Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Bioethical Issues”

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 361 records · Page 20Linked to original sources

Brain death and the historical understanding of bioethics.

In a 1968 Report, the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death promulgated influential criteria for the idea and practice known as "brain death." Before and since the Committee met, brain death has been a focal point of visions and nightmares of medical progress, purpose, and moral authority. Critics of the Committee felt it was deaf to apparently central moral considerations and focused on the self-serving purpose of expanding transplantation. Historical characterizations of the uses and meanings of brain death and the work of the Committee have tended to echo these themes, which means also generally repeating a widely held bioethical self-understanding of how the field appeared-that is, as a necessary antidote of moral expertise. This paper looks at the Committee and finds that historical depictions of it have been skewed by such a bioethical agenda. Entertaining different possibilities as to the motives and historical circumstances behind the Report it famously produced may point to not only different histories of the Committee, but also different perspectives on the historical legacy and role of bioethics as a discourse for addressing anxieties about medicine.

Bioethical Issues↗

Bioethics as a prescription for civic action: the Japanese interpretation.

This paper reports on recent developments in the rise of bioethics in Japan. Much of the recent interest in bioethics in Japan is seen as a response to various civic movements. The women's liberation movement, access to equal opportunity, and the recognition of patients' rights and the importance of informed consent are among some of the movements influencing the development of bioethics in Japan. The author argues that this movement is to be encouraged and fostered by health care professionals, public policy makers, as well as lay persons in Japan.

Bioethical Issues↗

Bioethics in Thailand: the struggle for Buddhist solutions.

The Thai concern for bioethics has been stimulated by the departure of Thai medicine from its long tradition through the introduction of Western medical models. Bioethics is now being taught to Thai medical students emphasizing moral insights and principles found within Thai culture. These are to a large extent Buddhist themes. Veracity is always a duty for people in general and medical personnel in particular. Falsehoods and deception cannot be morally justified simply on the grounds that we think it is good for another. Buddhism also prohibits killing. The doctrine of kamma holds that joys and sorrows are the result of one's own past actions. Kamma must run its course or will be manifest in a future life. Mercy-killing also violates the Buddhist psychology. A physician who kills subconsciously transfers his aversion to suffering to the one who embodies the suffering. Buddhist justice is understood in terms of impartiality and equal treatment. Compassion goes beyond justice to self-giving and self-denial. It is central to the path to the attainment of highest human fulfillment.

Advisory Committees↗

Dignity and technology.

Technology has been developed in order to protect and safeguard human dignity; however, technology may also threaten it. The principle of human dignity plays an important role in assessing medical technology and medical practices.

Bioethical Issues↗

Quality of scholarship in bioethics.

This paper identifies four major forms of scholarship in bioethics: empirical research, the articulation of mid-level principles of bioethics, the relating of these principles to fundamental moral theories, and discussions of the bioethical implications of legal principles and health delivery policies. It develops a reflective equilibrium approach to the relation between these four forms of scholarship. It then presents, in light of this approach, criteria for quality research in each of these forms of scholarship in bioethics.

Bioethical Issues↗

Getting down to cases: the revival of casuistry in bioethics.

This article examines the emergence of casuistical case analysis as a methodological alternative to more theory-driven approaches in bioethics research and education. Focusing on The Abuse of Casuistry by A. Jonsen and S. Toulmin, the article articulates the most characteristic features of this modern-day casuistry (e.g., the priority allotted to case interpretation and analogical reasoning over abstract theory, the resemblance of casuistry to common law traditions, the 'open texture' of its principles, etc.) and discusses some problems with casuistry as an 'anti-theoretical' method. It is argued that casuistry so defined is 'theory modest' rather than 'theory free' and that ethical theory can still play a significant role in casuistical analysis; that casuistical analyses will encounter conflicting 'deep' interpretations of our social practices and institutions, and are therefore unlikely sources of increased social consensus on controversial bioethical questions; that its conventionalism raises questions about casuistry's ability to criticize norms embedded in the societal consensus; and that casuistry's emphasis upon analogical reasoning may tend to reinforce the individualistic nature of much bioethical writing. It is concluded that, not-withstanding these problems, casuistry represents a promising alternative to the regnant model of 'applied ethics' (i.e., to the ritualistic invocation of the so-called 'principles of bioethics'). The pedagogical implications of casuistry are addressed throughout the paper and include the following recommendations: (1) use real cases, (2) make them long, richly detailed and comprehensive, (3) present complex sequences of cases, (4) stress the problem of 'moral diagnosis', and (5) be ever mindful of the limits of casuistical analysis.

Bioethical Issues↗

Reply to Boyle's "Who is entitled to double effect?

I have only minor quibbles with Boyle's presentation of my version of the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) (Boyle, 1991). On my view, the extra morally problematic element in cases of direct intention is the subordination of a victim to purposes that he or she either rightfully rejects or (and this is something that I should now wish to add in light of Boyle's criticisms) cannot rightfully accept. In cases of indirect intention the victim is incidentally affected by an agent's strategy, but in cases of direct intention the victim is made part of the strategy. Boyle suggests at one point that this amounts to using the person.... But I do not think the "using" metaphor is always apt in these cases, although it is perhaps helpful in pointing to the objectionable element in direct intention, which in its perfectly general form can be put only more abstractly.... My only other concern with Boyle's exposition of my view involves his use of the expression "intentionally harming"....The discussion there tends to suggest, in contrast to what Boyle has said earlier, that I represent DDE as discriminating between cases of incidental and intentional harming. But this is precisely what I tried to avoid....

Bioethical Issues↗

Observations on the epistemological status of bioethics.

Different definitions of bioethics in American and Italian literature are reported. It is argued that they refer to three different conceptions of the epistemological status of bioethics: the first conceives of it as an application of moral principles to biomedical problems, the second as a methodology for the working out of clinical judgement, the third as a broader and interdisciplinary public inquiry. It is suggested that each approach grasps a part of the truth, for each singles out one level of the bioethical work. Bioethics is in fact a complex, three-level form of knowledge. The misunderstanding of this complexity has led to some confusion and to conflicts of attribution among those who are concerned with it.

Beneficence↗

The historical setting of Latin American bioethics.

The historical stages through which Latin American society has passed are at least four: the first, dominated by a particular sort of ethic I have termed the "ethic of the gift;" then the period of conquest, in which the prevalent ethic was one of war and subjection by force, which I call the "ethic of despotism;" followed by the colonial age, in which a new ethical model of "paternalism" emerged; and finally the stage of the "ethic of autonomy," which began with the independence movements of the 18th and 19th centuries and is far from ended. Independence was won by the criollos from European domination with very little participation by the Indian population. The latter was left out of the democratic process and saw itself relegated to a worse situation than in the centuries of colonial rule, for it was no longer protected by the paternalism of the Laws of the Indies of 1542. This is the reason for the division of the Latin American society of the last century into two quite different social strata: one bourgeois, which has assimilated the liberal revolution, and enjoys a health care quite similar to that available in any other Western country and hence faces the same bioethical problems as any developed Western society; the other a very poor stratum, without any economic or social power and hence unable to exercise its civil rights, such as the rights to life and to humane treatment. In this population sector; which is numerically the larger, the major bioethical problems are those of justice and the distribution of scarce resources. The study of Latin American medical ethics can earn for these subjects, whose deplorable condition has been essentially ignored in the bioethics of the first-world countries, the importance they merit.

Bioethical Issues↗

Bioethics in Ibero-America and the Caribbean.

Bioethics has become a field of new challenges for Ibero-America and the Caribbean. A seeming uniformity in the region hides a rich heterogeneous society. A brief survey of bioethical developments in different Ibero-American countries is provided as well as the bioethical problems and approaches peculiar to the region. Some of the unique features of bioethics in this region, it is suggested, could infuse new life into the U.S. and European bioethics discussion. Finally, a bibliography of Ibero-American bioethics literature is provided for North American and European readers.

Bioethical Issues↗

The heterogeneity of clinical ethics: the state of the field as reflected in the Encyclopedia of Bioethics.

The 1995 Encyclopedia of Bioethics is an almost complete reworking of the original 1978 edition, due to the expanding nature of the field. The following article focuses on how the second edition of the Encyclopedia deals with the topic of "clinical ethics" and three related topics: "nursing ethics", "trust", and "conflict of interest". We assess their relevance to the current developments in these fields and the Encyclopedia's usefulness as a resource to ethics consultants, researchers and clinicians. We emphasize the heterogeneity of clinical ethics as a still new and evolving field.

Bioethical Issues↗