Rethinking Mandatory HIV Testing

Anita Kleinsmidt and I have a paper in the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH in which we propose to consider introducing mandatory HIV testing of pregnant women in high HIV prevalence areas (eg in Southern Africa). The available evidence suggests that the uptake of HIV testing increases the more difficult the state makes it for pregnant women to avoid it. We think that if women are given the option to have an abortion, and if they insist on carrying the fetus to term, they have some responsibility toward it. This includes the responsibility to ensure that the newborn they want to come into being has a good shot at a life worth living.
Anyway, check it out, the paper is currently available online in a First Look version. The final printed version should be available in the July issue of the journal.

Oddities of Irish Life

Here's a story (well, more to the point, the satisfactory conclusion of a story): A 17 year of teenager in the Republic of Ireland sued to be allowed to leave the country in order to have an abortion in the UK. The Republic of Ireland is, in case you don't know, a fairly conservative, Catholic country. It has some of the most stringent abortion rules in Europe. The teenager in question tried to have an abortion in Ireland, thru the country's national health service. Well, this is not just your average abortion where a teenager tries to have a termination of pregnancy due to some accident that happened during sexual intercourse. Prenatal tests showed that the newborn would suffer from anencephaly. Newborns with that condition don't live for longer than three days after birth, due to the fact that a large part of the brain and skull is missing. The girl did not want to subject herself and the newborn to that ordeal and requested an abortion. This was denied by the Irish national health service. She then tried to do what many Irish women having abortions do, she tried to escape the country's draconian regulations and tried to have her termination of pregnancy in the UK. However, being under age the national health service ordered her not to leave the country.
The BBC reports today that 'The High Court has now ruled there were no statutory or constitutional grounds for preventing the teenager, known only as Miss D in court, from travelling to the UK for the operation.'
It seems reassuring that there are some sensible people left in that country. I mean, what's the point of carrying a foetus to term that has no life prospects whatsoever. Why would anyone wish to subject a pregnant teenager to the ordeal of having to have the baby in order to see it die within a few days? How could religious dogma initially be permitted to take priority over respect for the difficult choice this young woman made?

Time to go Mr Wolfowitz

Very sensible commentary in today's FINANCIAL TIMES. The paper describes how Paul Wolfowitz, current President of the World Bank and one of the Bush administration's leading neocons, has breached a whole range of ethics rules at the Bank when he helped his girlfriend (who also worked at the Bank) to a cushy job in the US government. Now, while she is on secondment there the Bank picks up the tab. More remarkable even, his girlfriend draws a gigantic salary during her secondment, larger even than that of Condoleeza Rice, the US Secretary of State. Wolfowitz made much of his commmitment to fight corruption, another good reason for why he ought to resign. The FINANCIAL TIMES comments on the White House's continuing support for Wolfowitz: 'To place loyalty above all other virtues is the ethics of a mafia boss not of the leader of a great country. The US president also needs to consider what is both right and in the interests of his own country.' This point is well-made. US President Bush is famously loyal to staff who show loyalty to him. As the FT point out, to do this without regard for your underlings failures is more the behaviour of a mafia boss than that of the leaders of the world's remaining superpower.

Hotels ... gone are the good old days

Umm, not by way of bragging, but I stayed in London during the last few days, in this hotel. There is something mildly disconcerting about the ever growing greed of hotel proprietors. In the good old days if one had forgotten toothpaste, the hotel receptionist would hand over toothpaste to the hotel guest, and the same would be true for other basic amenities. Well, not any longer. The Thistle Hotel that I stayed in had a vending machine in the lobby dispensing even things like headache pills at exorbitant prices (something close to 5 GBP for a couple of aspirin pills). Similarly, I stayed in a Park Inn (the 'budget' version of the SAS Radisson hotel group) in Bochum in Germany a few weeks back and discovered that they aim to rip off their guests by charging the living hell out of them for internet access (a thing you'd get free of charge in virtually every hotel in the USA, no matter how down market). Mind you, even use of the sauna (much advertised as a hotel facility on the internet) requires that one tells the receptionist 30 minutes ahead that one wants to use it so that they'd get it started...

I made the mistake to grab a take-way coffee in the lobby of the Thistle hotel. I realised immediately why they didn't display any prices at all for their paper-cup coffees. They charged 'only' 3.50 GBP for the cup.

So, again, let the buyer beware. I have to say, as far as hotel chains go, my best experiences were made in Holiday Inn's and their upmarket relatives Crown Plaza hotels. No hidden charges, internet access rip-off's and the endless nonsense practised by so many other hotel chains.

'God'less Europe - or so :)

Quite interesting. Secular folks like myself have supported a document called the 'Brussels Declaration'. This document, published a few weeks ago, was meant to influence European Union debates on our commonly shared values in Europe. We were concerned that the Pope and his minions in the EU parliament might sneak in 'God' in some incarnation or other. Well, I am pleased to report that the official declaration of the European citizen's values makes no mention of 'God' ... and the Pope is reportedly not pleased at all. Here then the Berlin Declaration

The Berlin Declaration

Europe was for centuries an Idea, a hope for freedom and understanding. This hope has been fulfilled. European unity has enabled us to live in peace and prosperity. It has created a community and overcome differences. Every member has helped to unite Europe and to strengthen democracy, the rule of law. We have to thank the love of freedom of the people of central and eastern Europe that Europe’s unnatural divisions are today finally overcome. With European unity, we have learned the lessons from our bloody conflicts and painful history. We live today together in a way that was never previously possible. We citizens of the European Union are united in our good fortune.

Section 1

In the European Union we realise our common ideals: for us the individual is central. His dignity is inviolable. His rights are inalienable. Women and men have equal rights. We strive for peace and freedom, for democracy and the rule of law, for mutual respect and responsibility, for prosperity and security, for tolerance and participation, justice and solidarity. We live and function together in the European Union in a unique way. This expresses itself in the democratic co-operation of member states and European institutions. The European Union is based on equal rights and solidarity. That is how we make possible a fair balance of interests between the member states. We uphold in the European Union the individuality and the diverse traditions of its members. The open frontiers and the lively diversity of languages, cultures and regions enrich us. Many goals cannot be achieved independently but only through common action. The European Union, the member states and their regions and local communities share these tasks.

Section 2

We face great challenges which cannot be confined to national frontiers. The European Union is our answer to them. Only together can we preserve our European social model in the future to the benefit of all citizens in the European Union. This European model unites economic success and social responsibility. The common market and the euro make us strong.

That is how we can shape the increasing worldwide interdependency of the economy and ever expanding competition on international markets according to our values. Europe’s wealth lies in the knowledge and abilities of its people; this is the key to growth, employment and social cohesion. We will jointly fight terrorism and organised crime. We will also defend our freedom and civil rights against their enemies. Racism and xenophobia must never again be given their chance. We will act to ensure that conflicts in the world are solved peacefully and that people do not become victims of war, terrorism or violence.

The European Union will promote freedom and development in the world. We want to push back poverty, hunger and disease. In doing so, we will continue to play a leading role. In energy policy and protection of the climate we want to go forward together and make our contribution to heading off the global threat of climate change.

Section 3

The European Union will continue to live in the future on the basis of its openness and the will of its members to strengthen together the inner development of the European Union. The European Union will continue to promote democracy, stability and prosperity beyond its frontiers. European unity has made reality out of a dream nurtured by earlier generations. Our history warns us that we have to protect this good fortune for future generations. We must continue to renew and update the political shape of Europe. That is why, 50 years after the signing of the Treaties of Rome, we are today united in the goal of achieving a renewed common foundation for the European Union before the elections to the European Parliament in 2009.

Because we know: Europe is our common future.

Business is business - ethics is ethics is something else altogether

UK arms manufacturers, pretty much beyond reasonable doubt, bribed their way into getting multi-billion pound contracts from Saudi Arabia. The current UK government, which is pretty close to or has beaten the governmental sleaze factor introduced during the disastrous Major years, has ended an official investigation into the issue on the grounds that it would not be in the 'national interest' to investigate the matter. The reason (ie the 'national interest') is that the Saudi government threatened to stop buying any further arms from the UK if the investigation continued. They were upset that their cosy little corrupt world was just about to be opened up to the glare of the public eye (mass media, the lot). No wonder that high-flying ethical governance principles were discarded in an instant by Tony Blair and his governmental cronies.

In Germany Siemens managers admitted to having paid kick-backs to secure contracts from Italy's state owned energy company Enel. Goes without saying that they insist that they didn't 'offer' the dosh, but that those Italians demanded it out of the blue - what choice did they have other than to pay up. It goes also without saying that Siemens has an ethics structure (mission statement, compliance staff etc etc) that's second only to Enron.

Which brings me back to 'business ethics'. I am almost certain that all the business ethics activities in the universe won't make a difference to companies' real-world behaviours, unless there's a severe threat to a company's reputation and business, in case its ethical failing is discovered. So, at the end of the day it's about CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL, and almost certainly not about voluntary codes of conduct.

In the case of democratically elected governments that back corruption, at the end of the day it's about ELECTING A NEW GOVERNMENT. We, the electorate must hold them accountable and remove them as soon as is feasible.