Tag Archives: ethics

Teachers Unions and Online Education

Posted on by
Reply

Oregon’s public schools are closed down due to the Wuhan Virus situation, as are most of our nation’s school systems.  As a result of that, parents started flocking their children to online charter schools so as to continue their education.  The Oregon Education Association, among others, object to that, though. They’d rather the kids sit around at home (because Oregon, like many States, has instituted a stay-home policy for all the State’s citizens and others living there) twiddling their thumbs, making pests of themselves, and otherwise being bored out of their minds rather than continue their schooling. So:

Under pressure from the unions, the Oregon Department of Education stopped allowing transfers on March 27. At Oregon Connections Academy, this means some 1,600 students who had sought to transfer won’t be able to….

Whatever happened to “It’s for the children?”

Oh, wait–these are teachers unions.

Where Were the FISA Court Judges?

Posted on by
Reply

DoJ’s Inspector General is finding yet more, yet more rampant, miscreancies in and done by what used to be our nation’s—the world’s, even—premier law enforcement agency.

DOJ’s new assessment indicated that FISA problems were systemic at the bureau and extended beyond the Page probe. In four of the 29 cases the DOJ inspector general reviewed, the FBI did not have any so-called “Woods files” at all, referring to documentation demonstrating that it had independently corroborated key facts in its surveillance warrant applications. In three of those applications, the FBI couldn’t confirm that Woods documentation ever existed.
The other 25 applications contained an average of 20 assertions not properly supported with Woods materials; one application contained 65 unsupported claims. The review encompassed the work of eight field offices over the past five years in several cases.

The IG went on.

“As a result of our audit work to date and as described below, we do not have confidence that the FBI has executed its Woods procedures in compliance with FBI policy,” the DOJ IG wrote in a memo today [31 Mar] to FBI Director Christopher Wray.

That’s damning enough, but the problem is much wider than just a failed FBI.  The judges sitting on this Star Chamber FISA court knew those materials needed to be present, yet they approved the warrants in all of those flawed, to the point of dishonesty, warrant applications. Every single one of them.

This is another demonstration that this secret court cannot be fixed; it must be eliminated.

Full stop.

Death Panels or Triage?

Posted on by
Reply

A New York City hospital has explicitly instructed its ER doctors to “withhold futile intubations” and that they have the sole discretion for that decision and the decision to use a ventilator on any particular patient.

What draws my attention to this order is that ER doctors have always had triage authority in their decisions regarding use of limited resources when potentially lethally injured or sick patients arrive in numbers that could overwhelm those resources.  New York State’s triage guidelines, in particular, were established in 2015.

What are this hospital’s administrators hinting at?

Progressive-Democrats and the Law

Posted on by
Reply

And contracts.  Since the SARS epidemic of some years ago, insurers have declined to cover losses related to virus or bacteria damage, and they wrote their policies to that effect. State regulators—who controlled and still control the structure of insurance policies and the premiums allowed to be charged for those policies outside Obamacare—agreed.

However.

New Jersey Assemblyman Roy Freiman, a Democrat, introduced a bill that would retroactively rewrite interruption coverage contracts and force insurers to foot some losses for any policyholder with fewer than 100 full-time employees.

Contracts be damned. They don’t fit the Progressive-Democrat agenda, so by Progressive-Democrat-run Government fiat, they must be tossed.

Here’s the kicker, though.

Mr Freiman says he doesn’t know if he has the legal authority to do this, but he says he doesn’t care.

The law be damned too—it’s in the Progressive-Democrat’s way. Don’t get enough of his fellows in the legislature to agree with him and change the law. Don’t get actual voters to agree with him and so get legislators to stand with him to change the law.

No. The Progressive-Democrat already Knows Better; everyone should just get out of his way so he can toss the law without any silly delays from the ignorant unwashed.

FDA’s Drug Approvals

Posted on by
Reply

Charles Hooper and David Henderson are on the right track.

The Federal government requires pharmaceutical companies to prove that their drugs are both safe and effective before putting them on the market. Before 1962, companies needed to prove only safety. While there is some appeal to this two-hurdle approach, evidence suggests that there is only a slight benefit and a tremendous cost. With the COVID-19 pandemic sweeping the world, there has never been a better time to revoke the Food and Drug Administration’s efficacy requirement.

I suggest the FDA move to a two-stage approval process. The first stage should focus on safety: does the drug do no harm, at least compared with the condition it’s aimed at treating (because all drugs have side effects).  Once it’s determined the drug is safe, it should be released to the market, limited strictly to on-label use. Let prescribing doctors and patients determine whether the drug is useful, let market forces do their trick. The FDA’s imprimatur for this stage, should be limited to “safe as prescribed, not determined to be effective.”

The second stage should proceed without delay, overlapping the first stage to the extent feasible; in this stage, investigative focus should be on efficacy—does the drug actually have the effect on its target condition that’s intended. Only after the trials associated with this stage have been successfully completed could the drug receive its full-up FDA stamp of approval—and authorization for use, under prescription, off-label.

This modification to the pre-1962 requirement would cheapen development, and it would provide more drugs of greater utility faster to market and to the doctors and patients who use them.