“Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”

Marriage to many people is seen as an event that shapes their lives; it defines the relationships of the people involved and creates the foundations on which to build a family. Marriage can be undertaken as a religious practice, for social recognition or for financial safety, but generally in today’s western culture it is pursued as an act of love.

 

What then does the practice of marriage actually represent in our modern culture? Are there any legitimate reasons for a couple to get married? In this article I hope to show that the tradition of marriage has become corrupted by stringent legal regulations and eroded by euphoric promises. I aim to emphasize the importance of questioning even deep rooted traditions, like marriage, to ensure that they still retain validity. 

My interest in marriage has arisen as my partner and I are to be wed next year. We had initially planned to get married, but have since changed our position. Investigation into the publically held concept of marriage and the pertaining legal structures revealed a tradition that we were not comfortable to be a part of. We have thus decided to hold a commitment ceremony instead, removing the need for any unsubstantiated state involvement and allowing us to structure the ceremony in a way that truly reflects the love we have for each other. 

Currently, under Australian law, for a marriage to be valid the state requires the presiding celebrant to say “Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. This single sentence conveniently encapsulates everything that I hold to be wrong with marriage.

‘According to law in Australia’

Why is it that marriage has anything to do with the state? Marriage in its early days originated as a financial agreement within families, offering economic security to those involved. Due to the business like structure of such agreements, laws dating back to 1,000 BCE were created outlining the price of marriage and subsequent property arrangements. As the concept of marriage evolved, the states retained their involvement, continuing to govern marriage even after it moved from being financial commitment to an emotional one in the 17th century. Now in the 21st century, with nearly all western marriages taking place for reasons of love, is the state’s involvement really justified? For what reasons should the state really be able to enforce that only certain couples can be married? Attempts to justify such discrimination can be made by appealing to definitions, but the state is not in place to enforce definitions. It’s role is to create laws that benefit the population through illegalizing crime and protecting the individual’s rights.

Proponents of state controlled marriage have argued that legal recognition conveys state endorsement and thus encourages people into healthy lifestyles. Implicit in such a position is that monogamous, heterosexual relationships are the only correct way to lead a healthy life (as currently they are the only state endorsed form of marriage) and as such the state is discriminating against all other forms of relationship. 

Here someone might object and point out that many states are in fact beginning to recognize same-sex relationships through civil unions. If I was to momentarily accept that civil unions provided equal rights to that of a marriage then I am left in a position where state recognition of marriage becomes redundant. Civil unions are available to both homosexual and heterosexual relationships and as such there appears no adequate reason for the state to not solely recognize civil unions. Marriage should thus become independent of the legal system, with all state recognized relationships being encompassed in civil unions. Individuals would then be left to decide whether their civil union would be called a marriage, but such a decision would have no significance within the legal system. Even civil unions still mandate particular forms of relationships, namely monogamous ones, and as such would still have the potential to be discriminatory.

Others argue that state regulated marriage is required to protect children; that marriage promotes and supports two parent (heterosexual) families, which are proclaimed to be the ideal structure for a child to be brought up in. Unfortunately for proponents of such a position, the reality of the situation is much different. Studies have shown that children raised by homosexual couples are just as well off as those children who are raised within heterosexual families. Though many of these studies have been relatively small and alone are insufficient to draw conclusive results from, they do demonstrate that current government policy lacks empirical support; that we have no reason to assume that only heterosexual couples can adequately raise children. As such it is fair to conclude that, taken from a position of protecting children within families, the current policy of promoting only heterosexual relationships is again discriminatory. 

With the absence of any substantial justification for such discrimination, governments should cease favoring particular arrangements for love, intimacy, and sex either through the removal of any recognition of relationships or by having state recognition of a diversity of marital relationships without restriction, but still compatible with justice (ie. still voluntary in nature).

I will add here that I do support the government’s involvement within divorces. Due to the complicated nature of financial arrangements within relationships it is important to ensure that in the event of a relationship breaking down, all parties are protected. Such divorce policies should in no way be limited to married couples alone though. Participants in homosexual or polyamorous relationships should equally be protected in the event of separation. Current government policies are moving towards such equality though, with members of de-facto relationships receiving protection comparable to those of married couples.

‘Between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others’

I have already touched on some of the discriminatory implications of viewing marriage as a purely heterosexual arrangement in the eyes of the state, but a great many people would still hold that, regardless of legal repercussions, marriage by definition is the union of a man and a woman (to the exclusion of all others), and as such is not open to interpretation. This view is common within religious denominations that see marriage as first and foremost a religious tradition. Such people hold that any variation to marriage would only serve to corrupt the tradition.

Such a position is precarious and ultimately unjustified. The act of marriage has its origins within Ancient Egypt, the first records dating back to 1000BCE. The concept of marriage subsequently evolved through history and was incorporated into Roman culture, although at this period it was still primarily a union undertaken for economic security.

Approaching along a quite different path through history is the word “maritare”, which will eventually become “marriage”. “Maritare”, a Latin word, described the close blending of two things, specifically humans, animals and grapes. Such origins are evident with the use of phrases such as “The Chardonnay did not marry well with the salmon” still present in today’s culture. Around 12 CE the French adapted the word into “mariage” and it was here that is was first used in conjunction with the previously mentioned acts of marriage. 

Unbeknownst to many, it was not until around 900 CE that the church became involved with marriage. The tradition of marriage then continued to adapt through the ages until it eventually moved away from being an economic commitment and towards being an emotional one.

What we can see here is that marriage as we understand it today is an adapting social phenomenon and a blend of various cultural practices. Attempts to defend particular aspects of marriage, such as its religious origins, are fruitless due to its adapting nature. For these reasons, efforts to restrict marriage to incorporate only those unions between a man and a woman hold no merit. Throughout history, social norms have shaped our understanding of marriage, such as from a financial commitment to an emotional one. Consequently, the growing social acceptance of and the need to provide equal opportunities to same-sex couples should mandate the adaption of marriage to better reflect current social norms.

‘Entered into voluntarily for life’

For most people, at the core of marriage is the concept of forever; that through better and worse, you will always be with them. The underlying assumption here is that the marriage will indefinitely exist because their love for one another will always exist. Are people ever really in a situation where such a promise of eternal love can be made though? Here it is wise to remember that emotional responses such as love are really beyond our conscious control, we are really at their mercy. With this considered, it seems unlikely that a person could ever guarantee their undying love. They may very well intend to love another forever, but throughout their lives people change. Whilst it is possible that two people may change in a way that fosters their relationship, the possibility exists that these changes may lead two people in different directions.

The best evidence for such an assertion is the high number of divorces that occur in countries which permit no-fault divorce. In Australia almost 40% of marriages will end in divorce. Whilst these statistics can be misleading, they certainly serve to indicate that in a lot of relationships love does not pass the test of time. With such evidence in mind one cannot be sure that their own marriage will not go the way that so many others have. 

If this were to be the case and two people found themselves in a loveless marriage, are we to suppose that due to their initial promise they will consequently have to remain within the relationship? No, such a view is not commonly held and the popular existence of no-fault divorce laws substantiates such. We are thus left with an initial obligation to remain within a relationship, made with a no exceptions clause (for better and worse), that can acceptably be disregarded at the holder’s disposition.

What then is the purpose of making such a promise? The promise would seem either to mean nothing, subtracting from any other promises made, or to articulate the unrealistic expectations that couples have of each other, demonstrating an absence of rational contemplation within the relationship. Neither of these are desired traits on which a newly formed relationship should be structured.

In Conclusion

I hold that marriage as practiced today has become a dated tradition. It is rich with discrimination which is unjustifiably enforced by the state. The expectations of marriage have become unrealistic and morally serious people should not even consider creating an obligation (through a promise) that can be disregarded at their own discretion. 

My partner and I hold no desire to be part of such an institution. Instead we will hold a commitment ceremony to celebrate our love for one another, free from any state regulation. Acts of love, intimacy and sex are by their very nature exceptionally personal, and consequently should be free of any unsubstantiated state control. We will express our love for one another as we see fit, maintaining our moral integrity and rational views, and promising to always act in ways that will foster and support our relationship.

Reasonable Expectations of a Good God

During 1932 and 1933 somewhere between 2.5 and 10 million people starved to death in Soviet Ukraine. The Holodomor (literally death by hunger) was thought to have been engineered by the Soviet Union.

Still today over one billion people are effected by starvation and it accounts for over 60% of all infant deaths.

 

An estimated 38 million people suffer from AIDS worldwide, including 2.5 million children. Africa contains around 88% of people living with AIDS and most of these people will receive only limited treatment, if any. Victims suffer from sweats, weight loss, and lethargy. They will typically die within a year without antiretroviral therapy after AIDS diagnosis.

 

In both India and Thailand it is estimated that 40% of prostitutes are children. These numbers have doubled over the last decade and amount to over a million children in these two countries alone. These boys and girls can be as young as 12 years old when they are forced to sell their own bodies to survive on the streets.

 

In light of the horrific suffering that exists throughout the world, how is it that many modern religions can claim that their god is all powerful and good? In this post I hope to look at some of the arguments put forward by theologians and philosophers, and show that belief in such a god is unreasonable.

The question is generally posed in two ways. The first being why is there any suffering in the world if god is all powerful and good? This is often expressed as the "logical problem of evil"; an all-powerful good god is incompatible with suffering.

It can be simply expressed as:

1. An omnipotent omniscient good god would prevent all suffering.
   
2. There exists suffering.
   
3. Therefore an omnipotent omniscient good god does not exist.
   

Responses to this form of logical argument dispute premise 1 (An omnipotent good god would prevent all suffering). It is argued that an omnipotent good god would allow suffering as it alone allows for the fundamental virtues of compassion and sympathy. It is also argued (famously by Plato) that suffering is a consequence of free will; god cannot allow free will and prevent suffering, as people would be free to cause suffering. This argument does not actually contradict premise 1, however, as free will can be shown to be incompatible with an omniscient god. This is a consequence of an omniscient god knowing all that you will do and so any perceived free will is simply an illusion.

 

A possibly even more convincing form of this argument is why is there so much suffering in the world if god is all-powerful and good? This is expressed as the "evidential problem of evil"; an all-powerful good god is incompatible with gratuitous suffering.

This argument can be simply expressed as:

1. An omnipotent omniscient good god would prevent all gratuitous suffering.
   
2. There exists suffering that could be prevented without hindering some 'greater good'.
   
3. Therefore an omnipotent omniscient good god does not exist.
   

This form of argument is probability based, arguing that as no evidence can be provided to justify currently perceived gratuitous violence then it is unreasonable and unjustified to believe that an all-powerful good god exists. This argument encompasses the possibility that some levels of suffering are required for fundamental virtues but focuses on the evidential excess of suffering. Granting that fundamental virtues and free will are a justified source of some suffering, what possible explanations can be provided for natural disasters, the 5 mass extinction events that earth has suffered and diseases such as Malaria which have a body count of around a million people every year.

There exists no reason why there cannot be currently unknown justifications for suffering. To be logically consistent though one should put a greater probability on the existence of an impartial god, where no contradictions exist with the currently perceived gratuitous violence, then on an all-powerful good god who requires further evidence to justify its existence.

Belief that there exists no gratuitous suffering due to unknown or unknowable justifications also has several moral issues surrounding it, namely that it would become impossible to commit an 'evil' act. One could rape and murder children as any incurred suffering would be justified by some greater good, albeit an unknown one. "It would be the end of all morals"- Volker Dittman.

 

So once again we are left in a situation where it is unreasonable and unjustified to believe in the existence of an all-powerful good god. Of course these arguments are not designed to disprove the existence of gods. Simply they aim to outline what god cannot be, or at least, cannot  reasonably be expected to be.

The Ethics of Regulating Monetary Incentives within Clinical Trials

A transcript of a presentation I gave today on whether it is ethical to allow people to be paid to participate in clinical trials.

I am going to be giving a short presentation on the use of monetary reimbursements and incentives within clinical trials, specifically looking at Australian policy. Currently in Australia, participants involved in clinical trials cannot be offered any monetary incentives for taking part in the study. Reading from section 2.2.10 of the ‘National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research” we have:

“It is generally appropriate to reimburse the costs to participants of taking part in research, including costs such as travel, accommodation and parking. Sometimes participants may also be paid for time involved. However, payment that is disproportionate to the time involved, or any other inducement that is likely to encourage participants to take risks, is ethically unacceptable.”

This policy I feel is unjustified, it shows no respect for the individual’s right to autonomy and in fact is cleverly designed to undermine such autonomy.

Before we get into the details of such an argument we will start by just looking at why such ethical concerns exist.

Generally when we talk about the possibility of people being paid incentives to participate in clinical trials we are mainly concerned with healthy people who are being recruited into Phase I clinical trials. While ailed people can also often be paid incentives to participate in clinical trials, Phases II and III, these trials are designed to benefit their position. In a Phase I trial the success of the treatment would have no effect on the potential participants and so ethical concerns are raised, understandably, when these participants are paid incentives to take part, that is, risk their health for no medical gain on their own behalf.

Generally when investigating such policies one would gather as much statistically relevant data as possible to help show exactly what are the issues at hand are. Unfortunately in this case there is not really any accessible data outlining percentages such as persons who have suffered adverse effects against total number of person involved in clinical trials. Without such data it is difficult to speculate on the actual risks that participants are putting themselves at except by analysis on an individual case by case basis.

In 2007 after being successfully administered to animals, TGN1412, an anti-inflammatory drug being developed to treat leukemia and arthritis, was tested on 6 healthy volunteers in a Phase I drug trial. These participants were offered a sum of 2000 pounds to take part in the study resideding in the UK where current policy allows such monetary incentives. The administered doses were 500 times less than the determined safe dose in animals but due to unforeseen complications the 6 participant’s conditions rapidly deteriorated, resulting in four of them suffering massive internal organ failure.

As with any misfortunate event like this the media jumped on it. Sensationalized stories appeared in many papers and online news outlets depicting events with little concern for the truth. First let’s look at an excerpt from an article published in the Times:

“Ms Marshall said that her boyfriend felt ill 80 or 90 minutes after being given an oral or injected dose of the

Now the Times are generally considered a fairly reputable news outlet. Unfortunately articles like this are not what you find when you initially Google the event. Instead you get stories like this:

“After being injected with the anti-inflammatory drug TGN1412, patients began tearing their shirts off, screaming that their heads were going to explode. One patient's head swelled to triple its normal size, and patients were soon passing out, vomiting, or screaming in sheer terror.”

Now don’t get me wrong this was a very unfortunate and sad event for these people and their families. Four of the men were in a critical condition, with one ending up in a coma for several weeks and another having suspected cancer as a result of the drugs effect. But it is too easy for the media to point the blame at the medical institutions and for people to jump to the conclusion that these men should have not been paid to be human guinea pigs.

At first glance this opinion does seem to be justified with many of the men expressing that the money was a driving factor in their involvement. “It’s such good money for a student” One of the patients stated, “It goes a long way”.

But upon further investigation it becomes clear that the monetary incentives were not the problem here. Instead it soon becomes apparent that the real issue lies with how these trials are advertised and ‘sold’ to the participants. These trials are often advertised like a holiday, using cavalier language and very little focus on the potential risks.

A Research ethicist is quoted as saying, “They failed to adequately disclose the degree of uncertainty around a first- in –man’s trial. The risks were well known. They’re not disclosed in the consent form” http://www.sskrplaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1472884.html

For these companies it really is all about enticing people in. Money does act as a powerful incentive but it is not the real concern here. The concern is the deception that the recruitment companies are employing.

Now imagine a hypothetical situation with a government that has no policy on monetary incentives and no laws protecting the participant’s right to informed consent. You can imagine that there would be a rise in clinical trial participation and thus consequently a rise in people who suffer adverse effects to these trials. The media would catch on as it does and creates a big fuss. The government then is put under pressure to fix the problem. How could it go about this?

If you look at Australia what our government has effectively done is say “these people don’t know what’s good for them and where therefore going to protect them from themselves” and so they have prevented anyone from receiving payments to participate in clinical trials, a clever and deceptive way of preventing participation or at least dramatically reducing participation as who would willing act as a human guinea pig when there is nothing in it for them.

But they have missed the point completely and that is to act ethically, as they so claim to be doing, they need to respect people right to choose, their autonomy. So instead of taking the easy, blanket approach of just preventing incentives, they need to address issues of informed consent. Ensuring that participants are not being deceived by the recruitment companies into thinking they have a sweet risk free deal.

With better enforced polices and proper avenues for prosecuting companies that don’t follow such policies, there should be no issue with people who are informed of the risks and understand the potential dangers from taking payment to participate. This is their choice and if they feel that they can justify the risks to themselves by the potential financial gains then they have the right to do so. This is comparable to miners who receive hazard pay when going underground or working on deep sea oil rigs. The work has substantially greater risks involved but they are financially compensated for taking such risks.

In both cases here it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that they do understand the risk and can make informed decision but not their role to take the decision out of their hands. This I feel is the most ethical approach available to us.

Before I finish up I want to address another issue that I believe is relevant to the situation, and this is the payments that go to the recruitment companies for recruiting participants into a trial. It seems contradictory that the government would establish laws preventing paid participation in clinical trials but have no strong policy regarding the conflict of interest that these recruitment companies obviously possess. This extends even further with doctors in Australia receiving payments upwards of $6000 per patient they recruit into clinical trials. GP’s are trusted by patients to have their best interests in mind but how can this possibly be achieved when such a conflict of interest exists. Just a little food for thought.

In conclusion, the point I am trying to drive home here is that the current policy is deceptively unethical, removing peoples autonomy without them even realizing. As long as people are fully aware of the risks they should have the right to be paid participants in clinical drug trials.