Monash Bioethics Review最新文献

Creating simulations of the world can be a valuable way to test new ideas, predict the future, and broaden our understanding of a given topic. Presumably, the more similar the simulation is to the real world, the more transferable the knowledge generated in the simulation will be and, therefore, the more useful. As such, there is an incentive to create more advanced and representative simulations of the real world. Simultaneously, there are ethical and practical limitation to what can be done in human and animal research, so creating simulated beings to stand in their place could be a way of advancing research while avoiding some of these issues. However, the value of representativeness implies that there will be an incentive to create simulated beings as similar to real-world humans as possible to better transfer the knowledge gained from that research. This raises important ethical questions related to how we ought to treat advanced simulated beings and consider if they might have autonomy and wellbeing concerns that ought to be respected. As such, the uncertainty and potential of this line of research should be carefully considered before the simulation begins.

This paper contributes to the growing discussion about how to mitigate pharmaceutical pollution, which is a threat to human, animal, and environmental health as well as a potential driver of antimicrobial resistance. It identifies market approval of pharmaceuticals as one of the most powerful ways to shape producer behavior and highlights that applying this tool raises ethical issues given that it might impact patients' access to medicines. The paper identifies seven different policy options that progressively give environmental considerations increased priority in the approval process, identifies ethically relevant interests affected by such policies, and makes explicit tensions and necessary tradeoffs between these interests. While arguing that the current European regulation gives insufficient weight to environmental considerations, the paper highlights concerns with the strongest policy options, on the grounds that these may very well endanger patients' access to effective medication.

Antimicrobial resistance has been termed a 'silent pandemic', a 'hidden killer.' This language might indicate a threat of significant future harm to humans, animals, and the environment from resistant microbes. If that harm is uncertain but serious, the precautionary principle might apply to the issue, and might require taking 'precautionary measures' to avert the threat of antimicrobial resistance, including stewardship interventions like antibiotic prescription caps, bans on certain uses in farming sectors, and eliminating over-the-counter uses of antibiotics. The precautionary principle is a useful tool in ethical analyses of antimicrobial stewardship measures, but as I argue in this article, it ought not be used as a standalone tool. The principle considers the magnitude of harms to be averted and those arising from precautionary measures, but-importantly-it does not consider the distribution of those harms. That may raise issues of social justice if the harms of stewardship measures befall already disadvantaged populations. To avoid this blind spot in ethical analysis using the precautionary principle, it ought never be used alone, but rather always alongside justice-considering ethical concepts such as reciprocity, benefit-sharing, or a just transition.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global threat to human and livestock health. Although AMR is driven by use of antimicrobials, it is often attributed to "misuse" and "overuse", particularly for antibiotics. To curb resistance, there has been a global call to embrace new forms of moral personhood that practice "proper" use, including prescription, dispensing and consumption of antimicrobials, especially antibiotics. This paper seeks to reflect on complex questions about how morality has become embedded /embodied in the AMR discourse as presented in the data collected on antimicrobial prescription, dispensing and use in human and livestock health in Tanzania, primarily focusing on antibiotics.

Methods: This reflection is anchored on Jarrett Zigon's morality framework that is comprised of three dimensions of discourse; the institutional, public, and embodied dispositions. The data we use within this framework are derived from a qualitative study targeting human and animal health care service providers and community members in northern Tanzania. Data were collected through 28 in-depth interviews and ten focus group discussions and analysed through content analysis after translation and transcription. In addition, a review of the Tanzania's National Action Plans on antimicrobial resistance was conducted.

Results: Application of the framework demonstrates points of convergence and divergence in the institutional morality discourse articulated by the Tanzania National Action Plans, the public discourse and the embodied dispositions/ lived experiences of human and animal health care service providers and community members. We demonstrate that AMR is not just associated with "inappropriate" behaviour on the part of drug prescribers, dispensers, and users but also with shortcomings in health systems and service delivery.

Conclusion: Antibiotic dispensing and use practices that may be associated with the development of AMR should not be viewed in isolation from the broader health context within which they occur.

There are ethical dilemmas faced by clinicians when responding to using unregistered medical devices, such as innovative internet technologies for managing type 1 diabetes mellitus. This chronic disease significantly impacts patients' health, requiring intensive daily activities like blood glucose monitoring, insulin injections, and specific dietary recommendations. Recent technological advances, including continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps, have been shown to improve glycemic control. Di-it Yourself Artificial Pancreas Systems are emerging open-source automated delivery methods initiated by the diabetes community, although they are not clinically evaluated and present a liability challenge for healthcare providers. To use them or not? Should parents and healthcare providers use such technology that helps, but is not proven?Having all of that in mind, we argue that the World Health Organization's (WHO) definition of health is outdated, advocating for the "Extended Health Hypothesis". This hypothesis claims that health extends beyond traditional biological boundaries to include essential functional structures like diabetes-related technology, making technology a part of a patient's health. This view aligns with the "Extended Mind Hypothesis," suggesting that health should include elements beyond organic material if they are vital to a patient's functions.In the commentary, we highlight that both naturalist and normative conceptions of health support the extended health hypothesis, emphasizing that human health is not confined to organic material. This perspective raises critical questions about whether devices like insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors are integral to a patient's health and whether their malfunction constitutes a form of disease. Devices are considered integral to health, there is no ethical dilemma in using unregistered medical devices for managing type 1 diabetes. Finally, we call for reevaluating the definitions of health and patients, particularly for children with type 1 diabetes using advanced technologies. It asserts that the optimal use of such devices represents a new form of health, creating a health-device symbiosis that should be evaluated with the child's best interests in mind.

Research on gender and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) beyond women's biological susceptibility is limited. A gender and equity lens in AMR research is necessary to promote gender equality and support the effectiveness, uptake, and sustainability of real-world AMR solutions. We argue that it is an ethical and social justice imperative to include gender and related intersectional issues in AMR research and implementation. An intersectional exploration of the interplay between people's diverse identities and experiences, including their gender, socio-economic status, race, disability, age, and sexuality, may help us understand how these factors reinforce AMR risk and vulnerability and ensure that interventions to reduce the risk of AMR do not impact unevenly. This paper reports on the findings of a systematic scoping review on the interlinkages between AMR, gender and other socio-behavioural characteristics to identify priority knowledge gaps in human and animal health in LMICs. The review focused on peer-reviewed and grey literature published between 2017 and 2022. Three overarching themes were gendered division of caregiving roles and responsibilities, gender power relations in decision-making, and interactions between gender norms and health-seeking behaviours. Research that fails to account for gender and its intersections with other lines of disadvantage, such as race, class and ability, risks being irrelevant and will have little impact on the continued and dangerous spread of AMR. We provide recommendations for integrating an intersectional gender lens in AMR research, policy and practice.

In this article, building on our multidisciplinary expertise on philosophy, anthropology, and social study of microbes, we discuss and analyze new approaches to justice that have emerged in thinking with more-than-human contexts: microbes, animals, environments and ecosystems. We situate our analysis in theory of and practical engagements with antimicrobial resistance and climate emergency that both can be considered super-wicked problems. In offering solutions to such problems, we discuss a more-than-human justice orientation, seeking to displace human exceptionalism while still engaging with human social justice issues. We offer anthropological narratives to highlight how more-than-human actors already play an important role in environmental and climate politics. These narratives further justify the need for new ethical frameworks, out of which we, for further development outside the scope of this article, suggest a queer feminist posthumanist one.

Despite significant progress in the legalization and decriminalization of abortion in Australia over the past decade or more recent research and government reports have made it clear that problems with the provision of services remain. This essay examines such issues and sets forth the view that such issues can and should be seen as (bio)ethical concerns. Whilst conscientious objection-the right to opt-out of provision on the basis of clear ethical reservations-is a legally and morally permissible stance that healthcare professionals can adopt, this does not mean those working in healthcare can simply elect not to be providers absent a clear ethical rationale. Furthermore, simple non-provision would seem to contravene the basic tenants of medical professionalism as well as the oft raised claims of the healthcare professions to put the needs of patients first. Recognizing that much of the progress that has been made over the past three decades can be attributed to the efforts of dedicated healthcare professionals who have dedicated their careers to meeting the profession's collective responsibilities in this area of women's health and reproductive healthcare, this paper frames the matter as a collective ethical lapse on the part of healthcare professionals, the healthcare professions and those involved in the management of healthcare institutions. Whilst also acknowledging that a range of complex factors have led to the present situation, that a variety of steps need to be taken to ensure the proper delivery of services that are comprehensive, and that there has been an absence of critical commentary and analysis of this topic by bioethicists, I conclude that there is a need to (re)assess the provision of abortion in Australia at all levels of service delivery and for the healthcare professions and healthcare professionals to take lead in doing so. That this ought to be done is clearly implied by the healthcare profession's longstanding commitment to prioritizing the needs of patient over their own interests.

The Roe v. Wade decision was overturned in the United States in 2022. This implies that while abortion remains legal in most jurisdictions, it is no longer a constitutional right, thus paving the way for making it illegal. Ever since the Roe v. Wade decision, there have been bombings and other violent attacks against abortion providers and abortion clinics, claiming some fatal victims. The overwhelming majority of anti-abortion activists condemn such violence. At the same time, most anti-abortion activists consider the fetus a person, and ultimately believe that abortion is a form of murder. In this article, I argue that if abortion is murder, then anti-abortion violent activists have moral license to bomb abortion clinics. To do so, I rely on the principles of Just War theory. Ultimately, I rely on a modus tollens argument to prove that abortion is not murder: if abortion is murder, then activists have moral justification in bombing abortion clinics; activists do not have moral justification in bombing abortion clinics; therefore, abortion is not murder. Apart from attempting to prove that abortion is not murder, I also attempt to show the incoherence of the anti-abortion view.

What is the true significance of biological kinship? During the last decades, it seemed to be uncontroversial that abandoned and even adopted people feel the negative impact of biological parents' absence throughout life in several ways (Miller et al. 2000; Keyes, Margaret A., Anu Sharma, Irene J Elkins, and William G. Iacono, Matt McGue. 2008. The Mental Health of US Adolescents Adopted in Infancy. Archive Pediatric Adolescense Medicine 162(5): 419-425.). However, in the case of people conceived via "third-party reproduction", especially in sperm donation, the disruption of the kinship network derived from natural bonds tends to be presented as something irrelevant. This article disputes that assumption, explores its relationship with a deconstructivist vision that presents kinship as a purely social construct and defends the personal and existential value of a person's biological bonds with her parents. While analysing the anthropological shift inherent to the way some political discourses present the nuclear family and heterologous biotechnology, it proposes renewed philosophical attention on the significance of filiation and human affinity. This article argues for the density of genealogical ties and defends that the consecration of an individual "right to a child", namely (but not exclusively) through the normalised access to sperm banks, is incompatible with the rights of the child, since it deprives people from knowing not only who but also how is their father.