Labor Day Reflection: Being Hospitable toward Labor

Originally published 8/27/2013

Labor Day traditionally marks the end of summer in the United States. Most of us observe the holiday without much reflection on labor and its meaning in our lives and our society. Many trends have contributed to this lack of identification with the concept of labor including the conversion from a manufacturing to a knowledge-based or service-oriented economy and the erosion of collective bargaining and unions. However, labor is a fundamental feature of human life and is central to our dignity and flourishing.  For this reason, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issues an annual letter to mark Labor Day. I would like to share a some key features of the place of labor in a Catholic philosophical anthropology (a theory of being human) in order to show why the bishops have identified the need for immigration reform as central to their labor day message.

Our labor, i.e., our work, is how we provide sustenance for ourselves and our families.  But work is also a way that we express our creative natures – it is a means of self-expression. Clearly, when we speak of our work as our vocation, it even assumes a spiritual dimension as an expression of our relationship to God. In our creativity, we image the activity of God and in discerning the work proper to us, we respond to God’s call. In our culture, we often recognize these higher dimensions of work in the professions such as medicine and in highly-compensated paths that we term careers.

Unfortunately, our attitudes are often quite different toward work performed at the low end of the wage scale. We somehow have come to dichotomize the labor ladder into the “makers” at the more fortunate end and the “takers” on the lower rungs. Such a view is implicitly suspicious of those on the lower end and can blind us to our duty to foster opportunity for all.

The Bishops in their letter have kept in sight the fundamental principles of the Catholic social justice tradition. This tradition sees the state as established to foster the common good, i.e., the conditions for all community members to participate to their full capabilities. This tradition prioritizes giving a “hand up” over a “hand out.” It recognizes that people do not seek dependency but an opportunity to contribute to their community. When one views our society through the lens of these principles, the immigration question comes clearly into focus. The struggles of immigrant workers to find work, to provide for their families, and to have a say in the shaping of their lives are the defining features of their day-to-day existences. Once we are liberated from prejudices that assume people intrinsically are “takers,” we see our essential similarities and our differences recede.

The Bishops tell us, “Whenever possible we should support businesses and enterprises that protect human life and dignity, pay just wages, and protect workers’ rights. We should support immigration policies that bring immigrant workers out of the shadows to a legal status and offer them a just and fair path to citizenship, so that their human rights are protected and the wages for all workers rise.

We honor the immigrant worker by remembering that the building of America has been carried out by so many who fled persecution, violence, and poverty elsewhere, coming to America to offer their talents and gifts to support themselves and their families. We welcome the stranger, the refugee, the migrant, and the marginalized, because they are children of God and it is our duty to do so. But at the same time it is important to end the political, social, and economic conditions that drive people from their homelands and families. Solidarity calls us to honor workers in our own communities and around the world.”

On this Labor Day, I wish you a full appreciation of the value of your work. And I pray that we might all be bound in the hospitality that flows from mutual respect and solidarity.

Sincerely,
Mark
—
Mark G. Kuczewski, PhD
The Fr. Michael I. English, SJ, Professor of Medical Ethics
Chair, Department of Medical Education
Director, Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics & Health Policy
Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine


For the full USCCB Labor Day Statement, go to:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/labor-employment/labor-day-statement-2013.cfm

"They are Not Worse Than You and I!": Human Dignity and Incarceration

By Greg Dober, MA 2007

I have been asked numerous times why I advocate for adequate human rights and conditions, especially adequate healthcare, for incarcerated individuals.  I tend to jokingly refer to my graduate education at a Jesuit institution, Loyola University Chicago.  However, there is a kernel of truth to the comment.

Nearly a decade ago, my capstone paper in the MA program for Bioethics and Health Policy critiqued and criticized the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) recommendations to reopen prisons to general medical research.  Many bioethicists and medical researchers from large research-oriented institutions were quick to seize the opportunity to support and testify on behalf of the IOM’s recommendations.i  I was quite surprised and perplexed that many voices in the bioethics community, especially at these large research–oriented institutions, fell in line with the IOM or fell silent on this issue.  It seemed that bioethics seemed to all but abandon incarcerated individuals to commodification as research subjects.

In 2013, a Jesuit priest, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, became Pope Francis of the Roman Catholic Church.  Since becoming pontiff, Pope Francis has spent time visiting prisoners and prisoner’s families and even washing the feet of inmates.  In 2014, the Pontiff said to thousands of people gathered at St. Peter’s Square for an audience, “Listen up. Each one of us is capable of doing the same thing done by that man or woman in jail. All of us are capable of sinning and making the same mistake in life. They are not worse than you and I!”ii  “Eureka!” I thought after this comment, another Jesuit has vindicated me!

Many people seem to get their perception of prison or jails from reality television shows, sensationalist news stories or even politicians. The media often conveys that all those incarcerated are evil, conniving, ruthless or violent. Simultaneously, they are often seen as having a better lot in life than some taxpayers who contribute to their support in prison. While many Americans cannot afford adequate health care, inmates and prisoners are protected under the 8th amendment of the Constitution and thereby receive medical care (subject to the interpretation of local authorities). In October 2014, Pope Francis reminded delegates at the International Association of Penal Law meeting that they should be wary of media and political portrayal and influence of incarcerated individuals and to do their job justly.

 The statistics are staggering in the United States when it comes to locking up individuals. The United States leads the developed world when it comes to incarcerating its citizens at a rate of approximately 700 per 100k of population.iii  This is compared to Germany at 78, or England at 148 per 100k.  Approximately, 1 in 35 adults in the United States was under some form of correctional supervision-- either incarcerated, paroled or on probation, at year-end of 2013.iv  1 in 110 adults are actively incarcerated in state and federal prisons or local jails.v

 In healthcare issues, an estimated 40% of state and federal prisoners and local jail inmates were reported having a current chronic medical condition.vi Twenty-one percent of prisoners were reported to have tuberculosis, hepatitis B or C, or other STDs (excluding HIV or AIDS).vii  Due to failed corrections policies, these individuals are sometimes released to the general population of society without treatments and a risk to public health.  Also, it is estimated that approximately 60% of those incarcerated in local jails and 55% in state prison facilities suffer from a mental illness requiring 12 month of continuous treatment.viii  For those with mental illnesses and addictions, the system offers very little hope.  In federal prisons, whole families lack adequate healthcare and nutrition from the mass warehousing of “undocumented immigrants.”

The reasons our society has found itself in an incarceration epidemic are many and varied.  As a society, we seem to have an appetite to build more jails and prisons at the expense of community mental health centers and homeless shelters.  Tough on crime polices gets votes for politicians from a paranoid public. Prison and jails create jobs, which makes it an easier political “sell.”  With the current influx of privatized prisons and prison services, such as health care, our governments seek the lowest bidder at the expense of human dignity.

The policies and practices of our current incarceration system are flawed in many areas.  Absurd policies exist that include allowing corrections department to not treat prisoners with hepatitis-C unless the inmate waives their parole.  In essence, give up your freedom and receive treatments.  Also, corrections departments with policies that refuse eye care for inmates going blind if the inmate has at least “one good eye.”  In rural prisons, stroke victims often times do not have access to proper rehabilitation and are released with cognitive and physical disabilities. The system's current practices focus more on fiscal initiatives rather than human dignity.  The system's punitive practices affect the mentally ill and the addicted when they are swept into the net via the judicial system.

There is no argument that there are people incarcerated that did bad things and deserve just punishment.  However, a society’s greatness can be measured by the humanity and compassion it shows for its most vulnerable citizens, including victims of crime and those that may perpetrate them.  Pope Francis often speaks of the compassion that we are to have for the incarcerated and reminds of us of our responsibility to insure human dignity for all humans, victims and perpetrators alike.

 Under Pennsylvania state law, I and a few other nongovernment individuals are designated as  “Official Visitor.”  The designation grants us the same access to prison and jails; as state officials, to review, resolve or mitigate inmate’s complaints.   During my visits, I see first hand the problems in the jails and prisons.  Often it is a lack of basic or adequate health care, mental health care and inadequate addiction treatment and support programs.  When mitigating or trying to resolve an issue between the inmate and state or county governments, I reflect on Pope Francis’s comments mentioned earlier.  The person on the other end of the conversation could have been me with one wrong choice, one addiction I could not beat or even the wrong birthright as a citizen.

Greg Dober is a 2007 graduate of the MA in Bioethics and Health Policy.  He is contributing writer for Prison Legal News and coauthor of Against Their Will; The Secret History of Medical Experimentation on Children in Cold War America. (Palgrave 2013)

i Institute of Medicine, (2007) Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners, National Academies Press, Washington D.C.
ii Cindy Wooden, (2015) There but for the grace of God: What Pope Francis thinks of prisoners. The Catholic Sun, May 28, 2015.
iii BJS, (2013) Correctional populations in the United States, December 2013, NCJ 243936.
iv Ibid.
v Ibid.
vi BJS (2006) Special report, mental health problems of inmates in prisons and jails. September 2006, NJC213600
vii BJS (2015) Medical problems of state and federal jail inmates, 2011-2012.  February 2015
viii BJS (2006) Special report, mental health problems of inmates in prisons and jails. September 2006, NJC213600

An Integrated Bioethics: A Reflection on Laudato Si

Michael P. McCarthy, PhD
Pope Francis's social encyclical, “Laudato Si”, issues an urgent call for responsible action rooted in solidarity, with both human and non-human others, to recognize the interconnectedness of a shared reality suffering from neglect. As a theologian, several items of significance stood out:

1) the use of gender inclusive language, the first for a social encyclical;

2) the footnotes incorporate non-Catholic, theological, and scientific resources in addition to references to other papal documents; 

3) the attempt to engage and join with non-believers in concern over the state of the environment.

These items are being well-covered elsewhere, and you would do well to read further. However, as a theologian and bioethicist, Pope Francis also strikes an important chord with his critique of a what he describes as a “dominant technological paradigm,” a paradigm prevalent in both the medical practice and medical research. 

Chapters Three and Four—of this well-researched and crafted encyclical—prove most pertinent to questions of bioethics because of its call to resist control over care as the dominant framework for discerning a course of action (106). While scientific research often claims an air of neutrality, Pope Francis describes reality as interconnected, and “that technological products are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups” (107). He expresses some skepticism towards established research priorities, such as Genetic Modification, that utilize resources (financial, environmental, intellectual) that take away from other potential gains with no promise of benefit for the common good (133). While he notes that the techniques employed may pose little risk, “improper or excessive application” contributes to the unjust burdens born by the “poorest of our brothers and sisters” (158). Focusing on technology and increased control, both of which present opportunities for financial gain, draws our attention away from the present sufferings of the majority of human beings and its correlation to the inattention given to environmental degradation.  

Francis wants us to connect the global inattention to the premature and unnecessary deaths of the majority of the planet’s population, reflective of a global health crisis, with the disposable utilization of environmental resources. In order to rectify these injustices, both human and environmental, we need “to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” (49, emphasis original). In so doing, he calls for an “integral ecology” that expresses a concern for the environment understood as “a relationship between nature and the society which lives in it” (139). His integral approach raises questions about priorities and practices for medical research and the development of new technologies to impact clinical care.

A more socially conscious approach will consider the technological resources at the hospital: do they promote control or flourishing, enhancement or sustainability? Hospital executives should more deeply probe the environmental impact for developing, using, and disposing of particularly technologies, while also considering the clinical efficacy and patient populations that stand to benefit from the technologies used. For medical research, Francis explicitly cautions against research with animals that does not offer a reasonable possibility of contributing to “caring for or saving human lives” (130). Caring for and saving human lives remains the fundamental goal of medical research, and serves as a guard against research that prioritizes economic gain and scientific development at the expense of more immediate health benefits.

Medical research and health care delivery on a global scale has historically prioritized the health needs of a few over those of the majority. Francis’s encyclical challenges us in the bioethics community to consider not only an integral ecology, but an integral bioethics that argues for a balance between the natural costs of advancement with its potential for sustainability and broad applicability for and with the society in which we live. So while a bioethics blog might be an unlikely place to read about a papal encyclical, Pope Francis’s insights challenge us to more comprehensively consider the global context of bioethics.

The Dreamer Committee* of Loyola University Chicago: Promoting Dignity through Education

Loyola University Chicago has been a leader in working for educational opportunity for Undocumented students, i.e., persons who were brought to the United States as children and were raised and educated in this country, but remain without a path to normalization of their immigration status. They are often said to be “Americans in every way but on paper.”







The Dreamer Committee is a university-wide standing committee that succeeds a major task force that reviewed Loyola’s progress in meeting the needs of these students. The task force found that Loyola University Chicago had become an emerging national leader in promoting equity for these students. Achievements included the Stritch School of Medicine becoming the first U.S. medical school to openly welcome DACA-eligible students (www.stritch.luc.edu/daca) and the incredible undergraduate effort that create the Magis Scholarship Fund for Undocumented students

from a self-imposed student activity fee. Such “firsts” have brought the university renown and highlighted the value all levels of the university place on social justice. However, progress was uneven across the schools of the university and sustained attention needed to be given to these issues. The collaboration of dedicated faculty, administrators, and students is needed to further opportunity for Undocumented students at Loyola and to seek systemic change in our nation’s immigration system through scholarship and advocacy.


Mission
The mission of the Dreamer Committee is to develop equitable policies and practices to promote educational opportunities and improve the lives of undocumented students at Loyola University Chicago. This will be achieved by through multidisciplinary collaboration, and the promotion of research, education, advocacy and service that is informed by the lives and experiences of undocumented students seeking higher education.

Mark Kuczewski

The mission of the Dreamer Committee is grounded in the Catholic and Jesuit mission to promote social justice and in the bedrock principle that acceptance of undocumented students is part of Loyola University Chicago’s broader culture of acceptance, inclusion, safety and support. As a Catholic university that is sponsored by the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits), we firmly believe in the dignity of each person and in the promotion of social justice. The dignity of persons calls us to steward the talents of qualified applicants rather than reject their contributions for arbitrary and arcane reasons, including immigration status. Social justice requires that we foster the conditions for full participation in the community by all members of our community. Undocumented, DACA, and DACA eligible applicants are typically woven into the fabric of our communities and have a basic right to contribute to the fullest extent of their abilities. This approach echoes a long tradition articulated by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) of advocacy for immigrant members of our communities.[Excerpt from the UCUS report]


What the Dreamer Committee will do: Policy, Scholarship, Education
As indicated in our mission statement, the admission and financial aid policies and practices of each school will be studied. Progress and successes will be noted and best practices shared across schools. Strategies for fundraising and funding students will be priorities for action. As noted, there is an urgency to the issue of funding for these students as they lack eligibility for federal student aid, a key element in the financial aid packages of many students.

The main work of a university is scholarly and educational. Thus the Committee will develop a network of support for the many faculty currently creating relevant scholarship. The Committee will foster collaboration among these scholars and promote their work. And, creative educational approaches and programming will be shared and new educational efforts will follow from this cross fertilization. This kind of inquiry and teaching that is in the service of the University’s Jesuit ideals of social justice and human dignity is central to the university’s self-understanding and strategic vision.

Loyola University Chicago believes in education that is transformative of the person. Those who participate in a Jesuit education are intellectually and personally formed such that they are aware of persons who are unjustly marginalized and this understanding results in action. The Dreamer Committee seeks to model this Ignatian dynamic within our university community and to promote justice for our immigrant neighbors within and beyond the walls of our campus.







Co-Chairs:

Bruce Boyer, JD
Loyola University Chicago School of Law


Mark Kuczewski, PhD
The Fr. Michael I. English Professor of Medical Ethics
Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine







*The name of this working group, Dreamer Committee, is to convey the commitment to Undocumented students at Loyola who inspire, strive for more, and achieve excellence.The members of the Dreamer Committee welcome serving as allies and sources of information regarding university policies and opportunities for undocumented students. Students and applicants to Loyola University Chicago should feel free to contact any one of them via e-mail.

Committee Co-Chairs:


Bruce Boyer, School of Law, bboyer@luc.edu

Mark Kuczewski, Stritch School of Medicine, mkuczew@luc.edu




Committee Members:



Jennifer Boyle, Academic Affairs, jboyle5@luc.edu



Paula Camaya, SDMA, pcamaya@luc.edu



Michael Canaris, Institute of Pastoral Studies, mcanaris@luc.edu



Aurora Chang, School of Education, achang2@luc.edu



Alex Escobedo, MAGIS Scholarship, aescobedo@luc.edu



Kelsey Gerber, Financial Aid, kgerber1@luc.edu



Ruth Gomberg-Munoz, Department of Anthropology, rgombergmunoz@luc.edu



Philip Hale, Government Affairs, phale@luc.edu



Ezgi Ilhan, Student Government, eilhan@luc.edu



Eric Immel, Arrupe College, eimmel1@luc.edu



Kathryn Jackson, Career Development Center, kjackson9@luc.edu



Judith Jennrich, Acute Care Programs, jjennri@luc.edu



Katherine Kaufka-Walts, Center for Human Rights for Children, kkaufkawalts@luc.edu



Timothy Love, Student Life, tlove@luc.edu



Ronald Martin, Graduate & Professional Enrollment, rmarti17@luc.edu



Virginia McCarthy, SSOM Ministry, vmccarthy@luc.edu



Cristina Nunez, MAGIS Scholarship, cnunez@luc.edu



Sullibert Ramirez, MAGIS Scholarship, sramirez4@luc.edu



Isabel Reyes, Admissions Arrupe, mreyes15@luc.edu


William Rodriguez, Student Life, wrodriquez1@luc.edu


Julian Ruiz, Latin American Student Organization, jruiz12@luc.edu


Peter Sanchez, Political Science, psanche@luc.edu



Joseph Saucedo, Student Diversity & Multicultural Affairs, jsaucedo4@luc.edu



Maria Vidal De Haymes, Social Work, mvidal@luc.edu



Sean Whitten, Admissions, swhitten@luc.edu

Loyola Stritch DREAMers Advocate for Students of DACA Status at LMSA Policy Summit



Loyola Stritch DREAMers

On March 27, 2015, the House of Delegates of the Latino Medical Student Association (LMSA) held its second annual policy summit.  This meeting considers resolutions that set policy for the organization, especially in regard to its policy advocacy and education efforts.  This year, the delegates considered a resolution related to the eligibility of Dreamers of DACA status to apply to medical schools.  This resolution was of great interest to the Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine (SSOM) because of its position of national leadership in promoting social justice for this student population.  See www.stritch.luc.edu/daca.  Four of Stritch’s first-year medical students who have DACA status attended the summit.  Below is the text of the resolution that carried and the testimony of the two Loyola Dreamers who spoke in support of the resolution, Manuel Bernal and Diana Andino.  For more on this event, click here.

RESOLUTION #2
RESOLVED, that our LMSA provide a safe environment for the edification and advancement of Latino students applying to medical school, irrespective of their immigration status; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the LMSA strongly encourage medical schools, residency and fellowship programs to clarify their DACA admission and match policies; and be it further
RESOLVED, that our LMSA supports regulatory relief to DACA eligibility in the absence of comprehensive reform as seen by the Executive Action declared in 2014, and be it further
RESOLVED that the LMSA strongly encourage medical schools, residency and fellowship programs to support the admission, retention and promotion of DACA eligible students; and be it further
RESOLVED, that our LMSA write an open letter to the AAMC asking for regulatory relief for DACA eligible students who are accepted into medical school but are unable to matriculate; and be it further
RESOLVED that the LMSA work with medical advocacy organizations to develop policy language that promotes the admission, retention and promotion of DACA eligible students.

Congressional Action: ADOPTED as amended.

Testimony of Manuel Bernal, MS-1, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine



Manuel Bernal, SSOM

Thank you Mr. Speaker for letting me share why I think this resolution that we will be voting on is crucial for improving healthcare delivery to Hispanic populations, especially the immigrant community.  My name is Manuel Bernal a first year medical student and a DACA beneficiary. I also speak on behalf of the community of future physicians from Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine and our LMSA chapter.  I am a firm believer that that a reduction in health disparities will only be possible when the community of health professionals better reflects the population of patients that we will serve in the future. By encouraging more medical schools to open their doors to DACA recipients we will produce a pool medical providers that are more culturally competent and that will be able to relate to the struggles that immigrant patients face during their journey to the American Dream. So let's continue this fight together, for current and future DACA medical students, but most importantly for our future patients. Thank you.

Testimomy of Diana Andino, MS-1, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine

Thank you, Mr. Policy Chair. My name is Diana Andino, a current medical student, speaking on behalf of myself, students of the Stritch School of Medicine and other DACA students present here, as supporters of this resolution.

With the passage of DACA, support of mentors, and institutions, myself along with few other students are one step closer in becoming healthcare providers. We have been able to overcome many obstacles. For example I was not able to apply to graduate school, internships, nor work during my undergrad due to the lack of a nine digit number. My dream of becoming a physician was deferred until DACA allowed me to apply to medical school.

The passage of this resolution is of interest not only to the medical profession, but to our community. We call for more actions like the ones being done today, to be implemented in other schools and continue to open more opportunities for DREAMers like ourselves. Thank you.