Does the Constitution have applications on Bioethics?

This past Thursday, the Columbia School of Professional Studies hosted a virtual event to discuss how the Supreme Court treats the issue of bioethics under the current administration. The program featured four legal and medical professionals and was moderated by bioethics lecturer Robert Swidler.

The first speaker was Glenn Cohen, a professor of law and deputy dean of Harvard University. Cohen began by addressing the common misconceptions about bioethics, asserting that many cases concern “smaller” issues with little constitutional themes, contrary to popular opinion. Arguably the most famous case in this category, Roe v. Wade, regards the 14th Amendment, and hence most people see bioethics as a heated issue with large federal implications. However, a majority of cases with progressive effects are based in state law, and matter just as much as federal cases. In addition, Cohen asserted that the Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of our rights. State lawmakers can enact policies to protect their residents; while state constitutions can’t break a federal statute, they can often give constitutional protection from such statutes. Thirdly, people often assume that the concept of a Supreme Court that reigns above all is a sign of an advanced democracy when, in reality, this is actually quite abnormal. In most other countries, the legislative branches monitor constitutional discussions. America aggrandizes the Supreme Court’s power by making it generally very difficult to amend our Constitution.

The next speaker was Joseph Fins, a professor and chief of the division of medical ethics at several institutions. Fins explained that, in democracy, there is a general deference towards people with expertise in certain fields, and hence laws should be made according to the judgment of such experts. But in recent times, courts have been steering away from this practice and making decisions that they are not properly equipped to make. Fins explained that, in Texas, a joint motion was filed to strike the integration mandate in the US District Court, which protects people with disabilities and their integration into civil community. They have also cut funding for biomedical research, leading to many studies canceled completely and employees fired without direction. This behavior not only destroys biomedical research, but also the entire educational landscape.

Gillian Metzger’s discussion concerned structural constitutional law, specifically the power dynamic between branches. A Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar of Constitutional Law at Columbia Law School, Metzger proficiently explained that the current Supreme Court has a very expansive view of presidential power. Under Chief Justice Rehnquist, Congress had the authority to determine the extent of presidential abilities, as long as the president was able to perform his duties without interference. However, that has shifted, as the current court has made decisions that expand executive power beyond that. For example, in the Trump v. Slaughter decision, the court deemed that the President has a constitutional need to be able to control their “subordinates,” and Metzger flagged “subordinates” as a particularly broad term. That said, Metzger emphasized that the court’s view on presidential expansion is largely dependent on how they feel about the government’s ability to respond to risk.

The last speaker of the evening was Elizabeth Sepper, a professor of health law at the University of Texas School of Law. Her section revolved around the effects of exempting certain third parties from the law, particularly religious objectors. Historically, courts were averse to granting any exemptions, but, especially in clinical settings, many cases have been disputed by people on the grounds of religious beliefs. Considering this, can a doctor refuse to aid a patient based on their views, even in a life-threatening situation? By changing this relationship to allow a doctor to deny a patient care, it affects the clinical environment and overall leads patients to have less trust in their medical professionals.

The program ended with Robert Swidler asking the four guests several questions, as well as their final takeaways. Each speaker reiterated their views on the government’s attitude towards bioethics issues, with many of them asserting that the government is taking away power from doctors, as well as citizens’ bodily and decisional autonomy. In closing, the consensus of the evening seemed to assert that the government’s power has undergone some radical changes that have increased its power over the medical field.

US Supreme Court via Bwog Archives