Sort Of Harm Research Articles

Accident Avoidance using Railway Track Detection System using IoT

An IoT-based railway track crack and object discovery framework is an innovative arrangement for guaranteeing the security of railroad frameworks. The framework employs a combination of sensors and cameras that are introduced along the railroad track to screen it for any signs of harm or hindrances. The sensors can identify vibrations and changes within the track, which can show the nearness of a break or other sort of harm. The cameras can capture pictures and video of the track, such as fallen branches, flotsam, and jetsam, or indeed individuals or creatures. Once the framework recognizes an issue, it can send an alarm to the railroad administrators or upkeep workforce, permitting them to rapidly address the issue sometime soon if it causes any mischances or delays. An IOT-based railroad track break and protest location framework can incredibly move forward the security and proficiency of railroad operations. Key Words: Embedded system, Internet of things, ultrasonic sensor, IR detector, Arduino Uno, GPS

Are women of all age groups equally affected by the shadow of sexual assault? Evidence from Germany

Ample evidence suggests that women are more fearful of crime than men. The ‘shadow of sexual assault hypothesis’ offers a possible explanation for this gender gap: in patriarchal societies females are more afraid of sexual violence, which, in turn, drives their fear of other types of criminal victimization. Although the shadow hypothesis has received some empirical support, knowledge on the role of age in this context has remained scant. Therefore, the present study examines whether fear of sexual assault translates into fear of other offenses in all age segments of the female population, and whether the magnitude of this shadow effect varies with age. Statistical analyses are based on a large-scale random sample of women living in Germany. The findings suggest that although the proportion of women who are fearful of sexual assault declines with age, a shadow effect of this fear can be observed in all age groups. The ‘radiation effect’ of fear of sexual violence on fear of other crimes increases slightly with age. We interpret this interaction as result of older women's heightened vulnerability to many sorts of harm.

Proportionality in cyberwar and just war theory

ABSTRACT Which harms and benefits should be viewed as relevant when considering whether to launch cyber-measures? In this article, we consider this question, which matters because it is central to determining whether cyber-measures should be launched. Several just war theorists hold a version of what we call the ‘Restrictive View’, according to which there are restrictions on the sorts of harms and benefits that should be included in proportionality assessments about the justifiability of going to war (whether cyber or kinetic). We discuss two such views – the Just Cause Restrictive View and Rights-based Restrictive View – and find both wanting. By contrast, we defend what we call the ‘Permissive View’. This holds that all potential goods and bads should be included in proportionality decisions about cyber-measures, even those that appear to be trivial, and where the various harms and benefits are given different weights, according to their agent-relative and agent-neutral features. We argue further that accepting the Permissive View has broader implications for the ethical frameworks governing cyberwar, both in terms of whether cyberattack provide just cause for coercive responses, including kinetic warfare and cyber-responses, and whether cyber-measures should be governed by just war theory or a new theory for cyber-operations.

The Maximus of Necessity and Its Application to Organ Transplantation: An Islamic Bioethical Perspective

Islam is second largest religion being practiced around the globe. It is fastest growing believe and rapidly expanding in the western world despite several misunderstanding including Islamic standpoint on organ transplantation and tissue grafting. The objective of this study is to determine the Islamic view point on organ transplantation and tissue grafting with special reference pertaining to human needs under the ambit of Shariah doctrine of necessity and world religions. Since, Islam and other world religions have given immense consideration to humans whether they are alive or dead, and the desecration of human body is considered a violation sufficed to a great sin. Injunctions of the holy Quran and Sunnah have evidently expressed sanctity to human life/body. Hence, taking one’s life without a legal rights or even inflicting any sort of harm, injury, and aggression against an individual is terming an unlawful act. Notably, some scholars contended that, classical jurists’ are silent on the issue of organ transplantation predominantly the transfer of organs from one species to another species. But, in reality, our argument is that, the organ re-plantation can be seen in the Prophetic era. However, as per their view, the reason is obvious, since the organ transplantation associated with the advancement of science. Accordingly, the recent progress in transplant sciences were not totally known to the classical jurists, although, issues pertaining to the sale of human organs have been discussed by them (jurists). Similarly, many other innovative matters can be seen in Prophetic traditions, and that is why, as per jurist’s assertion, it can practically be traced in the Prophetic era.Consequently, this study argues that, the permissibility of organ donation and transplantation somehow mentioned in the main sources of Islamic law and biomedical ethics. Therefore, the basis and rules of permissibility will be derived while discussing organ transplantation, particularly in homo, allotransplant and other inter-related issues under the rubric of necessity doctrine.
 Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science Vol.20(3) 2021 p.511-524

Human Rights and the Vulnerability of Rights-bearers

I seek to understand the relationship between human vulnerability and human rights as something more than a problem that respect for human rights solves. After characterizing vulnerability and noting that human rights are generally regarded as entitlements that respect the dignity of persons by securing their autonomous agency, I draw out the implications of these premises. I argue that human vulnerabilities are constitutive of the capacity for autonomous agency and therefore that the circumstances of respect for persons must include persons’ vulnerability to many sorts of harms. Given that the opportunity to lead one’s life in one’s own way—that is, the opportunity to exercise autonomous agency—is indispensable to human dignity, respect for persons entails respect for the vulnerability that underwrites autonomous agency. If so, rights-bearers are necessarily vulnerable subjects. I further defend this conception of rights-bearers by arguing that it comports with three types of human rights theory: agency-centered, needs-centered, and practice-based accounts of human rights.

Navigating Uncertainties: How to Assess Welfare and Harm in Genetically Altered Animals Responsibly-A Practical Guideline.

Simple SummaryWhen using animals in research, ethical aspects must be included in the project evaluation process. As one important part, a harm–benefit analysis (HBA) should be carried out in order to approve projects in line with the EU Directive 2010/63/EU, which sets out the rules for animal experiments in Europe. These regulations state that the harms and benefits of a project should be assessed and weighed before the project starts. Assessment of harms caused by scientific procedure is a precondition for ethical evaluation. In this context, projects that involve genetically altered (GA) lines raise new issues. A significant lack of knowledge surrounds new GA lines, making it difficult and sometimes impossible to estimate harm prospectively with sufficient certainty since it is not predictable what sort of harm—if at all—the animals are going to experience. Therefore, this contribution aims to deal with the challenges of harm assessment in GA animals and their implications for welfare assessment and the HBA. A practical guideline is presented herein to serve as guidance for relevant harm factors and address the main challenges, particularly when dealing with uncertainties in project evaluation.The use of animals in research requires careful ethical consideration of whether the burden on the animals is justified. As one important part of the project evaluation, a harm–benefit analysis (HBA) must be carried out in order to approve projects in line with the EU Directive 2010/63/EU. This implies that harms and benefits must be assessed prospectively beforehand in order to weigh them. Although there are different methods of weighing, it is clear that an assessment of prospective harms and benefits is a precondition for any weighing procedure. In this context, projects that use genetically altered (GA) lines raise new issues. A unique challenge when using GA lines is the significant lack of knowledge in this context, making it difficult and sometimes impossible to estimate harm prospectively with sufficient certainty, since it is not predictable what sort of harm—if at all—the animals are going to experience. Therefore, this contribution aims to deal with the challenges of harm assessment in GA animals and their implications for welfare assessment and the HBA. A practical guideline is presented herein to serve as guidance for relevant harm factors and address the main challenges, particularly when dealing with uncertainties in the process of HBA.

Importance of Diplomatic Immunities in Islamic Law (Shariah)

Diplomatic Immunity has always been emphasized in western countries. However, was originated by Islamic Law 1400 years ago with the advent of Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). Islamic Law formulated the bases of rights of diplomats, bestowed privileges to envoy of other countries, presented some ideal examples which has much importance and purposeful effects among the different nations, cultures throughout the history of Muslim Ummah. Islamic Law has formulated foundations and rules to protect the diplomats from any sort of harm, killing, damaging their properties instead they must be given privilege and protocol to perform their duties as diplomats in host countries without any fear. Furthermore, even after providing maximum protection, if envoys face a problem, there are laws to protect them in every type of situation including war and peace, chaos and harmony. Additionally, it has never been neglected in the Jurisprudence of Islam, that how the diplomats have to show in the best manner to represent one’s own nation.

Ethics and Cyber Conflict: A Response to JME 12:1 (2013)

This article responds to several recent moral (as contrasted with legal) evaluations of cyber conflict appearing during the past several years. The principal (but not exclusive) focus is on articles recently published in this journal. Including those collected in a recent special issue of JME (12:1/January 2013), guest edited by Bradley J. Strawser. The author distinguishes moral from legal issues in cyber conflict under current international law, and examines claims (like those of cyber expert, Randall Dipert) that neither international law nor just war tradition is any longer sufficient to govern the utterly unique objects and events taking place within a peculiar sort of domain that knows no boundaries, and where conventional constraints (like transparency and accountability) are wholly absent. Other issues covered include recent cyber conflicts, and whether the sort of harm suffered there, or likely to be inflicted during a broader cyberattack (including that resulting from long-term espionage and sabotage) would ever justify the use of conventional force in retaliation. While the JME special issue is not found to break any substantially new ground, taken in a wider context it charts the substantial progress that ethicists, moral philosophers and political theorists have made in catching up with the substantial legal analysis that have attended the advent of serious acts of malfeasance in the cyber domain during the past decade.

Exploring Urban Road System Structure and Operation Mechanism about the Traffic Intersection Congestion

In the face of increasingly congested urban traffic caused by all sorts of harm, how to solve the traffic congestion problem in the urban is becoming the major hot spot which domestic and foreign experts and scholars pay close attention to and study. This paper in a microscopic angle to analyze the problem -- urban traffic intersection congestion，not in macroscopical city planning, transportation planning, urban traffic demand to discuss. Through exploring the urban road system structure and operational mechanism, development of the automobile overpass is to solve the intersection congestion.

When Should “Consumers-as-Producers” Have to Comply With Consumer Protection Laws?

Since the 1960s, consumer protection law has been built on the contrast between large “producers” and small “consumers.” Today, instead, an ordinary consumer owns what can accurately be called a “personal mainframe”—a home computer whose processing power matches an IBM mainframe from about 10 Years ago. Equipped with a personal mainframe—an Information-Age factory—ordinary “consumers” at home are increasingly also becoming “producers.” As unregulated consumers become regulated producers, a major legal question is whether and when the individual should have to comply with consumer protection laws. The discussion here selects four examples of US legal rules that might apply to consumers-as-producers, with recommendations spanning the range of possibilities: (1) consumer privacy legislation: creating a threshold, with no compliance required for databases of fewer than 5,000 names, is recommended; (2) advertising substantiation: concerning the requirement that advertisers have a “reasonable basis” for their claims, applying current law to small advertisers is recommended; (3) spam: current law does not create a threshold for those who send a few commercial emails, but such a threshold is worth considering; (4) political blogging: the author agrees with the US Federal Election Commission decision to create a major exemption from campaign finance laws for online political advocacy, even for large blogs or websites. The common theme among these recommendations is to describe the sort of harm that existing law seeks to reduce. The approach here next looks at how the use of personal mainframes affects creation of those harms. Where the sorts of harm are likely to be created by consumers-as-producers, the analysis tilts towards requiring compliance. Where the sorts of harms are unlikely to be caused by consumers-as-producers, then the case for an exception is stronger.

Terrorism, Morality, and Supreme Emergency

Previous articleNext article No AccessTerrorism, Morality, and Supreme EmergencyC. A. J. CoadyC. A. J. Coady Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 114, Number 4July 2004Symposium on Terrorism, War, and Justice Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/383440 Views: 1041Total views on this site Citations: 35Citations are reported from Crossref © 2004 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Oinike N. Harefa From the reign of terror to the reign of peace: The role of state, religions and church in God’s mission amidst terror, Verbum et Ecclesia 42, no.11 (Aug 2021).https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v42i1.2252Igor Primoratz Terrorism, (Jun 2021): 1–10.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee040.pub2Miriam Schiff, Lior Lesser, Tova Levine, Yaeliy Savo, Tzlil Dashti, Hadas Rosenne Social work interventions with survivors of acts of political violence, Journal of Social Work 21, no.22 (Nov 2019): 188–205.https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017319883556John Guelke Leaking, (Jun 2020): 1–7.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee898Donald L. Buresh, Sunpreet Singh , Journal of Advanced Forensic Sciences 1, no.11 ( 2020): 18.https://doi.org/10.14302/issn.2692-5915.jafs-20-3405Fritz Allhoff, K Potts Medical immunity, international law and just war theory, Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps 165, no.44 (Oct 2018): 256–265.https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2018-001020Oren Asman, Yechiel Michael Barilan A Solidarity-Based Framework for Ethical Clinical Research in CBRNE, (Apr 2019): 135–145.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11977-5_11Angela Kallhoff Justifiable Killing in War? For Taking the Soldier's Stance Seriously in War Ethics, Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society – J-RaT 4, no.11 (Jul 2018): 6–20.https://doi.org/10.14220/jrat.2018.4.1.6Joseph Wiinikka-Lydon Dirty Hands and Moral Injury, Philosophy 93, no.33 (Mar 2018): 355–374.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819118000050Afxentis Afxentiou A history of drones: moral(e) bombing and state terrorism, Critical Studies on Terrorism 11, no.22 (Mar 2018): 301–320.https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2018.1456719Andrew R. Hom Forum: “A Bridge Too Far”? On the Impact of Worldly Relevance on International Relations, International Studies Review 19, no.44 (Jul 2017): 692–721.https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/vix008Kevin Barker ‘Glocalizing’ Counterterrorism Law and Policy in the Caribbean: Between State Vulnerability and Independence, (Jun 2017): 247–274.https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55769-8_10Mervyn Frost, Silviya Lechner Understanding international practices from the internal point of view, Journal of International Political Theory 12, no.33 (Jul 2016): 299–319.https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088215596765Piki Ish-Shalom Time is politics: temporalising justifications for war and the political within moral reasoning, Journal of International Relations and Development 19, no.11 (Nov 2015): 126–152.https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2015.36Victor Asal, Mitchell Brown, Marcus Schulzke “Kill Them All—Old and Young, Girls and Women and Little Children”: An Examination of the Organizational Choice of Targeting Civilians, Political Science Research and Methods 3, no.33 (Feb 2015): 589–607.https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.45Victor Asal, Paul Gill, R. Karl Rethemeyer, John Horgan Killing Range, Journal of Conflict Resolution 59, no.33 (Apr 2015): 401–427.https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002713508927Christopher Michaelson Terrorism, (Jan 2015): 1–2.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118785317.weom020214Konstantinos Pilpilidis When Rock Trumps Paper: A Theory of Constitutional Resistance, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2015).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2624459Patrick Lin, Fritz Allhoff, Keith Abney Is Warfare the Right Frame for the Cyber Debate?, (Mar 2014): 39–59.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04135-3_3Philipp von dem Knesebeck Ius in bello, (Feb 2014): 199–258.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-05152-5_5Justin Oakley Moral Philosophy in Australasia, (Jun 2014): 511–541.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6958-8_21Igor Primoratz Civilian Immunity, (Feb 2013).https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee045Morten Dige EXPLAINING THE PRINCIPLE OF MALA IN SE, Journal of Military Ethics 11, no.44 (Dec 2012): 318–332.https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2012.758404VICTOR ASAL, LUIS DE LA CALLE, MICHAEL FINDLEY, JOSEPH YOUNG Killing Civilians or Holding Territory? How to Think about Terrorism, International Studies Review 14, no.33 (Sep 2012): 475–497.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01127.xHelen Dexter Terrorism and violence: another violence is possible?, Critical Studies on Terrorism 5, no.11 (Apr 2012): 121–137.https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2012.659920Patrick Lin, Fritz Allhoff, Neil C. Rowe War 2.0, Communications of the ACM 55, no.33 (Mar 2012): 24–26.https://doi.org/10.1145/2093548.2093558Igor Primoratz Civilian Immunity, Supreme Emergency, and Moral Disaster, The Journal of Ethics 15, no.44 (Jul 2010): 371–386.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-010-9077-8Tamar Meisels Defining terrorism – a typology, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 12, no.33 (Sep 2009): 331–351.https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230903127853Liam Harte Known Unknowns: How Philosophy Has Responded to Fear of the Post-9/11 World, (Jan 2009): 189–205.https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230101609_14SUZY KILLMISTER Remote Weaponry: The Ethical Implications, Journal of Applied Philosophy 25, no.22 (May 2008): 121–133.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2008.00400.xSusanne Halverscheid, Erich H. Witte Justification of War and Terrorism, Social Psychology 39, no.11 (Jan 2008): 26–36.https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335.39.1.26 by Lionel K. McPherson Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong? McPherson, Ethics 117, no.33 (Jul 2015): 524–546.https://doi.org/10.1086/512781 by Daniel Statman Supreme Emergencies Revisited Statman, Ethics 117, no.11 (Jul 2015): 58–79.https://doi.org/10.1086/508037Derek D. Turner Monkeywrenching, Perverse Incentives and Ecodefence, Environmental Values 15, no.22 (May 2006): 213–232.https://doi.org/10.3197/096327106776678870Samuel Scheffler Is Terrorism Morally Distinctive?, Journal of Political Philosophy 14, no.11 (Mar 2006): 1–17.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00242.x

Do We Live in an Unjust World?

Many unjust relationships continue to exist among peoples as well as among individuals. Perhaps there are so many of them that their sum total supports the verdict that we live in an unjust world. Yet this study asks whether the global order as such is unjust, and seeks to give a partial answer to that question by showing that at least some prominent ways of arguing that it is fail. That question must seem hopelessly amorphous. Yet not only do we have to ask it, we will also mean something reasonably precise by it. We must ask it since the unit of political discourse becomes ever more the world as such. Globalization is a household world. So we must ask a question in the global context that we have asked all along about relationships among individuals and societies, namely, is it just? This question has great practical import: if the global order is unjust, the culprits will have duties in justice to rectify the situation, duties that could not simply be subordinated to domestic concerns. To make our question more precise, I adopt a minimal conception of justice and ask whether the global order as such is unjust in that sense. I ask whether there is a straightforward sense in which the global order harms the poor. Much intricacy is tied to the idea of harming, as we know from the debate about Mill's Harm Principle (just what counts as 'harming'?). The sort of harm that is beyond this inquiry is vulnerability, the fact (rather than the harmful exercise) of domination, harm done because some people's needs remain unsatisfied, or because some deserve more than they own and harm done by the mere omission of bringing about a better state of affairs, and so is any injustice characterized along such lines. Adopting this minimal conception entails that we will be able to provide but a partial answer to the title question if a broader conception of justice at the global level can be made plausible.

Efficient Confidentiality for Privacy, Security, and Confidential Business Information

This Article addresses my observation, based on my experience in government service, that those trained in economics are much less likely to consider privacy protection important than those trained in other disciplines. The core economist intuition comes from the basic model of a competitive market, where a market is considered more efficient the closer it comes to perfect information. Full information allows the efficient matching of buyers and sellers. Limits on information, such as privacy rules, raise the costs of exchange and may even promote fraud by concealing negative information. This Article addresses that economists' intuition in a number of ways. As the Article was prepared for a symposium on the future of financial services, Part I highlights the substantial history of confidentiality in banking. Many economists believe that persistent features of markets are likely adaptive and efficient. The history of confidentiality thus raises a rebuttable presumption that confidentiality has important efficiency characteristics. Part II places the privacy debate into settings where economists are likely to have positive intuitions that confidentiality is efficient. First, consider in the security context whether it is efficient to disclose the combination to a bank safe or other security information. Second, consider whether it is efficient for a bank to disclose confidential business information about a corporate borrower to that company's competitors. Third, consider, given the risk of identity theft, whether it is efficient for a bank to reveal a customer's online password or other information that acts as a key to the customer's account. The likely efficiency of keeping this key security information confidential thus can strengthen the intuition that confidentiality may also be efficient when it comes to sensitive personal information, or the keys to the heart. The Article next suggests reasons why economists have tended to undervalue the harms from unwanted disclosures of information. Economists, who themselves may on average care little about privacy, may have mis-gauged the tastes of other people. The Article explains significant externalities that may lead to inefficiently high use of telemarketing and other business activities that rely on information sharing. The technique of cost/benefit analysis likely tends to emphasize the costs of privacy protections, which are more easily monetizable, instead of the benefits. Certain sorts of harms, including long-run societal harms from lack of privacy, have also likely not received full weight. Fourth, a Ponemon Institute study provides new evidence about revealed behavior, and not simply about poll responses, when it comes to financial services and privacy. The most significant finding is that customers that trusted their financial institution on privacy were substantially more likely to engage in online banking. Additional research would be helpful, but this data supports the possibility that individuals will participate more in some financial services where confidentiality is provided. The Article also places the economic efficiency analysis into broader debates about the desirability of privacy protection. Many non-economist scholars, and the legal system, have stressed the violations of rights that occur when important data about individuals is disclosed without their agreement. Economic analysis gives no independent weight to the violation of rights. Economists have thus systematically given less weight than those trained in other academic disciplines to many of the strongest arguments for privacy protection.

Efficient Confidentiality for Privacy, Security, and Confidential Business Information

This Article addresses my observation, based on my experience in government service, that those trained in economics are much less likely to consider privacy protection important than those trained in other disciplines. The core economist intuition comes from the basic model of a competitive market, where a market is considered more efficient the closer it comes to perfect information. Full information allows the efficient matching of buyers and sellers. Limits on information, such as privacy rules, raise the costs of exchange and may even promote fraud by concealing negative information. This Article addresses that economists' intuition in a number of ways. As the Article was prepared for a symposium on the future of financial services, Part I highlights the substantial history of confidentiality in banking. Many economists believe that persistent features of markets are likely adaptive and efficient. The history of confidentiality thus raises a rebuttable presumption that confidentiality has important efficiency characteristics. Part II places the privacy debate into settings where economists are likely to have positive intuitions that confidentiality is efficient. First, consider in the security context whether it is efficient to disclose the combination to a bank safe or other security information. Second, consider whether it is efficient for a bank to disclose confidential business information about a corporate borrower to that company's competitors. Third, consider, given the risk of identity theft, whether it is efficient for a bank to reveal a customer's online password or other information that acts as a key to the customer's account. The likely efficiency of keeping this key security information confidential thus can strengthen the intuition that confidentiality may also be efficient when it comes to sensitive personal information, or the keys to the heart. The Article next suggests reasons why economists have tended to undervalue the harms from unwanted disclosures of information. Economists, who themselves may on average care little about privacy, may have mis-gauged the tastes of other people. The Article explains significant externalities that may lead to inefficiently high use of telemarketing and other business activities that rely on information sharing. The technique of cost/benefit analysis likely tends to emphasize the costs of privacy protections, which are more easily monetizable, instead of the benefits. Certain sorts of harms, including long-run societal harms from lack of privacy, have also likely not received full weight. Fourth, a Ponemon Institute study provides new evidence about revealed behavior, and not simply about poll responses, when it comes to financial services and privacy. The most significant finding is that customers that trusted their financial institution on privacy were substantially more likely to engage in online banking. Additional research would be helpful, but this data supports the possibility that individuals will participate more in some financial services where confidentiality is provided. The Article also places the economic efficiency analysis into broader debates about the desirability of privacy protection. Many non-economist scholars, and the legal system, have stressed the violations of rights that occur when important data about individuals is disclosed without their agreement. Economic analysis gives no independent weight to the violation of rights. Economists have thus systematically given less weight than those trained in other academic disciplines to many of the strongest arguments for privacy protection.

Drug War Heresies: Learning from other Vices, Times and Places

Doctors, whatever their gender, tend towards paternalism. The effect of this bias on our opinions is often exacerbated by immersion in the seamier side of life. We see many sad schizophrenics whose steps downhill can be measured in ‘joints’; we rarely come across the busy person whose burdens are temporarily eased by a modicum of cannabis. We often meet gaunt, diseased, heroin shooters, but modern Coleridges or de Quinceys are mostly outside our professional experience. As a consequence, our urge to protect people from drugs is strong. Protecting people must surely translate into taking action to reduce the prevalence of drug use. How better to achieve this aim than by banning, or otherwise controlling, the availability of noxious substances? So we tend to think and, having thought, go home to enjoy a glass of whisky. Many politicians and other people reach similar conclusions. The trouble is, as this book shows, aiming to reduce usage prevalence may not be the best option when the welfare of all of the people is considered, while some approaches to drug control may cause more ills than they cure. MacCoun and Reuter, a psychologist and an economist, are both American. Their main purpose is to explore likely consequences of changes in the present, draconian, American anti-drug legislation. On the face of it, there is certainly need for change. In 1996, for example, 401 000 people were in jail for drugs offences in the US, compared with 68 000 in 1985, while the prevalence of drug use had probably increased slightly over the same period. In pursuit of their purpose, they first look at the histories of attempts to control alcohol, nicotine, gambling and prostitution, as well as currently illegal drugs, then go on to examine the policies and drug experience of some other countries, especially the Netherlands. Their approach is thorough and appropriately cautious. Confidence in their reliability and good sense is quickly engendered. Perhaps the most important point made here is that very many sorts of harm, in addition to clinical ones, are associated with drugs. At least in the US, a numerically greater proportion of harms arises from the illegal status of drugs, and attempts to enforce the law, than from actual drug use. Therefore, MacCoun and Reuter suggest, the Netherlands' overall policy of aiming for total harm reduction, rather than the more limited goal of usage reduction, may well be sensible. Decriminalization (the authors prefer ‘depenalization’) of possession of small amounts of drugs would seem to be a sensible first step. This has had little effect on usage prevalence in places where it has already been adopted as far as cannabis is concerned, though some increase might be expected for other drugs. Even in Holland, where de facto legalization of cannabis use has occurred, the proportion of people taking the drug is apparently less than in the US. However, legalization, as opposed to the more limited depenalization, needs to be approached with extreme caution since it could so readily result in active and effective promotion of drugs by commercial firms. All this is quite encouraging for the UK. We can be fairly confident that the proposed relaxation of the law relating to cannabis possession will do no harm, and it may prove beneficial. Are there any grounds for caution? Well, it is possible that the change will have no practical effect since arrest rates for cannabis possession in those US States where possession has already been depenalized are no different from rates in States where it remains illegal. More worrying, though, is the possibility that the evidence considered in this book may be too narrowly based to justify a ‘little or no harm’ prognostication. One of the most striking clinical characteristics of cannabis is its long half-life in the body. This means that chronic intoxication can readily occur even in people who are not daily users. Many of us suspect that intoxication usually manifests, not in any readily detectable clinical syndrome, but in a sort of fecklessness difficult to distinguish from ‘normal’ inner-city or adolescent behaviour. Widespread fecklessness can be expected to have highly non-linear, and hence unpredictable, social consequences. Effects of this sort may already have been seen in a wider historical context than that considered in the book. For instance, the original thirteenth-century assassins were said to have been fuelled by hashish. Colonial administrators in the Middle East eighty years ago regarded hashish as at least as much of a scourge as opium in the Far East. They prided themselves on their efforts to limit its use. Perhaps they were mistaken, or perhaps they had a preview of the sort of nasty surprise that cannabis may have in store for us if social contexts change.

Drug War Heresies: Learning from other Vices, Times and Places

Doctors, whatever their gender, tend towards paternalism. The effect of this bias on our opinions is often exacerbated by immersion in the seamier side of life. We see many sad schizophrenics whose steps downhill can be measured in ‘joints’; we rarely come across the busy person whose burdens are temporarily eased by a modicum of cannabis. We often meet gaunt, diseased, heroin shooters, but modern Coleridges or de Quinceys are mostly outside our professional experience. As a consequence, our urge to protect people from drugs is strong. Protecting people must surely translate into taking action to reduce the prevalence of drug use. How better to achieve this aim than by banning, or otherwise controlling, the availability of noxious substances? So we tend to think and, having thought, go home to enjoy a glass of whisky. Many politicians and other people reach similar conclusions. The trouble is, as this book shows, aiming to reduce usage prevalence may not be the best option when the welfare of all of the people is considered, while some approaches to drug control may cause more ills than they cure. MacCoun and Reuter, a psychologist and an economist, are both American. Their main purpose is to explore likely consequences of changes in the present, draconian, American anti-drug legislation. On the face of it, there is certainly need for change. In 1996, for example, 401 000 people were in jail for drugs offences in the US, compared with 68 000 in 1985, while the prevalence of drug use had probably increased slightly over the same period. In pursuit of their purpose, they first look at the histories of attempts to control alcohol, nicotine, gambling and prostitution, as well as currently illegal drugs, then go on to examine the policies and drug experience of some other countries, especially the Netherlands. Their approach is thorough and appropriately cautious. Confidence in their reliability and good sense is quickly engendered. Perhaps the most important point made here is that very many sorts of harm, in addition to clinical ones, are associated with drugs. At least in the US, a numerically greater proportion of harms arises from the illegal status of drugs, and attempts to enforce the law, than from actual drug use. Therefore, MacCoun and Reuter suggest, the Netherlands' overall policy of aiming for total harm reduction, rather than the more limited goal of usage reduction, may well be sensible. Decriminalization (the authors prefer ‘depenalization’) of possession of small amounts of drugs would seem to be a sensible first step. This has had little effect on usage prevalence in places where it has already been adopted as far as cannabis is concerned, though some increase might be expected for other drugs. Even in Holland, where de facto legalization of cannabis use has occurred, the proportion of people taking the drug is apparently less than in the US. However, legalization, as opposed to the more limited depenalization, needs to be approached with extreme caution since it could so readily result in active and effective promotion of drugs by commercial firms. All this is quite encouraging for the UK. We can be fairly confident that the proposed relaxation of the law relating to cannabis possession will do no harm, and it may prove beneficial. Are there any grounds for caution? Well, it is possible that the change will have no practical effect since arrest rates for cannabis possession in those US States where possession has already been depenalized are no different from rates in States where it remains illegal. More worrying, though, is the possibility that the evidence considered in this book may be too narrowly based to justify a ‘little or no harm’ prognostication. One of the most striking clinical characteristics of cannabis is its long half-life in the body. This means that chronic intoxication can readily occur even in people who are not daily users. Many of us suspect that intoxication usually manifests, not in any readily detectable clinical syndrome, but in a sort of fecklessness difficult to distinguish from ‘normal’ inner-city or adolescent behaviour. Widespread fecklessness can be expected to have highly non-linear, and hence unpredictable, social consequences. Effects of this sort may already have been seen in a wider historical context than that considered in the book. For instance, the original thirteenth-century assassins were said to have been fuelled by hashish. Colonial administrators in the Middle East eighty years ago regarded hashish as at least as much of a scourge as opium in the Far East. They prided themselves on their efforts to limit its use. Perhaps they were mistaken, or perhaps they had a preview of the sort of nasty surprise that cannabis may have in store for us if social contexts change.

Snake oil, ethics, and the first amendment: what's a profession to do?

This article considers the appropriate legal and ethical response to those whose advocacy of "alternative" or unvalidated therapies places people at risk of harm. What are our professional responsibilities with respect to such advocacy, and what sorts of harm will justify government intervention?

The ethics of therapeutic and reproductive human cloning

Neither therapeutic cloning nor reproductive cloning necessarily pose insurmountable ethical obstacles. Two defences of therapeutic cloning are considered. The first defence, the argument from property, is rejected because it entails morally counter-intuitive consequences. We should prefer a `balance of reasons' defence which leaves room for the view that human life has intrinsic value. Reproductive cloning is best defended by an appeal to the right to procreative autonomy. The sorts of harms it is feared clones will suffer are also suffered by children conceived through natural means, even when these harms were preventable. The right to reproductive autonomy disallows state control of any form of reproduction for the reasons of child welfare discussed.

Competitors and fouling organisms in the hanging culture of the pacific oyster,crassostrea gigas(thunberg)

Generally speaking the “enemies”; of oysters can be divided ecologically into three classes: 1) “parasites”; which live within the body of the oyster and cause harm, 2) “competitors (fouling organisms)”; which occupy the same ecological niche as the oyster and cause harm indirectly by, contesting the available food and living space, 3) “predators”; which feed on the oyster. The sort of harm which can affect oysters differs widely with cultivation technique and habitat conditions. For instance, with the raft hanging method, long line method and other intensive cultivation practices which involve submersion in the sea, the harm from competitors such as Mytilus edulis gcdloprovincialis, tunicates and barnacles is most noticeable. On the other hand, with natural reproduction and sowing methods or the rack hanging method, in which the cultivation generally takes place in the littoral zone or on sea bottom, the most prevalent harm is caused by such bottom dwelling predators as drills (murices, naticids), sea st...