Search

All religions should develop convincing responses to emerging bioethical problems stemming from medical and technological advancements. Additionally, believers need to know their faiths' interpretations of bioethical issues to be able to make medical decisions in line with their religious values. Therefore, Islamic bioethics should provide Muslims with conclusive and credible answers regarding newly rising problems in health care by revisiting the religious norms and decrees. However, the diversity in the Islamic denominations, the traditionalist aspect of the Sunni jurisprudence demanding strict compliance with the scriptural texts, the lack of unanimously accepted authority, and the limited number of academic works in Islamic bioethics (at least in English) complicate exploring new standards or rules for new ethical matters. In this view, the present paper aims to delineate two primary Islamic theological schools and propose al-Ghazali's maslaha as a general framework to analyze bioethical issues in the Sunni tradition. Maslaha allows exercising discretion in light of the protection of five fundamental values: religion, life, reason, lineage, and property. Maslaha has the potential to enable Sunni Muslims to appraise contemporary ethical questions, concerns, and dilemmas through an Islamic view and make more autonomous decisions by having religious guidelines., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background. Registrars in specialisation training programmes encounter numerous difficulties in completing the research component of the Master of Medicine degree. Poor patient record-keeping hinders the research process. Objectives. To investigate current types of medical patient record-keeping systems (electronic v. paper) in training health facilities, and the effect data accessibility has on specialist training and research. Methods. This was a mixed-methods study that included both descriptive and analytical components. Of 610 postgraduate students enrolled in the University of KwaZulu-Natal College of Health Sciences Master of Medicine programme, 168 completed a cross-sectional survey to collect data and 11 did follow-up interviews. The survey and interviews explored issues related to medical record-keeping in the participants' department or hospital, emphasising their experiences with data access while conducting research. The quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and the qualitative data were analysed thematically. Ethical approval was obtained from the institution's Biomedical Research Ethics Committee. Results. Of the 168 participants, 94 (56%) reported that problems with data access hindered their research, while 56 (33%) indicated that data access did not affect their research. Only 30 participants (18%) had no difficulty in obtaining data for their research, while the rest (n=138; 82%) experienced varying degrees of difficulty. A total of 110 participants (65%) indicated that paper-based record-keeping was mainly being used in their department or hospital, while electronic record-keeping was reported by the rest (n=58; 35%). Many (n=125; 74%) expressed the need to improve hospital data management practices, and 39 (23%) reported that plans were being implemented to improve these practices. Participants expressed frustration with regard to accessing data even in departments that used electronic systems, and they raised concerns regarding data security. Conclusion. The migration to electronic patient record-keeping has not yet been implemented in many hospitals, with poor patient record-keeping affecting training and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Culture, health, and medicine intersect in various ways-and not always without friction. This paper examines how liberal multicultural states ought to interact with diverse communities which hold different health-related or medical beliefs and practices. The debate is fierce within the fields of medicine and bioethics as to how traditional medicines ought to be regarded. What this debate often misses is the relationship that medical traditions have with cultural identity and the value that these traditions can have beyond the confines of the clinical setting. This paper will attempt to bring some clarity to the discussion. In so doing, it will delve into some controversial areas: (1) the debate around whether liberal states ought to embrace multiculturalism, (2) the existence and nature of group-differentiated rights, (3) the question of whether healthcare systems ought to embrace medical pluralism, and (4) what this would entail for policymakers, clinicians, and patients. Ultimately, I argue that liberal democratic states with multicultural populations ought to recognize medical pluralism as a matter of respecting group-differentiated and individual human rights., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The ethical governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care and public health continues to be an urgent issue for attention in policy, research, and practice. In this paper we report on central themes related to challenges and strategies for promoting ethics in research involving AI in global health, arising from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), held in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2022. Methods: The GFBR is an annual meeting organized by the World Health Organization and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the South African MRC. The forum aims to bring together ethicists, researchers, policymakers, research ethics committee members and other actors to engage with challenges and opportunities specifically related to research ethics. In 2022 the focus of the GFBR was "Ethics of AI in Global Health Research". The forum consisted of 6 case study presentations, 16 governance presentations, and a series of small group and large group discussions. A total of 87 participants attended the forum from 31 countries around the world, representing disciplines of bioethics, AI, health policy, health professional practice, research funding, and bioinformatics. In this paper, we highlight central insights arising from GFBR 2022. Results: We describe the significance of four thematic insights arising from the forum: (1) Appropriateness of building AI, (2) Transferability of AI systems, (3) Accountability for AI decision-making and outcomes, and (4) Individual consent. We then describe eight recommendations for governance leaders to enhance the ethical governance of AI in global health research, addressing issues such as AI impact assessments, environmental values, and fair partnerships. Conclusions: The 2022 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research illustrated several innovations in ethical governance of AI for global health research, as well as several areas in need of urgent attention internationally. This summary is intended to inform international and domestic efforts to strengthen research ethics and support the evolution of governance leadership to meet the demands of AI in global health research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collegiality is one of the fundamental values of the nursing profession. During the nursing history, collegiality has been described as part of a nurse's relationship with their peers and it influences the quality of care they provide and job satisfaction and commitment to their work. Despite earlier definitions, the concept of collegiality in nursing has remained unclear. The aim of this study was to clarify the concept of collegiality in the nursing profession, using Rodger's evolutionary concept analysis. We carried out electronic searches using the CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, SocINDEX, PsycINFO and Eric databases and manual searches of the reference lists of the selected papers. The searches were limited to peer-reviewed papers published in English language from the inception of database to November 2022. This identified 25 papers. Based on our analysis, the attributes of the concept of collegiality were achieving mutual goals together with equality, reciprocity, trusted advocacy, powerful self-regulation and engaged belongingness. Antecedents of the concept included existing professional group, connection between professionals and professional self-esteem. The consequences were strengthening nurses' professional status, job satisfaction and their ability to provide the best possible patient care. We found that nurses' collegiality was a value-based concept, with a unique character based on professional connections. The concept brought together ethical and pragmatic strategies to achieve the best possible results for the nursing profession. Provided knowledge can be applied for further development of the concept and applying it in clinical research and practice. The concept of nurses' collegiality should also be studied in the future because both the profession and their working environment are constantly changing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Locally accepted moral standards shape healthcare legislation, yet such legislative decisions should not be insulated from scrutiny by non-local ethical theories. This paper aims to demonstrate the relevance and propriety of applying Western bioethical theories to healthcare scenarios beyond the Western cultural context. Western cultures place a strong emphasis on individualism, and value individuals' rights and liberties; in contrast, many non-Western cultures prioritise collectivist values, such as community wellbeing. These fundamental differences impact healthcare practice within a culture, including the way that a patient and their healthcare team make treatment decisions. A fair ethical analysis of healthcare practice must not involve axioms biased towards a particular cultural value for it is not possible to derive normative claims from cultural practices. This paper demonstrates that the three dominant theories in Western medical ethics-utilitarianism, deontology, and principlism-are not biased towards individualism, despite their origins in the Western cultural context. Each theory is assessed individually, paying particular mind to 'autonomy' and potential misinterpretations grounded in cultural biases. Additionally, this paper argues that to investigate a scenario in a non-Western culture using a Western theory of medial ethics is an opportunity to invite discussion between philosophers of different backgrounds, not an attempt to impose cultural norms upon others. Investigation of practices with non-local ethical theories fosters dialogues that can contribute to more robust ethical theories, better healthcare practices and, by extension, improved patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to refute a common line of argument that it is immoral for physicians to engage in medical assistance in death (MAiD), i.e., the practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The argument in question is based on the notion that participating in MAiD is contrary to the professional-role obligations of physicians, due to MAiD's putative inconsistency with the ends of medicine. The paper describes several major flaws from which that argument suffers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The essay outlines a four-phase triage process made by a fictive Talmudic rabbi working on an equally fictive hospital COVID-19 ward. The rabbi bases his decision on four different Talmudic texts, proceeding one by one, with each text building on the preceding one, until he is ready to allocate his scarce medical resources to one of the patients, thus being forced to deny them to others. Along the way, the paper will examine how this Talmudic reasoning can also be applied to the patient, or even a potential patient, clarifying the demands of the individual's ethical responsibility to avoid triage situations in the first place through social distancing and even more so through getting vaccinated. The paper argues that the rabbi has a number of Talmudic tools at hand that make his decision easier, not because he strictly follows Jewish law, but because of the rich experience standing behind Jewish legal traditions, making a universally valid ethical justification of difficult decisions possible. The essay proposes that including such theological material in triage guidelines would help make those decisions more acceptable in the long run, especially for societies in which religious traditions still play a certain role in the cultural consciousness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper was written in the framework of my internship at the National Commission for Bioethics and Technoethics of the Hellenic Republic. It constitutes an attempt at exploring the ethical and legal dilemmas of the medical practice of telepsychiatry. Telepsychiatry, as well as other forms of telemedicine, has become a prevalent way through which patients gain access to healthcare and with many research papers reporting on its effectiveness and advantages, telepsychiatry has gained a lot of proponents in the scientific and healthcare community. However, several questions regarding the ethical and legal nature of the practice remain unanswered and this can put patients and other users of telemental health services under risk for basic rights violations. In this paper, at first the scientific data supporting the use of telepsychiatry will be cited. In addition to that, there will be discussion of several ethical dilemmas that have been reported concerning the use of telemedicine in psychiatry during the past few years and there will be reference to the medical code of ethics. Following that, there will be reference to the existing legislation for telepsychiatry in Greece and the legal issues that can arise will be analyzed. In spite of the fact that the advantages and ethical pitfalls of telepsychiatry are common in many countries, the focus of this paper will be on Greece’s code of medical ethics and legislation due to the lack of relevant bibliography on the matter, even though telepsychiatry is widely used by Greek patients. Finally some suggestions will be made on what ought to be ameliorated in regards to the current conditions, so as to make sure telepsychiatry is in line with the basic principles of bioethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The predominant position in the reproductive rights literature argues that access to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) forms part of an individual's right to reproduce. On this reasoning, refusal of treatment by clinicians (via provision) violates a hopeful parent's reproductive right and discriminates against the infertile. I reject these views and suggest they wrongly contort what reproductive freedom entitles individuals to do and demand of others. I suggest these views find their origin, at least in part, in the way we define "reproduction" itself. This paper critically analyses two widely accepted definitions of human reproduction and demonstrates that both are fundamentally flawed. While the process of reproduction includes the biological acts of begetting and bearing a child, I argue that it does not extend to include rearing. This reworked definition has little impact in the realm of sexual reproduction. However, it has significant ethical implications for the formulation and assignment of reproductive rights and responsibilities in the non-sexual realm in two important ways. First, a claim to access ART where one has an intention to rear a child (but does not beget or bear) cannot be grounded in reproductive rights. Second, lacking an intention to rear does not extinguish the reproductive rights and responsibilities for those who collaborate in the process. I conclude that clinicians collaborate in non-sexual reproduction at the point of triggering conception (begetting) and therefore have the right to refuse to be involved in non-sexual reproduction, in some instances, as do all reproductive collaborators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article forms part of a series on "openness," "non-linearity," and "embodiedhealth" in the post-physical, informational (virtual) era of society. This is vital given that the threats posed by advances in artificial intelligence call for a holistic, embodied approach. Typically, health is separated into different categories, for example, (psycho)mental health, biological/bodily health, genetic health, environmental health, or reproductive health. However, this separation only serves to undermine health; there can be no separation of health into subgroups (psychosomatics, for example). Embodied health contains no false divisions and relies on "optimism" as the key framing value. Optimism is only achieved through the mechanism/enabling condition of openness. Openness is vital to secure the embodied health for individuals and societies. Optimism demands that persons become active participants within their own lives and are not mere blank slates, painted in the colors of physical determinism (thus a move away from nihilism-which is the annihilation of freedom/autonomy/ quality). To build an account of embodied health, the following themes/aims are analyzed, built, and validated: (1) a modern re-interpretation and validation of German idealism (the crux of many legal-ethical systems) and Freud; (2) ascertaining the bounded rationality and conceptual semantics of openness (which underlies thermodynamics, psychosocial relations, individual autonomy, ethics, and as being a central constitutional governmental value for many regulatory systems); (3) the link between openness and societal/individual embodied health, freedom, and autonomy; (4) securing the role of individualism/ subjectivity in constituting openness; (5) the vital role of nonlinear dynamics in securing optimism and embodied health; (6) validation of arguments using the methodological scientific value of invariance (generalization value) by drawing evidence from (i) information and computer sciences, (ii) quantum theory, and (iii) bio-genetic evolutionary evidence; and (7) a validation and promotion of the inalienable role of theoretic philosophy in constituting embodied health, and how modern society denigrates embodied health, by misconstruing and undermining theoretics. Thus, this paper provides and defends an up-to-date non-physical account of embodied health by creating a psychophysical-biological-computational-philosophical construction. Thus, this paper also brings invaluable coherence to legal and ethical debates on points of technicality from the empirical sciences, demonstrating that each field is saying the same thing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The integration of normative analysis with empirical data often remains unclear despite the availability of many empirical bioethics methodologies. This paper sought bioethics scholars' experiences and reflections of doing empirical bioethics research to feed these practical insights into the debate on methods. We interviewed twenty-six participants who revealed their process of integrating the normative and the empirical. From the analysis of the data, we first used the themes to identify the methodological content. That is, we show participants' use of familiar methods explained as "back-and-forth" methods (reflective equilibrium), followed by dialogical methods where collaboration was seen as a better way of doing integration. Thereafter, we highlight methods that were deemed as inherent integration approaches, where the normative and the empirical were intertwined from the start of the research project. Second, we used the themes to express not only how we interpreted what was said but also how things were said. In this, we describe an air of uncertainty and overall vagueness that surrounded the above methods. We conclude that the indeterminacy of integration methods is a double-edged sword. It allows for flexibility but also risks obscuring a lack of understanding of the theoretical-methodological underpinnings of empirical bioethics research methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the lasting impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on research ethics in social sciences by focusing on the concept of vulnerability. We unpack the current conceptualisations of vulnerability and their limitations and argue for the need to reconceptualise vulnerability as multidimensional, consisting of both universal and contextual dimensions, as well as their dynamic interplay. Multidimensional vulnerability is inspired by and relevant to social science research during the pandemic but can also be useful in other contexts such as climate change or conflict. The paper puts forwards several considerations about how this revised concept of vulnerability may be useful when evaluating ethical dimensions of social science research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Public health ethics addresses moral dilemmas arising from balancing individual healthcare needs with societal interests. Ethical considerations in public health during pandemics and disasters aim to reduce mortality rates and minimize social injustice through fair principles. Objective: This paper analyzes public health ethics and ethical values in allocating resources during mass casualty incidents. The intersection of public health ethics, applied bioethics, and ethics of social consequences (through non-utilitarian consequentialism) guides addressing serious public health challenges in catastrophic scenarios. The application of the given interaction is significant for professional medical ethics. Methodology: The paper employs inductive, deductive, and normative methods of bioethics and the methodology of ethics of social consequences. Conclusion: The paradigmatic disparity between the bioethics of pandemics and disaster bioethics lies in the fluid application of bioethical principles and the accentuation of utilitarian demands depending on the severity and scale of mass casualty incidents. Applied bioethics in crisis situations respects the approaches of public health ethics and attempts to increase positive social outcomes. The application of (scarce) resource allocation criteria and triage of patients is derived from ethical decisions beneficial to public health and lege artis approaches of medical bioethics. The paper presents professional and ethical criteria for medically inappropriate treatment within the framework of patient triage; we approach crisis ethics from the perspective of maximization of benefit. Age is not an exclusion criterion of acute healthcare provision in crisis situations. Ethics of social consequences as a form of non-utilitarian consequentialism allowing for social consequences bridges public health ethics and applied bioethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks to reimagine ethical leverage in technology for peaceful synodality (the term peaceful synodality is coined to mean a synodality that welcomes participation and inclusion of people from different backgrounds and views without compromising the truth and respecting their dignity and journeying together) through the lens of the bioethics of synodality with technology. The concept of this paper is that technology can be leveraged ethically to promote peaceful synodality in the Catholic Church and that such an approach to technology is rooted in reimagining a bioethics of synodality that emphasize the need for journeying hand in hand with the speed at which technological advancement moves in order to enhance ethical decision-making processes. Ethics has moved at a different pace than technology, especially in matters involving human life. Ethics has been viewed as problematic in technology, especially where science wants to be neutral, but rethinking ethics as a companion of emerging technologies will be helpful in directing the ethical uptake of technology. To argue this thesis, the paper will employ a review of relevant literature while presenting the theological and ethical perspectives of synodality. By and large, an interdisciplinary approach will be employed where various disciplines play a key role. Such methodology advances the theme of reimagining Catholic ethics by offering a fresh perspective on the ethical implications of technology in the context of synodality. By emphasizing the importance of journeying together through enhanced ethical guidelines for proper decision-making and by exploring how technology can respect human rights and dignity among other values, this paper contributes to a broader conversation about how Catholic ethics can be reimagined in light of technological developments. Ultimately, this paper argues that a bioethics of synodality with technology can offer a vision for technology that is grounded in Catholic social teaching that promotes universally accepted human dignity and the common good. A cross-cutting method will also be used, given that ethics has basically constant principles, yet technology keeps on changing. Reimagining ethics means studying the advancement brought about by biotechnology and seeing to what degree human beings are affected in their basic rights and the risks versus the benefits brought about by the same. The assumption is that decisions made regarding the ethics of various technologies will be at par with the rate at which new technologies emerge and are employed. What is of vital importance is that ethics can have the power to journey together with technology, not as an adversary but in synodality. Reimagining ethics means being ever alert in the developing technologies that serve humanity so that in consultation with various experts, the best practices can be embraced within the ethical guidelines for the common good. The outcome of this research is that reimagining Catholic ethics involves listening to the needs of humanity and how technology is bringing solutions to them. Participating in bioethical debates, training on bioethics and listening to experts in various fields will enable a critical, analytical and pneumatological discernment of how ethical decisions on frontier technologies can benefit non-humans and humans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1936, Raymond Dart led the Wits University Expedition to the Kalahari where he used the tools of physical anthropology, including bodily measurements, face masks and comparative anatomy, to promote the ill-fated concept of race typology to understand human evolution. Dart's successor at the Wits School of Anatomical Sciences, Phillip Tobias, and his colleagues continued these anthropological practices in numerous expeditions to the Kalahari and elsewhere in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, including an excavation of the grave of Cornelius Kok II in Campbell, Northern Cape in 1961. This paper reviews these practices and their contribution to scientific racism in South Africa. The paper also explores the impact that Steve Biko's life and death had on medical ethics at Wits University in the 1970s, leading to Wits Medical School's submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the decision to hold an Internal Reconciliation Commission (IRC). While the IRC was important, the absence of any review of pre-apartheid and apartheid-era anthropological practices at the Wits School of Anatomical Sciences meant that it was incomplete. This paper concludes by suggesting that there is a need to acknowledge and revisit this painful history of scientific racism to build a greater understanding of history, transparency and ethics for the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The text discusses the structural constraints that affect decisions about participation in genomic and precision medicine. It highlights disparities and delays in access to genetic services for patients with low incomes and underserved racial and ethnic groups. These disparities can be attributed to inadequate preparation for genomic medicine at the health system and provider levels. The text also mentions barriers at the patient level, such as high out-of-pocket costs and lack of coverage for clinical genetic testing. The importance of empirical research in understanding and resolving these barriers is emphasized, particularly in underrepresented populations. The text includes four primary research papers that explore the influence of context and diverse lived experiences on decisions about participation in genomic and precision medicine. These papers highlight the need for further study and collaboration within the ELSI research community. [Extracted from the article]

Background and Aims: Euthanasia is a controversial issue related to the right to die. Although euthanasia is mostly requested by terminally sick individuals, even in societies where it is legal, it is unclear what medical conditions lead to euthanasia requests. In this scoping review, we aimed to compile medical conditions for which euthanasia has been requested or performed around the world. Methods: The review was preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analysis for scoping reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) checklist. Retrieved search results were screened and unrelated documents were excluded. Data on reasons for conducting or requesting euthanasia along with the study type, setting, and publication year were extracted from documents. Human development index and euthanasia legality were also extracted. Major medical fields were used to categorize reported reasons. Group discussions were conducted if needed for this categorization. An electronic search was undertaken in MEDLINE through PubMed for published documents covering the years January 2000 to September 2022. Results: Out of 3323 records, a total of 197 papers were included. The most common medical conditions in euthanasia requests are cancer in a terminal phase (45.4%), Alzheimer's disease and dementia (19.8%), constant unbearable physical or mental suffering (19.8%), treatment‐resistant mood disorders (12.2%), and advanced cardiovascular disorders (12.2%). Conclusion: Reasons for euthanasia are mostly linked to chronic or terminal physical conditions. Psychiatric disorders also lead to a substantial proportion of euthanasia requests. This review can help to identify the features shared by conditions that lead to performing or requesting euthanasia What is already known about the topic?: Euthanasia is a challenging issue that has sparked numerous controversies around the world over the past decades.There is no consensus about the criteria or guidelines that have been set for identifying a patient eligible for euthanasia in different countries. What this paper adds?: To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review to systematically list and categorize published records of euthanasia requests around the world into five broad groups.We provide a picture of all euthanasia requests' frequencies in each broad group.This study facilitates informing scientists and researchers about the trends of euthanasia requests during different years and in different countries around the world. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy?: This review can provide information to help clinicians and health policymakers to reach a more precise decision about the acceptance or the rejection of requests made by patients.This review informs readers about all medical conditions that increase the likelihood of requesting euthanasia. Researchers should consider these conditions and conduct further research on each condition in detail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I argue for two theses. First, if Christianity is true, then morality should depend on the metaphysics of the afterlife. Second, if Christianity is true, then contemporary moral theory is mistaken. The argument for the first thesis rests on two premises. If rightness depends on an act's effects on an individual, then—at least in part—it depends on the long-term effects on him. If rightness depends—at least in part—on the long-term effects on an individual, then it depends on the metaphysics of the afterlife. The argument for the second thesis rests on how heaven or hell swamp other considerations. By changing assumptions about the nature of heaven or hell, who goes there, and standard mathematics, we end up with different ethical theories. Some of these assumptions conflict with contemporary moral theory regarding killing, letting die, and saving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the ethical implications of applying open science (OS) practices on disruptive technologies, such as generative AIs. Disruptive technologies, characterized by their scalability and paradigm-shifting nature, have the potential to generate significant global impact, and carry a risk of dual use. The tension arises between the moral duty of OS to promote societal benefit by democratizing knowledge and the risks associated with open dissemination of disruptive technologies. Van Rennselaer Potter's 'third bioethics' serves as the founding horizon for an ethical framework to govern these tensions. Through theoretical analysis and concrete examples, this paper explores how OS can contribute to a better future or pose threats. Finally, we provide an ethical framework for the intersection between OS and disruptive technologies that tries to go beyond the simple 'as open as possible' tenet, considering openness as an instrumental value for the pursuit of other ethical values rather than as a principle with prima facie moral significance., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The current global food system, and in particular the livestock industry, has been effective at providing low-cost calories to large segments of the population, but it also causes significant harms and poses serious risks. In particular, the global food system currently likely causes billions of animals to suffer every year, significantly contributes to climate change, and threatens public health via the possibility of zoonotic disease. There are many other problems that have been identified with the livestock industry, but these three threats, which I refer to as the Big Three, are among the most urgent moral issues in the world. Significant progress could be made to address all three of these risks if the global population moved to a primarily plant-based diet. However, there are reasons to believe this possibility is unrealistic given current consumer preferences and political realities. As an alternative, one could ask whether an approach relying entirely on novel biotechnology could be used to address the urgent moral challenges of the global livestock industry without substantially changing the consumer experience or facing political backlash. In this paper I consider what such a scenario would look like, and argue that failing to address any one of these three major issues would be a serious moral failing. Though many other suggestions have been made looking at how biotechnology might address individual issues, this paper suggests that in order to avoid the need for difficult behavioral and political changes, biotechnological solutions would ultimately need to be developed that address welfare, environmental, and public health concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Some basic and preclinical biomedical research models require the use of animals. It is not always clear which model is best suited to a project—animals or models based on, e.g., in vitro or in silico methods? This choice is influenced not only by personal beliefs and experience, but also by societal debates. Moreover, people often process information unconsciously. In this study, 13 people involved in relevant areas of research were interviewed. The responses were qualitatively assessed and subjected to an ethical analysis. This paper presents 66 reasons why researchers use animals (27 reasons) or alternative methods (39). Many reasons are tied to the work environment (29) and to scientific standards (22). Such reasons are often pragmatic and can only be influenced by individuals to a limited extent. Other reasons were assigned to personal attitudes (11) and animal welfare (4). Even if few reasons can be rejected outright from an ethical point of view, there are good reasons to give some more weight than others, as an exemplary discussion shows. The study raises awareness of the ethical decision-making process and the underlying reasons that we are often unaware of. This can help to reflect on and justify decisions. Background: Research model selection decisions in basic and preclinical biomedical research have not yet been the subject of an ethical investigation. Therefore, this paper aims, (1) to identify a spectrum of reasons for choosing between animal and alternative research models (e.g., based on in vitro or in silico models) and (2) provides an ethical analysis of the selected reasons. Methods: In total, 13 researchers were interviewed; the interviews were analyzed qualitatively. The ethical analysis was based on the principlism approach and a value judgement model. Results: This paper presents 66 reasons underlying the choice of researchers using animal (27 reasons) or alternative models (39). Most of the reasons were assigned to the work environment (29) and scientific standards (22). Other reasons were assigned to personal attitudes (11) and animal welfare (4). Qualitative relevant normative differences are presented in the ethical analysis. Even if few reasons can be rejected outright from an ethical point of view, there are good reasons to give some more weight than others. Conclusions: The spectrum of reasons and their ethical assessment provide a framework for reflection for researchers who may have to choose between animal models and (investing in) alternatives. This can help to reflect on and ethically justify decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper aims to present a critical analysis of the phenomenon and notion of exceptionalism in bioethics. The authors demonstrate that exceptionalism pertains to phenomena that are not (yet) entirely familiar to us and could potentially bear risks regarding their regulation. After an overview of the state of the art, we briefly describe the origins and evolution of the concept, compared to exception and exclusion. In the second step, they look at the overall development debates on genetic exceptionalism, compared to other bioethical debates on exceptionalism, before presenting a detailed analysis of a specific case of early regulation of genetic screening. In the last part, the authors explain the historical background behind the connection between exceptionalism and exclusion in these debates. Their main conclusion is that while the initial stage of the discussion is shaped by the concept of exceptionalism and awareness of risks of exclusion, the later development centers around exceptions that are needed in detailed regulatory procedures.

In this essay, the author reflects on a decade's old essay on baseball and bioethics inspired by a conversation with the late David Thomasma. In a reprise of his earlier paper, Fins worries that modernity has come to baseball with the advent of the pitch clock and that this innovation brings age discrimination to a timeless pastime.

This paper opens a critical conversation about the ethics of international bioethics conferencing and proposes principles that commit to being anti-discriminatory, global, and inclusive. We launch this conversation in the Section, Case Study, with a case example involving the International Association of Bioethics' (IAB's) selection of Qatar to host the 2024 World Congress of Bioethics. IAB's choice of Qatar sparked controversy. We believe it also may reveal deeper issues of Islamophobia in bioethics. The Section, Principles for International Bioethics Conferencing, sets forth and defends proposed principles for international bioethics conferencing. The Section, Applying Principles to Site Selection applies the proposed principles to the case example. The Section, Applying Principles Beyond Site Selection addresses other applications of the proposed principles. The Section, Objections responds to objections. We close (in the Section, Conclusion) by calling for a wider discussion of our proposed principles. One-Sentence Capsule Summary: How should bioethicists navigate the ethics of global bioethics conferencing?

The question that this paper tries to answer is Q: "Can good academic bioethics be done without commitment to moral theory?" It is argued that the answer to Q is an unequivocal "Yes" for most of what we could call "critical bioethics," that is, the kind of bioethics work that primarily criticizes positions or arguments already in the literature or put forward by policymakers. The answer is also "Yes" for much of empirical bioethics. The second part of the paper then provides an analysis of Q in relation to "constructive bioethics," that is, bioethics work aimed at providing an argument for a particular position. In this part, it is argued that a number of the approaches or methods used that initially look like they involve no commitment to moral theory, nevertheless, involve such a commitment. This is shown to be the case for reflective equilibrium, mid-level theory, the use of theory fragments, and argument by analogy.

In line with recent proposals for experimental philosophy and philosophy of science in practice, we propose that the philosophy of medicine could benefit from incorporating empirical research, just as bioethics has. In this paper, we therefore take first steps towards the development of an empirical philosophy of medicine, that includes investigating practical and moral dimensions. This qualitative study gives insight into the views and experiences of a group of various medical professionals and patient representatives regarding the conceptualization of health and disease concepts in practice and the possible problems that surround them. This includes clinical, epistemological, and ethical issues. We have conducted qualitative interviews with a broad range of participants (n = 17), working in various health-related disciplines, fields and organizations. From the interviews, we highlight several different practical functions of definitions of health and disease. Furthermore, we discuss 5 types of problematic situations that emerged from the interviews and analyze the underlying conceptual issues. By providing theoretical frameworks and conceptual tools, and by suggesting conceptual changes or adaptations, philosophers might be able to help solve some of these problems. This empirical-philosophical study contributes to a more pragmatic way of understanding the relevance of conceptualizing health and disease by connecting the participants' views and experiences to the theoretical debate. Going back and forth between theory and practice will likely result in a more complex but hopefully also better and more fruitful understanding of health and disease concepts., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In recent years, the case has been made for special attention to be paid to a branch of research in the field of bioethics called 'translational bioethics'. In this paper, we start by considering some of the assumptions that those advancing translational approaches to bioethics make about bioethics and compare them to the reality of bioethics as an academic field. We move on to explain how those who make this case, implicitly or explicitly, for translational bioethics go awry because of how they understand the 'gap' between bioethical inquiry and practical settings that requires bridging. We consider three interpretations of this 'translation gap' in bioethics: (i) the gap between theory and practice, (ii) the gap between the force of normative claims and practical contextual realities and (iii) the gap between relevance or applicability to practice and actual application or implementation in practice. In each case, we show how a proper understanding of the nature of the academic field of bioethics undermines how these gaps have been formulated, and how any need for talk of 'translational bioethics' is removed., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The pandemic significantly raised the stakes for the translation of bioethics insights into policy. The novelty, range and sheer quantity of the ethical problems that needed to be addressed urgently within public policy were unprecedented and required high-bandwidth two-way transfer of insights between academic bioethics and policy. Countries such as the United Kingdom, which do not have a National Ethics Committee, faced particular challenges in how to facilitate this. This paper takes as a case study the brief career of the Ethics Advisory Board (EAB) for the NHS Covid-19 App, which shows both the difficulty and the political complexity of policy-relevant bioethics in a pandemic and how this was exacerbated by the transience and informality of the structures through which ethics advice was delivered. It analyses how and why, after EAB's demise, the Westminster government increasingly sought to either take its ethics advice in private or to evade ethical scrutiny of its policies altogether. In reflecting on EAB, and these later ethics advice contexts, the article provides a novel framework for analysing ethics advice within democracies, defining four idealised stances: the pure ethicist, the advocate, the ethics arbiter and the critical friend., (© 2023 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: The American College of Epidemiology (ACE) held its 2022 Annual Meeting, September 8-11, with a conference theme of 'Pandemic of Misinformation: Building Trust in Epidemiology'. The ACE Ethics Committee hosted a symposium session in recognition of the global spotlight placed on epidemiology and public health due to the COVID-19 crisis. The ACE Ethics Committee invited previous Chairs of the Ethics Committee and current President of the International Epidemiological Association to present at the symposium session. This paper aims to highlight the ethical challenges presented during the symposium session., Methods: Three speakers with diverse backgrounds representing expertize from the fields of ethics, epidemiology, public health, clinical trials, pharmacoepidemiology, statistics, law, and public policy, covering perspectives from the U.S., Europe, and Southeast Asia were selected to present on the ethical challenges in epidemiology and public health applying a global theme. Dr. D. Weed presented on 'Causation, Epidemiology and Ethics'; Dr. C.M. Pandey presented on the 'Ethical Challenges in the Practice of Digital Epidemiology'; and Dr. J. Acquavella presented on 'Departures from Scientific Objectivity: A Cause of Eroding Trust in Epidemiology.', Results: The collective goal to improve the public's health was a mutually shared theme across the three distinct areas. We highlight the common ethical guidance and principle-based approaches that have served epidemiology and public health in framing and critical analysis of novel challenges, including autonomy, beneficence, justice, scientific integrity, duties to the profession and community, and developing and maintaining public trust; however, gaps remain in how best to address health inequalities and the novel emergence and pervasiveness of misinformation and disinformation that have impacted the health of the global community. We introduce an ethical framework of translational bioethics that places considerations of the social determinants of health at the forefront., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic required an expedited public health response and, at the same time, placed the profession of epidemiology and public health, its system, and structures, under the microscope like never before. This article illustrates that revisiting our foundations in research and practice and orienting contemporary challenges using an ethical lens can assist in identifying and furthering the health of populations globally., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Environmental health remains a niche topic in bioethics, despite being a prominent social determinant of health. In this paper we argue that if bioethicists are to take the project of health justice as a serious one, then we have to address environmental injustices and the threats they pose to our bioethics principles, health equity, and clinical care. To do this, we lay out three arguments supporting prioritizing environmental health in bioethics based on bioethics principles including a commitment to vulnerable populations and justice. We also highlight and advocate for environmental law efforts that align with these priorities, focusing specifically on the need for a right to a healthy environment. Our intention is to draw attention to the legal and ethical concepts that underlie the importance of a healthy environment, and urge bioethicists to prioritize both legal and ethical advocacy against environmental injustices in their practice.

Translational ethics (TE) has been developed into a specific approach, which revolves around the argument that strategies for bridging the theory-practice gap in bioethics must themselves be justified on ethical terms. This version of TE incorporates normative, empirical and foundational ethics research and continues to develop through application and in the face of new ethical challenges. Here, I explore the idea that the academic field of bioethics has not yet sufficiently analysed its own philosophical foundation for how it can, and should, be practically relevant; neither has it comprehensively discussed the limitations on what impacts bioethicists should pursue. As a result, there has not been adequate training on how to suitably and appropriately impact real-world practices. Moreover, bioethical perspectives are often competing with other strong interests, for example, economic and political, which may weaken their impact on policy-making. The TE approach I propose can not only facilitate practical impacts of academic bioethics by being better informed by real-world ethical issues but it also supports targeted and ethical justifications of the actual impact of academic work in real-world contexts. In this paper, I clarify the premises for this TE approach, identify further challenges and sketch out potential solutions for the implementation of this methodological framework., (© 2024 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This paper will take as its starting point the premise that developing translational bioethics is a worthwhile endeavour. I will develop an account of translational bioethics and discuss what implications this would have for the wider discipline of bioethics and argue that this would be a useful development for bioethics. The paper will conduct a form of 'translational meta-bioethics analysis', in the words of Baerøe. I will argue that if we are serious about instituting translational bioethics, then it will need to look and be organised in a very different way from current bioethics research, this will be a radically different form of bioethics from what we currently have. In this paper I will sketch what translational bioethics might look like. My proposal here is not that translational bioethics should supplant existing ways of doing bioethics, but rather that it should be an addition to it, another subdiscipline of bioethics., (© 2023 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Women in the Netherlands with non-western migration backgrounds experience domestic violence at the intersection of culture and gender, and visit their general practitioners (GPs) with health concerns related to the violence. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with GPs, this paper illuminates how GPs navigate the process of decision-making around intervention in domestic violence, with particular attention to the role of autonomy. Patient autonomy is a core principle in Dutch general practice. The term refers to the principle that GPs must respect that competent adults can make autonomous decisions about the care they do and do not want, and that GPs must respect patients' views, choices, and ways of life. The interview data shows great variation in how GPs respond in situations of domestic violence against women with non-western migration backgrounds. Deploying 'somatechnics of perception', this paper explores how GPs' perceptions of their patients' autonomy are both the agent and effect of a complex and embodied negotiation of gender, race, culture, ethnicity, medical ethics, and morality. In highlighting how these patients' autonomy is rendered (un)intelligible and (il)legible in contextually specific ways, this paper sheds light on how GPs in the Netherlands can better assist women with non-western migration backgrounds who experience domestic violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this paper is to determine to what extent clinical research meets moral criteria. We will briefly present virtue ethics, duty ethics, utilitarian ethics, human rights theory, and end we will end with a few words about moral bioimprovement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last three quarters of a century, international guidelines and regulations have undergone significant changes in how children are problematised as participants in biomedical research. While early guidelines enacted children as vulnerable subjects with diminished autonomy and in need of special protection, beginning in the early 2000s, international regulatory frameworks defined the paediatric population as vulnerable due to unaddressed public health needs. More recently, ethical recommendations have promoted the active engagement of minors as research partners. In this paper, I adopt a post-structuralist approach to policy analysis to examine deep-seated assumptions and presuppositions underlying the changes in the problematisation of children as biomedical research participants over time. While biomedical research ethics focuses on the autonomy and vulnerability of minors, ethical guidelines are situated in specific sociocultural contexts, shaped, among other things, by contingent public health needs and changing conceptions of the value of research and science for society. In the process, I demonstrate the challenge of moving away from an approach that in taking adults as the model overshadows the complexity of children's lived experiences as well as their personal, cultural, and social lives. The lack of acknowledgement of this complexity makes children vulnerable to epistemic injustice, which is particularly crucial to address in public involvement initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digital pathology (DP) has become a part of the cancer healthcare system, creating additional value for cancer patients. DP implementation in clinical practice provides plenty of benefits but also harbors hidden ethical challenges affecting physician-patient relationships. This paper addresses the ethical obligation to transform the physician-patient relationship for informed and responsible decision-making when using artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools for cancer diagnostics. DP application allows to improve the performance of the Human-AI Team shifting focus from AI challenges towards the Augmented Human Intelligence (AHI) benefits. AHI enhances analytical sensitivity and empowers pathologists to deliver accurate diagnoses and assess predictive biomarkers for further personalized treatment of cancer patients. At the same time, patients' right to know about using AI tools, their accuracy, strengths and limitations, measures for privacy protection, acceptance of privacy concerns and legal protection defines the duty of physicians to provide the relevant information about AHI-based solutions to patients and the community for building transparency, understanding and trust, respecting patients' autonomy and empowering informed decision-making in oncology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Bioéthica is the property of Universidad de Chile, Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Bioetica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Bioethics / Revue canadienne de bioéthique is the property of Ecole de Sante Publique de l'Universite de Montreal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Canada's decriminalisation of assisted death has elicited significant ethical implications for the use of assisted death in healthcare contexts. Euthanasia by removal of vital organs (ERVO) is a theoretical extension of medically assisted death with an increased plausibility of implementation in light of the rapid expansion of assisted death eligibility laws and criteria in Canada. ERVO entails removing organs from a living patient under general anaesthesia as the mechanism of death. While ERVO is intended to maximise the viability of organs procured from the euthanised patient for donation to recipients, ending the lives of patient donors in this manner solely to benefit ill or dying recipient patients merits further ethical consideration. Specifically, the paper explores the application of personalist bioethics in determining whether the means of procuring organs through assisted death justifies the end of improving the lives of those who would benefit from receiving them. Further, by discussing the medical, social and ethical implications of ERVO, I will explicate a broader philosophical understanding of the influences of legalising assisted death on human dignity and conscience., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Respect for patient autonomy is a central principle of medical ethics. However, there are important unresolved questions about the characteristics of an autonomous decision, and whether some autonomous preferences should be subject to more scrutiny than others.In this paper, we consider whether inappropriately adaptive preferences -preferences that are based on and that may perpetuate social injustice-should be categorised as autonomous in a way that gives them normative authority. Some philosophers have argued that inappropriately adaptive preferences do not have normative authority, because they are only a reflection of a person's social context and not of their true self. Under this view, medical professionals who refuse to carry out actions which are based on inappropriately adaptive preferences are not in fact violating their patient's autonomy. However, we argue that it is very difficult to articulate a systematic and principled distinction between normal autonomous preferences and inappropriately adaptive preferences, especially if this distinction needs to be useful for clinicians in real-life situations. This makes it difficult to argue that inappropriately adaptive preferences are straightforwardly non-autonomous.Given this problem, we argue that there are significant theoretical issues with contemporary understandings of autonomy in bioethics. We discuss what this might mean for the practice of medicine and for medical ethics education., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This paper addresses bioethics in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The Introduction (Section 1) highlights that at the field's inception, infectiousness was not front and center. Instead, infectious disease was widely perceived as having been conquered. This made it possible for bioethicists to center values such as individual autonomy, informed consent, and a statist conception of justice. Section 2 urges shifting to values more fitting for the moment the world is in. To find these, it directs attention to the Global South, and in particular, Africa, and to the values of ubuntu, solidarity, dignity, kinship, and humility. The paper concludes (in Section 3) that 21st-century challenges facing bioethics are increasingly global, and calls on bioethicists themselves to be more globally inclusive in their approaches., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Loneliness is ubiquitous and is bad for our health, making it a bioethical concern. It is perhaps true now more than ever before. Recent publications in bioethics have discussed loneliness in the context of responsibility, solidarity, and autonomy, especially relational autonomy. In this paper, I elaborate on the relation between solidarity and loneliness, proposing an account of loneliness as lack of solidarity. Some cases of loneliness, I argue, may be defined and explained by not having someone to identify with you in some relevant aspect or without someone to assist you. I specifically use the work of George Orwell to make my case., (© 2023 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The concept of personhood has been central to bioethics debates about abortion, the treatment of patients in a vegetative or minimally conscious states, as well as patients with advanced dementia. More recently, the concept has been employed to think about new questions related to human-brain organoids, artificial intelligence, uploaded minds, human-animal chimeras, and human embryos, to name a few. A common move has been to ask what these entities have in common with persons (in the normative sense), and then draw conclusions about what we do (or do not) owe them. This paper argues that at best the concept of "personhood" is unhelpful to much of bioethics today and at worst it is harmful and pernicious. I suggest that we (bioethicists) stop using the concept of personhood and instead ask normative questions more directly (e.g., how ought we to treat this being and why?) and use other philosophical concepts (e.g., interests, sentience, recognition respect) to help us answer them. It is time for bioethics to end talk about personhood.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Bioethics / Revue canadienne de bioéthique is the property of Ecole de Sante Publique de l'Universite de Montreal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Bioethics / Revue canadienne de bioéthique is the property of Ecole de Sante Publique de l'Universite de Montreal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Bioethics provides a new perspective for the comparative study of Christianity and Chinese Buddhism. This paper provides a comprehensive comparison of the sources, states of existence, and fundamental principles and purposes of the Christian and Chinese Buddhist perspectives on human life, focusing specifically on the realm of bioethics. It places special emphasis on teachings about God's creation and dependent origination, original sin and Buddhist causality, as well as love and compassion. Despite the significant geographic distance between Christianity and Chinese Buddhism, the dialogue highlights potential cultural differences and interpretations. It also demonstrates mutual acceptance and the process of redefining one's own identity. Religious bioethics greatly benefits from a comprehensive study of various religions from around the world. It aims to encourage cross-cultural and interdisciplinary research on different religions globally. It promotes religious bioethics as a relevant field of study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]