San Diego State Political Nature of Regulatory Policies in Health Discussion

Hi everyone!

We’re at about the half-way point (already! somehow!). This seems like a good time to check back in with one of our ‘big picture’ concerns – objectivity.

This time, let’s approach it with this and the past few week’s readings in mind…

What, if anything might it mean to study inherently political subject matter in an objective fashion? Is this possible? Is this/should this be a goal? Or, is it rather the case that attempting to keep political discussions distinct from certain scientific, technological, and medical discussions is not/should not be the goal?

In general – should researchers aim to keep the political out of their work? Why or why not? Is it possible to do so? Why or why not? Does medical research and practice present a unique intersection of biology and society such that questions concerning objectivity and subjectivity become particularly messy? Yes? No? Maybe?

For folks who have had a chance to read through Casper’s piece (if not yet, no worries!), what were your impressions? Is her account ‘biased?’ If so, in what sense? If not, why not?

In Abortion: Is a Woman a Person? Ellen Willis presents a hypothetical conversation taken from her real-world experiences regarding the politics of abortion:

Willis goes on to note that there is (in my words) both a biological determinist and a particular political-ethical logic at work here – and that they seem to reinforce each other. What do folks make of this? Thoughts? Reactions?

We’ll examine Goodwin’s article alongside Complaints and Disorders in our next discussion board.

Do take care and all best!