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

This article, prompted by Heidi Crowter's campaign to eliminate the discriminatory aspects of current abortion law, outlines the challenges to good governance in a context of bioethical plurality. First, the nature of the plurality is sketched. Secondly, some reflections are presented on how those who have governance responsibilities might ease the tensions engendered by the plurality; and, at the same time, how the discontented governed might reasonably press their views. Thirdly, a model of good governance (demanding integrity by those who govern and respect for the global commons) is introduced. The conclusion is that good faith governance merits our respect, but it does not guarantee particular outcomes or positions that will meet with the approval of all bioethical constituencies or individuals. Accordingly, we have to learn not only to live with rocks and hard places but also to find civilized ways of debating our differences.

As the new Cell-free DNA (Cf-DNA) prenatal screening test for Down syndrome was being introduced into the UK's fetal anomaly screening program, Down syndrome charities had an opportunity to participate. An experience of co-production where we were the minority voice then followed. This paper explores that process and our experience as a charity. Institutional and societal structures meant that it was difficult to be heard and a significant amount of bias was noted within the program. Consequently, our viewpoints were often considered and then dismissed. However, at times we were listened to, and feel that there were some valuable changes made resulting from our involvement. The end product was far from reflective of all that we stand for, and there are still lessons to be learned in England about the need to place a higher value on minority voices of lived experience in a co-production exercise.

The subtitle to the conference upon which this journal issue is based invited us to 'follow Crowter'. This paper does so primarily by following the person and only thereby attends to the legal judgment. In particular, it will attend to her comment that When mum told me about the discrimination against babies like me in the womb, I felt like a knife had been put into my heart. It made me feel less valued than other people. The argument is that (I) there are strong reasons for such an approach from the field of theological ethics and that this is valuable for pastoral theology and for bioethics. With this case made, the argument proceeds (II) by following and building on three elements of Heidi Crowter's words concerning (a) the knife (b) the heart and (c) the person. The argument concludes (III) with theological reflection and deliberation regarding institutions, practices and actions which will make for 'ethical society', principally focussed on ecclesial life.

Down syndrome (Trisomy 21) is a mild to moderate intellectual disability. Historically, this condition has been a primary target for prenatal testing. However, Down syndrome has not been targeted for prenatal testing because it is an especially severe illness. The condition was just one that could be easily identified prenatally using the techniques first available decades ago. We are moving into an era in which we can prenatally test for a vast range of human traits. I argue that when we can test for anything, there is no longer any reason to continue targeting Down syndrome. I present an argument based on the value of nondiscrimination. It is justified to set limits on access to prenatal information if the information is going to be used for discriminatory purposes. I use the examples of (1) prenatal testing for misogynistic fetal sex selection, and (2) homophobia-motivated prenatal testing for potential homosexuality, as compelling analogies.

Ethically challenging or controversial medical procedures have prompted increasing requests for the exercise of conscientious objection, and caused concerns about how and when it should be practised. This paper clarifies definitions, especially with regard to discrimination, and explores the restrictions, duties, and practical limitations, in order to suggest criteria for its practice. It also argues that a conscientious refusal to treat, where there is therapeutic doubt, is a valid form of conscientious objection. An email survey sent to General Practitioners (GPs), explored the adherence to the suggested criteria, and assessed the outcomes, in terms of acceptability, impact, and difficulties experienced by the GPs, their colleagues and their patients. The results demonstrate high acceptability of conscientious objection, and better outcomes when the suggested criteria are adhered to. The GPs would support education to improve the practice of conscientious objection to a professional level, which could further improve outcomes and acceptability.

That a standard of medical care must outline services that benefit the patient is relatively uncontroversial. However, one must determine how the practices outlined in a medical standard of care should benefit the patient. I will argue that practices outlined in a standard of medical care must not detract from the patient's well-functioning and that clinicians can refuse to provide services that do. This paper, therefore, will advance the following two claims: (1) a standard of medical care must not cause dysfunction, and (2) if a physician is medically rational to not provide some service which fails to meet the above condition (i.e. fails to be a standard of medical care), then she may refuse to do so. I then apply my thesis to the prescription of puberty blockers to children with gender dysphoria.