Journal Articles

When Doesn’t Potential Consciousness Matter?

In his recent article ““When Does Consciousness Matter? Lessons from the Minimally Conscious State,” Joseph Vukov suggests that potential for consciousness is a salient feature of clinical moral dilemmas. Specifically, he argues that we must consider the consciousness potential of patients with disorders of consciousness (i.e. patients who are minimally consciousness or are in a persistent or permanent vegetative state). He also writes, however, that potential for consciousness might not always be morally salient: salience depends on the specific treatment context and the actual probability of recovery. In this article, I present two challenges to Vukov’s account. First, I suggest that consciousness potential is always morally salient, even if the probability for recovery approaches zero, because the presence of a low probability of recovery still helps inform ethical decision-making. Second, I argue that Vukov’s probability-based account falls subject to vagueness, especially on epistemic accounts of vagueness. Because we have no means of solving epistemic vagueness accurately,  we must either treat all patients with disorders of consciousness the same or pick an arbitrary threshold for where potential consciousness matters. To avoid these problems and make potential consciousness clinically meaningful, we need a more robust account of how to solve for vagueness in clinical care and in determining potential for regaining consciousness.

Published March 9th, 2018 in The American Journal of Bioethics, Neuroscience.

Dauber, Michael S. “When Doesn’t Potential Consciousness Matter?.” AJOB Neuroscience 9, no. 1 (2018): 22-24.

Animal Testing and Medical Ethics in Human Head Transplantation

Sergio Cannavero and Xiaoping Ren have made international headlines for their plans to perform the first human head transplant surgery in the near future. They have also claimed that academics and ethicists have unfairly dismissed their work without due consideration, summarily judging that the procedure is unethical. In this brief commentary, I suggest that head transplantation research is unethical because it is impossible to answer important questions about personal identity required to form a good faith basis for treatment based on experiments with non-human animals. Further, Cannavero and Ren unfairly claim that academics and ethicists have dismissed their work, given the fact that they have not provided the clinical information required to fully evaluate whether or not head transplantation would be medically indicated for their test subjects.

Published on November 17th, 2017 in The American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience.

Dauber, Michael S. “Animal Testing and Medical Ethics in Human Head Transplantation.” AJOB Neuroscience 8, no. 4 (2017): 212-214.

Our Time: Existentialism in the Age of Fear

A colleague recently quipped that Existentialism was more of a historical period now, rather than an actual philosophy. In essence, all the work that could be done in Existentialism has been done, and the philosophy is complete and outdated. I examine this claim and show that Existential issues are even more prevalent now than ever before, given the constant threat of terrorism in the West and pressure to surpass the accomplishments of previous generations, a feat that may not be possible for every individual. Now more than ever, we must choose to live with courage and to decide our lives for ourselves.

Published in Akadimia Filosofia, May 2015. PDF.


Book Reviews


Cells Are The New Cure by Robin Smith, MD, and Max Gomez, PhD (BenBella Books, Inc., 2017). ISBN 9781944648800.

I review “Cells Are The New Cure: The Cutting-Edge Medical Breakthroughs That Are Transforming Our Health” (BenBella Books) by Robin Smith, MD, and Max Gomez, PhD. The book provides a wide survey of the innovative developments in stem cell therapies and genetic editing techniques that have occurred in recent years, as well as an excellent account of how clinical trials and other research studies are conducted and funded, pointing the way toward the cutting-edge cell-based therapies of the future.

Published with Global Bioethics Initiative, August 25th, 2017.

The Last Launch: Messages in the Bottle by Yi-Fu Taun (George F. Thompson Publishing, 2016)

I review Yi’Fu Taun’s book The Last Launch: Messages in the Bottle, a personal memoir and series of short essays on life, love, human goodness, and human society. The book covers topics like “Human Value and Equality,” the effects of chance and accidents, “Shamelessness and Trust,” “Encounters with Goodness,” and the nature of Christian forgiveness, and offers heartwarming wisdom for future generations.

Published in Dialogue, forthcoming October 2016.

One Child: Do We Have A Right To More? by Sarah Conly (Oxford University Press, 2016)

I review Sarah Conly’s book One Child: Do We Have A Right To More?, which considers arguments for and against limitations on the number of children we can have, both legally and ethically. While many people believe we have an inviolable right to have as many children we want, Conly argues that we are not within our rights when we commit actions that put others in danger. Reducing the global population will drastically reduce the continued damage we do to our planet and make human life more sustainable. Further, Conly believes that we can overcome concerns over sex-selection and other practical worries.

Published in Dialogue,  April 2016.

Seeing Things As They Are by John R. Searle (Oxford University Press, 2015)

I review John Searle’s book Seeing Things as they Are, which analyzes the claim that when we perceive the world, we are seeing the world itself, not “sense data,” as many philosophers have argued. He calls such claims “The Bad Argument.”

Published in Akadimia Filosofia, May 2015. PDF.

The Most Good You Can Do by Peter Singer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 215)

I review what amounts to the sequel to the New York Times bestseller The Life You Can Save (2010). The Most Good You Can Do explores how to implement the argument Singer made in The Life You Can Save and presents real-life examples of people who have become “effective altruists,” people who have figured out how to live in such a way that they can donate between one third and one half of their personal income to charity.

Published on Ethics and Society and Social Justice Solutions.


University Academic Blogs and Professional Publications


Track Authorities Are Wrong To Ban Women With Naturally High Testosterone Levels

Athletes with hyperandrogenism have testosterone levels that are naturally higher than what is generally considered the “normal” range for a person to have. The International Association of Athletics Federations will soon debate a rule that forbids female athletes with hyperandrogenism from competing in events against other women, on the assumption that the advantage their elevated testosterone levels confers is unfair because it approaches the lower end of the typical “male range”. In this article for Oxford University’s Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics’s “Practical Ethics, Ethics In the News,” I argue that the IAAF policy overlooks the central principles of sporting ethics in judging these women to have an unfair advantage. Further, I argue that judging naturally high hormone levels unfair is an arbitrary distinction that ignores other naturally occurring advantages without reason. The IAAF policy thus unfairly discriminates against hyperandrogenistic women, and these athletes should be allowed to compete.

Published with Practical Ethics: Ethics In The News (Oxford University’s Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics), August 22nd, 2017.

Charlie Gard, Compassionate Use, and Single-Payer Health Care

Many critics and analysts have pointed to the Charlie Gard case as an example of the horrors of single-payer health care systems. They claim that Charlie is only in this situation because the hospital will not pay for experimental treatment, and that they won’t pay because of the UK’s single-payer health care system. The reality, however, is that Charlie’s case would be very similar under the laws and policies in America, which does not use a single-payer coverage system. In my article with The Hastings Center Bioethics Forum, I discuss the policies in the U.S. and demonstrate that this case is about quality of life and human suffering, not single-payer health care systems.

Published July 26th, 2017, on The Hastings Center Bioethics Forum.

The Real Problem With Concierge Medicine

Luxury or “concierge” medicine has become increasingly prevalent in the past few years. Concierge practices are private medical services that charge an expensive retainer fee to guarantee more personalized, in-depth care and availability. The proliferation of such practices raises several ethical questions. Do luxury medical practices offer unfair advantages to rich patients? Do concierge practitioners “cheat” the system by cashing out early in their careers and taking spots away from medical school applicants who might have chosen to help many more patients instead? Jon Newlin, C.I.P. and I agree that concierge medical practices are morally problematic in our current healthcare system However, we also believe this is merely a pseudo-problem: the real problem is that we don’t have enough doctors, and the ones we have are not used efficiently.

Published July 14th, 2017 in Becker’s Hospital Review.

Why Charlie Gard’s Case Is So Disturbing To Americans

The case of Charlie Gard, an 11-month-old boy with mitochondrial depletion syndrome, captured the attention of healthcare professionals, international heads of state, and citizens throughout the world. The case involved a complicated legal battle between Charlie’s parents, his legal representative, and the hospital where he was being treated. The state ruled that it would be cruel to force Charlie to continue suffering if there was nothing else that could be done to help him, while his parents contended that there were still experimental treatment options open to him. What many Americans might find disturbing about the case is the idea that a court can order the withdrawal of life support from somebody who has family members present to make decisions on his or her behalf. In this article, I argue that the ethical theories at work in the court’s actions are largely uncontroversial. Rather, what is most alarming about the case is the stark difference between British and American bioethics law.

Published July 13th, 2017 on STAT News.

Opinion: House Approves Bill That Defies Basic Standards Of Medical Ethics

“On May 4th, 2017, the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass the American Health Care Act, an Act that, if enacted into law, would repeal and replace many central elements of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. The measure has received widespread criticism from many Democrats and from professional medical associations such as the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society. Many people have questioned various parameters of the bill.” In this article, I argue that the American Health Care Act contradicts several decades of ethical precedent in bioethics and government practice.

Published May 24th, 2017 with The Gittenstein Institute for Health Law and Policy at Hofstra University.

 Criminology and Research Ethics

A recent study involved shooting several pigs in the head to research blood-spatter patterns. I examine what I believe to be the central principles of research ethics and whether or not the study was morally permissible. I argue that there were other ways to conduct the study that would have involved fewer deaths, and that the positive information gained from the study was not enough to justify killing the pigs.

Published on Ethics and Society, Social Justice Solutions, and The Bioethics Research Library at Georgetown University.

The Significance of Philosophical Ethics in a Scientific World

I examine the significance of studying Ethics in a world increasingly focused on the value of scientific research and technology. Science may explain the physics of how we live, but it does nothing to tell us what choices to make beyond those that involve our biological survival.

Published on Ethics and Society and Social Justice Solutions.