New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body最新文献

The belief that genomics requires rethinking the 'social contract' to realize its potential has received backing from leading figures within bioethics. The case for a new social contract is anchored in notions of solidarity, altruism or the common good. But national genome sequencing is playing out against a backdrop of greatly increased involvement, and investment, of governments in their life science sectors - creating a sort of international race to drive innovation, stimulate growth, and create the most competitive life science sectors. Recent developments in the UK suggest this agenda is detrimental to openness and transparency, as well as independent oversight, and meaningful public consultation. These aspects of governance, I argue, should be reconceived as part of the requirements of good governance. Further, a new social contract should involve a commitment by government, and industry, to educate the public about life science - and should be extended to life science more generally.

Our ability to generate genomic data is currently well ahead of our ability to understand what they mean, raising challenges about how best to engage with them. This article considers ethical aspects of work with such data, focussing on research contexts that are intertwined with clinical care. We discuss the identifying nature of genomic data, the medical information intrinsic within them, and their linking of people within a biological family. We go on to consider what this means for consent, the importance of thoughtful sharing of genomic data, the challenge of constructing meaningful findings, and the legacy of unequal representation in genomic datasets. We argue that the ongoing success of genomic data research relies on public trust in the enterprise: to justify this trust, we need to ensure robust stewarding, and wide engagement about the ethical issues inherent in such practices.

As a psychologist and an ethicist, we have explored empirically newborn screening consent and communication processes. In this paper we consider the impact on families if newborn screening uses whole genome sequencing. We frame this within the World Health Organization's definition of health and contend that proposals to use whole genome sequencing in newborn screening take into account the ethical, practical and psychological impact of such screening. We argue that the important psychological processes occurring in the neonatal phase necessitate a clear justification that providing risk information at this stage provides a health benefit. We illustrate how research on current newborn screening can inform whole genome sequencing debates, whilst highlighting important gaps. Obtaining explicit, voluntary, and sufficiently informed consent for newborn screening is challenging, however we stress that such consent is ethically and legally appropriate and psychologically and practically important. We conclude by outling how this might be done.

The pelvic exam is used to assess the health of female reproductive organs and so involves digital penetration by a physician. However, it is common practice for medical students to acquire experience in administering pelvic exams by performing them on unconscious patients without prior authorization. In this article, we argue that such unauthorized pelvic exams (UPEs) are sexual assault. Our argument is simple: in any other circumstance, unauthorized digital penetration amounts to sexual assault. Since there are no morally significant differences between UPEs and other instances of digital penetration, UPEs are sexual assault. So, insofar as one is against sexual assault, one should be against UPEs.

This paper considers the number of speeches which treat central topics in the House of Lords second reading of the 'Assisted Dying Bill' (October 22, 2021). It summarizes some of the principal arguments for and against the Bill according to the main categories of discussion. These were compassion; palliative care; autonomy, choice and control; legal and social effects. In summarizing the arguments thematically, it is possible to see the current state of the debate and how concerns are shared on either side, even if approaches to and proposed solutions for those problems are different. The paper concludes that the essential source of disagreement lies outside of the arguments raised, and therefore that any change in the law is not likely to arise from political consensus.

Many people believe the morality of abortion stands or falls on the moral status of the fetus, with abortion opponents arguing fetuses are persons with a right to life. Judith Jarvis Thomson bypasses this debate, arguing that even if we assume fetuses have a right to life, this is not a right to use other people's bodies. Recently Perry Hendricks attempts to bypass discussion of rights, assuming that if he can show that some people have a right to use other's bodies, then we ought to restrict abortion (and perhaps compel organ donation, charity, etc.). Hendricks attempts to illustrate this by way of a Feinberg-style cabin case. I argue Hendricks' restrictivist argument fails.