Necessity, Moral Liability, and Defensive Harm

A person who is liable to defensive harm has forfeited his rights against the imposition of the harm, and so is not wronged if that harm is imposed. A number of philosophers, most notably Jeff McMahan, argue for an instrumental account of liability, whereby a person is liable to defensive harm when he is either morally or culpably responsible for an unjust threat of harm to others, and when the imposition of defensive harm is necessary to avert the threatened unjust harm. Others may favour a purely noninstrumental account of liability: one that looks only to the past behaviour of the potentially liable person. We argue that both views are vulnerable to serious objections. Instead we develop and defend a new view of liability to defensive harm: the pluralist account. The pluralist account states that liability to defensive harm has at least two bases. First, if an attacker is morally or culpably responsible for an unjust attack then he has forfeited what we call his agency right, and in doing so he has made himself partially liable to defensive harm. Whether the attacker is fully liable to defensive harm depends, however, on whether the imposition of defensive harm would infringe a different right held by the attacker: his humanitarian right. Humanitarian rights are rights to be provided with urgently needed resources or to be protected from serious harms when others can do so at reasonably low cost. We argue the pluralist account avoids the objections to which the instrumental and noninstrumental views are vulnerable, coheres with our intuitive reactions in a wide range of cases, and sheds new light on the way different rights combine to determine a person??s liability to suffer harm.     

The Use of Vertebral Osteoarthritis and Osteophytosis in Age Estimation*

Abstract: Previous research on age and vertebral degenerative change has focused on osteophytosis. The present study expands this research by examining the association between osteoarthritis and osteophytosis and by assessing their relationship to age. Researchers scored the bodies and facets in 104 individuals. Statistical analyses assessed relationships between age and degenerative change for the bodies and facets, both separately and combined, for all vertebrae collectively, and for subcategories of vertebral types. Separate analyses were conducted which included only regions that experience heavier stress loads. Results indicate that osteophytosis and osteoarthritis are not associated with each other for all subcategories of vertebrae. Also, the inclusion of osteoarthritis does not enhance the relationship between age and degenerative change, nor does limiting analyses to areas of heaver stress. Finally, although both conditions are significantly correlated with age, the relationship is not strong enough to yield predictive power for establishing age beyond a general estimate.     

Why we should eliminate personal belief exemptions to vaccine mandates

We argue that personal belief exemptions to the mandate for childhood immunizations should not be allowed. Parents who choose not to immunize their children put both their own children and other children at risk. Other children are at risk because unimmunized children go to school or day care when they are contagious but asymptomatic, exposing many more children to potentially dangerous infections. The risks to children from disease are much higher than the risks of vaccines. There are, of course, some bona fide reasons why children should not be immunized. Some children have known allergies or other medical contraindications to certain immunizations. Immunization refusals based on parental beliefs, however, do not fall into this category. In those cases, children are denied the protection of immunizations without any medical or scientific justification. By eliminating personal belief exemptions to those childhood vaccines associated with contagious diseases that have high rates of childhood mortality, we would better protect children and would more fairly spread the burdens of this important public health program.     

Death of a 6-year-old boy with mental retardation: accident versus child abuse

This case study involved death of a 6-year-old child with a history of mental retardation secondary to meningitis at 11 months, spastic quadriplegia, seizure disorder, and hydrocephaly with a remote ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement and gastric tube feedings. Reportedly, the child was co-sleeping with his mother when she awoke and discovered him lying prone and not breathing on the carpeted floor next to the bed. He was transported to the hospital and died in the emergency room of unknown causes. The medical examiner assumed jurisdiction of the body. The external examination revealed petechial hemorrhages on the neck and face, with patterned linear pressure abrasions on the chest, arms, and face. X-rays revealed leg fractures of different ages. This case emphasizes the importance of coordination of death scene investigation, medical history review, and autopsy results through a forensic team approach to determine the accurate cause and manner of death.     

Triggers for alcohol‐related violence in young male offenders

Purpose. Improving the effectiveness of offender treatment programmes is important and one approach is to attend to their content. The aim here was to identify triggers to alcohol‐related violence to inform the development of programmes to treat this problem. Method. Information from 149 young male offenders’ accounts of incidents of alcohol‐related violence was studied using thematic analysis. Results. Sixteen triggers for violence were identified and these were organized into six themes: (1) being offended by someone, (2) seeing an opportunity for material gain, (3) seeing others in need of help, (4) perception of threat, (5) distress, and (6) wanting a fight. Discussion. The implications of the results for developing treatments for alcohol‐related violence are presented. First, identifying triggers should be part of the treatment programme and ways of avoiding triggers should be addressed. Second, changing values, specifically hypermasculine and antisocial values, could attenuate the rewards signalled by the triggers. Third, methods of reducing the potency of triggers would be of value and would include addressing issues of need for respect and responses to perceived disrespect. Fourth, non‐violent ways of helping people who are in trouble need to be introduced. Fifth, coping with threat cues through distraction and increasing self‐awareness would reduce the effects of ‘alcohol myopia’. Sixth, seeking fights for excitement could be reduced by examining the costs through motivational procedures. Finally, and self‐evidently, a primary target of treatment programmes to reduce alcohol‐related violence should be to reduce the level and frequency of alcohol intoxication.