Despite the consensus that the right to emigrate is a fundamental right, it is sometimes argued that this right may be overridden by a countervailing duty to stay. Concerned with the impact of the so-called “brain drain”, many liberal political philosophers suggest that the emigration of large numbers of highly qualified people can severely harm their states of origin, and that, consequently, highly qualified professionals have, at least under certain conditions, a duty to stay.

In this paper, I argue against the duty to stay. I first present what I take to be the strongest argument in support of a duty to stay: the argument that potential migrants have a duty to stay as part of the general duty of individuals to create and support just institutions. Then, I argue that this argument raises a normative paradox. It seems that the worse the conditions in one’s country of origin are, the stronger one’s duty would be to stay and support the creation of just institutions. And yet, an exit route from bad conditions in one’s state of origin was precisely what was taken to justify the right to emigrate. It seems that the more reasons we would have to recognize someone’s right to migrate, the more reasons we would also have to argue that they have a duty to not migrate. To resolve this paradox, I propose a reconceptualization of the duty to create and support just institutions. I suggest that the paradox arises because of the implicit adoption of a sedentarist and state-centric interpretation of the duty to create and support just institutions. I argue, firstly, that the duty to support just institutions can be considered to justify not only staying in one’s country, but also leaving that country. Secondly, I suggest that the duty to support just institutions is not necessarily limited to the support of state-level institutions. Last, I hold that the duty to create and support just institutions is sometimes compatible with breaking ties with one’s state of origin, and that each person is the best judge of whether this applies in their own case.

Join the event online here!

The literature on biomedical conflicts of interest tends to focus on the ways in which research integrity and patient safety are prejudiced when researchers are funded by the Pharmaceutical Industry. But similar ethical problems also arise at the macro level when institutions, such as hospitals and universities depend on drug company funding to support research or patient care. Over the past half century, the University of Toronto and three of its affiliated hospitals – Sick Kids, CAMH, and UHN – have been involved in a series of major scandals. One scandal in particular - involving the U of T, Sick Kids Hospital, Apotex and Dr. Nancy Olivieri – achieved worldwide infamy and has resulted, to date, in the publication of four books, a blockbuster movie, a plethora of scholarly articles, plus innumerable newspaper and magazine stories and television programmes. Another book is on the way, and a Netflix series is on the cards. In this talk, I’m going to explore the conceptual elements of “conflict of interest” and show how institutional conflict of interest lies at the heart of this greatest of all Canadian academic scandals. I’ll also discuss role played by academic leaders and hospital bioethicists.

Join the event online here!