Biohumanism is the belief that the well-being of all humans and the planet they inhabit is the highest priority of governments, economic systems, and all other social-cultural institutions. Implicit in human well-being as the summum bonum of a moral/ethical system is biological potentiality*.
The goal of nations and major institutions acting in a biohumanistic manner would be to create environments conducive to an optimal level of mental and physical health. Indeed, the mental/physical dichotomy must be restated as a single, biological, facet of human life
Past declarations of health care as a human right are incorporated in the biohumanistic movement. For instance, the World Health Organization Constitution enshrines “…the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being.”
*The term “biological potentiality” as used in this document pertains to an individual’s capacity to develop into an optimal functioning human being in terms of thinking, working, relating to others, and generally living a healthy lifestyle. I owe my view of this idea to paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould who distinguished biological potentiality from biological determinism. For instance, cognitive ability has often been misunderstood to be a score on an intelligence test, which is wrongly considered a reflection of inherent (i.e. genetic) intelligence – predetermined by genes. Throughout this paper, current biological determinists will be credited with much of the injustice in government policy. The most potent form of biological determinism at this particular time in U.S. history is generated by neoconservatives through their members in academia and Washington, D.C. “think tanks,” or ideological lobbying groups such the American Enterprise Institute.
WHY DO WE NEED A BIOHUMANISTIC MOVEMENT?
Governments creating or allowing environments that cause human suffering and ill health are acting in a morally repugnant manner. It is the duty of health care professionals, including bioethicists, to refuse to acquiesce in such government policy and institutional practices. Indeed, it is the moral responsibility of all members of society to resist medical and political elites acting with disregard for the right of humans to a safe, healthy, and healing environment.
Environmental degradation, corporatized medical care, racism, classism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination are rife in global health care systems. Widespread greed and profiteering have taken precedence over healthy lifestyles and equitable medical care in most societies on the planet today.
Radical views of free market economics and anti-government sentiments have become widespread among nations. Inordinately powerful multinational corporations in tandem with corrupt political systems have increasingly neglected the health of the masses of mankind while treating medical care and patients as commodities. Return on investment has become more important than the health of populations. As a result of fundamentalist free market economics, a significant number of subpopulations are experiencing deterioration in life expectancy and quality of life. For at least a decade, epidemiologists and researchers in other disciplines have been attempting to bring this alarming phenomenon to the attention of a broader public.
Broad masses of people are exposed daily to environmental hazards of which they are often not aware and over which they usually have no control. Only the power of collective action, either through government or dissent, can adequately oppose the corporate forces impinging on the environment and health of populations throughout the world.
BIOHUMANISM AS AN ADJUNCT TO BIOETHICS
There is currently no profession or movement dedicated to the philosophical and ethical facets of how humans are harmed by the economic system in general and the health care system specifically. One might think that it is the duty and obligation of bioethicists to assume the role of society’s conscience in protecting the wellbeing of the human species but that is not the case.
As professionals with a mission to oversee violations of human rights in the realm of health care, bioethicists have failed society. In the bioethics profession, acquiescence in and even support for a free market, excessively costly, and inequitable medical delivery system is widespread. For instance, bioethicists’ bias toward the elderly is generated by a false narrative that a combination of the growth of the 65+ population and advancing medical technology will be a major economic threat to the U.S. economic system.
While failing to address the morality of inequitable access to health care and ignoring the growth and deleterious effects of the medical-industrial complex, leading bioethicists have advocated “rationing” of health care for the elderly as a solution to ongoing and untenable medical inflation. Without even a modicum of empirical support, some of the most renowned bioethics scholars in academia and so-called bioethics centers have propounded theories supporting their call to withhold beneficial and needed health care for the elderly for the sake of economic efficiency.
Indeed, discussions in bioethics-related scholarly journals almost obsessively focus on end of life care, which they see as often excessive and unnecessary extension of life. Although their primary concern in this regard with advanced directives and such attention to end of life issues have merit but treatment of the elderly in institutions and the community as a whole has gained very little of their attention.
THE ELDERLY & MORBIDITY COMPRESSION
“Morbidity compression” is a concept rarely discussed in relation to the elderly and health care. How does one define this concept and why is it important to the growing elderly population? Simply stated, morbidity compression is the reduction of time between the onset of usual maladies of old age (morbidity) and death (mortality). This means that healthcare should be focused on the prevention of cardiovascular, osteoporosis, diabetes, dementia, depression, and a whole host of chronic physical and mental ailments.
The goal of morbidity compression is not to continuously extend life beyond genetically programmed limits. Rather, it is to improve the quality of life in its final stages. As we know from the study of evolution and genetics, all aspects of human biology are characterized by variance. Some people will, of genetic necessity (lifespan), die around the age of 83 but others will not reach their natural lifespan due to environmental factors (life expectancy).
The length of time we are programmed to live is our genotype. The reduction of our genetic lifespan due to disease, environmental toxicity, and other factors pertaining to our daily life is our phenotype. Our genotype is the expression of our genes sans environmental factors. However, our genes are, of necessity, expressed in an environment which invariably alters our genetic programming. We know that some people (very few) live to the age of 100 – approximately one out of every 6,000 in industrialized nations.
Although the oldest known human being reached age 126, human evolution has resulted in a maximum lifespan of 115. Supercentenarians – humans older than 110 – are extremely rare. Indeed only one person out of seven million people make it into that category. Most of us will die in our 80s and 90s. Indeed, we will never know if some has made it to her or his natural lifespan. Given the inordinately complex set of genetic and environmental factors in the life of each and every human, it is virtually impossible to parse genotype and phenotype in relation to how life expectancy. In other words, the question is this: do we know how long a person will live if we control environmental factors? The answer to that is no.
What we can control and change however is “quality of life.” We know that enhancing good medical care and reducing deleterious environmental factors, will result in the gain of some years of life, but more importantly, will reduce suffering (reduce the negative side) and will increase the enjoyment of life (increase the positive side).
ELITES & HEALTH
A rather ugly economic and moral narrative has gained dominance in U.S. political discourse. It goes like this: the economic well-being of the U.S. is threatened by government debt and deficit spending and because of health care costs – especially for the elderly – guaranteed adequate health care, as a right, for each and every American is unaffordable. The economic and moral facets of this narrative are generated from the belief that a person should be allowed to suffer and die early for the sake of a particular economic philosophy.
Let’s stipulate that the healthcare sector of the U.S. economy has reached $5 trillion and is now 20% of the $20 trillion gross domestic product (GDP) – more than it should be. The narrative, which scapegoats the elderly, has been concocted by Washington-based “think tanks” created to serve the corporate and wealthy power elite. What that narrative ignores is the excessive amount of government funding and individual out-of-pocket costs channeled unnecessarily into what has been correctly dubbed “the medical-industrial complex.”
Economic elites are striving for maximum return on investment and continuous growth in their wealth. They have leveraged the power of government in their quest for wealth. What they have accomplished is a system that allows them to avoid paying their fair share of taxes while diverting other taxpayers’ money into unproductive activities that enhance their wealth. For instance, military spending accounts for the largest portion of the discretionary budget (nearly $1 trillion per year). Much of that spending is directed into the pockets of wealthy individuals through their investment in military contracting.
The health care sector is an even worse example of a corrupt system in which pharmaceutical, hospital, medical device, nursing home, and other health-related industries excessively charge patients and the government for services that are paid either through Medicare, Medicaid, out-of-pocket, or tax-deductible, employer-provided health insurance. It is no mystery that per capita health care costs in the United States are double and even triple those of our peer countries that cover all citizens and have better health outcomes.
In essence, the U.S. health care system is oriented toward improving the wealth of a few rather than the health of all. The narrative that supports this immoral state of affairs is built on the dehumanization of the masses. As human beings, U.S. citizens are not entitled to the same level of care as the wealthy. The poor are especially dehumanized – they are blamed for their own plight. Indeed, neoconservatism, the most successful political movement in the U.S. following World War II, has successfully promoted the notion that poor people – especially African American poor people – are genetically inferior and nothing can be done to improve their lot. The neocons have been successful in translating their ideology into government policy through legislation reducing safety nets, giving states control over Medicaid, and denial of needed resources for improving neighborhoods.
In addition to specific legislation, the neocon ideology of doing nothing for the poor has been influential in both Democratic and Republican administrations. As jobs disappear and will continue to disappear, individuals ejected from the economic system have few resources in the form of government assistance. In essence, the U.S. is a government with massive wealth that is maldistributed. Necessary medical resources could be provided to all citizens but are not due to the greed of those in power.
WHAT IS THE OBLIGATION OF CITIZENS?
Citizens have the responsibility to demand fairness, i.e. humanization, of their society. They have a right to a healthy environment and medical services. However, a demand for what is the citizens’ rights will not be effective without two things: (1) militant mass action, and (2) an informed, knowledgeable citizenry.
What is Biohumanism?
WHAT IS BIOHUMANISM?
Biohumanism is the belief that the well-being of all humans and the planet they inhabit is the highest priority of governments, economic systems, and all other social-cultural institutions. Implicit in human well-being as the summum bonum of a moral/ethical system is biological potentiality*.
The goal of nations and major institutions acting in a biohumanistic manner would be to create environments conducive to an optimal level of mental and physical health. Indeed, the mental/physical dichotomy must be restated as a single, biological, facet of human life
Past declarations of health care as a human right are incorporated in the biohumanistic movement. For instance, the World Health Organization Constitution enshrines “…the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being.”
*The term “biological potentiality” as used in this document pertains to an individual’s capacity to develop into an optimal functioning human being in terms of thinking, working, relating to others, and generally living a healthy lifestyle. I owe my view of this idea to paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould who distinguished biological potentiality from biological determinism. For instance, cognitive ability has often been misunderstood to be a score on an intelligence test, which is wrongly considered a reflection of inherent (i.e. genetic) intelligence – predetermined by genes. Throughout this paper, current biological determinists will be credited with much of the injustice in government policy. The most potent form of biological determinism at this particular time in U.S. history is generated by neoconservatives through their members in academia and Washington, D.C. “think tanks,” or ideological lobbying groups such the American Enterprise Institute.
WHY DO WE NEED A BIOHUMANISTIC MOVEMENT?
Governments creating or allowing environments that cause human suffering and ill health are acting in a morally repugnant manner. It is the duty of health care professionals, including bioethicists, to refuse to acquiesce in such government policy and institutional practices. Indeed, it is the moral responsibility of all members of society to resist medical and political elites acting with disregard for the right of humans to a safe, healthy, and healing environment.
Environmental degradation, corporatized medical care, racism, classism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination are rife in global health care systems. Widespread greed and profiteering have taken precedence over healthy lifestyles and equitable medical care in most societies on the planet today.
Radical views of free market economics and anti-government sentiments have become widespread among nations. Inordinately powerful multinational corporations in tandem with corrupt political systems have increasingly neglected the health of the masses of mankind while treating medical care and patients as commodities. Return on investment has become more important than the health of populations. As a result of fundamentalist free market economics, a significant number of subpopulations are experiencing deterioration in life expectancy and quality of life. For at least a decade, epidemiologists and researchers in other disciplines have been attempting to bring this alarming phenomenon to the attention of a broader public.
Broad masses of people are exposed daily to environmental hazards of which they are often not aware and over which they usually have no control. Only the power of collective action, either through government or dissent, can adequately oppose the corporate forces impinging on the environment and health of populations throughout the world.
BIOHUMANISM AS AN ADJUNCT TO BIOETHICS
There is currently no profession or movement dedicated to the philosophical and ethical facets of how humans are harmed by the economic system in general and the health care system specifically. One might think that it is the duty and obligation of bioethicists to assume the role of society’s conscience in protecting the wellbeing of the human species but that is not the case.
As professionals with a mission to oversee violations of human rights in the realm of health care, bioethicists have failed society. In the bioethics profession, acquiescence in and even support for a free market, excessively costly, and inequitable medical delivery system is widespread. For instance, bioethicists’ bias toward the elderly is generated by a false narrative that a combination of the growth of the 65+ population and advancing medical technology will be a major economic threat to the U.S. economic system.
While failing to address the morality of inequitable access to health care and ignoring the growth and deleterious effects of the medical-industrial complex, leading bioethicists have advocated “rationing” of health care for the elderly as a solution to ongoing and untenable medical inflation. Without even a modicum of empirical support, some of the most renowned bioethics scholars in academia and so-called bioethics centers have propounded theories supporting their call to withhold beneficial and needed health care for the elderly for the sake of economic efficiency.
Indeed, discussions in bioethics-related scholarly journals almost obsessively focus on end of life care, which they see as often excessive and unnecessary extension of life. Although their primary concern in this regard with advanced directives and such attention to end of life issues have merit but treatment of the elderly in institutions and the community as a whole has gained very little of their attention.
THE ELDERLY & MORBIDITY COMPRESSION
“Morbidity compression” is a concept rarely discussed in relation to the elderly and health care. How does one define this concept and why is it important to the growing elderly population? Simply stated, morbidity compression is the reduction of time between the onset of usual maladies of old age (morbidity) and death (mortality). This means that healthcare should be focused on the prevention of cardiovascular, osteoporosis, diabetes, dementia, depression, and a whole host of chronic physical and mental ailments.
The goal of morbidity compression is not to continuously extend life beyond genetically programmed limits. Rather, it is to improve the quality of life in its final stages. As we know from the study of evolution and genetics, all aspects of human biology are characterized by variance. Some people will, of genetic necessity (lifespan), die around the age of 83 but others will not reach their natural lifespan due to environmental factors (life expectancy).
The length of time we are programmed to live is our genotype. The reduction of our genetic lifespan due to disease, environmental toxicity, and other factors pertaining to our daily life is our phenotype. Our genotype is the expression of our genes sans environmental factors. However, our genes are, of necessity, expressed in an environment which invariably alters our genetic programming. We know that some people (very few) live to the age of 100 – approximately one out of every 6,000 in industrialized nations.
Although the oldest known human being reached age 126, human evolution has resulted in a maximum lifespan of 115. Supercentenarians – humans older than 110 – are extremely rare. Indeed only one person out of seven million people make it into that category. Most of us will die in our 80s and 90s. Indeed, we will never know if some has made it to her or his natural lifespan. Given the inordinately complex set of genetic and environmental factors in the life of each and every human, it is virtually impossible to parse genotype and phenotype in relation to how life expectancy. In other words, the question is this: do we know how long a person will live if we control environmental factors? The answer to that is no.
What we can control and change however is “quality of life.” We know that enhancing good medical care and reducing deleterious environmental factors, will result in the gain of some years of life, but more importantly, will reduce suffering (reduce the negative side) and will increase the enjoyment of life (increase the positive side).
ELITES & HEALTH
A rather ugly economic and moral narrative has gained dominance in U.S. political discourse. It goes like this: the economic well-being of the U.S. is threatened by government debt and deficit spending and because of health care costs – especially for the elderly – guaranteed adequate health care, as a right, for each and every American is unaffordable. The economic and moral facets of this narrative are generated from the belief that a person should be allowed to suffer and die early for the sake of a particular economic philosophy.
Let’s stipulate that the healthcare sector of the U.S. economy has reached $5 trillion and is now 20% of the $20 trillion gross domestic product (GDP) – more than it should be. The narrative, which scapegoats the elderly, has been concocted by Washington-based “think tanks” created to serve the corporate and wealthy power elite. What that narrative ignores is the excessive amount of government funding and individual out-of-pocket costs channeled unnecessarily into what has been correctly dubbed “the medical-industrial complex.”
Economic elites are striving for maximum return on investment and continuous growth in their wealth. They have leveraged the power of government in their quest for wealth. What they have accomplished is a system that allows them to avoid paying their fair share of taxes while diverting other taxpayers’ money into unproductive activities that enhance their wealth. For instance, military spending accounts for the largest portion of the discretionary budget (nearly $1 trillion per year). Much of that spending is directed into the pockets of wealthy individuals through their investment in military contracting.
The health care sector is an even worse example of a corrupt system in which pharmaceutical, hospital, medical device, nursing home, and other health-related industries excessively charge patients and the government for services that are paid either through Medicare, Medicaid, out-of-pocket, or tax-deductible, employer-provided health insurance. It is no mystery that per capita health care costs in the United States are double and even triple those of our peer countries that cover all citizens and have better health outcomes.
In essence, the U.S. health care system is oriented toward improving the wealth of a few rather than the health of all. The narrative that supports this immoral state of affairs is built on the dehumanization of the masses. As human beings, U.S. citizens are not entitled to the same level of care as the wealthy. The poor are especially dehumanized – they are blamed for their own plight. Indeed, neoconservatism, the most successful political movement in the U.S. following World War II, has successfully promoted the notion that poor people – especially African American poor people – are genetically inferior and nothing can be done to improve their lot. The neocons have been successful in translating their ideology into government policy through legislation reducing safety nets, giving states control over Medicaid, and denial of needed resources for improving neighborhoods.
In addition to specific legislation, the neocon ideology of doing nothing for the poor has been influential in both Democratic and Republican administrations. As jobs disappear and will continue to disappear, individuals ejected from the economic system have few resources in the form of government assistance. In essence, the U.S. is a government with massive wealth that is maldistributed. Necessary medical resources could be provided to all citizens but are not due to the greed of those in power.
WHAT IS THE OBLIGATION OF CITIZENS?
Citizens have the responsibility to demand fairness, i.e. humanization, of their society. They have a right to a healthy environment and medical services. However, a demand for what is the citizens’ rights will not be effective without two things: (1) militant mass action, and (2) an informed, knowledgeable citizenry.