Month: May 2024

Can AI Be Ethical?

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Shireen Zaman, May 17, 2024

Concerns over the alignment of artificial intelligence, or AI, to human goals, preferences, and values are at an all-time high as AI plays increasingly large roles in daily life and is starting to take up space in fields where all of the decision-making once belonged to humans. Researchers discuss how the often erratic actions and values of humans may even contradict, and expecting an AI to understand why and how to replicate those behaviors is often impossible. Researchers have tried workarounds, such as using neural networks to reward and punish behavior, but that often leads to the machines acting in unexpected and almost comical ways because of how they misconstrued the goal. That is why many have turned to focusing AI on interpreting the goals and intentions of humans rather than maximizing output for a certain objective, known as inverse reinforcement learning, or IRL (Mitchell, 2022). However, the question remains to be answered whether AI’s development into the decision-making sphere where humans would have been in control can develop into something ethical with IRL, or that can not be entirely true inherently because it was developed as a tool and is embedded with the values of its developers. That is why ethics within development is incredibly important, because those ethics will be translated into the AI’s neural networks and deep learning models. 

AI is a disruptive technology, meaning it has greatly changed the corporate and sociocultural world. While there have been many advances in the medical field and AI algorithms have made huge progress in the world of research, there have also been many concerns over the trajectory of its applications, such as algorithms within social media creating political echo chambers and discrimination in hiring. AI taught to want and be like its human counterparts may also pick up implicit biases, effectively embedding them through training datasets or other instructional methods. Then, once this has made its way into the broader public’s lives, the effects will become untraceable and inevitable, with corporations maximizing profits while claiming AI as “just a tool.”

The ripple effect of AI in the corporate world may be seen in many ways. For example, as mentioned previously, in the hiring process, there are many concerns that an AI algorithm being used to sort through applicants may reflect choices made by companies, but also be shaped by structural norms and practices in the field. These algorithms would be influenced by corporate incentives and regulatory framework, and not necessarily the developer’s choice, so finding the issue’s root would be very difficult. If IRL-oriented AI were to choose applicants with values like diversity and equity in mind, the outcome would be more ethical and fair. Another example would be chatbots used instead of customer service representatives or automatic content generation. If training data contains racist or sexist language, the AI may perpetuate stereotypes if it does not mimic the same kind of language. Narrow datasets, in general, can be very controversial and taxing, where skewed data for facial recognition technology may lead to misidentification or exclusion for populations with certain features, or biased risk assessment algorithms may disproportionately target minorities in sentencing decisions within the criminal justice system.

This all begs the question asked earlier, whether AI can move past this “just a tool” narrative when, in the end, the corporations and governments with the most vested interests in developing AI for marketing (such as social media) or surveillance (such as facial recognition) are largely in control of its deployment and have access to all the information it collects and works with. In the end, it is a tool for these large organizations but has far-reaching effects on the individual. Through this the difference in individual vs structural ethics can be seen because, to these organizations, violations of personal privacy, implicit discrimination, and stereotyping do not outweigh their larger goals/values of maintaining established social order, optimizing profit models, and ensuring the stability and safety of organizations themselves. 

Thus, developers are responsible for aligning AI to human interests by ensuring they are trained on large, representative datasets that reflect diversity and are imbued with human complexity. In addition, corporations and policymakers must implement measures that maintain fairness and transparency in AI models by detecting and mitigating biases in AI. Both parties must work together to create AI that is ethical and beneficial to human society and quell fears of a dystopian society where AI becomes destructive.

Works Cited

Mitchell, Melanie. “What Does It Mean to Align AI With Human Values?” Quanta Magazine, 13 Dec. 2022, www.quantamagazine.org/what-does-it-mean-to-align-ai-with-human-values-20221213/.

Balancing Heart and Mind: The Dual Approach to Effective Animal Advocacy

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Emily Rubinov, May 10, 2024

Every act of animal abuse diminishes our collective humanity. We must work together to create a world free from cruelty and violence. – Sangdeun “Lek” Chailert.

Our responsibility to protect animals is deeply rooted in our coexistence on Earth. As vital components of ecosystems, animals contribute significantly to biodiversity and help maintain ecological balance. Recognizing that animals, like humans, can experience emotions such as pain and joy obliges us to treat them with compassion and respect. This ethical stance reflects our societal values and promotes a culture of empathy and responsibility. Protecting animals underscores our commitment to justice and ethical conduct, enhancing our collective pride and reinforcing our duties towards our planet. Ultimately, animals’ welfare is intertwined with ecosystems’ health, which provides essential services, including pollination, nutrient cycling, and pest control, which are crucial for sustaining life, including human life.

Chailert’s belief that every act of animal abuse diminishes our shared humanity encapsulates a profound truth: our actions toward animals reflect our collective values and aspirations. 

This is where advocacy against animal abuse comes in. While responding with strong emotions to the mistreatment of animals is natural, effective advocacy requires a balance between emotion and reason. Allowing emotions to dominate can sometimes cloud judgment and lead to actions that undermine the cause. Instead, it is essential to couple heartfelt concern with rational arguments and well-thought-out strategies. This approach not only garners more comprehensive support by appealing to a broader audience but also ensures that the message is conveyed clearly and constructively. Balancing the heart and mind in this way strengthens the case for animal protection and increases the likelihood of achieving meaningful and lasting change.

Emotions play a critical role in moral judgments and actions. According to renowned philosopher Martha Nussbaum, emotions are not just the outcomes of judgments but also forms of judgment that influence our behavior towards others, including animals (Nussbaum 2001). In the face of animal abuse, anger and sadness go beyond simple reactions; they indicate a deep recognition of injustice and a drive to correct or react to ethical violations. However, without proper management, these emotions can lead to harmful results, like confrontational behavior or weak advocacy tactics. 

While emotions can trigger instant reactions, guiding these responses into thoughtful, rational actions is crucial. Philosopher Peter Singer states that the principles of compelling generosity should direct our responses to animal suffering. This approach combines the heart and the head. The heart would be moved by empathy for suffering beings, and the head, guided by rationale, reason, and evidence, would take the most effective action (Singer 2015). By embracing this approach, activists can create strategies in animal welfare that are compassionate, strategic, and grounded in evidence.

The success of animal advocacy campaigns often depends on a balance between passionate emotional engagement and methodical, evidence-based strategies. An example is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) campaign against puppy mills. Puppy mills are large-scale dog breeding operations that produce puppies for profit while neglecting the well-being of the young dogs and their mothers. Grounded in thorough investigations, public awareness, and legislative advocacy, this approach led to significant reductions in these facilities. 

The investigations carried out by HSUS discovered distressing conditions in these mills, including cramped living spaces, poor medical care, and a lack of basic hygiene, all of which contribute to severe health and behavioral issues in the animals. By bringing these conditions to light through detailed reports and compelling visual evidence, HSUS effectively motivated public sentiment and gathered support for legislative amendments. This strategic application propelled the campaign and influenced policymakers to enact stricter regulations on breeding facilities, thereby ensuring improved dog treatment and welfare.

This case shows that well-planned advocacy efforts can significantly improve animal well-being. HSUS’s strategy, which integrates thorough research, community involvement, and focused legislative measures, tackles current problems and aids in preventing future cruelty. Their approach’s rationality and ethical foundations are supported by a study published in the Journal of Animal Law and Ethics. The study examines the methods and outcomes of various Animal welfare campaigns, highlighting HSUS’s campaigns as examples of effective and ethically sound practices (Smith 2021).

In debates about animal advocacy, supporters of emotionally charged tactics often argue that such approaches are essential for capturing the public’s attention and triggering immediate action. Emotional responses to animal cruelty, characterized by visible outrage or sadness, attract individuals to take action and can be a driving force behind rallying support. Advocates believe that public demonstrations and provocative installations are crucial for exposing the realities of animal suffering that might otherwise remain hidden from the public eye. 

Animal Equality’s global protests on Animal Rights Day utilize visible emotions as a critical element in their advocacy. These events are designed to draw attention to the conditions within the meat, dairy, and egg industries, aiming to engage public empathy and provoke change. Emotional displays in these contexts often attract public attention by creating a palpable sense of urgency and making the suffering more relatable, leading to increased engagement and support. According to Faunalytics, well-communicated emotional expressions during protests can enhance the issue’s visibility, potentially affecting public and policy attitudes toward animal welfare. This engagement is often due to the powerful impact of seeing human emotion, which can humanize the protest message and make the abstract suffering of animals more tangible and immediate to onlookers (Animal Equality, 2024; Faunalytics, 2024).

Protests originate as a result of emotion and often in response to perceived violent injustices. protest is inconceivable without emotions. It is emotions which ‘give ideas, ideologies, identities and even interests their power to motivate’. Social movements are carriers of meaning, and organizers do their utmost to create moral outrage and to provide a target against which this can be vented. (Troost, et al., 2013). Another example is rooted in the historical injustices experienced by the African American community over the last several centuries. Black people in the U.S. are not only three times more likely to be killed by police than white people, but they’re also less likely to be armed than white people during these interactions with police. For Black people who experience violence at the hands of the people and institutions that are supposed to protect them, the question becomes: “If they use violence, why shouldn’t we use violence?..They know that violence works, otherwise they wouldn’t use it” (Arntsen, 2020)

It is crucial to recognize that while emotional approaches in animal advocacy are practical for attracting public and media attention, they must be managed cautiously. The research compiled in Oxford Academic’s “Rational Approaches to Animal Rights” emphasizes that these emotional strategies, if not carefully handled, can backfire by skewing the public’s perception of the movement’s legitimacy. For example, activists who throw blood on fur wearers at protests, intending to shock and provoke thought, often generate negative media coverage instead, which can detract from the movement’s credibility and alienate the general public. (Oxford Academic, 2022). 

By advocating for a balanced approach that incorporates both emotional appeal and rational argumentation, this research suggests that such a strategy can significantly enhance the effectiveness of campaigns by making them more palatable and credible to a broader audience.

The study underscores the importance of integrating psychological insights into campaign strategies to maintain the integrity and impact of advocacy efforts (Oxford Academic, 2022). It is crucial to consider the benefits of a balanced approach that incorporates both passionate appeals and rational discourse to ensure the longevity and effectiveness of the animal advocacy movement. This balanced strategy not only heightens the effectiveness of campaigns but also ensures they are ethically solid and less likely to provoke backlash or desensitization. The exploration through the complexities of animal advocacy highlights the profound impact of emotions and rationality in shaping our responses to injustice. Sangdeun’ Lek’ Chailert’s call for collective action resonates deeply, underlining the crucial role of unity in fostering a world free from cruelty and violence. 

The bond we often form with our pets—providing solace, bringing joy, and enhancing our lives—illustrates a fundamental, powerful truth: animals, like humans, experience emotions and suffering. The emotional depth of our pets, who seek comfort when frightened or express joy upon our return, exemplifies this. Their behaviors, far from mere instincts, are rich expressions of emotions that echo our own feelings of fear, joy, and security. Recognizing these parallels in emotional experiences strengthens the argument for a compassionate, balanced advocacy approach.  

Exploring ethical responses, guided by renowned philosophers like Martha Nussbaum and Peter Singer, underscores the significance of channeling our passions into thoughtful, strategic actions. Initiatives such as the Humane Society of the United States’ campaign against puppy mills illustrate that successful advocacy thrives on a delicate balance between emotional engagement and evidence-based strategies. While emotionally charged tactics can draw attention to animal suffering, their effectiveness relies on careful management and integration with rational discourse. By advocating for a balanced approach, we can protect the integrity and impact of our advocacy efforts. This approach upholds the principles advocated by Chailert and motivates individuals to embrace a strategic mindset in their advocacy. Embracing their wisdom, we understand that the strength of our actions lies in our emotional empathy and our ability to advocate thoughtfully and compassionately. It is about paving a path toward a world where the dignity of every living being is not just acknowledged but actively ensured and protected.

Jane Goodall once said, ‘The least I can do is speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves.’ This powerful statement encapsulates the essence of animal advocacy—our responsibility to give voice to the voiceless. Goodall’s words remind us that our advocacy is not only an act of compassion but also a duty. They serve as a call to action, urging us to use our voices and abilities to effect real change and ensure that the dignity of all creatures is respected and defended.

Works Cited

Animal Equality. “Animal Equality Hosts Global Protests on Animal Rights Day. ” Animal Equality, 9 Apr. 2024, animalequality.org/news/animal-equality-hosts-global-protests-on-animal-rights-day. 

Arntsen, Emily. “Are Peaceful Protests More Effective than Violent Ones?” Northeastern Global News, 29 Nov. 2021, news.northeastern.edu/2020/06/10/are-peaceful-protests-more-effective-than-violent-ones/.

L., Gary, and Francione. “  Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance.” Animal Law Legal Center, 1 Jan. 1997, www.animallaw.info/article/animal-rights-theory-and-utilitarianism-relative-normative-guidance

Millán, Gustavo Ortiz. “Nussbaum on the Cognitive Nature of Emotions.” Manuscrito, UNICAMP – Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia História da Ciência, 19 Sept. 2016, www.scielo.br/j/man/a/CHYgqpBddcY4YkRp7CBJfyG/?lang=en. 

Nobis, Nathan. “Rational Engagement, Emotional Response, and the Prospects for Moral Progress in Animal Use ‘Debates.’” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 30 Mar. 2012, academic.oup.com/mit-press-scholarship-online/book/22239/chapter/182431728. 

Polanco, Andrea. “The Challenges of Researching Animal Advocacy Protests.” Faunalytics, 13 June 2022, faunalytics.org/the-challenges-of-researching-animal-advocacy-protests

“Puppy Mill Investigations and Reports.” The Humane Society of the United States, www.humanesociety.org/resources/puppy-mill-investigations-and-reports. Accessed 30 Apr. 2024.]

Troost, Dunya van, et al. “Emotions of Protest.” SpringerLink, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1 Jan. 1970, link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137025661_10#:~:text=It%20is%20emotions%20which%20’give,which%20this%20can%20be%20vented.

Ethical Horizons: Insights on Science and Society from George Orwell

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Emily Rubinov, February 14, 2024

In today’s rapidly evolving technological landscape, the relevance of George Orwell’s essay “What is Science?” serves as a poignant beacon to navigate the complex landscape of scientific endeavors. Orwell’s insightful exploration underscores the moral imperatives intertwined with scientific pursuits, reminding us of the responsibilities that accompany technological and scientific advancement. At the heart of Orwell’s argument is that scientific education goes beyond technical skills. It should include understanding ethics and culture. Orwell’s essay is not just a theory; it gives practical advice for dealing with modern problems. From AI to biotech, his ideas prompt us to consider science’s ethical and social impacts, not just its capabilities. 

One of the most pressing challenges is the ethical implications of artificial intelligence (AI) development. Orwell’s emphasis on the need for scientists and policymakers to consider the broader societal impact of their work resonates deeply in discussions surrounding AI ethics. As AI systems become increasingly integrated into daily life, Orwell’s call for ethical reflection urges us to ensure that technological progress aligns with human values and well-being. Given the potential benefits and risks of AI, this reflection is crucial and underscores the importance of ethical integrity in shaping the future of technology. 

The deployment of AI in various sectors, from healthcare to finance, raises complex ethical dilemmas. For example, in healthcare, AI-driven diagnostic tools offer the potential for more accurate and efficient diagnoses. However, concerns arise regarding patient privacy, data security, and algorithmic bias. Orwell’s insistence on ethical integrity compels us to scrutinize these issues, emphasizing the importance of transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in AI development and deployment. Similarly, Orwell’s examination of the ethical dilemmas in gene editing technologies like CRISPR prompts us to consider the potential consequences of genetic manipulation. While CRISPR holds promise for treating genetic diseases, Orwell’s call for ethical reflection underscores the need to thoughtfully navigate this technology’s ethical complexities. Questions about consent, equity in access to genetic therapies, and the potential for unintended consequences require careful consideration. 

Orwell’s insistence on ethical awareness reminds us that a commitment to social responsibility and human dignity must guide scientific progress. Moreover, Orwell’s cautionary tales about the potentially catastrophic consequences of unbridled scientific progress, particularly in the realm of nuclear arms, retain their relevance and urgency today. As geopolitical tensions persist and nuclear proliferation continues, Orwell’s plea for scientists and policymakers to consider the moral implications of their work takes on a new and pressing significance. The specter of devastating outcomes underscores the imperative for rigorous ethical scrutiny and international cooperation in managing nuclear technology responsibly. 

Orwell’s call for a holistic approach to scientific education is a powerful reminder that we must go beyond technical mastery and cultivate ethical integrity and social awareness among scientists. By integrating ethics into scientific training and practice, we can foster a generation of proficient scientists in their fields while also being mindful of the broader societal implications of their work. This is not just a suggestion but a necessity in our ever-evolving technological landscape. George Orwell’s essay prompts us to consider the pivotal role of scientific institutions and policymakers in promoting ethical conduct and accountability in scientific research. This underscores the power and responsibility that scientists and policymakers hold in shaping the future of scientific progress. 

Orwell’s enduring wisdom serves as a beacon in the ever-evolving landscape of scientific inquiry, prompting us to reassess our ethical obligations amidst technological advancement continually. As we navigate the complexities of AI, gene editing, and nuclear technology, Orwell’s emphasis on ethical integrity underscores the need for a steadfast commitment to societal well-being. By embracing Orwell’s call for holistic scientific education and rigorous ethical scrutiny, we can forge a path toward responsible innovation, ensuring that our pursuit of knowledge remains firmly anchored in principles of social responsibility and human dignity. 

In conclusion, Orwell’s essay provides a timeless framework for navigating the ethical complexities of modern science. By integrating ethical reasoning and cultural understanding into scientific education and practice, we can strive towards a more conscientious and socially responsible approach to innovation, ensuring that scientific progress enhances rather than endangers human welfare. Orwell’s call for a holistic approach to scientific education remains as vital today as ever, guiding our pursuit of knowledge and progress. His insights remind us that science is not just a means to an end but a moral endeavor with profound societal implications. By heeding his call to integrate ethical reflection into scientific practice, we can harness the transformative power of science for the greater good.

Works Cited

Dag, O. “George Orwell.” George Orwell: What Is Science?, 18 Apr. 2000, orwell.ru/library/articles/science/english/e_scien. 

The Perpetuation of Child Labor in the Cocoa Industry: A Critical Examination of Neglect and Corporate Accountability

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Eli Olevsky, May 3, 2024

Consider the chocolate bars you grew up eating. Many of us have fond memories associated with our favorite brands. An exposé by The Washington Post written by Peter Whoriskey and Rachel Siegel revealed that much of the cocoa we buy from major chocolate companies such as Mars, Nestlé, and Hershey begins with child labor. Additionally, the article points out the lack of reduction in child labor, despite pledges from the companies themselves to end child slavery in cocoa plantations such as those in the Ivory Coast in West Africa (Whoriskey and Siegel). This essay will seek to shed light on the inhumane child slavery practices within the cocoa industry, its connections to the chocolate company giants, as well as their subsequent failures to reduce and end those affiliations. Since companies cannot be relied on to change tactics out of the goodness of their hearts, it will ultimately be upon the shoulders of the masses to effect change as they are the primary consumers of these tainted products and can bring about true change by targeting their bottom lines. Once a strategy is no longer profitable, exploitative corporations are forced to change or amend their approaches as proven by numerous successful boycotts and awareness campaigns I will mention in this essay. 

Unfortunately, the presence of child slavery in the cocoa industry is not a recent revelation. It is estimated that 25-50% of children within Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire worked in Cocoa as the results of 2007 and 2008/9 surveys. Despite this, only 5% of children in Côte d’Ivoire and 10% in Ghana worked for pay (Payson Final Report 2011). Comparatively, The Department of Labor reports that currently, “there are 1.56 million children in child labor with 43 percent engaged in hazardous work in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana”. Additionally, the site lists several dangers of working in these fields, such as chemical exposure, burning fields, sharp tools, and lifting heavy loads (Child Labor in Cocoa). The initial article by The Washington Post described the kind of work children were put to, stating, “There is land to be cleared, typically with machetes; sprayings of pesticide; and more machete work to gather and split open the cocoa pods. Finally, the work involves carrying sacks of cocoa that may weigh 100 pounds or more” (Whorisky and Siegal). A follow-up survey from Tulane University presenting the statistics as of 2013-14 mentioned that these children experienced many types of injuries. The injuries included wounds and cuts, broken bones, burns, snake bites, back pain, muscle pain, and several more (Payson Final Report 2015). Moreover, a 2020 report by NORC found the percentage of children working in cocoa exposed to agrochemicals increased from 15% to 50% in both regions (Sadhu et al.).

In a 2001 congressional record, an article was included in which a reporter details the conditions of working on the Ivory Coast as a child laborer, detailing, “Most of them are 12 to 16 years old. Some are as young as 9. The slaves live on corn paste and bananas. Some are whipped, beaten, and broken like horses to harvest the almond size beans”. The article goes on to a particular account from a consul general in an Ivorian Coast town, reading: 

They called Abdoulaye Macko, who was then the Malian consul general… he found the 19 boys and young men there. Aly, the youngest, was 13. The oldest was 21. “They were tired, slim, they were not smiling.” Macko said. “Except one child was not there. This one, his face showed what was happening. He was sick; he had (excrement) in his pants. He was lying on the ground, covered with cacao leaves because they were sure he was dying. He was almost dead. . . . He had been severely beaten.’ According to medical records, other boys had healed scars as well as open, infected wounds all over their bodies (107th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION).

The important question to ask after these realizations of child slavery within regions that supply 60% of the world’s cocoa is “What is being done to prevent this?” (Child Labor in Cocoa). In 2001, the Harkin-Engel protocol was established to remove the worst forms of child labor in the growing and processing of cocoa beans. This protocol was signed by several major chocolate companies such as Hershey Food Corporation, Nestlé Chocolate and Confections USA, M&M/Mars Inc., and several more (Harkin Engel Protocol). Despite the protocol, according to The Washington Post Article mentioned before, “The world’s chocolate companies have missed deadlines to uproot child labor from their cocoa supply chains in 2005, 2008 and 2010” (Whoriskey and Siegel).  The 2015 report by Tulane University presenting data between their 2008/09 and 2013/14 surveys noted that children working in cocoa production increased from 1,817,278 to 2,260,407 between the two survey dates (Payson Final Report 2015). The 2020 NORC report also cited, “In Côte d’Ivoire the prevalence rate of hazardous child labor in cocoa production… increased from 23 percent in 2008/09 to 37 percent in 2018/19, while in Ghana….increased from 43 percent in 2008/09 to 51 percent in 2018/19” (Sadhu et al.).

Two decades after the Harkin-Engel Protocol, these chocolate corporations have implemented initiatives to identify child labor within the supply chain and eliminate it. According to Mars’ Cocoa For Generations sustainability plan, they commit to “prevent and mitigate human rights issues…Ensure 100% of our cocoa is responsibly sourced globally and is traceable (from the farmer to the first point of purchase) by 2025” (Cocoa for Generations). Hershey’s Cocoa For Good plan indicates, “we are expanding the coverage of our Child Labor Monitoring and Remediation Systems (CLMRS)…as we aim for 100% coverage of our Cocoa For Good farms by 2025” (Tejada Chavez). Nestlé’s Cocoa Plan echoed a similar tone: “We sourced, in 2022, 68.3% of our cocoa volumes from the Nestlé Cocoa Plan with the aim of reaching 100% by 2025” (Nestle Cocoa Plan). 

To understand the degree to which these companies can be trusted to create any real impact and change, the Washington Post article previously mentioned compiled the relationships between the percent of cocoa that is currently certified by these corporate chocolate giants and the traceable amount. For Mars, “around 50 percent of its cocoa is certified by Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance”, but only “24 percent is traceable to the farmer level”. Hershey’s claims to have had “80 percent certified at the end of 2018”, while “less than half” is traceable to its source. For Nestlé, however, it has been shown that in the Ivory Coast, 80% of their cocoa that is certified is also traceable to the source (Whoriskey and Siegel). 

Striving for 100% traceable cocoa, while a step in the right direction, does not guarantee any meaningful results as the sourcing of chocolate is done through faulty fair trade certification companies. What good is being able to trace cocoa beans to their source, if the supposedly “certified” source still has instances of child labor harvesting those beans? A 2019 report done by the Corporate Accountability Lab noted, “a BBC investigation found children, including trafficked children, working on Fairtrade certified plantations in Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire. The Kuapo Kokoo cooperative…an Ivorian coop supplying to Nestlé, were both certified Fairtrade” (Empty Promises). A more recent investigation done by the Corporate Accountability Lab in 2021 found that, 

in December 2020, investigators saw a little girl working on a certified farm near Aboisso, carrying cocoa pods on her head. The investigators learned that this farm sold their cocoa beans to the CNEK cooperative, which is certified by both Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade International…That same December, the investigators spoke with a small boy who was carrying a large bag of cocoa pods to an assembly point on a farm near Abengourou. This farm, they learned, sold its cocoa to the FAHO cooperative that was certified by UTZ through August 2021 and is certified by Fairtrade International (Brudney).

Not only do these certifications fail to adequately reduce the amount of child labor in the cocoa industry, but certified farms in the Ivory Coast were found to be even more likely to have child laborers than other plantations (Whoriskey). The reliance on these certification companies by major global chocolate corporations despite these third-party inspectors only being “required to visit fewer than 10% of cocoa farms”, according to The Washington Post, demonstrates a lack of trustworthiness in these chocolate companies efforts’ to address the still pervasive child slavery in the cocoa industry (Whoriskey and Siegel). It is only symptomatic of the increase in child labor in the cocoa industry over the years.

Despite the prevalence of information highlighting the cruel environments for many children in West Africa, progress has been bafflingly slow to remedy it. Their inability to meet deadlines over the last two decades, coupled with their use of completely unreliable certifications is beyond problematic. Due to this, it seems hard to believe that chocolate companies such as Hershey, Mars, and Nestlé have every intention of demonstrating a major change in their supply chain habits to create 100% ethical chocolate production by 2025. Fueled by the increasing numbers of children put in danger to create the products they sell, they need to be held accountable for their inaction.

Several campaigns have been previously successful at changing corrupt industries for the better. An example of this includes the campaign against Nike in the 90s to end the use of child labor and sweatshops in its overseas factories which resulted in reforms and improvements in working conditions within the supply chain (Klein). Another notable example is the Accord on Fire and Building Safety established in Bangladesh, which was established after the Rana Plaza collapse in 2013. The tragedy resulted in the death of 1000 garment factory workers as a result of poor working conditions. Due to increased pressure as a result of public outcry and divestment, the regulation led to major brands, trade unions, and NGOs coming together to implement safety inspections, training programs, and remediation efforts in garment factories (The Bangladesh Accord). We as consumers must speak out against this, for these companies rely on our money to make their chocolates. With our voices and without our funding, they will have no choice but to listen. 

Works Cited

Brudney, Allie. “CAL Finds Evidence of Child Labor on Rainforest Alliance Certified Farms.” Corporate Accountability Lab, 25 Oct. 2021, corpaccountabilitylab.org/calblog/2021/10/25/cal-finds-evidence-of-child-labor-on-rainforest-alliance-certified-farms. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Bureau of International Labor Affairs. “Child Labor in the Production of Cocoa.” DOL, 2024, www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/our-work/child-forced-labor-trafficking/child-labor-cocoa. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

“Cocoa for Generations | Mars, Incorporated.” MARS, 2024, www.mars.com/sustainability-plan/cocoa-for-generations. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Corporate Accountability Lab. “Empty Promises: The Failure of Voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives to Improve Farmer Incomes in the Ivorian Cocoa Sector.” Square Space, July 2019, static1.squarespace.com/static/5810dda3e3df28ce37b58357/t/5d321076f1125e0001ac51ab/1563562117949/Empty_Promises_2019.pdf. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

“Harkin Engel Protocol.” ICI Cocoa Initiative, Sept. 2001, www.cocoainitiative.org/knowledge-hub/resources/harkin-engel-protocol. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Klein, Naomi. No Logo. BUR, 2018. 

“Nestle Cocoa Plan.” Nestlé Cocoa Plan, 2024, www.nestlecocoaplan.com/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Payson Center for International Development and Technology Transfer. “Final Report – Oversight of Cocoa Industry in Ghana and Ivory Coast.” Issuu, 11 Apr. 2011, issuu.com/stevebutton/docs/tulane_final_report.  Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Payson Center for International Development and Technology Transfer. “Final Report: Survey Research on Child Labor in West African Cocoa Growing Areas.” DOL, 30 July 2015, www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/final-report-survey-research-child-labor-west-african-cocoa-growing-areas. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

“PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 107th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.” Congress.Gov, 28 June 2001, www.congress.gov/crec/2001/06/28/CREC-2001-06-28.pdf Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Sadhu, Santadarshan, et al. “NORC Final Report: Assessing Progress in Reducing Child Labor in Cocoa Production in Cocoa Growing Areas of Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana.” NORC, Oct. 2020, https://www.norc.org/content/dam/norc-org/documents/standard-projects-pdf/NORC%202020%20Cocoa%20Report_English.pdf Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Tejada Chavez, Angela. “Visible Progress: Hershey’s Cocoa for Good Strategy.” The Hershey Company, 2024, www.thehersheycompany.com/en_us/home/newsroom/blog/going-beyond-fair-trade-with-hersheys-sustainable-cocoa-strategy.html Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

“The Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety.” The Bangladesh Accord, bangladeshaccord.org/. Accessed 29 Apr. 2024.

Whoriskey, Peter, and Rachel Siegel. “Hershey, Nestle and Mars Broke Their Pledges to End Child Labor …” The Washington Post, 5 June 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/business/hershey-nestle-mars-chocolate-child-labor-west-africa/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Whoriskey, Peter. “Utz Finds Alarming Problems at Four Cocoa-Certifying Firms – The …” The Washington Post, 23 Oct. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/23/chocolate-companies-say-their-cocoa-is-certified-some-farms-use-child-labor-thousands-are-protected-forests/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Ethical Perspectives on the Rights of Disabled People and Animals: A Comparative Analysis of Eva Kittay and Peter Singer

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Eli Olevsky, May 3, 2023

The rights of animals and those of disabled people have long been an area of ethical discussion. While some argue that humans have an ethical duty to respect and safeguard the interests of the disabled and animals, others contend that human interests must always come first and resort to the degradation of others. Eva Kittay and Peter Singer have contributed significantly to this debate as philosophers. Kittay emphasizes the need to prioritize people with disabilities, while Singer advocates for a level playing field between the rights of humans and the rights of animals. Both positions have their own set of merits, but also each contains some controversial elements I will discuss in this essay. Ultimately, Kittay’s argument is more reasonable and morally comprehensible than Singer’s ethically questionable argument because it warrants a more accepting environment in which all living things are equally loved and appreciated. 

 Kittay argues that part of the job of a mother of a disabled child is to ensure that they are cared for. She asserts, “For her, socialization for acceptance means that you have both to help the child make her way in the world given her disabilities and to help shape a world that will accept her.” (Kittay 398). Kittay believes that mothers have this responsibility because disabled children deserve this kind of care and to be seen by the world as valued. This is apparent in her distress of opposing views, stating, “What are the specific challenges facing someone in my position? There are essentially two. The first is to overcome the anger and revulsion that one feels when encountering the view that one’s disabled child–or child with a particular disability–is less worthy of dignity, of life, of concern or justice than others.”  (Kittay 398-399). Her perspective challenges the ableist assumption that those with disabilities are less valuable or worthy of consideration than their non-disabled counterparts. The importance of this particular position of Kittay’s is necessary to understand the virtuous aspect of her argument. 

A potential critique of Kittay is her biased focus on the value of a disabled person as more valuable than a nonhuman. She portrays this perspective when sharing how she feels about her child being compared to animals, saying, “For a mother of a severely cognitively impaired child, the impact of such an argument is devastating. How can I begin to tell you what it feels like to read texts in which one’s child is compared…how corrosive those comparisons are, how they mock those relationships that affirm who we are and why we care?”(Kittay 397). However, Kittay clarifies she does indeed love animals, although still believing they cannot be compared to children, stating, “I am no stranger to a beloved animal. I have had dogs I have loved, dogs I have mourned for. But as dog lovers who become parents, can tell you, much as we adore our hounds…there is also no comparison when that child has intellectual disabilities.” (Kittay 397). This humanizes Kittay’s perspective of animals, and although she does not see them as deserving of the same love as a disabled child, I believe it is understandable why she feels this way as no mother would ever want their child compared to an animal, which has been used as a derogatory insult for millennia. Kittay’s stance may not be morally perfect in an ideal world that places equal importance on every living thing. Still, it is far closer to perfection when compared to Singer’s general position. 

Peter Singer offers a different take on the ethical nature of personhood than Eva Kittay. Singer bases his notion of morality towards sentient beings on what is known as “The principle of equality,” which is “not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat human beings.” (Singer 33). He uses this principle and extends its validity past just human beings, reasoning, “It is an implication of this principle of equality that our concern for others and our readiness to consider their interests ought not to depend on what they are like or what abilities they may possess…But the basic element–the taking into account of the interests of the being, whatever those interests may be–must, according to the principle of equality, be extended to all beings, black or white, masculine or feminine, human or nonhuman.” (Singer 34). Singer is challenging traditional views on nonhuman animals that believe humans possessing rationality or consciousness gives them special moral status. According to him, his view ignores sentience as a primary characteristic of moral consideration and argues that simply being able to feel is the only necessity for equality. Singer’s perspective on sentience as a limiting factor for the basis of morality has far-reaching ramifications for how we treat nonhuman animals. Moreover, Singer believes pleasure and pain experiences are morally significant when they affect an animal’s capacity for experiencing pleasure or pain and not just human beings. He asserts, “The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way” (Singer 37). He clarifies this statement to include nonhumans, stating, “A stone does not have interests because it cannot suffer. Nothing that we can do to it could possibly make any difference to its welfare. The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is, however, not only necessary, but also sufficient for us to say that a being has interests–at an absolute minimum, an interest in not suffering. A mouse, for example, does have an interest in not being kicked along the road, because it will suffer if it is.” (Singer 37). Similarly to Kittay, the sentiments in Singer’s position display some respectable attributes of his overall view, such as his support for equality and his belief that all living things that feel pain (or have an interest in not feeling pain) are equally morally deserving of care and consideration. However, the troubling sides of his argument, particularly his justification of murder, reveal the paradoxical nature of his view toward disabled people. 

Singer’s position on disability remains concerning for many individuals, including myself. Despite arguing for equality between humans and nonhumans, he seems to believe that sentient beings can have unequal worth, stating, “I conclude, then, that a rejection of speciesism does not imply that all lives are of equal worth” (Singer 54). Singer then justifies the killing of disabled people, first when choosing between disabled people and “normal” human beings and then when choosing between disabled people and nonhumans. “Since pain is pain, whatever other capacities, beyond the capacity to feel pain, the being may have–these capacities are relevant to the question of taking life. It is not arbitrary to hold that the life of a self-aware being, capable of abstract thought, of planning for the future, of complex acts of communication, and so on, is more valuable than the life of a being without these capacities…if we had to choose to save the life of a normal human being or an intellectually disabled human being, we would probably choose to save the life of a normal human being…the same is true when we consider other species…if we have to choose between the life of a human being and the life of another animal we should choose to save the life of the human, but there may be special cases in which the reverse holds true because the human being in question does not have the capacities of a normal human being” (Singer 54-55). From this, we can understand and gather Singer’s belief that when comparing a disabled person to an animal, it is moral to kill the disabled person because they are apparently of less value than the nonhuman. 

Although I can understand and empathize with Kittay’s perspective stemming from the want for her child to be loved and for the world to love her child, it is much harder for me to understand Singer’s purpose for justifying the killing of disabled people. I cannot even understand the purpose of including an argument that revolves around deciding to kill a disabled person, and much less so in an essay that was primarily about the advocacy for the equality of all sentient beings. Singer spent the majority of Chapter 1 arguing how racism, sexism, and speciesism have no place in society because they involve claiming superiority for a certain group of humans solely due to some difference in a characteristic, “Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favoring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species.” (Singer 38-39). Despite this, he ended his essay with an argument justifying killing disabled people. I believe this is in poor taste, and it completely dismisses what his essay worked so hard to argue, the point that equality is solely based on the interests of the being and extends to all beings, human and nonhuman. Morally, this should include disabled people as well. Because Singer’s argument so clearly does not, this is why Kittay’s argument is by far the more intelligible and morally acceptable perspective. Conclusively, I believe that Singer fails to assume his role as “moral philosopher,” and as a result, a more appropriate title for him would be “hypocrite.”

Works Cited 

Singer, Peter, 1946-. 19771975. Animal Liberation. New York, Avon Books. 

Kittay, Eva Feder. “THE PERSONAL IS PHILOSOPHICAL IS POLITICAL: A PHILOSOPHER AND MOTHER OF A COGNITIVELY DISABLED PERSON SENDS NOTES FROM THE BATTLEFIELD.” Metaphilosophy 40, no. 3–4 (July 1, 2009): 606–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01600.x.

America’s Youth Suicide Crisis: How An Unprecedented Epidemic Spiraled Out of Control

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Vignesh Subramanian, May 15, 2024

In 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published up-to-date data on suicide rates among American youth that stunned public health and medical professionals nationwide. The federal report, issued in June, found that the overall suicide rate among U.S. youth ages 10 to 24 had surged 62% over the prior two decades (2001-2021), after decades of prior decline (Curtin & Garnett, 2023). On average, 11 young Americans died by suicide out of every 100,000 each year during this period; for children ages 10-14, the suicide rate had tripled from 2007-2018 (from 0.9 to 2.9 people per 100,000); for adolescents ages 15-19, it rose 57% from 2009-2017 (from 7.5 to 11.8 people per 100,000); and for young adults ages 20-24, it rose 63% over the entire period (from 11.9 people in 2001 to 19.4 in 2021 per 100,000). The findings painted a stark picture of a nation in the throes of a full-fledged crisis, with millions of its young people suffering in silence and thousands compelled by circumstance to take their own lives. 

Yet this grim milestone was seen by many as preceded by years of warning signs. Well before the COVID-19 pandemic, CDC reports noted that suicide rates among U.S. youth ages 10-24 had jumped 57.4% from 2007-2018 (rising from less than 7 deaths per 100,000 to nearly 11), with even such states as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – widely viewed as having strong safety nets for at-risk youth – seeing increases in youth suicide rates ranging from 40% to 60% over that single decade (Curtin, 2020). The issue notably remained pervasive for young Americans of all ages. Between 2007 and 2019, the suicide rate among pre-teens ages 8 to 12 surged a disturbing 166% (Penfold, 2021), with 8.4% of children as young as nine and ten years old reporting suicidal thoughts and 1.3% even making attempts (Janiri et al., 2020). From 2018-2019, 18.8% of adolescents ages 12-17 seriously considered attempting suicide, with 15.7% making a suicide plan, 8.9% attempting suicide at least once, and 2.5% making an attempt that required medical treatment (Ivey-Stephenson et al., 2020), corresponding to around 1.24 million medically attended suicide attempts by American teenagers nationwide. This data came on the heels of separate studies finding that suicide rates more than doubled in the preceding decade (from approximately 2 deaths per 100,000 people in 2008 to 5 per 100,000 in 2018) for adolescents as young as thirteen and fourteen years old (Levine et al., 2023). And since 2019, emerging American adults ages 18-25 have demonstrated the highest prevalence of both serious suicidal thoughts (11.8% in 2019, rising to 13.6% by 2022) and suicide attempts made (1.8% in 2019, rising to 2.7% by 2021 before dropping to 2.1% by 2022) among adults across all age groups (National Institute of Mental Health, 2024; Richesson et al., 2022; Keating & Rudd-Arieta, 2021).

In 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published up-to-date data on suicide rates among American youth that stunned public health and medical professionals nationwide. The federal report, issued in June, found that the overall suicide rate among U.S. youth ages 10 to 24 had surged 62% over the prior two decades (2001-2021), after decades of prior decline (Curtin & Garnett, 2023). On average, 11 young Americans died by suicide out of every 100,000 each year during this period; for children ages 10-14, the suicide rate had tripled from 2007-2018 (from 0.9 to 2.9 people per 100,000); for adolescents ages 15-19, it rose 57% from 2009-2017 (from 7.5 to 11.8 people per 100,000); and for young adults ages 20-24, it rose 63% over the entire period (from 11.9 people in 2001 to 19.4 in 2021 per 100,000). The findings painted a stark picture of a nation in the throes of a full-fledged crisis, with millions of its young people suffering in silence and thousands compelled by circumstance to take their own lives. 

Yet this grim milestone was seen by many as preceded by years of warning signs. Well before the COVID-19 pandemic, CDC reports noted that suicide rates among U.S. youth ages 10-24 had jumped 57.4% from 2007-2018 (rising from less than 7 deaths per 100,000 to nearly 11), with even such states as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – widely viewed as having strong safety nets for at-risk youth – seeing increases in youth suicide rates ranging from 40% to 60% over that single decade (Curtin, 2020). The issue notably remained pervasive for young Americans of all ages. Between 2007 and 2019, the suicide rate among pre-teens ages 8 to 12 surged a disturbing 166% (Penfold, 2021), with 8.4% of children as young as nine and ten years old reporting suicidal thoughts and 1.3% even making attempts (Janiri et al., 2020). From 2018-2019, 18.8% of adolescents ages 12-17 seriously considered attempting suicide, with 15.7% making a suicide plan, 8.9% attempting suicide at least once, and 2.5% making an attempt that required medical treatment (Ivey-Stephenson et al., 2020), corresponding to around 1.24 million medically attended suicide attempts by American teenagers nationwide. This data came on the heels of separate studies finding that suicide rates more than doubled in the preceding decade (from approximately 2 deaths per 100,000 people in 2008 to 5 per 100,000 in 2018) for adolescents as young as thirteen and fourteen years old (Levine et al., 2023). And since 2019, emerging American adults ages 18-25 have demonstrated the highest prevalence of both serious suicidal thoughts (11.8% in 2019, rising to 13.6% by 2022) and suicide attempts made (1.8% in 2019, rising to 2.7% by 2021 before dropping to 2.1% by 2022) among adults across all age groups (National Institute of Mental Health, 2024; Richesson et al., 2022; Keating & Rudd-Arieta, 2021).

Surges in suicidal ideation and attempts among young Americans subsequently contributed to sharp increases in long-running trends of associated emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. From 2011-2020, pediatric ED visits by children, adolescents, and young adults ages 6-24 nearly doubled nationwide (from 4.8 million visits, or 7.7% of all pediatric ED visits, to 7.5 million, or 13.1% of all visits), even as the overall number of pediatric ED visits for all causes decreased (Bommersbach et al., 2023). This spike in visits included a five-fold increase in the number of pediatric ED visits for suicide-related symptoms (from 0.9% of all visits in 2011 to 4.2% in 2020), which now make up an average of 5% of all visits by this age group. This alarming trend has been substantiated by other large national studies examining related healthcare data. Analyses of insurance claims for 24.5 million youths ages 1-21 found that mental health-related inpatient hospital admissions surged 61% among this population between 2016-2021, alongside a 45% increase in mental health-related ED visits and a 74% increase in ED visits for suicidal ideation, attempts, and self-harm by 2022, with the increases being most pronounced for adolescents and young adults (Clarify Health Institute, 2022; Clarify Health Institute, 2023). A review of 4.8 million pediatric hospitalizations from 2009-2019 at U.S. acute care hospitals revealed that a diagnosis of suicide or self-injury made up 64% of all mental health-related hospitalizations (Arakelyan et al., 2023). Other studies have found that all mental-related pediatric ED visits among youths ages 3-17 rose 8% annually from October 2015 to February 2020 (compared to an average increase of just 1.5% for visits for other reasons) (Cushing et al., 2022), with 13% of all patients revisiting within 6 months, and that from 2019-2020 – the last full year before the pandemic – the overall number of behavioral health cases for youth under 18 increased 30%, with pediatric ED cases of suicide attempts and self-injury in particular having jumped 50% (Children’s Hospital Association, 2023). 

It was this already escalating crisis that proceeded to become severely exacerbated by the pandemic: in 2021, the first full year of the pandemic in the United States, the national suicide rate among youths 10-24 years old returned to 2018 highs after two years of moderate declines (Stone et al, 2023; Curtin et al., 2022). The stressful impacts of the period were acutely felt by young Americans of varied educational levels. The CDC found that 22% of U.S. high school students – including roughly a third (30%) of female students (Gaylor et al., 2023) – had seriously considered suicide the previous year, with 18% making a plan and 10% attempting at least once (drastically up from 16%, 13%, and 8% a decade prior, respectively) (CDC, 2023b). Separate reports also noted that three months into the pandemic, roughly a quarter (25.5%) of young people ages 18-24 – the largest age demographic on college campuses – had seriously considered suicide in the prior 30 days (Czeisler et al., 2020), and a Healthy Minds Survey found that 15% of U.S. college students surveyed during the 2021-2022 school year had seriously considered suicide, the highest rate in the survey’s 15-year history (Eisenberg et al., 2023). The CDC further found that beginning in April 2020 – shortly after the start of the pandemic in the United States – and proceeding through October of that same year, the proportion of mental health emergency-related visits among all pediatric ED visits surged 24% for children ages 5 to 11 and 31% for those ages 12 to 17 relative to 2019 levels (Leeb et al., 2020). In the second full year of the pandemic (from March 2021 to February 2022), pediatric mental health-related ED visits for youths ages 5-17 collectively jumped another 7%; the percentage of their ED visits resulting in psychiatric inpatient admission rose 8%; and the mean length of their stay increased 4%, with youth in both years of the pandemic more likely to spend two or more nights experiencing prolonged boarding (Overhage et al., 2023). 

Overall, amid the pandemic, U.S. youth and young adults ages 10-24 began to represent 15% of all suicides nationally, and demonstrated exorbitantly high rates of ED visits for mental health emergencies and self-harm in particular, with 354.4 such visits per 100,000 members of this population in 2020 (compared to 128.9 visits per 100,000 people for middle-aged adults) (CDC, 2023a). Adolescent girls were noted to be at particularly high risk, with the proportion of ED visits for suicide attempts among those ages 12-17 jumping 50.6% from February-March 2019 to February-March 2021 (compared to just a 3.7% increase for boys and young men of the same ages) (Yard et al., 2021). Girls and young women ages 10-24 overall demonstrated a 43.6% increase in visits for suicidal ideation over the past two decades (Overhage et al., 2023), as well as an associated ED visit rate in 2021 measuring roughly double that of boys and young men (though the latter themselves consistently report some of the largest increases in suicide rates, including an 8% increase among those ages 15-24 in the same year) (CDC, 2023a; Curtin et al., 2022). Even more stark disparities in suicide rates have been discovered among other marginalized groups – with over a quarter of LGBTQ+ youths reporting attempting suicide in 2021, a significantly higher rate than that of their peers (Jones et al., 2022); higher percentages of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) youths experiencing suicidality than any other race or ethnicity that same year; Latina adolescents consistently being twice as likely to attempt suicide than their peers of the same race (Ivey-Stephenson et al., 2020); Black youths experiencing the largest percentage increases in suicides among any racial group in recent years (Stone et al., 2023); and Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) adolescents and young adults being the only racial group to have suicide rank as their leading cause of death (CDC, 2018) – that merit an entirely separate article beyond the limitations of this paper.

For several years, U.S. lawmakers have demonstrated a propensity to pin the blame for the country’s youth suicide crisis entirely on the pandemic – despite such claims not covering the full story (Warner & Zhang, 2022). It is clear that this crisis had already reached epidemic proportions by the time COVID-19 took hold in early 2020. Yet even if this myopic view of its origins is genuinely held by those in elected office, it has failed to translate into substantive policy reforms that might address the widespread and life-threatening struggles with mental health currently faced by millions of young Americans. Nearly two full years into the pandemic (in October 2021), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Children’s Hospital Association joined together to issue the unprecedented declaration of a national state of emergency in children’s mental health (AAP et al., 2021). The declaration took into account “dramatic increases” in rates of pediatric suicidality and ED visits for mental health emergencies, and called upon “policymakers at all levels of government and advocates for children and adolescents to join us” in working to institute a series of reforms, including securing sustainable funding for mental health screenings, establishing suicide prevention programs and risk assessments in schools and primary care, and addressing acute care needs in hospital settings by expanding access to adequate numbers of beds, step-down programs from inpatient units, and short-stay stabilization units, among other measures (Hua et al., 2024). Less than two months later, the U.S. Surgeon General echoed these calls, issuing an advisory highlighting the scope of the youth mental health crisis and outlining recommendations for governments and private healthcare organizations to collaborate to support children’s emotional and social well-being (Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, 2021), and roughly a year later, the AAP and over 130 other healthcare organizations explicitly called upon the Biden administration to declare a federal national emergency in children’s mental health (AAP et al., 2022). Yet despite these high-profile calls to action, no comprehensive federal legislation has been passed to support crisis identification, prevention, and intervention services for youth in either community or hospital settings (Roubein & Beard, 2022), and President Biden has yet to declare a national emergency in youth mental health, neglecting an opportunity to mobilize the full leverage and resources of the federal government to address the crisis.

At the state and local levels, attempts to contend with the youth suicide crisis have hardly fared better. As of June 2023, while half of all U.S. states and D.C. have enacted laws over the past decade that uniformly require their K-12 schools and school districts to adopt suicide prevention and intervention policies and guidelines outlining how staff should respond to students exhibiting suicidal ideation, 25 states have still not done so, according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP, 2023). Furthermore, while 13 states uniformly require K-12 school personnel to be annually trained in such prevention and intervention protocols, a plurality of states (24, plus D.C.) do not mandate such training to occur every year – raising the risk that recall of key protocols may be poor in an emergency – and another 13 states do not require training at all. 22 states also uniformly require schools to develop curricula for student education in either suicide awareness and prevention and/or mental health more generally, but a majority (28, plus D.C.) continue not to do so. Statewide policy is even less consistent at the collegiate level, with 22 states having enacted laws uniformly requiring colleges and universities to adopt various specified suicide prevention policies – ranging from printing hotline numbers on student ID cards and publicizing student mental health resource information to adopting institutional awareness programs or prevention and intervention strategies – while the majority of states (28, plus D.C.) lacked any laws establishing a uniform standard of preparedness for higher education institutions as of December 2022 (AFSP, 2022). The resulting patchwork of policies, fragmented across thousands of campuses and communities, fails to offer a comprehensive response to the nationwide youth suicide crisis that transcends their outskirts and borders. Meanwhile, conflicting guidelines on the ages at which youths are recommended to be screened early in childhood for suicide risk (the AAP recommends those ages 12 and up be universally screened annually, with those ages 8-11 screened when clinically indicated, while the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force argues there is insufficient evidence to justify screening any asymptomatic youths for suicide risk) continue to confuse localities and providers seeking to address the root causes of such ideation (Jenco, 2022). Hospitals and inpatient facilities are also becoming overwhelmed by surging numbers of suicidal young adults, adolescents, and increasingly younger-aged children who arrive in EDs already at their crisis point (Richtel & Flanagan, 2022), with no end to this epidemic in sight as of yet.

Today, suicide is the third leading cause of death among young Americans ages 15-24 and the second leading cause of death among those ages 10-14. The United States loses far more of its young people to suicide than any other developed nation each year, with the total number of lives lost representing a disproportionately large segment of its youth population (Doran & Kinchin, 2020). For every young person lost to suicide, roughly 1,000 others are estimated to be considering and struggling with the idea of attempting (National Alliance on Mental Illness, 2024) – but every one of these suicides is preventable. Despite having an abundance of options with which to act, the nation’s leaders have collectively and inexcusably allowed this crisis to spiral out of control, and in so doing, have left millions of vulnerable children, adolescents, and young adults at risk. We must act swiftly and decisively to change course, advancing reforms that will reshape national policy to confront these harsh clinical realities – and ultimately save lives. 

Works Cited

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, & Children’s Hospital Association. (2021). AAP-AACAP-CHA declaration of a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health. American Academy of Pediatrics. https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/child-and-adolescent-healthy-mental-development/aap-aacap-cha-declaration-of-a-national-emergency-in-child-and-adolescent-mental-health/ 
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, & Children’s Hospital Association. (2022). Health organizations urge the Biden administration to declare a federal national emergency in children’s mental health. American Academy of Pediatrics. https://www.aap.org/en/news-room/news-releases/aap/2022/health-organizations-urge-the-biden-administration-to-declare-a-federal-national-emergency-in-childrens-mental-health/ 
  3. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. (2023). Policy priority: Suicide prevention in schools (K-12). American Foundation for Suicide Prevention Public Policy Office. https://www.datocms-assets.com/12810/1686164392-afsp-k-12-schools-issue-brief.pdf
  4. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. (2022). Policy priority: Suicide prevention on university and college campuses. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention Public Policy Office. https://www.datocms-assets.com/12810/1677181582-afsp-colleges-universities-issue-brief.pdf 
  5. Arakelyan, M., Freyleue, S., Avula, D., McLaren, J. L., O’Malley, A. J., & Leyenaar, J. K. (2023). Pediatric mental health hospitalizations at acute care hospitals in the US, 2009-2019. JAMA, 329(12), 1000-1011. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.1992 
  6. Bommersbach, T. J., McKean, A. J., Olfson, M., & Rhee, T. G. (2023). National trends in mental health–related emergency department visits among youth, 2011-2020. JAMA, 329(17), 1469-1477. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.4809
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). LCWK1 – Deaths, percent of total deaths, and death rates for the 15 leading causes of death in 5-year age groups, by race and Hispanic origin, and sex: United States, 2017. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, 1-195. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lcwk/lcwk1_hr_2017-a.pdf 
  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023a). Disparities in Suicide. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/disparities-in-suicide.html 
  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023b). Youth Risk Behavior Survey data summary & trends report: 2011-2021. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/YRBS_Data-Summary-Trends_Report2023_508.pdf 
  10. Children’s Hospital Association. (2023). The latest pediatric mental health data. Children’s Hospital Association. https://www.childrenshospitals.org/news/childrens-hospitals-today/2023/04/the-latest-pediatric-mental-health-data 
  11. Clarify Health Institute. (2022). The kids are not alright – Pediatric mental health care utilization from 2016-2021. Clarify Health. clarifyhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/The-Clarify-Health-Institute-Research-Brief_The-Kids-Are-Not-Alright.pdf 
  12. Clarify Health Institute. (2023). The kids are not alright – Mental health utilization among children and young adults: 2016-2022. Clarify Health. clarifyhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Clarify-Health-Institute-Research-Brief-The-Kids-Are-Not-Alright-2023.pdf 
  13. Curtin, S.C. (2020). State suicide rates among adolescents and young adults aged 10–24: United States, 2000–2018. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Vital Statistics Reports, 69(11), 1-10. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr69/nvsr-69-11-508.pdf
  14. Curtin, S .C. & Garnett, M. F. (2023). Suicide and homicide death rates among youth and young adults aged 10–24: United States, 2001–2021. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics (471). DOI: 10.15620/cdc:128423
  15. Curtin, S. C., Garnett, M. F., & Ahmad, F. B. (2022). Provisional Numbers and Rates of Suicide by Month and Demographic Characteristics: United States, 2021. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Vital Statistics Reports, (24), 1-7. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr024.pdf 
  16. Cushing, A. M., Liberman, D. B., Pham, P. K., Michelson, K. A., Festekjian, A., Chang, T. P., & Chaudhari, P. P. (2022). Mental health revisits at US pediatric emergency departments. JAMA Pediatrics, 177(2), 168-176. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4885
  17. Czeisler, M. E., Lane, R. I., Petrosky, E., Wiley, J. F., Christensen, A., Njai, R., Weaver, M. D., Robbins, R., Facer-Childs, E. R., Barger, L. K., Czeisler, C. A., Howard, M. E., & Rajaratnam, S. M. W. (2020). Mental health, substance use, and suicidal ideation during the COVID-19 pandemic — United States, June 24–30, 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(32), 1049-1057. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6932a1 
  18. Doran, C. M. & Kinchin, I. (2020). Economic and epidemiological impact of youth suicide in countries with the highest human development index. PLOS One, 15(5). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232940
  19. Eisenberg, D., Lipson, S. K., Heinze, J., Zhou, S., Vyletel, B., Henry, H., Fucinari, J., Murphy, M., Voichoski, E., & Inscore, A. (2023). The Healthy Minds Study: 2021-2022 data report. Healthy Minds Network. https://healthymindsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/HMS-National-Report-2021-22_full.pdf
  20. Gaylor, E. M., Krause, K. H., Welder, L. E., Cooper, A. C., Ashley, C., Mack, K. A., Crosby, A. E., Trinh, E., Ivey-Stephenson, A. Z., & Whittle, L. (2023). Suicidal thoughts and behaviors among high school students — Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2021. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 72(1), 45-54. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.su7201a6
  21. Hua, L. L., Lee, J., Rahmandar, M. H., Sigel, E. J., Committee on Adolescence, & Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention. (2024). Suicide and suicide risk in adolescents. Pediatrics, 153(1). DOI: 10.1542/peds.2023-064800
  22. Ivey-Stephenson, A. Z., Demissie, Z., Crosby, A. E., Stone, D. M., Gaylor, E., Wilkins, N., Lowry, R., & Brown, M. (2020). Suicidal ideation and behaviors among high school students — Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2019. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(1), 47-55. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.su6901a6 
  23. Janiri, D., Doucet, G., Pompili, M., Sani, G., Luna, B., Brent, D., & Frangou, S. (2020). Risk and protective factors for childhood suicidality: a US population-based study. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(4), 317-326. DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30049-3
  24. Jenco, M. (2022). AAP urges suicide screening despite USPSTF call for more research. American Academy of Pediatrics News. https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/19948/AAP-urges-suicide-screening-despite-USPSTF-call 
  25. Jones, S. E., Ethier, K. A., Hertz, M., DeGue, S., Le, V. D., Thornton, J., Lim, C., Dittus, P. J., & Geda, S. (2022). Mental health, suicidality, and connectedness among high school students during the COVID-19 pandemic — Adolescent behaviors and experiences survey, United States, January–June 2021.  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 71(3), 16-21. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/su/pdfs/su7103a1-a5-H.pdf 
  26. Keating, S. R. & Rudd-Arieta, M. (2021). Emerging adults’ attitudes and beliefs about suicide and technology/social media. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 17(7), 833-839. DOI: 10.1016/j.nurpra.2021.04.010 
  27. Leeb, R. T., Bitsko, R. H., Radhakrishnan, L., Martinez, P., Njai, R., & Holland, K. M. (2020). Mental health–related emergency department visits among children aged <18 years during the COVID-19 pandemic — United States, January 1–October 17, 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(45), 1675-1680. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6945a3
  28. Levine, R. S., Levine, E. M., Rubenstein, A., Muppala, V., Mejia, M. C., Gonzalez, S., Zoorob, R. J., Hennekens, C. H., & Wood, S. K. (2023). Continuing alarming increases in suicide in American youths: Clinical and research challenges. Annals of Pediatrics and Child Health. https://www.jscimedcentral.com/jounal-article-pdfd/Annals-of-Pediatrics-and-Child-Health/pediatrics-11-1301.pdf 
  29. National Institute of Mental Health. (2024). Suicide. The National Institutes of Health. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide 
  30. National Alliance on Mental Illness (2024). What you need to know about youth suicide. NAMI. https://www.nami.org/Your-Journey/Kids-Teens-and-Young-Adults/What-You-Need-to-Know-About-Youth-Suicide 
  31. Office of the U.S. Surgeon General. (2021). Protecting youth mental health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the U.S. Surgeon General. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/youth-mental-health/index.html
  32. Overhage, L., Hailu, R., Busch, A. B., Mehrotra, A., Michelson, K. A., & Huskamp, H. A. (2023). Trends in acute care use for mental health conditions among youth during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Psychiatry, 80(9), 924-932. DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.2195
  33. Penfold, R. (2021). Addressing the crisis of youth suicide in America. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute. https://www.kpwashingtonresearch.org/news-and-events/blog/2021/addressing-crisis-youth-suicide-america 
  34. Richesson, D., Magas, I., Brown, S., Hoenig, J. M., Cooper, P. M., Gyawali, S., Smith, T., & Yen, J. (2022). Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt39443/2021NSDUHFFRRev010323.pdf 
  35. Richtel, M. & Flanagan, A. (2022). Hundreds of suicidal teens sleep in emergency rooms. Every night. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/08/health/emergency-rooms-teen-mental-health.html 
  36. Roubein, R. & Beard, M. (2022). Congress is working on legislation to address children’s mental health crisis. The Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/01/congress-is-working-legislation-address-children-mental-health-crisis/ 
  37. Stone, D. M., Mack, K. A., & Qualters, J. (2023). Notes from the field: Recent changes in suicide rates, by race and ethnicity and age group — United States, 2021. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 72(6), 160-162. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7206a4 
  38. Warner, J. & Zhang, J. (2022). ‘We have essentially turned a blind eye to our own children for decades’: Why we need to stop politicizing children’s mental health. The Washington Post Magazine. https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/03/21/childrens-mental-health-crisis-politicization/ 
  39. Yard, E., Radhakrishnan, L., Ballesteros, M. F., Sheppard, M., Gates, A., Stein, Z., Hartnett, K., Kite-Powell, A., Rodgers, L., Adjemian, J., Ehlman, D. C., Holland, K., Idaikkadar, N., Ivey-Stephenson, A., Martinez, P., Law, R., & Stone, D. M. (2021). Emergency department visits for suspected suicide attempts among persons aged 12–25 years before and during the COVID-19 pandemic — United States, January 2019–May 2021. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(24), 888-894. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7024e1