Day after day, I read the newspaper articles on Gaza and Israel, and I ask myself, "What's the answer?" "What does an ethicist like myself have to say about such huge and long standing issues?" I ask myself, "What would I say if the politicos in Washington asked me for ethical input?" And I reply to myself, "Yes, but what do I know about politics? What do I know about how to prevent war, how to create peace, how to help countries get along with one another?" I will simply have to stick with what I do know, what I can do, and recognize that if I use all that I have, it will make a difference.
So, what do I know, and what can I do? What do you know, and what can you do? I have spent my career as a mental health professional, doing assessments and psychotherapy, and teaching graduate students to become counselors. What I know is how to help people heal from emotional struggles; how to help them to learn the life skills necessary for daily life, for success in school and work, for raising a family; and how to help them figure out and reach for their dreams. And I know that the world is a better place for the changes created when people grow in these ways. The world around the people I have helped is a more peaceful place. It is a more positive place. It is a place with healthier, less damaging relationships. It is a place where people can trust one another because they know that they have each communicated clearly and honestly with one another. It is a place where when conflict arises, they can trust that the other will work with them to clear it up, rather than disappearing or hating or stirring up trouble. And if I can't solve the war in the middle east, isn't it better to know that there at least some people who are living in greater peace, who are raising their children in a more loving environment, who are following their "call", and so are contributing to the world in some positive way?
What I also know is how to write and teach and develop curricula. And so I write this blog, and write virtue newsletters, and write books on life skills and character and optimal development. And I teach adjunct classes and continuing education classes, developing new curricula as the need arises. And if I can persuade those who read and who are students that "positive psychology" (that is, aiming for mental health, aiming for the best, encouraging optimal development, investing in becoming and creating people of character with strong ethical decision making skills) has value, then perhaps they too will take it out into the world with them, and will assist their clients and students and business partners and family members that being people of character matters. Perhaps they will become persuaded that investing in the "spirit" of life, in the "higher" things of life, makes a difference. Perhaps they will spread the news that if we each aim for the optimal in caring and trustworthiness and responsibility and courage and wisdom and fairness and respect and citizenship, if we take little steps each day, that we can create a better world around us, and that what is "better" will spread and keep on spreading, like the ripples that begin with a mere drop of water.
But it takes intention and inspiration and perhaps spirit to live out what I know, where I am, and to not despair over how short it falls. It takes courage to believe that if I live my life in integrity, if I intentionally aim for the best character, even when I can get away with less, if I encourage the children and parents that I see at school and church and Girl Scouts to do the same, that others will also be motivated to do the same, and that the "good" will spread. It takes trust that others will be just as concerned and motivated as I am, and that we can lean on one another, that we can encourage one another, and that this team effort can transform our schools and families and communities.
But if we don't have the courage to fully live into what we know, where we are, what hope is there? What other options do we have if we want things like wars in Gaza to end, people in the frozen north of the former Soviet Union countries to have access to oil to heat their homes, and the crime ridden neighborhoods around us to become safe?
Will you join me in saying that you will take the risk to invest in your own character and to support your family members and friends and co workers to invest in character? I believe Obama when he says that if we all join together, "Yes, we can" make a difference.
Showing posts with label Fairness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fairness. Show all posts
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Obama Care and Ethics
The big news, or the lack of it, last week was the Health Care Summit. The big news because it was discussed ad infinitum in every news or opinion venue. The lack of big news because it seems that, despite our tentative hopes, no miracles emerged from the summit. I began thinking about the ethical issues related to health care, why this has become such a big issue, why it is and promises to affect so many people. Here are my thoughts.
First of all, we are promised the freedom to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and clearly we consider these rights to be equivalent to ethical mandates. Health, and therefore, health care, is clearly related to all three of these mandates. And I don’t think any of us would argue that we have an ethical responsibility to ensure that people’s health is attended to. After all, our higher moral sentiments are clearly aroused when we see pictures of starving or ill children from less advantaged countries. We hardly want our children or parents or other family members to be writhing in pain from some treatable problem or disease merely because they have no health insurance or are unable to pay for the health care they need. We hardly want anyone we know to die of a stroke for the “lack of a $6 prescription to high blood pressure medication,” to quote a doctor speaking during the Clinton health care debates.
Second, some people are very clearly disadvantaged when it comes to access to health care, and, as a result, find their health and happiness, and even their ability to work, at risk. Some may be unemployed and not have money to pay for health insurance or health care. If they have access to a government supplemented plan (Medicaid), they may not have access to the best that health care has to offer. If they do not have a car, accessing this health care may be difficult. Other people may be self-employed; and again, insurance and/or health care may be beyond their reach financially. Still others may work for small businesses, that may have difficulty providing health coverage for their employees. And finally, anyone may be denied health care because of their inability to pay for it, or denied health insurance coverage if they have preexisting conditions that threaten the profitability of the insurance company. If we believe that health care is a moral obligation, then we have to find some answers to these problems. We don’t worry about the wealthy because they can pay for whatever they can find. We worry about the middle class and lower income folks who can’t. And our worries are called humanity. They are about caring. They are about sensitivity to need. And, of course, given that most of the country is middle or lower class, these worries may also be about our self-interest.
Third, in a free market economy – which most argue is best for our citizens – we believe that people have the right to make a living (part of those freedoms above), and this clearly includes doctors and hospitals and those who run insurance companies and medical/pharmaceutical research companies. If these medically-associated businesses can’t make a living or a profit, if they can’t pay their employees, sooner or later, they will have to stop providing care or go out of business. They suffer, and we lose out on their services or what they might produce or create.
Relatedly, emergencies or crises create a greater sense of need than ongoing health maintenance or prevention, and so, marketing and profits being what they are, it is sometimes difficult to persuade the general public to take care of their health or to pay for prevention. And so the medical culture in our country has become overly focused on problems and medication, and under-focused on self-care, prevention, and health promotion. The crises and emergencies also bring in more money for health care providers and cost more for insurers. The ethical question becomes, how much profit do they have the right to make? On the backs of whom? What is fair? How much disparity in benefits and income will we tolerate between the heads of these companies and the disadvantaged who are in need of services before a revolution breaks out? History points to revolutions that broke out in the face of vast disparity.
Fourth, much of government exists to take care of “externalities,” that is, those services that benefit us and are often times needed for society to function well, but are not profitable for businesses to invest in (ie., roads, bridges, the military). And we are taxed in order to spread the burden of these societal needs among all that benefit from them. Health care for those who are disadvantaged in some way, or whose health problems challenge the ability of the health care industry to make a profit, is clearly one of those externalities.
But therein lies the rub – most Americans are not aware of these larger pictures; instead, they hold onto only a myopic view of “what’s good for us and ours.” In addition, we have to work out our differences with regard to what we think government needs to take care of and how much tax we can afford to pay without discouraging the free enterprise that creates our country’s standard of living. This additional need requires that we have some understanding of our political system and that we take the responsibility to vote or to otherwise voice our values. Unfortunately, I think it is pretty clear that many people in our society don’t have a grasp of the larger picture, nor do they understand the need or the ways to participate in resolving society-wide problems. A certain level of consciousness, of responsibility, of awareness of our connectedness is necessary to enable the larger view and to motivate action.
We are all pretty good at knowing when the system is failing us, or when it feels unfair to us, or when too many people that we know or come into contact with are suffering. And this awareness brings moral outrage to our lips when doctors charge so much money, or when insurance companies deny our claims or deny us coverage, or when insurance or pharmaceutical companies are making such large profits. If we can lift our vision above our own or our family’s health, we also don’t want people that we know and care about to be denied essential services. We don’t think it is fair that people who are wealthy get that new heart they need, while those who are middle class or below can’t afford basic medical care.
So, what are the ethical issues? The health care debate has brought forth questions about fairness, about caring, about inequities, about responsibility. It is about how money impacts choices (for instance whether the best quality care is provided, or whether prevention is fully funded to prevent medical crises), and whether those choices take into consideration what is the best for the long run, rather than only the short run. It is about whether everyone gets a fair and equal vote on decisions to be made, rather than “money doing the talking” and the financially disadvantaged having little voice. It is about how to have respectful, responsible, even-handed dialogue about important issues, rather than disparaging other people and ideas. What will you do related to the health care debate that takes into consideration these ethical issues?
First of all, we are promised the freedom to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and clearly we consider these rights to be equivalent to ethical mandates. Health, and therefore, health care, is clearly related to all three of these mandates. And I don’t think any of us would argue that we have an ethical responsibility to ensure that people’s health is attended to. After all, our higher moral sentiments are clearly aroused when we see pictures of starving or ill children from less advantaged countries. We hardly want our children or parents or other family members to be writhing in pain from some treatable problem or disease merely because they have no health insurance or are unable to pay for the health care they need. We hardly want anyone we know to die of a stroke for the “lack of a $6 prescription to high blood pressure medication,” to quote a doctor speaking during the Clinton health care debates.
Second, some people are very clearly disadvantaged when it comes to access to health care, and, as a result, find their health and happiness, and even their ability to work, at risk. Some may be unemployed and not have money to pay for health insurance or health care. If they have access to a government supplemented plan (Medicaid), they may not have access to the best that health care has to offer. If they do not have a car, accessing this health care may be difficult. Other people may be self-employed; and again, insurance and/or health care may be beyond their reach financially. Still others may work for small businesses, that may have difficulty providing health coverage for their employees. And finally, anyone may be denied health care because of their inability to pay for it, or denied health insurance coverage if they have preexisting conditions that threaten the profitability of the insurance company. If we believe that health care is a moral obligation, then we have to find some answers to these problems. We don’t worry about the wealthy because they can pay for whatever they can find. We worry about the middle class and lower income folks who can’t. And our worries are called humanity. They are about caring. They are about sensitivity to need. And, of course, given that most of the country is middle or lower class, these worries may also be about our self-interest.
Third, in a free market economy – which most argue is best for our citizens – we believe that people have the right to make a living (part of those freedoms above), and this clearly includes doctors and hospitals and those who run insurance companies and medical/pharmaceutical research companies. If these medically-associated businesses can’t make a living or a profit, if they can’t pay their employees, sooner or later, they will have to stop providing care or go out of business. They suffer, and we lose out on their services or what they might produce or create.
Relatedly, emergencies or crises create a greater sense of need than ongoing health maintenance or prevention, and so, marketing and profits being what they are, it is sometimes difficult to persuade the general public to take care of their health or to pay for prevention. And so the medical culture in our country has become overly focused on problems and medication, and under-focused on self-care, prevention, and health promotion. The crises and emergencies also bring in more money for health care providers and cost more for insurers. The ethical question becomes, how much profit do they have the right to make? On the backs of whom? What is fair? How much disparity in benefits and income will we tolerate between the heads of these companies and the disadvantaged who are in need of services before a revolution breaks out? History points to revolutions that broke out in the face of vast disparity.
Fourth, much of government exists to take care of “externalities,” that is, those services that benefit us and are often times needed for society to function well, but are not profitable for businesses to invest in (ie., roads, bridges, the military). And we are taxed in order to spread the burden of these societal needs among all that benefit from them. Health care for those who are disadvantaged in some way, or whose health problems challenge the ability of the health care industry to make a profit, is clearly one of those externalities.
But therein lies the rub – most Americans are not aware of these larger pictures; instead, they hold onto only a myopic view of “what’s good for us and ours.” In addition, we have to work out our differences with regard to what we think government needs to take care of and how much tax we can afford to pay without discouraging the free enterprise that creates our country’s standard of living. This additional need requires that we have some understanding of our political system and that we take the responsibility to vote or to otherwise voice our values. Unfortunately, I think it is pretty clear that many people in our society don’t have a grasp of the larger picture, nor do they understand the need or the ways to participate in resolving society-wide problems. A certain level of consciousness, of responsibility, of awareness of our connectedness is necessary to enable the larger view and to motivate action.
We are all pretty good at knowing when the system is failing us, or when it feels unfair to us, or when too many people that we know or come into contact with are suffering. And this awareness brings moral outrage to our lips when doctors charge so much money, or when insurance companies deny our claims or deny us coverage, or when insurance or pharmaceutical companies are making such large profits. If we can lift our vision above our own or our family’s health, we also don’t want people that we know and care about to be denied essential services. We don’t think it is fair that people who are wealthy get that new heart they need, while those who are middle class or below can’t afford basic medical care.
So, what are the ethical issues? The health care debate has brought forth questions about fairness, about caring, about inequities, about responsibility. It is about how money impacts choices (for instance whether the best quality care is provided, or whether prevention is fully funded to prevent medical crises), and whether those choices take into consideration what is the best for the long run, rather than only the short run. It is about whether everyone gets a fair and equal vote on decisions to be made, rather than “money doing the talking” and the financially disadvantaged having little voice. It is about how to have respectful, responsible, even-handed dialogue about important issues, rather than disparaging other people and ideas. What will you do related to the health care debate that takes into consideration these ethical issues?
Friday, September 18, 2009
War Plus: Will the Big Issues Get Us Down? (June 2009)
Day after day, I read the newspaper articles on Gaza and Israel, and I ask myself, "What's the answer?" "What does an ethicist like myself have to say about such huge and long standing issues?" I ask myself, "What would I say if the politicos in Washington asked me for ethical input?" And I reply to myself, "Yes, but what do I know about politics? What do I know about how to prevent war, how to create peace, how to help countries get along with one another?" I will simply have to stick with what I do know, what I can do, and recognize that if I use all that I have, it will make a difference.
So, what do I know, and what can I do? What do you know, and what can you do? I have spent my career as a mental health professional, doing assessments and psychotherapy, and teaching graduate students to become counselors. What I know is how to help people heal from emotional struggles; how to help them to learn the life skills necessary for daily life, for success in school and work, for raising a family; and how to help them figure out and reach for their dreams. And I know that the world is a better place for the changes created when people grow in these ways. The world around the people I have helped is a more peaceful place. It is a more positive place. It is a place with healthier, less damaging relationships. It is a place where people can trust one another because they know that they have each communicated clearly and honestly with one another. It is a place where when conflict arises, they can trust that the other will work with them to clear it up, rather than disappearing or hating or stirring up trouble. And if I can't solve the war in the middle east, isn't it better to know that there at least some people who are living in greater peace, who are raising their children in a more loving environment, who are following their "call", and so are contributing to the world in some positive way?
What I also know is how to write and teach and develop curricula. And so I write this blog, and write virtue newsletters, and write books on life skills and character and optimal development. And I teach adjunct classes and continuing education classes, developing new curricula as the need arises. And if I can persuade those who read and who are students that "positive psychology" (that is, aiming for mental health, aiming for the best, encouraging optimal development, investing in becoming and creating people of character with strong ethical decision making skills) has value, then perhaps they too will take it out into the world with them, and will assist their clients and students and business partners and family members that being people of character matters. Perhaps they will become persuaded that investing in the "spirit" of life, in the "higher" things of life, makes a difference. Perhaps they will spread the news that if we each aim for the optimal in caring and trustworthiness and responsibility and courage and wisdom and fairness and respect and citizenship, if we take little steps each day, that we can create a better world around us, and that what is "better" will spread and keep on spreading, like the ripples that begin with a mere drop of water.
But it takes intention and inspiration and perhaps spirit to live out what I know, where I am, and to not despair over how short it falls. It takes courage to believe that if I live my life in integrity, if I intentionally aim for the best character, even when I can get away with less, if I encourage the children and parents that I see at school and church and Girl Scouts to do the same, that others will also be motivated to do the same, and that the "good" will spread. It takes trust that others will be just as concerned and motivated as I am, and that we can lean on one another, that we can encourage one another, and that this team effort can transform our schools and families and communities.
But if we don't have the courage to fully live into what we know, where we are, what hope is there? What other options do we have if we want things like wars in Gaza to end, people in the frozen north of the former Soviet Union countries to have access to oil to heat their homes, and the crime ridden neighborhoods around us to become safe?
Will you join me in saying that you will take the risk to invest in your own character and to support your family members and friends and co workers to invest in character? I believe Obama when he says that if we all join together, "Yes, we can" make a difference.
So, what do I know, and what can I do? What do you know, and what can you do? I have spent my career as a mental health professional, doing assessments and psychotherapy, and teaching graduate students to become counselors. What I know is how to help people heal from emotional struggles; how to help them to learn the life skills necessary for daily life, for success in school and work, for raising a family; and how to help them figure out and reach for their dreams. And I know that the world is a better place for the changes created when people grow in these ways. The world around the people I have helped is a more peaceful place. It is a more positive place. It is a place with healthier, less damaging relationships. It is a place where people can trust one another because they know that they have each communicated clearly and honestly with one another. It is a place where when conflict arises, they can trust that the other will work with them to clear it up, rather than disappearing or hating or stirring up trouble. And if I can't solve the war in the middle east, isn't it better to know that there at least some people who are living in greater peace, who are raising their children in a more loving environment, who are following their "call", and so are contributing to the world in some positive way?
What I also know is how to write and teach and develop curricula. And so I write this blog, and write virtue newsletters, and write books on life skills and character and optimal development. And I teach adjunct classes and continuing education classes, developing new curricula as the need arises. And if I can persuade those who read and who are students that "positive psychology" (that is, aiming for mental health, aiming for the best, encouraging optimal development, investing in becoming and creating people of character with strong ethical decision making skills) has value, then perhaps they too will take it out into the world with them, and will assist their clients and students and business partners and family members that being people of character matters. Perhaps they will become persuaded that investing in the "spirit" of life, in the "higher" things of life, makes a difference. Perhaps they will spread the news that if we each aim for the optimal in caring and trustworthiness and responsibility and courage and wisdom and fairness and respect and citizenship, if we take little steps each day, that we can create a better world around us, and that what is "better" will spread and keep on spreading, like the ripples that begin with a mere drop of water.
But it takes intention and inspiration and perhaps spirit to live out what I know, where I am, and to not despair over how short it falls. It takes courage to believe that if I live my life in integrity, if I intentionally aim for the best character, even when I can get away with less, if I encourage the children and parents that I see at school and church and Girl Scouts to do the same, that others will also be motivated to do the same, and that the "good" will spread. It takes trust that others will be just as concerned and motivated as I am, and that we can lean on one another, that we can encourage one another, and that this team effort can transform our schools and families and communities.
But if we don't have the courage to fully live into what we know, where we are, what hope is there? What other options do we have if we want things like wars in Gaza to end, people in the frozen north of the former Soviet Union countries to have access to oil to heat their homes, and the crime ridden neighborhoods around us to become safe?
Will you join me in saying that you will take the risk to invest in your own character and to support your family members and friends and co workers to invest in character? I believe Obama when he says that if we all join together, "Yes, we can" make a difference.
Presidential Thoughts on Respect and Fairness (November 2008)
It seemed fitting to begin this blog with a reflection on our country's newly elected president. I was one of the group who was overjoyed by Obama's election. And while I realize that everyone does not share my views, I thought you might be interested in some of my perspectives. Given our country's economic crisis, I, of course, wanted to vote for change. But Obama's election brings possibilities for change far larger than economic change and the ethical/character changes necessary for fixing our economic situation. Barack's election signals that America is willing to take a stand for fairness to all people, for respect for everyone, regardless of the color of their skin. As one email I recently read stated, "Finally, we are winning the Civil War," or what was begun by ending slavery. As another said, "Harriett Tubman escaped so that Rosa could sit. Rosa sat so that Martin could stand. Martin stood so that Barack could run."
But my enthusiasm is far larger than a celebration of fairness and respect for people of different races. You see, if "we the people" are willing to respect people who are Black, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, or Native American, I see us as have reached a place of accepting, and perhaps even celebrating, other differences as well. It seems to me that Obama's election (and Hilary Clinton being in the running) also signals greater respect and acceptance of women, and gays, and the poor, and immigrants, and the many other groups who have been discriminated against throughout history.
Character and/or ethics includes respect for all people and fair distribution of goods. It means that everyone has access to goods - products, jobs, salaries, benefits, raises, promotions, housing, quality schooling -- and that any differences in distribution have to be justified (by such differences as qualifications, education, working more hours, etc).
America used to be considered a "melting pot." Well, a better analogy is a "salad." You see, in a melting pot, all differences are melted together into a common "mush" that we call "American." A "salad," instead, celebrates difference - all of the colors, the textures, the sizes of the ingredients contribute to the richness of the salad, and, for many of us, to its desireability. Even those who are not fond of salad have begun to realize that the best answers for our society come from the participation of many. The more differing perspectives are heard the better the chance of developing solutions that include all of the possibilities. The better the chance of ensuring that some groups of people are not hurt, and in fact, that more of us prosper.
But my enthusiasm is far larger than a celebration of fairness and respect for people of different races. You see, if "we the people" are willing to respect people who are Black, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, or Native American, I see us as have reached a place of accepting, and perhaps even celebrating, other differences as well. It seems to me that Obama's election (and Hilary Clinton being in the running) also signals greater respect and acceptance of women, and gays, and the poor, and immigrants, and the many other groups who have been discriminated against throughout history.
Character and/or ethics includes respect for all people and fair distribution of goods. It means that everyone has access to goods - products, jobs, salaries, benefits, raises, promotions, housing, quality schooling -- and that any differences in distribution have to be justified (by such differences as qualifications, education, working more hours, etc).
America used to be considered a "melting pot." Well, a better analogy is a "salad." You see, in a melting pot, all differences are melted together into a common "mush" that we call "American." A "salad," instead, celebrates difference - all of the colors, the textures, the sizes of the ingredients contribute to the richness of the salad, and, for many of us, to its desireability. Even those who are not fond of salad have begun to realize that the best answers for our society come from the participation of many. The more differing perspectives are heard the better the chance of developing solutions that include all of the possibilities. The better the chance of ensuring that some groups of people are not hurt, and in fact, that more of us prosper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
