Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Commodification”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 271 records · Page 15Linked to original sources

Preserving community in health care.

There are two prominent trends in health care today: first, increasing demands for accountabilty, and second, increasing provision of care through managed care organizations. These trends promote the question: What form of account-ability is appropriate to managed care plans? Accountability is the process by which a party justifies its actions and policies. Components of accountability include parties that can be held or hold others accountable, domains and content areas being assessed, and procedures of assessment. Traditionally, the professional model of accountability has operated in medical care. In this model, physicians establish the standards of accountability and hold each other accountable through professional organizations. This form of accountability seems outdated and inapplicable to managed care plans. The alternatives are the economic and the political models of accountability. In the economic model, medicine becomes more like a commodity, and "exit" (consumers changing providers for reasons of cost and quality) is the dominant procedure of accountability. In the political model, medicine becomes more like a community good, and "voice" (citizens communicating their views in public forums or on policy committees, or in elections for representatives) is the dominant procedure of accountability. The economic model's advantages affirm American individualism, make minimal demands on consumers, and use a powerful incentive, money. Its disadvantages undermine health care as a nonmarket good, undermine individual autonomy, undermine good medical practice, impose significant demands on consumers to be informed, sustain differentials of power, and use indirect procedures of accountability. The political model's advantages affirm health care as a matter of justice, permit selecting domains other than price and quality for accountability, reinforce good medical practice, and equalize power between patients and physicians. Its disadvantages include inefficiency in decision making, capture by extremists or experts, intractable value conflicts, fragmentation of community, and oppression of minorities. The political model is the model we should endorse. Its disadvantages can be minimized by proper institutional design. In addition, recent research on managed care plans suggests that the political model may be the best for a competitive marketplace because it can ensure that tough allocation decisions are addressed and improve health through changes in nonmedical aspects of community life.

Advisory Committees↗

Women, the body and brand extension in medicine: cosmetic surgery and the paradox of choice.

This paper explores the relationship between Western medicine, female body image and gender inequalities. It evaluates the extent to which the medicalisation of appearance through cosmetic surgery may serve to reinforce limited and restrictive models of femininity. Collusion with these processes, it is suggested, may be rational for some women at the individual level as they seek to increase their social power in a society where women are judged by their appearance more than men. At the social level, however, such action can be seen to go against women's collective interests and perpetuate wider social inequalities.

Body Image↗

The morality of human gene patents.

This paper discusses the morality of patenting human genes and genetic technologies. After examining arguments on different sides of the issue, the paper concludes that there are, at present, no compelling reasons to prohibit the extension of current patent laws to the realm of human genetics. However, since advances in genetics are likely to have profound social implications, the most prudent course of action demands a continual reexamination of genetics laws and policies in light of ongoing developments in science and technology.

Commodification↗

Religion and the body in medical research.

Religious discussion of human organs and tissues has concentrated largely on donation for therapeutic purposes. The retrieval and use of human tissue samples in diagnostic, research, and education contexts have, by contrast, received very little direct theological attention. Initially undertaken at the behest of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, this essay seeks to explore the theological and religious questions embedded in nontherapeutic use of human tissue. It finds that the "donation paradigm" typically invoked in religious discourse to justify uses of the body for therapeutic reasons is inadequate in the context of nontherapeutic research, while the "resource paradigm" implicit in scientific discourse presumes a reductionist account of the body that runs contrary to important religious values about embodiment. The essay proposes a "contribution paradigm" that provides a religious perspective within which research on human tissue can be both justified and limited.

Advisory Committees↗

Ethics and policy in embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cells, which have the potential to save many lives, must be recovered from aborted fetuses or live embyros. Although tissue from aborted fetuses can be used without moral complicity in the underlying abortion, obtaining stem cells from embryos necessarily kills them, thus raising difficult questions about the use of embryonic human material to save others. This article draws on previous controversies over embryo research and distinctions between intrinsic and symbolic moral status to analyze these issues. It argues that stem cell research with spare embryos produced during infertility treatment, or even embryos created specifically for research or therapeutic purposes, is ethically acceptable and should receive federal funding.

Aborted Fetus↗

Public policy and the sale of human organs.

Gill and Sade, in the preceding article in this issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, argue that living individuals should be free from legal constraints against selling their organs. The present commentary responds to several of their claims. It explains why an analogy between kidneys and blood fails; why, as a matter of public policy, we prohibit the sale of human solid organs, yet allow the sale of blood; and why their attack on Kant's putative argument against the sale of human body parts is misplaced. Finally, it rejects the claim that the state is entitled to interfere with the actions of individuals only if such actions would harm others. We draw certain lines grounded in what Rawls has termed "public reason" beyond which we do not give effect to the autonomous self-regarding decisions of individuals. Public resistance to the sale of human body parts, no matter how voluntary or well informed, is grounded in the conviction that such a practice would diminish human dignity and our sense of solidarity. A system of organ donation, in contrast, conveys our respect for persons and honors our common humanity.

Blood Donors↗

Paying for kidneys: the case against prohibition.

We argue that healthy people should be allowed to sell one of their kidneys while they are alive--that the current prohibition on payment for kidneys ought to be overturned. Our argument has three parts. First, we argue that the moral basis for the current policy on live kidney donations and on the sale of other kinds of tissue implies that we ought to legalize the sale of kidneys. Second, we address the objection that the sale of kidneys is intrinsically wrong because it violates the Kantian duty of respect for humanity. Third, we address a range of consequentialist objections based on the idea that kidney sales will be exploitative. Throughout the paper, we argue only that it ought to be legal for an individual to receive payment for a kidney. We do not argue that it ought to be legal for an individual to buy a kidney.

Blood Donors↗

Germ-line enhancement of humans and non-humans.

The current difference in attitude toward germ-line enhancement in humans and nonhumans is unjustified. Society should be more cautious in modifying the genes of nonhumans and more bold in thinking about modifying our own genome. I identify four classes of arguments pertaining to germ-line enhancement: safety arguments, justice arguments, trust arguments, and naturalness arguments. The first three types are compelling, but do not distinguish between human and nonhuman cases. The final class of argument would justify a distinction between human and nonhuman germ-line enhancement; however, this type of argument fails and, therefore, the discrepancy in attitude toward human and nonhuman germ-line enhancement is unjustified.

Commodification↗

Organ wars: the battle for body parts.

Transplantation surgeries contribute to conceptions of the body as a collection of replaceable parts and of the self as distinct from all but its neural locus. There remains substantial cultural resistance to these conceptions, which leads the medical community to attempt to link the surgeries to social values that are sufficiently powerful to minimize the sense of a disjuncture between traditional concepts of personhood and those consistent with transplantation. The controversy over how to increase the supply of transplantable organs reveals two diametrically opposed sets of values invoked by advocates of transplantation: altruism and individual rights. The article analyzes these as the ideological equivalents of immunosuppressant drugs, designed to inhibit cultural rejection of transplantation and its view of the body.

Altruism↗

Organ transplantation as a transformative experience: anthropological insights into the restructuring of the self.

Transplantation represents in the popular mind the pinnacle of biomedical knowledge and skill. Its feasibility depends upon the management of conflicting cultural values surrounding death and dying, where diverse parties consider bodies and their parts to be personal property, sacred entities, or offerings to the common good. Specifically within the specialized transplant community, viable organs are scarce, socially valuable resources. The ideology that guides transplant professionals, however, is rife with contradictions: close inspection reveals unease over definitions of death and rights to body parts. Ideological disjunction arises from the competing needs to personalize and to objectify organs and bodies. Organ recipients struggle with these contradictory messages as they rebuild their sense of self and self-worth following transplantation. This transformative process is explored by analyzing professional writings and data generated from ethnographic research in the United States. The study ends by examining transformed identity as fictionalized and extended biography.

Adaptation, Psychological↗

Once again on cardiac transplantation. Flaws in the logic of the proponents.

In response to a paper written by Drs. Toshima and Kawai trying to refute my earlier article on the movement for cardiac transplantation in Japan, I present the results of my survey of the opinions of medical students and student nurses to prove that polls showing a majority of people supporting organ transplantation from so-called brain-dead persons, to which transplant protagonists rely heavily, merely reflect the failure of the mass media to distribute information on the negative aspects of organ transplantation to the public. Several major flaws in the logic of the proponents are pointed out to show how fragile their theoretical background is. Thus, the need for the distribution of better-balanced information to the public and continued debate on this most serious medical, ethical, social and cultural issue is emphasized.

Brain Death↗

Ethical conflicts in public health research and practice: antimicrobial resistance and the ethics of drug development.

Since the 1960s, scientists and pharmaceutical representatives have called for the advancement and development of new antimicrobial drugs to combat infectious diseases. In January 2005, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), MD, introduced a biopreparedness bill that included provisions for patent extensions and tax incentives to stimulate industry research on new antimicrobials. Although government stimulus for private development of new antimicrobials is important, it does not resolve long-standing conflicts of interest between private entities and society. Rising rates of antimicrobial resistance have only exacerbated these conflicts. We used methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus as a case study for reviewing these problems, and we have suggested alternative approaches that may halt the vicious cycle of resistance and obsolescence generated by the current model of antimicrobial production.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗