Journal international de bioethique et d'ethique des sciences最新文献

What do we share when we donate or receive an organ? What meaning does donation have in the mourning process of a loved one or in the therapeutic process of a transplant patient? These questions rarely reach the public arena, but they do animate the people who concretely participate in the circulation of organs, whether it is because they accept the removal of an organ, receive one or are in charge of organizing it. With this contribution, I wish to shed light on the answers to these questions, as they emerge in practice, and thereby expose the social component of these surgical operations. I first examine the trend towards the promotion of organ donation and transplantation since the 1970s; then I look at the limits for the patients of an approach to transplantation based solely on a biomedical prism; and finally I examine the horizon of possibilities in terms of recognition of the relationships that organ transplant can create between donors and receivers.

The disappearance of bodies in today’s society is redistributing the cards of living together. If social distancing allows a certain rationalisation of human activities (work, care), does it not paradoxically lead to physical and psychological isolation? Moreover, does the dissociation it leads to between the subject and the “e-mage” given of him or her not tend to transform social relations into an infinite game where half-truths, lies and illusions produce new rituals and artifices depending mainly on technology.

Tablets, smartphones, digital platforms, connected objects with or without Artificial Intelligence (AI) are invading our daily lives and transforming our relationships with others. Having already entered the field of wellness, in recent years we have seen the expectations and hopes raised by these new devices turn towards the field of health. In 2019, the European Parliament passed a resolution on a comprehensive European industrial policy on artificial intelligence and robotics 55, calling for caution in the use of algorithmic processes in the medical field and stressing that “the current system of approval of Digital Medical Devices may not be suitable for AI technologies”. Drawing on the framework of the treatment of sleep apnoea by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), our reflection highlights the fact that the increase in the amount of data, the acceleration of information, the disparity in the attractiveness and skills in IT and AI between the actors involved (doctors and patients), as well as the subjective effects of these changes lead to a redefinition of the doctor-patient relationship and a transformation of medical practice more generally.

The article attempts to critically apprehend the profound problems of medical ethics, posed by the Dutch philosopher Annemarie Mol in her book “The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice” [4]. The logical and mathematical concept of transitivity and intransitivity, chosen by the philosopher, makes us approach the traditional problems of bioethics from a new angle: through the models of physician-patient relationship, the status of a person vs. human being, organ transplantation, as well as the conflict between the individual and the collective in epidemic conditions. The key points on which the philosopher relies are the concepts of intransitivity of the patient and his organs, the status of the human body, the relationship between the whole body and its parts, as well as the concept of inclusion as a relationship of integration of a multiple body. Trying to analyze these concepts, the author of the article refers to the works of Russian and French philosophers, and also addresses modern problems of bioethics through the prism of the questions posed by A. Mol from an unusual angle.

Endocrine disruptors are substances capable of interfering with our hormonal system, leading to deleterious effects. Given the many sources of exposure, the challenge is to understand the role played by these substances in the development of certain pathologies. Assessing their effects on health is therefore a scientific challenge and an important public health issue.

The history of environmental damages is linked to the development of diseases. Conversely, individual and collective protection measures for the living environment. Were often beneficial to health.

What do we share when we donate or receive an organ? What meaning does donation have in the mourning process of a loved one or in the therapeutic process of a transplant patient? These questions rarely reach the public arena, but they do animate the people who concretely participate in the circulation of organs, whether it is because they accept the removal of an organ, receive one or are in charge of organizing it. With this contribution, I wish to shed light on the answers to these questions, as they emerge in practice, and thereby expose the social component of these surgical operations. I first examine the trend towards the promotion of organ donation and transplantation since the 1970s; then I look at the limits for the patients of an approach to transplantation based solely on a biomedical prism; and finally I examine the horizon of possibilities in terms of recognition of the relationships that organ transplant can create between donors and receivers.

The law of bioethics defines the judicial framework for governing medical practices and research involving the human body and the embryo. Does any scientific or technologic innovation warrant a modification of the law? To respond to this question, a preliminary reflection is necessary so as to define new equilibria which respect ethical principles, the promotion of solidarity with respect for the autonomy of each person.The CCNE is charged with organizing public debate, in the form of a general assembly of bioethics, with the support of regional spaces of ethical reflection. This extensive experience took place from January to June 2018 and lead to several lessons, notably the strong expression of a need for information and a critical vision of the notion of medical progress.Then, the parliamentary instruction and hearings that accompanied it, from 24 July 2019 to 2 August 2021, contributed developments to the initial bill. Thus, the periodic review of the law of bioethics is now based on citizen participation in the construction of legislative arbitration, demonstrating the French way of social participation.

Examined through the eyes of the geneticist, the modifications of the bioethics law seem relatively modest with regard to the supervision of the practices of his discipline. The introduction of rules concerning the use of algorithms in medical practice is the truly new point. It seemed beneficial to take into account “the interference of thinking machines” in medical decision-making and to initiate the outlines of a framework. We will debate the proposals and terms. Precisions made to the obligation to inform relatives of the existence of a genetic anomaly are defined around the concept of solidarity. Without neglecting this latter, we will recall other determinants, the complexity and the issues underlying the delivery of predictive genetic information as well as the risks that informed persons may incur. It seems appropriate to also consider the ethical tensions that can impose themselves on the physicians involved in the mandatory process of information..