-
Biomolecules Dec 2021In the last decade, genome editing technologies became very effective and several clinical trials have been started in order to use them for treating some genetic... (Review)
Review
In the last decade, genome editing technologies became very effective and several clinical trials have been started in order to use them for treating some genetic diseases. Interestingly, despite more than 50 years of discussion about the frontiers of genetics in human health and evolution, the debate about the bioethics and the regulatory practices of genome editing is still far from satisfactory answers. This delay results from an excessive emphasis on the effectiveness of the genome editing technologies that is relevant for the regulatory practices, but not at a bioethical level. Indeed, other factors (such as accessibility and acceptability) could make these techniques not accepted at the bioethical level, even in the presence of their 100% effectiveness.
Topics: Bioethics; CRISPR-Cas Systems; Gene Editing; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans
PubMed: 35053161
DOI: 10.3390/biom12010013 -
The Hastings Center Report Jul 2020Bioethicists have sometimes regarded the opioid epidemic as a problem with obvious answers and thus no need for the field's conceptual analysis. Yet, as three essays in...
Bioethicists have sometimes regarded the opioid epidemic as a problem with obvious answers and thus no need for the field's conceptual analysis. Yet, as three essays in the July-August 2020 issue of the Hastings Center Report demonstrate, the opioid crisis contains a knot of distinctions and puzzles to be sorted out. Travis N. Rieder examines, for example, what is fundamentally driving the crisis-access to the drugs or large societal problems such as poverty and joblessness. The role of choice in addiction, the effects of moral condemnation on approaches to addiction, and what treatment should look like are among the puzzles Hanna Pickard explores, while Daniel S. Goldberg focuses on the common and harmful conflation of the public health problems of substance misuse and pain. These philosophical and bioethical questions point in widely different directions, lying both inside and outside bioethics. They point toward systemic societal factors that determine health and well-being yet have seemed outside bioethics' largely clinical boundaries. And they point toward a deeper look at the very idea of autonomy-an examination of a topic clearly within bioethics yet occurring at the fringes of its usual constructs.
Topics: Bioethical Issues; Bioethics; Humans; Morals; Public Health
PubMed: 33448414
DOI: 10.1002/hast.1165 -
The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Nov 2022If bioethical questions cannot be resolved in a widely acceptable manner by rational argument, and if they can be regulated only on the basis of political...
If bioethical questions cannot be resolved in a widely acceptable manner by rational argument, and if they can be regulated only on the basis of political decision-making, then bioethics belongs to the political sphere. The particular kind of politics practiced in any given society matters greatly: it will determine the kind of bioethical regulation, legislation, and public policy generated there. I propose approaching bioethical questions politically in terms of decisions that cannot be "correct" but that can be "procedurally legitimate." Two procedures in particular can deliver legitimate bioethical decisions, once combined: expert bioethics committees and deliberative democracy. Bioethics so understood can exceed bioethics as a moral project or as a set of administrative principles to regulate medical practice; it can now aspire to a democratic project that involves ordinary citizens as far as reasonably possible. I advance this argument in four steps: (1) using the example of human germline gene editing, (2) I propose a general understanding of proceduralism, and (3) then combine two types and (4) conclude with a defense of majoritarian proceduralism. I develop this argument in terms of one example: germline gene editing.
Topics: Humans; Democracy; Bioethics; Politics; Public Policy; Morals; Bioethical Issues
PubMed: 35512122
DOI: 10.1093/jmp/jhac008 -
The New Bioethics : a Multidisciplinary... Sep 2020
Topics: Bioethical Issues; Bioethics; Europe; Humans
PubMed: 32821030
DOI: 10.1080/20502877.2020.1808397 -
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Sep 2019To present a narrative review of the history of bioethics in Latin America and of scientific output in this interdisciplinary field. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To present a narrative review of the history of bioethics in Latin America and of scientific output in this interdisciplinary field.
METHODS
This was a mixed-methods study.
RESULTS
A total of 1458 records were retrieved, of which 1167 met the inclusion criteria. According to the Web of Science classification, the predominant topics of study were medical ethics (n= 488), social sciences and medicine (n= 354), and environmental and public health topics (n= 279). Four themes of bioethics output in the Latin American literature have emerged: (a) issues involving the beginning and end of life, (b) ethics in human research, (c) patient-provider relationships, and (d) ethics training for health professionals.
CONCLUSION
Although bioethics is a growing interdisciplinary field in Latin America, its academic impact is still very low, and programmes are highly concentrated in large urban centres in a few countries. Challenges includes the regional and international impact of local scientific output.
Topics: Beginning of Human Life; Bioethical Issues; Bioethics; Ethics, Medical; Health Personnel; History, 20th Century; Human Experimentation; Humans; Informed Consent; Latin America; Models, Theoretical; Professional-Patient Relations; Public Health; Terminal Care; Urban Health
PubMed: 30778904
DOI: 10.1007/s11673-019-09903-7 -
Bioethics May 2022
Topics: Bioethical Issues; Bioethics; Humans
PubMed: 35481877
DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13038 -
The Hastings Center Report Mar 2022In recognizing that overcoming anti-Blackness and structural racism requires a collective effort, Latinx bioethics has emerged as a space in the larger field of...
In recognizing that overcoming anti-Blackness and structural racism requires a collective effort, Latinx bioethics has emerged as a space in the larger field of bioethics where Latino scholars, researchers, artists, and other bioethics professionals are contributing to deconstructing anti-Blackness. With attention to race and ethnocultural perspectives, Latinx bioethics draws from bioethical theories and conceptual frameworks to address ethical and moral issues affecting Latino communities. This essay aims to explain how Latinx bioethics aids in centering the Latinx voice and eradicating anti-Blackness in bioethics. After introducing the Latinx bioethics framework and mission, the essay explores the overlap between Black bioethics and Latinx bioethics and discusses why this overlap calls for cross-examination and collaboration in the field. The essay concludes with a summary of recommendations and reflections that bioethics can adopt to begin progressing toward a more inclusive and racially equitable field.
Topics: Bioethical Issues; Bioethics; Courage; Humans; Morals
PubMed: 35470887
DOI: 10.1002/hast.1373 -
Journal of Medical Ethics Feb 2021Bioethical work on solidarity has yielded an array of divergent conceptions. But what do these accounts add to normative bioethics? What is solidarity's distinctive...
Bioethical work on solidarity has yielded an array of divergent conceptions. But what do these accounts add to normative bioethics? What is solidarity's distinctive social normative role? Prainsack and Buyx suggest that solidarity be understood as the 'putty' of justice. I argue here that the putty metaphor is deeply insightful and-when spelled out in detail-successfully explicates solidarity's social normative function. Unfortunately, Prainsack and Buyx's own account cannot play this role. I propose instead that the putty metaphor supports a conception of solidarity as equity. This proposal enables us to answer whether and when we should act in solidarity, and with whom, while also capturing the putty metaphor and hence answering a basic question: what is solidarity for?
Topics: Bioethics; Humans; Social Justice
PubMed: 32620573
DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-106040 -
Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics 2013This narrative symposium examines the relationship of bioethics practice to personal experiences of illness. A call for stories was developed by Tod Chambers, the...
This narrative symposium examines the relationship of bioethics practice to personal experiences of illness. A call for stories was developed by Tod Chambers, the symposium editor, and editorial staff and was sent to several commonly used bioethics listservs and posted on the Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics website. The call asked authors to relate a personal story of being ill or caring for a person who is ill, and to describe how this affected how they think about bioethical questions and the practice of medicine. Eighteen individuals were invited to submit full stories based on review of their proposals. Twelve stories are published in this symposium, and six supplemental stories are published online only through Project MUSE. Authors explore themes of vulnerability, suffering, communication, voluntariness, cultural barriers, and flaws in local healthcare systems through stories about their own illnesses or about caring for children, partners, parents and grandparents. Commentary articles by Arthur Frank, Bradley Lewis, and Carol Taylor follow the collection of personal narratives.
Topics: Bioethical Issues; Bioethics; Ethics, Clinical; Health Personnel; Humans; Morals; Narration
PubMed: 24406989
DOI: 10.1353/nib.2013.0001 -
Comptes Rendus Biologies 2015The paper is about the links between ethics and science, at a time (1974-2014) when the life sciences expanded rapidly. First (1974-1994), the development of a...
The paper is about the links between ethics and science, at a time (1974-2014) when the life sciences expanded rapidly. First (1974-1994), the development of a principlist ethics, set out by philosophers, sustained the research, and the scientists, expected to behave responsibly, felt like they could easily converge towards impeccable and consensual solutions to any problem arising from scientific innovations. Later on (1994-2014), however, while yielding ground to social sciences and ground work, bioethics took an empirical turn; then it became clear that behaving responsibly was compatible with a plurality of divergent normative convictions. Ethics crumbled. Local or national policies restored order, so-called bioethical laws short-circuited ethical reflection. And far from being respected as the wise men, apt to recommend the very best solutions to problems raised by new scientific advances, researchers happened to be deemed irresponsible, as some of them were suspected of lacking intellectual integrity.
Topics: Bioethics; Biological Science Disciplines; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Public Policy
PubMed: 26234963
DOI: 10.1016/j.crvi.2015.07.001