Ethics reviews

Fifty-six years after leaving UChicago with a doctorate in interdisciplinary studies in medical ethics (ethics, medicine, law, and health administration), it was an unexpected surprise to see the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics and our field of applied study honored in the Spring/25 issue of The University of Chicago Magazine (“The Heart of the Matter”).

When I completed my doctorate in December of 1969, the only medical school in the country actively developing a medical ethics program was the Hershey Medical School at Penn State, and it was too early in their development to add faculty. Unlike MacLean Center director Peter Angelos, whose initial dissertation topic at Boston University was deemed “too applied,” I was fortunate enough to receive a postdoctoral grant to continue applying my UChicago work and thesis (on elective abortion) by helping develop and manage the world’s largest freestanding outpatient surgical center providing abortion services.

As a mixed lesson for faculty, students, and others who sometimes wonder if we make any difference, the US Supreme Court used the safety of our clinical experience, with 26,000 office-based abortions, in Roe v. Wade, ruling that proven medical safety and a patient’s right to choose had greater legal merit than governmental rights to outlaw the procedure. On the other hand, “progress” is sometimes illusive, given the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe and multistate legislation now outlawing elective abortion before many women even know they are pregnant.

Ron Hammerle, ThM’68, DMin’69
Tampa, Florida

I read the latest edition of the Magazine with interest—particularly page 27, which offers a warm depiction of Christoph Broelsch. However, both that article and the glowing 2019 U of C tribute following his death conspicuously omit his 2010 conviction and incarceration for tax evasion, bribery, coercion, and fraud. It is disappointing that the University eagerly embraced the media notoriety surrounding the first living donor liver transplant but turned a blind eye to a man described by those who observed him firsthand as displaying nothing but egocentric interests. This attitude ultimately culminated in further criminal behavior, which tarnished the remainder of his career.

Scott Schell, AB’84, PhD’89, MD’91
Chagrin Falls, Ohio

I recently read “The Heart of the Matter” in The University of Chicago Magazine. The article reminded me of the rich experience I had serving as a lay member of the Institutional Review Board at the Cleveland Clinic. I gained a lot of respect for the doctors involved in their various research projects and their willingness to accept comments from an outsider. At the time I was a professor of biblical studies at John Carroll University near Cleveland. As I continued to read the article, I came upon Laurie Zoloth’s comments about the intersections of faith and medicine, particularly the Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusion. If I may, I would refer you to my article “A Point of Contention: The Scriptural Basis for the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Refusal of Blood Transfusions,” Christian Bioethics 8, no. 1 (2002): 63–90. It is an article I was asked to write for a conference at the Cleveland Clinic.

John R. Spencer, AM’73, PhD’80
San Diego

As a medical student and later a surgical resident at the U of C in the ’70s, I was surrounded by great minds in medicine and science. We studied keenly and over the years developed a large fund of medical knowledge. We learned what we could do for our patients but often wondered what we should do for our patients.

These questions vexed me during my medical journey. On my medical rotation I was fortunate to meet Mark Siegler, MD’67. I found these questions were also in his perspective. On daily rounds we often discussed the medicine and the broader context of patient care as related to ethical and moral issues.

These discussions soon evolved into a medical ethics seminar. We would attend these weekly meetings with great curiosity and questions as to what the best treatment pathway for each individual patient was, based not just on medical ability but also on the individual needs of the patient and their loved ones.

The insight I gained from Siegler has guided my medical career through the years. The perspectives and insight have been invaluable. Hats off to this medical pioneer.

Charles G. Gabelman III, MD’78
North Kingstown, Rhode Island

After some 20 years of teaching ethics, my lasting impression is how consistently misunderstood ethics is. While Elizabeth Station’s descriptive report on the work of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics is commendable, it unfortunately exemplifies some of this misunderstanding. She writes, “While a moral philosopher approaching medical ethics might wrestle with abstract theoretical questions, … clinical ethics aims to offer case-based guidance on practical dilemmas.” The disjunction she imposes between theory and practice is fatal to ethics.

Ethics, as practical philosophy, amounts to principle-based decisions to act or not to act. Its purpose is to provide a universally applicable answer to the question—unavoidable for human beings endowed with the freedom to choose from among actions they can take—of what action they ought to take. Ethics assumes that among all that is possible in human behavior, there are things that ought to be done or not done when what is done affects others by benefiting them, as a matter of justice, or harming them, as a matter of injustice.

To be clear, in an ethics assessment, the case for action under consideration is essential for providing the evidence required. But the case only reveals what is the case. It does not reveal what ought to be the case. And since one cannot infer what ought to be from what is, this is where the moral philosopher comes in, providing the justification for what ought to be done, with such principles as justice, human rights, truth, and autonomy that are relevant to the circumstances in the case under review.

In light of this, consider Station’s case of clinicians’ dilemma over their obligation to comply with laws against abortion and their obligation to pursue patients’ best medical interests. The latter obligation is self-evident. And the former? Seventeen weeks into her pregnancy in Texas, Josseli Barnica suffered a miscarriage. Standard medical procedures called for either accelerating delivery or dilating and evacuating her uterus to avoid exposing her to life-threatening bacterial infection. However, Texas law forbids abortion as long as a fetal heartbeat is detectable, which Texas law stipulates is at six weeks. To comply with the law, Barnica’s medical team delayed standard treatment until it was too late, and she died from sepsis.

The ethics analysis is quite clear. The law ought to have been ignored as harmful to the patient in preference to serving the patient’s best interests by aborting. As R. M. Hare put it in his discussion of decisions of principle, “a complete justification of a decision would consist of a complete account of its effects, together with a complete account of the principles which it observed, and the effects of observing those principles.” That is doing ethics correctly.

T. Patrick Hill, PhD’02
Winchester, Virginia

Bon mot

The recent story about campus graffiti (“A Touch of Sublimity Makes Everything Worthwhile,” Spring/25) brought to mind one notable example from my own time at the University.

It was Winter Quarter of my first year. The excitement of orientation had long faded, and the reality of Chicago winter had fully set in. I spent the short gray days shuffling from dorm to classroom to campus job, only to emerge into darkness in the late afternoon. My three daily meals in Woodward Court’s vast dining hall had taken on a bland sameness.

One evening I trudged up the stairs for dinner and unenthusiastically grabbed a large orange tray. Carved into its surface by some nameless student: “After all, tomorrow is another tray.” I cried until I laughed.

Michelle Thatcher, AB’00
Los Angeles

Widening the scope

I was disappointed by your article about John Scopes, EX’31, and the University of Chicago (“Evolution on Trial,” Spring/25). Long ago scholars abandoned the Inherit the Wind story of the Scopes trial. Today they recognize that it occurred in an era marked by eugenics, racism, xenophobia, and deep concerns about theology and modernity. Participants in the trial (including University of Chicago professors!) often held problematic ethical ideas. Your article says nothing about these complex matters. Instead it presents a simplistic account of good and bad guys (in the article, almost exclusively guys). Rather than such cartoonish history, the Scopes trial merits serious and careful reflection.

Derek S. Jeffreys, AB’87, PhD’99
Green Bay, Wisconsin

Living history

Your oral history of College life in the 1970s was disappointing (“Ho-Ho, the University of Chicago Is Funnier Than You Think,” The Core, Spring/25). I can forgive the gaps. Everyone had their own experience. Campus concerts, the Bandersnatch, and Doc Films may not have wowed everyone—and might not even be relatable today.

But omission of politics totally misrepresents the time. The Vietnam War hung over the campus during the early ’70s. The end of my first year (1969–70) saw classes canceled for the remainder of Spring Quarter in protest against the war and the killing of students by the National Guard during protests at Kent State University in Ohio. We feared for our lives—literally—as we marched to the Loop in the Cambodia-Kent State protests. This was less than two years after the police riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

So the Kazoo Marching Band needs context. At the first varsity football game in 1969, students tore the goalposts down and marched them to President Edward Levi’s (LAB’28, PhB’32, JD’35) home chanting, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh” (the leader of North Vietnam at the time).

During the closure of classes the next May, SVNA [Students for Violent Non-Action] constructed a system of trenches in the lot at 58th and Woodlawn to “protect the campus” from the cops (and they didn’t use the word cops). So my classmates and I may have been acting satirically, but the anxiety that sparked the satire was real. Listening to the draft lottery was a fraught event. Those who drew low numbers could expect to be called to the nonvolunteer army at graduation to fight and possibly die in a war that was highly unpopular.

It was the strategy of University administration to encourage us to blow off steam rather than invite trouble from the cops and city hall. It was probably a good strategy. But it’s more than 50 years later. We could probably tolerate knowing what really happened.

Because it’s happening again.

Steve Froikin, AB’73
Chicago

I was at the U of C (you hadn’t invented UChicago yet) from 1973 to 1977. I did enjoy the trip down memory lane.

Notable by its absence is huge growth in women’s athletics. Title IX was passed in 1972 and though there were many objections and ultimately changes to the original act, the University of Chicago started complying immediately. This, of course, was primarily due to the influence of Mary Jean Mulvaney, who was the director of women’s athletics at the time and later became director of both men’s and women’s athletics.

In 1973 two women were the first to be awarded scholarships with athletic talent and accomplishment as the primary consideration. Several other women who had applied for the scholarship enrolled in the College as well. This was truly the beginning of the modern age in women’s athletics at the U of C. Some of the firsts were that practices expanded from three days a week to five; women as well as men had their uniforms and practice gear washed by department staff; new coaches were hired and the number of sports increased over time; strength training equipment in the form of one Universal weight machine appeared in Ida Noyes’s basement; and eventually sport-specific uniforms were provided (versus generic shorts and shirts with a number on them).

It’s very possible that you’ve already reported on these changes, but certainly they deserve a mention in an article about the ’70s on campus.

Claire Orner, AB’77
Denver

In addition to the “Ho-Ho” shirt (which I still have), there is the classic “Support University of Chicago Women’s Crew” (which may predate “Ho-Ho”). I lived in the late, unlamented Greenwood Hall, and we had shirts made with a cockroach on the sleeve (to commemorate the most common inhabitant of the building).

How could you mention varsity football and not mention Jay Berwanger, AB’36? In my second year I attended the homecoming game and got to meet him. And you mentioned sleepout but omitted the primal scream (outside the Reg the night before finals started).

Matthew Brady, AB’87, PhD’94, is absolutely right about organic chemistry (“From the Other Side of the Desk,” The Core, Spring/25). It was at 8 a.m. on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. There was nothing so depressing as heading to class in the dark on a cold Saturday morning. When my daughter complains about a 9 a.m. class, I delight in reminding her about “orgo.”

Lastly, one of the seminal events of the ’70s was the McNamara protest. The administration announced a new award, the Albert Pick Jr. Award for International Understanding, and that the first recipient would be Robert McNamara. When a number of students and faculty questioned McNamara’s fitness for an award for contributions to peace (given his conduct as secretary of defense under Lyndon B. Johnson), instead of acknowledging the lack of transparency and suitability of McNamara, and the secrecy around the committee that chose McNamara, Mrs. Gray and the University doubled down, stating that the award was given for McNamara’s work leading the World Bank (questionable in and of itself). I remember Studs Terkel, PhB’32, JD’34, addressing the crowd of protesters, saying that he was embarrassed to be an alumnus when he heard about the award, but was so proud when he looked out at the sea of protesters.

Victor S. Sloan, AB’80
Flemington, New Jersey

I’m thrilled to see the 1970s featured in the Spring 2025 Core! I’m reading about all the fun stuff I missed out on, and a few things I didn’t—and I even recognize a few names of my student contemporaries. Ah, the giant kazoo, Frankenstein Library, and the legendary Stacks Zombies (students who went in and never came out). I never attended the Lascivious Costume Ball, after witnessing in a winter swimming class how treacherous the cold can be to male anatomy. But I still love the Hyde Park Cook Book’s elaborate recipe for a kind of South Side Uno’s pizza, especially the last line: “Don’t forget to grease the pan!”

John Chastain, AB’73
Annandale, Virginia

The student becomes the master

Kudos to Carrie Golus, AB’91, AM’93, on coming up with one of the best features ever—alumni who now teach at the University (“From the Other Side of the Desk,” The Core, Spring/25). Just read about Matthew Brady, AB’87, PhD’94; Ethan Bueno de Mesquita, AB’96; Agnes Callard, AB’97; and Ling Ma, AB’05. How lucky are the students to have them? And how funny to read Brady’s recollection of his admitted student visit. It was the same as mine, but unlike Brady I enrolled elsewhere and envy that my two children (AB’20 and Class of 2026) got the opportunity I missed.

Your work is deeply admired and appreciated.

Luis Alvarez Jr. 
Charlottesville, Virginia

Throwing muses

Regarding recreation on the quads (“Friz Frame,” Alumni News Snapshots, Spring/25): Caught in an unexpected downpour, I took shelter in the Eckhart/Ryerson archway, where a fellow student offered to teach me to juggle. Though skeptical of my hand-eye coordination, I could go nowhere else without a thorough soaking, so I accepted the challenge. Whenever I dropped a ball, he chased it around the archway and patiently handed it back to me.

He succeeded in teaching me the rudiments. When the rain abated, I was up to 10 consecutive throws before dropping a ball. He pronounced me a novice juggler and said that a handful of jugglers convened at lunchtime on the adjacent lawn.

On the next sunny day, I returned to the Eckhart lawn to practice. A large duffel bag disgorged dozens of lacrosse balls, clubs, knives, sickles, and torches. Much to my surprise, I discovered that my skill with the balls had improved overnight—right away I could string together 20 throws. Synapses are amazing, I thought, and I was hooked.

I bought three lacrosse balls from the duffel. Soon I could juggle them while walking between campus and my apartment on Everett Street, even carrying a backpack full of books. I returned every day to practice with the group and learn new tricks. After reaching 200 consecutive throws, I tried juggling the clubs and knives, but the balls remained more congenial for me.

One afternoon a man in a smart suit sauntered across the lawn, asked if he could try the equipment, and then wowed us all by juggling the balls at very high speed. He left behind a business card that identified him as the president of an international jugglers’ association.

I don’t juggle often anymore, but I still keep a few small beanbags at home—for when I feel the urge.

Rick Dinitz, AB’80
Palo Alto, California

We do talk about Bruno

On April 10, 2024, Lois Pazienza, my life partner of 54 years, passed away. We met at the University of Rhode Island my senior year in the late spring of 1970. Two years after graduating, I got accepted to a divisional master’s program at the U of C, and so we communicated that year mostly by mail. I had saved all her letters—there were over 50 of them—and I assumed and hoped that she had saved mine.

After rummaging in the basement, I discovered a box well hidden and found, to pleasant surprise, wrapped in gold ribbon, my letters. No doubt I must have put them there in 1980 when we moved into this house, but I had certainly never read them.

The letters were dated from September 1972 to June of 1973. One of my most important teachers was Bruno Bettelheim. I took two courses with him, Introduction to Psychology and also, way up on the Midway, Psychoanalysis. Since Bettelheim’s house was on campus, not far from the library, I often ended up walking to class with him or walking back with him after class.

Since he was such a big influence on me, I saved my notes, and in them is the drawing that I did of him back in 1972 (left). As it turned out, one of the letters to Lois related a classic moment from his Intro to Psych, a class that had easily 50 students. The date was October 11, 1972:

Dear Lois,

Bettelheim’s class Mon was a riot. We analyzed a kid’s dream about cutting off his finger. Dr. B asked what it symbolized—Girl said castration! & Bettelheim asked what castration meant.

She said, “Cutting off the penis!” He said, “What?” She said, “The penis.” He said, “The what?”

And she said she thought it was a good idea—she knew some people who deserved it. And with that, he crosses the stage, drags out the podium, hides behind it (only his head exposed). “I’m not taking any chances,” he said. Class was in an uproar.

Then again he asked what castration was and one kid finally said removal of the testicles (fuzzies), and he said, “Right,” and turning to her he asked, “And why, my dear girl, did you deliberately replace one form of mutilation for another?!”

I did remember the event but not the details, and I hadn’t read that letter since I wrote it 52 years earlier!

Marc J. Seifer, AM’74
Kingston, Rhode Island

Ecological observation

I would like to follow up on Roger Powell’s (PhD’77) comment regarding the lack of an ecological component in the U of C’s new Institute for Climate and Sustainable Growth (Letters, Spring/25). Contrary to Powell’s assertion that “we cannot realistically deal with climate and economic growth without incorporating the study of nature’s ecological services,” should we not instead focus on incorporating nature’s ecological services into our social, economic, and cognitive ecosystem services? Can we not see that a primary reason for the failure of today’s outside-in, top-down, and centrally planned policies and programs is that sustainable development requires us to do more than just study nature’s ecological services? Is it not plain that what we need to do is to take those services as a model for our own bottom-up participation in hierarchically complex and interdependent living systems?

Problems of sustainable growth are problems of learning how to be the change. As Stephen Toulmin put it in a 1982 article we discussed at length a couple of years later, when I enrolled in one of his seminars at the U of C, “In quantum mechanics as much as in psychiatry, in ecology as much as in anthropology, the scientific observer is now—willy-nilly—also a participant.”

Following through on this principle leads to a fundamentally different way of conceptualizing and practicing science. This participatory perspective provides a more powerful explanatory frame of reference than today’s subject-object dualisms. Is there any principled reason why the distributed sociocognitive ecologies enabling manufactured capital to thrive could not also be cultivated into partnerships with the various forms of social life involving human, social, and natural capital? The dualist worldview has an astoundingly strong grip on our imaginations, but viable seeds for a new participatory, ecological future are beginning to sprout and take root.

William P. Fisher, AM’84, PhD’88
Chicago

Boorstin’s legacy

I entered the College from high school in 1951, was plunged by the placement tests into graduate courses, and had little sense of what was going on for a couple of years (“Daniel J. Boorstin,” Alumni News Snapshots, Winter/25). After taking my MA in history in 1954, I shifted to the American Civilization program in Social Thought. I took Dan Boorstin’s American Revolution course in autumn ’53. When I switched departments, I assumed Boorstin was still over the American program in Social Thought, but he was not my tutor for any of the Fundamentals books.

Boorstin came to the University from Swarthmore College in 1944, hired by Social Thought. I do not know the details of his switch from Social Thought to the history department. He is not listed in history for 1951–52, but he is an associate professor of history for 1952–53. I have been told he had some disagreement with John U. Nef, LAB 1916, EX 1920, the chairman of Social Thought.

In the early ’50s, the history department was top-heavy with full professors, with American history seniors Avery Craven, PhD 1924, and Bessie Pierce, AM 1918, on the verge of retirement (mandatory in those days) and no American associate or assistant professors in 1951–52. Boorstin might well have thought an appointment in history would provide a more prudent path, especially with Hutchins gone. (Hutchins was involved in the founding of Social Thought.)

Boorstin discussed The Genius of American Politics (1953) in autumn ’53. I bought it as soon as it became available and have considered it one of my guidebooks ever since. I took his American Intellectual History in the 20th century in autumn ’55. We took to each other, and I got an A. Administration took me away from courses until autumn ’58, when I took the 19th-century course (another A). A new graduate student from Yale (he seemed very “Yalie”) sat next to me (in the habitual seating that people take), and after a while he expressed his bewilderment about “what Boorstin wanted” in grading. I—now an expert!—explained: “Get as many ideas as possible down; don’t worry about style.” Jim Hoge, AM’61, and I became friends and continued casual contact throughout his newspaper career (editor and publisher) in Chicago. Boorstin kept the student blue books, and I suspect he made use of them when he was drafting the 20th-century volume of his Americans series.

Jim Vice, EX’55, AM’54
Wabash, Indiana

The University of Chicago Magazine welcomes letters about its contents or about the life of the University. Letters for publication must be signed and may be edited for space, clarity, civility, and style. To provide a range of views and voices, we ask letter writers to limit themselves to 300 words or fewer. Write: Editor, The University of Chicago Magazine, 5235 South Harper Court, Chicago, IL 60615. Or email: uchicago-magazine@uchicago.edu.