Search

This article discusses the significance of how Christians relate to issues of knowledge, expertise, and authority in the public sphere, particularly in the context of the events of 2020. The symposium explored the historical crises behind the present situation, examining themes such as racial justice, the authority of science, and decolonization in the US and Australian contexts. The symposium aimed to widen and build on previous work by including the Australian context and exploring the racialization of intellectual authority in Christianity. Keynotes and papers discussed the role of popular culture, creationism, and Indigenous religion in shaping intellectual authority. The symposium also considered the ongoing imperative to decolonize knowledge production. Two papers from the symposium, one on the history of missions and colonial theologies in Australia and one on the history of theological education, have been published in the Journal of Religious History. [Extracted from the article]

Abstract: Aim: This paper reports on the findings from 6 focus groups conducted with Australian medical students. The focus groups sought students' perspectives on how the influence of commercial interests on medical practice and education could be managed. Method: We conducted 6 focus groups with medical students in New South Wales, Australia. Participants were recruited via student‐run medical society and faculty e‐mail lists. Forty‐nine students from 6 medical schools in New South Wales participated. The research team reflected on the extent to which students uncritically appealed to science in the abstract as a management solution for conflicts of interest. Data analysis was largely inductive, looking for uses of scientific terminology, EBM, and appeals to “science” in the management of COI and applied theoretical analyses of scientism. Results: The students in our study suggested that science and evidence‐based medicine, rather than ethics or professionalism, were the best tools to deal with undue influence and bias. This paper uses philosophy of science literature to critically examine these scientistic appeals to science and EBM as a means of managing the influence of pharmaceutical reps and commercial interests. We argue that a scientistic style of reasoning is reinforced through medical curricula and that students need to be made aware of the epistemological assumptions that underpin science, medicine, and EBM to address the ethical challenges associated with commercialised health care. Conclusion: More work is needed to structure medical curricula to reflect the complexities of practice and realities of science. However, curricula change alone will not sufficiently address issues associated with commercial interests in medicine. For real change to occur, there needs to be a broader social and professional debate about the ways in which medicine and industry interact, and structural changes that restrict or mitigate commercial influences in educational, research, and policy settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conflicts of interest ( COI) are considered ubiquitous in many healthcare arrangements,1 but there is disagreement on how COI should be defined, whether non-financial conflicts deserve attention and the relationship between COI and harm. We conducted a study of Australian healthcare professionals and students to gain a better understanding of the way that COI are understood in practice. In this paper, we outline an empirically derived taxonomy of the understanding of, and attitudes towards, COI. We carried out 25 semistructured interviews with clinicians working in several fields across Australia and held six focus group discussions with medical students in New South Wales. Interviewees and focus groups followed similar question routes investigating participants' understanding of COI and views of management. All data were compared and analysed using a matrix of pre-determined questions. There were, broadly, two views of COI: that COI were potentially harmful and morally compromising and another that saw COI as less serious and easily managed through existing structures. Definitions of COI varied widely and were both financial and non-financial. Causes of COI were, variously, systemic, individual and/or relational. Some participants associated COI with moral wrongdoing, and a variety of potential harms was identified. Views on how COI should be managed were similarly varied. We found considerable heterogeneity in how COI are understood in practice. This has implications for management systems that are currently in place, and we suggest a more sophisticated system for considering and mitigating COI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Debate concerning the social impact of obesity has been ongoing since at least the 1980s. Bioethicists, however, have been relatively silent. If obesity is addressed it tends to be in the context of resource allocation or clinical procedures such as bariatric surgery. However, prominent bioethicists Peter Singer and Dan Callahan have recently entered the obesity debate to argue that obesity is not simply a clinical or personal issue but an ethical issue with social and political consequences. This article critically examines two problematic aspects of Singer and Callahan's respective approaches. First, there is an uncritical assumption that individuals are autonomous agents responsible for health-related effects associated with food choices. In their view, individuals are obese because they choose certain foods or refrain from physical activity. However, this view alone does not justify intervention. Both Singer and Callahan recognize that individuals are free to make foolish choices so long as they do not harm others. It is at this point that the second problematic aspect arises. To interfere legitimately in the liberty of individuals, they invoke the harm principle. I contend, however, that in making this move both Singer and Callahan rely on superficial readings of public health research to amplify the harm caused by obese individuals and ignore pertinent epidemiological research on the social determinants of obesity. I argue that the mobilization of the harm principle and corresponding focus on individual behaviours without careful consideration of the empirical research is itself a form of harm that needs to be taken seriously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Conflicts of interest (CoIs) are considered to be ubiquitous in health care and biomedicine. The disclosure of relevant interests is a first step in managing conflicts, although its usefulness is contested. Although several countries have mandated the public disclosure of doctors' financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, little is known about medical students' understanding of mandatory public disclosure. Methods Six 90-minute focus groups were conducted with medical students in New South Wales, Australia. Participants ranged from first- to final-year students. Students were asked about their understanding and experiences of CoIs and, more specifically, for their views on and experiences of disclosure in medical education, mandatory disclosure and public registers. Qualitative data analysis was based on a framework approach. Results Participants were generally not supportive of mandatory public disclosure of financial relationships with industry, principally because of concerns about privacy, control over disclosure, and others' (mis)interpretations of disclosures. Further, they did not know how to assess the disclosures presented to them as part of their medical education and described a wide range of reactions to disclosed information. Conclusions This study suggests that students are currently not well prepared for mandatory public disclosure of CoIs. The subsequent discussion draws on Bourdieu's doxa to highlight assumptions of altruism in medicine, assumptions that are potentially in tension with recent events that have exposed doctors to moral scrutiny by the public. Medical students could be better prepared for future obligations by encouraging disclosures, and contextualising and helping students to interpret them. Disclosure as a box-ticking exercise is unlikely to achieve goals implied by transparency, but a more reflective approach may assist both scrutinisers and the scrutinised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]