laws to escape war. The problem with this, however, is that survival often came at the expense of others. In democratic societies, laws exist to protect individual rights, and absolute power in wartime would place citizens at risk of corruption and abuse from the very authority meant to protect them.

Democracies, with their checks and balances, provide safeguards Hobbes’ system never accounted for. Hobbes’ social contract also presents difficulties for modern democracies. He argued that the contract existed between citizens rather than between citizens and the state, meaning the sovereign ruler was excluded from its limitations. This allowed the state to maintain monarchical authority and absolute decision-making. For Hobbes, civil society could not succeed without citizens fully surrendering their autonomy. Critics, however, view his state of nature and social contract less as historical truth and more as a psychological thought experiment.

In modern political systems, autonomy isn't surrendered to the state, but instead protected by it. Citizens rely on governments to respect and uphold their freedoms rather than demand absolute obedience. This is why Hobbes’ version of the social contract is seen as incompatible with democratic principles, which are grounded in reciprocal accountability between the state and its people.In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes’ political theory, though groundbreaking in his time, is difficult to apply in modern democracies.

His vision of absolute sovereignty helped shape debates about government power, but it conflicts with the democratic emphasis on citizen rights and autonomy. While realists still argue that peace can only come from surrendering to a common authority, modern democracies thrive on independence, representation, and limited government. Hobbes’ legacy lies in providing a model for democracy and in challenging later thinkers to define and defend it. The question is, who will do so and how will they do it?

Notable philosophers:

Thomas Hobbes —Life and Death: 1588 to 1679.

Years active/important: Mid–1600s, England.

Questions from piece:

What role do citizens play in a society?
If there are no citizens, can there be a society at all?
Did Hobbes mean war as in how we see it today, or did he mean conflict in general?
Whose responsibility is it to protect the state, the government or the people?
In Hobbes' case, what is a 'state'?
What was happening in England during the mid–1600s that warranted such a response from a citezen?
What was a 'scientific thinker' of the time of Hobbes?

References:

Coetser, Y., et al., 2015. Modern Philosophy. Pretoria: University of South Africa (UNISA).

Questions to consider

Can you think of any major differences between citizen autonomy now compared to then? What do you think autonomy entailed in the 1600s?

In the 1600s, the role of the state was different compared to now. Can you think of any differences, and what are the reasons for these differences?

In your country, what does equality mean? Do you think people had the same level of equality in Hobbes' time? If not, why not?

This definition of prudence is different to what it means today. Can you think of examples of these differences once you know/look up the philosophical meaning compared to the modern meaning?

What do you understand by 'limited government power'? A government with limited authority to control their citzens; a limited amount of government agencies to create the rule of law; or something else entirely?

What do you understand by 'modern democracy'? Democracy as we know it today started in Ancient Rome, but in a way, these systems weren't entirely democratic. Do you think a modern democracy needs a form of historical democracy to take an example from or are each modern and historical forms of democracy different because of different populations?

What types of invasion do you know of? Do you think these forms are physical and militaristic in nature or is the invasion of the mind with counter arguments just as valid?

What do you understand by constant conflict? An area or country who is always at war or an area or country who may not be at war permanantly, but their is trouble in civil matters where there are conflicting views on a daily basis.

What is a distinction of rights? Who decided where these distinctions fall and who they serve?

If citizens are required to surrender to a sovereign for peace, is this peace true peace or coerced peace? Why is there a difference between the two?

Complete monarchical authority is quite rare in the 2020s. Absolute decision making on behalf of a heterogeneous society makes this difficult. Do you think there should be one or two absolute rules for the citizens to follow?

What do you understand by 'reciprocal accountability'? Do you think this means Hobbes believed that each citizen is accountable for responsibility for others because they are part of the social contract or does this reciprocal accountability relate to close family and friend ties only?

Where do you think peace should come from? Who is responsible for general peace?