Global Bioethics最新文献

In this article, I explain what makes a global bioethics "feminist" and why I think this development makes a better bioethics. Before defending this assertion explicitly, I engage in some preliminary work. First, I attempt to define global bioethics, showing why the so-called feminist sameness-difference debate [are men and women fundamentally the same or fundamentally different?] is of relevance to this attempt. I then discuss the difference between rights-based feminist approaches to global bioethics and care-based feminist approaches to global bioethics. Next, I agree with a significant number of feminist bioethicists that care is a more fundamental moral value and practice than justice. Finally, I conclude that feminists' insights about care, even more than rights, can bring us closer to achieving an inclusive, diverse, and fair feminist global bioethics.

Bioethics should pay more attention to globalization and some of its consequences than it has done so far. The COVID-19 pandemic would not have been possible without globalization, which has also increased some of its negative consequences. Globalization has intensified wildlife trade in the world. One of the main hypotheses about the origin of this pandemic is that it originated in illegal forms of wildlife trade in China. In the last 30 or 40 years, there have been zoonotic outbreaks at a much frequent pace than before, many of those have been related to wildlife trade. Legal and illegal wildlife trade has grown in the shadow of globalization. Second, globalization has had a huge impact on the redistribution of wealth in the world. Since 1990 income inequality has increased in most high- and in many middle- and low-income countries. A country's level of pre-COVID income inequality is the best predictor of the COVID death rate. These two issues are not unrelated. People living in poverty in LMIC tend to suffer more from infectious diseases and tend to be marginalized from the health sector. Additionally, poverty tends to reproduce the conditions under which zoonotic diseases can more easily spread.

"The Role of Care" is a commentary on "Towards a Feminist Global Ethics," by Rosemarie Tong.

The Covid-19 pandemic is associated with an increase in ethics publications and an upsurge of interest in global bioethics. This commentary argues that global bioethics is broader than international bioethics, as defined by Macklin, because the nature of moral problems is determined by processes and practices of globalization, and because a broader theoretical perspective is required. Such perspective acknowledges the connectedness and relationality of human beings, as assumed in the care-based feminist bioethics defended by Tong. The commentary finally claims that a rights-based approach is not opposed to but reinforces a care-based global bioethics.

A truly global bioethics involves cooperation and collaboration among countries. Most of the articles published in bioethics journals address a problem that exists in one or more countries, but the articles typically do not discuss solutions that require collaboration or cooperation. COVAX is one example of proposed international cooperation related to the current COVID-19. pandemic. Yet it is evident that nations have been proceeding on their own with little, if any collaboration. Despite international research ethics guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO), an article published under WHO auspices violates an ethical principle rejecting "double standards" in the conduct of global research. The COVID pandemic provides an opportunity for countries to learn from the recent lack of international cooperation and employ a multi-national strategy in future global health crises.

This article addresses the bioethical challenges raised by end-of-life care (EoLC) from the perspective of Islamic normativity. Rejecting positivist positions, it argues for the use of a flexible approach midway between a deontological conception of human life as having a sacred value that cannot be bargained over, as represented by the teachings of Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī's, and one that introduces considerations of pain (alam) and pleasure (ladhdah) into ethical evaluations, as expounded by the jurist Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. Under this approach, described as "Islamic evaluator relativity," moral agents formulate a normative position tailored to their beliefs and the circumstances of the case, in which the right course of action is expressed as a value judgement (amr ijtihādi) and the evaluator (mujtahid) is rewarded regardless of the choices they make. Keywords: Islamic bioethics, End-of-life-care, bioethics, normative ethics.

This article draws on key normative principles grounded in important values - solidarity, partiality and friendliness - in African philosophy to think critically and deeply about the ethical challenges around returning individual genetic research findings in African genomics research. Precisely, we propose that the normative implication of solidarity, partiality and friendliness is that returning findings should be considered as a gesture of goodwill to participants to the extent that it constitutes acting for their well-being. Concretely, the value of friendliness may imply that one ought to return actionable results to participants even when their preferences regarding feedback are unknown. Notwithstanding, returning individual genetic results will have a cost implication. The cost of feeding back is relevant in the context of African genomics research projects, which are often funded by international sponsors and should be researched further.

Introduction: Quality of Life (QOL) is essential for healthy aging and through the WHOQOL-Old, it is possible to analyze factors that increase vulnerability and reduce QOL. Aligned with healthy aging is Potter's global bioethics proposing expanded ethics and social justice.

Objective: To analyze the QOL of Brazilian elderly from the perspective of Potteŕs global bioethics.

Method: Analytical observational research with a quantitative approach composed of 280 Brazilian, aged 60 or over, of both gender, volunteers, who answered the WHOQOL-Old online.

Result: Global score of 77.9%, with the mean ± standard deviation: Functioning of the senses 86% (17.22 ± 2.80); Autonomy 78.5% (15.7 ± 2.60); Past, present, and future activities 77.3% (15.46 ± 2.34); Social participation 74.9% (14.99 ± 2.62); Death and dying 71.6% (14.33 ± 3.88) and Intimacy 79.1% (15.82 ± 2.82).

Conclusion: Elderly perceived their QOL positively. In the quest to promote healthy aging, it is necessary to broaden the vision for social justice proposed by Potteŕs global bioethics.