Search

Many adolescent patients with chronic medical conditions do not manage their illnesses very closely and often put themselves at risk for serious health complications. Setting aside cases of nonadherence that are due to practical difficulties involving the implementation of a management plan, a deeply problematic question remains. How should health care providers respond to adolescent patients who express a conscious and value-driven decision to pursue other goals and interests that are incompatible with their doctors' recommended directives? Using two guiding ethical principles, the "relevant difference principle" and the "principle of noninterference," as well as available empirical data on adolescent decision making and risk perception, the paper concludes that most adolescents ages 14 and older should be allowed to make self-determining decisions regarding the management of their chronic medical conditions.

The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) presents its 2016 Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation (ISSCR, 2016). The 2016 guidelines reflect the revision and extension of two past sets of guidelines (ISSCR, 2006; ISSCR, 2008) to address new and emerging areas of stem cell discovery and application and evolving ethical, social, and policy challenges. These guidelines provide an integrated set of principles and best practices to drive progress in basic, translational, and clinical research. The guidelines demand rigor, oversight, and transparency in all aspects of practice, providing confidence to practitioners and public alike that stem cell science can proceed efficiently and remain responsive to public and patient interests. Here, we highlight key elements and recommendations in the guidelines and summarize the recommendations and deliberations behind them.

MR-guided focused ultrasound is a promising intervention for treatment-resistant mental illness, and merits contextualized ethical exploration in relation to more extensive ethical literature regarding other psychosurgical and neuromodulation treatment options for this patient population. To our knowledge, this topic has not yet been explored in the published literature. The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss in detail the neuroethical implications of MR-guided focused ultrasound for neuropsychiatric illness as an emerging treatment modality. Due to the lack of published literature on the topic, the approach involved a detailed survey and review of technical and medical literature relevant to focused ultrasound and established ethical issues related to alternative treatment options for patients with treatment-resistant, severe and persistent mental illness. The manuscript is structured according to thematic and topical findings. This technology has potential benefits for patients suffering with severe mental illness, compared with established alternatives. The balance of technical, neuroscientific and clinical considerations should inform ethical deliberations. The nascent literature base, nuances in legal classification and permissibility depending upon jurisdiction, influences of past ethical issues associated with alternative treatments, tone and framing in media articles, and complexity of clinical trials all influence ethical assessment and evaluations of multiple stakeholders. Recommendations for future research are provided based on these factors. Salient ethical inquiry should be further explored by researchers, clinicians, and ethicists in a nuanced manner methodologically, one which is informed by past and present ethical issues related to alternative treatment options, broader psychiatric treatment frameworks, pragmatic implementation challenges, intercultural considerations, and patients' ethical concerns. • An ethical analysis of MR-guided focused ultrasound for neuropsychiatric illness is conducted. • Related ethico-legal literature on psychosurgery and neuromodulation are considered. • Future research should involve diverse collaboration and stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is the lead piece in a special report that presents the results of a bioethical investigation into chimeric research, which involves the insertion of human cells into nonhuman animals and nonhuman animal embryos, including into their brains. Rapid scientific developments in this field may advance knowledge and could lead to new therapies for humans. They also reveal the conceptual, ethical, and procedural limitations of existing ethics guidance for human‐nonhuman chimeric research. Led by bioethics researchers working closely with an interdisciplinary work group, the investigation focused on generating conceptual clarity and identifying improvements to governance approaches, with the goal of helping scholars, funders, scientists, institutional leaders, and oversight bodies (embryonic stem cell research oversight [ESCRO] committees and institutional animal care and use committees [IACUCs]) deliver principled and trustworthy oversight of this area of science. The article, which focuses on human‐nonhuman animal chimeric research that is stem cell based, identifies key ethical issues in and offers ten recommendations regarding the ethics and oversight of this research. Turning from bioethics' previous focus on human‐centered questions about the ethics of "humanization" and this research's potential impact on concepts like human dignity, this article emphasizes the importance of nonhuman animal welfare concerns in chimeric research and argues for less‐siloed governance and oversight and more‐comprehensive public communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of nonhuman animals in research has long been a source of bioethical and scientific debate. We consider the oversight and use of nonhuman animals in chimeric research. We conducted interviews with twelve members of embryonic stem cell research oversight committees, nine members of institutional animal care and use committees, and fourteen scientists involved in human–nonhuman‐animal chimeric research in different areas of the United States. Interviews addressed animal welfare and conceptual issues associated with moral status and humanization of nonhuman animals that contain human cells. Our findings suggest that concepts of enhanced moral status and consciousness are not very useful in human–nonhuman‐animal chimeric research in part because their meanings are not easily defined, which presents challenges to applying the concepts in research. Instead, scientists and oversight committee members we interviewed seemed to rely on standard assessments of changes in animal welfare when focusing on the ethics of human‐animal chimeric research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discussion of the bioethics of human stem cell research has transitioned from controversies over the source of human embryonic stem cells to concerns about the ethical use of stem cells in basic and clinical research. Key areas in this evolving ethical discourse include the derivation and use of other human embryonic stem cell-like stem cells that have the capacity to differentiate into all types of human tissue and the use of all types of stem cells in clinical research. Each of these issues is discussed as I summarize the past, present, and future bioethical issues in stem cell research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review provides a snapshot of the current ethical issues related to research with human brain organoids. The issues fall into the following main themes: research oversight; human biomaterials procurement and donor consent; translational delivery; animal research; and organoid consciousness and moral status. Each of these areas poses challenges for researchers, bioethicists, regulators, research institutions, and tissue banks. However, progress can be made if these parties build on past experiences with stem cell research, ethics, and policy, but adapted accordingly to new aspects of brain organoid research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss the article "The argument from potentiality in the embryo protection debate: Finally 'depotentialized'?" by M. S. Stier and B. Schoene-Seifert from the volume 13 number 1, 2013 issue, which looks at the potentiality argument (PA) of the moral status of human embryo cells. Topics include tetraploid complementation assays using human induced pluripotent stem cells, cell differentiation of human and mouse stem cells, and the role of implantation in embryonic development.