IJFAB Blog

Epinephrine is a very inexpensive drug that saves your life if you are reeling from the effects of anaphylaxis. I had such an experience just last week. I was applying body lotion that had among its otherwise innocuous ingredients juniper oil. By the time I had finished applying the lotion to my arms and legs, it looked as if I had a severe sunburn. I, realizing what was happening, threw myself into a cold shower and rubbed off as much of the offending lotion as possible. I could feel my lungs tightening, and I knew this was not going to go away. Knowing it was faster for my partner to drive me a mile to the hospital, rather than wait for an ambulance, we dashed off. By the time we arrived at the ER, within 5-10 minutes after applying the lotion, I could barely stand and had to receive triage care, which began in the middle of the hospital hallway. Epinephrine saved my life that day.

This image, from the manufacturer, shows the EpiPen 2-Pak and Epi-Pen Jr. 2-Pak.

I received a script for an EpiPen with my discharge paperwork. My partner went to the pharmacy to pick up the prescription, only to be told that it was being excluded by United Healthcare and the cost would be $644.

I have had prescriptions excluded before. For instance, my nasal spray, Dymista, is not covered and I was told would cost $186, but the two separate generic drugs that make up Dymista are available for $10/drug through my insurance provider. I assumed that maybe something similar was happening with the EpiPen. I inquired whether they covered a generic or another viable alternative, and they said that if the script was written for an EpiPen they could not substitute epinephrine and a syringe; it had to be an auto-delivery mechanism. Furthermore, EpiPen, the representative told me, was coded as an elective “breathing treatment.” The representative went on to say that United does not cover elective therapies; the EpiPen, the rep indicated, was akin to a nose job. Except it wasn’t at all like a nose job because it was a necessary preventative therapy to keep me from dying, not an operation to appease my vanity. Issues with my insurance provider aside, the price of the EpiPen itself was astounding considering that only a few years ago, the same device was well under $100. Continue reading →

The Spring 2016 issue of IJFAB is now available via Project Muse. It includes an interesting open access paper by Allison Merrick, “A Paradox of Hope? Toward a Feminist Approach to Palliation.” The paradox of hope arises in cases where a patient’s prognosis is very poor. Because physicians have a duty to respect patient autonomy, they should be sure that a patient receives accurate information about their progress. At the same time, however, receiving this information may cause the patient to lose hope, causing their condition to worsen. Thus, providing accurate information seems contrary to the duty of beneficence.

Merrick’s goal in this paper is to undermine this paradox by developing an alternative model of medicine, one that does not focus solely on cure – on “the eradication of the cause of an illness or disease, [or] the radical interruption of and reversal of the natural history of the disorder” (Pellegrino and Thomasma 1997, 27; quoted in Merrick 2016, 112). Instead, she offers a palliative model, informed by feminist scholarship, that understands hope in terms of the patient’s subjective priorities and experiences. Such a model, she claims, “opens up the space for a plurality of values” (112).
It’s also found in China, Bhutan, Siberia and other regions with cold viagra on line pharmacy climates. Off generic viagra professional and on again an erection is achieved. This is very embarrassing moment for the partner as it simply allows one to enjoy the best cheap cialis at an affordable price with just as same effects as that of original cialis. Here, one can take full pleasure of their sexual life for just once or twice, don’t be too nervous. viagra sales in india
Merrick closes her paper with a discussion of some of the work in feminist bioethics that parallel her ideas and that could be used to further develop her approach to palliation. In particular, she stresses that we must incorporate a relational dimension to palliation, emphasizing the patient’s relationships with their loved ones and also the ways that power structures operate in the healthcare system. I believe that the model she offers is very promising and would love to see further development of a relational approach to palliation. As questions about end-of-life care become more pressing, it becomes increasingly important to develop frameworks that are adequate to the complexity of the decisions that patients, their families, and health care providers will face. A feminist account such as Merrick’s seems to me to be our best hope of doing so.

The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities  —  one of the largest conferences for all academics, clinicians, policy analysts, and others working in the areas of bioethics, medical humanities, medicine, medical education, and related disciplines  —  is ready to roll in Washington, D.C, from October 6-9, 2016.  Among its many features is the opportunity for Affinity Groups  — smaller organizations whose members have a particular clinical, academic, or other kind of focus  —  to meet, hear each other’s work, and engage in lively discussions, debates, and other activities centered around particular concerns or approaches.

The experiences of participants in such groups tend to bring them back.  Because ASBH is such a large, multivocal event, finding oneself in an environment where one is in focused conversations with a small group of like-minded colleagues who share one’s passions and concerns (and sometimes even projects) is not only professionally fruitful and fulfilling, but often just plain fun.  As it happens, I am the current organizer of just such a group:  Feminist Approaches to Bioethics.  And I think that you should submit your abstract for our meeting.  Now.

Why Feminist Approaches to Bioethics?  If you are reading this blog post, you probably are already somewhat familiar with FAB and IJFAB  —  so just submit your work already!

If you are new here, first  —  welcome!  We are very happy to have you!

Second, please pardon all the acronyms (ASBH, FAB, IJFAB, and so on).

Third, please consider submitting your work for the following reasons:

1.  The FAB Affinity Group is a welcoming, exciting, open-minded community of people interested in feminist approaches to medicine and related issues.  We WANT to hear your ideas, and we want to engage with them.  We don’t bite.
2. Among all the general sessions and Affinity Groups at ASBH, we are the only group, focused specifically on feminist perspectives and approaches.  If you are, too, then we already speak the same language.  This matters!

viagra online mastercard Although there are plenty of other numerous sicknesses that might physically hurt men, erectile dysfunction is the most common sexual disorder amongst them. According to reports, 90% of people order generic cialis pharma-bi.com can’t remember what it feels like not having enough stamina to perform well in bed. A nutrition journal revealed a study from a medical research council showing that men eating butter (sat-fat) were 50% less likely to get an erection and be much more likely viagra bulk to ejaculate. In most of the cheapest levitra generic cases if we are following large numbers of the people are suffering with the skin problems.

3. Participating in our group is a wonderful networking opportunity  —  especially for students and junior faculty and researchers.  It is also a great place for the more senior members to present work, to mentor younger colleagues  —  and, of course, to see old friends!
4. All we ask for now is 250 words  —  surely you have a spare few hundred words lying around somewhere!

Thanks for reading this shameless promotional screed.  Below, I am posting the actual CFA, and please  —  do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns.

FAB AFFINITY GROUP:  Call for Abstracts

In an ongoing effort to stimulate scholarship and encourage the growth of the field of feminist bioethics, the FAB Affinity Group would like to invite submissions for the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) 18th Annual Meeting October 6-9, 2016 at the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.  The theme is open, but should relate to issues within feminist bioethics, broadly construed.  Especially encouraged are papers that reflect works in progress, exploring new theoretical approaches to feminist bioethics, or analyzing advances in the biological sciences and medicine using a feminist framework.

Abstracts or proposals (250 words or less) should be emailed to agotlib@brooklyn.cuny.edu by August 1st.  Please include your full contact information.  All submissions will be reviewed by the FAB Affinity Group committee.  Applicants will be notified of the committee’s decision by August 15th.

Please feel free to distribute this invitation as appropriate.

Thank you, and we look forward to seeing you at ASBH in October!

 

In April 2016, my colleague Liz Goodnick and I hosted our first Undergraduate Women in Philosophy conference at MSU Denver. It was a tremendous success. We thought that this would be a great way to help positively change the climate for women in philosophy. Before discussing our fantastic conference, here’s a brief accounting of the climate for those who might not be aware.

Those of us who are in philosophy, and especially those of us who are women philosophers, know firsthand about the often-hostile climate for women. Most female-identified philosophers have either been subjected to some form of sexual harassment or know someone who has. Yet, as one of my mentors from graduate school, Linda Martín Alcoff, notes, many instances go unreported: “Women in our profession are, as a group, afraid to complain, loathe to complain, absolutely committed to not complaining.”

A gently crumpled conference program

Many of us are aware of the high-profile sexual harassment cases in philosophy departments in recent years. And all it takes is a few minutes of reading the blog, “What is it like to be a woman in philosophy?”  to get a good sense of the discouraging climate. Alcoff recalled reading the blog in a coffee shop near NYU and “tearing up” (see “A Call for Climate Change for Women in Philosophy”). As she puts it, the blog is “over-full with stories of disrespect, harassment, sexual objectification, even an attempted rape at an APA conference.”

In September 2013, New York Times’ “The Stone” presented a five-day series written by women philosophers on the appalling climate for women. Sally Haslanger, who was a contributor to the series, blames “bad actors” in positions of power. Alcoff, who was also a contributor, suggests that the principal issue “is not about harassment or come-ons but the thousand daily cuts that collectively dissuade women from staying in, the aggressive and peremptory dismissals in seminars, the a priori rejections and derision of feminist philosophy…” and on and on.

I recommend reading the March 15, 2016 report “Women in Philosophy: Quantitative Analyses of Specialization, Prevalence, Visibility, and Generational Change” by Eric Schwitzgebel and Carolyn Dicey Jennings: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/WomenInPhil-160315b.pdf. Most disturbing is not just the small percentage of full-time female philosophy faculty, but also the percentage of women philosophy faculty by rank, which reflects “the higher attrition rates, lower promotion rates, and lower rates of senior recruitment for women.”

There are very few women full professors in philosophy. Equally disturbing is the appalling lack of women philosophers of color. Haslanger notes that, “change needs to happen on multiple fronts for us to make progress.”

This brings me to MSU Denver’s First Undergraduate Women’s Philosophy Conference. Since graduate school, I have been trying to find ways to improve the climate for women in philosophy. While I had a wonderful, supportive dissertation advisor, Sam Gorovitz, our department certainly was no stranger to the above-mentioned problems. One of my earliest efforts was helping to found, with my mentor Linda Alcoff, a women’s “support” group. At a recent visit to my alma mater, I was delighted to see that the group is still thriving. Some female graduate students told me that the women’s group has made a tremendously positive impact on their time in graduate school, noting that they wouldn’t survive without it.

In this spirit, my colleague Liz and I founded MSU Denver’s Women’s Philosophy Group a couple of years ago to help recruit and mentor female-identified students. Our first ambitious project (all the more so that I was on sabbatical) was to organize and host our First Undergraduate Women’s Philosophy Conference on April 22-23, 2016. We knew that this had the potential to be an important event. It was just a matter of pulling it off. The conference, the only one of its kind so far as we are aware, would provide a supportive space for undergraduate female-identified students to present and comment on philosophy papers and build community. We received financial support from our philosophy department, our Institute for Women’s Studies and Services, our women’s philosophy group, our philosophy club, and from our wonderful provost, Vicki Golich.

Our keynote speaker, Elizabeth Brake, Arizona State University, gives a talk entitled “Love and the Law.”

We didn’t expect such a tremendous response. We received fifty submissions from across the United States and Canada. Several students, both female and male, helped serve as blind reviewers. Two students in particular did an exceptional job in helping us pull off such a fantastic conference, Haley Burke and Alexa Brown.

Our budget only allowed for eight presenters and commentators, and a small honorarium for our keynote speaker, Elizabeth Brake (Arizona State University), who gave a terrific talk entitled “Love and the Law,” arguing for state support of personal relationships, including friendship, polyamory, and companionship for the elderly.

There are lots of male around the world who cannot satisfy their partners in the bed due to weak mouthsofthesouth.com generic cialis professional erection. This among many cost of cialis mouthsofthesouth.com other reasons is why more individuals are opting for it. It is the best viagra properien solution of the disease. Relationship problems: When happiness of a relation gets turned into purchase levitra online why not try here humiliation and disappointment for several men. The conference was well attended with fifty-plus in the audience. Male-identified allies served as chairs and commentators. We hosted a banquet the night before. We started the conference with a workshop on the climate for women in philosophy, at which we distributed a list of online resources. University of Northern Colorado’s Nancy Machett gave a particularly inspiring talk at the workshop about “The unplanned and unexpected yet in my view utterly marvelous experiment that occurred at Oxford between 1937-1945. This was long before anyone was worried about the lack of women in philosophy.” As Machett explained, five remarkable women philosophers turned up at Oxford at that time: Mary Midgley and Elizabeth Anscombe (arriving in 1937), followed by Iris Murdoch (1938), Philippa Foot (1939), and Mary Warnock (1942).

Student speaker, Caroline Blaney, Hunter College, presents her paper “Platonic Pedagogy in the Meno: Virtue is not a Divine Gift.”

The feedback from the conference was amazingly positive. For example, one respondent noted that, “It was really powerful to be in a room of women philosophers and feel like part of a community.” And: “Exceptionally beneficial to hear from and engage with a group of fellow women who share a passion for philosophy.”

There were three main concerns about the conference, as indicated by the evaluations, which we would like to correct before our Second Annual Women’s Philosophy Conference. First, the conference should be longer, to allow for more participants. Second, the conference should be more affordable to allow more students to participate, and finally, there should be more people of color participating.

Liz and I recently applied for a small grant with the APA to help remedy the first two concerns. With APA funds, we can extend the conference to two full days and offer small stipends to student participants and a larger award to the student with the best paper. The third concern (including more female-identified students of color) will be addressed by encouraging women of color to submit papers in our next Call for Papers, to invite a woman philosopher of color to be the keynote speaker, and to advertise to historically black schools, Hispanic-serving institutions, and departments such as African American Studies, Chicano/a Studies, and Native American Studies.

We are looking forward to hosting our next conference in April 2017. I hope that some of you will encourage your female-identified students to participate. As one conference attendee noted, this conference matters.

A few members of the audience engage with the presentations

Participating in conferences of this sort, having more female-identified philosophy faculty (especially senior faculty) serving as positive role models, mentors and advocates, and actively recruiting female-identified philosophy students, including female students of color, will help make a positive difference for women in philosophy. That, and (to quote Alcoff) waiting for the “recalcitrant members of the old guard” to retire.

Editor’s Note: This blog entry is based on a paper presented by Prof. Reiheld at FAB Congress 2016 in Edinburgh.

Philosopher Sandra Bartky persuasively argued for a Foucauldian framework conceptualizing femininity as a disciplinary regime that creates docile bodies through dieting, exercise, and comportment. Women, to be feminine, should take up as little space as possible. The very notion of appetite is highly regulated in femininity as evidenced by women’s constant attention not only to what they eat but also to how they are judged by others for the signs of appetite which they display.  Women who eat non-normatively still conform to norms insofar as they socially excuse their eating: “I have been hitting the gym hard, so I can afford a little cake” or “I didn’t have lunch today, so I think I will indulge a bit.”  These attitudes and social interactions underpin disordered eating by those seeking to conform to norms of femininity, with all the negative health consequences that implies for the person who disciplines themselves in this way.

This image is a word cloud (word association) for “masculinity” as found on the internet. The words most commonly found with “masculinity” are larger: stronger, confident, tough, provider, aggressive, independent, violence, strength, and athletic… these are a few of the most prominent. They are also non-coincidentally the components of RW Connell’s analysis of hegemonic masculinity.

While feminist bioethics have long been concerned with how femininity norms lead to disordered eating and body image in women and girls, similar pressures from masculinity norms are increasingly brought to bear on men and boys. The burgeoning field of masculinity studies has, in parallel, analyzed norms of masculinity which govern masculine behavior.  Sociologist R.W. Connell popularized the concept of hegemonic masculinity, a notion that not only promotes dominance by men and the subordination of women, but does so in part by enforcing very clear norms of masculinity which justify dominance, norms which often involve strength and aggression.

Continue reading →