Podcasts about ethicists

This episode is part of what's becoming a bit of an informal series of Ethics Untangled episodes, on ethical issues relating to artificial intelligence applications. The particular application we're looking at this time comes from a healthcare setting, and is called a Patient Preference Predictor. It's a proposed way of using an algorithmic system to predict what a patient's preferences would be concerning their healthcare, in situations where they're incapacitated and unable to tell us what their preferences are. Ethicists have raised concerns about these systems, and these concerns are worth taking seriously, but Dr Nick Makins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Philosophy at the University of Leeds, thinks they can be answered, and that the use of these systems can be justified, at least in some circumstances.Book your place at our public event with Gavin Esler, "Dead Cats, Strategic Lying and Truth Decay", here. Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds.Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bsky.socialFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetlLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/idea-ethics-centre/

Un paper disegna la figura dell'AI Ethicist: non bastano le competenze giuridiche.>> Leggi anche l'articolo: https://tinyurl.com/2r2yb24p>> Scopri tutti i podcast di Altalex: https://bit.ly/2NpEc3w

Brains are weird. Bodies are weird. People are weird! Brains, bodies, and people together in a psychological or medical setting? Man, it can get REAL weird. Ethical conundrums abound, like navigating boundaries, bias in treatment, managing power dynamics… And that's just the tip of the iceberg! So who's in charge of figuring out the ethics behind all of this? Meet the Chief of Ethics for the American Psychological Association, Lindsay Childress-Beatty. And hear stories from the hospital from Andy Kondrat. He's the one that doctors call when they or the patients they serve are experiencing ethical medical questions..Suggested episodes: Body Integrity Dysphoria: When being disabled is a desire I downloaded my soulmate: Stories of love and AI TOPS: A woman summits Everest, a man considers a body transplant, and world-record hat-wearing Faking it: Munchausen syndrome and the compulsion to be ill GUESTS:  Andy Kondrat: Ethics consultant and Assistant Professor of Biomedical Sciences at Cedars‑Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, CA. He's a member of the Bioethics Committee, and co-director of CSMC's Responsible Conduct of Research training course Lindsay Childress-Beatty: Chief of Ethics for the American Psychological Association Khaleel Rahman, Jessica Severin de Martinez, Meg Fitzgerald, Robyn Doyon-Aitken, and Meg Dalton contributed to this show. Audacious with Chion Wolf is available as a podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Tune In, Listen Notes, or wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe and never miss an episode. Join the conversation on Facebook,Instagram, TikTok, and email.Support the show: https://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Resources mentioned in this episode:Walking Through Infertility: Biblical, Theological, and Moral Counsel for Those Who Are Struggling by Matthew ArboResurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics by Oliver O'Donovan

If I ever hear another Christian waxing on about ethics, it will be too soon.

Helen Toner, Director of Strategy and Foundational Research Grants at Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), and Zach Arnold, Analytic Lead at Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology, join Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to discuss their recent article "AI Regulation's Champions Can Seize Common Ground—or Be Swept Aside." The trio explore the divide between AI "doomers" and "ethicists," and how finding common ground could strengthen efforts to govern AI responsibly.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Plus Dell Lays of 12,500 For AI ▶️ AI-based agents, or "agentic systems," will revolutionize workplaces by automating tasks from coding to booking travel, using natural language processing to execute workflows.

WATCH: https://youtu.be/jTO-A1lw4JM Keith Frankish is a Honorary Reader in Philosophy at the University of Sheffield, a Visiting Research Fellow at The Open University, & an Adjunct Professor with the Brain & Mind Programme in Neurosciences at the University of Crete. He is the author of "Mind and Supermind" & "Consciousness", as well as numerous journal articles & book chapters. He is the editor of "Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness" & the co-editor of "In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond", "New Waves in Philosophy of Action", "The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Science", & "The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence". Keith's research interests lie mainly in philosophy of mind, and he is known for defending an illusionist theory of phenomenal consciousness, an action-based account of conscious thought, and a two-level view of the human mind. TIMESTAMPS: (0:00) - Introduction (0:50) - Philosophy of Philosophers & Ethics of Ethicists (7:48) - Daniel C. Dennett (a tribute) (19:24) - The Four Horsemen (New Atheism) (25:12) - Consciousness & Illusionism Explained (33:06) - Illusionism vs Surrealism (Redder than Red) (43:13) - Descartes' Prison (47:54) - Ethical Implications of Illusionism (51:20) - François Kammerer's work on Illusionism (1:09:32) - Robert Lawrence Kuhn's "Landscape of Consciousness" (1:12:00) - Reactivity Schema Theory (answer to the "Illusion Problem") (1:32:36) - Questions for Keith from X (2:09:25) - Idealism (2:11:31) - Is IIT pseudoscience? (2:21:15) - Illusionism is an Intuition Pump for Consciousness (2:27:40) - Tricks of the Mind (2:35:15) - Free Will Compatibilism (2:43:08) - Keith's final thoughts EPISODE LINKS: - Keith's Website: https://www.keithfrankish.com/ - Keith's Round 1: https://youtu.be/QxDYG0K360E - Mind Chat Podcast: https://youtube.com/@mindchat - Keith's Twitter: https://twitter.com/keithfrankish?s=20 - Keith's Illusionism Lectures: https://tinyurl.com/bddbcyyu CONNECT: - Website: https://tevinnaidu.com - Podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/drtevinnaidu - X: https://twitter.com/drtevinnaidu - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/drtevinnaidu - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drtevinnaidu - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drtevinnaidu ============================= Disclaimer: The information provided on this channel is for educational purposes only. The content is shared in the spirit of open discourse and does not constitute, nor does it substitute, professional or medical advice. We do not accept any liability for any loss or damage incurred from you acting or not acting as a result of listening/watching any of our contents. You acknowledge that you use the information provided at your own risk. Listeners/viewers are advised to conduct their own research and consult with their own experts in the respective fields.

Matthew Bunson tells us why a new book from the Pontifical Academy for Life has come under fire.

Timestamps: 0:00 RUN 0:07 Surprising Arrow Lake-S leaks 1:31 Apple's controversial ad 2:40 Spotify to pay songwriters less 4:30 QUICK BITS INTRO 4:35 Pixel 8a launch 5:09 FCC closes neutrality loophole 5:38 Neuralink malfunction 6:19 Ethicists worry about AI ghosts 6:58 Robot dogs with rifles NEWS SOURCES: https://lmg.gg/3PrRR Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Prepping the Rock for TKO Board Membership and (Im)moral Crusaders, LIVE AND IN PUBLIC, IF YOU WILL on this week's episode of IF THE SHOES FIT, a show where we solve salacious situations by stepping into the shoes of the shaken...the chagrined...the kerfuffed! I'm your host Alexei Auld, author of 7 Secret Sources of Inspiration: A Snappy Guide for Creative Procrastinators, and joining me are guests John Nash from Hey Not The Face Podcast and Eugene S Robinson, author of the memoir, “A Walk Across Dirty Water and Straight Into Murderer's Row”. Collectively the Puncholes. If you want the archive of all episodes, join our Patreon. patreon.com/iftheshoesfit. Now let's get to stepping! Step into the shoes of TKO. Usually, a champion who loses a split decision gets an immediate rematch. So why are you giving the chimp chillout to Sean Strickland instead of embracing him as an ambassador for your Red Light District of Sports, live and in public, if you will? Step into the shoes of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Now that you're a TKO board member, how do you protect your family friendly, inclusive brand from becoming a UFC culture war casualty, live and in public, if you will? Step into the shoes of Fani Willis and Nikki Haley. Accusations of your workplace sexual impropriety threaten to undermine your purported ethical superiority over President Trump. How should you handle the controversy surrounding your ethical lapses, live and in public, if you will? REGULAR FEATURE: LEGION OF DOOM REGULAR FEATURE: MISTYAF THANKS FOR JOINING US. Contribute to our Patreon and get access to past episodes: Patreon.com/iftheshoesfit FOLLOW US on Twitter: @eugeneSrobinson @alexeiauld @heynottheface PLEASE GIVE US A THUMBS UP! Buy 7 Secret Sources of Inspiration (affiliate link): https://amzn.to/42ouNel

After hospital kidnaps toddler, judge blocks removal to another hospital and demands the child be taken off life support, killing her. Doctors said they had to euthanize the child because she's "in pain". So how does this compare to abortion where the child's pain is not a factor, where the mother is the sole determiner of whether the child lives or dies? Meanwhile, Macron says to Israel, "stop killing babies". He's not talking about abortion. But pro-life means pushing against abortion, euthanasia — and war How does France, Israel, Gaza stack up on abortion? And why won't GOP and their talking heads show what abortion looks like so we can actually stop killing babies? "Nukey" Halley says don't judge abortion. "Ethicists" push bestiality and pedophilia, because, hey, don't judge me. Analysis shows NYC data about Covid DEATHS was a TOTAL LIE — there was NO "CURVE", but a spike that was a SEVEN-FOLD INCREASE even though ambulances and ER admissions were a tiny fraction of what they typically were. Pandemic lies don't add up China remains locked in a downward spiral that began with lockdown. NYC is the same, but Trump praised Cuomo as better than DeSantis because he'll say anything to get elected, no matter how obviously false. His audience called him out on the lie Entire local government thrown out in election — ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL, and we can win there. Big defeats for Biden on Pistol Brace and "Ghost Guns". Biden withholds M16s for Israel because he doesn't want civilians, ANYWHERE, to be armed FBI and media stoke J6 MANHUNT narrative, portraying J6 as dangerous fugitives. The political persecution ramps up against those Trump abandoned, nearly 3 years after they were set up. Internet blackout in Australia shows the vulnerability of a cashless society. China is buying up US gold because the price here has been artificially depressed. Arbitrage, baby.Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT

After hospital kidnaps toddler, judge blocks removal to another hospital and demands the child be taken off life support, killing her. Doctors said they had to euthanize the child because she's "in pain". So how does this compare to abortion where the child's pain is not a factor, where the mother is the sole determiner of whether the child lives or dies? Meanwhile, Macron says to Israel, "stop killing babies". He's not talking about abortion. But pro-life means pushing against abortion, euthanasia — and war How does France, Israel, Gaza stack up on abortion? And why won't GOP and their talking heads show what abortion looks like so we can actually stop killing babies? "Nukey" Halley says don't judge abortion. "Ethicists" push bestiality and pedophilia, because, hey, don't judge me. Analysis shows NYC data about Covid DEATHS was a TOTAL LIE — there was NO "CURVE", but a spike that was a SEVEN-FOLD INCREASE even though ambulances and ER admissions were a tiny fraction of what they typically were. Pandemic lies don't add up China remains locked in a downward spiral that began with lockdown. NYC is the same, but Trump praised Cuomo as better than DeSantis because he'll say anything to get elected, no matter how obviously false. His audience called him out on the lie Entire local government thrown out in election — ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL, and we can win there. Big defeats for Biden on Pistol Brace and "Ghost Guns". Biden withholds M16s for Israel because he doesn't want civilians, ANYWHERE, to be armed FBI and media stoke J6 MANHUNT narrative, portraying J6 as dangerous fugitives. The political persecution ramps up against those Trump abandoned, nearly 3 years after they were set up. Internet blackout in Australia shows the vulnerability of a cashless society. China is buying up US gold because the price here has been artificially depressed. Arbitrage, baby.Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT

Recently, the U.S. Senate held a closed-door meeting with the biggest names from the world of big tech, such as Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg. Senate leadership informed the media that the purpose of the meeting was to have a conversation about how the federal government could “encourage” the development of artificial intelligence while also mitigating its “risks.”  Given that focus, it's more interesting who wasn't invited than who was: no ethicists, philosophers, or theologians, nor really anyone outside the highly specialized tech sector. For a meeting meant to explore the future direction of AI and the ethics necessary to guide it, nearly everyone in that room had a vested financial interest in its continued growth and expansion.   Thirty years ago, in his book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, cultural critic Neil Postman described how technology was radically reshaping our understanding of life and the world, both as individuals and societies. Too often when it comes to new technologies, we so mix “can” and “should” that we convince ourselves if we can do a thing, we should.   The shift toward a technocratic society redefines our understanding of knowledge. Technical knowledge takes priority over all else. In other words, the how is revered over the what and the why. In the process, things are stripped of their essential meaning. The distinction between what we can do and what we are for is lost. Technocratism also comes with a heavy dose of “chronological snobbery,” the idea that our innovations and inventions make us better than our ancestors, even in a moral sense.  Another feature of a technocratic age is hyper-specialization. In higher education, students are encouraged to pursue increasingly detailed areas of study. The result is those who can do, but most have not truly wrestled with whether they should. Downstream is one of the corruptions of primary education, in which elementary and secondary teachers spend a disproportionate amount of their preparation on education theory and pedagogy rather than on the subject areas they need to know. In other words, they study the how far more than the what and the why.  Of course, those who are researching, inventing, and developing AI should be invited to important meetings about AI. However, questioning the risks, dangers, or even potential benefits of AI requires answering deeper questions first–questions outside the realm of strict science:  What is the goal of our technologies? What should be our goal? What is off limits and why? What is our operating definition of the good that we are pursuing through technology? Where is the uncrossable line between healing and enhancement, and what are the other proper limits of our technologies? What are people? What technocratic challenges have we faced in the past, and what can we learn?   The questions we commit ourselves to answering will shape our list of invites, among other things. The presidential years of George W. Bush are mostly defined by his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and subsequent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, he also faced a specific challenge of our technocratic age. How he handled it is a model for the technocratic challenges of today.  A central issue of Bush's second presidential campaign was embryonic stem cell research. Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards promised that if John Kerry became president, “people like [actor] Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.” Bush strongly opposed the creation of any new stem cell lines that required the destruction of human life, including embryos. His ethical clarity was due in part to remarkable work done by the President's Council on Bioethics to develop an ethical framework for promising technologies.   In fact, their work led to an incredible volume of stories, poetry, fables, history, essays, and Scripture. Published two years into Bush's first term, Being Human is unparalleled in its historical and ideological depth and breadth. Chaired by renowned bioethicist Leon Kass, the Council consisted of scientists, medical professionals, legal scholars, ethicists, and philosophers. The title Being Human points to the kinds of what and why questions that concerned the Council, before dealing with the how.   Historically, President Bush's position on embryo-destructive research has been thoroughly vindicated. The additional funding committed to research into adult and induced pluripotent stem cells produced amazing medical breakthroughs. But none of the promises of embryonic stem cell therapies ever materialized, even after his Oval Office successor reversed Bush's policies, rebuilt the Council around only scientists and medical researchers, and released enormous funding for embryo-destructive research.   Of course, had the utopian predictions about ESC materialized, the killing of some humans to benefit others would still have been morally reprehensible. Ends do not justify means. This is an ethical observation, not a scientific one.  What we “should” or “shouldn't” do with AI depends heavily on the kind of world this is and the kinds of creatures that human beings are. If, as some have argued, AI is to be accorded the same dignity as human beings, then replacing humans in entire industries and putting tens of thousands out of work is not morally problematic. If human beings are unique and exceptional, and both labor and relationships are central to our identity, the moral questions are far weightier.  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Maria Baer. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, and owner of Twitter, has announced the debut of a new AI company to take on "politically correct" alternatives.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In this week's conversation between Dr. James Emery White and co-host Alexis Drye, their discussion was prompted by an article that Dr. White shared on the Daily Headline News on Church & Culture. The title of the article (which has since been updated) was “Babies without sex? Researchers are working on it. Ethicists are troubled” and you can read the full article HERE. This has to do with scientific research for a procedure that goes beyond IVF and is known as IVG - in vitro gametogenesis. While bioethicists are pondering whether this is going too far, for the Christian this leads to stronger implications as the very definition of what it means to be human is coming under attack. Episode Links There are two podcasts that we suggest you go back and listen to if you missed them, both related to today's topic: CCP10: On Roe vs. Wade and CCP48: On Medically Assisted Suicide. They both discuss the sanctity of human life and just how much control we should have versus what God - who created life - should have. In today's conversation, Dr. White encouraged pastors to speak out on cultural issues of the day and to have the courage to do this. Past message series given by Dr. White at Mecklenburg Community Church can all be found on the Messages by James Emery White page of Church & Culture. Once there, you'll find that all messages are arranged in categories, and we'd suggest that you check out the Culture page for series on some of the biggest topics in culture today. For those of you who are new to Church & Culture, we'd love to invite you to subscribe (for free of course) to the twice-weekly Church & Culture blog and check out the Daily Headline News - a collection of headlines from around the globe each weekday.

In the second hour of "Connections with Evan Dawson" on Monday, November 21, 2022, ethicists discuss what to consider when it comes to sportswashing, especially in the context of the World Cup.

 Audio recordingSermon manuscript:Paul says in our Epistle reading: “From infancy, Timothy, you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, well equipped for every good work.” This statement about the Scriptures is especially important and relevant to us in our time. At other times in history this statement wasn't controversial among Christians. In our time, though, the question of whether the Scriptures are God-breathed, that is, divinely inspired, as Paul says, is not accepted by all Christians or all Christian churches. Those who hold to this passage, that the Scriptures are inspired, will go about being Christians one way. Those who do not believe this will do what they do in a very different way. If the Scriptures are inspired and truthful, then the Scriptures will determine your beliefs and actions. If they are uninspired or untruthful or unuseful, then there's no reason to feel bound by what they say. Of all the controversies that divide churches, the inspiration and truthfulness of the Scriptures has to be one of the most important. So today let us first deal with how we should think about the Scriptures being inspired. Whether the Scriptures are inspired and truthful is an article of faith. It is not something that can be tested with experiments or proved with rational or mathematical formulas. As an article of faith, either what the Scriptures say is from God and truthful or it is not. Let's consider a few examples from the Scriptures: Either God sent the flood to destroy the earth or he did not. Either God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac or he did not. Either God caused the iron ax-head to float in the Jordan River or he did not. We could, of course, go on. Anything and everything that the Scriptures say could be doubted. I've purposely picked these because lots of people have problems believing them. Physicists and meteorologists might have big problems with a world-wide flood. Ethicists, philosophers, and theologians might have a big problem with God demanding that Abraham sacrifice his son. And God causing an ax-head to float in the water so that the worker who lost it could keep working just seems silly—a waste of a miracle. So what we can see from these few examples is that doubting what the Bible says is not unusual. You do not have to be super sophisticated to doubt what the Bible says. In fact, what is unusual is when people simply believe the Bible says. Doubt and unbelief, in fact, are the default and normal conditions for mankind after the fall into sin. The Bible itself says this. Jesus says that no one can believe in him unless he or she is drawn by the Father. Believing in Jesus as the Christ cannot be naturally known. God the Father must cause a person to believe it. Paul says that the natural man is hostile to God and his revelation. The only way anyone can truly believe is by the power of the Holy Spirit. Our Catechism sums up these passages nicely when it says concerning the third article of the Creed: “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him, but the Holy Spirit [works and causes me to believe.]” So if the Bible says stuff that you find hard to believe you shouldn't be surprised. And you certainly shouldn't regard your doubt or unbelief as a sign of greater intelligence or sophistication. Doubting is about the easiest thing in the world. We've been doing it almost from the very beginning. The serpent asked Eve: “Did God really say? Isn't it possible that you human beings have misunderstood that?” Believing that God's Word is uninspired and untruthful and unuseful is an old accomplishment. It was done way back then. Ever since then there has been no shortage of unbelievers. The majority, in fact, has always been unbelievers instead of believers. Thus you should not believe that you are doing anything cool or unusual when you doubt what the Scriptures say. Nor should you believe that you are on the right side of history. This, also, is very commonly believed by those who think the Scriptures are uninspired and untruthful. We are given the impression by the way history is taught that folks used to believe in all kinds of childish, ridiculous things. Now, thank our lucky stars, we've gotten much wiser. Science and technology are used as a kind of proof for our superiority. Hundreds of years ago people didn't burn nearly as much fuel as we burn, and they didn't accumulate nearly as much stuff as we have, so we must be much smarter today. There is an assumption, then, that whatever the old Bible might say has been disproven. This is not true. None of the words or actions or events of the Scriptures have been disproven. How could they be? How can anyone prove or disprove anything that has happened in the past? That will always remain an article of faith. Either what has happened can be believed or it can be disbelieved, but there is no incontrovertible proof one way or the other. To claim otherwise is dishonest. Even the very idea that we are superior to the people of the past is vastly overstated. If you read the Bible you will find that we're not that different from Adam and Eve. We're not that different from the people at the time of Moses. At all times in history there have been people who have believed in what God revealed and people who have disbelieved. The Bible itself reports, for example, how the people with Moses simply couldn't believe that God would take care of them. When Christians or Christian churches do that today, when they quit believing in the inspiration and truthfulness of the Scriptures, they are basically doing the same thing. People not believing should never be surprising. What should be surprising is when those who claim to be God's people allow this unbelief to go unchallenged, or even to allow this unbelief to be promoted. This is the strange thing about our times. There are groups of people who want to be known as Christians, but who do not want the Scriptures to be determinative. They believe that other sources of knowledge are more reliable and can trump whatever the Scriptures might say. Even though these folks believe in other things besides the God who has spoken in the Scriptures, they are allowed to remain in their churches and have even taken them over. These churches that allow unbelief in the Scriptures to be taught and defended end up being very different than those churches that still believe in the Scriptures. Our church body, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, requires its pastors and teachers and members to believe in the Scriptures. We had something of a civil war over this issue in the 1970s called “Seminex.” Our St. Louis seminary was split in two. This was a difficult and painful fight. It divided congregations, schools, and families, but it ended up being a great blessing. Professors, pastors, and teachers who no longer believed in the Scriptures were, by and large, forced out. Then they went and got together with some other Lutherans. They formed in 1988 the ELCA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The ELCA does not require belief in the Scriptures. It shares our name of being “Lutheran,” but we are very different from one another. They cannot give any firm answer to the question of whether the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant. I do not believe that they even require a firm answer to whether Jesus rose from the dead. Since the Scriptures do not need to be believed or regarded as a reliable guide, you can be sure that they will never fight for those things in Scripture that contradict our modern sensibilities. What the Bible says about men being pastors and leaders in the church and heads of their families is an abomination to them. They will not allow themselves to be bound by anything in the Scriptures, but will go whichever way the cultural winds blow. In fact at their 2019 church-wide assembly they passed a resolution by over 97% that faith in Jesus Christ is no longer required. They rejected and shamed a delegate who offered an amendment that stated Jesus's own words—that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him. What the tragic history of the ELCA shows is that unbelievers are not content just to deny the flood or the making of iron float in water. Previous generations in the ELCA would probably be horrified by the actions of the 2019 church-wide assembly. But, as Paul says, a little leaven leavens the whole lump. Once the principle that the Scriptures are inspired and truthful, as Paul says, is given up, then any and every statement of Scripture is open to doubt. Paul speaks rather directly to all of this in our Epistle reading this morning. First of all, he answers the question about whether salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. He says to Timothy: “From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” Paul says that Scripture is what taught Timothy. Those Holy Scriptures say that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ and not in any other religions. We must not despise what Paul says next either: “All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, well equipped for every good work.” Scripture is breathed out by God. It is inspired. It is breathed into by God. That means that it is the communication of God's will to us. Furthermore, it is useful. It works. It rebukes, corrects, and trains us in righteousness. The Holy Spirit in that Word creates faith in Jesus the Savior. Unbelief in Jesus, unbelief in the Scriptures, has always been common, ever since the very beginning. Don't be taken in by story that the Bible has been somehow disproved. All that has happened is what has always been happening from the beginning. God's enemies sow doubt with the question, “Did God really say? If you were God, would you do it that way?” It is always wisdom that is promised. Alienation from the only true God of the Scriptures is what ends up getting delivered. Don't buy it. The Scriptures testify of Jesus, the one who overcame the serpent. He is the Savior of sinners. This you will see, as Paul also says in our reading, “when Christ comes to judge the living and the dead.” Then you will know that Jesus's rising from the dead is your salvation.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Some ideas for epistles to the AI ethicists, published by Charlie Steiner on September 14, 2022 on The AI Alignment Forum. Some papers, or ideas for papers, that I'd loved to see published in ethics journals like Minds and Machines or Ethics and Information Technology. I'm probably going to submit one of these to a 2023 AI ethics conference myself. Why should we do this? Because we want today's grad students to see that the ethical problems of superhuman AI are a cool topic that they can publish a cool paper about. And we want to (marginally) raise the waterline for thinking about future AI, nudging the AI ethics discourse towards more matured views of the challenges of AI. Secondarily, it would be good to leverage the existing skillsets of some ethicists for AI safety work, particularly those already working on AI governance. And having an academic forum where talking about AI safety is normalized bolsters other efforts to work on AI safety in academia. The Ideas: Explain the basic ideas of AI safety, and why to take them seriously. Iason Gabriel already had a pretty good paper like this. But it's plausible that, right now, what the ethics discourse needs is more basic explanations of why AI safety is a thing at all. This paper might start out by making a case that superhuman AI is going to change the world, likely in the next 10-60 years (definitely unintuitive to many, but there are AI Impacts surveys and recent results to illustrate the point). Then the basic arguments that superhuman AI will not be automatically benevolent (easy rhetorical trick is to call it "superhuman technology," everyone knows technology is bad). Then the basic arguments that to get things to go well, the AI has to know a whole lot about what humans want (and use that knowledge the way we want). One issue with this might be that it presents the problem, but doesn't really point people towards solutions (this may be a problem that can be solved with quick citations). It also doesn't really motivate why this is an ethics problem. It also doesn't explain why we want the solution to the key "ethics-genre" problems to use a technical understanding of the AI, rather than a human- or society-centric view. A more specific defense of the validity of transformative-AI-focused thinking as a valid use of ethicists' time. The core claim is that getting AIs to want want good things and not bad things is an unsolved ethics problem. Ethics, not engineering, because the question isn't "how do we implement some obvious standard," the question is "what is even a good standard in the first place?" But almost as important are secondary claims about what actual progress on this question looks like. The end goal is a standard that is connected to technical picture of how the AI will learn this information about humans, and how it will use it to make decisions. So the overall thrust is "given that AI safety is important, there is a specific sort of ethics-genre reasoning that is going to be useful, and here are some gestures towards what it might look like." You can put more than one of these ideas into a paper if you want. This particular idea feels to me like it could benefit from being paired with another topic before or after it. Dunking on specific mistakes, like talking about "robots" rather than "optimization processes," should probably be done with care and tact. A worked example of "dual use" ethics - a connection between thinking about present-day problems and superhuman AI. I expect most of the examples to be problems that sound relevant to the modern day, but that sneakily contain most of the alignment problem. E.g. Xuan's AI that takes actions in response to laws that we really want to follow the spirit of the law. Although that's a bit too futuristic, actually, because we don't have much present-day ...

Game companies have lawyers to tell them how to operate within the law.  They have accountants and data analysts to tell them what is and is not profitable.  But it's very rare for them to consult with an ethicist about the morality of their games or operations.  Well, we think that's unfortunate and shortsighted.  What are ethicists and how can they help video game companies?

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Reading the ethicists 2: Hunting for AI alignment papers, published by Charlie Steiner on June 6, 2022 on The AI Alignment Forum. Introduction I'm back, reading more papers in ethics (but now also in philosophy and wherever the citations lead me). Unlike last time when I surveyed one journal's approach to AI in general, this time I'm searching specifically for interesting papers that bear on aligning AGI, preferably written by people I've never heard of before. Are they going to be any good? shrug To this end, I skimmed the titles and sometimes abstracts of the last 5 years of papers in a pretty big chunk of the AI ethics space, namely: Ethics and Information Technology Minds and Machines AI and Ethics Philosophy & Technology Science and Engineering Ethics AI & Society IEEE Transactions on Philosophy and Society And a few bonus miscellanea From the set of all papers that even had a remote chance at being relevant (~10 per journal per year), I read more deeply and am relaying to you in this post all the ones that were somewhat on-topic and nontrivial (~0.5 per journal per year). By "nontrivial" I mean that I didn't include papers that just say "the alignment problem exists" - I certainly do not mean that I set a high bar for quality. Then I did some additional searching into what else those authors had published, who they worked with, etc. What were all the other papers about, the ones that didn't match my criteria? All sorts of things! Whether robots are responsible for their actions, how important privacy is, how to encourage and learn from non-Western robotics paradigms, the ethics of playing MMORPGs, how to make your AI ignore protected characteristics, the impact of bow-hunting technology on middle stone age society, and so on and so forth. The bulk of this post is a big barely-ordered list of the papers. For each paper I'll give the title, authors, author affiliations, journal and date. Each paper will get a summary and maybe a recommendation. I'll also bring up interesting author affiliations and related papers. Whereas last post was more a "I did this so you don't have to" kind of deal, I think this post will be more fun if you explore more deeply, reading the papers that catch your interest. (Let me know if you have any trouble finding certain pdfs - most are linked on google scholar.) If you find this post to be too long, don't go through it all in one sitting - I sure didn't! Papers The possibility of deliberate norm-adherence in AI, Danielle Swanepoel (U. Johannesburg, SolBridge International School of Business), Ethics and Information Technology, 2021. I binned most papers talking about artificial moral agents ("AMAs") for being dull and anthropocentric. I decided to include this paper because it's better than most, and its stab at drawing the line between "not moral agent" and "moral agent" is also a good line between "just needs to be reliable" and "actually needs to be value aligned." Recommended if you like people who really like Kant. Human-aligned artificial intelligence is a multiobjective problem, P. Vamplew (LessWrong), R. Dazeley, C. Foale, S. Firmin and J. Mummery (Federation University Australia), Ethics and Information Technology, 2018. They argue that if you design an AI's motivations by giving it multiple objective functions that only get aggregated near the point of decision-making, you can do things like using a nonlinear aggregation function as a form of reduced-impact AI, or throwing away outliers for increased robustness. Recommended if you haven't thought about this idea yet and want something to skim while you turn on your brain (also see Peter Vamplew's more technical papers if you want more details). This has been cited a healthy amount, and by some interesting-looking papers, including: MORAL: Aligning AI with Human Norms through ...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Reading the ethicists: A review of articles on AI in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics, published by Charlie Steiner on May 18, 2022 on LessWrong. Epistemic status: Stream of consciousness reactions to papers read in chronological order. Caveat lector. I have a dirty family secret. My uncle is a professional ethicist. In a not-too roundabout way, this is why I ended up looking at the October 2020 issue of the journal Science and Engineering Ethics, their special issue on the ethics of AI. I am now going to read that issue, plus every article this journal has published about AI since then [I wussed out and am just going to skim the latter for ones of special interest] and give you the deets. October 2020 Hildt et al., Editorial: Shaping Ethical Futures in Brain-Based and Artificial Intelligence Research This is the introduction to the issue. They give each paper a sentence or two of summary and try to tie them all together. The authors helpfully give a list of topics they think are important: Data Concerns: Data management, data security, protection of personal data, surveillance, privacy, and informed consent. Algorithmic Bias and Discrimination: How to avoid bias and bias related problems? This points to questions of justice, equitable access to resources, and digital divide. Autonomy: When and how is AI autonomous, what are the characteristics of autonomous AI? How to develop rules for autonomous vehicles? Responsibility: Who is in control? Who is responsible or accountable for decisions made by AI? Questions relating to AI capabilities: Can AI ever be conscious or sentient? What would conscious or sentient AI imply? Values and morality: How to build in values and moral decision-making to AI? Are moral machines possible? Should robots be granted moral status or rights? Based on this list, I anticipate that I'm about to run into four-sixths ethics papers about present-day topics that I will skim to point out particularly insightful or anti-insightful ones, one-sixth philosophers of mind that I will make fun of a little, and one-sixth papers on "How to build values into general AI" that I'm really curious as to the quality of. Onward! Nallur, Landscape of Machine Implemented Ethics Primarily this paper is a review of a bunch of papers that have implemented or proposed ethics modules in AI systems (present-day things like expert systems to give medical advice, or lethal autonomous weapons [which he has surprisingly few qualms about]). These were mostly different varieties of rule-following or constraint-satisfaction, with a few handwritten utility functions thrown in. And then one of these is Stuart Armstrong (2015) for some reason - potentially that reason is that the author wanted to at least mention "value-loading," and nobody else was talking about it (I checked - there's a big table of properties of different proposals). It also proposes evaluating different proposals by having a benchmark of trolley-problem-esque ethical dilemmas. The main reason this idea won't work is that making modern-day systems behave ethically involves a bunch of bespoke solutions only suitable to the domain of operation of that system, not allowing for cross-comparison in any useful way. If were to salvage this idea, we might wish to have a big list of ethical questions the AI system should get the right answer to, and then when building a sufficiently important AI (still talking about present-day applications), the designers should go through this list and find all the questions that can be translated into their system's ontology and check that their decision-making procedure gets acceptable answers. E.g. "Is it better to kill one person or two people?" can become self-driving car scenarios where it's going to hit either one or two people, and it should get the right answer, bu...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Reading the ethicists: A review of articles on AI in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics, published by Charlie Steiner on May 18, 2022 on LessWrong. Epistemic status: Stream of consciousness reactions to papers read in chronological order. Caveat lector. I have a dirty family secret. My uncle is a professional ethicist. In a not-too roundabout way, this is why I ended up looking at the October 2020 issue of the journal Science and Engineering Ethics, their special issue on the ethics of AI. I am now going to read that issue, plus every article this journal has published about AI since then [I wussed out and am just going to skim the latter for ones of special interest] and give you the deets. October 2020 Hildt et al., Editorial: Shaping Ethical Futures in Brain-Based and Artificial Intelligence Research This is the introduction to the issue. They give each paper a sentence or two of summary and try to tie them all together. The authors helpfully give a list of topics they think are important: Data Concerns: Data management, data security, protection of personal data, surveillance, privacy, and informed consent. Algorithmic Bias and Discrimination: How to avoid bias and bias related problems? This points to questions of justice, equitable access to resources, and digital divide. Autonomy: When and how is AI autonomous, what are the characteristics of autonomous AI? How to develop rules for autonomous vehicles? Responsibility: Who is in control? Who is responsible or accountable for decisions made by AI? Questions relating to AI capabilities: Can AI ever be conscious or sentient? What would conscious or sentient AI imply? Values and morality: How to build in values and moral decision-making to AI? Are moral machines possible? Should robots be granted moral status or rights? Based on this list, I anticipate that I'm about to run into four-sixths ethics papers about present-day topics that I will skim to point out particularly insightful or anti-insightful ones, one-sixth philosophers of mind that I will make fun of a little, and one-sixth papers on "How to build values into general AI" that I'm really curious as to the quality of. Onward! Nallur, Landscape of Machine Implemented Ethics Primarily this paper is a review of a bunch of papers that have implemented or proposed ethics modules in AI systems (present-day things like expert systems to give medical advice, or lethal autonomous weapons [which he has surprisingly few qualms about]). These were mostly different varieties of rule-following or constraint-satisfaction, with a few handwritten utility functions thrown in. And then one of these is Stuart Armstrong (2015) for some reason - potentially that reason is that the author wanted to at least mention "value-loading," and nobody else was talking about it (I checked - there's a big table of properties of different proposals). It also proposes evaluating different proposals by having a benchmark of trolley-problem-esque ethical dilemmas. The main reason this idea won't work is that making modern-day systems behave ethically involves a bunch of bespoke solutions only suitable to the domain of operation of that system, not allowing for cross-comparison in any useful way. If were to salvage this idea, we might wish to have a big list of ethical questions the AI system should get the right answer to, and then when building a sufficiently important AI (still talking about present-day applications), the designers should go through this list and find all the questions that can be translated into their system's ontology and check that their decision-making procedure gets acceptable answers. E.g. "Is it better to kill one person or two people?" can become self-driving car scenarios where it's going to hit either one or two people, and it should get the right answer, bu...

Adam is a Lecturer in Env. Sci. at Deakin Uni. He works on questions related to ecology, conservation & society. He is most interested in: i) how concern for Animals informs environmental values & practice, ii) the env. potential of transitioning to plant-based agri & iii) more critical approaches to how the sciences consider Animals. Adam wants to leverage research to help create a better future for Animals, the environment & humans. In Sentientist Conversations we talk about the two most important questions: “what's real?” & “what matters?” Sentientism is "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings." The video of our conversation is here on YouTube. We discuss: 00:00 Welcome 01:57 Adam's Intro - "An animal person". Vegan activist, lecturer & scientist - The idea that animals matter "took over" 03:16 What's Real? - Catholic grandma, mother traumatised by Catholicism, non-religious father - High-school: enthusiastic atheism & "an affinity with science" - Uni: learning about the social history & context of religions - "I'm a proper atheist... I just don't think there's anything there" - "How I think about reality is grounded in natural science" - Humility re: complex systems (e.g. social, envir) - Scientism. Science might not have all of the answers - Reading fantasy & sci-fi: "Religion is just another fantasy book" - Religious friends. Talking about bible inconsistencies & faith & submission - "Letting your thinking be done by others - I'm not into that" - Scepticism "show me the evidence" - The positives of religious community & connection - Environment: "Why can't we love it for what it is rather than investing some sort of supernaturalness into it" - Faith vs. evidence & reason - Pseudoscience & "pretend naturalism" - Conspiracy theories, woo & Goop - "Pseudoscience tries to use the language of science to trick people" - QAnon: "That stuff is batshit" - Teaching science communication - Flat Earth, Cults & "True Believers" - The "Oh No Ross & Carrie" podcast https://ohnopodcast.com/ - "Religion is an accepted mass delusion" - Heaven & hell: "It's a good way to control people" 33:40 What Matters? - Social cohesion & relationships - "Being good to the person next to you... not harming" - Pluralism: virtues, deontology, utilitarianism, consequentialism - Evolution of morality: from having young that need care - "Survival of the most caring?" - "I don't want to just propogate my genes any more - that's why I'm not down the sperm bank every day" - "Ethicists & philosophers often talk shit" - The frequent disregard of conservationists for sentients (e.g. culling) ...and much more. Full show notes at Sentientism.info. Sentientism is “Evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings.” More at Sentientism.info. Join our "I'm a Sentientist" wall via this simple form. Everyone, Sentientist or not, is welcome in our groups. The biggest so far is here on FaceBook. Come join us there! Thanks Graham.

WATCH: https://youtu.be/kKJyo2_s5P8 Eric Schwitzgebel is Professor of Philosophy at University of California at Riverside. He received his B.A. in Philosophy from Stanford and his PhD in Philosophy from U.C. Berkeley. He blogs at The Splintered Mind and is the author of Perplexities of Consciousness (2011) and A Theory of Jerks and Other Philosophical Misadventures (2019). He has published dozens of articles on the issue of introspection, moral psychology, the nature of belief and other attitudes; the epistemology of philosophy; ancient Chinese philosophy; philosophical issues in moral, developmental, and perceptual psychology; the metaphysics of consciousness; and the relationship between philosophy and science fiction. EPISODE LINKS: - Eric's Website: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/ - Eric's Blog: http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/ - Eric's Books: https://www.amazon.com/Eric-Schwitzgebel/e/B004FR351K%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share - Eric's Publications: https://philpeople.org/profiles/eric-schwitzgebel CONNECT: - Website: https://tevinnaidu.com - Instagram: https://instagram.com/drtevinnaidu - Facebook: https://facebook.com/drtevinnaidu - Twitter: https://twitter.com/drtevinnaidu - LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/drtevinnaidu TIMESTAMPS: (0:00) - Introduction (0:40) - Mind-Body Problem (9:00) - Universal craziness thesis (17:00) - Issues with theories of consciousness (29:00) - What is consciousness and the self? (36:25) - Issues of introspection and beliefs (52:11) - Other minds (1:00:08) - Philosophy of science fiction (1:06:47) - Ethics of ethicists (1:14:22) - Philosophy of philosophers (1:23:32) - Universal dubiety thesis (1:30:27) - Artificial intelligence (1:35:42) - Copernican principle of consciousness & alien species (1:41:40) - Belief in God, atheism, agnosticism (1:45:09) - Free will & compatibilism (1:48:40) - Eric's author recommendations (1:56:43) - Skepticism of philosophical expertise (2:00:29) - Conclusion Website · YouTube · YouTube

WATCH: https://youtu.be/kKJyo2_s5P8 Eric Schwitzgebel is Professor of Philosophy at University of California at Riverside. He received his B.A. in Philosophy from Stanford and his PhD in Philosophy from U.C. Berkeley. He blogs at The Splintered Mind and is the author of Perplexities of Consciousness (2011) and A Theory of Jerks and Other Philosophical Misadventures (2019). He has published dozens of articles on the issue of introspection, moral psychology, the nature of belief and other attitudes; the epistemology of philosophy; ancient Chinese philosophy; philosophical issues in moral, developmental, and perceptual psychology; the metaphysics of consciousness; and the relationship between philosophy and science fiction. EPISODE LINKS: - Eric's Website: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/ - Eric's Blog: http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/ - Eric's Books: https://www.amazon.com/Eric-Schwitzgebel/e/B004FR351K%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share - Eric's Publications: https://philpeople.org/profiles/eric-schwitzgebel CONNECT: - Website: https://tevinnaidu.com - Instagram: https://instagram.com/drtevinnaidu - Facebook: https://facebook.com/drtevinnaidu - Twitter: https://twitter.com/drtevinnaidu - LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/drtevinnaidu TIMESTAMPS: (0:00) - Introduction (0:40) - Mind-Body Problem (9:00) - Universal craziness thesis (17:00) - Issues with theories of consciousness (29:00) - What is consciousness and the self? (36:25) - Issues of introspection and beliefs (52:11) - Other minds (1:00:08) - Philosophy of science fiction (1:06:47) - Ethics of ethicists (1:14:22) - Philosophy of philosophers (1:23:32) - Universal dubiety thesis (1:30:27) - Artificial intelligence (1:35:42) - Copernican principle of consciousness & alien species (1:41:40) - Belief in God, atheism, agnosticism (1:45:09) - Free will & compatibilism (1:48:40) - Eric's author recommendations (1:56:43) - Skepticism of philosophical expertise (2:00:29) - Conclusion Website · YouTube

Vegetarianism, Veganism, Pescetarianism, Flexitarianism. Never before have there been so many ways to define how and what we eat.  But are these choices simply a matter of personal taste, or do they reflect a broader ethical conundrum about what we put in our bodies? Ethicists, animal rights activists, and environmentalists increasingly argue that what we eat constitutes a moral choice.  Consuming animals or animal products is inherently unethical, depriving living, sentient beings from living full, productive, and happy lives.  Choosing to eat meat is not merely a preference, but an ethically dubious choice that ignores the health of the planet and the autonomy of other living things.  The only course is to eliminate animals from our diet entirely.  But others argue that the consumption of meat and animal products is not inherently wrong.  Animals can be raised humanely, and brought to our plates with greater attention to their wellbeing.  Humans have been consuming animal products for millenia, and raising livestock is part of the fabric of our shared history and culture.  Steps must be taken to minimize the impact of animal agriculture on the environment, and animals must be treated with respect and care.  But eliminating meat and dairy from our diets altogether is not the solution. Arguing for the motion is Peter Singer, Australian moral philosopher, currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University specializing in applied ethics, and author of Animal Liberation (1975) Arguing against the motion is Joel Salatin, Owner of Polyface Farm in Swoope, Virginia QUOTES: PETER SINGER “We need to start thinking of animals as beings with whom we share the planet and who have their own lives to lead without just being a means to our ends. JOEL SALATIN “You cannot eat without killing something. Something always has to die in order for you to eat.” SOURCES: NBC, CBS The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths - @rudyardg.   Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to podcast@munkdebates.com.   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 10+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ The Munk Debates podcast is produced by Antica, Canada's largest private audio production company - https://www.anticaproductions.com/ Executive Producer: Stuart Coxe, CEO Antica Productions Senior Producer: Jacob Lewis Editor: Reza Dahya Associate Producer: Abhi Raheja

Dr. Bryan Kibbe, a clinical ethicist at Marietta, GA-based Wellstar Health System discusses factors systems are considering as they decide whether to make the COVID vaccine mandatory for employees.

Ravi Zacharias and John Howard Yoder were considered influential Christian leaders. Tragically, they both serially sexually abused women. These are just two of many that were heroes that dreadfully failed leaving many victims. Dr. Amy Laura Hall and Dr. Tommy Givens help us reckon with some of this and how to process it. Amy Laura is Assoc. Prof. of Christian Ethics at Duke Divinity School. Tommy is Assoc. Prof. of New Testament Studies at Fuller Seminary with his ThD in Theological Ethics from Duke.

Ravi Zacharias and John Howard Yoder were considered influential Christian leaders. Tragically, they both serially sexually abused women. These are just two of many that were heroes that dreadfully failed leaving many victims. Dr. Amy Laura Hall and Dr. Tommy Givens help us reckon with some of this and how to process it. Amy Laura is Assoc. Prof. of Christian Ethics at Duke Divinity School. Tommy is Assoc. Prof. of New Testament Studies at Fuller Seminary with his ThD in Theological Ethics from Duke.

In vitro fertilization has resulted in some ten million births since its first in 1978. Well over one million embryos conceived in this way still reside in frozen storage. Ethicists and theologians continue to debate IVF. Pastor Salemink of Lutherans For Life (www.lutheransforlife.org) considers how IVF works, the dangers it involves, how to regard to the children and parents it creates, and some alternatives.

The resulting dilemma has yet to be even raised let alone considered: what resource allocation decisions are ethical for a healthcare system to make in this scenario? Ethicists must now consider the difficult issues of a groundbreaking third type of triage in civilian Mass Casualty Events (MCEs), in addition to intake and reverse triage. This address was originally given at CBHD's 2015 Annual Conference, Science, Research, and the Limits of Bioethics. This podcast is a resource provided by The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/cbhd/support

This week on the Faith Angle podcast, we are joined by Andy Crouch and Sarah Pulliam Bailey. Andy Crouch is partner for theology and culture at Praxis, an organization that works as a creative engine for redemptive entrepreneurship. His two most recent books—2017's The Tech-Wise Family: Everyday Steps for Putting Technology in Its Proper Place and 2016's Strong and Weak: Embracing a Life of Love, Risk and True Flourishing—build on the vision of faith, culture, and the image of God laid out in his previous books Playing God: Redeeming the Gift of Power and Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling. Sarah Pulliam Bailey runs The Washington Post's religion vertical. She covers how faith intersects with everything, including politics, culture, education, abortion and immigration. Before joining The Post, she was a national correspondent for Religion News Service. She was also online editor of Christianity Today magazine. Guests: Andy Crouch Sarah Pulliam Bailey Links: Love in the Time of Coronavirus Leading Beyond the Blizzard: Why Every Organization Is Now a Startup Should older Americans die to save the economy? Ethicists call it a false choice. Coronavirus & Quarantine: What Big Questions Can We Be Asking? Follow us | faithangle.org

Elliott Bedford, the director of ethics integration at Ascension Health in Indiana, discusses the role of ethicists and the challenges they face in Catholic health care.

In this episode, Dave interviews Helen about her recent article in Quartz, “Are AI ethicists making any difference?” Some of the topics we explore include: Why is there a rush to hire AI ethicists in the tech industry?What do AI ethicists do?Why are people skeptical and what is “ethics washing” and “ethics bashing?”What does Jacob Metcalf of Data & Society mean by saying that ethics is “the vessel which we use to hold our values?”What does Josh Lovejoy of Microsoft mean by saying that ethics need not be seen as a philosophical add-on “but as just good design?”What are AI checklists and why is their use good practice? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit artificiality.substack.com

Should sons and sons in law be the Yoresh of a Chassidus, a Yeshiva, a Rabbanus, or should the Yoresh be the most qualified to replace? When did it change in our Yeshivos? What to do in a family business? Severance pay to children, and much more  with Rabbi Herschel Schachter - Rosh Yeshiva Rabeinu Yitzchok Elchonon, Posek of the OU - 21:01with Rabbi Zalmen Graus - renowned Toen Rabbani, Dayan, Mechaber Seforim - 24:38with Rabbi Zalmen Gifter - Rav in Toms River, former Rosh Yeshiva in Telz - 1:09:05with Rabbi Pinni Dunner - Rav in Young Israel North Beverly Hills, noted Historian, Mechaber seforim - 1:27:52with Mr. Jack Marshall - Harvard grad, lawyer, Ethicists prof. - 2:00:51with Mr. Drew Mendoza - president FBCG - 2:14:52  מראי מקומות  

Show Notes:Connect with Dr. Shahana Alibhai online in the following places:www.drshahana.comHosted: Andrew Bracewell @everydayamazingpodcastProduced/Edited: Justin Hawkes @Hawkes21Full Transcription of this Interview:Andrew Bracewell: This is the podcast that finds the most elusive people the everyday amazing kind that you know nothing about. I’m hunting these people down and exposing their beauty to the world. I’m Andrew Bracewell, and this is every day. Amazing.  Dr. Shahana Alibhai: It’s okay to feel anxious. It’s okay to feel sad. It’s okay to feel scared. All of this stuff is OK. Andrew Bracewell: Way. Welcome to the everyday amazing podcast. Today I am in way over my head. Joining me is Dr. Shahana Alibhai. I recently met Dr. Alibhai through a Ted X event where she spoke about emotional literacy and reimagining how we treat youth who suffer with their mental health. As I listen to Dr. Alibhai, I was struck by her sincerity and how non clinical she was as she peeled back the layers of a very complex issue. I knew immediately that I wanted to spend more time with Dr. Alibhai and convinced her to come on the show. I’m ecstatic that she agreed. Dr.. Alibhai. Welcome. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Thank you so much for having me. Andrew Bracewell: Have you ever done this before? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: First time. Doing a podcast. Andrew Bracewell: First time. Excited, nervous, Dr. Shahana Alibhai: actually. Really excited. I don’t need to memorize anything. So It’s a good thing Andrew Bracewell: that’s true. I get to play doctor today and you get to play patient. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: I know this’ll be interesting. Andrew Bracewell: I’m excited. Before we begin, I thought it would be. It would make most sense for me to read your bile from your website in your words, so that everyone could hear your perspective on what it is you’re doing. Does that make sense? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Sounds great. Andrew Bracewell: Here we go. In Dr. Alibhais words, I know the pressures many women face trying to be there for our kids trying to push forward in our careers and at the same time doing it all with a smile. Like many of you, I also have a story. I thought I knew the importance of eating well and moving more. But after completing my residency and family medicine, the stressors of life caught up to me. After the birth of my first son, I found myself deep into what I would later find out was postpartum anxiety, the lesser known counterpart to postpartum depression. Postpartum anxiety can present with panic attacks O. C. D type symptoms and feelings of being constantly keyed up and on edge. With over 10 years of studying nutrition, exercise and medicine. I thought I knew what it took to keep me well, but I fell short. The missing link for me was healthy, thinking I was used to sprinting through life at this pace. Eventually you hit the wall. I’ve come up with the pyramid of optimal health because it’s something I’ve used personally with my patients. By focusing first on our thought patterns are internal dialogue and our state. We can then set ourselves up to make better decisions when it comes to things like eating and exercise. How long ago did you write that? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: You know, listening to that again I have for gotten. I wrote that. So it’s probably being about two or three years since I wrote that. It’s refreshing to hear again, though Andrew Bracewell: you touched on something in there called Your Pyramid philosophy, which I really wantto dive into deeper with you. But before we do that, I have a question. How does a person who starts in chiropractic end up in family medicine, then somehow end up in helping youth with their mental health? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: I think that’s called life in some ways, you know, it’s just so I think, to understand the journey have to understand a little bit about my upbringing. So my parents came to this country as refugees. Basically, they were thrown out of their home in Uganda at 1972 with the exit is so you can imagine when you’re 19 basically there on the first flight to anywhere they could get out of the place. And it happened to be Canada. Thank goodness. But when you’re raised by parents who have that mentality for them, it was find a career that is a safe career, so that would often be nursing or engineering. Or in my dad’s case, it was pharmacy. So for the longest time, they raised my sister and I ah, with the notion that, you know, go into pharmacy. It’s a great career. You have a stable job, you help other people. And that was the goal for me. So I actually wrote it was called the P Cat at the time, did my full application. But the day before I had to submit it. I never did. And the reason for that it was there was something in my heart that told me that this is just not the path for me. I knew it was safe, but what I loved the most was, and it sounds maybe pretty innocent right now, but just exercise. And the reason I loved it is because at the age of 16 I took night classes while I was in grade 11 to become a certified fitness instructor, basically, and I never grew up playing team sports. I never was on a soccer team, and I always really wanted to be good at sports. My parents always stressed individual sports. I was a big tennis player and squash player. I loved that. But you come to an age where you’re just like I want to be involved in people kind of working out together because I never got that when I grew up and I went to my first fitness class. I think I was 15 and I just tripped all over myself doing aerobics. My sister and I were in the back, but they were something about it, of people just working out together, trying to be healthier. Great music is playing, and I was like one day I’m gonna be at the top of that class, teaching everybody, and that’s what I did so long. Story short, I fell in love with group exercise. I fell in love with personal training and then I discovered this thing called kinesiology that you could actually study. And I enrolled myself in what was called human kinetics at the time at UBC. And that’s how I met my now husband, who is a chiropractor. But most people from kinesiology think of one of three things physio Cairo or met, and I thought about all three of them. That chiropractic made the most sense for me because it combined my love of business with my love of health and wellness. And for the first time, it was about keeping people well, not diagnosing people with diseases like I didn’t want that I didn’t want to push medication. The missing link for me was that if you’re going to be, I hope a successful fizzy or chiropractor, you should like treating people with your hands. That should be something that you should enjoy. I didn’t get the memo on that. Basically, I liked everything else. But when I entered choir practice school, my worst class was manual therapy, and I’m thinking well, that I should actually enjoy And so I rerouted. And, um, I applied again to UBC medical school, kind of telling them that I’d made a mistake. Ah, by not accepting their offer the first time. And they luckily let me in the second. Andrew Bracewell: So how long? How long were you in car Practical Year, Full year for you. And previous to that, though you had been accepted correct into med school. Yeah, ABC turned it down to do the cover Dr. Shahana Alibhai: price thing. You met your husband. That’s right, Andrew Bracewell: future husband says. But now you go back. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: That’s right Andrew Bracewell: into into the medical field. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Exactly. And it was, and I’ll be honest. At that time, I thought about national Catholic. I thought about medicine. But my and I think the date has changed where people is because you have an MD behind your name doesn’t necessarily mean you are trusted. But realize that this was I think we’re talking almost 10 years ago now, right? So things have changed a lot, but I think there was that hope that if I could get through medical school with this love of what I now know as integrative medicine still in my heart, that I would be successful, but I never realized what a kick in the pants medical school would be. Andrew Bracewell: So let’s unpack. You just made a statement that always jumps out at me. Integrated Medicine Canyon pack without Dr. Shahana Alibhai: war means. Or so it’s a term that’s actually I was coined by Dr. Andrew Weil, who is the father of integrative medicine. And all that, it really means is blending the best of what we know as conventional medicine with what we think of his complimentary medicine. And the idea is that you take the best of both worlds in a patient centric approach to treat the fur full patient, not to put a Band Aid on the problem. Andrew Bracewell: So what falls under the banner of complimentary medicine? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: So complimentary medicine is everything really outside of conventional medicine, so it can span from chiropractic scare, acupuncture, homey apathy, all the counseling mechanisms, biofeedback. There’s all of the other stuff that people are looking. Besides, I want to say it. Prescription medication really played Andrew Bracewell: and natural path. A cure also fits in with an umbrella Dr. Shahana Alibhai: under percent naturopathic care in not my sister’s in after path. She was a pharmacist and then went on to study naturopathic medicine, and they get taught everything about everything. I mean, manual manipulations, homey apathy, acupuncture, herbal remedies, nutrition. So it’s a huge curriculum Andrew Bracewell: you have within your family yourself, an MD, your sister and Andy and your parents who are pharmacists. You have the entire spectrum nearly well, and you have your husband. Callen, who is a counter proctor Dr. Shahana Alibhai: and my brother in law is owns medical clinics. So it’s It’s funny. So Andrew Bracewell: what is? We’re approaching the Christmas season. Take us inside family Christmas dinner with all of those opinions around the table on how to treat patients properly. Do Dr. Shahana Alibhai: you know what this conversation comes? At a time where I think if we take a step back, why did we all go into the health profession? But I mean, my sister and my my husband is because of my sister’s health journey, so that’s what we need to understand. So the conversations are a lot of the time centered around her own experiences as a patient with the health care system and the deficits that she’s felt. So just in a quick stories that at the age of 19 she was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, a very common condition or a type of inflammatory bowel disease. But hers was extremely aggressive. Within about a year, she had what’s known as toxic Mega Colon, so basically the entire colon could have ruptured. She was taken into, Ah, surgery. Her entire colon room was removed in the age of 19. She had a bag basic, really? So you can imagine what that does to a woman’s psyche to anybody. Psyche. So we live together a TV, see, and she’s my hero. She’s the most amazing person I’ve ever encountered. Andrew Bracewell: Younger, older than Dr. Shahana Alibhai: older. We’re only 19 months apart. And now for the last 16 years, basically she’s had multiple surgeries, one of the only patients in BC to have a spinal cord stimulator for abdominal pain. So she actually has a implantable device in her spinal cord for pain. So there’s Bean so many negative sequelae because of all of the surgeries and everything else she’s being through. But it’s because of her journey. She completely realizes. Yes, you need the conventional medicine. Yes, you need emergency and all the rest of it. But there were gaps in her care, and she’s able to be able to fill those gaps with naturopathic medicine. Andrew Bracewell: Okay, so that spawned the family’s pursuit of health care. Is that is that a fair statement? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Completely. And it spawned our our love hate relationship with health care because it’s so different. We all stand on the other side. We all are practitioners in our own way. But just two weeks ago, she was at ST Paul’s emerge. So then we’re on the other side as patients, and you never go in saying My husband’s at this. My sisters of this, you just I’m in pain. I’m a patient, I need your help. But she’s being They’ve been amazing experiences with the health, your industry, and there’s been some not so amazing experiences and me being on the other side. I’ve worked in emerg. I know what their mentality is like, so I can help fill some gaps for her as to why she might be treated that way as well. But, uh, everything goes out the window when you’re a patient and you’re in pain and you need help. And I think for me, this goes back to why I love working at the youth, the Knicks so much not that it’s an emergency But it’s the idea that I can spend time. It’s time that we need more of in our health care system, and it’s nobody’s fault. It’s just the funding mechanism, for better or for worse. But because I have the luxury quote unquote of time when I work with my youth, I feel like I can answer some of those questions that they need answering. Andrew Bracewell: Okay, you just said Wade perfectly. Thank you for that. But we need to unpack this. So your ah, family practitioner MD yet you’re working at a youth clinic? How is this possible? And how did this come to be and who’s funding this youth clinic? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: So basically, the clinic was a vision of my mentor, Dr. Elizabeth Watt, and it was started in the very, very grassroots level about 10 years ago now. So when I joined it, we were working out of one room or two rooms at the hospital, basically, and since then we’ve had a number of different moves finally to move into our purpose built building the foundry here in app. It’s for that was approximately a year ago, so the youth clinic is funded in a number of ways Fraser. Health helps fund it. The Ministry of Child and Youth and families Health abundant. But yes, we do have to fight for our finding quite a bit. So the youth clinic functions just is a normal walk in clinic. So we see everything we see source throats, we see even minor traumas. But at the end of the day, what we end up seeing most of is sexual health and mental health. Because, let’s not forget, the youth clinic is for the ages between 12 and 24. So those are the two biggest things that will get them through our doors. Andrew Bracewell: So just to put things into, let me repeat this back to you, to make sure I’ve got it right. We have a clinic that’s staffed by medical professionals, where youth can just show up, check themselves in, see a doctor. But as it turns out, the majority of the time you’re you end up dealing in the mental health field as often, if not more, than you’re dealing with sore throats, fevers, whatever. Is that a fair statement? Absolutely. This is incredible. And how did how did this clinic come to be? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: So I think there was a gap, right? If you think about how we we do really well when it comes to pediatrics, because typically the parents take the onus of that to try to arrange those appointments. And then when you turn to be an adult, let’s say after the age of 19 Okay, you can hopefully find your way to a walk in clinic or hope. Well, you have a family doctor. But what about all the rest of it, right? And who We tend to forget that adolescence is the time of supreme transition in so many ways. So I think it came to be was because my mentor, Dr. Elizabeth Watts, saw this this gap in our health care system and saw that there was a need for it and fought, fought hard for funding and for space and for time. And she rallied not just physicians, but nurses and social workers. And now it’s this entity called the Foundry that we’re not just seeing in BC ah, but with us. They’re not too seeing in Abbotsford, but we’re seeing across BC as well, so it’s become a model of how we should be treating our youth Andrew Bracewell: approximately. How many practitioners are in touch with the foundry. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Oh my goodness, it’s hard to say, because we we’re on the first floor of the foundry and we have a rotating, so there’s probably a good 10 to 12 doctors that will come and go throughout and try to pick up shifts throughout the month. Ah, then we have nurse practitioners. Then we have nurses that deal with a lot of contraception and sexual health Andrew Bracewell: is Sorry, I’m There’s so much good stuff here. I just don’t You’re blowing my brain. Doctors who are quote unquote picking up shifts. Are these doctors just getting involved because this is something they’re interested in? Or how is a doctor saying I’m gonna start spending some time here? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Absolutely. That because they’re interested in it because we and Abbotsford have a residency program. So we train. So after you finish your your four years of undergrad four years of medical school, you still have to do two years of family practice, residency or training. And Abbotsford is one of those sites, so these residents have to rotate through the youth clinic, and I was a resident. I rotated through the clinic and there’s I never thought I’d want to work with teenagers. Let’s be honest, like it just was not my I don’t think I could relate. But there was something about working in this environment with the group of passionate people, so we tend to Once the residents graduate, they tend to keep coming back for more. And I was one of those. Andrew Bracewell: So we’ve got the practitioners we talked about, but then you started talking about the other people in the building and what else is going on? Keep going on that. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: So, like I said, First floor is just the typical. What you think of is a youth clinic or a walk in clinic. But as he start going on the second floor and third floor, then you’re starting to see programs for youth. So we have walking counseling. So basically a youth can just walk into our building, go up into the second floor and, if available, see a counselor right there and then on the spot so it takes away all of those barriers in terms of ocean like how do I book an appointment tour? Which counts, or should I see? And you know all the stigma around counseling cost. Let’s be exactly, let’s our most important one is cost. So there’s there is what we call the start team, which is the suicide intervention team that is lived up on the second or so the things I can floor there. There’s an adolescent day program for kids that need some extra help during the day. So impact or drug and alcohol abuse counselors are part of our staff. Social workers. So it’s it’s this is this is the root of multi disciplinary care. This is what we need is what our youth need. Andrew Bracewell: It must be fair to say that you guys are plugged into all of the major players and assets in the city. I would imagine policing department is involved from time to time or you’re communicating with somebody there. You mentioned there’s counseling. There’s medical side. Speak to some of the significant people in the community. Who are you you’re involved with on a regular basis? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Yeah, for sure. So it’s the list is so extensive, but if you just kind of hone into the social work realm of things, for example, we have a food bank now on site. So where were directly an affiliation with the Abbotts for food bank. We have kind of an area for used clothes and use products, so there’s a kind of a thrift ing component that’s going on to There’s an exercise component. So innovative fitness is being extremely involved with helping teach our youth the power physical activity. I used to run yoga classes for the youth to like. I could just go on and on. There’s every aspect that you can think of. We try to enmesh ourselves in. Andrew Bracewell: It’s totally holistic. Completely, completely. How often and in what way are you encountering parents? I imagine there are a huge part of this process or can be, anyway. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Parents are when a youth walks in with their parents and allows willingly the parent to sit there in the interview, I can usually breathe a sigh of relief because I know someone is watching over them, and I know that the youth trust them and I say the word willingly very carefully because there have bean many times where I can sense that that dynamic between the youth and the parent isn’t so great, and I often will respectfully ask if the parent can just wait outside so I can speak to the youth one on one, and sometimes it doesn’t come out the first time or the second time. But by the 10th time I can start to maybe understand where the youth is coming from. And often I’ll ask to speak to the parent individually to because let’s not forget, I see the youth for what, 10 23 30 minutes once every week, once every two weeks. These parents are living with these individuals with they’re teenagers. So it’s no easy on them too, right? They have to deal with that day in and day out. So, yes, I listen to the story that the youth present me. But I also have to listen to how the parents are coping. And oftentimes I will recommend How are you coping? How is your mental health? Because dealing with somebody who is struggling with their own mental health can be just as exhausting for the caregiver. Andrew Bracewell: Okay, you just said something that I want a key in on there. I think most people’s perspective of a patient doctor relationship is we’re dealing with something on acute level, you know, experiencing something. You go see your doctor. You deal with the issue, and then you may never see them for six months. 12 months, 18 months, 24 months. Who knows? But you just made a statement as if you said something to the effect of, you know, I meet a youth, and then I’m gonna see that youth in a week or three weeks or four weeks or six weeks. That sounds totally foreign to my doctor experience. Once you engage with somebody, what does that look like? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: So it really depends on why they’re engaging with me. So of course I was actually at the clinic. They had no doc yesterday, so I quickly went in to fill in on the end. You know, patient came in with gastroenteritis, like a stomach flu. Easy peasy, right? She would make sure she was hydrated. We figured all what? The root cause, Woz. And you’re gonna be fine. You’re on your weight, and I tell them you come back if X y and Zed, right? That’s very easy. Had another youth. The next patient came in who had been off of his medications and was starting to feel symptoms of suicide. Ality again was starting to feel symptoms of anxiety, depression, all the rest of it. I’m not going to see you in four weeks. I want to see you next week to make sure that everything is going okay. Andrew Bracewell: And there’s time and money for this. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Yeah, because the doctors at the youth clinic are paid session Lee. By that, I mean that were paid per hour. So if I see 15 patients in an hour or one patient an hour, I’m not incentivized either way. And to be honest, I don’t care about that. I I care about, you know, giving the time and space to the youth. But the problem now, like anything in health care, is that I would love to spend 1/2 hour or 45 minutes with a patient. But I also have to be respectful that I have a waiting room full of kids who have been waiting for two or three hours. Andrew Bracewell: This is a significant difference in this clinic versus every other clinic and doctors office correct under present. And how did it come to be that this clinic was set up this way financially? Because this to me, just makes so much logical sense. I understand these issues are complex and, you know, difficult to unwind. But just talk to that and how that impacts patient care. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: The reason it was is because because what we see most of all, like I said, it’s either is, you know, sexual health or it’s mental health. Let’s put a number on it. Like I would say, about 50% is mental health. Not to say that a regular Family GP would is not dealing with mental health. Yes, they are. But you need the time in space. So to give the youth time in space, the doctor also has to be compensated. So by that I mean, if you are getting paid $35 for a typical office visit and you spend an hour with the patient, you’re not really gonna have a doctor who is? That’s not the sustainable model. No, But then again, the amount that were paid per hour is much less than what a walk in doctor who can see Ah Andrew Bracewell: 6789 10 patients. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Correct, correct. Correct. So you also I think, 10 to find people who yes, you need to be compensated appropriately. But you’re there. The whole notion is not to make money. They’re there because you’re there on purpose. You believe in something, right? That’s the whole reason why When there s o otherwise, could you spend five minutes with a patient who has anxiety? Sure. You just It’s nothing. Take long to write a prescription. It takes a second to sign a prescription. All the rest of it takes time. And that’s why my Ted talk came about because I was signing. And I still do not to say there is a place of his time and place for medication. Absolutely. But when I see the same story played out, over and over and over again, I take a step back going. Okay. What more can we do? What more can I do? What more can our schools do? And that’s how the emotional literacy talk was kind of came to be, right. Andrew Bracewell: So how much of your time are you devoting to the youth health clinic right now? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: So right now, because I’m considered my own, have a four month old at home, so I guess I’m technically should still be on maternity. We’re gonna We’re gonna talk about that S o. You know right now, because I if I try to work at least one shift a week, one shift every two weeks, I’d love to be there every day. If I could. It’s just child care. That’s my biggest ah thing. But it’s between right now. I work primarily at the youth clinic and I work at the Breast Health Clinic, and, ironically enough, both our session only paid. So I think I gravitate towards things that I can spend time with. Patients Andrew Bracewell: will jump to the breast health clinic in a second, but I want to come back Toto. One more salt or question I had. When you’re engaging with these youth and somebody walks in and says My stomach’s hurting or this is hurting or that’s hurting is your radar up for what is possibly a deeper underlying issue as the cause of what’s going on? Or how are you? How are you engaging and and what are you looking for? Even if you’re not being told something or how are you approaching that? Does that make sense? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: It makes complete sense, so I think this is what is what you learn through medical school. But you. You also either have it or you don’t have it in the sense that when a patient walks in you, there’s this almost a Spidey sense that you understand could look at the patient. You could start to ask questions if they’re in new patient to me, never met them before. I can tell quite quickly. Are you here because you want to address the stomach pain or you here? Because there’s something more on the reason I know that is because if I’m asking them about the stomach pain, I might get very flaky answers like it’s just not fitting. Like, for example, the woman that had for the teenager that had gastroenteritis yesterday or the stomach flu. It was, you know, I was vomiting. I had this. I had that. Okay, it was very black and white. Very strange forward. Where is some cryptic kind of abdominal pain? As I start toe unpeeled the layers, I’m thinking, I asked a very simple question. Just tell me what’s going on in your life right now. I’m new to you. So just tell me, what are your stressors? What are you happy about? Who lives with you at home? and then it’s their facial expression. They might turn away from me. They might really engage with me. They might be a long pause, all of this kind of stuff. And then I’ll use the words. Tell me more, Tell me more, Tell me more. And then they might have broken up with her boyfriend. They might have been sexually assaulted. They might have all of these different things have come up to. Sometimes you can get it all in the first visit. Sometimes you can’t, but you always first have to wear your medical doctor your hat before you wear your psychologist hat. I don’t want to be missing that you have an acute appendicitis because I want to talk about your anxiety like there’s There’s that, too. So I quickly try to rule out all of my red flags in my head, and then, if I’m not sensing anything, I’ll give them a plan. Let’s do X Y and Zed will do some blood. Work will do this, but then I want to talk more about this right and leave the door open and they know where to find me. They can always come back for more right And with that, Like I said, there are red flags with mental health stuff, too. So I need to be careful with that. I’m to be careful. Are you feeling suicidal? Are you feeling that you’re safe? You’re not safe with yourself for others, all of that kind of stuff. So I guess it’s a bit of a juggling act, and that’s what I love about. That’s part of the reason why I love medicine is because no patients ever straight forward, you’re always gonna get surprised. But sometimes that can also be emotionally draining. Andrew Bracewell: So you and R I aren’t identical in age, but we’re both in our thirties. We’ll leave it at that. We don’t need to get specific. When we were youth number one, there’s no way a resource like this existed. Number to the mental health conversation was not even a conversation, and something that I’ve gone through as an adult is transforming the way I think about mental health. Going from a place where I believed it was fake was made up. It was it was a thing that that weak people used as an excuse to now understanding that not only is it riel But it’s something that needs to be researched, more discussed more. And it’s all around us, and I’m impacted by it in my own life by people around me. How do your youth patients know that you exist is a resource? And what’s the conversation in their mind? Given that they’ve been now raised in a hopefully a better generation than we were raised in? Are they coming in with shame or when the topic of mental health comes up? Is it something that they’re ready to embrace right away? Or are they in denial? Because I can imagine, as a youth, I would have immediately denied I would have said No, this is I’m not weak. There’s no way I have this. This is not a thing. How are they dealing with this issue versus how we would have potentially dealt with it? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Absolutely. So, to your first point, how they hear about us, we’re we’re very, um, meshed into the school system, and the counselors at the school know about us so they will often refer. Patients are away, even at the University of the Fraser Valley. There, counselors know about us so as the community resource will got and more well known, Um, and even the family doctors will often refer to our clinic if they find that they need help with a certain patient because, respectfully, they might just not have time to deal with it. To your second point about this change in dynamic with the conversation of mental health. It’s extremely tricky. So let me give you a story. When I was probably about seven or eight, I started noticing what I know now that I had a lot of had some anxiety at that time. I had some O. C. D type tendencies at that time that later translated into restricted eating behavior. All of this stuff was going on in my background. And now I understand it so well that all of these this symptom Atala, jeez, all linked together as a kind of personality type in some ways. But when I told my mom about this, this is now what you know, 25 whatever. Years ago, she just said it’s gonna be okay. Don’t worry, you’re fine. She just tried to normalize everything because she did the best that she possibly could. And her We’ve also haven’t had this conversation now, later on, I kind of said, Well, why didn’t you take me to a place? So there wasn’t a place. There was nothing that existed back then. And in fact, she was so scared of me getting put on some sort of medication that her mind her providing her version of counseling was the best possible option. So I think nowadays, yes, we’re very fortunate that we have these resources, but we have to be careful that the pendulum hasn’t swung the other way. And by that I mean that we start to pathologize or make a disease out of any abnormal emotion. Interesting. So by this, I mean, it’s okay to feel anxious. It’s okay to feel sad. It’s okay to feel scared. All of this stuff is okay. It doesn’t mean that you have depression. It doesn’t mean that you have anxiety because we’ve got to realize that the criteria that you need to meet depression is a checklist. The criteria for anxiety is a checklist. And you might meet that checklist one day and not the other day in trusting to meet to actually have a fully fledged, you know, diagnosis. Yes, you have to have those symptoms for more than two weeks. But I think we’ve become so on board with mental health that by telling everyone it’s okay, you have depression. We also have to be careful that we’re not putting a label on their head. So some this I was listening to actually great podcast the other day, and a professional in this field was saying, It’s OK just to say that I feel stuck right now. I feel stuck and that’s okay. And I often tell that to the youth, too. But we also have to realize that these youth walk in our doors with so much often with so much baggage and such a story that it’s their story that needs unpacking. You need to hear about their upbringing. You have to hear about their lack of a stable home. You have to hear about their encounters with abuse toe. Understand that, of course, you have the feelings that you do, sure, but it doesn’t mean you need to be a victim to those feelings. Andrew Bracewell: Is it fair to say that in your one of the challenges in assessing a patient who’s a youth versus assessing a patient who’s not, is that there’s hormones that play as well, and bodies are changing. And there’s that whole spectrum that could also be impacting things. Is that a Is that something that is relevant to the conversation? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: There is absolutely, and I think, more than even just the hormones and body changing is that the brain is not fully developed. Your brain doesn’t get fully developed to the age of 21 by that I mean your actual prefrontal cortex, which is what helps you with executive planning and decision making. That idea that you can assess a situation, think about it rationally and then make a decision. So impulse control for youth is not going to be where it is for an adult at the age of 35 or 40 right? And hence why It’s so much easier to make poorer choices as a youth, whether it be for drugs and alcohol or sex, or all the rest of it, too. So, and there’s also a very normal phase of experimentation, and if you don’t experiment, really, how do you learn? So there’s all of that at play, too, and they’re also trying to find their own identity, right? They’re also trying to figure out where my favorite question like I mentioned, the Ted talk is asking, Well, what do you want to be like? Where do you imagine yourself? And sometimes I’ll get these blank spaces like, Well, what? Like I’m going to be 30 or 41 day because Andrew Bracewell: they haven’t even stepped outside the space. There is Dr. Shahana Alibhai: not at all. Andrew Bracewell: Whatever they’re in is all there is. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Clea. They live in that like they’re very present, right, So and realize that the views clinic we see between the ages of 12 to 24 a lot happens between the ages of 12 and 24 right? Right. So I if I see a 13 or 14 year old who has become sexually active and is trying to figure all of that out, that’s a very different conversation than someone who is 1920 2122 right on all of the considerations with regards to that. So, yeah, it’s a complex discussion. Andrew Bracewell: Well, fascinating. We’ve only scratched the surface there, but I you alluded to something else earlier that I that I do also wantto get to with you. You mentioned you spend time in the breast Health Clinic. Yes. Tell us a little bit about that. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: I I love it. I love the breast health clinic. So very similar to the youth clinic. Is that it? Once again, it’s healthcare innovation in the sense that we need to change some things. Once again. There was a problem with the way that women were being screened and treated and tree ours with regards to their breast health. Right. So you could imagine the percentage is still that many of the family doctors are male, and sometimes a female patient wouldn’t feel comfortable discussing their breast health complaints with their male physician. Fair enough. We often know as well that regular breast exams are now not standard of practice unless a woman has a complaint of some sort. So there isn’t that chance to have a dialogue with the healthcare practitioner as to what should I be looking for? And what are my concerns in my family history? Enter the breast health clinic. So the Breast Health clinic is situated at the hospital in the first floor. And once again, we’re a team. We’re a team of physicians. Were a team of nurses that go in and basically treat and surgeons, I should say that treat from the time of diagnosis to the time of treatment for breast cancer and everything in between. So I’m one of the four female family physicians trained in breast health at the breast care center, along with two female surgeons and a host of female nurses that work there. And we see everything breast related, from lumps to breast pain to our skin related breast changes to any mammogram recalls. If there is something that’s looking sinister or suspicious, we will arrange the biopsies. I will break the news to the patient as to what is happening, whether it be that they are fine, or whether it be that they actually need more treatment or if they have breast cancer. And on my slate of when I go in every week of 16 17 patients, at least once or twice, I’ll have to walk into the room of a patient I’ve never met before because we’re a rotating Andrew Bracewell: group of Dr. Shahana Alibhai: doctors and sit down with them and tell them that they have breast cancer and it is I’ve done it hundreds of times now, and it never how could it ever get easier. How could it ever get easier that you I just had this conversation. I just worked two days ago and were hitting Christmas time soon. And you were telling somebody? It’s actually if I might give my opinion here. It might be somewhat worse to tell a patient that you have a very, very suspicious lump, but we can’t arrange a biopsy for another week or another 10 days. Like, let’s be honest that How do you live with that? Right. Andrew Bracewell: Okay, you just went into a hole. You just went into a whole another rabbit hole that I wanted. So my first thought, when you say that is, what are you doing for yourself when you’re delivering this kind of news and then you’re going home to your family at the end of the day? I mean, you just dropped a bomb on somebody’s life. It’s not your bomb. You didn’t make the bomb, But you were the one who had to deliver the news. How are you unpacking that in your mind and living with that? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: I wish I had a good answer. I wish. I wish I was numb to it by now. And I think that would be a bad sign if I was, But I’m not, um, even though it had experience. I’ll be honest when I go home. I see the faces of the women that I have broken the news to. I see the faces of their partners, and that’s what I think about. But the only thing that gives me solace or hope or feeling like I’m making a difference is the way that I break the news to them. If I can make that moment even a little bit easier for them, then that’s what I hang on to. So even though I will tell them they teach, they try to train you a little bit for this, although a lot of it you have to learn by yourself is that you never. You never beat around the bush Never Haman Hall when you go into the room there often sitting in the room for a good 5 10 15 minutes, and this room is covered with breast cancer paraphernalia, so they’re already on it. They’re often with somebody there, and ah, I’ll quickly introduce myself. I’ll quickly tell them, You know, I’ve read through your chart just so that they know that I know what I’m talking about and then I’ll get straight to it. I’ll use the There’s often different schools of thought. Do you use the word cancer, do you not? Well, cancer is cancer. Used the word Be blunt about it in the sense, but then jump right to the point that, yes, you have breast cancer, but you are in the right spot. You were in the spot that you can be treated. Andrew Bracewell: You’re trying to provide hope exactly immediately. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Exactly right away that this is for us as women. This is one and eight of us. Yes, Unfortunately, you are the one, right? But there’s one in eight. Andrew Bracewell: So we one of eight in Canada, Dr. Shahana Alibhai: in Canada? Yeah, that’s unbelievable. And it’s the same feeling in my gut that I get with you that why can’t I do more than write a prescription when I see the biopsy report, I always feel Why can’t we do more? How do we prevent this? And of course, there is so much conversation people a lot smarter than I’ll ever be who are doing the appropriate kind of research. But you start to think about lifestyle and genetics and environment and all the rest of it of how, uh why is this such an issue for us, right? Andrew Bracewell: Yeah, it’s a convoluted conversation, and there isn’t one thing and it could be environment diet habits. I mean, there must be other places in the world that don’t have this rate of breast cancer. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: And then you start to dig into the whole complex discussion about mammography and the frequency of mammography and us detecting things that we might have not even detected before. And the idea of overdiagnosis There’s There’s so much there to unpack two, which could be a slippery slope because I literally every task force has a different notion as when we should best screen. So there’s not even a good, solid consensus per se if you look across Canada or even different regions in the world as to how often you should be having mammograms and all the rest of it. So we have done our best by saying OK every two years if you don’t have a family history. But at the end of the day, we know that mammograms can also lead you up the garden path in the sense of having a ton of biopsies and testing that actually turned out to be a nothing and in the realm of it caused women a ton of anxiety. So how do you How do you rationalize that? Yes, we’re helping some, but for for a large proportion of them, they’re having all these biopsies, and thankfully they’re okay. But the stress of that time period put a number on that. I don’t know, right. Andrew Bracewell: It’s fair to say, say yes or no if this is true or not. But this is all in the name of prevention. Yes, which is actually something unique to the medical field. Also true, Dr. Shahana Alibhai: All such. Andrew Bracewell: There’s no easy answers there. How are you traversing these issues? So circle back to something we alluded to earlier. Your husband, College chiropractor. Your sister’s a naturopathic doctor. You’re an MD. Your parents are pharmacists. You’ve got the full spectrum in your brain. And I’m sure that sometimes the way you think doesn’t always align with standard MD field or what you’re supposed to think. You know what you’re told to say. How are you navigating that when you’re in these crucible moments and determining what you recommend or what you say to a patient or how you go about best practicing with the people you’re trying to love and care for. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: I think I feel undereducated. Ill, be honest, even though I do have the full, we have the full realm in our household. The way that I’ve Bean trained as an M. D still makes me feel like I’m at a loss on. The reason for that is because I feel like I’m missing this whole other segment of knowledge that could potentially help patients. But even more than that, coming back to my pyramid is that forget nutrition, Forget exercise. Forget all of these other alternative therapies. If I could focus on one thing keeps coming back to mental health. You just can’t escape that I couldn’t escape it. My patients can escape it. And I think if I could choose more training in any one of those fields, it would be Mawr in, you know, realms like cognitive behavioral therapy counseling. But I also have to realize that I’m I’m not accounts there. That’s not what I’ve been trained to do, but I doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize the importance of it so I think for me in my future I want to do more training and there is a program. Actually, it’s a two year program, but it’s through. It’s through the U. S. For integrative medicine, where family practice physicians can go and get trained in the best of the best of off what we call complementary and alternative medicine. But it’s the evidence based stuff of shrimp. The only problem is that it’s a If I go and do my two years of training, I’ll come back to Canada. And then what? There is no funding for it. There is no I’m not prepared to open a private clinic. Then you start going to the discussion public versus private room, and I don’t That’s a tricky, tricky conversation. Andrew Bracewell: Yeah, the system is designed to function a particular way, and the system needs to be efficient. But efficiency doesn’t always mean that we’re hitting every patient where they need to be hit. Absolutely, absolutely Dr. Shahana Alibhai: medicines really good at trying to keep you alive. It’s trying to rule out red flags, sure trying to diagnose diagnosable conditions, but for but I’m not gonna be the only one to say that conventional medicine has gaps. We all know it does. And that’s why people seek out rightfully so other therapies. But the problem becomes is that unlike when you see a physician, you kind of know when you go to a clinic, you know what you’re going to see. You know what you’re gonna get. The doctor’s gonna ask you bunch of questions might do a physical exam. You might leave with a prescription. Okay, for better or for worse, that’s your experience. If you see 10 chiropractors, if you’d see 10 natural pats, you’re often gonna get 10 different experiences and and right there lies the problem. Andrew Bracewell: In our own household we’ve fallen into, I would say it’s probably accurate for me to say I don’t have a family. I don’t have a doctor. I do have a doctor and that I have a friend who’s a doctor. And when I have something really bad, like I’ve broken something or, you know, it’s very obvious that, you know, I will use my doctor and as this circumstance, my friend, to get the treatment I need. But for the things that aren’t obvious, we have fallen into this habit. Sometimes I think it’s good. Sometimes I think it’s bad of doing the research for ourselves and self diagnosing, because the frustration is that when you go to one particular person in one particular field, you’re not necessarily getting the full scope, and nor is it reasonable or fair to expect that person to be able to give you the full scope. But holistic treatment requires the full scope. Sometimes you have to look at nutrition. You have to look at mental health. You have to look at exercise. You have to be aware of. You know what a physiotherapist can do versus what a coward Proctor can do. And so it’s frustrating. I have found myself frustrated. I know we’ve been frustrated in our health journey and that when you have a conversation with one particular individual, you know you’re only getting advice from one particular perspective. And that isn’t always what’s required. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Absolutely, absolutely. And that’s and we come back to that conversation of time right without spending time with somebody. How do you know all the facets of their life? You just don’t write. And I think that’s once again why? Why gravitate to working at the youth clinic? Because even if it’s not me. I hear from the social worker I hear from the counselor. I hear from the nurse, and all of that puts a picture together, right? And it just makes treating them that much easier If I know what’s happening in their life. Andrew Bracewell: Okay, let’s switch gears, Okay, we crush that way. Did that the best we possibly could. There’s nothing else we could ever say. Exhausted it. You are a mum. Yes, you have a four month old. We’re currently on a nursing break. Yes, you have a two year old and a four year old. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Yes. And you have this career? Yes, and you probably have to make dinner from time to time or vacuum or vacuum Andrew Bracewell: the house or do laundry or whatever. How in the hell does this work? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: So motherhood is being my greatest gift in my greatest teacher. Everyone who knew me in medical school knew that I talked about one thing on Lee, and it was to be a mum, to be a mom, to be a mom. That’s all I ever wanted. And I wonder if it’s because I had this notion that maternity leave would be like a break My one thought Maybe that’s why I wanted to be a mom. But ah, like we had caught, you did. Alluded to as well, quickly after residency. I finished my residency in six weeks. Afterwards, I was pregnant with you, Sean. My first child. And it was go time. That’s all I wanted. I spent that year researching, and I was gonna be I read basically every book I could get my hands on on motherhood and the best things to buy. But as any rookie mum, of course, no book ever trains you for a child that doesn’t sleep and breastfeeding problem. You mean you didn’t perfectly sleep? Train all your Children? What exactly? Speak given them completely deprived right now, right? Exactly. So And I think for the first time, motherhood was not just an intellectual hit. It was an emotional hit. I’m used to having intellectual hits are okay. You know, you can you can get a B on a paper or you can not do so well on an exam or whatever the case might be. But I’ve never had an emotional hit before. And by that I mean the fact that something this baby was responding to me as if I wasn’t a good enough mother. And it made me feel like what I ever be a good enough mother because I didn’t feel that quote unquote bond that you were supposed to feel. You know, all of that for you. Were you a natural? I like Andrew Bracewell: some women. You don’t mean some women. They would explain the first a Ziff like it’s like I’ve done this my entire life. It’s like riding a bike. And then I know some women would say the opposite like this was a foreign experience for me. How would you put yourself in that spectrum? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: You know what it’s like walking through a cloud. Parts were blissful and parts were completely hazy. You know, it felt like I was on Cloud nine, but yet I didn’t know where I was going. If that makes any sense, that’s very good. That that’s exactly the analogies, right? Actually, So and no. And for the first time in my life notebook or my mind couldn’t get me out of it, and I tried and I tried so hard. Ethicists will sound crazy, but between nursing sessions, I actually with schedule meditations I knew. I knew on paper that I needed to do yoga and meditate and do all this stuff for me. Andrew Bracewell: Were you practicing meditation already for your life? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: 100%. Yeah. You are a guru. No, but meditation doesn’t work. If you’re trying to do it with for, like a minute between switching breasts and you know it doesn’t work, it takes time Andrew Bracewell: to get in. Absolutely. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Like it doesn’t work to schedule your yoga and get anxious while it’s loading on the last talk like that. Kind of That’s the opposite of what you should be doing. So all of this stuff I laugh about in retrospect. But man, did I hit the wall, man. Did I hit the wall? Because, oh, I can’t even begin to tell you I I was on my knees, figuratively, literally. All the rest of it. I I was at my rock rock rock bottom, and I didn’t hope. Of course, my husband knew what was going on. To some extent, my family knew what was going on to some extent, but once again, very much. It’s okay. It’s going to get better. Postpartum is normal. You just had a baby Andrew Bracewell: It’s the tools they have in the bag that a very dear friend of mine has explained it to me that way. When talking about you know how are parents have dealt with us, it’s easy to harbour bitterness or to say they screwed up or whatever. But when you realize that they had a hammer and a wrench and that’s all they had, and today we have hammers and wrenches and screwdrivers and way more tools than we had, so we might approach the conversation differently. But they’re just doing what they’ve always known how to do, because that’s the tools I’ve always had Dr. Shahana Alibhai: and they’re doing it out of love and they’re doing it just I’m sure I’m gonna screw my kids up bad to look high because you do the best that you can. But so sometimes it’s the hardest for family to see what you’re going through, because they just want to see the version that they know of you, not the version that you are now, which was the worst of myself. I’ll share a story which is a little bit of never actually told this to anybody before, but I was driving one day and, ah, I had the split second thought that what if I just drove into the other lane and then it would all be over? And this is the kind of stuff I talked with to the youth. I work with thistles, the kind of stuff I am comfortable talking about. But when I had that thought, and when I realized that you boy, I better take a step back for myself because that kind of thought should not bring me peace. It should bring me fear in some ways that I’ve reached that point right, and that’s what sleep deprivation and emotional burnout and even intellectual burnout will do to you. So I actually reached out to a good friend who’s a nurse at the youth clinic, and I texted her one day and I said, I think I need some help here. And I spoke with my mentor, Dr. What and, ah, my good friend Joanne, who’s the nurse of the youth clinic? And she said, Yeah, this is you need some help here, So I wasn’t comfortable enough to go to my family doctor because she’s a good friend of mine. Um, and this is where ego comes into play. Sure, this is where I wanna be. The super mom. I don’t wanna have any of the stuff going on, so I called. We actually are very fortunate. I think I don’t know if we have it in other provinces, but in BC, We have a confidential physicians help blind or health line. So any physician and their family can call this line and basically access help for anything physical, mental, anything Andrew Bracewell: for physicians. Only Dr. Shahana Alibhai: for only physicians and their spouses are pregnant. So I called this and I got put through to an intake worker. And even as they’re doing the intake, I’m thinking, actually, I’m fine. Actually, I’m good. I don’t need help. I’m good. I just made a call like I don’t know what I’m doing for you. Everything’s fine. Everything is blissful. So then, of course the doc calls me and I’m trying to have a very professional conversation. You know, according to the D S M five criteria, I have X, Y and Z because we’re both doctors here, so I’m not sexually Hannah like, just just take it easy. First of all, and second of all, I think you’re gonna need some help and I said, No, I don’t need help. I know what I have. I’ve got postpartum anxiety. Perfect. I’m done. He’s like, No, you’re gonna be Just talk to somebody You might need to consider some medication. And I said absolutely not. Because here I am writing it out for every patient I see, not every but a lot of them. But when my name was at the top of that prescription pad, are you kidding me? I’m too good for that. And that’s rock bottom. Andrew Bracewell: It’s just fascinating. Like So what do you think is going on in the human brain? This absolutely is not something that only physicians air you you deal with. I mean, I I can say in my own life, I have also dealt with this for some reason. In whatever area that we are deemed to be the professional. There’s this mental block where we cannot suffer with that challenge. And the irony is, is we’re helping people with these things every day. Absolutely, absolutely. And there is I don’t I don’t have an answer for I’m just I’m fascinated by that, and I know that that can’t That can’t be the best of what there is. We’re better than this. We’ve got to get past that. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: I think part of it, too, is because it’s a self protective mechanism, right? If you feel that if I need to help other people will how can I be down and out? I need to be in a role that I can lift other people up. I didn’t mean to get swept under the current, but we’re all susceptible. We’re all human, right? And then the eagle part comes from the fact that like it or not, mental health still is associated with the weakness. Right there is if you just tried harder. If you just thought CB teeter Cognitive behavioral therapy To your way out of this, do more yoga, do more meditation, eat better, drink more fish, oil, whatever you know, make it go away. And it’s not that easy. And this the other piece, too, is that it doesn’t have to be. We use mental health, but mental health could just be an having a really tough day. I’m having a really tough week. When are we going to start to say that that is OK? Because as a society we never go toe. You ask. How are you doing? I’m doing great. I’m doing perfect. I do. Fine. We’re approaching the Christmas holidays. If you ask somebody, how are you actually doing Andrew Bracewell: their melting down? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Exactly. But do we have to say that you have quote unquote depression needed medication? No. Where is the middle ground? We’ve stopped having riel conversations because all we want to do is present a facade of our life on social media that everything is perfect. And it’s not. Andrew Bracewell: Don’t go there. Don’t take me to social media. I don’t want to do it. Today started. Let’s rewind, rewind you, you and I. So we got to go for coffee. A few weeks ago, as I was chasing and pursuing you and begging you to come on the show and among other things, I we were chatting. We had a great chat for two hours and you said something that stuck out to me. And I wantto take us back to that moment and just shut up and listen to you talk, if that’s okay. You said something like at some point in time, we, as in you and college, needed to give you a designation and your designation was you were the CEO of your home. And this came in the context of a conversation where we were discussing gender roles and how to make careers work and have people feel validated. And I rolled over. And further context was Is that you’re talking from a perspective where two people have significant careers and yet you have a uterus and three Children, and I was coming out from their perspective where I have three Children. My wife’s career has been to stay home and raised the Children, and I’ve gone out, conquered while she’s done that. And then you just raise this concept of CEO of the home and I went, That’s fascinating. Can you just take off on that? Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Yes, it’s funny. There’s, ah, actually various important role model Rachel Hollis. She’s written it, really Girl, just wash your face that kind of book. And she had mentioned one of her podcast that when you have something deep within your heart that just keeps speaking to you, don’t ignore it. And that’s exactly what I feel the CEO of the house concept it. So let me tell you more So like you mentioned I have three boys, all boys think, Ah, four year old, a two year old in a four month old. And it was our choice to have, ah, what I would think of as a larger family now. And like you said, for better or for worse, there is a time frame that you have to make these decisions as to when to start your family. And, you know, typically it’s in your late twenties, mid thirties, whatever it happens to be. There’s also a choice that you, as a woman, can make as to whether you want to stay home or whether you want to re enter the workforce. But that’s a very black and white decision. And what often, after spending 10 years or 11 years in the educational system earning this degree, I was spit out with Yes, an M D. But that means nothing. An MD means nothing unless you’re really happy practicing in a regular family practice office, and that for me, I’m That’s not my happiness. That’s not my groove, right? So here I am, a mom here I am, an MD behind my name, but I still don’t know what I want to do. And if that sounds of the ironic enough, yes, I enjoy the youth clinic. And yes, I enjoy breast health. But there’s something in my heart in my soul that I want to create something. I want to be an entrepreneur. I want to create something sustainable. Four women, four mums, especially that they can start to embrace who they are, their sense of time, their identity and give them purpose. And I think a lot of women who start cos kind of start with this sort of notion in mind because they have felt that loss, so they want to give it to others. So once again, I want to go into unchartered territory with this CEO of the House, which by the white, I should say, is a concept that I came up with in the sense that it speaks to the fact that I’m not just a stay at home Mom, Don’t you hate that When somebody asked me that Oh, I cringe. What do you I’m just a stay at home. Mom, don’t say that. Take the just out of there you are doing being at hole. I got to go. I got to goto work for three hours yesterday and I came back invigorated. I was happier. I love my kids so much, but it is hard, hard, hard work. And the reason the CEO of the House idea came up for me is that my husband bought a book. I won’t say the name of the book, but it was with the theme of taking charge of your mornings. Let’s say right, how do you start to utilize the 45? Aye, aye. Ems kind of slot as, ah, time that you can really supercharge yourself. We Andrew Bracewell: don’t want to say the name of because it’s controversial or you just go Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Just because I don’t want Thio. I like the concept of the book, but I think it was missing from a God. A female perspective. I Andrew Bracewell: got it. Yeah. So you want Dr. Shahana Alibhai: to use what exactly? So you know my ass. It was all, like, charged up about this book that Oh, yeah, it’s likely. Whatever our of power in the morning, I’m gonna meditate. I’m gonna work out, and I’m gonna journal. Oh, this sounds amazing. But I looked and I said, Guess what? I’ve been doing this for four hours four months. All my kids were horrible sleepers, but I’ve been up at 2 a.m. At 3 a.m. At 5 a.m. I’ve been doing this hour of power except I’ve been nursing while I’ve been doing it. Didn’t really mean like, Welcome to the O Club. And it’s so ironic is that we have all of these books for executives and CEOs and entrepreneurs how to unlock the tools and tactics to make yourself the most successful version that you can. But what’s the biggest difference between an entrepreneur, business person, CEO and a mom? What’s the biggest difference? Andrew Bracewell: I would say the size of the humans you’re talking Dr. Shahana Alibhai: about the correct, their voices. But it’s This is what I’ve come up with. It’s the ownership of time you ask. Look at yourself. You might have a list of things that you want to do to date. Andrew Bracewell: Yeah, I scheduled this exactly where I wanted it. Dr. Shahana Alibhai: Oh, that’s interesting. I have three lit

How do companies move past mere compliance and focus on doing the right thing? Do companies need data stewards and ethicists? How are business, technology, and humanities blending? In this episode of IBM thinkLeaders podcast, we are joined by Michael Brent (Data Ethics Officer at Enigma Technologies) & Jennifer Fischer (AI Ethicist and Associate Professor at Felician University). We talk about going from STEM to STEAM, understanding data practices and governance, and the impact that GDPR is having on American companies. We also get into how we can be proactive with data practices, as opposed to reactive with regulation. Connect with us @IBMthinkLeaders “What is this product going to do? Who will it serve and what results will it deliver to them? That's a way to start thinking about the ethics of what we should be building and how we should be using this information.” -Michael Brent, Data Ethics Officer at Enigma Technologies “What I've seen is...a challenge around the knowledge and awareness and transparency that goes along with providing a rich data governance set without it being so burdensome that then you're slowing down your delivery teams.” -Jennifer Fischer, AI Ethicist and Associate Professor at Felician University BIOS Michael Brent is the Data Ethics Officer at Enigma Technologies in New York City, and a Co-founding Faculty Member of the Brooklyn Institute for Social Research. Hailing originally from Toronto, Canada, he earned his PhD in Philosophy from Columbia University, and taught for several years at the University of Denver before returning to the city to join Enigma as their first Data Ethics Officer. -- Jennifer Fischer is an AI Ethicist and Associate Professor at Felician University. She is a frequent speaker on topics related to development and use of intelligent technologies, applied digital ethics, human-robot interaction and future of work; in context of business; data privacy; legal & regulatory compliance; algorithmic bias; cyber-risk; and impacts of techno-social engineering upon the individual and society. Ms. Fischer brings real-world experience to teaching. Most recently, as the Global Head of Platform Security Management for KPMG International; and with +25 years’ experience as a Global IT Executive serving in transformation leadership positions to optimize business performance, manage risk effectively and help organizations adapt to changing business conditions. .

Those who work on responding to the ethical issues and decisions that arise in healthcare realize that we are invited into the most complex stories that patients, families , healthcare professionals and our communities have to offer. They not only involve value-laden clinical decisions about patient treatments, but community decisions about public health that sometimes […] The post The Work: Reflections of Two Healthcare Ethicists appeared first on Mission Network.

Early in the twentieth century not only was abortion illegal but so was birth control.  Fast forward five or six decades and the practices of birth control and abortion were legal and widely accepted.  Now, decades after legalizing abortion, a new phrase has arisen in the abortion arena.  That phrase is “Post Birth Abortion”.  It means, as the phrase suggests, the termination of a life after birth.  Perhaps you are ok with abortion but would take exception to aborting a baby after a full term pregnancy.  If so, listen in as the Brothers in the Virtual Living Room discuss the potential “Next Step in Abortions”. Please feel free to phone into the Virtual Living room with your comments or questions.  We air programs on Blog Talk Radio at the following times: Sun 1:30pm, Mon 8:00pm, Tue 8:00pm, Wed 7:00pm, Thu 8:00pm, Fri 7:00pm & Sat 9:00am.  All times are Eastern Standard Time.

Ethicists are recommending that Canadian doctors should not be allowed to opt out of providing services to patients, even if it goes against their conscience.  Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. A recent article out of Canada reports that ethicists are recommending that conscience laws be modified for the medical profession.  The argument suggests that physicians should not have the right to opt out of providing such services as prescribing contraceptives when a patient requests those services.  According to the authors, “Doctors must put patients’ interest ahead of their own integrity.  If this leads to feelings of guilty remorse or them dropping out of the profession, so be it.” That is truly shocking language that we should take note of, especially since, as the article in the National Postpoints out, every country in the civilized world recognizes at least some form of conscientious objection.  Not only do the authors suggest that certain professions should be closed to those whose integrity would require the abandonment of the conscience to practice, it fails to understand what conscience is. The reason we provide protections for the exercise of conscience is because people should not be made by the government to make their conscience optional.  As Dr. Robert George of Princeton University has put it, “The right of conscience is a right to do what one judges oneself to be under an obligation to do.” We will see whether Canada takes up the proposal by its professors, but south of the border, we must be vigilant that we never permit the government to make optional what our Creator has made obligatory. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Early in the twentieth century not only was abortion illegal but so was birth control.  Fast forward five or six decades and the practices of birth control and abortion were legal and widely accepted.  Now, decades after legalizing abortion, a new phrase has arisen in the abortion arena.  That phrase is “Post Birth Abortion”.  It means, as the phrase suggests, the termination of a life after birth.  Perhaps you are ok with abortion but would take exception to aborting a baby after a full term pregnancy.  If so, listen in as the Brothers in the Virtual Living Room discuss the potential “Next Step in Abortions”. Please feel free to phone into the Virtual Living room with your comments or questions.  We air programs on Blog Talk Radio at the following times: Sun 2:00pm, Mon 8:00pm, Tue 8:00pm, Wed 7:00pm, Thu 8:00pm, Fri 7:00pm & Sat 9:00am.  All times are Eastern Standard Time.

With Nicola Lacetera, Associate Professor of Management at the University of Toronto.

Mick chats with Tom McDermott about ethics and war in the modern era. Tom is a military ethicist and serving officer in the Australian Army. His Occasional Paper, Soldiers, Squadrons, and Ethicists, discusses some issues on ethics and strategy as well as possible ways to overcome them. Tom offers his second answer to the final question.  You can get your show swag here or support the show here.

Special guest Eric Schwitzgebel joins David and Tamler to discuss the moral behavior (or lack thereof) of ethicists. Does moral reflection make us better people, or does it just give us better excuses to be immoral? Who's more right about human nature--Mencius or Xun Zi? What did Kant have against bastards and masturbating? Plus, we talk about jerks, robot cars, and killing baby Hitler. (Godwin's Law within 1:42--might be a new record for us). LinksEric Schwitzgebel publications.  (Has links to all the discussed papers).Why Self-Driving Cars Must be Programmed to Kill  [technologyreview.com]Bonnefon, J. F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2015). Autonomous Vehicles Need Experimental Ethics: Are We Ready for Utilitarian Cars? [arxiv.org]Mencius [wikipedia.org]Xun Zi [wikipedia.org]"The Philosophical Problem of Killing Baby Hitler." [vox.com]Why it's Unethical to Go Back in Time and Kill Baby Hitler. [forbes.com] Special Guest: Eric Schwitzgebel.

Ethicists love to talk about war and peace. Theologians regularly debate the merits of pacifism verses just-war. The biggest problem with theses conversations is just how foreign the actual experience and situation of the solider is from the debates. On the show this week is Logan Isaac and Matt Moorman from the Centurion's Guild. Matt was a friend of Tripp's from high school turned solider turned minister and friend of Logan. Logan is an Iraqi vet and a peace activist and advocate for his fellow soldiers. He's the author of Reborn on the Fourth of July: The Challenge of Faith, Patriotism & Conscience and For God and Country (In That Order): Faith and Service for Ordinary Radicals.  Make sure to check them out on twitter, instagram and Facebook. Follow the podcast, drop a review, send feedback/questions or become a member of the HBC Community. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

  The Ethicists consider when and how to call out another person's prejudice.

The Ethicists consider whether a mistress is required to honor a couple's marriage.

The Ethicists consider how to reconcile two wildly conflicting stories of a deceased parent.

The Ethicists consider when you should reveal someone else's sexual assault, if at all.

The Ethicists consider when you should reveal someone else's sexual assault, if at all.

The Ethicists consider when it's worth taking away a loved one's autonomy.

The Ethicists consider what information is, and isn't, O.K. to leave out on a job application.

The Ethicists consider what information is, and isn't, O.K. to leave out on a job application.

The Ethicists answer reader questions about an unintended contribution, a proposed negative hotel review and a religious tract.

In this episode of Everything Justin and Keith change up the format of the show and move to a weekly timeframe. In the watching section Justin talks about HBO's true crime mini-series "The Jinx," and Netflix's new comedy from Tina Fey "The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt." Keith discusses the amazing sound design of "On Cinema at The Cinema," and the underappreciated BBC series "Peaky Blinders." Justin and Keith then share their anxieties about the potentinal of the books they're reading ending poorly. Keith is reading "The Book of Strange New Things," while Justin is reading "The Southern Reach Trilogy." The two move on to talk about what they've been playing where Keith talks about "Darkest Dungeon." Justin prompts Keith for an answer as to why he or anybody plays video games, and quietly questions every decision he's ever made, then shares his latest raid experience from "Destiny." They finish the segment by discussing the podcasts "Everything is Stories" and "The Ethicists," and Keith discusses his newfound and unabashed love for The Purity Ring's new album. The show ends with a brief discussion of last episodes recommendation of "The Lawnmower Man," by Stephen King, and Justin recommends the 1975 movie, "The Noah."

Click below to play, unfortunately the audio player is limited therefore the best way to follow us is to subscribe via iTunes below, but either way thanks for listening! This episodes run time is 38:24. Stefan and David discuss the ideas of deep ecology and the ethical implications that accepting such a philosophy would have … Continue reading Beyond Green Podcast: Episode 22 – Deep Ecology, an Ethicists Dream or Nightmare?

Dan Ariely, Eric Schwitzgebel

As part of Ethics Week 2005 Professor Douglas P. Lackey, Professor of Philosophy at the Weissman School of Arts and Sciences speaks to Baruch's BioMed Society about the branch of bioethics that involves research on human subjects. The lecture took place on April 14, 2005 at 17 Lexington Avenue, Room 404.

As part of Ethics Week 2005 Professor Douglas P. Lackey, Professor of Philosophy at the Weissman School of Arts and Sciences speaks to Baruch's BioMed Society about the branch of bioethics that involves research on human subjects. The lecture took place on April 14, 2005 at 17 Lexington Avenue, Room 404.

As part of Ethics Week 2005 Professor Douglas P. Lackey, Professor of Philosophy at the Weissman School of Arts and Sciences speaks to Baruch's BioMed Society about the branch of bioethics that involves research on human subjects. The lecture took place on April 14, 2005 at 17 Lexington Avenue, Room 404.

What does it mean to be a hero?

What does it mean to be a hero?