JUN-A-10
ANOTHER NEW RE=START ON THE
Ph.D. THESIS PROCESS
June 11, 2002
From: Glenn Geelhoed
To: Internet:RMcruer@gwu.edu
Date: 6/11/02 5:13PM
Subject: Fwd: TRAVEL INFORMATION
Thank you so very much! I am encouraged to think that the PhD process is re‑railed again with the appropriate timetable and schedule of events leading up to the thesis submission and defense.
I promised to attach the most recent iterations of the thesis pre‑proposal, and also a series of contact points at which I might be reached (attached) The "one‑pager" you mentioned is pasted below.
The background you had suggested may require the data or components contained in the somewhat dated Home Page at http://home.gwu.edu/~gwg My own series of travels for this year is contained in the attachment for the students' use ("Welcome to the World of Wonders in International Medical Mission's Experiences.")
I will also send an interoffice mail of a few of the issues that I am sure resonate with the newer direction of the thesis proposal on which further chapters can be built in its defense.
Thank you so much again for getting the process back on wheels.
GWG
Addendum:
HUMAN SCIENCES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE
HUMANITARIAN BENEFIT OF MEDICAL INTERVENTION
IN ENDEMIC GLOBAL HYPOTHYROIDISM
Human Sciences is a multidisciplinary inquiry into the scholarship of intentional objects of humanity, so that the methods of study that have been applied to culture, society, and the human spirit may be used to judge the effective application of biomedical science. The ambivalence of methodology and objects of inquiry have resulted in several agenda in conflict, however, and the “two cultures” of different scientific perspectives have yet to achieve a consilience in resolution as to assessment of human benefit. In my own inquiry into endemic hypothyroidism, the numbers are improved by medical intervention, but the challenge remains to prove the humanitarian benefit of treatment beyond the assumption of self‑evidency. Linguistic, cognitive and cultural enrichments have confirmed benefit to individuals treated, with reservations about the collective improvement iterated in societal benefit.
The medical profession has addressed these issues over a long term history, encoded in oaths and oversight boards of regulation, acknowledging the primacy of the individual patient’s interest over the best interests of the society, the profession, or that of the advocate—him or herself. I am unaware of any nation‑state or lesser political entities with any realistic statements as to motives other than the best interests of the state against any conflicting claims for its focus of attention. As “caring professions” are increasingly subject to the same socio‑economic expectations as the rest of the society, it is not surprising that loyalties and advocacies are increasingly mixed and agenda hidden.
Exploration of these advocacy roles and the standards which apply is the subject of this thesis: how can a disadvantaged human population be represented in such a way that autonomy is conserved through service by advocates with acknowledged self‑interest, professionally empowered. To deny developing world patients service that is “sub‑standard” by the criteria of a far different environment of redundant and often wasteful high‑technology care is to deny them care. What standards can be agreed upon that might be usefully applied across widely diverse human populations in settings that little resemble each other in most other ways? And what is the participation of the people affected in making the choices and delivering the care within their own belief systems and methodologies?
The author of this dissertation lives in each of the subject spheres with shared memberships (transiently) with the residents of remote African and Oceanic settings, and (permanently) with the medical and scholarly professions, the authority of the information industry of publishers and reviewers and the standard‑setting (or at least upholding) practicing ethicists. It must also be stated that all of this could be considered self‑serving‑‑ (even though it might be going on‑‑‑and is‑‑‑with or without the context of an ABD inquiry) as the report of this experience may be going, in part, toward the fulfillment of a degree requirement.
Such a conflict illustrates the similar ligatures that bind up each of us as authors, editors, bureaucrats, professors, practitioners‑‑‑each of us practicing Human Scientists‑‑in multiple‑membership advocacies with ambivalence unless our primary profession is made clear while acknowledging these collateral claims on our interests.