Tackling the Problem of Domestic Violence

by Sean Philpott-Jones, Director of the Center for Bioethics and Clinical Leadership

The National Football League is in for a rough season, both on and off the field. In the past month, for example, America’s most popular sport has been rocked by allegations that league officials and team owners willfully ignored evidence that the Baltimore Raven’s star running back Ray Rice beat his then-fiancée unconscious in an Atlantic City elevator.

All-pro defensive end Greg Hardy of the Carolina Panthers and defensive lineman Ray McDonald of the San Francisco 49ers face similar allegations. Most recently, Minnesota Vikings’ Adrian Peterson was charged with criminal child abuse after whipping his four-year-old son with a wooden switch and a leather belt.

In response, beleaguered NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell promised to overhaul the organization’s policies on personal conduct, making it easier to penalize players harshly for egregious off-field behaviors, including domestic violence and child abuse. Commissioner Goodell also introduced a new initiative that would require all players and league staff to participate in regular educational programs on domestic violence and sexual abuse.

Unfortunately for Mr. Goodell, much of this is “too little, too late.” A growing number of women’s organizations and domestic violence advocacy groups are calling for his resignation. A number of commercial sponsors are also distancing themselves from the NFL, which makes Roger’s continued tenure as NFL Commissioner increasingly unlikely.

A number of pundits have also weighed in, not just on the question of Mr. Goodell’s career prospects but also on whether or not the recent spate of domestic and child abuse causes is directly linked to misogynistic and violent culture of professional football. Some of these armchair quarterbacks have linked the so-called “epidemic” of domestic violence in the NFL to increasing awareness of the physical and mental toll that football takes on professional (and even amateur) athletes.

Many players, for example, use anabolic steroids illicitly in order to get a competitive boost. It is well known that abuse of these drugs can lead to uncontrolled aggression and violent behavior (colloquially called ‘roid rage’).

Similarly, head injuries – particularly concussions – are also a common occurrence in high-speed contact sports like football. Players with a history of repeated concussive head injuries are at increased risk of developing a progressive neurodegenerative disease known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), symptoms of which include mood and behavioral changes, dementia, tremors, impaired speech, and deafness. Actuarial experts hired by the NFL itself now estimate that as many as one-in-three professional football player will develop CTE or other long-term cognitive problems in their lifetime.

But it is important to remember that correlation is not causation. For instance, there is no definitive link between CTE and domestic violence in the NFL or other sports leagues. More importantly, despite the current spotlight on Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson, there is no link between professional football and domestic violence.

This is not to say that domestic violence is not a big problem in the NFL. Since 2000, nearly 100 players have been arrested or changed with domestic violence or child abuse. But this rate is actually slightly less than the US national average.

So despite what most Americans think, the NFL is not suffering from a “widespread epidemic of domestic violence”. Rather, it is the country overall that is in the midst of an outbreak.

At some point in their life, nearly a quarter of all women and 8% of all men will be the victim of a physical or sexual assault by a romantic partner or personal acquaintance. Many more will be the victim of more insidious forms of violence, including verbal, emotional and psychological abuse. Rates of abuse are particularly high among racial, ethnic and sexual minorities.

Similarly, over 10% of children will be abused or neglected by the time they are 18 years old. Over 6% will be raped or sexually assaulted by a family member. An estimated 1,500 children in the US die annually as a result of abuse or neglect.

This is the real tragedy, and the one that we need to address. In many ways, the spotlight on the NFL may do just that. In the past couple of weeks we’ve seen an increase in public discussion and debate about the problem of domestic violence. Victims of abuse – including celebrities like Meredith Vieira and Sarah Hyland – have also gone public with their stories on television, in the press, and via Twitter chats using the hash tags #WhyIStayed and #WhyILeft.

But increasing public awareness and discussion of the problem is just the start. We also need to reform relevant local and state laws to make the perpetrators of domestic violence or child abuse more accountable for their crimes. In many states, for example, a man can go to jail for up to five years for abusing his dog, but spend less than a month in jail for beating his wife, girlfriend or daughter. Existing abuse laws also often lack protections for gay, lesbian or transgendered individuals, even though these groups are at higher risk for physical abuse or sexual assault.

The epidemic of domestic violence and child abuse in the US will not end until the nation as a whole tackles this rampant problem head on.

[This blog entry was originally presented as an oral commentary on Northeast Public Radio on September 25, 2014, and is available on the WAMC website. The contents of this post are solely the responsibility of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Bioethics Program or Union Graduate College.]

Advertisements

Extending the Zadroga Act

by Sean Philpott-Jones, Director of the Center for Bioethics and Clinical Leadership

Thirteen years ago today, Americans watched in horror as planes hijacked by Al Qaeda-backed terrorists slammed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a vacant field outside of Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Many of us lost friends and family. Nearly 3,000 people were killed that day, including 2,753 who died when the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers fell. The actual death toll associated with 9/11, however, is much higher.

When the Towers fell, they released a cloud of pulverized cement, shards of glass, asbestos, mercury, lead, PCBs, and other carcinogenic and poisonous materials into the air. That cloud lingered for months, with hundreds of rescue workers, thousands of construction workers and millions of New York City residents breathing in a witches’ brew of cancer-causing chemicals.

Rates of asthma, obstructive pulmonary disease and other respiratory illnesses are sky high among those who were exposed to the foul air or toxic dust that lingered over Lower Manhattan in the days and weeks the followed 9/11. A study of police who responded to the terror attacks found that more half have diminished lung function and chronic shortness of breath.

Rates of prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, and multiple myeloma are also elevated; one study looking at nearly 10,000 firefighters found that those who were at the World Trade Center were 20% more likely to develop cancer than those who were not there. Over 2,900 people who worked or lived near the World Trade Center on 9/11 have been diagnosed with cancer, including nearly 900 fire fighters and 600 police. Many of these cancers are likely associated with exposure to chemicals in the air and debris at Ground Zero.

Under the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, passed by Congress in 2010 after a prolonged partisan fight, first responders, recovery workers, and survivors of the terror attacks can seek free testing and treatment for 9/11-related illnesses. Nearly 50,000 people are currently being monitored and over 30,000 are receiving medical treatment or compensation for illnesses and injuries associated with the World Trade Center’s collapse.

These numbers are expected to rise in the coming years. The incidence of cancer and chronic respiratory illnesses continues to increase at an alarming rate among survivors and responders of the terror attacks. At the same time, two of the key programs created by the Zadroga Act are due to expire. Unless Congress extends the Act, the World Trade Center Health Program, which provides free screening and treatment for 9/11-related illnesses, will end in October 2015. The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, which provides financial support to the victims of 9/11 and their families, will close in October 2016. Desperately needed medical care and social services will be cut off for thousands of sick patients whose only crime was to survive the attacks or to provide care and aid for those who did.

A bipartisan group of New York politicians – including New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and US Representatives Peter King and Carolyn Maloney – want to prevent this. Just this week, they called upon Congress to extend the Zadroga Act for another 25 years. But they and other supporters of the Act face an uphill battle.

One of the key reasons that it took nearly 10 years to get this legislation passed in the first place is that many prominent (largely conservative) Congressmen opposed its passage, including Representatives Michele Bachmann and Paul Ryan. House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy voted against it repeatedly. Senator Tom Coburn also filibustered its passage, arguing that the federal government simply cannot afford provide treatment and care for the victims of 9/11 in an era of record budget deficits. Should the deficit hawks of the Republican Party retain control of the House and recapture the Senate in the upcoming mid-term elections, the fate of the Zadroga Act is likely sealed.

The heroes and victims of 9/11 deserve better. I believe that we have a moral obligation to provide lifelong medical care and treatment for illnesses linked to the terror attacks. It is shameful that the same politicians who used these attacks to justify hundreds of billions of dollars in military expenditures are suddenly crying poor when asked to help the victims themselves. I urge you to call your Senator and Representative and urge them to support the Zadroga Act. More importantly, I urge you to use the power of the ballot box in the upcoming midterm elections to send a message to those who do not support an extension of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

[This blog entry was originally presented as an oral commentary on Northeast Public Radio on September 11, 2014, and is available on the WAMC website. The contents of this post are solely the responsibility of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Bioethics Program or Union Graduate College.]

Can Social Media Save Us from the “Spiral of Silence?”

by Karen Solomon, Bioethics Program Student

Studies suggest that, before the advent of the Internet, we are unlikely to share minority or unpopular viewpoints with our co-workers, friends and relatives. This inclination creates, in essence, a “Spiral of Silence.”

But does the Internet provide a remedy to the “Spiral of Silence,” by encouraging online discussion of viewpoints that may be unpopular? Contrary to the hopes of social media advocates, new research finds that social media may not provide a voice to those who feel uncomfortable expressing minority viewpoints in face-to-face relationships.

Scientists at the Pew Research Center surveyed 1801 adults regarding a political issue over which public opinion was divided: Edward Snowden’s leak of the US government’s extensive surveillance program. The survey examined three areas: subjects’ opinions about the leaks, subjects’ willingness to express their opinions about the leaks in both online and face-to-face contexts, and subjects’ perceptions of others’ opinions in online and face-to-face settings.

They found that those who were not comfortable discussing their opinion about the Snowden leaks in face-to-face discussions were also unwilling to use social media as an outlet to post their viewpoints. Among the 14% who would not discuss the leaks in face-to-face discussions, only 0.3% of these were willing to post their opinions on social media.

In fact, researchers found that the “Spiral of Silence” also applied to social media. Those on Facebook were twice as willing to share their views with their Facebook network when they believed their network was in agreement.

Several factors may explain our continued unwillingness to share controversial opinions, including concerns that online posts may be viewed by future employers or by those in authority. It could also be that social media users, exposed to a wide range of opinions via their social networks, are less willing to speak up because they are “especially tuned into” others’ opinions.

But what would it mean if use of social media does not provide a voice for discussing viewpoints we believe are unpopular? What if social media does not encourage more diverse outlooks on topics we care about? What if instead of encouraging discussions, it turns out that use of social media does the opposite and actually stifles expressing opinions our face-to-face interactions, even when we feel others would agree?

Social media is still relatively new, despite its far-reaching impact on how many of us communicate. If we accept that our willingness to share opinions and reactions to events and information is important to how we learn, understand, and think about what is important for us in managing work, school, and our relationships, then this study provides plenty of food for thought. Online learning is ever more important for higher education, which is increasingly provided online and integral to the training and education of professionals, including tomorrow’s bioethicists.

Discussions that nurture diversity of opinion foster sound ethical decision-making. Research into group decision-making cites diversity of opinion as an essential quality of “wise groups.” Diversity of opinion allows for the consideration of all relevant information, surmounting the “herd mentality” that can rob groups of their independence when tackling ethical dilemmas. Recognizing and addressing obstacles to deliberative decision-making is integral to the consistent application of ethical principles across domains, including social media and ethics blogs, discussion boards in online bioethics courses, and hospital ethics committee meetings.

[The contents of this blog are solely the responsibility of the author and do not represent the views of the Bioethics Program or Union Graduate College.]