{"title":"Ethical Strange Fruit","authors":"S. Davis","doi":"10.18785/ojhe.1502.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18785/ojhe.1502.01","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":89828,"journal":{"name":"Online journal of health ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67709416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The nature of the work of public service professionals – understood in the present context as including, but not limited to, police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, emergency dispatchers, and telecommunicators – exposes them to great amounts of suffering and trauma. Mental wellness is wavering for many in the field, and progressive, holistic support is needed. Public service professionals receive remarkable amounts of training to meet competencies within their role, but they are not provided with the same level of training to protect and serve themselves. Many factors contribute to decreased mental wellness in public service professionals, including the stoic culture, short staffing, low pay, and lack of public service resources. Against the argument that adequate and thorough mental health support is perceived to be expensive and a personal responsibility for individuals to seek if they need it, this paper argues that, given the staggering statistics regarding suicide, depression, and PTSD, the availability of resources, and the cost saving effects that promoting mental wellness and retaining employees has for companies, society’s approach to mental health must change. Moreover, the mental health of first responders in particular is a moral responsibility that must be supported through extensive education, community outreach, and the establishment and maintenance of a non-punitive culture.
{"title":"Supporting Mental Wellness in the Public Service Professions","authors":"Reilly L. McQueston, Peter A. DePergola","doi":"10.18785/ojhe.1502.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18785/ojhe.1502.04","url":null,"abstract":"The nature of the work of public service professionals – understood in the present context as including, but not limited to, police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, emergency dispatchers, and telecommunicators – exposes them to great amounts of suffering and trauma. Mental wellness is wavering for many in the field, and progressive, holistic support is needed. Public service professionals receive remarkable amounts of training to meet competencies within their role, but they are not provided with the same level of training to protect and serve themselves. Many factors contribute to decreased mental wellness in public service professionals, including the stoic culture, short staffing, low pay, and lack of public service resources. Against the argument that adequate and thorough mental health support is perceived to be expensive and a personal responsibility for individuals to seek if they need it, this paper argues that, given the staggering statistics regarding suicide, depression, and PTSD, the availability of resources, and the cost saving effects that promoting mental wellness and retaining employees has for companies, society’s approach to mental health must change. Moreover, the mental health of first responders in particular is a moral responsibility that must be supported through extensive education, community outreach, and the establishment and maintenance of a non-punitive culture.","PeriodicalId":89828,"journal":{"name":"Online journal of health ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67709552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introduction: Notes from the Bedside","authors":"S. Davis","doi":"10.18785/OJHE.1501.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18785/OJHE.1501.01","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":89828,"journal":{"name":"Online journal of health ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67707869","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Managing Endings in the Beginning: Ethical Reflections on Neonatal Intensive Care","authors":"Peter A. DePergola II","doi":"10.18785/ojhe.1501.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18785/ojhe.1501.04","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":89828,"journal":{"name":"Online journal of health ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67707891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Moral Obligation of Bearing One Another’s Burdens: Ethical Reflections on Surgical Intensive Care","authors":"Peter A. DePergola II","doi":"10.18785/ojhe.1501.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18785/ojhe.1501.06","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":89828,"journal":{"name":"Online journal of health ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67708424","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Ethical Hot Potatoes: New Perspectives","authors":"S. Davis","doi":"10.18785/ojhe.1402.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18785/ojhe.1402.01","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":89828,"journal":{"name":"Online journal of health ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49092908","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Everyone pays the price for the obesity-related illnesses of our fellow citizens – through increased premiums on our group health insurance policies, through reduced productivity of our co-workers, through taxpayer support of hospitals that provide indigent care and through soaring Medicare costs, to name a few. The fact that our entire society often ends up paying many of the costs for the obesity-related illnesses of not only ourselves but also our family members, our friends, our co-workers and even strangers raises questions: Why doesn’t insurance pay to help overweight and obese people to make lifestyle changes that could save us all millions or even billions of dollars? Will The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the health care plans that the Trump Administration offers as an alternative provide options to help the two-thirds of Americans struggling with obesity? Should Americans be considering taxing people who are obese (with Body Mass Index in excess of 30) at a higher rate to incentivize them to live healthier or to penalize them for the choices they have made? This paper attempts to answer these questions.
每个人都为我们的同胞的肥胖相关疾病付出代价——通过我们的团体健康保险政策的保费增加，通过我们同事的生产力下降，通过纳税人对提供贫困护理的医院的支持以及通过飙升的医疗保险成本，等等。事实上，我们整个社会不仅要为我们自己，而且还要为我们的家人、朋友、同事甚至陌生人的肥胖相关疾病买单，这就提出了一个问题:为什么保险公司不支付帮助超重和肥胖的人改变生活方式的费用，这可以为我们所有人节省数百万甚至数十亿美元?《患者保护和平价医疗法案》(Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)或特朗普政府作为替代方案提供的医保计划，会为三分之二与肥胖作斗争的美国人提供帮助吗?美国人应该考虑对肥胖者(身体质量指数超过30)征收更高的税，以激励他们更健康地生活，还是惩罚他们做出的选择?本文试图回答这些问题。
{"title":"Obesity: The Elephant in the Room We Can No Longer Afford to Ignore","authors":"Joanie Sompayrac, Katharine Linehart Trundle","doi":"10.18785/OJHE.1402.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18785/OJHE.1402.02","url":null,"abstract":"Everyone pays the price for the obesity-related illnesses of our fellow citizens – through increased premiums on our group health insurance policies, through reduced productivity of our co-workers, through taxpayer support of hospitals that provide indigent care and through soaring Medicare costs, to name a few. The fact that our entire society often ends up paying many of the costs for the obesity-related illnesses of not only ourselves but also our family members, our friends, our co-workers and even strangers raises questions: Why doesn’t insurance pay to help overweight and obese people to make lifestyle changes that could save us all millions or even billions of dollars? Will The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the health care plans that the Trump Administration offers as an alternative provide options to help the two-thirds of Americans struggling with obesity? Should Americans be considering taxing people who are obese (with Body Mass Index in excess of 30) at a higher rate to incentivize them to live healthier or to penalize them for the choices they have made? This paper attempts to answer these questions.","PeriodicalId":89828,"journal":{"name":"Online journal of health ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67707842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This manuscript explores ethical implications of treatment for youth with diagnosed gender dysphoria. The ethical condiderations outlined and analyzed in this essay involve illuminating an understanding of whether the administration of pubertal suppression with GnRH agonists, and cross-sex hormones to children with gender dysphoria is morally justified as treatment to manage their psychological distress, or if safer more understood alternatives exist. This essay emphasizes that as health care professionals, we must ensure youth with genger dysphoria receive adequate medical treatment and care. This essay concludes through extensive literature review, that the use of inconclusive and underresearched methods to manage gender dysphoria cannot be ethically justified and therefore should be re-evaluated.
{"title":"Ethical Implications of Treatment for Gender Dysphoria in Youth","authors":"K. Hayes","doi":"10.18785/OJHE.1402.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18785/OJHE.1402.03","url":null,"abstract":"This manuscript explores ethical implications of treatment for youth with diagnosed gender dysphoria. The ethical condiderations outlined and analyzed in this essay involve illuminating an understanding of whether the administration of pubertal suppression with GnRH agonists, and cross-sex hormones to children with gender dysphoria is morally justified as treatment to manage their psychological distress, or if safer more understood alternatives exist. This essay emphasizes that as health care professionals, we must ensure youth with genger dysphoria receive adequate medical treatment and care. This essay concludes through extensive literature review, that the use of inconclusive and underresearched methods to manage gender dysphoria cannot be ethically justified and therefore should be re-evaluated.","PeriodicalId":89828,"journal":{"name":"Online journal of health ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47746146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nicotine vaccines are a new prevention and treatment method for smoking addiction. They are promoted as a method to cease smoking among those who smoke and possibly prevent this behaviour from taking place among those who do not smoke. However, offering these vaccines to adults, adolescents, and children will undoubtedly raise an ethical debate among policy-makers, health professionals, and the public. This paper discusses the possibility of using nicotine vaccines treat and prevent smoking among adults/children/adolescents through the lenses of two ethical theories: utilitarianism and deontology (Kantianism). From an utilitarian perspective, nicotine vaccines are good for society because they provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number of individuals. Authors perceive them as a healthy ethical choice to prevent and treat smoking. And, from the deontological perspective, nicotine vaccines are justified because individuals can prevent the harm of nicotine addiction by choosing vaccines or any other smoking prevention and treatment methods.
{"title":"Nicotine Vaccines for Smoking Prevention and Treatment from Utilitarian and Deontological Ethical Perspectives","authors":"Enam A. Alsrayheen, Khaldoun Aldiabat","doi":"10.18785/OJHE.1402.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18785/OJHE.1402.05","url":null,"abstract":"Nicotine vaccines are a new prevention and treatment method for smoking addiction. They are promoted as a method to cease smoking among those who smoke and possibly prevent this behaviour from taking place among those who do not smoke. However, offering these vaccines to adults, adolescents, and children will undoubtedly raise an ethical debate among policy-makers, health professionals, and the public. This paper discusses the possibility of using nicotine vaccines treat and prevent smoking among adults/children/adolescents through the lenses of two ethical theories: utilitarianism and deontology (Kantianism). From an utilitarian perspective, nicotine vaccines are good for society because they provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number of individuals. Authors perceive them as a healthy ethical choice to prevent and treat smoking. And, from the deontological perspective, nicotine vaccines are justified because individuals can prevent the harm of nicotine addiction by choosing vaccines or any other smoking prevention and treatment methods.","PeriodicalId":89828,"journal":{"name":"Online journal of health ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44424970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A persistent misunderstanding of the moral distinctions between the practices of euthanasia, assisted suicide, and palliative sedation suggests a critical need to revisit the relationship each shares with licit medical practice in the context of palliative care. To that end, this essay grounds its arguments in two, straightforward premises: (i) the licitness of medical practice is largely determined by the balance between (a) good ends, (b) proportionate means, (c) appropriate circumstances, and (d) benevolent intentions; and (ii) whereas palliative sedation employs criteria A-D (above), both euthanasia and assisted suicide fail to secure criteria A-C. Drawing from this syllogism, the aim and proposal of this essay is to examine the logic inherent to the practices of euthanasia, assisted suicide, and palliative sedation in the context of palliative care with the intention of positing the argument that while palliative sedation fulfills the requirements of morally licit medical practice – and so successfully executes the tenets of sound ethical logic – both euthanasia and assisted suicide do not.
{"title":"Euthanasia, Assisted-Suicide, and Palliative Sedation: A Brief Clarification and Reinforcement of the Moral Logic","authors":"DePergola, A. Peter","doi":"10.18785/OJHE.1402.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18785/OJHE.1402.04","url":null,"abstract":"A persistent misunderstanding of the moral distinctions between the practices of euthanasia, assisted suicide, and palliative sedation suggests a critical need to revisit the relationship each shares with licit medical practice in the context of palliative care. To that end, this essay grounds its arguments in two, straightforward premises: (i) the licitness of medical practice is largely determined by the balance between (a) good ends, (b) proportionate means, (c) appropriate circumstances, and (d) benevolent intentions; and (ii) whereas palliative sedation employs criteria A-D (above), both euthanasia and assisted suicide fail to secure criteria A-C. Drawing from this syllogism, the aim and proposal of this essay is to examine the logic inherent to the practices of euthanasia, assisted suicide, and palliative sedation in the context of palliative care with the intention of positing the argument that while palliative sedation fulfills the requirements of morally licit medical practice – and so successfully executes the tenets of sound ethical logic – both euthanasia and assisted suicide do not.","PeriodicalId":89828,"journal":{"name":"Online journal of health ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45125740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：