Cassandra G Coste

Join us on May 5th for a panel discussion on jobs in the field of bioethics. 

RSVP for the zoom link

MODERATOR

Alison​ ​Bateman​-​House​, ​PhD​, ​MPH, MA​ ​is​ ​an​ ​assistant​ ​professor​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Division​ ​of​ ​Medical Ethics​ ​at​ ​NYU​ ​Grossman​ ​School​ ​of​ ​Medicine​. ​She​ ​is​ ​co​-​chair, with Arthur Caplan PhD,​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Working​ ​Group​ ​on Compassionate​ ​Use​ ​and​ ​Preapproval​ ​Access​ (​CUPA​), ​an​ ​academic group​ ​that​ ​studies​ ​ethical issues concerning access​ ​to​ ​investigational​ ​medical products​ ​and which is composed of patient advocates, clinicians, members of industry, former FDA staffers, lawyers, and academics. She also co-chairs, with Lesha Shah MD, the Pediatric Gene Therapy and Medical Ethics (PGTME) working group, which includes academics, patient advocates, industry representatives, and a wide array of clinical and research professionals. Bateman​-​House​ serves​ ​as​ ​the non-voting, non-paid chair​ ​of​ ​the​ ​NYU​/​Janssen Pharmaceutical Compassionate​ ​Use​ ​Advisory​ ​Committees​ (​CompACs) for​ ​Infectious​ ​Diseases and​ ​Neurology/Psychology​. CompAC won the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA’s 2019 Innovation Award. Bateman-House has published and spoken extensively on how to best handle requests for non-trial access to investigational drugs and on related ethical issues. She​ ​has​ ​also written​ ​and​ ​spoken​ ​frequently​ ​on​ ​the​ ​history​ ​and ethics​ ​of​ ​using​ ​humans​ ​as​ ​research​ ​subjects​ ​and​ ​on​ ​clinical​ ​trial​ ​accessibility​.

SPEAKERS

Heidi Forster Gertner, JD, works at the forefront of the drug regulatory industry. She provides insight to large and small pharmaceutical companies and research institutions in dealing with government regulators to maximize business potential.

With her wealth of drug regulatory knowledge and creative thinking skills, Heidi finds solutions to client problems and is a tireless advocate. She helps clients resolve their enforcement differences with the FDA and facilitates positive relationships with the agency. Heidi anticipates and helps clients dealing with cutting-edge issues, both by assessing policy initiatives and finding new business opportunities.

Heidi began her professional career with a focus on bioethics and law, completing two post-doctoral bioethics fellowships, one at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and another at the National Institutes of Health. At the National Institutes of Health, Heidi’s work focused primarily on human subject protection and research ethics issues.

Cara Hunt is a research associate in the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone’s Department of Population Health. She earned her undergraduate degree in science, technology, and society at Vassar College, after which she taught robotics and engineering to K-5 students. She then worked in the Education Department at Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum, during which time she earned a master’s in bioethics at New York University.

Steven P. Field, MD, is an attending physician as well as the former chair of the Ethics Committee at Tisch Hospital-NYU Langone Medical Center and current clinical ethics consultant at NYU-Langone Health. Dr. Field received his BA in history from Yale University and his MD from New York University School of Medicine. His specialty is gastroenterology. Dr. Field is also on the Board of Trustees of The Jewish Foundation for the Righteous.

Rachel Yarmolinsky, a longtime Director of Media Relations and Marketing at Columbia University Department of Psychiatry and a Regulatory Specialist at the Columbia University Human Research Protection Office, completed an MS in Bioethics at Columbia University in 2014. Her interests include clinical and research ethics, particularly in neuroethics and ELSI research. Ms. Yarmolinsky is experienced in event and meeting planning, science writing, graphic design, and media relations. She is on the steering committee of the Columbia University Center for Research on the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic and Behavioral Genetics, a member of the Pediatrics and Adult Medical Ethics Committees at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/CUIMC, a member of the Social Services Committee of New York City’s Community Board 2, and a member of the board of Science Writers in New York.

REGISTER HERE

WORKSHOP PROGRAM

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6

SESSION 1 – 2:00-3:15pm

‘The Machine Mind: Beyond Transparent Biases’, Robyn Waller (Iona) and Russell Waller (Moduli Technologies)

Chair: Lovro Savic (Oxford)

SESSION 2 – 3:30-4:45pm

‘Why Does Decision Making Capacity Matter?’, Ben Schwan (Case Western)

Chair: Nada Gligorov (Mt. Sinai)

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 7

SESSION 3 – 1:00-2:15pm

‘No Love Drugs Today’, Robbie Arrell (Leeds)

Chair: K. Lindsey Chambers (University of Kentucky)

SESSION 4 – 2:30-3:45pm

‘On a Supposed Duty Not To Create Deficient Lives (That Are Worth Living)’, Christopher Schimke (University of Washington) *Graduate Student Prize Winner*

Chair: Brian Berkey (University of Pennsylvania)

SESSION 5 – 4:00-5:30pm

Keynote ‘Some Rights in a Pandemic’, Frances Kamm (Rutgers)

Chair: Matthew Liao (NYU)

with Dr. Kerah Gordon-Solmon

Friday, October 2nd, 2020
4:00 – 6:00 PM

Note: This talk will take place via Zoom.
Please RSVP for login information.

Abstract:

Suppose that two victims are about to be crushed by a collapsing building. Agent has three options: 

Save One, allowing her arms to be crushed 

Save Both, allowing her arms to be crushed

Save None, keeping her arms.

Call this case All or Nothing, in honour of its paper of origin (by Joe Horton).

Agent is not obligated to perform a rescue, in the circumstances. She has a prerogative not to sacrifice her arms to save two or fewer lives. But if she does make the sacrifice — if she rushes into the collapsing building — she has a duty to rescue both victims. Keeping her arms is her only prerogative-protected interest at stake; it is the only interest of hers that counts against the moral reasons to Save Both. Having undertaken that sacrifice, she must Save Both.

The paper defends the following claims. (1) It is impermissible for Agent to Save One, for the reason that Saving One wrongs the second victim. (2) It is permissible for Agent to Save None. (3) The balance of moral reasons nonetheless favours Saving One over Saving None. (4) More generally, from the moral point of view, impermissible conduct is not always inferior to permissible conduct.