The Socratic Inquiry Newsletter Vol 3 Issue 7 (2021)

THE SOCRATIC INQUIRY
The Official Newsletter of the Socrates Journal
VOL. 3 ISSUE 7 2021 (JUN 7 - JUL 4)
Letter from the Editor
Featured Articles
IPARN Research Committee on Migration
Join Our Team
Subscriptions Information 2021
In this Issue
Editor
Dr. Michelle L. Blakely
Editor, Journal Section - Public Administration
Assistant Professor of Social and Administrative Pharmacy
University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA
E-Mail: michelle.blakely@socratesjournal.com
Editor
Assistant
Dr. Curtis R. Blakely
Criminal Justice Lecturer
University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA
E-Mail: cblakely@socratesjournal.com
Date of Publication: Sunday 4 July 2021 Wyoming, USA

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
Letter From The Editor
Welcome to July!
Hello, and thanks for joining us this month!
In this issue of our Newsletter, we present two featured articles. The
first article is written by our very own Assistant Editor, Dr. Curtis
Blakely. Dr. Blakely's article is titled, "The Effects of COVID-19 on the
Educational Process." His article provides a discussion of the state of
education in light of the current pandemic. It's an extremely
interesting and timely article!
The second article is written by Master of Philosophy student, Navya Singh. Navya's article is
titled, "The Moral Basis of Euthanasia." Her article presents her perspective of the moral and
ethical arguments regarding the use of euthanasia as a medical option.
In addition to these featured articles, the IPARN Foundation is creating a Research Committee
on Migration. If you are interested in learning more about the committee's work, please see
page 10 of this Newsletter.
Thank you so much for your continued support of, and interest in, our Newsletter! We hope all
is well with you and that you are productive and happy! Take care and make sure to join us
again next month.
Warm regards,
Michelle
Page No. 01

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
Featured Article
The Effects of COVID-19 on the
Educational Process
Author: Curtis R. Blakely, Ph.D.
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY, USA
By now, the world has been in the grips of a pandemic for nearly two years. There have
been an untold number of deaths. Borders have been closed, immigration/tourism has
been halted and makeshift hospitals and morgues have become the norm. Vulnerable
populations have been disproportionately affected with the poor, elderly and children
suffering greatly. Not only has this pandemic been a public-health nightmare, but it has
severely impacted the global economy. Local, state and federal governments (including
entire nations) are struggling to keep abreast with the hardships that the virus has
wrought on their communities. Tax bases/surpluses have been depleted, government
services have been curtailed, and the supply chain has been unable to keep store
shelves stocked.
While all of us has been personally impacted by these events, for those of us in the
education profession, we have seen several innovative approaches that have helped us
continue to teach our student populations. For example, while the traditional approach
to teaching involves the classroom, mandatory practices related to social isolation have
largely made this approach impossible. Instead, professionals within this field have
necessarily been required to develop new approaches to ensure that the world’s
Page No. 02

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
student population continues to benefit from the educational process. While primary, secondary,
undergraduate and graduate students have all been impacted, this brief article is being written
from the perspective of a college professor.
Prior to the pandemic, alternative means of teaching were often viewed by traditionalists as
imperfect, ineffective and of low-quality. Schools that specialized in distance-learning were often
viewed as an acceptable option only for non-traditional working students or those that could not
otherwise attend a traditional school. Oftentimes, these schools marketed themselves to
members of the military who could not otherwise attend school due to their schedules or
deployments.
Considering the present situation, even the most ardent traditionalist has begun to concede that
internet-based approaches may be beneficial. Among these approaches are delivery platforms
that include synchronous courses (which require students to meet via a virtual classroom),
asynchronous courses (that do not require virtual class meetings but do require student
participation by way of watching recorded lectures, and completing readings, assignments and
tests), and hybrid courses that are based on a mixture of these two approaches.
Overall, these approaches have now become mainstream. No longer is distance-leaning viewed
as a secondary choice. Instead, synchronous, asynchronous and hybrid courses, all of which are
based upon internet delivery methods, have permitted, for the most part, colleges and
universities worldwide to continue to deliver instructional materials. This has not only legitimized
distance learning, but it has allowed educational processes to continue largely uninhibited. It
appears that those few schools that have historically specialized in on-line distance-learning
have found a resurgence of interests among today’s student populations. Similarly, traditional
schools of higher learning have adapted to the changing expectations and challenges that they
are facing. As such, from the perspective of the contemporary professor, the evolutionary
process affecting the classroom has permitted students to learn from nearly every corner of the
globe regardless of their location, employment status, or ability to locate adequate
transportation/lodging. At no time in history has higher education been more accessible.
Page No. 03

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
While the effects of COVID have been devastating, it has created an opportunity for innovative
and progressive individuals to seek out newer, safer and more cost-efficient ways to interact with
their clientele. This has resulted in an explosion of new ideas and approaches as they pertain to
how educators perceive students, the classroom, and their positions as leaders in the larger
global delivery of information and knowledge. With inoculations against COVID increasing, it is
only a matter of time before this virus is eliminated. However, even in its absence, students will
continue to benefit from those approaches currently being developed.
Page No. 04

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
Featured Article
The Moral Basis of Euthanasia
Author: Navya Singh
Master of Philosophy Student
St. Stephen's College,
University of Delhi, India
Abstract: One of the major contemporary issues, which Applied Ethics deals with, is
euthanasia. There are different perspectives including political, social, and even religious
that argue for its moral basis. In philosophy also, various normative ethical theories such
as Deontology, Teleology, and Utilitarianism have tried to provide extremely strong and
debatable arguments. We, as students of moral philosophy, study these theories along
with the case studies to get a holistic account of any issue before judging it to be right or
wrong. This essay is an attempt to philosophically answer or provide justifications to
what has been argued before. The idea here is to critically understand the main issues
pertaining to euthanasia and why it is immoral in my view.
Keywords: Euthanasia, Consent, Killing, Duty
Euthanasia is a practice of assisting someone in dying actively by injecting lethal drugs
such as potassium chloride or passively by withdrawing life support system, basic needs
such as food, oxygen, etc., Different countries have rejected this practice while some
have legalized it only in the passive form. Originally, the option of being euthanized was
available to only those who were in a vegetative state with no alternative treatment left.
Over the past few years, the ongoing debate about the legalization of euthanasia has
spread from the aspect of physical vegetative state to mental illnesses such as
depression. Euthanasia in any form must be banned because it is inhumane.
Page No. 05

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
In this essay, I have taken up the three reasons that are of utmost importance in my view. Firstly,
euthanasia is an act of killing. There is no denying that a deliberate act of inducing lethal drugs is
involved. Even in the passive form, there is an intentional act of withdrawing the life support
system. In the latter form, depriving a person of a basic support system such as oxygen, food,
etc., not only goes against the individual’s right to live but also against the Doctor’s Oath. The
sole purpose of which is to save lives. Letting a person die when one can instead choose to work
towards saving him is immoral. One can also view the right to die from the perspective of or
“right to take life or the right to have one’s life taken” which is a blatant outcry to legalize killing”
(Alcorn, 1994).
The proponents may argue here that individual rights are not contradicted in cases where
consent is given. This is also known as Voluntary Euthanasia. In this form of euthanasia, the
patient can give verbal or written consent to be euthanized. Any form of consent like a will that
was written in advance can also be considered. In contrast to this, Involuntary Euthanasia is
when the patient is euthanized without being consented to. There is a third category that is
legalized in many countries in its passive form. When a patient is in a ‘vegetative’ state such as in
comatose or a child. Such cases are classified as Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. We, therefore, have
three kinds of euthanasia that can be performed either actively or passively. The point, however,
is not to argue against any specific kind of euthanasia but to reject the whole practice itself.
The consent provided by the patient cannot justify the act of getting euthanized. ‘Noa Pothoven’,
a Dutch teenage girl stopped eating and drinking, eventually leading to her death in 2019. Noa
was anorexic and was being treated for depression and PTSD. The girl asked the court to
provide her with support in the form of lethal drugs to commit assisted suicide viz, euthanasia.
However, the refusal led her to take the matter into her own hands and go on a hunger strike.
This case made headlines in the Netherlands where the practice of euthanasia is now legal. If
consent could justify euthanasia, then Noa’s suicide will pose no contradiction to the moral basis
of euthanasia.
The proponents can argue here that the best interests of the patient matter more than consent.
Many times, it can be the case that the patient is a baby or is comatose. In these cases, it is in
the best interest of the patient to not continue to suffer and end life. Firstly, I want to ask that on
what basis is the judgment of best interest made by a doctor. One of the very common ways
Page No. 06

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
of basing this judgment is to have a paternal outlook towards the patient. The doctor
acts as a parental figure i.e., dominant figure in deciding what’s best for the patient even
if he cannot objectively say whether the act of euthanasia will be better for the patient or
not due to advancements in technology. This point will be discussed in detail later. A
patient’s autonomy is ignored or given less importance within this outlook. Autonomy
involves choice “rather than having one imposed on by others or allowing circumstances
to dictate” (Young, 2009).
Those who are paralyzed from below the neck can easily give verbal consent too. But
this simple verbal expression cannot make something that is the wrong turn into right
only because the person is consenting. A patient could be consenting out of various
reasons such as physical and financial dependence on the family, demotivated by the
situation, feeling like a burden, etc. All these factors can apply to people with depression
or other mental illnesses too. However, most people will feel squeamish about applying
the same conclusion here. It is wrong, therefore, to think that it is morally acceptable if a
person consents to assisted suicide. It must be taken into account that we live in a
society. A society that is governed by a single or a group or representatives. The citizens
are not free in an absolute sense and cannot consent to anything they want. Consent,
therefore, cannot be an appropriate justification.
Secondly, euthanasia objectifies human life. Killing someone or letting someone die
downgrades a person to the level of a mere object that can be thrown away. It places
the value of human life on utility or usefulness. If a person is no longer useful to society
or productive then, performing euthanasia is supposed to be morally acceptable. The
term ‘vegetable’ itself strips off the dignity of a person and takes away all that makes it a
person. Their existence is not valued anymore for itself but as a means. Many
philosophers from centuries have argued against the immorality of treating people as
mere means. One among them states “act that you use humanity, in your own person as
well as in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a
means” (Kant & Gregor, 2012).
Page No. 07

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
The proponents give arguments such as keeping a person in a vegetative state on lifesupport
drains both the family and the patient emotionally and financially. However, this
claim gives a piece of stronger evidence for what I’m arguing. Once someone has
become dependent without any physical productiveness, it no longer remains a person.
What remains is someone who used to be a person. This view is utilitarian and to argue
against utilitarianism is a task for some other time. My argument hereby rejects any
utilitarian grounds or reasons that are given by the proponents of euthanasia.
It has been rightly said, “it is our duty to perform those actions which can provide the
basis of a universal law” (Kant & Gregor, 2012). To do that which we would agree to if
done to us. The moral worth of an action depends for him solely on the intention. The
intention to save lives and end suffering cannot result in practicing assisted suicide. It is
against the duty of doctors and the duty of individuals as humans. Even if the intention is
to end the long-term suffering by ending life at once, it cannot be a moral universal law.
Bringing in the case of ‘Noa Pothovon’ one more time where the teenage girl suffered
from sexual abuse during childhood and wanted to die. She argued in court that she is
only surviving and not living, therefore, she wants to cease this daily suffering by putting
an end to her life quickly. The court was right in declining this request. Those who agree
with this judgment agree because Noa was not in a vegetative state, her body parts were
working fine and she could be productive and useful to society. This will only lead us
back to the argument stated against utilitarian grounds.
Whereas, those who agree with this because Noa was young and could have led a good
life by getting proper psychological treatment will only fall prey to a contradiction. In the
cases wherein, the patient is in a vegetative state, the possibility of technological
advancements in the future is ignored. Several diseases did not have any cure earlier.
But, with the development and research in the scientific field, cures and extension in life
became possible. There was a time when even the common fever had no cure.
Furthermore, there are ongoing researches on various diseases such as Alzheimer’s,
cancer, etc., that give hope to those suffering from these diseases to be able to live a
Page No. 08

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
normal life again. Studies and researchers have shown that even paralysis could be cured.
Numerous ongoing research projects and methods are being developed. One of the researchers
has testified in a magazine claiming “Ten years from now, we’ll have people walking as if they
didn’t have a spinal cord injury before.” (Funk, 2019) Thus, in euthanizing, a person is being
rejected the possibility of a better future.
Conclusively, euthanasia devalues human life by allowing the killing of a person, reducing the
person to the status of an object, and denying him the hope and care he deserves.
References
Alcorn, R. (1994, January 1). Eternal Perspective Ministries. Retrieved from epm.org:
https://www.epm.org/resources/1994/Jan/1/euthanasia-mercy-or-murder/.
BBC News. (2019, June 6). Why Dutch teenager Noa's tragic death was misunderstood. Retrieved
from bbc.com: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48541233.
Funk, A. (2019, August 27). Discover. Retrieved from discovermagazine:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/a-cure-for-paralysis-one-scientists-predictiondelivers-mixed-results.
Kant, I., & Gregor, M. (2012). Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge
University Press.
Young, R. (2009). Informed Consent and Patient Autonomy. In H. Kuhse, & P. Singer, A
Companion To Bioethics; Second Edition (pp. 530-541). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. A John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd., Publication.
Page No. 09

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
Research Committee on Migration
As part of the execution of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was signed between
IPARN FOUNDATION, India and the Siirtolaisuusinstituutti - Migration Institute of Finland, Finland,
IPARN Foundation is constituting a Research Committee on Migration to study the migration
issues in developing countries of Asia and transnational migration between Finland and Asia.
Scholars and Researchers who are Interested in joining this research committee are requested
to send their CV, Cover letter and at-least three published research publications to the
Chairman, IPARN Foundation, India through email at: md@iparn.org
Pre-requisite:
Interested Academic/Researcher:
1. must have a Ph.D. or a D.M. degree.
2. must be employed in any academic institution or research organization.
3. must have relevant publication in reputed journals on Migration.
4. must have demonstrated evidence of superior academic and professional achievement.
Most suitable profiles will be contacted by the IPARN Foundation, India for a face-to-face
interview through the Internet.
IPARN Foundation (Integrated Policy and Administrative Research Networking Foundation) is a
Non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of scientific research and exchange of
knowledge in the field of Public Policy and Public Administration, and its ecosystem, and to
contribute to its national and international development.
To learn more, please visit: https://www.iparn.org/
Page No. 10

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
DR ABHA FOUNDATION
A public charitable trust in India working for the development and betterment of vulnerable sections of society
Dr Abha Foundation, India is a public charitable trust registered in India, working for the
development and betterment of vulnerable sections of the society. More specifically, it is
a non-profit organization promoting human development issues and advancement of
scientific research in education. The Foundation sponsors and publishes scholarly
Journal SOCRATES, The Socratic Inquiry (monthly newsletter of the Socrates Journal),
SOCRATES SCHOLARS INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH NETWORK (SSIRN) and
undertakes and encourages other similar projects.
We work for the development of the vulnerable sections of society:
1. Women
2. Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST)
3. Children
4. Aged
5. Disabled
6. Poor migrants
7. People living with HIV/AIDS and Cancer; and
8. Sexual Minorities
Our Objectives:
1. Social and Economic upliftment of the vulnerable sections of society.
2. Establishment and promotion of public health services.
3. Promotion of scientific research and quality education.
4. Relief activities during Natural calamities.
5. Skill development by establishing technical, Non-technical art and culture academics
institutions.
6. Environmental protection.
7. Social Mobilisation and awareness.
8. Rural development.
9. Urban planning.
10. Human Rights.
11. Sustainable development.
12. Women and Youth empowerment.
To know more visit our website drabhafoundation.org
or write an email to info@drabhafoundation.org
Page No. 11

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
JOIN OUR TEAM
Socrates has a team of scholars from 11 + countries who represent the Journal in their
respective countries. We are looking forward to increasing this international
collaboration even further. We invite leading scholars to contribute to this Journal by
submitting their papers, citing articles, and taking part in the editorial process by joining
our editorial team.
Current Openings:
1. Editor
2. International Advisory Board Member (Consultancy position)
3. Reviewer
4. Post-Publication Reviewer
5. Editorial Assistant
To learn more visit: https://www.socratesjournal.com/index.php/SOCRATES/joinourteam
Page No. 12

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
SUBSCRIPTIONS 2021: INDIVIDUAL AND INSTITUTIONAL
Socrates is the official publication of the "Dr Abha Foundation", a public charitable trust in India,
working for the development and betterment of Vulnerable Sections of society. This Journal
publishes innovative, responsive and high-quality research papers. Socrates is an international,
peer-reviewed, scholarly publication that is indexed, and we only accept quality manuscripts for
publication. Our mission behind introducing and initiating this journal is to motivate scholars who
have the willingness to produce and publish quality research and discuss their original research,
thoughts and ideas. We encourage libraries to list this journal among their electronic journal
holdings. The copyright of all content published in Socrates is retained by the authors. However,
all Socrates content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license. We also
encourage individual readers to subscribe to the Journal. Socrates believes in providing quality
material on a timely basis. Since the journal will be of great relevance to individual reader,
organizations and their members, it should be subscribed to for the benefit of all concerned.
Page No. 13

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
Individual Subscriptions:
Socrates offers three types of subscription options for individual readers:
1. Online only: In this option, subscribers can log in into this e-journal's website and enjoy full
online access for one year to all the articles in our database.
2. Online and Print: In this option subscribers enjoy full online access for one year to all the
articles in our database. Along with that, they receive the printed copies of the issues
published in a year to their doorsteps or physical mailing address.
3. Print Only: In this option subscribers receive the printed copies of the issues published in the
year to their doorsteps or physical mailing address for one year.
Visit this webpage to know more:
https://www.socratesjournal.com/index.php/SOCRATES/information/readers
Institutional Subscriptions:
Socrates offers three types of subscription options for Institutions.
1. Online only: In this option, subscriber institutions are granted with full online access for one
year to all the articles in our e-Journal.
2. Online and Print: In this option subscriber institutions enjoy full online access for one year to
all the articles in published in our e-journal. Along with that they also receive the printed
copies of issues published in a year to their doorsteps or physical mailing address.
3. Print Only: In this option, subscriber institutions receive the printed copies of issues published
to their doorsteps or physical mailing address for one year.
Visit this webpage to know more:
https://www.socratesjournal.com/index.php/SOCRATES/information/librarians
We do not offer any offline mode of subscription.
Please subscribe to our journal through our e-journal's website only.
Subscriptions Contact: subscription@socratesjournal.com
Page No. 14

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
NCS Portal
Newsletter Content Submission
Portal
Registered members of the Socrates Journal who are
interested in submitting their content for review and
consideration of publication in this Newsletter can now
submit their content through the Newsletter content
submission portal. It is available at the following link:
https://www.socratesjournal.com/index.php/SOCRATES/ncs
-portal
Through this portal, you are able to submit the following:
1. Your featured article for inclusion in the Newsletter,
2. Information about the latest researches and research papers from your domain,
3. Information about upcoming conferences,
4. Information about new jobs and research opportunities,
5. Information about new projects and funding opportunities,
6. Information about new books and book reviews,
7. Information about your work on any article/research paper for submission to the Newsletter,
The information may be included in the Newsletter as an 'Upcoming Featured Article'.
8. Information about new International organizations,
9. Any new information related to your area of research interest, and
10. Information about your recently awarded PhD.
and much more...
For queries, please contact the Editor of the Newsletter, Dr. Michelle Blakely, Assistant Editor,
Journal Section - Political Science, Assistant Professor of Social and Administrative Pharmacy,
University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA. E-mail: michelle.blakely@socratesjournal.com
Page No. 15

V O L . 3 I S S U E 7 2 0 2 1 ( J U N 7 - J U L 4 )
The Socratic Inquiry
Submission Guidelines
To submit your content such as new research updates, articles and research to this Newsletter, please
contact Newsletter Editor: Dr Michelle Blakely, Editor, Journal Section - Public Administration, Assistant
Professor of Social and Administrative Pharmacy University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA. E-
Mail: michelle.blakely@socratesjournal.com.
To join the advisory committee of this Newsletter, please write an email to
editor@socratesjournal.com.
To subscribe to the Newsletter, please visit:
https://www.socratesjournal.com/News/?p=subscribe&id=1
For any other issue and queries, please contact the Editor of the Newsletter, Dr Michelle Blakely,
Assistant Editor, Journal Section - Political Science, Assistant Professor of Social and Administrative
Pharmacy, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, the USA at michelle.blakely@socratesjournal.com.
PLEASE NOTE: All submissions should be received by the Editor of the Newsletter no later
than 5:00 pm Mountain Standard Time (MST) U.S. the last Thursday of the month to be
considered for inclusion in the next month's Newsletter. Submissions received after 5:00
pm MST on the last Thursday of each month will be considered for a future Newsletter.
Disclaimer
Views expressed in articles are the personal opinion of the author/contributor and are in no sense
official, neither the journal SOCRATES nor any member of the journal and this Newsletter is
responsible. In case any research paper/Article is found previously published elsewhere, the author/
contributor will be entirely responsible. There would be no responsibility of any member of the journal
and/or the Newsletter.
All the new updates included in this Newsletter have been carefully checked by the advisory
committee members but in case any error is found, the Newsletter team and the journal Socrates
would not be responsible. Please do not forget to verify the details yourself before following.
CANVA.COM Website has been used to create this Newsletter and all the images used are from
CANVA.
Page No. 16

This Newsletter is published by:
WWW.DRABHAFOUNDATION.ORG