Search

Vaccines, when available, will prove to be crucial in the fight against Covid-19. All societies will face acute dilemmas in allocating scarce lifesaving resources in the form of vaccines for Covid-19. The author proposes The Value of Lives Principle as a just and workable plan for equitable and efficient access. After describing what the principle entails, the author contrasts the advantage of this approach with other current proposals such as the Fair Priority Model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the prospect of human reproductive cloning. The responses of members of the European Parliament and former U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush on human cloning following the birth of Dolly the sheep, the first cloned animal, in 1997 are cited. The alleged threat of cloning to individuality, the right to know a person's genetic origins and the role of human reproductive cloning in eliminating disease and disability are explored.

Biomedical research involving human participants is highly regulated and subject to stringent ethical requirements. Clinical research ethics, regulation and policy have tended to focus almost exclusively on the protection of participants' interests against harms that might result from taking part in research. Less consideration, however, has been given to the interests that patients may themselves have in research participation, even in trials that may be beyond the bounds of current clinical research practice. In this paper, we consider the case of a suggested extension to clinical trial protocols to explore the ethics of participation in 'risky' research. We argue that patients may have a strong interest in taking part in research, and that even when greater-than-usual risks may be present, such research can be both ethically and scientifically justified. Finally, we suggest that there might be scope in some cases to assert a right to participate in research, and that the possibility of such a right merits further consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Matti Häyry’s new book is deliberately challenging; it tells six contemporary bioethicists, and all who share their methodologies or even their general approach, that they have got it badly wrong. From the striking photograph of Häyry himself on the front cover to the very last line, the genetic challenge is issued and elaborated. Häyry has divided his protagonists into three pairs, of which I find myself a member, and this makes responding a duty as well as a pleasure. Although I cannot speak for my partner in crime, Jonathan Glover, I am at least in the very best of all possible company. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper identifies human enhancement as one of the most significant areas of bioethical interest in the last twenty years. It discusses in more detail one area, namely moral enhancement, which is generating significant contemporary interest. The author argues that so far from being susceptible to new forms of high tech manipulation, either genetic, chemical, surgical or neurological, the only reliable methods of moral enhancement, either now or for the foreseeable future, are either those that have been in human and animal use for millennia, namely socialization, education and parental supervision or those high tech methods that are general in their application. By that is meant those forms of cognitive enhancement that operate across a wide range of cognitive abilities and do not target specifically 'ethical' capacities. The paper analyses the work of some of the leading contemporary advocates of moral enhancement and finds that in so far as they identify moral qualities or moral emotions for enhancement they have little prospect of success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author discusses the issue of human rights and its relationship to medical care and medical ethics. He is critical of the universality of human rights and suggests that it is time to take the human out of human rights since in the future humanity will look different due to evolution and advances such as stem cell research and regenerative medicine.

The article highlights the arguments of Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu in relation to the ethics of embryo research and the moral relevance of various kinds of potentiality in the U.S. It states that the creation of lotteries offer the only possible chance of life to all participants equally. It emphasizes that individuals who are committed to creation lotteries cannot object to embryo research.

The author offers criticisms to the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) report "Sex Selection: options for regulations." He considers flow cytometry as a method of sex selection. A discussion on the development of legislative and regulatory options governing sex selection is highlighted.

The article focuses on medical ethics or bioethics. It examines how to start in medical ethics in terms of being its own academic discipline and talks about the use of postgraduate bioethics conferences in this endeavour. It comments on the role of mentoring and coauthoring in academic publishing. It analyzes the concepts of being good and being ethical, and considers the responsibility shared by moral agents.

The authors argue that only a policy of presumed consent will significantly increase the number of organs available for transplantation in Great Britain. They cite the limitations of a study conducted by an Organ Donor Taskforce in 2008, including its failure to consider all relevant evidence, such as the refusal rates of relatives. They also comment on the current government policy on organ donation and mention the benefits of a policy of presumed consent.

The article focuses on the comments of Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) deputy chairman Tom Baldwin to the author's report on sex selection. Issues concerning the theoretical risks of DNA damage arising from flow cytometry are outlined. According to the author, there is no emperical evidence suggesting that sex selection is harmful to selected children.

Comments on the study conducted by Julian Savulescu on the rationality and obligations of doctors and the significance of genetic relatedness. Brief review of the doctor's obligation to patient's health; Rationality of physicians on patient's wellbeing.

The author comments on the place of moral enhancement in the field of bioethics. It is stated that, although the concept of moral enhancement which calls for making people better by improving their health, and other desirable qualities has attracted attention, it is practically difficult to implement it. However, as stated, researches have shown that promoting prosocial behaviour, which includes aversion to causing direct harm to others, helps in achieving moral enhancement.

This paper discusses the provocative views of Skene and Parker as to the role of religious or other ideologically based interest groups in law and policy making. We draw distinctions between doctrine and prejudice and between argument and ideology which we trust take the debate further. Finally we recommend an ethereal, democratic, and populist partial solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comments on the market for organs and whether financial incentives would increase the pool of organ donors from cadavers. Ethical aspects of a market for organ donors; Need for regulation of the market; Outlook for prevention of the exploitation of the poor in such a system; Belief that the National Health Service in Great Britain is suited to regulating such a market.

The article offers information on the consensus statement and changes to the medical ethics and law for medical students in Great Britain. It features the changes to the improved consensus statement, curriculum components, ethics and law. Moreover, it unveils the ways on how the periodical handles the papers published in the periodical.

Asserts that the attempts of the anonymous group People Against Eugenics to stifle legitimate academic debate about ethical issues in medicine must be strongly resisted by the ethics community. Highlights of the conference; Significance of an open debate in medical ethics; Reasons for the inconsistency of the position taken by the group against eugenics.