Search

A recent study published in Human Reproduction investigated the feasibility of testicular tissue re-implantation as a method to restore fertility in infertile adult males. The study found that while the transplanted tissue was able to survive, it did not generate sperm, raising questions about the suitability of this approach for certain patients. The study also emphasized the importance of publishing negative results to inform future clinical applications. The authors discussed the ethical considerations of "first in human" procedures and the benefits of publishing negative results. They concluded that re-implantation of testicular tissue may be more beneficial for prepubertal boys facing gonadotoxic therapies, as their testicular tissue is healthier and more likely to generate functional sperm. [Extracted from the article]

Most academic papers on ethics in pandemics concentrate on the duties of healthcare professionals. This paper will consider non-professional healthcare workers: do they have a moral obligation to work during an influenza pandemic? If so, is this an obligation that outweighs others they might have, e.g., as parents, and should such an obligation be backed up by the coercive power of law? This paper considers whether non-professional healthcare workers—porters, domestic service workers, catering staff, clerks, IT support workers, etc.—have an obligation to work during an influenza pandemic. It uses data collected as part of a study looking at the attitudes of healthcare workers to working during a pandemic to suggest the philosophical arguments explored. These include: being in a position to do good, the ethics of work, competing obligations to family members and in particular to children and the obligations of citizens in a state of national emergency. We also look at whether compulsory measures are justified to support a national health service during a health emergency. We conclude that even if they are, compulsion should not be restricted to non-professionals who happen to be working in the health service at the time. Rather, compulsion involving a larger pool of people with the relevant skills and abilities is more equitable. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In the third of a series of articles examining ethical issues in primary care research, we argue that family doctors, when considering what they ought to do in relation to research, have a positive obligation to participate in research and that one means of discharging this obligation is to collaborate in research studies by aiding recruitment. We offer three arguments in support of this obligation–arguments from fairness, reason and utility. We then go on to specify a series of conditions on this obligation which take into account that doctors have many other obligations. These are the conditions of financial remuneration, reciprocity and ability. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]