Join us, Saturday, June 20, 2026, for the Romanell Workshop featuring the keynote by Steve Gilles Quinnipiac Law School Emeritus) “Pro-Life Gradualism after Dobbs”. The event includes presentations by: Phil Reed (Canisius College/Romanell Fellow); David Hershenov (UB/Romanell Fellow); and, Jaron Cheung (UB Grad Student). The workshop opens at 9:30 a.m. in Room 141, Park Hall, North Campus.
ROMANELL WORKSHOP PROGRAM
Location: Park Hall Room 141, UB North Campus
Saturday, June 20, 2026
9:30-10:45. Phil Reed (Canisius College/Romanell Fellow) “Terminal Sedation”
10:45-11:00 Break
11:00-12:30. Steve Gilles - Keynoter (Quinnipiac Law School Emeritus) “Pro-Life Gradualism after Dobbs”
3:30-4:45 David Hershenov (UB/Romanell Fellow) “Should Death be Defined as the Permanent or Irreversible Cessation of Life?”
4:45-5:00 Break
5:00-6:15 Jaron Cheung (UB Grad Student) “The Value of the Disabled”
The workshop is open to the public. For more information or advanced copies of the papers, contact David Hershenov at dh25@buffalo.edu
JOIN OUR LISTSERV
We invite you to join the Romanell Center ListServe to receive timely announcements about our events, zoom lectures, conferences, workshops, blog updates, upcoming activities, and much more. To join our ListServ, please send your name, affiliation (if any), and your email address to: David Hershenov, dh25@buffalo.edu
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics (TMB) Journal has published the paper, "Towards a Dispositionalist (and Unifying) Account of Addiction", by RCCE Fellow Robert Kelly. Paper Abstract: Addiction theorists have often utilized the metaphor of the blind men and the elephant to illustrate the complex nature of addiction and the varied methodological approaches to studying it.
A common purported upshot is skeptical in nature: due to these complexities, it is not possible to offer a unifying account of addiction. I think that this is a mistake. The elephant is real – there is a there there. Here, I defend a dispositionalist account of addiction as the systematic disposition to fail to control one’s desires to engage in certain types of behaviors. I explain this position, defend the inclusion of desires and impaired control, and flesh out the notion of systematicity central to my account. I then try to show how my dispositionalist framework can unify the disparate, seemingly incompatible accounts of addiction (and their respective methodological approaches). I close with a brief plan to extend and implement my account.