When Doctors Discriminate

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

Most of you have probably never heard of Jami and Krista Contreras, a Michigan couple and the proud parents of a six-month-old girl named Bay. Shortly after Bay was born, the Contrerases began interviewing pediatricians, looking for one who practiced holistic medicine.

After meeting with nearly a dozen doctors, the newly married couple finally settled on Dr. Vesna Roi, a pediatrician in private practice with nearly 19 years of experience caring for children like Bay. On the morning of their first appointment, however, Dr. Roi refused to see them. The reason: the Contrerases are a same-sex couple.

In a handwritten letter delivered to Jami and Krista by another doctor at the pediatric clinic, Dr. Roi apologized but stated that, “after much prayer following your prenatal [visit], I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients.” Dr. Roi’s religious faith, it seems, makes her uncomfortable around lesbian couples.

I actually have some sympathy for Dr. Roi. She clearly felt that she could not give the Contrerases, or their daughter Bay, the level of care that they deserved. In fact, a strong doctor-patient relationship is the key to quality health care. If Dr. Roi felt uncomfortable around Jami and Krista, or felt uncomfortable in asking them questions about those aspects of their personal lives that could affect the health of their daughter, she might overlook pieces of information that were important for Bay’s preventative care or therapeutic treatment. The Contrerases might also pick up (consciously or subconsciously) on Dr. Roi’s unease, and be less than forthcoming about their concerns or opinions. Given this, Dr. Roi was not the right pediatrician for Bay.

Vesna Roi also had the right to refuse the Contrerases as patients. For the most part, doctors are legally bound to treat patients only once they have entered into a care relationship. Even then the doctor can terminate the physician-patient relationship under certain circumstances (if, for example, a patient is non-compliant with treatment, the patient is abusive to providers, or the services sought are not covered by the patient’s health insurance). But the physician must provide a reason for terminating the relationship and must ensure continuity of care.

Ethically, Dr. Roi is on shakier ground. If she felt that she could not establish the necessary doctor-patient relationship with the Contrerases, she probably shouldn’t take them on as patients. But Dr. Roi should have been upfront with the Contrerases sooner, rather than waiting until the morning of Bay’s first pediatric appointment to inform them of her reluctance.

Moreover, while the American Medical Association (AMA) and other professional organizations recognize the right of clinicians to refuse to provide specific treatments if they are incompatible with a doctor’s personal, religious or moral beliefs, it’s hard to see how such “conscience clauses” apply in this case. Conscience clauses are meant to apply to specific medical procedures, most notably abortion and sterilization, rather than to specific classes of patients. If we allow a physician like Dr. Roi to reject patients on the basis of sexual orientation (whatever her personal, religious or moral reason), should we also allow a doctor to turn away patients who are Black or Latino? To turn away patients who are Muslim, Jewish or Atheist? To turn away patients who are women?

Of course we would never allow this. It is morally reprehensible. This is why the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other professional organizations that respect the conscience of physicians also make it clear that doctors should not refuse care based on race, gender or sexual orientation.

It would also be illegal to refuse a patient based on race, religion or gender under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sadly, this is not the case for sexual orientation or gender identity. Lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals are not protected by the Civil Rights Act, but rather by a patchwork of state laws and local anti-discrimination ordinances.

Only twenty-two states have laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in “public accommodation” (e.g. businesses that serve the public, including pediatric clinics like Dr. Roi’s). Only fourteen states extend those same protections to gender identity. Michigan is not one of those states, so that what Dr. Roi did is morally questionable but it is not legally actionable. Had she lived here in New York, she could have been sued (unless one of the Contrerases had been transgendered, since the Empire State still allows discrimination based on gender identity).

We need these laws, both at the state and the federal level. Sure, people like Dr. Roi may be uncomfortable in dealing with lesbian patients or gay clients. But that’s not a reason to legally allow or publicly condone discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The same arguments were used for years to justify discrimination against women, Black and Jews, until the Civil Rights Act forced people to challenge their biases and question their assumptions. It’s time to do the same for the LGBT community.

As I said before, Dr. Roi was not the right pediatrician for Bay. But she could be, once she learns to look beyond her personal prejudices and see the Contrerases for who they are: human beings with the same needs, fears, and hopes as her. But it might take a legal nudge to get Dr. Roi and others like her to take that first step.

[This blog entry was originally presented as an oral commentary on Northeast Public Radio on February 26, 2015, 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.]

(Golden) Global Change and LGBT Rights

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

I make it a tradition to watch televised awards shows like the Oscars, Emmys, and Grammys. This is not because I particularly care about the entertainment industry, but primarily because I enjoy providing a running commentary of snarky comments about the various nominee’s clothes, styling and speeches on Facebook and other social media outlets.

Obviously, then, I watched the Golden Globe awards ceremony this past Sunday. Awarded annually by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the Golden Globes honor excellence in both television and film, and are often seen as a precursor to (and predictor of) the Emmys and the Oscars.

I usually don’t pay much attention to the actual awards themselves, but I was pleasantly surprised when this year’s ceremony became (in part) a celebration of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. For example, the television drama The Normal Heart, adapted from the Larry Kramer play of the same name, received three nominations, including a nod for Best Miniseries or Television Film. Openly gay actor Matt Bomer won for his supporting role in that film, which depicts the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in New York City.

More importantly, the television series TransParent, which follows the lives of a Los Angeles family after the patriarch comes out a transgendered, won Best TV Comedy. Jeffrey Tambor also won Best Actor for his role as Maura Pfefferman, a retired professor of political science who begins to transition from male to female.

In his acceptance speech, Mr. Tambor dedicated his remarks to the transgender community, saying: “Thank you for your courage, thank you for your inspiration, thank you for your patience and thank you for letting us be a part of the change.” This was quite an improvement from last year’s ceremony, when both Michael Douglas and Jared Leto managed to offend the entire LGBT community with speeches that mocked the very characters they were honored for playing: a gay man and a transgender woman, respectively.

Given this, I can’t really blame the Hollywood press for crowing that this year’s Golden Globes were “a watershed moment” for LGBT rights. In fact, it has been a watershed year for the LGBT community.

With the recent federal court rulings in Florida and South Dakota, for example, the number of states in which same-sex couples are able to marry has more than doubled. Over 70% of Americans now live in a marriage equality state. New state laws and local ordinances have also been passed that recognize the rights and dignity of LGBT people, including legislation that makes it easier for transgender people born in New York City to correct their birth certificates.

But it far too early, as many in the press have done, to suggest that the fight for LGBT equality is complete. Golden Globe co-host Tina Fey joked that the movie Selma, nominated for Best Motion Picture, is “about the civil rights movement, which totally worked and now everything’s fine.” She could have made the same joke about TransParent, The Normal Heart, and LGBT rights.

Anti-LGBT organizations like the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and the National Organization for Marriage are continuing their efforts to prevent or repeal legislation that protect all people regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity. They are often successful in their efforts, as seen by the recent vote by the residents of Fayetteville, Arkansas, to repeal an anti-discrimination ordinance.

Various state representatives and federal legislators are also supporting so-called ‘religious liberty’ bills, which would allow public businesses to refuse goods and services to LGBT individuals. Republicans in the US House of Representatives continue to block a vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit employers from discriminating against workers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Pervasive stigmatization and marginalization of the LGBT community continues, even in Hollywood. The cable network TLC, once known as The Learning Channel but now home to highbrow shows like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, recently debuted a series called My Husband’s Not Gay. This reality series follows the lives of several men who admit they are sexually attracted to other men but who refuse to identify as gay or bisexual. Most of these men are married to women, despite their sexual orientation, presenting the idea that suppressing same-sex attraction is somehow healthy or achievable. Such shows do little but support outdated stereotypes that sexual orientation or gender identity is a choice, and that LGBT individuals can be “cured” through reparative therapy.

Small wonder then that hate crimes and violence against LGBT individuals is still common. In fact, it is on the rise. It should also come as no surprise that a significant percentage of LGBT individuals attempt to take their own lives. Many are successful in this attempt, including Leelah Alcorn, a transgendered Ohio teenager who threw herself in front of a tractor-trailer last week. In her suicide note she wrote, “Please don’t be sad, it’s for the better. The life I would’ve lived isn’t worth living in … because I’m transgender.” But Leelah was wrong. Her life was worth living in.

Despite increasing visibility and recent accolades, there is still a long way to go before the LGBT community achieves equality, regardless of what recent headlines in the Hollywood press might lead you to believe. We owe it to Leelah and others like her.

[This blog entry was originally presented as an oral commentary on Northeast Public Radio on January 15, 2015, 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.]

Protecting Transgender Students

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

Two nights ago, the Shenendehowa Board of Education voted 4 to 2 in favor of a new policy designed to protect the rights and safety of transgender students. High school students in the district will now be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their gender identity. The new policy also allows all students, regardless of sex or gender, to access single-user bathrooms and private changing areas.

Located just north of Albany, New York, Shenendehowa Central School District is now one of but a few districts nationwide that provide recognition and support to transgendered youth. Only California has passed a statewide law that allows transgender students to use bathroom and locker facilities that match their gender identities. While the New York City Board of Education released new guidelines in support of transgender students earlier this year – including a recommendation that students never be made to use a locker room or restroom that conflicts with their gender identity – these are only suggestions and not binding policies. Sadly, the New York State Board of Education has been largely silent on this issue.

The US Federal government has also been relatively quiet on the topic of transgendered youth. The US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has stated that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which protects students from sex discrimination, also applies to transgender students. This allows transgendered students to file legal action in federal court should local authorities fail to protect them from discrimination and violence while at school. But the US Department of Education failed to provide specific examples of Title IX-prohibited discrimination or provide school districts with clear guidance on how to create trans-inclusive policies. Finally, the Obama Administration has been reluctant to push Congress to pass legislation that will protect transgendered youth, such as the Safe Schools Improvement Act and the Student Non-Discrimination Act.

Such laws and policies are desperately needed. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) youth are at increased risk of bullying, physical violence and sexual assault at school. In 2011, for instance, a survey conducted by the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found more than half of LGBT youth report being harassed at school. For transgendered students in particular, however, the problem is much much worse.

The National Transgender Discrimination Survey, a study of over 6,000 people, found that transgender and gender-nonconforming students experienced very high rates of harassment (78 percent), physical violence (35 percent) and sexual assault (12 percent). Alarmingly, a third of this harassment and violence occurred at the hands of teachers, staff and school officials themselves. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that many transgendered students drop out of school. Still more report having suicidal thoughts, and a quarter have attempted to take their own lives.

This is a tragedy of considerable proportion, one that can only be addressed by implementing and enforcing policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity. That is what makes the recent vote by the Shenendehowa Board of Education so groundbreaking. But it is also what makes the acrimonious nature of the debate over this policy so disheartening.

When local news stations posted the story on their websites and Facebook pages, for example, a majority of the comments submitted online were in opposition to Shenendehowa’s new policy. Many people posted comments that made it clear that they did not understand the new policy. Others made rude statements that were based on ill-informed stereotypes of transgendered kids: that they are confused, that they need to see psychiatrists, that they should use the staff bathrooms, or that they are sexual predators who are only interested in seeing other children naked.

I’m chalking up most of the opposition to fear, ignorance and campaigns that falsely claim that students and staff will exploit these policies to use opposite-sex restrooms in order to sexually harass and assault other children. When California’s legislature was debating the School Success and Opportunity Act, which gave transgender students the same rights and protections covered by Shenendehowa’s new policy, the conservative Pacific Justice Institute invented a now discredited story about a transgender student harassing her peers in a Colorado school restroom. Similarly, when the town of Fayetteville, Arkansas was considering a law that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity, reality TV star Michelle Duggar falsely claimed that the law would allow men “with past child predator convictions to claim they are female [and] use womens’ and girls’ restrooms, locker rooms and showers.“

Nothing could be further from the truth. Consider what is happening in California. In the year since they passed the School Success and Opportunity Act, not a single school district in that state has reported an instance of inappropriate behavior, harassment or physical assault stemming from the new law. The experience of the Shenendehowa Central School District is likely to be the same.

Kudos to the Shenendehowa Board of Education for standing up for the rights of transgendered kids. Now if the rest of the school districts in the US could do the same.

[This blog entry was originally presented as an oral commentary on Northeast Public Radio on December 4, 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.]

The Boys in the Ban

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

For over 30 years now, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has banned blood donations from gay and bisexual men. It is a lifetime ban. Currently, no man who has ever had sex with another man can donate blood in the US.

The same is true for tissue donations. Just last year, for example, the FDA refused to accept for donation the eyes of an Iowan teen after learning that the boy was gay. When 16-year-old Alexander Betts committed suicide after months of bullying at the hands of classmates because of his sexual orientation, just a few months after he signed up as an organ donor, his family honored one of his last wishes by donating his organs and tissues. But while his heart, lungs, kidneys and liver were used to save the lives of six other people, the donation of his eyes was rejected because “tissue from gay men carries an increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.”

The ban on blood and tissue donation from gay men was put in place in 1983, shortly after HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was first isolated. It made sense at that time. Along with other socially or economically marginalized groups like injection drug users and commercial sex workers, during the early years of the AIDS epidemic gay men were — and still are — at increased risk of acquiring HIV. Banning donations from groups who were more likely to be infected with the virus, particularly when there were no effective treatments, was a logical step to protect the blood supply from contamination with HIV.

This was in part because the first tests to detect the virus in the blood of infected individuals were notoriously inefficient. In fact, these first tests didn’t — and many modern HIV tests still don’t — test for the presence of the virus itself. Rather, they test for the presence of antibodies to HIV.

Antibodies are proteins produced after the immune system encounters a foreign body like a virus, a bacterium or an allergen. They specifically recognize and bind to these pathogens, hopefully neutralizing them before they can infect a person and cause disease. Most vaccines are designed to trigger an antibody response to common infectious agents, such as those cause measles, chicken pox or hepatitis, in order to protect people exposed to those diseases.

Unfortunately, the antibodies produced by the human body against HIV are not protective. But they are a marker that a person has been exposed to HIV, and likely been infected. But an antibody response to HIV can take days or even weeks to develop after infection. So tests that look only for the presence of antibodies to HIV can miss those individuals who are recently infected. If these people give blood in the interval between when they were infected and when they develop an antibody response to HIV, testing their blood will suggest that it is clean even though it may contain live virus that can be spread to transfusion recipients.

But as a team of researchers as Harvard Law School point out in a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, times have changed. HIV testing technologies have dramatically improved in the three decades since the virus was found. Modern antibody tests are much more sensitive, detecting anti-HIV antibodies much earlier in the infection process. We also have inexpensive and reliable tests that look for the presence of the virus itself. Used in combination, these tests can determine if a person has been infected within just a couple of days of exposure. They are a quick, cost-effective and largely infallible way to screen the US blood supply.

Given this, it seems rather unconscionable that the FDA continues to maintain a lifetime ban on blood donations from gay men. This is particularly true when you consider that other groups at high risk for HIV do not face a similar ban. For example, the ban on blood donations from men who have had unprotected sex with women who are known to be HIV-positive is only one year in duration, not life. The same is true for women who have had sex with an HIV-positive male partner. So it’s not the gender of the infected partner that matters, only their sexual orientation.

Moreover, in countries that have lifted the lifetime ban on donations from men who have sex with men, no concomitant increase in the incidence of transfusion-acquired HIV has been seen.

Finally, in 2010 an FDA advisory committee concluded that the lifetime ban keeps many low-risk men from donating to the nation’s blood supply. But despite this, the committee voted to keep the ban in place.

So why does the lifetime ban on blood donations by gay and bisexual men? It is sexual behavior not sexual orientation that determines whether or not an individual is at increased risk of HIV. A promiscuous heterosexual college student is a far greater risk than a gay man who has been in a long-term monogamous relationship.

Quite simply, the ban is purely discriminatory in nature. It does little more than perpetuate outdated and homophobic stereotypes. It also contributes to widespread stigmatization of sexual minorities, leading to the open hostility and institutionalized violence that lead young men like Alexander Betts to end their lives.

We can do better. It’s time to end the lifetime ban on blood and tissue donation by gay and bisexual men.

[This blog entry was originally presented as an oral commentary on Northeast Public Radio on August 28, 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.]

You Can’t Fix What Ain’t Broke: Combating the Dangers of Reparative Therapy

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

Earlier this week, the New York State Assembly overwhelmingly voted to pass a bill that would ban the use of so-called “reparative” or “conversion” therapy – treatments that aim to change sexual orientation – on minors. During the time I wrote this commentary, the New York State Senate had yet to vote on the bill. They have until the end of today, when the 2013-14 legislative session officially closes, to pass the bill. Should it pass, Governor Cuomo is expected to sign the bill into law. This would make New York the third state – following California and New Jersey – to outlaw efforts to turn gay kids straight.

Over 250 organizations around the country currently offer reparative therapy to adults and to minors. Many insurance plans, including Medicaid, also cover the costs of mental health counseling and treatment for homosexuality. This is despite the lack of evidence that conversion therapy works.

Most of the scientific studies conducted to date show that conversion therapy is ineffectual and even harmful. In 2009, for example, the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation conducted a comprehensive review of all available research on reparative therapy. That group concluded that a person’s sexual orientation could not be changed. While some people are able to change their sexual behaviors —by becoming celibate rather than having a relationship with a partner of the same gender — their physical and emotional attraction to members of the same sex remained. Other professional organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, the American Counseling Association and the National Association of Social Workers have reached similar conclusions about the efficacy of reparative therapy.

Of the few studies that actually suggest that conversion therapy works, most are fundamentally flawed. For example, there is the oft-quoted study from famed psychiatrist Dr. Robert Spitzer. That study, which interviewed a small group of gay men and women about their sexual feelings and behaviors before and after reparative therapy, concluded that, “some people can change from gay to straight.”

But participants in that study were recruited through groups like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), an organization that actively promotes the use of reparative therapy. Most of the participants described themselves as deeply religious, and many were politically active ex-gay advocates. The results of that study are thus heavily biased. Dr. Spitzer himself retracted this study in 2012, stating that he “owed the gay community an apology”. Nevertheless, this study is still cited by NARTH and other anti-gay organizations as conclusive proof that homosexuality is a malleable lifestyle choice rather than an immutable biological fact.

Being gay is not an illness, and it doesn’t need to be treated through therapy. What should be treated is the erroneous belief that people can (and need) to be cured of their homosexuality. When a group like the Texas Republican Party adopts a platform that, “recognize[s] the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle,” they demonstrate their ignorance of facts.

Opponents of legislation that bans reparative therapy, such as Cathie Adams, president of the conservative Texas Eagle Forum, like to describe this as an issue of freedom. Ms. Adams spearheaded the effort to get Texan Republicans to endorse reparative therapy because she does not think that, ”homosexuals are born as homosexuals.” She believes that gay men and women should have the right to seek out reparative therapy and thus be rescued from an immoral lifestyle choice.

What folks like Cathie Adams fail to understand, however, is that endorsing conversion therapy doesn’t promote freedom. Rather, it does the exact opposite. It allows (and even encourages) parents to force risky and unnecessary treatment on children and teens that they see as “sick”. It also reinforces dangerous but socially accepted stereotypes that gay men and women are mentally ill or physically diseased, and thus contributes to the continued and destructive stigmatization of sexual minorities in the US.

Such stigmatization and discrimination is why gay men and women are more likely to be the victims of harassment, bullying and violence. It is also why they have higher rates of anxiety, depression, substance abuse and suicide. This is particularly true of gay men and women who undergo reparative therapy, which explains why groups like the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association openly condemn attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation.

Quite simply, reparative therapy is wrong and should be banned. It should be banned for everyone, not just for teenagers as California, New Jersey and (hopefully) New York have done.

[This blog entry was originally presented as an oral commentary on Northeast Public Radio on June 19, 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.]

New Tools for HIV Prevention: Why I am a Truvada Whore

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

Although the epidemic likely started a decade or two earlier, AIDS wasn’t identified as a new disease until 1981. It took a few more years to isolate HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, and to develop reliable tests for diagnosing infection.

In the thirty years since, nearly 30 million people have died and another 35 million are currently infected with HIV worldwide. In the US, over a million people are living with HIV/AIDS. Although the disease still primarily affects gay men in the US, heterosexual men and women — particularly men and women of color — are also at risk. Globally, heterosexual men and women of color bear the largest burden of the disease.

Transmission of HIV is actually very easy to prevent. The virus is spread through bodily fluids, usually through sex but also through the sharing of needles, the use of improperly sterilized medical equipment, or via exposure to contaminated blood products. For most us, practicing safer sex – such as abstinence, monogamy or the use of latex or polyurethane condoms – makes the risk of acquiring HIV very small. Despite this, rates of HIV infection are still too high. Last year, 2.3 million people were newly infected with HIV. 50,000 of these new infections occurred in the US.

One problem is that those most at risk tend to be socially or economically marginalized. Such marginalization can make current HIV prevention messages and tools – abstinence, condoms, and mutual monogamy – inaccessible to many. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop new user-controlled HIV prevention tools, such as vaccines and pre-exposure prophylaxis, that will enable these individuals to protect themselves.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) involves the use of current drugs to prevent rather than treat HIV. Recently, several large-scale clinical trials found that daily use of the antiretroviral drug Truvada® – popping this pill every morning like you would a multivitamin – reduced the risk of acquiring HIV by nearly two-thirds. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has since approved the marketing ofdaily Truvada for HIV prevention, and Medicaid and other health insurance plans now cover the cost of PrEP for patients at high risk for HIV.

Despite clear evidence that this approach works, however, the use of antiretroviral drugs for HIV prevention has sharply divided the AIDS community. Many activists and advocates have voiced concerns that the use of Truvada for PrEP will lead many people to abandon other methods of protecting themselves, particularly the use of condoms.

Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the largest provider of HIV care and treatment in the US, has described Truvada as “a party drug”. Widespread use of PrEP, Mr. Weinstein believes, will cause the gay community to return to the hedonistic days of the sexual revolution, when promiscuity was rampant and condom-use non-existent. This, he fears, will actually lead to an increase in HIV and other sexually transmitted infections in the homosexual community, not a decrease.

The public relations attack by Mr. Weinstein and his allies has been so viscous that proponents or users of PrEP have been labeled “Truvada whores.” While some of these so-called ‘whores’ view this epithet as a badge of honor, others now hide their support or use of Truvada for HIV prevention out of fear or shame.

But what opponents of PrEP fail to consider is the very point I’ve already made: not everyone at risk for HIV can use condoms or insist on monogamy. For many people, daily use of Truvada may be the only HIV prevention tool that is available to them. Others may make a conscious decision not to use condoms or be sexually abstinent. That is their choice, as unwise as some might consider it to be, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have access to other prevention tools.

By publicly disparaging the use of PrEP, Mr. Weinstein and others are discouraging those individuals from seeking out and using this effective HIV prevention tool. They are also preventing them from seeking all of the other prevention-related services that accompany it, including routine HIV testing and STI screening and treatment. That is unfortunate, and likely hurts efforts to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Advocates and activists like Mr. Weinstein are right to voice a concern that use of Truvada alone is not as effective as consistent use of condoms, but they also need to recognize that PrEP is it better than nothing at all when it comes to HIV prevention. This is true not just for the gay community, currently being torn asunder by the acrimonious PrEP debate, but also for injection drug users, women of color, and other high risk groups. More importantly, these adovcates need to acknowledge that use of PrEP with condoms is even more effective at preventing the spread of the virus.

Truvada is a lifesaver, both in terms of preventing the spread of HIV and in prolonging the lives of those living with HIV/AIDS. We should be encouraging its use, not disparaging it. So I’ll say it loud and say it proud: “I’m a Truvada whore!”

[This blog entry was originally presented as an oral commentary on Northeast Public Radio on April 10, 2014. It is also available on the WAMC website. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Bioethics Program or Union Graduate College.]

Forgiving Fred Phelps

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

Fred Phelps, one of the most reviled men in the United States, died last week. Mr. Phelps was the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, a virulently homophobic organization known for its “God Hates Fags” slogan.

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church have been conducting anti-gay protests since 1991, but the group gained national prominence in 1998 when it picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard. As most people know, Mr. Shepard was a young man from Wyoming who was robbed and beaten to death by two men who targeted him because he was gay. His murder and the subsequent trial of his assailants, dramatized in the award-winning play The Laramie Project, helped to raise public consciousness about anti-gay bullying and hate crimes against sexual minorities.

The Westboro Baptist Church now conducts an average of six or more protests a day. Church members routinely picket the funerals of other gay men, particularly those who were the victims of hate crimes or who died of HIV/AIDS. They also protest at performances of The Laramie Project, at concerts given by musicians deemed to be LGBT-friendly, at Jewish and Muslim religious services, and even at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Those wars, Church members believe, are divine punishment for “[our] evil nation for abandoning all moral imperatives that are worth a dime.”

Despite the fact that Mr. Phelps and his followers believe that my husband and I are directly responsible for all of the ill fortune that befalls Americans, I do not celebrate his death. While I am not going to mourn the passing of a hate-filled man such as Fred Phelps, I’m not going to take perverse happiness in it either. In fact, I find it sad that he left this world without a chance to find peace, love, redemption and forgiveness.

Many of my friends and family find this a bit shocking. When I posted this sentiment on Facebook, for example, one colleague commented that she’d have a hard time finding forgiveness for a guy who, by picketing the funerals of combat soldiers, put grieving families through so much additional pain.

I see it quite differently. People like Fred Phelps are exactly the ones that need our forgiveness. Moreover, forgiving those who have hurt us — particularly those who have done nothing to deserve forgiveness — gives us great power and strength. This is a lesson that I learned several years ago after having lunch with a remarkable woman named Eva Mozes Kor.

Ms. Kor is a Holocaust survivor. At the age of 6, Romania-born Eva and the other members of her family were sent to the infamous Auschwitz concentration camp. While there, Eva and her twin sister Miriam were the subjects of horrific medical experiments by Dr. Josef Mengele. Despite this, they both survived and were liberated by Allied forces near the end of the war. Eva eventually emigrated to the US while her sister moved to Israel. Together, they founded an organization called CANDLES (Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments Survivors), through which they began to locate other survivors of Dr. Mengele’s research and to publicize the experiences of Holocaust survivors.

But Ms. Kor also did something completely unexpected and extremely controversial. Fifty years after the liberation of Auschwitz, on the very site where so many died, Eva announced publicly that she forgave the Nazi’s for what they had done to her. She didn’t deny that inhumane atrocities had occurred in the camps, nor did she believe that these crimes should be forgotten. She simply forgave those that had wronged her, freeing herself from decades of victimhood and suffering.

Hearing this story from Ms. Kor inspired me to do the same in my life. I forgave a former employer for a myriad of wrongs, letting go of my anger while still embracing the management lessons that I learned. I even forgave my former stepfather for a decade of mental and physical abuse, recognizing that my own compassion is a direct response to his lack of caring and concern.

I believe that Fred Phelps deserves the same. In fact, we should even thank Mr. Phelps and his followers for their hate-filled rhetoric. By taking the same rhetoric and opinions spouted by many ‘good Christians’ to the extreme — through slogans like “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” — the Westboro Baptist Church showed just how pervasive and perverse homophobic attitudes are. It’s even possible that many of the recent advances in gay rights wouldn’t have been achieved without Fred.

Thank you, Mr. Phelps, for being a role model for kind and caring people around the world. You and the others like you teach us what we should strive not to be. I only hope that you find the love and compassion in the next life that you so sorely lacked in this one.

[This blog entry was originally presented as an oral commentary on Northeast Public Radio on March 27, 2014. It is also available on the WAMC website. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Bioethics Program or Union Graduate College.]