Developing World Bioethics最新文献

The South African National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC) states in its 2024 Ethics Guidelines that human biological material (HBM) and data cannot be privately owned under South African law. This position conflicts with established legal principles, guidelines by the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA), and South African university policies, all of which support private ownership of HBM and data. Private ownership is not only legally sound but also ethically necessary, providing a framework for accountability, ensuring fair recognition of institutional contributions, and enabling responsible custodianship over these valuable resources. The NHREC's denial of private ownership of HBM and data undermines South African research institutions’ ability to control their research assets and leaves them vulnerable to exploitation by foreign entities. The NHREC should issue a corrigendum to delete its incorrect position on private ownership of HBM and data.

When Willem Landman and I both met in South Africa twenty-five years ago - he a recent returnee from a lengthy stint as a bioethics professor in the United States, and me, an expat academic on a mission to establish a new bioethics unit at the Wits University's Faculty of Health Sciences in Johannesburg - we both agreed that we ought to do something about the lack of quality bioethics content relevant to but also from the global south. Research ethics training programmes, for instance, that were conducted by WHO and other international groups consisted at the time very much of content produced by well-meaning faculty in the global north and were directed at faculty in the global south. These activities, well-intentioned as they were, also constituted arguably ideology transfer in matters deemed ethics. There was little ‘homegrown’ academic bioethics capacity to speak of.

Much has thankfully changed since then. Flourishing bioethics programmes exist across the globe in the global south. Not to the same extent as in the global north, but they do exist, and they make their existence known both at home as well as on the international stage. There is still a somewhat uncomfortable dependence on the largesse of wealthy international funders to be reported, in terms of what research is undertaken, for instance. However, many programmes succeed today as their counterparts in the global north succeed, by teaching health sciences and life sciences students bioethics and medical ethics. ‘Hard money’ earned through teaching in universities matters as much in the global south as it matters in the global north!

Developing World Bioethics has been the target of some criticism because we made clear some years ago that we would not publish content of a religious nature such as, for instance, interpretations of particular religious scriptures. We still see ourselves in a tradition that understands ethics as an impartial enterprise seeking universal ethical truths. They cannot be found in sectarian approaches to ethics. Strangely, among the charges leveled against us were ‘colonialism’ and ‘epistemic injustice’. Let me merely note regarding the former, the religious content we have received over the years invariably was content unthinkable without the influence of colonialism that spread monotheistic ideologies (often violently) across continents. And while the ‘epistemic injustice’ charge tends to also be deployed liberally by critics, it's never quite clearly what it actually entails with regard to this journal, and how it is applicable to us, if at all.

However, given that bioethics is no longer ‘virgin’ territory in the global south, it seems right for us, as the co-editors of Developing World Bioethics, to ask you, our readers, what kinds of content you would like to see in the journal. What topics do you think have authors, who submitted their content successful upon review to the journal, neglected? Why do you think those t

Emerging medical biotechnology, with its dual-use nature, presents both unprecedented opportunities and challenges for human society. As we benefit from technological innovation, it is crucial for Chinese academics and policymakers to effectively identify and address potential risks. However, the current framework for evaluating dual-use research faces multiple challenges, including difficulties in identifying dual-use issues, a lack of consideration for broader impacts in assessments, and a lack of consensus on balancing benefits and risks. Furthermore, inadequacies in the review mechanism, such as uneven progress among institutions, insufficient review capabilities, and lacking specialized knowledge among assessment personnel, hamper the effectiveness of evaluation efforts. This article aims to explore these challenges and propose practical recommendations for strengthening the evaluation and governance mechanisms of dual-use research. By effectively mitigating the risks associated with dual-use research, it facilitates the promotion of responsible scientific progress in emerging medical biotechnologies in China and internationally.

In China, a prominent case exists wherein a medically fit woman filed a lawsuit against a hospital for denying her request to undergo oocyte cryopreservation. She contended the hospital had infringed upon her rights. This paper focuses on medicalization and gender equality to discuss whether or not a hospital can infringe upon a woman's rights. We believe elective oocyte cryopreservation is not a medical treatment and it may lead to an overwhelming utilization of extensive medical resources. Reproductive medicine may face the risk of resource commercialization due to the practice of selective egg freezing. There are physiological disparities between males and females. The ability of men to cryopreserve sperm does not necessarily extend to a woman's capacity for oocyte cryopreservation. We contend that the application of this technology should continue to adhere to the principle of prudence.

In this article, we draw on the thinking about incompleteness and conviviality grounded in Afro-communitarianism ethics from the Global South to argue that adults aged 65 years and above have a prima facie responsibility to vaccinate against influenza. Notably, adults aged 65 years and above have a duty of conviviality to act in ways that limit harm to them and others. This article is intrinsically valuable to promote epistemic justice, thereby contributing towards the decolonisation of the global healthcare system. Moreover, this project has social significance in contributing to mitigation efforts against future public health challenges associated with population ageing in resource-limited developing African nations, wherein the impact of population transition will be felt most.

Evaluating the quality of research ethics committees (RECs) is crucial but challenging due to the difficulty of developing meaningful quality measures. Recently, commentators assessed ten quality instruments for RECs, including the Research Ethics Committee Quality Assurance Self-Assessment Tool developed for RECs in the Arab Middle East. They identified several missing items in this tool regarding safeguarding participants' rights and welfare.

To address these gaps, we aimed to redesign the tool. Using the Delphi method, we involved 15 REC chairs to provide feedback and recommendations for a revised tool. This process led to a modified instrument that incorporated the missing items and additional elements regarding the monitoring of research conduct (an essential oversight function of RECs), and the independence of the RECs from institutional and external influences.

We conclude that the revised tool effectively addresses the quality of RECs by including elements relevant to participant outcomes, board deliberations, and participant protection. The added focus on ethics oversight enhances its robustness, significantly impacting participants' rights and welfare.

Healthcare professionals encounter many moral challenges in their daily clinical practice. However, there have been few studies on the subject matter in Tanzania. This study aims to provide an account of moral challenges faced by healthcare professionals in Tanzanian hospitals, their understanding of clinical ethics, and the ethics education they have received. Many participants reported receiving some kind of ethics training through formal education and on-the-job training. Some participants understood ethics in healthcare settings as adherence to established laws, regulations, guidelines, procedures, norms, and rules essential in clinical practice. Analysis of the data identified four themes of moral challenges. These challenges are related to 1) decision-making and communication in clinical practice, 2) scarcity of medical resources and prioritization in clinical practice, 3) withdrawal of curative treatment, and 4) conflicts between professional judgment, religious convictions and adherence to alternative treatments. Based on the findings, we suggest a context-sensitive form of clinical ethics training to prepare healthcare professionals to recognize and address these moral challenges.