Michael Thomson

The biodiversity of the deep Southern Ocean benthos

Our knowledge of the biodiversity of the Southern Ocean (SO) deep benthos is scarce. In this review, we describe the general biodiversity patterns of meio-, macro- and megafaunal taxa, based on historical and recent expeditions, and against the background of the geological events and phylogenetic relationships that have influenced the biodiversity and evolution of the investigated taxa. The relationship of the fauna to environmental parameters, such as water depth, sediment type, food availability and carbonate solubility, as well as species interrelationships, probably have shaped present-day biodiversity patterns as much as evolution. However, different taxa exhibit different large-scale biodiversity and biogeographic patterns. Moreover, there is rarely any clear relationship of biodiversity pattern with depth, latitude or environmental parameters, such as sediment composition or grain size. Similarities and differences between the SO biodiversity and biodiversity of global oceans are outlined. The high percentage (often more than 90%) of new species in almost all taxa, as well as the high degree of endemism of many groups, may reflect undersampling of the area, and it is likely to decrease as more information is gathered about SO deep-sea biodiversity by future expeditions. Indeed, among certain taxa such as the Foraminifera, close links at the species level are already apparent between deep Weddell Sea faunas and those from similar depths in the North Atlantic and Arctic. With regard to the vertical zonation from the shelf edge into deep water, biodiversity patterns among some taxa in the SO might differ from those in other deep-sea areas, due to the deep Antarctic shelf and the evolution of eurybathy in many species, as well as to deep-water production that can fuel the SO deep sea with freshly produced organic matter derived not only from phytoplankton, but also from ice algae.

Editorial Introduction: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer Health Psychology: Historical Development and Future Possibilities

Gender has been an important and profitable lens through which the bioand social sciences have sought to understand health, its differentials and inequalities. While health is clearly multi-factorial, gender has been recognized as an important determinant of health profiles and feminist principles of equity and inclusiveness have long been incorporated into health psychology (Brown Travis et al., 1991). Women’s health is an accepted sub-discipline in many fields and whilst men’s health remains a somewhat marginal concern (although see Courtney, 2000; Thomson, 2008), it is (generally) accepted that ‘the doing of health is a form of doing gender’ (Saltonstall, 1993: 12). This special issue aims to build upon this work by seeking to explore the value of sexuality as an axis of study in health psychology. When sexualities and health have traditionally intersected there has been an almost exclusive focus on sexual health research. Given the constitutive nature of health discourses – including the discourses and practices of health research – it is important that we recognize the limits and effects of a lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer (LGBTQ) health psychology that may have been corralled too much in the sexual health ‘ghetto’. We return to this concern later. In light of the focus on sexual health, and, indeed, the narrowing of this to gay and bisexual men’s sexual health, some have argued that LGBTQ health research should be disaggregated (Wilkinson, 2002). Although the majority of the contributions to this special issue do, in fact, consider one facet of non-normative sexuality or gender, overall they seek to expand the terrain of LGBTQ health psychology to address physical health more broadly, as well as mental health. Resisting the – at times understandable – calls for disaggregation also allows us to better recognize the role that gay men and lesbians in particular have played in advocating for social change, developing HIV/AIDS prevention programmes and setting agendas for meeting their health needs (e.g. Rofes, 2007). Exploring

HIV/AIDS and circumcision: lost in translation

In April 2009 a Cochrane review was published assessing the effectiveness of male circumcision in preventing acquisition of HIV. It concluded that there was strong evidence that male circumcision, performed in a medical setting, reduces the acquisition of HIV by men engaging in heterosexual sex. Yet, importantly, the review noted that further research was required to assess the feasibility, desirability and cost-effectiveness of implementation within local contexts. This paper endorses the need for such research and suggests that, in its absence, it is premature to promote circumcision as a reliable strategy for combating HIV. Since articles in leading medical journals as well as the popular press continue to do so, scientific researchers should think carefully about how their conclusions may be translated both to policy makers and to a more general audience. The importance of addressing ethico-legal concerns that such trials may raise is highlighted. The understandable haste to find a solution to the HIV pandemic means that the promise offered by preliminary and specific research studies may be overstated. This may mean that ethical concerns are marginalised. Such haste may also obscure the need to be attentive to local cultural sensitivities, which vary from one African region to another, in formulating policy concerning circumcision.

FORESKIN IS A FEMINIST ISSUE

Debate on the ethics and legality of non-therapeutic infant male circumcision has grown in prominence in recent years. These discussions have tended to be dominated by heavily contested cost benefit analyses of male genital cutting. It is recognised increasingly that the procedure involves quantifiable health risks, although these continue to be downplayed by proponents of circumcision. Following a distinctive discursive pattern, mainstream commentary typically concludes that the medical evidence is inconclusive, and hence, given the social, cultural and religious value of circumcision to some communities, that the decision can ethically and legally be entrusted to the child’s parents (see Fox and Thomson 2005a). In this paper we contend that the focus on current medical rationales is problematic and marginalises important concerns. Firstly, it serves to obscure an instructive history:

Legislating for the Monstrous: Access To Reproductive Services and the Monstrous Feminine

I thought I saw Elizabeth, in the bloom of health, walking in the streets of Ingolstadt. Delighted and surprised, I embraced her; but as I imprinted the first kiss on her lips, they became livid with the hue of death; her features appeared to change, and I thought that I held the corpse of my dead mother in my arms; a shroud enveloped her form, and I saw the grave-worms crawling in the folds of the flannel. I started from my sleep with horror; a cold dew covered my fore head, my teeth chattered, and every limb became convulsed; when, by the dim and yellow light of the moon, as it forced its way through the window shut ters, I beheld the wretch - the miserable monster whom I had created. (Shelley, 1992: 57)

Abortion Law and Professional Boundaries

The medical profession’s formative role in the development of abortion law has been acknowledged. A number of the studies to have considered the development of law in the nineteenth century have traced how the emerging profession’s campaigns against abortion advanced its social and economic goals. Analysis of abortion law as a focus for medicine’s professionalisation has not, however, extended into the twentieth century. Consideration of this period generally characterises medicine’s influence as a product of its professional power. Rather than evidence of a static professional status, this article argues that consideration of the first half of the twentieth century reveals how abortion remained the terrain on which the profession actively pursued its occupational ambitions. Further, it highlights how medical responses to abortion changed as the imperatives of professionalisation changed. Employing work that has highlighted the importance of boundaries for enduring social entities, this article recognises abortion as a boundary issue for the profession; that is, a key site where professional jurisdiction is asserted. A dynamic model of the processes of professionalisation, and an identification of the role of abortion in medicine’s professionalisation project, is essential in order to understand the contemporary social and legal reality of abortion.

REALISING SOCIAL JUSTICE IN PUBLIC HEALTH LAW

Law has played an important, but largely constitutive, role in the development of the public health enterprise. Thus, law has been central to setting up the institutions and offices of public health. The moral agenda has, however, been shaped to a much greater extent by bioethics. While social justice has been placed at the heart of this agenda, we argue that there has been little place within dominant conceptions of social justice for gender equity and womens interests which we see as crucial to a fully realised vision of social justice. We argue that, aside from particular interventions in the field of reproduction, public health practice tends to marginalise women-a claim we support by critically examining strategies to combat the HIV pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa. To counter the marginalisation of womens interests, this article argues that Amartya Sens capabilities approach has much to contribute to the framing of public health law and policy. Sens approach provides an evaluative and normative framework which recognises the importance of both gender and health equity to achieving social justice. We suggest that domestic law and international human rights provisions, in particular the emerging human right to health, offer mechanisms to promote capabilities, and foster a robust and inclusive conception of social justice.

Reconsidering ‘Best Interests’

Recently the ethics of infant male circumcision has generated a considerable debate in bioethics journals. In previous publications we have sought to argue that, by contrast, healthcare lawyers have unjustifi ably neglected the topic, accepting a dominant characterization of male circumcision as a standard and benign medical practice, which parents can choose for their children free of legal scrutiny. In this paper, we seek to problematize both the way in which male circumcision is debated in the ethics literature and how it is constructed as a non issue for healthcare lawyers. We are concerned here particularly with the cost/benefi t analysis that has underpinned professional guidance and court decisions on the legitimacy of male circumcision. We argue that how these costs and benefi ts have played out in the ethico-legal debates and assessments as to what is in the best interests of the child are highly problematic.

Give a dog a bad name

Does Antarctic research have a bad name? The short answer in some quarters is, ‘Yes’. But why should this be so? Antarctica is an exciting and stimulating place to work and, whatever ones field of science, because of the continents present-day isolated position, its massive ice cover and its previous key location within the ancient Gondwana supercontinent, it holds many important clues and answers to questions about our planet and its environment. Yet, those of us who are required to submit our science to peer review are sometimes perplexed by incomprehensible and unreasonably negative comments that come from outside. Are these non-Antarctic scientists just jealous, or do they have a point?

Reason and Paradox in Medical and Family Law: Shaping Children’s Bodies

Legal outcomes often depend on the adjudication of what may appear to be straightforward distinctions. In this article, we consider two such distinctions that appear in medical and family law deliberations: the distinction between religion and culture and between therapeutic and non-therapeutic. These distinctions can impact what constitutes ‘reasonable parenting’ or a child’s ‘best interests’ and thus the limitations that may be placed on parental actions. Such distinctions are often imagined to be asocial facts, there for the judge to discover. We challenge this view, however, by examining the controversial case of B and G [2015]. In this case, Sir James Munby stated that the cutting of both male and female children’s genitals for non-therapeutic reasons constituted ‘significant harm’ for the purposes of the Children Act 1989. He went on to conclude, however, that while it can never be reasonable parenting to inflict any form of non-therapeutic genital cutting on a female child, such cutting on male children was currently tolerated. We argue that the distinctions between religion/culture and therapeutic/non-therapeutic upon which Munby LJ relied in making this judgement cannot in fact ground categorically differential legal treatment of female and male children. We analyse these distinctions from a systems theoretical perspective—specifically with reference to local paradoxes—to call into question the current legal position. Our analysis suggests that conventional distinctions drawn between religion/culture and the therapeutic/non-therapeutic in other legal contexts require much greater scrutiny than they are usually afforded.