Journal of Bioethical Inquiry最新文献

The prevalence of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and the associated long-term chronic diseases (cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, depression) have reached epidemic levels in the United States and Western nations. In response to this public health calamity, the author of this paper presents and defends a novel bioethical argument: the consistency argument for outlawing SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages) for child consumption (the “consistency argument”). This argument’s radical conclusion states that the government is justified in outlawing SSBs consumption for child consumption. The reasoning is as follows: if one accepts that the physical harm caused by chronic alcohol consumption justifies the government outlawing alcoholic beverages for child consumption, and there is strong evidence that comparable physical harms result from chronic SSBs consumption, then, mutatis mutandis, the government is also justified in outlawing child consumption of SSBs. To support this argument, the author provides extensive evidence based on epidemiological observational studies, interventional studies, controlled trials, large meta-analyses, and the pathophysiology and biological mechanisms of action behind SSBs and chronic disease. Chronic consumption of large doses of SSBs and alcoholic beverages both drive the same diseases: obesity and insulin resistance, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and cancer. Chronic SSB consumption carries the additional risk of Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and depression. The author concludes this paper by considering prominent objections to the consistency argument, and then demonstrating that each objection is unsound.

In the last decade literature focused on a "less is more" approach has been primarily represented by clinical cases describing the excesses of an aggressive, redundant, non-personalized, and non-respectful medicine. Most of these articles focus on a "more is worse" approach and centre around the downstream negative consequences of medical overuse. Having identified a gap in the literature on the experience and practice of less, rather than the harms of excess, we carried out an exploratory qualitative study into how a "less is more" approach works in practice. A hermeneutic phenomenological approach was adopted to allow us to examine the realm of lived experience as a valid data source and as a path from which to understand a "less is more" approach "from the bedside." A Phenomenology of Practice was chosen as a more specific frame for this research because of its added focus on action and practical application in professional settings. Seventy stories written by physicians, patients, nurses, caregivers, and other health professionals have been received and analysed. These stories were gathered as part of a project called "Slow Stories" which aimed to collect clinical cases that have been positively resolved by adopting a "less is more" approach to patient care. After having conducted an in-depth analysis, separately and as a group, the researchers identified five key phenomenological themes; Time to relate is time to heal; Doing more does not mean doing better; Settings for a slow medicine; Slow care at the end of life; and Personalized vs. standardized treatment. Each of these themes offers insights into how a "less is more" approach can be used in practice and illustrates how a "less is more" strategy can play a significant role in positively resolving certain clinical cases.

A fundamental criterion considered essential to deem the procedure of vital organ procurement for transplantation ethical is that the donor must be dead, as per the Dead Donor Rule (DDR). In the case of Donation after Circulatory Death (DCD), is the donor genuinely dead? The main aim of this article is to clarify this uncertainty, which primarily arises from the fact that in DCD, death is determined based on cardiac criteria (Circulatory Death, CD), rather than neurological criteria (Brain Death, BD), and that to allow the procurement procedure, physicians reperfuse the organs in an assisted manner. To ensure that the cessation of circulation leads to the irreversible loss of brain functions, DCD regulations require that physicians wait a certain period after CD before commencing vital organ procurement. However, during this "no-touch period," the organs are at risk of damage, potentially rendering them unsuitable for transplantation. When DCD is performed on patients whose CD follows a Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment (WLST) (DCD Maastricht III category), how long should the no-touch period last? Does its existence really make sense? Does beginning the procedure of vital organ procurement immediately after WLST constitute a violation of the DDR that can be ethically justified? The discussion aims to provide arguments in support of the non-absoluteness of the DDR.

“The Humanitarian Exit Dilemma” by Chin Ruamps explores the complex ethical challenges faced by humanitarian organizations when exiting projects in crisis settings, particularly armed conflict situations. The humanitarian exit dilemma arises in contexts where humanitarian assistance may generate an overall negative, rather than positive impact on affected populations due to potential entanglement in conflict situations. Yet, the book rejects a simplistic consequentialist account that focuses on maximizing harm-reduction and proposes a refreshing values-focused perspective. The book’s values-focused perspective emphasizes the importance of special relationships, distinct dependence, and reasonable expectations as essential considerations in the decision-making process on whether humanitarian organizations should stay and remain engaged or exit the conflict setting. In addition, the book proposes new humanitarian principles organizations could adopt, including the principles of vulnerability, causality, appropriateness, trust, and culpability. Humanitarian practitioners and policymakers, as well as (bio)ethicists, will find compelling insights of real-world policy on how value-based considerations can be incorporated when dealing with difficult trade-offs for vulnerable populations.

Human organs available for transplant are in short supply. One way to increase the supply of organs consists in legalizing a live donor market. Such a market is, however, controversial. This article is about an objection to live donor organ markets made by Simon Rippon. Rippon's objection is that the presence of a market option creates new social and legal pressures that harm the poor. Legalizing the option of selling your organs transforms into a harmful, and morally indefensible, social, and legal pressure to sell on the financially desperate. This article defends the conclusion that Rippon's argument fails as an objection to live donor organ markets. It fails because it has implausibly expansive implications about which markets are morally problematic. In short, Rippon's argument proves too much. Sections one and two introduce Rippon's argument. Sections three and four contain the argument against Rippon. The main argumentative move is that the features of an organ market that, according to Rippon, justify a ban on such a market are features that also characterize several other markets that are normally considered unproblematic, for example, markets where individuals sell their labour abroad in jobs that are dangerous. So, if an organ market should be legally impermissible, so should these labour markets. Section five considers several objections to the argument against Rippon. It is argued that these objections fail. Section six is a conclusion that sums up the findings of the article.

The struggle over legal abortion access in the United States is a religious controversy, not a scientific debate. Religious activists who believe that meaningful individual life (i.e., "personhood") begins at a specific "moment-of-conception" are attempting to pass laws that force this view upon all pregnant persons, irrespective of their medical circumstances, individual preferences, or personal religious beliefs. This paper argues that such actions promote a constitutionally prohibited "establishment of religion." Abortion policy in a secular state must be based upon scientifically accurate biology, not unprovable theological presuppositions. The scientific facts regarding human pregnancy do not support the position that personhood begins with fertilization-at which point a pregnancy does not yet even exist. Abortion policy should regard the embryo/fetus as part of the pregnant individual's body until delivery. We argue that individual "personhood" only begins when the latent potentialities of the fetal nervous system are actualized in the newborn after delivery. The paper argues that instantiating non-scientific beliefs concerning embryonic/fetal "personhood" into the law as the basis for abortion policy establishes a state-sponsored religion. The protection of religious liberty requires that abortion be decriminalized. Abortion should be treated like any other medical procedure and regulated similarly. To protect both religious freedom and sound medical practice, individual legal personhood should be recognized as beginning only at birth.

Bioethics plays a pivotal role in guiding ethical decision-making within the realm of medical research and healthcare. However, the influence of geopolitics on bioethical considerations, particularly regarding bioweapons research, remains an underexplored area. This study delves into the uncharted territory of how international political interests can intersect with bioethical principles, potentially shaping collaborative efforts and global health policies related to bioweapons research. Through a hypothetical scenario involving a hypothetical pathogen, a collaborative effort between unspecified countries, we examine the implications of such cooperation on global health governance, with a specific focus on bioweapons research. Ethical dilemmas surrounding responsible research, potential risks and benefits, equitable distribution of findings, and biosafety measures are explored. This analysis underscores the importance of transparent and responsible practices in bioweapons research amidst geopolitical tensions. By striking a balance between national interests and international solidarity, we advocate for robust bioethical frameworks to navigate such collaborations for the collective well-being of humanity and to mitigate potential risks associated with bioweapons research.

The international community has proposed a comprehensive strategy to prevent congenital abnormalities. And China, with a high incidence of congenital diseases, has implemented measures including prenatal screening and diagnosis to reduce the morbidity of congenital abnormalities. However, ethical challenges arise in the practice of prenatal screening and diagnosis among healthcare professionals. Five focus group discussions were conducted with twenty-four health professionals working in maternal and child health services in Hunan Province, China, to explore the ethical challenges they encountered in prenatal testing decision-making and information disclosure practices, as well as their views on these challenges. Participants were selected through purposive sampling, ensuring maximum demographic diversity. Three main themes were identified: 1) balancing between information disclosure and privacy protection; 2) patient-oriented decision-making and tensions within family-oriented decision-making; 3) the disparity between the limited help clinical ethics committees (CECs) can provide and professionals' need for CECs. Ethical norms for information disclosure and autonomous decision-making within prenatal screening and diagnostic institutions must be established. Utilizing CECs is crucial to guide professionals in delivering prenatal testing services while simultaneously focusing on targeted improvement of communication skills among these professionals.

While knowledge of the population's view on the need for informed consent for retrospective radiology research may provide valuable insight into how an optimal balance can be achieved between patient rights versus an expedited advancement of radiology science, this is a topic that has been ignored in the literature so far. To investigate the view of the general population, survey data were collected from 2407 people representative of the Dutch population. The results indicate that for non-commercial institutions, especially hospitals (97.4 per cent), respondents agree with the retrospective use of imaging data, although they generally indicate that their explicit consent is required. However, most respondents (63.5 per cent) would never allow commercial firms to retrospectively use their imaging data. When including only respondents who completed the minimally required reading time of 12.3 s to understand the description about retrospective radiology research given in the survey (n = 770), almost all (98.9 per cent) mentioned to have no objections for their imaging data to be used by hospitals for retrospective research, with 57.9 per cent indicating their consent to be required and 41.0 per cent indicating that explicit patient consent to be unnecessary. We conclude that the general population permits retrospective radiology research by hospitals, and a substantial proportion indicates explicit patient consent to be unnecessary when understanding what retrospective radiology research entails. However, the general population's support for the unrestricted retrospective use of imaging data for research purposes without patient consent decreases for universities not linked to hospitals, other non-commercial institutions, government agencies, and particularly commercial firms.