Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Organ trafficking: why do healthcare professionals engage in it?Trevor Stammers - 2022 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 31 (3):368-378.
    Organ trafficking in all its various forms is an international crime which could be entirely eliminated if healthcare professionals refused to participate in or be complicit with it. Types of organ trafficking are defined and principal international declarations and resolutions concerning it are discussed. The evidence for the involvement of healthcare professionals is illustrated with examples from South Africa and China. The ways in which healthcare professionals directly or indirectly perpetuate illegal organ transplantation are then considered, including lack of awareness, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Determination of Death in Execution by Lethal Injection in China.Norbert W. Paul, Arthur Caplan, Michael E. Shapiro, Charl Els, Kirk C. Allison & Huige Li - 2018 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 27 (3):459-466.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Cases Abusing Brain Death Definition in Organ Procurement in China.Norbert W. Paul, Kirk C. Allison & Huige Li - 2022 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 31 (3):379-385.
    Organ donation after brain death has been practiced in China since 2003 in the absence of brain death legislation. Similar to international standards, China’s brain death diagnostic criteria include coma, absence of brainstem reflexes, and the lack of spontaneous respiration. The Chinese criteria require that the lack of spontaneous respiration must be verified with an apnea test by disconnecting the ventilator for 8 min to provoke spontaneous respiration. However, we have found publications in Chinese medical journals, in which the donors (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Moral Neuroenhancement for Prisoners of War.Blake Hereth - 2022 - Neuroethics 15 (1):1-20.
    Moral agential neuroenhancement can transform us into better people. However, critics of MB raise four central objections to MANEs use: It destroys moral freedom; it kills one moral agent and replaces them with another, better agent; it carries significant risk of infection and illness; it benefits society but not the enhanced person; and it’s wrong to experiment on nonconsenting persons. Herein, I defend MANE’s use for prisoners of war fighting unjustly. First, the permissibility of killing unjust combatants entails that, in (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Justice Without Retribution: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Stakeholder Views and Practical Implications.Farah Focquaert, Gregg Caruso, Elizabeth Shaw & Derk Pereboom - 2018 - Neuroethics 13 (1):1-3.
    Within the United States, the most prominent justification for criminal punishment is retributivism. This retributivist justification for punishment maintains that punishment of a wrongdoer is justified for the reason that she deserves something bad to happen to her just because she has knowingly done wrong—this could include pain, deprivation, or death. For the retributivist, it is the basic desert attached to the criminal’s immoral action alone that provides the justification for punishment. This means that the retributivist position is not reducible (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Pig-to-human xenotransplantation: Overcoming ethical obstacles.N. Cengiz & C. S. Wareham - 2019 - South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 12 (2):66.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Justice without Retribution: An Epistemic Argument against Retributive Criminal Punishment.Gregg D. Caruso - 2018 - Neuroethics 13 (1):13-28.
    Within the United States, the most prominent justification for criminal punishment is retributivism. This retributivist justification for punishment maintains that punishment of a wrongdoer is justified for the reason that she deserves something bad to happen to her just because she has knowingly done wrong—this could include pain, deprivation, or death. For the retributivist, it is the basic desert attached to the criminal’s immoral action alone that provides the justification for punishment. This means that the retributivist position is not reducible (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations