_BMC Medical Ethics_ is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies. _BMC __Medical Ethics _is part of the _BMC_ series which publishes subject-specific journals focused on the needs of individual research communities across all areas of biology and medicine. We do not make editorial decisions on the basis of the interest of a study or (...) its likely impact. Studies must be scientifically valid; for research articles this includes a scientifically sound research question, the use of suitable methods and analysis, and following community-agreed standards relevant to the research field. Specific criteria for other article types can be found in the submission guidelines. _BMC series - open, inclusive and trusted_. (shrink)

Background Several jurisdictions, including Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and most recently Ireland, have a public interest or public good criterion for granting waivers of consent in biomedical research using secondary health data or tissue. However, the concept of the public interest is not well defined in this context, which creates difficulties for institutions, institutional review boards and regulators trying to implement the criterion. Main text This paper clarifies how the public interest criterion can be defensibly deployed. We first explain the (...) ethical basis for requiring waivers to only be granted to studies meeting the public interest criterion, then explore how further criteria may be set to determine the extent to which a given study can legitimately claim to be in the public interest. We propose an approach that does not attempt to measure magnitude of benefit directly, but rather takes into account metrics that are more straightforward to apply. To ensure consistent and justifiable interpretation, research institutions and IRBs should also incorporate procedural features such as transparency and public engagement in determining which studies satisfy the public interest requirement. Conclusion The requirement of public interest for consent waivers in secondary biomedical research should be guided by well-defined criteria for systematic evaluation. Such a criteria and its application need to be periodically subject to intra-committee and intra-institution review, reflection, deliberation and amendment. (shrink)

Why the body matters -- My body : property, commodity, or gift? -- Body futures -- The tissue trove -- The branded body -- Gifts from the dead -- Together at last.

This book is intended as a practical introduction to the ethical problems which doctors and other health professionals can expect to encounter in their practice. It is divided into three parts: ethical foundations, clinical ethics, and medicine and society. The authors incorporate new chapters on topics such as theories of medical ethics, cultural aspects of medicine, genetic dilemmas, aging, dementia and mortality, research ethics, justice and health care (including an examination of resource allocation), and medicine, ethics and medical law. Medical (...) Ethics also covers issues having to do with the beginning and end of life, as well as ethical questions surrounding the human body and the use of human tissue, confidentiality and AIDS, care of the mentally ill, and the implications of genetic technology. Each chapter presents a range of ethical views, drawing both from traditional philosophy and the most recent contemporary trends. The theoretical discussion is extended and illustrated by case studies and examples. This book is a non-technical guide to ethics written with the needs of medical students and medical practitioners in mind. It will also appeal to students and practitioners of allied health professions, and for all users of health care services. (shrink)

Family involvement in healthcare decision-making for competent patients occurs to varying degrees in many communities around the world. There are different attitudes about who should make treatment decisions, how and why. Legal and professional ethics codes in most jurisdictions reflect and support the idea that competent patients should be enabled to make their own treatment decisions, even if others, including their healthcare professionals, disagree with them. This way of thinking contrasts with some cultural norms that put more emphasis on the (...) family as a decision-making entity, in some circumstances to the exclusion of a competent patient. Possible tensions may arise between various combinations of patient, family members and healthcare professionals, and healthcare professionals must tread a careful path in navigating family involvement in the decision-making process. These tensions may be about differences of opinion about which treatment option is best and/or on who should have a say or influence in the decision-making process. While some relevant cultural, legal and policy considerations vary from community to community, there are ethical issues that healthcare professionals need to grapple with in balancing the laws and professional codes on decision-making and the ethical principle of respecting patients and their autonomy. This paper will highlight and propose that a partial resolution to these issues may lie in relational understandings of autonomy, which in principle justify interventions by healthcare professionals and family that support patients in decision-making. (shrink)

Therapeutic privilege is a defence that may be available to doctors who fail to disclose to the patient relevant information when seeking informed consent for treatment if they have a reasonable belief that providing that information would likely cause the patient concerned serious physical or mental harm. In a landmark judgement, the Singapore Court of Appeal introduced a novel interpretation of TP, identifying circumstances in which it might be used with patients who did not strictly lack capacity but might be (...) inclined to refuse recommended treatments. In this paper, we explore the conceptual and practical challenges of this novel interpretation of TP. We propose that more emphasis should be placed on forms of shared and supported decision-making that foster the autonomy of patients with compromised mental capacity while being mindful of the need to safeguard their well-being. The kind of privilege that doctors might need to invoke is one of time and supportive expertise to ensure a flexible, responsive approach calibrated to the individual patients’ needs. The provision of such service would extinguish the need for the novel TP proposed by the Singapore Court of Appeal. (shrink)

Bioethics: The Basics is an introduction to the foundational principles, theories and issues in the study of medical and biological ethics. Readers are introduced to bioethics from the ground up before being invited to consider some of the most controversial but important questions facing us today. Topics addressed include: The range of moral theories underpinning bioethics Arguments for the rights and wrongs of abortion, euthanasia and animal research Healthcare ethics including the nature of the practitioner-patient relationship Public policy ethics and (...) the implications of global and public health Concise, readable and authoritative, this is the ideal primer for anyone interested in the study of bioethics. (shrink)

Deftly quilting themes of Latin American and feminist liberation theologies with those of philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and John Rawls, Alastair V. Campbell displays our rich interconnectedness and our moral responsibilities to one another. Suggesting that many American citizens are oppressed by our current health-care system, he contends that prior to questions of health-care allocation are questions of what we mean as a society by the term health--and how that term is inextricably linked to personal and social freedom and (...) liberation. In the forceful final chapter of the book, Campbell articulates ethical standards for just health-care delivery in the United States--standards that, above all, take account of deep religious faith and concern for one's neighbor. Health as Liberation is a critical analysis of justice and modern health care, and of a society's moral obligations to its citizens. (shrink)

Ted Shotter's founding of the London Medical Group 50 years ago in 1963 had several far reaching implications for medical ethics, as other papers in this issue indicate. Most significant for the joint authors of this short paper was his founding of the quarterly Journal of Medical Ethics in 1975, with Alastair Campbell as its first editor-in-chief. In 1980 Raanan Gillon began his 20-year editorship . Gillon was succeeded in 2001 by Julian Savulescu, followed by John Harris and Soren Holm (...) in 2004, with Julian Savulescu starting his second and current term in 2011. In 2000 an additional special edition of the JME, Medical Humanities , was published, under the founding joint editorship of Martyn Evans and David Greaves. In 2003 Jane Macnaughton succeeded David Greaves as joint editor. Deborah Kirklin, under whose auspices MH became an independent journal, took over in 2008, and she was succeeded in 2013 by Sue Eckstein. This short paper offers reminiscences and reflections from the two journals’ various editors.From the start the JME was committed to clearly expressed reasoned discussion of ethical issues arising from or related to medical practice and research. In particular, both Edward Shotter and Alastair Campbell, each a cleric , were at pains to make clear that the JME was not a religious journal and that it had no sort of partisan axe to grind.Campbell's appointment as founding editor was something of a surprise, as the original intention had been to appoint a medical doctor, who could be expected to know medical practice from the inside. However, in 1972 Campbell, a Joint Secretary of the Edinburgh Medical Group, had published Moral dilemmas in medicine. …. (shrink)

In this paper I shall be arguing against the claim made by Erin and Harris and others, that creating a “regulated market” in organs for transplantation taken from living vendors is both viable practically and a moral imperative. No-one can doubt that there is currently a crisis in the provision of organs for transplantation, with a massive gap between supply and demand. There are a number of reasons for this crisis. Since its development as a life-saving measure in the second (...) half of the last century, organ transplantation has expanded exponentially, both in terms of survival rates, the number of people on the waiting list for the procedure, and the range of transplantable organs. Advances in immuno-suppression and in prevention of infection have led to improvement in both the survival of the recipients and of the transplanted organs. At the same time, there has been an increase in repeat transplantations and in multiple organ transplants. The range of conditions for which transplantation is offered has widened, and transplantable organs now include: kidney, liver, pancreas, heart and lung. Brain-dead donors can provide all of these organs, while the kidney and sections of the liver and pancreas can also be obtained from living donors. Survival outcomes are better from living donors than from cadaveric donors, and, in the case of kidney failure, better from transplantation than from dialysis. [End Page 164] The relevant question, however, is whether permitting a market in human organs is morally justifiable, and, even if it were, whether it would provide a solution to the current crisis. I argue in this paper that organ trading is wrong in principle, since it commodifies the human body and inevitably exploits the poor and the socially vulnerable, and that, far from alleviating the crisis, it is likely to make it worse. First we should note that there is an uncompromising opposition to all forms of organ trading from two major international healthcare organisations. (shrink)

This highly speculative paper seeks to discern where the discipline of Bioethics may be heading in the next decade or two. It is clear that the rapid pace of scientific discovery and technological innovation will not slacken, and, as a result, fresh moral issues, for which there are no precedents in currently accepted moral wisdom, will rapidly emerge. This mushrooming of ethical problems will be taking place at a time of increasing moral pluralism, when common moral values become harder to (...) establish, and powerful subgroups embrace moral dogmatism, whether religious or secular in character. (shrink)

My aims has been to approach the debate about health service priorities from the perspective of political philosophy, but to keep the discussion firmly anchored in comtemporary problems of health care provision. The chapters are designed to provide the groundwork for anyone interested in the ethical problems in modern health care. I have used examples of health care delivery in Britain, the USA, the USSR, and the People's Republic of China to illustrate different aspects of the problem of priorities. The (...) issues can be summarised under three broad headings: Distribution, effectiveness, and authority to make decisions. (shrink)

Over the last decade, stem cell research has generated an enormous amount of public, political and bioethical debate. These debates have overwhelmingly tended to focus on two moral issues: the moral status of human embryos and the duty to care for the sick and vulnerable. This preoccupation, especially on the question of moral status, has not only dichotomized the debate around two fundamentally incommensurable positions, it has come at the cost of other important issues largely being ignored. In highlighting some (...) of the bioethical and regulatory deficiencies of this fixation, we draw on recent developments in the experimental use of autologous adult stem cells to argue for a more inclusive approach to the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research. (shrink)

A prevailing issue in clinical research is the duty clinicians have to treat or prevent the progression of disease during a study that they are conducting. While all clinical researchers have a duty of care for the patients who participate in clinical research, intervening at the onset or progression of disease may skew results and have a negative impact on the scientific validity of a study. Extreme examples of failures to intervene can be found in the Tuskegee syphilis study and (...) in an attempt to determine if cervical smears were an accurate predictor of cancer, which was uncovered by the Cartwright Inquiry. However, the issue arises in all research where delay in intervention can cause harm. A current study in Singapore is investigating the significance of an ‘ultra-high risk’ state that may constitute the prodromal phase of psychosis. This project called ‘The Longitudinal Youth at Risk Study’ is potentially contentious because it is recruiting young people who are identified as being ‘at risk’ of developing psychosis. In this paper, the decision to offer treatment to all participants as well as a fast track for those who are assessed to have developed serious mental illness into treatment is discussed. It is argued that this approach is ethically justified because of the duty of care that is owed to research participants, and suggests that the principle of equipoise may be used to guide intervention decisions in other clinical research protocols. (shrink)

In this chapter, I shall give an account of the emergence of bioethics as a field of study and then describe its common features in an international context. In the final section I shall suggest how some concept of public reason might be used to meet the challenges thrown up by the contentious nature of the field.

In responce to criticisms of proposed regulation of surrogacy, it isargued that surrogate mothers and providers of fertility serviceshave duties which make the selling of claims to parenthood unethicaland which justify regulation of surrogacy arrangements.

We wish to describe and acknowledge the exceptional contributions to medical ethics, both in the UK and internationally, made by Edward Shotter1 who died at home on 3 July 2019. He was founder of the London Medical Group2 3 and instigator of similar student-led medical ethics groups throughout the UK; founder of the Institute of Medical Ethics4 and founder of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Ted Shotter transformed the study of medical ethics in the UK in the interests of patients (...) and professionals alike. In 1963, he established the pioneering ‘Medical Group’ model, an innovative bottom-up method whereby students in the health professions could gain a grounding in ethics that had previously been denied to the profession.5 It was with these Medical Groups that many of the leading figures in contemporary UK medical ethics and law began their careers in the subject including Sir Kenneth Calman, Sir Ian Kennedy, Professor Margaret Brazier OBE, Professor John Harris and Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery to name but …. (shrink)

Psychiatric research is advancing rapidly, with studies revealing new investigative tools and technologies that are aimed at improving the treatment and care of patients with psychiatric disorders. However, the ethical framework in which such research is conducted is not as well developed as we might expect. In this paper we argue that more thought needs to be given to the principles that underpin research in psychiatry and to the problems associated with putting those principles into practice. In particular, we comment (...) on some of the difficulties posed by the twin imperatives of ensuring that we respect the autonomy and interests of the research subject and, at the same time, enable potentially beneficial psychiatric research to flourish. We do not purport to offer a blueprint for the future; we do, however, seek to advance the debate by identifying some of the key questions to which better answers are required. (shrink)

This article discusses the establishment of a governance framework for biomedical research in Singapore. It focuses on the work of the Bioethics Advisory Committee , which has been instrumental in institutionalizing a governance framework, through the provision of recommendations to the government, and through the coordination of efforts among government agencies. However, developing capabilities in biomedical sciences presents challenges that are qualitatively different from those of past technologies. The state has a greater role to play in balancing conflicting and potentially (...) irreconcilable economic, social, and political goals. This article analyzes the various ways by which the BAC has facilitated this. (shrink)

In the United Kingdom there have been few committees or commissions dealing specifically with biomedical ethics, and where such bodies have been set up they have merely reported on a specific topic and then disbanded. However, there may well be standing committees in the future, of which the Voluntary Licensing Authority for Human In Vitro Fertilisation and Embryology is a precursor. This paper surveys the work of three special committees or working groups which have reported in the period 1970 to (...) the present. Of these the Warnock Committee is by far the most important, and the issues which it raises are discussed with specific reference to the place of philosophers and theologians on such bodies. It is concluded that, although there has been some movement in the UK toward the utilization of those with special skills and knowledge in the field of bioethics, much more could be done in this regard. Keywords: biomedical ethics, commissions and committees, philosophy, theology, reason, moral sentiment, public morality CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

The distinctiveness of Bioethics in New Zealand stems in part from a renewal of emphasis on Maori rights, based on the Treaty of Waitangi, the foundation document of the New Zealand state. Increasingly, committees dealing with health research ethics and with the ethics of assisted reproductive technology have to incorporate Maori values and perspectives.

This is a practical introduction to the range of ethical questions which doctors and other health-care professionals may be expected to encounter in practice. The books covers both the traditional "end of life" issues and also deals with medical research and consent issues, confidentiality and AIDS, resource allocation, care of the mentally ill, and the doctor/patient relationship. Each chapter canvasses a range of ethical views, drawing both from traditional philosophical responses and the most recent contemporary responses. Theoretical discussion is extended (...) and enlivened by the use of hypothetical and actual examples, suitable both for private study or group discussion. While the needs of medical students for a non-technical guide to ethics have been kept firmly in mind, the clarity of writing and avoidance of specialist medical and philosophical terminology ensure that it will be of value to students of nursing and related disciplines, and accessible to the lay reader. (shrink)

The distinctiveness of Bioethics in New Zealand stems in part from a renewal of emphasis on Maori rights, based on the Treaty of Waitangi, the foundation document of the New Zealand state. Increasingly, committees dealing with health research ethics and with the ethics of assisted reproductive technology have to incorporate Maori values and perspectives.

The New Zealand health service has been extensively changed over the past four years, with the introduction of Jour new Regional Health Authorities, required to purchase services on behalf of the Government from a range of providers. In order to ensure fairness across the four regions a Core Services Committee has been set up to define which services must be purchased. However, no clear agreement has emerged about a “core” and no list, either positive or negative has been defined. Instead (...) general criteria have been suggested and steps have been taken to consult the community on their priorities. This paper describes seven workshops run by the author in an effort to discover how the community would reach decisions on the rationing of scare resources. The outcome of these workshops is that there is virtually no community support for an approach based on the social utility of individuals in need. (shrink)