Search

Intense public interest in scientific claims about COVID-19, concerning its origins, modes of spread, evolution, and preventive and therapeutic strategies, has focused attention on the values to which scientists are assumed to be committed and the relationship between science and other public discourses. A much discussed claim, which has stimulated several inquiries and generated far-reaching political and economic consequences, has been that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately engineered at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and then, either inadvertently or otherwise, released to the public by a laboratory worker. This has been pursued despite a clear refutation, through comprehensive genomic analysis, of the hypothesis that the virus was deliberately engineered and the failure of detailed investigations to identify any evidence in support of a laboratory leak. At the same time a substantial, established body of knowledge about the many factors underlying the emergence of novel zoonotic diseases has been largely ignored—including climate change and other mechanisms of environmental destruction, tourism, patterns of trade, and cultural influences. The existence and conduct of these debates have raised questions about the vulnerability of science to manipulation for political purposes. Scientific discourses are vulnerable because: (i) claims can be made with no more than probabilistic force; (ii) alleged "facts" are always subject to interpretation, which depends on social, ethical, and epistemological assumptions; and (iii) science and scientists are not inherently committed to any single set of values and historically have served diverse, and sometimes perverse, social and political interests. In the face of this complexity, the COVID-19 experience highlights the need for processes of ethical scrutiny of the scientific enterprise and its strategic deployment. To ensure reliability of truth claims and protection from corrupting influences robust ethical discourses are required that are independent of, and at times even contrary to, those of science itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The NSW Government has proposed a blanket lifting of COVID-19 restrictions when the proportion of fully vaccinated people rate reaches 70% of the adult population. If implemented, this would have devastating effects on Aboriginal populations. At the present time, vaccination rates in Aboriginal communities remain low. Once restrictions are lifted, unvaccinated people will be at high risk of infection. The risks of serious illness and death among Aboriginal people from a variety of medical conditions are significantly greater than for the wider population. This is also the case with COVID-19 in First Nations populations around the world. The vulnerability of Aboriginal people is an enduring consequence of colonialism and is exacerbated by the fact that many live in overcrowded and poorly maintained houses in communities with under-resourced health services. A current workforce crisis and the demographic structure of the population have further hindered the effectiveness of vaccination programmes. Aboriginal organisations have called on state and federal governments to delay any substantial easing of restrictions until full vaccination rates among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations aged 16 years and older reach 90-95%. They have also called for additional support in the form of supply of vaccines, enhancement of workforce capacity and appropriate incentives to address hesitancy. Australia remains burdened by the legacy of centuries of harm and damage to its First Nations people. Urgent steps must be taken to avoid a renewed assault on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rituals may be understood broadly as stereotyped behaviours carrying symbolic meanings, which play a crucial role in defining relationships, legitimating authority, giving meaning to certain life events and stabilising social structures. Despite intense interest in the subject, and an extensive literature, relatively little attention has been given to the nature, role and function of ritual in contemporary medicine. Medicine is replete with ritualistic behaviours and imperatives, which play a crucial role in all aspects of clinical practice. Rituals play multiple, complex functions in clinical interactions and have an important role in shaping interactions, experiences and outcomes. Longstanding medical rituals have been disrupted in the wake of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Medical rituals may be evident or invisible, often overlap with or operate alongside instrumentalised practices, and play crucial roles in establishing, maintaining and guaranteeing the efficacy of clinical practices. Rituals can also inhibit progress and change, by enforcing arbitrary authority. Physicians should consider when they are undertaking a ritual practice and recognise when the exigencies of contemporary practice are affecting that ritual with or without meaning or intention. Physicians should reflect on whether aspects of their ritual interactions are undertaken on the basis of sentiment, custom or evidence‐based outcomes, and whether rituals should be defended, continued in a modified fashion or even abandoned in favour of new behaviours suitable for and salient with contemporary practice in the interests of patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the concept of 'conflict of interest' (COI) arises in many contexts in healthcare, it is often poorly understood, and commonly accepted, definitions are often circular, self‐contradictory and unable to provide procedural guidance. To overcome such confusion and imprecision, we offer a reformulation of COI that carefully defines interests, clarifies their scope and articulates a simple, non‐punitive approach to managing them. We define an 'interest' as 'a commitment, goal, obligation or duty related to a particular social role or practice'. We show how in a particular setting multiple interests can be at play, which can be either financial or non‐financial, with the latter often being the most potent drivers of behaviour. We define a 'conflict of interest' as the condition that arises when two coexisting interests directly conflict with each other: that is, when they are likely to compel contrary and incompatible outcomes. COI therefore reflect objective states of affairs rather than internal mental states; they do not imply moral error; and they are identified through public rather than private processes involving ethical dialogues among relevant stakeholders. Once a COI has been identified, responses must be determined based on the seriousness of the conflict and the conditions that generated it. Such responses may be minimal or they may require a formal disengagement from one of the conflicting interests. The framework described, reflects the rich diversity of interests in modern societies, is universally applicable and provides simple, readily applicable guidelines for the identification and management of conflicts arising between them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Contradictory social policies and attitudes about gender diversity raise questions about how we should understand the current status of the historical 'heterosexual' gender regime.Conclusion: Drawing on the work of the feminist philosopher and psychoanalyst Luce Irigaray, this essay argues that sexual difference is the irreducible starting point for all meaning, sense, morality and affect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research into the effects of medical interventions is one of the oldest traditions of any medicine, as is the study of its ethical dimension. In this paper, we briefly describe and recount the history of both quantitative and qualitative methods in clinical research. We discuss key theoretical, methodological and practical features of both methodological perspectives and consider some of the central ideas of medical ethics. We sketch a theory of the relationship between the quantitative and qualitative as essentially complementary and interdependent. The theory is illustrated by reference to the placebo effect and a research 'case study' from within the Chinese medicine community. We conclude that despite the challenges, combined research methodologies in Chinese medicine offer both scientific and ethical benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the ethical and legal implications of placing racial conditions on the donation of umbilical cord blood as of March 2012, focusing on an analysis of directed and non-directed familial and non-familial donations. The New South Wales, Australia Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 is mentioned in regards to gamete donors and their control over access to their gametes and embryos.

The article discusses the article "Clarifying Conflict of Interest," by Howard Brody. In the article the authors offer their opinions on several statements and assertions that are contained in Brody's article and on a need which exists for to have a systematic analysis and ethical dialogue in an effort to prevent ethical issues related to conflicts of interest that are raised as a result of relationships that are formed between physicians and for-profit organizations.

To understand the traditional description of medicine as a practice of healing, it is necessary to examine its relationships with both science and ethics. The "scientific" component of medicine includes an acknowledgment of the influence of social, cultural and environmental factors on the functioning of the organism. The "ethical" component is often presented as merely supplementary but actually provides the conditions of possibility of knowledge. "Healing" then appears as what joins the two together: the site where science is applied in the service of ethics and where ethics encounters science. This perspective allows us to reconsider medicine as a project to healing complex wounds that manifest themselves at the physical, psychological, emotional and cultural levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]