"If “mass killings of its own people” constitutes a “crime against humanity” and “mass” in Syria means over a thousand people killed, surely the killing of over a thousand in Egypt must also constitute a serious crime against humanity! But that kind of rational calculation could only occur if there were one ethical standard for all states and an equal value placed on human life."

"Politics is defined in moral terms: it consists of a new war of an axis of good against an axis of evil. By an astonishing paradox, at the very moment when some countries are throwing themselves into a moral crusade against their demonized enemies and appropriating the vocabulary and symbolism of humanitarianism, nongovernmental organizations are distancing themselves while nevertheless casting their discourse in the same rhetorical mold. This remarkable mimetism — which operates in both directions — should nevertheless not lead one into a form of relativism that would set warmongers and humanitarians on the same level. The fact that the rhetoric is reproduced does not mean that the politics are equivalent. While it may be fallacious to reduce the war makers to a consistently barbaric “necropolitics” and humanitarians to a purely altruistic “biopolitics,” it is much more interesting to compare them in terms of the politics of life they effectively engender [...] Thus, within the humanitarian arena itself hierarchies of humanity are passively established but rarely identified for what they are — politics of life that at moments of crisis, result in the formation of two groups, those whose status protects their sacred character and those whom the institutions may sacrifice against their will." - Didier Fassin, Humanitarianism as a Politics of Life

(+)

"The IOC will continue to work to ensure that the Games take place without discrimination," Rogge added. "We would oppose, with all our might, any movement that threatens this principle."
&
In an interview with Tagesspiegel am Sonntag, Rogge referred to rule 50 of the Olympic Charter forbidding demonstrations at Olympic sites. “That should not be seen as a sanction but as a means to protect athletes so that they are not put under pressure to use the Games as a platform,” he said.

Un citāts no An open letter to David Cameron and the IOC by Stephen Fry

Be brave enough to live up to the oaths and protocols of your movement, which I remind you of verbatim below.

Rule 4 Cooperate with the competent public or private organisations and authorities in the endeavour to place sport at the service of humanity and thereby to promote peace

Rule 6: Act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement

Rule 15 Encourage and support initiatives blending sport with culture and education

Un, ko vispār nozīmē tāda vēlamības izteiksme "mustn't affect Sochi", ja tas ir fucking affecting Sochi right this moment. Un kāpēc mustn't? Tāpēc, ka jātirgojas ar principiem visu to interešu vārdā, ko Frajs savā vēstulē uzskaitījis. Tāpat kā velamības izteiksmē ir arī "We would oppose, with all our might..." Caurspīdīgi skumji.

"Myriad did not create anything," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for a unanimous court. "To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention." And "groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy" the requirements for winning a patent.

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Human Gene Patents

"In psychiatric terms, war memories are often measured by incidence of mental illnesses such as PTSD and depression (and via Western diagnostic standard manuals such as the DSM-IV). Translating what wars leave behind in collective memory onto the sanitized vocabulary of psychiatric diagnostics such as these reduces history to artifacts of clinical symptoms. The question that instead needs to be at the forefront of any discussion about military interventions is what it means for a "liberated" society, as well as for the global community in their relation to them, to live in conditions of constant rupture; to be "liberated" while experiencing enduring loss and grief caused by the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians and soldiers; or to be children growing up in exploded neighborhoods and looted houses, internalizing and suppressing wartime anxieties."

- Orkideh Behrouzan, The Psychological Impact of the Iraq War

The Lancet: "When asked about the purpose of medical research most people would hopefully reply: to advance knowledge for the good of society; to improve the health of people worldwide; or to find better ways to treat and prevent disease. The reality is different. The research environment, with its different players, is now much less conducive to thinking about such noble goals. Funders have often adopted long-drawn-out bureaucratic processes for their grant giving, and yet rarely ask for a systematic assessment of the need for the proposed research. Full costing is often demanded at first submission with enormous waste of time and resources. Funders operate within political frameworks that emphasise short-term successes and outcomes. Decisions are dependent on opaque peers' and experts' assessments within each field and take many months. Pharmaceutical companies and industry-sponsored research seek a maximum profitable return on their investment. And academic institutions, which are more and more expected to operate like businesses, think about the economic benefit and the commercial potential of research, or about their performance in a research assessment exercise (measured largely by the surrogate of publications). Research has become an enterprise, an economic engine for nations, a necessary step on the way to economic growth. But surely the purpose of research is more than that.

It is time to stop and reflect on how we got to this point and how we can restructure and reframe the way research is done and rewarded. First, we need to remind ourselves about the real purpose of research. Second, we need to find ways of deciding what research is needed and what impact it is likely to have. Research funders and those who benefit from research—patients, practising clinicians, and policy makers—have a crucial role here. Third, academic institutions should assess and reward researchers on a long-term basis, which will make it much easier to assess the true and meaningful impact of their research. Finally, researchers must remind themselves why they have chosen their career. They must do more to defend an environment conducive to research that is for the benefit and health of people worldwide, not merely as one element of economic policy making."

Nesen Rīgā bija skatāma izstāde "Bodies Revealed". Neatkarīgi no tā, kur šī izstāde ceļo, daļa publicitātes ir veltīta ķermeņu izcelsmes jautājumam. Izstādes organizētāji un pārstāvji apgalvo, ka ķermeņi ir to īpašnieku brīvprātīgi ziedoti un to izcelsmes valsts ir Ķīna. Viss būtu vienkāršāk, ja to varētu pieņemt kā neapšaubāmu patiesību. Tomēr kaut kas liek izjust zināmu diskomfortu, domājot par to, kā šie ķermeņi ir iegūti un to personu gaitām dzīviem esot. Ir skaidrs, ka šīs izstādes koncepcija, organizēšana, pastāvēšana un notikšana implicē dažādus morālus, psiholoģiskus un sociālus aspektus.
Ķermeņa anatomijas izpēte un apgūšana ar secēšanas palīdzību vēsturiski ir rietumu medicīnas prakse. Ķermeņi un to daļas ir pirkti, pārdoti, zagti, ziedoti, vai kā savādāk sagādāti jau gadu simteņiem, tas nav kaut kas jauns. Un tas, ko šī izstāde iemieso (piemērots apzīmējums), ir ķermenis kā patēriņa prece.
Minētā izstāde ir redzamākā daļa, jeb izgreznota fasāde ķermeņu patēriņam. Līdz ar biomedicīnas tehnoloģiju attīstību un kapitālisma vairoto sociālekonomisko nevienlīdzību pasaulē, kas, pateicoties komunikāciju un transporta tehnoloģijām, kļūst arvien "mazāka", pieaug to privātpersonu skaits, kas ir gatavi pirkt ķermeņa daļas un to, kas gatavi tās pārdot. Es domāju orgānu tirdzniecību. Visbiežāk cilvēki par orgānu transplantiem ir dzirdējuši kontekstā ar ziedojumiem, no radinieka dzīves laikā, vai arī, kad īpašnieks savu ķermeni pēc nāves atļāvis izmantot medicīniskos nolūkos. Kaut kur perifērijā klīst arī nostāsti par nozagtu, vai pārdotu nieri. Iespējams, šo nostāstu nepastāvīgais raksturs ir tas, kas traucē tos uztver nopietni. Bet tas ir pietiekami nopietni, lai tam pievērstu uzmanību.
Tāpēc, ja kādam interesē,šeit ir raksts par Nancy Scheper - Hughes veikto lauka pētījumu - izmeklēšanu.
Kā arī īsa filma, Organs Across Borders

p.s. ja kāds ir ieinteresēts un gadās būt Londonā, tad iekš British Museum lecture series: Thursday, May 12, 2011 “Citizenship and Social Responsibility: Engaged Anthropology and Organ Trafficking in a Biotechnical Era” Nancy Scheper-Hughes, University of California, Berkeley