Journal of Bioethical Inquiry最新文献

In order to study early human development while avoiding the burdens associated with human embryo research, scientists are redirecting their efforts towards so-called human embryo-like structures (hELS). hELS are created from clusters of human pluripotent stem cells and seem capable of mimicking early human development with increasing accuracy. Notwithstanding, hELS research finds itself at the intersection of historically controversial fields, and the expectation that it might be received as similarly sensitive is prompting proactive law reform in many jurisdictions, including the Netherlands. However, studies on the public perception of hELS research remain scarce. To help guide policymakers and fill this gap in the literature, we conducted an explorative qualitative study aimed at mapping the range of perspectives in the Netherlands on the creation and research use of hELS. This article reports on a subset of our findings, namely those pertaining to (the degrees of and requirements for) confidence in research with hELS and its regulation. Despite commonly found disparities in confidence on emerging biotechnologies, we also found wide consensus regarding the requirements for having (more) confidence in hELS research. We conclude by reflecting on how these findings could be relevant to researchers and (Dutch) policymakers when interpreted within the context of their limitations.

Actions to prepare for and prevent pandemics are a common topic for bioethical analysis. However, little attention has been paid to global catastrophic biological risks more broadly, including pandemics with artificial origins, the creation of agents for biological warfare, and harmful outcomes of human genome editing. What's more, international policy discussions often focus on economic arguments for state action, ignoring a key potential set of reasons for states to mitigate global catastrophic biological risks: moral reasons. In this paper, I frame the mitigation of such risks as a global public good, and I explore three possible categories of moral reasons that might motivate states to provide this global public good: nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and interstate obligations. Whilst there are strong objections to moral nationalism as a reason for states to act, moral cosmopolitanism may provide a broad reason which is further supplemented for individual states through the elaboration of interstate moral obligations. The obligations I consider are moral leadership, fairness, and reciprocity. Moral reasons for individual states action may more effectively or more appropriately motivate states to mitigate global catastrophic biological risks.

On June 5, 2024, the Australian Capital Territory passed a law to permit voluntary assisted dying ("VAD"). The Australian Capital Territory became the first Australian jurisdiction to permit nurse practitioners to assess eligibility for VAD. Given evidence of access barriers to VAD in Australia, including difficulty finding a doctor willing to assist, the Australian Capital Territory's approach should prompt consideration of whether the role of nurses in VAD should be expanded in other Australian jurisdictions. Drawing on lessons from Canada, which currently permits nurse practitioners to assess patient eligibility, we argue that the time has come for Australian jurisdictions to expand the role of nurses in VAD systems. This would be an important step in ensuring access to VAD for patients in practice. Attention, however, must also be paid to ensuring adequate remuneration of nurses (and doctors) if this goal of promoting access is to be achieved in practice.

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.

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.

Prenatal ultrasound is a non-invasive diagnostic examination. Despite the recognized diagnostic value, this technology raises complex ethical questions. The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive analysis that coherently maps the ethical challenges raised by prenatal ultrasound examination, both 2D and 3D. We performed a systematic literature review. Six databases were systematically searched. The results highlight how concerns related to beneficence, informed consent, and autonomy are mainly related to routine use of prenatal ultrasound in the clinical context, while considerations linked to overmedicalization of pregnancy, discrimination, and fetal ontology were often reported in relation to the impact ultrasound is having on medicine and society. Ethical issues in the context of pre-abortion ultrasound, obstetric practices in low-income settings, and keepsake ultrasound imaging were also greatly discussed. Since prenatal ultrasound practices critically impact pregnant people's autonomy and their role within pregnancy, we conclude that information providing strategies should be developed to appropriately inform pregnant people about the nature, purpose, risks, and choices revolving around prenatal ultrasound. In addition, as it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate the social and clinical dimensions of prenatal ultrasound, future research should focus on examining if and how such dimensions should be reconciled.

There is wide consensus among bioethicists about the importance of autonomy when determining whether or not a patient has the right to refuse life-saving treatment (LST). In this context, autonomy has typically been understood in terms of the patient's ability to make an informed decision. According to the traditional view, decision-making capacity (DMC) is seen as both necessary and sufficient for the right to refuse LST. Recently, this view has been challenged by those who think that considerations of authenticity and putative counterexamples should lead us to revise the traditional account. In this paper, we respond to these revisionist arguments, and we defend the traditional view according to which we have autonomy-based reasons to respect a patient's decision to refuse LST if and only if she has DMC.