,
12 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
1. I know folks are going to go ballistic before fully reading this, so please read it all before commenting. In his apology for referring to mothers as "host bodies" @RepJoseOliva said he was using the language of medical ethics. He is right, BUT this shows flaw in med ethics...
@RepJoseOliva 2...I first came across this word usage in medical ethics in college during a moral philosophy class. It came from a 1979 article in "Journal of Medical Ethics." This usage has appeared repeatedly since then. The authors of this piece, who were arguing both sides of the.... 
@RepJoseOliva 3...abortion debate (in other words, like most philosophers, finding the grounding of both arguments then attempting to resolve them.) They quoted many articles that were pro-choice, and made no argument against the mother's right to choose. But they said this raised some....
@RepJoseOliva 4...complex moral issues. To address that, they decided to abandon the term "mother" for "host." Even as a college student, I saw the flaw in this. The fact that the woman is a woman, with rights and life, is part of the moral equation. To balance out their approach, they....
@RepJoseOliva 5...would need to refer to the fetus as "a parasite" if the mother was "a host." They did not do so, because the term parasite is also clearly a loaded term. I argued in class against this terminology, saying it was a dodge by the writers that changed the moral equation....
@RepJoseOliva 6....however, being a college student, I certainly had no impact on this usage in medical ethics. It has continued to be used since then. And it is wrong, wrong, wrong. However, pro-choice students and professors also used the terminology, with no malice. When I first heard....
@RepJoseOliva 7...that @RepJoseOliva used that term, I wondered "did he get this out of a medical ethics book, or is he a jerk?" When I read his statements, I realized "Oops, he fell into the medical ethics trap." He was arguing both sides, making a point about....
@RepJoseOliva 8...the ethical questions involved on what rights exist for two separate beings, at what point is the fetus a being, etc. This is not law, this is philosophy. Then, he came out with his apology and cited medical ethics writings as the basis for his usage of the term.....
@RepJoseOliva 9...so I come away with this. I am deeply impressed that @RepJoseOliva actually has read the philosophical issues on this, and in fact is making quite complex arguments. HOWEVER, this underscores that this terminology in medical ethics divorces the philosophical discussion....
@RepJoseOliva 10...from the real world and dodges a key part of the moral question. As I said in college, if the woman is called the host, then the fetus is the parasite. So, medical ethicists, I argue again: Stop using this term. It is wrong, it is not "objective" and it is not real world...
@RepJoseOliva 11...if a politician who has read medical ethics writings cannot use the same words without causing strong outrage, then the terminology is wrong. @RepJoseOliva made a mistake for not seeing this flaw in medical ethics writing. But I respect his willingness to wrestle with....
@RepJoseOliva 12...this question rather than just shouting slogans. But let's never use the term again, ethicists.
