Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Perspectives of IVF users on their spare embryos is a less explored subject in the Indian context despite the country’s population and abundance of IVF clinics. We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews in a selected district of the Indian state of Karnataka. Seven individuals were recruited independently of any assistance from an IVF clinic. The interviews explored participants’ knowledge and perception of the spare embryos using a set of guiding questions exploring the theme of the informed consent process, views on research, preferences for embryo donation, the role of family and the dynamics of decision-making, amongst other things. The interviews were qualitatively analysed using Corbin and Strauss’s grounded theory approach. Our findings reveal that the participants do not learn about the prospects of spare embryos from the very start of their IVF journeys, and they may not be informed about the various options available to decide the fate of the spare embryos. Irrespective of their views on research and moral perceptions of embryos, participants expressed a sense of responsibility and ownership towards their embryos and a general reluctance to donate them. Our findings have implications for guiding future inquiries on this subject, which can better the informed consent process and unravel the role of ownership in the ethics of spare embryos in the Indian context. PubDate: 2024-07-29
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract This article attempts to highlight the importance of including research sustainability as imperative when assessing human medical research in terms of ethical principles. Using a scoping review of recent literature, the complexity of research sustainability is highlighted with key themes and concepts surrounding this important topic being recognized and discussed. An overall paucity of guidance documents was identified and recommendations have been made to practically address this deficiency. An example of a research sustainability evaluation tool which is currently being piloted has been provided for possible adaptation and use by Ethics Committees and Institutional Review Boards to bolster the concept and inclusion of sustainability during the research approval process. PubDate: 2024-07-25
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Contemporary genome editing techniques have made genomic intervention—from microorganism to human—more accessible, easier to use, and more accurate than previous methods. We argue that, notwithstanding its merits in treating and preventing disease in humans, genome editing represents a potential threat for domestic and international security, requiring an integrated approach in regulating, detecting, preventing, and mitigating the risk of its use for malicious purposes. Despite the global regulatory ambitions of the 2021 WHO framework, we see insufficient attention given to the future prospect of dual-use genomic technology. Drawing parallels with the nuclear field, we suggest tentative practical steps for a way forward in dealing with genome editing technologies, such as: 1) adapting national (bio)security and defence strategies to include genome editing as a possible threat (with conceivable WMD potential); 2) enhancing the international dialogue on genome editing and raising the issue at the highest level; 3) working towards a global, legally binding verification mechanism; 4) tracking genome editing technologies. PubDate: 2024-07-24
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract In this paper, I discuss the ethical issues related to deception in human subject research in terms of honesty. First, I introduce the background and suggest the conception of honesty that understands it as involving respect for the right not to be deceived (RND). Next, I examine several ways to address the ethical issues of deceptive elements in the human subject research and show why they fail to adequately meet the demand of honesty. I focus on how to make an honest research plan and examine after participation and before participation phases in turn. Then I conclude by suggesting possible strategies to minimize dishonesty in human subject research. PubDate: 2024-07-24
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract This study focuses on issues related to living organ donation for transplantation in Bangladesh. The policy and practice of living organ donation for transplantation in Bangladesh is family-oriented: close relatives (legal and genetic) are the only ones allowed to be living donors. Unrelated donors, altruistic donors (directed and non-directed), and paired/pooled or non-directed altruistic living donor chains—as many of these are implemented in other countries—are not legally allowed to serve as living donors in Bangladesh. This paper presents normative arguments explaining why the family-oriented nature of regulations and practices surrounding living organ donation for transplantation is essential for Bangladesh. In this article, I specifically argue that if the Bangladesh government revises the current biomedical policy robustly beyond relatives and allows unrelated donors to donate organs legally, this may foster organ selling due to the poverty and corruption problems in Bangladesh. The family-oriented requirement of the living organ donation policy and practice is defensible and morally justifiable as it preserves common notions of the family unit and family bonding in Bangladesh. Maintaining the current living-donation regulations and promoting deceased donation is the way forward, as this safely preserves the family values, protects against organ selling, and increases access to organ transplantation. PubDate: 2024-07-22
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract The principle of non-directiveness remains an important tenet in genetics. However, the concept has encountered growing criticism over the last two decades. There is an ongoing discussion about its appropriateness for specific situations in genetics, especially in light of recent significant advancements in genetic medicine. Despite the debate surrounding non-directiveness, there is a notable lack of up-to-date international research empirically investigating the issue from the perspective of those who actually do genetic counselling. Addressing this gap, our article delves into the viewpoints and experiences of medical geneticists in Germany and Switzerland. Twenty qualitative interviews were analysed employing reflexive thematic analysis. Participants’ responses revealed substantial uncertainties and divergences in their understanding and application of the concept. It seems to cause distress since many geneticists stated that the principle was difficult to put into clinical practice and was no longer ethically justified given the increasing likelihood of therapeutic implications resulting from genomic testing outcomes. The insights provided by our qualitative empirical study accord with the ongoing theoretical debate regarding the definition, legitimacy, and feasibility of the principle. An adequately nuanced understanding and application of non-directiveness seems crucial to circumvent the risks inherent in the principle, while promoting patient autonomy and beneficence. PubDate: 2024-07-22
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract An ethical and legal framework is needed to regulate the rapidly developing human brain organoid research field properly. However, considering the legal issues involved in human brain organoid research remains underdeveloped and scattered. This article reviews the legal issues of human brain organoid research, grouping them into the following five broad themes: (1) consciousness, (2) legal status, (3) consent, (4) ownership, and (5) transplantation. The issues in each topic include both the urgent (e.g., appropriate forms of consent) and the speculative (e.g., protection of conscious human brain organoids). Therefore, we have attempted to be as explicit as possible about the timescale within which each issue will be realized and to prioritize each. Examining these issues has revealed legal issues specific to human brain organoid research and issues common to research in other fields. Further discussion of human brain organoid research from a legal perspective is needed in the future, considering discussions in related fields. PubDate: 2024-07-05
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Objective: To examine i) how ethical frameworks can be used in concrete cases of parent–doctors’ disagreements for extremely preterm infants born in the grey zone to guide such difficult decision-making; and ii) what challenges stakeholders may encounter in using these frameworks. Design: We did a case analysis of a concrete case of parent–doctor disagreement in the grey zone using two ethical frameworks: the best interest standard and the zone of parental discretion. Results: Both ethical frameworks entailed similar advantages and challenges. They have the potential 1) to facilitate decision-making because they follow a structured method; 2) to clarify the situation because all relevant ethical issues are explored; and 3) to facilitate reaching an agreement because all parties can explain their views. We identified three main challenges. First, how to objectively evaluate the risk of severe disability. Second, parents’ interests should be considered but it is not clear to what extent. Third, this is a value-laden situation and different people have different values, meaning that the frameworks are at least partially subjective. Conclusions: These challenges do not mean that the ethical frameworks are faulty; rather, they reflect the complexity and the sensitivity of cases in the grey zone. PubDate: 2024-07-05
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract I defend a novel account of the wrong of subjecting people to non-consensual sterilization (NCS), particularly in the context of the state-sponsored eugenics programmes once prevalent in the United States. What makes the eugenicist practice of NCS distinctively wrong, I claim, is its dehumanizing core: the fact that it is tantamount to treating people as nonhuman animals, thereby expressing the degrading social meaning that they have the value of animals. The practice of NCS is prima facie seriously wrong partly, but crucially, on these grounds. I consider and reject accounts of the wrong of NCS that make no reference to its animalizing character, such as that it violates victims’ (procreative) autonomy, amounts to treating them merely as a means, inflicts psychological harm on them, or constitutes an affront to their human dignity. My discussion suggests that the critical vocabulary of bioethics should be expanded beyond talk of rights violations, benefits and harms, and equal treatment—and that the language of dehumanization is indispensable to bioethicists. PubDate: 2024-07-05
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract On June 5, 2024, the Australian Capital Territory passed a law to permit voluntary assisted dying (“VAD”). The Australian Capital Territory became the first Australian jurisdiction to permit nurse practitioners to assess eligibility for VAD. Given evidence of access barriers to VAD in Australia, including difficulty finding a doctor willing to assist, the Australian Capital Territory’s approach should prompt consideration of whether the role of nurses in VAD should be expanded in other Australian jurisdictions. Drawing on lessons from Canada, which currently permits nurse practitioners to assess patient eligibility, we argue that the time has come for Australian jurisdictions to expand the role of nurses in VAD systems. This would be an important step in ensuring access to VAD for patients in practice. Attention, however, must also be paid to ensuring adequate remuneration of nurses (and doctors) if this goal of promoting access is to be achieved in practice. PubDate: 2024-06-13 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-024-10370-y
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract I embark on the writing of this short note not as an expert in ethics or a seasoned war analyst but rather as an involved observer nudged into the spotlight by a colleague’s overestimation of my insight into the Israel–Hamas conflict. I approach this task with scepticism yet hoping to morph it into a form of therapy. My own therapy, a means to break the shackles of silence that have gripped not only myself but, I suspect, many others in Israel. PubDate: 2024-06-05 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-024-10348-w
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Bioethicists, through their writings, have been known to represent the conscience of the times. Speaking up against injustices, they have acted as moral compasses in the past. The events of October 7, 2023 and the resulting armed onslaught of Israeli forces on Gaza has created a huge humanitarian crisis. However, response of the global bioethics community appears muffled. In order to gain an objective insight, we conducted a scoping review of articles published on the current conflict in the top ten bioethics journals, as classified by Google metrics. Broadening this search, we included relevant grey literature and selected medical and global health journals in our review. All types of articles published from the initiation of the conflict to the end of March 2024 were included. Findings from our exercise highlight the paucity of articles published on this crisis. This apparent indifference towards the Gaza crisis can be explained either by reluctance by bioethicists to write on this issue or perhaps due to editorial restraints. We argue that bioethicists, instead of focusing on esoteric issues, have a greater moral responsibility to speak out against injustices in Gaza. Their silence amounts to complicity and erodes the very foundations of the discipline of bioethics. PubDate: 2024-06-05 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-024-10364-w
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract This paper reviews briefly the main approaches in the literature on ethics of war and suggests the need to move beyond an ethic of justice towards an ethic of care. The analysis problematizes dominant understandings of “just war” and “just peace” in the literature and highlights that incorporating elements of an ethic of care, our understanding of ethics of war and peace can be redefined, sharpened, and redeployed through an enlarged ethical lens. The author suggests that scholars and practitioners in different fields of study and domains of social and political life can make important contributions by defining, elucidating, and advocating why both perspectives, those of ethic of justice and care, together allow us to capture the prospects of a broader understanding and the practice of peace. PubDate: 2024-06-04 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-024-10366-8
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract As the science and technology of the brain and mind develop, so do the ways in which brains and minds may be surveilled and manipulated. Some cognitive libertarians worry that these developments undermine cognitive liberty or “freedom of thought.” I argue that protecting an individual’s cognitive liberty undermines others’ ability to use their own cognitive liberty. Given that the threatening devices and processes are not relevantly different from ordinary and frequent intrusions upon one’s brain and mind, strong protections of cognitive liberty may proscribe neurotechnological intrusions but also ordinary intrusions. Thus, the cognitive libertarian position “hog-ties” others’ use of their own liberties. This problem for the cognitive libertarian is the same problem that ordinary libertarianism faces in protecting individual rights to property and person. But the libertarian strategies for resolving the problem don’t work for the cognitive libertarian. I conclude that the right to mental privacy is weaker than what cognitive libertarians want it to be. PubDate: 2024-06-03 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-024-10344-0
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract We expand on Della Croce’s ambition to interpret “epistemic injustice” as a specification of non-maleficence in the use of the influential four-principle framework. This is an alluring line of thought for conceptual, moral, and heuristic reasons. Although it is commendable, Della Croce’s attempt remains tentative. So does our critique of it. Yet, we take on the challenge to critically address two interrelated points. First, we broaden the analysis to include deliberations about hermeneutical injustice. We argue that, if due consideration of epistemic injustice is to require more than negative ethical obligations in medicine, dimensions of hermeneutical injustice should be explored as an avenue to arrive at such positive duties. Second, and relatedly, we argue that this may encompass moral responsibilities beyond the individual level, that is: positive obligations to take action on a structural level. Building on Dotson’s concept of “contributory injustice” and Scheman’s concept of “perceptual autonomy,” we suggest that the virtues of testimonial and hermeneutical justice may provide additional content not only to negative prohibitions of action (i.e. non-maleficence) but also to positive requirements of action, like respecting patient autonomy. PubDate: 2024-06-01
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract The widespread application of QR code technology is best represented by the health codes used in China’s pandemic prevention and control. This technology has enhanced the country’s ability to manage the pandemic by achieving higher efficiency and accuracy. Unfortunately, a certain segment of the older population has encountered difficulties in adapting and maintaining their daily activities. This indicates the limitations of QR code technology in achieving social isolation. This article argues that for a more comprehensive pandemic prevention and control policy system to be established, managing the implementation of this very technology should be done in a more humane fashion, i.e. under the guidance of three moral principles: benevolence, justice, and non-maleficence. By doing so, implementation of QR code technology is done in a way that is not only conducive to COVID-19 prevention and control but also mitigate marginalization of the older people. In the post-pandemic era, the socialization of digital technology will accelerate. Therefore, in the field of public health, we should direct attention not only to the fair distribution of resources but also to the issue of identity that arises due to digital divide. PubDate: 2024-06-01
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Contemporary medicine views health as the individual’s physical, mental, and social well-being. Oral health plays a crucial role in one’s well-being, as the oral cavity and its surrounding regions execute essential functions in verbal and nonverbal communication, sensing, digestion, and significantly contribute to aesthetic appearance. The multifaceted nature of the notion of oral health, as well as the patient’s needs and autonomous will result in various treatment options for the same oral state, favouring often contrasting ethical values and different aspects of oral health. The objective of this article is to suggest alternative treatment strategies in dentistry with respect to the following factors: extent of rehabilitation, preserving one’s anatomical structures, aesthetic outcome, number of sessions, patient autonomy. Additionally, this article describes the suggested treatment strategies in an ethical context and determines the conditions of their employment. The suggested treatment strategies are divided in two categories, extensive treatment strategies focusing on the patient’s entire craniofacial complex, while specific treatment strategies focus on specific paramount issues. PubDate: 2024-06-01
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract A large proportion of hospital inpatients are affected by cognitive impairment, posing challenges in the provision of their care in busy, fast-paced acute wards. Signs and symbols, known as visual identifiers, are employed in many U.K. hospitals with the intention of helping healthcare professionals identify and respond to the needs of these patients. Although widely considered useful, these tools are used inconsistently, have not been subject to full evaluation, and attract criticism for acting as a shorthand for a routinized response. In order for visual identifiers to be used effectively in acute care settings, thorough consideration must be given to the ethical and legal issues that are engaged in this context, and their potential benefits and harms must be weighed and balanced. This paper proposes a set of legal and ethical principles that can be used to guide the implementation of visual identifiers. Together, these principles provide a framework applicable in the design and implementation phases to systematically identify relevant considerations arising from the use of these tools. We outline some tensions that arise between principles and conclude that selecting a preferred moral framework could help to guide decision-making, as does clarity around the purpose and objectives of the identifier. PubDate: 2024-06-01
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract On January 11, 2024, the United Kingdom (U.K.) Supreme Court rendered its judgment in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, restricting the circumstances in which “secondary victims” can successfully claim for damages in clinical negligence cases. This ruling has provided welcome clarity regarding the scope of negligently caused “pure” psychiatric illness claims, but the judgment may well prove controversial. In this article, I trace the facts and opinion from the majority and also discuss an important dissenting opinion. I then reflect on what the ruling means for psychiatric illness claims by secondary victims, and more broadly on the implications for clinical negligence law. I suggest that while much-needed clarity has been injected in this area of the law, it is difficult, reading the majority of the Supreme Court’s emphasis on the restricted scope of a medical practitioner’s duty, to envision a scenario in which secondary victim could ever succeed in a clinical negligence context. PubDate: 2024-05-22 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-024-10346-y
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
[2468 journals]
