The possibility that human cerebral organoids (HCOs) develop consciousness is one of the main concerns driving current ethical discourse. Evaluating existing evidence, Zilio and Lavazza (2023) in t...

Advances in research on human cerebral organoids (HCOs) call for a critical review of current research policies. A challenge for the evaluation of necessary research regulations lies in the severe uncertainty about future trajectories the currently very rudimentary stages of neural cell cultures might take as the technology progresses. To gain insights into organotypic cultures, ethicists, legal scholars, and neuroscientists rely on resemblances to the human brain. They refer to similarities in structural or functional terms that have been established in (...) scientific practice to validate organotypic cultures as models for brain research. In ethical discourse, however, such similarities are also used to justify assumptions about the potential risk to cause harm to HCOs. Ethicists assume that as the technology advances, organotypic cultures will increasingly resemble the human brain, raising more complex ethical issues. I argue that such reasoning is not justified given the heterogeneity of HCOs that have been modified to enable scientists to pursue their research goals. I then discuss the implications this line of thought has for advocates of the precautionary principle, focussing on those suggestions which propose adopting research regulations to the presence of bodily warning signs deemed worthy of protection. In doing so, I illustrate that the prevalent assumptions on similarity in ethical discourse ultimately risk disproportionately restricting research. I conclude that given the severe uncertainty about the technology’s future development, ethical discourse might benefit from narrowing the time frame for anticipation. (shrink)

In times of ongoing resource shortages, appropriate evaluation criteria are crucial for the ethical prioritization of medical care. While the use of scoring models as tools for prioritization is widespread, they are barely discussed in the medical-ethical discourse in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. During this time, the challenge of providing care for patients in need has promoted consequentialist reasoning. In this light, we advocate for the integration of time- and context-sensitive scoring (TCsS) models in prioritization policies that foster (...) treatment opportunities for patients with subacute and chronic conditions. We argue, first, that TCsSs enable a more efficient use of resources, reducing avoidable harm to patients by preventing arbitrary postponement of necessary but nonurgent interventions. Second, we contend that on an interrelational level, TCsSs render decision-making pathways more transparent, which promotes the information requirement of patient autonomy and raises confidence in the resulting prioritization decision. Third, we claim that TCsS contributes to distributive justice by reallocating available resources to the benefit of elective patients. We conclude that TCsSs promote anticipatory measures that extend the timeframe for responsible action into the future. This strengthens patients' ability to exercise their right to healthcare—primarily during times of crisis, but ultimately in the longer term too. (shrink)