Bioethics最新文献

Mental health chatbots (MHCBs) designed to support individuals in coping with mental health issues are rapidly advancing. Currently, these MHCBs are predominantly used in commercial rather than clinical contexts, but this might change soon. The question is whether this use is ethically desirable. This paper addresses a critical yet understudied concern: assuming that MHCBs cannot have genuine emotions, how this assumption may affect psychotherapy, and consequently the quality of treatment outcomes. We argue that if MHCBs lack emotions, they cannot have genuine (affective) empathy or utilise countertransference. Consequently, this gives reason to worry that MHCBs are (a) more liable to harm and (b) less likely to benefit patients than human therapists. We discuss some responses to this worry and conclude that further empirical research is necessary to determine whether these worries are valid. We conclude that, even if these worries are valid, it does not mean that we should never use MHCBs. By discussing the broader ethical debate on the clinical use of chatbots, we point towards how further research can help us establish ethical boundaries for how we should use mental health chatbots.

Poland has faced two waves of migration: the first was of irregular asylum seekers, which led to the humanitarian crisis on the eastern EU-Belarusian border since 2021; the second was of Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion. Although there are noticeable differences between these situations, and between the different reactions of the Polish authorities, it is possible to juxtapose them in terms of the right to health. The normative content of refugee and human rights law is the starting point for reconstructing the meaning of the terms 'refugee' and 'right to health'. A refugee is a person who needs international protection because of a well-founded fear of harm, which is not limited to persecution as defined by the Refugee Convention but also includes situations of international and non-international armed conflict. The right to health, which includes, inter alia, entitlements to a 'system of health protection' and 'underlying determinations of health', is reconstructed on the basis of human rights law and refugee and migration law. There are no legal and moral grounds to grant the right to health differentially to different groups of refugees. Nondiscriminatory health policy requires that refugees have the same access to health care as nationals, although their specific health needs resulting from past experiences and refugee situation require special treatment, that is, an appropriate refugee health policy. The broad understanding of the underlying determinants of health demonstrates the importance of overall migration policy for refugees' health, which can jeopardise the fragile good of refugee health.

Value change is a phenomenon that is gaining increasing attention in ethical analyses of technologies. However, a comprehensive study of how reprogenetic technologies and values coevolve is lacking. To remedy this gap, in this overview article, I address the relationship between reprogenetics and value change. This contribution thus argues for the importance of investigating the phenomenon of value change in relation to the technological controversies discussed in bioethics. To meet this goal, I begin by clarifying, first, how technologies shape reproductive choice. I then clarify what "values" and "moral values" are, how reprogenetic technologies are value laden, and what values are often discussed in reprogenetics debates. Next, I show five types of value changes that have occurred in advance in reproductive and genetic technologies. Finally, I argue for the bioethical relevance of discussing future techno-value change, pointing out the descriptive and normative challenges of this philosophical endeavor.

The proposal to allow assisted dying for people who are not severely ill reignited the Dutch end-of-life debate when it was submitted in 2016. A key criticism of this proposal is that it is too radical a departure from the safe and well-functioning system the Netherlands already has. The goal of this article is to respond to this criticism and question whether the Dutch system really can be described as safe and well functioning. I will reconsider the usefulness of the suffering criterion, and I will ultimately argue this criterion should be rejected altogether. Instead, we should consider moving towards an autonomy-only approach to assisted dying. This would resolve some significant issues occurring under the current system of assisted dying in the Netherlands and ultimately make the process safer and better functioning. I will then consider some possible objections to adopting an autonomy-only approach and provide some preliminary responses to these also. I will finally highlight some potential areas where further research may be necessary, namely, how to mitigate the effect of external factors such as poverty or other life aspects that may have the potential to distort the individual's ability to make autonomous decisions. I will also consider some possible international lessons that can be taken from both current as well as the proposed practice in the Netherlands.

Recent advances in human brain organoid systems have raised serious worries about the possibility that these in vitro ‘mini-brains’ could develop sentience, and thus, moral status. This article considers the relative moral status of sentient human brain organoids and research animals, examining whether we have moral reasons to prefer using one over the other. It argues that, contrary to common intuitions, the wellbeing of sentient human brain organoids should not be granted greater moral consideration than the wellbeing of nonhuman research animals. It does so not by denying that typical humans have higher moral status than animals, but instead by arguing that none of the leading justifications for granting humans higher moral status than nonhuman animals apply to brain organoids. Additionally, it argues that there are no good reasons to be more concerned about the well-being of human brain organoids compared to those generated from other species.

In times of person-centered care, it is all the more important to support patients in making good decisions about their care. One way to offer such support to patients is by way of Patient Decision Aids (PDAs). Ranging from patient brochures to web-based tools, PDAs explicitly state the decisions patients face, inform them about their medical options, help them to clarify and discuss their values, and ultimately make a decision. However, lingering discussions surround effectiveness research on PDAs. In this article, I focus on two subjective measures of decision quality that are widely used as outcome measures in effectiveness research on PDAs (i.e., the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and measures of regret). Although these measurement instruments have attracted critical attention in the scientific literature, bioethicists have hardly engaged with them. Therefore, I set myself to analyze the relationship between (the different subscales of) the DCS and measures of regret, on the one hand, and ethical principles such as beneficence and autonomy, on the other hand. In light of that analysis, I will clarify some discussions regarding the use of these measures of decision quality in effectiveness research on PDAs. This should help us to align the way we evaluate PDAs with ethical principles and avoid that our attempts to support patients in making good decisions about their care that is so central to person-centered care point in unethical directions.

Parthenogenesis is a form of asexual reproduction in which a gamete (ovum or sperm) develops without being fertilized. Tomer Jordi Chaffer uses parthenogenesis to challenge Don Marquis' future-like-ours (FLO) argument against abortion. According to Marquis, (1) what makes it morally wrong to kill us is that it would deprive us of a possible future that we might come to value—a future “like ours” (FLO) and (2) human fetuses are numerically identical to any adult human organism they may develop into, and thus have a FLO. Chaffer contends that if human ova are capable of parthenogenesis, then they would have a FLO, which contraception may deprive them of, but contends this is absurd. Bruce P. Blackshaw challenges Chaffer, contending sexually fertilized embryos are not identical to unfertilized ovum, but this would yield a more absurd implication, that fertilization deprives an ovum of a FLO! Here I show Marquis' account of identity rules out both Chaffer's and Blackshaw's accounts.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an urgent, global threat to public health. The development and implementation of effective measures to address AMR is vitally important but presents important ethical questions. This is a policy area requiring further sustained attention to ensure that policies proposed in National Action Plans on AMR are ethically acceptable and preferable to alternatives that might be fairer or more effective, for instance. By ethically analysing case studies of coercive actions to address AMR across countries, we can better inform policy in a context-specific manner. In this article, I consider an example of coercive antimicrobial stewardship policy in Canada, namely restrictions on livestock farmers' access to certain antibiotics for animal use without a vet's prescription. I introduce and analyse two ethical arguments that might plausibly justify coercive action in this case: the harm principle and a duty of collective easy rescue. In addition, I consider the factors that might generally limit the application of those ethical concepts, such as challenges in establishing causation or evidencing the scale of the harm to be averted. I also consider specifics of the Canadian context in contrast to the UK and Botswana as example settings, to demonstrate how context-specific factors might mean a coercive policy that is ethically justified in one country is not so in another.