Well, the Tuskeegee Experiment wasn't ended until 1972 -- its the ubiquity of this sort of medicalized oppression that should really shock us.
And of course, always wise to remember that if we're waiting for it to "get worse" -- it's already been worse for a long, long time.
Pretty sure this is something that we are not thinking is getting worse.
We're going to have the best genes believe me.
Messed up.
Oregon did its last forced sterilization in 1981.
In Puerto Rico in the 70s, "la operacion" had been done on 1 in 3 women of childbearing age.
It's still happening in the UK:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31128969
Is it productive to try to distinguish between motives based on oppression (racism, ableism, classism, etc.) vs. actual well being of the mother and/or child (mother's health and/or mental incompetency)? If it could be guaranteed that a forced sterilization were not motivated by oppressive forces, I could possibly be convinced that it might be ethical. But that's a big if.
mother's health and/or mental incompetency)
How do you separate THAT from racism/ableism/classism/etc.?
7: there are definitely cases where some form of forced sterilization is ethical. For example, a child with cancer might be forced to undergo a cancer treatment having the side effect of sterilization. Or how about a woman with profound intellectual disabilities, Eisenmenger's syndrome and a sex life?
Neither of those sound obviously ethical to me. I have a hard time imagining a scenario where "forced" and "ethical" can both be used to describe a sterilization.
Well, any medical treatment of a child or a mentally incompetent adult can be ethical and still be "forced" in the sense that they can't give informed consent.
1996 was also when the law confining leprosy patients (many of whom were also forcibly sterilized) to sanitoria for their entire lives was finally repealed, and the Ministry of Health admitted responsibility and apologized for the infection of hemophilia patients with HIV from tainted blood products as a direct result of government policy (something that still hasn't happened in the UK over 20 years later). Naoto Kan was Health Minister at the time. He later took a lot of flack for his supposed mishandling of Fukushima as Prime Minister, but he's one of the few Japanese politicians I can remember exhibiting genuine honesty and responsibility.
Similar policies in place in Sweden, too, until surprisingly recently. On a much wider scale than, for example, the UK case above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden
OT: NMM to parts unknown/Bourdain. Is it already time for another "depression sucks" thread?!?
A colleague's kid nephew just died of cancer. Ugh.
10: would you just let the kid die? Some cancer treatments can affect fertility but can also be the best chance of beating the cancer.
18: because young children aren't capable of giving informed consent. It's legal and ethical for their guardians to consent on their behalf, even if (as might be the case for, say, immunisations) the child is protesting vocally.
I mean, that's a general problem of guardianship and judgement, and the tradeoffs involved in sterilization-as-side-effect are nowhere near the stickiest such issues.
What if we just excluding Christian Science and the like right off the bat?
Also pretending sentences make sense.
Christian Scientists! No coming anywhere NEAR Moby's bat!
Yeah, Moby wants to off it himself.
WILL NO ONE RID ME OF THIS MEDDLESOME BAT?
26 is one adjective short of perfect.
21: agreed. And it's possible that by even bringing up such cases as examples of forced sterilization, I'm conflating fundamentally different things and opening the door to truly oppressive shit.
How do we handle the problem that oppressors will use mental incompetency in bad faith as a fig leaf when their actual motivations are racist, classist, etc., but we still need guardians/advocates to make decisions on behalf of people who really are mentally incompetent? What if the woman with Eisenmenger's syndrome and a sex life is also a poor woman of color with a borderline level of mental competency?
||I am so pleased that Google automatically and immediately autocompletes "What kind of animal" as "What kind of animal is Arthur." No one knows! That was exactly the question I was asking|>
||Apparently Arthur from the show is supposedly an aardvark. Which is ridiculous because as I a kid I had, and we still have, this book which involves a different Arthur who is an anteater. How the fuck did the Arthur-the-Anteater book that was the original (and better) let PBS's Arthur-the-confusing-animal-but-apparently-an-Aardvark happen? Avoiding disasters like this is why I get up in the morning and go to work.|>
||My God. So "An Anteater Named Arthur" is copyrighted, and published, by Bernard Waber in 1967. Then, in 1976, less than ten years later, Mark Brown publishes "Arthur's Nose" with an aardvark with a long nose, gradually chopping off Arthur's nose until he becomes the misshapen beast that was licensed to PBS.
Mark Brown was a fucking rip off artist.|>
It's too early for drinking in California.
Some people are emotionally invested in the failure to honor anteater-related intellectual property.
As always, the answer is in the Federal Supplement:
"Like Batman, Arthur appears to be a whimsical and arbitrary creature: a stylized aardvark dressed like a schoolboy." Brown v. It's Entertainment, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 854, 859 (E.D.N.Y 1999).
Your kind of case. Also a great pull quote if you happen to have a particular first name.
SOMETIMES IT'S ONLY MADNESS THAT MAKES US WHAT WE ARE. SO YEAH, MAYBE I'M ARBITRARY. BUT NEVER WHIMSICAL.
||
Almost out of time for masturbating to Charles Krauthammer.
|>
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!
34 is great, I am glad PBS is going against the brazen thieves in Big Novelty Costume Industry. But I was hoping it was a case where Bernard Waber/Anteater-Arthur asserted his rights against Sort-Of-Aardvark-Arthur.
(I have been told that I should inform the blog that I just saw The Godfather for the first time a couple of months ago. It's really a very good movie.)
I've yet to see it all the way through.
40: Yeah that was me, sorry. It wasn't so much as a "you should inform the blog" as you "you should have informed the blog. Everything's OK now, except now I don't know who to trust.
They walk among us.
I was wondering who the heck that was.
But yes, I was firmly advised that it was a gap in my cinematic education that needed filling. Still haven't seen Part II.
Coppola's Godfather Notebook is fascinating for fans of the movie.
I heard Part 3 can be shipped.
Like, believing that unlikely characters are romantically involved?
Part 3 can be shipped
Vincent/Joey Zasa
Michael/Altobello
Michael/the Cardinal
Sadly, the problems in Part 3 run a lot deeper than any pair of unlikely-to-be-linked characters.
I was run down by FF Coppola when approximately 7 mos pregnant, had lost a certain snappiness in the reflexes. He never saw me, was occupied with bellowing about thus & such with Andy of Marquita at the market. I don't hold a grudge, but it's true that I've not gone out of my way to champion FFC chez the kid.
I saw the Godfather for the first time a few months ago, and I didn't see what the big deal was. I have pretty conventional "great movie" tastes, too.