Journal of Bioethical Inquiry最新文献

Medicine-and specifically surgery and surgical ethics-have long been part of the history of science. Surgical ethics play a pivotal role in ensuring successful outcomes and maintaining the highest standards of patient care. It includes the ethics of surgeons, the responsibility of surgeons, surgical errors, and the competence of a surgeon. Many works have been written about surgery, including during Iran's Safavid period (1501 to 1736)-a period in which a surgeon needed to have a set of moral principles in addition to practical surgical skills. One of the most valuable is Dhakhīrıh Kāmılıh, written by military surgeon Hakim Mohammad in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In this work, Ḥakim Muhāmmad dedicates a chapter specifically to the topic of surgical ethics, aiming to provide moral and legal recommendations for surgeons in addition to explaining surgical techniques and methods. Some of these recommendations include improving surgical skills through observation and practical training, paying attention to hygiene to prevent the spread of infection, and giving patients hope for recovery. Dhakhīrıh Kāmılıh is a landmark text in the history of surgical ethics.

Memory modification technology (MMT) refers to the use of neurotechnologies to intervene in memories. Many scholars have reflected on the ethical issues in MMT, but a comprehensive review of this topic has not been seen. This article presents the first scoping review study of ethical issues in MMT using a bibliometric and systematic approach. After thorough examination, 133 records of key literature are included in this scoping review. Six core ethical themes are extracted: (1) self, identity, and authenticity; (2) autonomy and informed consent; (3) welfare and happiness; (4) safety and risks; (5) responsibility and obligation; (6) social and legal justice. More detailed analyses are conducted on the moral stances and reasons held by different scholars concerning these ethical themes. As can be seen, current debates exhibit certain shortcomings, including ambiguous ethical concepts and a restricted scope of analysis. Therefore, we call for deeper reflections on the philosophical foundations, more precise definitions of ethical terms, and more comprehensive examinations of neurotechnological applications, in order to better address the ethical challenges in the future.

The transplantation of non-human organs into humans, or xenotransplantation (XTx), has recently garnered new attention and is being developed to help address the problem of organ scarcity in transplantation. Ethical issues surrounding XTx have been studied since initial interest arose decades ago and have experienced renewed discussion in the literature. However, the distinct and relevant differences when applied to children has largely been overlooked with few groups attending to the concerns that XTx in children raises. In this paper, we explore ethical challenges to be expected in paediatric XTx, in particular exploring organ sizing concerns, infectious risks, psychological burdens, and issues of moral hazard. We review these domains with the aim of highlighting the implications of pursuing paediatric XTx and the cross-disciplinary approach needed to solve these issues. Children require a unique analysis from a bioethical perspective to best prepare for the issues XTx presents.

Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU) are complex interdisciplinary environments where challenging, high stakes decisions are frequently encountered. We assert that appropriate decisions are more likely to be made if the decision-making process is comprehensive, reasoned, and grounded in thoughtful deliberation. Strategies to overcome barriers to high quality decision-making including, cognitive and implicit bias, group think, inadequate information gathering, and poor quality deliberation should be incorporated. Several general frameworks for decision-making exist, but specific guidance is scarce. In this paper, we provide specific guidance on collaborative complex decision-making for PICUs. The proposed approach is on principles of procedural justice and pragmatic hermeneutics. The process encompasses set-up/planning, information gathering, question formulation, analysis (perspectives, values, and principles), action plan development, decision documentation, and a review and appeal mechanism. The process can be adapted to suit other clinical contexts. Research evaluating the process, exploring how best to develop education for clinicians, and how to build a culture that values high quality deliberation, is worthwhile.

Background Psychedelic medicine is a rapidly growing area of research and policy change. Australia recently became the first country to legalize the prescription of psychedelics and serves as a case study of issues that may emerge in other jurisdictions. Despite their influence as a stakeholder group, there has been little empirical exploration of psychedelic researchers' views on the development of psychedelic research and the ethical concerns. Methods We thematically analysed fourteen interviews with Australian psychedelic researchers. Results Three themes were constructed from the data: 1) coming out of the shadow of the 1960s, 2) challenges and affordances in engaging stakeholders, and 3) growing pains in innovation and translation. Conclusion The results illustrated tensions arising from the rapid growth of psychedelic research from a small group of dedicated individuals with a similar worldview, to a multi-interest, regulated industry. Participants' experiences and viewpoints were influenced by the history of psychedelic research, and this was met with an overarching concern for protecting the field from premature discontinuation, as well as maximizing potential positive impacts. Targets for stakeholder collaboration and initiatives to support responsible innovation in psychedelics include equitable access, sustainable industry involvement, productive research agendas, responsible reporting of evidence, and risk-taking within the relative safety of clinical trials.

Political opportunism of the far-right threatens the efficacy of public health policies and political stability in general. In this commentary, we outline some of the ways that the European far-right has misused public health concerns as propaganda tools. This is a significant threat to the goals of making health and science more inclusive, and we recommend some policies for mitigating the racist effect of the far-right. Notably, we recommend (a) transparency in health policies and robust implementation of the rule of law, (b) the use of operative public values and human rights in health policy making, and (c) investment in decolonizing mindsets which may be corrosive of health policies.

Rising rates of female incarceration within the United States are incompatible with the lack of federal standards outlining the rights of incarcerated mothers and their children. A robust body of evidence demonstrates that prison nurseries, programmes designed for mothers to keep their infants under their care during detainment or incarceration, provide essential and beneficial care that could not otherwise be achieved within the current carceral infrastructure. These benefits include facilitation of breastfeeding, bonding during a critical period of child development, and decreased recidivism rates for participants. Legal precedent exists to support the rights of the mother to continue to parent their child but remains in stark opposition to current prison infrastructure that could allow them to do so. Existing state policies also have inconsistent mechanisms for determining child eligibility and should move to centre decision-making on a case-by-case basis. This work will demonstrate that a just society, supported by law and ensuring maternal-child welfare supports the establishment of prison nursery programmes as a part of the existing right to healthcare for incarcerated individuals.

With the increasing prices of newly approved anti-cancer treatments contributing to rising healthcare costs, healthcare systems are facing complex economic and ethical dilemmas. Especially in countries with universal access and mandatory health insurance, including many European countries, the organizing of funding or reimbursement of expensive new treatments can be challenging. When expensive anti-cancer treatments are deemed safe and effective, but are not (yet) reimbursed, ethical dilemmas arise. In countries with universal healthcare systems, such as the Netherlands, this gives rise to a rather new ethical dilemma: should patients be allowed to pay out of pocket, using private funds, for medical treatments? On the one hand, to allow patients to pay for treatments out of pocket would be in line with the medical-ethical principles of beneficence and autonomy. On the other hand, allowing patients to pay out of pocket for anti-cancer treatments may lead to unequal access to medical treatments and could be considered unfair to patients who are less well-off. Thus, it could undermine the values of equality and solidarity, on which the Dutch healthcare system is built. Furthermore, out-of-pocket payments could potentially lead to financial hardship and distress for patients, which would conflict with the principle of non-maleficence. Does this mean that patients can rightfully be denied access to approved but not (yet) reimbursed anti-cancer treatments? In this article, we will use the Dutch healthcare system, which is based on equal access and solidarity, as a case study to draw attention to this-currently relatively unknown and unresolved-dilemma and to clarify the values at stake. This article contributes to current discussions about the societal problem of rising healthcare costs by informing policymakers, healthcare professionals, and ethicists about the ethical dilemma of out-of-pocket payments in universal healthcare systems, and aims to support health authorities, policymakers and health professionals in developing policy for whether to allow out-of-pocket payment-based access to newly approved but (too) expensive anti-cancer treatments.

I consider cases of multifetal pregnancy in which one fetus with a fatal birth defect poses a risk to the survival of another healthy fetus to show that the substance view anti-abortion position leads to a contradiction. In cases of complicated multifetal pregnancy, if intervention by selective abortion to terminate the defective fetus is not performed, both fetuses will die due to the conditions created by the defective fetus's fatal birth defect. Because abortion is wrong on the anti-abortion position, and a moderate anti-abortion position cannot make an exception for selective abortion in cases of complicated multifetal pregnancy if it operates on the substance view, choosing selective abortion must be wrong, so one must let both fetuses die. However, the substance view anti-abortion position must take letting both fetuses die to be wrong, otherwise it will undermine itself as an anti-abortion position. Further, the substance view provides grounds for why letting fetuses die would be wrong anyway. Thus, the substance view anti-abortion position must take both having an abortion and not having an abortion to be wrong, which is a contradiction. Therefore, cases of complicated multifetal pregnancy show that the substance view anti-abortion position is false.

The present paper argues that abortion ban advocates can justify an exception for rape. Recently, Blackshaw offered an interesting argument that if abortion ban advocates modified their position along the lines of Thomson's analysis of rights, they could make an exception for rape. However, doing so would require making concessions they would be unlikely to make, the crucial one being subscribing to an absurd view that abortion in the case of rape is permissible but only if it is performed in a certain way, that is, in a way that withdraws life support from the fetus. Agreeing first with Blackshaw's premises, we argue that the view in question is hardly absurd. Thus, relying on Boonin's acknowledgment that although very rare, a position according to which abortion should be legal but only if it is performed in a way that lets the fetus die rather than kills it is a possible position, we argue, first, that it is Blackshaw's position that is inconsistent, second, that since deontology sees permissibility of a given result as path-dependent, deontologically oriented abortion ban advocates should find the view in question appealing rather than absurd and, third, that although there are indeed scenarios in which withdrawing life support is morally equivalent to killing, extraction abortions in the case of rape are not amongst them. Since in the case of rape the fetus is not entitled to life support, extraction abortions are better classified as permissible non-omissive allowings than impermissible killings. Thus, there is nothing absurd in the view that abortion in the case of rape is permissible but only if it is performed in a certain way. Accordingly, adopting this view does not seem to be much of a concession for abortion ban advocates who can therefore make an exception for rape.