Philosophy has gone stupid:

“Blood Bans: A Case Study of Defenses of Stereotyping in Medical Contexts”

Professor Rima Basu (Claremont McKenna College)

Time: 9th of September, 2021, 17.00-18.30 GMT+1

Abstract: Stereotyping in medical contexts is often considered to be less problematic than stereotyping in other domains. In medical contexts, doctors can use well-evidenced stereotypes as a tool to shrink the space of theoretical possibilities to arrive at more accurate diagnoses. Such stereotypes can also serve as useful epistemic shortcuts. However, these stereotypes may nevertheless be morally impermissible. This creates the need to be able to identify the difference between rightful and wrongful stereotyping. This paper explores the explanations that have been offered for the differential treatment of gay and bisexual men with respect to blood donations in order to develop an account of the difference. Statistically, gay and bisexual men remain a high risk group for HIV transmission and such evidence has been used to ban or defer gay and bisexual men from blood donations. I argue that such policies, despite their evidential basis, wrongfully stereotype gay and bisexual men. To arrive at that conclusion we will need to look closely at the history of these policies and the moral and epistemic defenses that have been offered in support of this kind of stereotyping. I argue that each such defense fails.

About the Speaker:
Professor Basu is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College. ​Her areas of research expertise include epistemology, ethics and moral issues, and race and social problems. The central theme of her work is that when it comes to what we should believe, morality is not voiceless. What we owe each other is not just a matter of what we do or what we say, but also what we believe. ​You can read more about her work in this short Aeon article, "To avoid moral failure, don’t see people as Sherlock does".

*Please note that this colloquium will not be recorded. So we very much hope you’ll turn up at this smashingly exciting, final colloquium in our series! However, you can view recordings of previous colloquia by the Philosophy & Medicine Project in this and other series on the Philosophy & Medicine Project’s website and YouTube channel. And to be notified about events by the Philosophy & Medicine Project, you can sign up to our newsletter here, or follow us on Twitter or Facebook.

So here's the deal with bans on "MSM" ("men who have sex with men")--it's very simple: MSM have more HIV. We don't really need the extra blood. The risk of HIV transmission outweighs the benefit of the extra blood. And that's all there is to it. Nothing about stereotypes can overturn the risk-benefit reasoning that was used to make the decision. What stereotypes are even relevant? That "MSM" have more HIV than other groups? Because that stereotype--like so many stereotypes--of it even is a "stereotype"--is true. Even if it turned out to be "wrongful"--whatever that means. 

   Philosophy has gone very, very stupid.

   Here's the website--tag line: "Thinking At The Intersection"