Journal of Medicine and Philosophy最新文献

It is widely held that to break a promise that one made to a person who is now dead would be to wrong her. This view undergirds many positions in bioethics, ranging from those that concern who may access a person's medical records after she has died, to questions concerning organ procurement and posthumous procreation. Ashley Dressel has argued that there is no reason to believe that promissory obligations can be owed to people who are dead. Although her arguments are unsuccessful, others establish that neither of the promissory obligation accounts that she considers (the "Authority Account" and the "harm-based view") can justify the standard view that directed posthumous promissory obligation is possible. However, this does not mean that the received view that we should keep our promises to the dead is mistaken. First, the theoretical commitments and argumentative strategies of those who endorse the possibility of posthumous promissory obligations preclude them from grounding such on either of these accounts of directed promissory obligation. They are thus already committed to justifying such obligations in other ways. Second, the obligation to keep promises to the dead could be justified on the grounds that not to do so would adversely affect the living.

Simon Rippon, revising an earlier argument against kidney sales, now claims that offers involving the performance of invasive acts, when extended to people under pressure, constitute a kind of rights violation, Impermissibly Disrespectful Demands. Since offers involving kidney sales so qualify, Rippon finds prima facie reason to prohibit them. The present article levels four independent objections to Rippon's argument: the account of Impermissibly Disrespectful Demands implausibly condemns kidney donation as much as kidney sales; the normative importance of having autonomous veto control over bodily incursions does not plausibly underwrite a right to not be extended invasive offers under pressure; Impermissibly Disrespectful Demands can easily be transformed into innocuous offers; and the prohibition has greater welfare costs than Rippon acknowledges.

Moral bioenhancement presents the possibility of enhancing morally desirable emotions and dispositions. While some scholars have proposed that moral bioenhancement can produce virtue, we argue that within a virtue ethics framework moral bioenhancement cannot reliably produce virtue. Moreover, on a virtue ethics framework, the pursuit of moral bioenhancement carries moral risks. To make this argument, we consider three aspects of virtue-its motivational, rational, and behavioral components. In order to be virtuous, we argue, a person must (i) take pleasure in doing the right thing and have the correct motivational attitudes; (ii) reason correctly about what is called for in a particular ethical dilemma; and (iii) intentionally and continuously practice and cultivate virtues. These dimensions of morality-in short: precisely those emphasized in a virtue ethics framework-cannot be consistently or reliably met using existing moral bioenhancement technology.

Drawing on Catherine Malabou's notion of plasticity, this article argues for a conception of resilience as plastic. Resilience has proven an important concept in health care, describing how we manage life-changing illnesses. Yet, resilience is not without its critics, who suggest it neglects a political, social, or personal dimension in illness. In this article, I propose that a concept of plastic resilience can address these criticisms. On this account, success should not be based on a return to function, but rather on how actively we are involved in the formation of a new self after illness. I address some approaches that can benefit from "plastic resilience," namely, art therapy, expert companionship, and shared decision-making. In each case, I underline how we should help patients thematize and engage with their new selves, while also being constantly vigilant for how these changes might impact our current assumptions around their preferences for treatment.

One criticism of medical aid in dying (MAID) is the expressivist objection: MAID is morally wrong because it expresses judgments about disabilities or persons with disabilities, that are offensive, disrespectful, or discriminatory. The expressivist objection can be made at the level of individual patients, medical providers, or the state. The expressivist objection originated with selective abortion, and responses to it in that context typically claim either that selective abortion does not express specific judgments about disabilities, or that any judgments expressed are not offensive. This response is inadequate: MAID often does express negative judgments about disabilities, which could reasonably be seen as offensive. But, does this offensiveness make MAID wrong? Drawing on Joel Feinberg's account of offense, I argue that it is unlikely that the offensiveness of the judgments expressed by individuals who seek MAID or through the state's legalization of MAID is enough to make it morally impermissible.

It is widely supposed that it is important to ensure that patients undergoing medical procedures hope that their treatments will be successful. But why is hope so important, if indeed it is? After examining the answers currently on offer in the literature, we identify a hitherto unrecognized reason for supposing that it is important that patients possess hope for a successful treatment, which draws on prospect theory, Kahneman and Tversky's hugely influential descriptive theory about decision-making in situations of risk and uncertainty. We also consider some concerns about patient consent and the potential manipulation of patients that are raised by our account.

Physicians are shaped by sociological and philosophical factors that often differ from those of their patients. This is of particular concern in pluralistic societies when navigating ethical disagreements because physicians often misunderstand or even dismiss patient perspectives as being irrational. This paper examines these factors and why many physicians approach ethics as they do while elucidating various patient perspectives and demonstrating how they make sense when considered from a different cultural worldview. Many physicians are trained in contexts that are WEIRD: Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic. These sociological characteristics tend to go hand in hand with the trio of individualism, secularism, and existentialism. These then shape an approach to ethics that focuses on the individual patient, makes no reference to the divine, and focuses on a patient's personal desires. This contrasts significantly with many patients who are collectivistic or religious, and then make rational decisions based on other values. The social fact of pluralism implores physicians to temper confidence in their own cultures while considering others to promote mutual understanding and improved care. This paper concludes with a discussion of how bridges can be built across cultures without sliding into relativism, beginning with recognizing and communicating our shared moral intuitions.

There is disagreement among physicians and medical ethicists on the precise goals of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM). Some think that HPM's goals should differ from those of other branches of medicine and aim primarily at lessening pain, discomfort, and confusion, while others think that HPM's practices should aim, like all other branches of medicine, at promoting health. I take the latter position: using the ars moriendi to set a standard for what it means to die well, I argue that if HPM's practices were to aim at mitigating suffering with little regard to promoting health, some patients would die worse deaths than if HPM's practices were to aim at health. According to the ars moriendi, flourishing at the end of one's life requires that persons exercise their agency and pursue the goods most important to them. On this view, HPM's practices should promote patients' health to enable them to pursue these goods.

The underreporting of suspected adverse drug reactions hinders pharmacovigilance. Solutions to underreporting are oftentimes directed at clinicians and healthcare professionals. However, given the recent rise of public inclusion in medical science, solutions may soon begin more actively involving patients. I aim to offer an evaluative framework for future possible proposals that would engage patients with the aim of mitigating underreporting. The framework may also have value in evaluating current reporting practices. The offered framework is composed of three criteria that are bioethical, social-epistemic, and pragmatic: (i) patients should not be exposed to undue harms, for example, nocebo effects; (ii) data should be collected, analyzed, and communicated while prioritizing pharmacovigilance's aims, that is, free from industry bias; and (iii) proposals should account for existing and foreseeable pragmatic constraints like clinician "buy in" and existing reporting infrastructure. Proposals to engage patients in pharmacovigilance that fulfil or address these criteria are preferable to those that do not.