A report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, contrary to the Declaration of Helsinki, permits most important research initiatives in developing countries.The Ethics of Research Related to Health Care in Developing Countries by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics makes a number of innovative recommendations that depart from codes such as the Declaration of Helsinki. It recommends that standards of care might be relativised to the standard of that nation. It recommends that very good reasons need to be given for not (...) giving post-trial access to medications but recognises that there may be justifiable instances of this. It is the view of the authors that these and other recommendations of the report are sensible pieces of advice given the complexities of the developing world. (shrink)

We extend the theory of “Fine structure and iteration trees” to models having more than one Woodin cardinal.

For a long time, researchers in the fields of psychology and neuroscience have been interested in discovering ways to boost productivity in traditionally "healthy," "clinical," and "military" populations. However, one of the biggest challenges in reaching this objective is developing personalised performance phenotypes that can be used to build interventions that are specifically catered to each individual's needs. Impact: Thanks to AI's recent advancements, we can now create individualised training, preparation, and recovery plans that are tailored to each person's unique (...) cognitive and biological profile. Concurrent AI advancements, especially in the psychological and neurological sciences, have demonstrated the importance of incorporating domain expertise and stakeholder inputs into the development of trustworthy AI. Value: This Patterns themed issue seeks original empirical work, literature reviews, and methodological papers that establish and validate precision artificial intelligence methods for human performance optimization, with a focus on modelling individual differences via state-of-the-art computational methods. (shrink)

From the 5th edition of Beauchamp and Childress' Principles of Biomedical Ethics, the problem of common morality has been given a more prominent role and emphasis. With the publication of the 6th and latest edition, the authors not only attempt to ground their theory in common morality, but there is also an increased tendency to identify the former with the latter. While this stratagem may give the impression of a more robust, and hence stable, foundation for their theoretical construct, we (...) fear that it comes with a cost, namely the need to keep any theory in medical ethics open to, and thereby aware of, the challenges arising from biomedical research and clinical practice, as well as healthcare systems. By too readily identifying the moral life of common morality with rule-following behaviour, Beauchamp and Childress may even be wrong about the nature of common morality as such, thereby founding their, by now, classic theory on quicksand instead of solid rock. (shrink)

The purpose of this essay is to stimulate academic discussion about the ethical justification of using human primordial stem cells for tissue transplantation, cell replacement, and gene therapy. There are intriguing alternatives to using embryos obtained from elective abortions and in vitro fertilisation to reconstitute damaged or dysfunctional human organs. These include the expansion and transplantation of latent adult progenitor cells.

Professor Braithwaite’s inaugural lecture, here published in book form,1 is a trial run at a Platonic definition of the concept of dianemetic justice; or, as he himself would put it, a rational reconstruction of the concept “sensible-prudent-and-fair”. Aristotle left it that dianemetic justice was an equality and a matter of ratios. A just distribution of őoα µεριστ? τoς κoινωνoσι τς πoλιτείαѕ2 was one in which each had an equitable share, no one having either more or less than he should. Professor (...) Braithwaite goes further and replaces Aristotle’s ordered scale of the-more-and-the-less in which only imprecise and unhelpful answers could be given, by a numerical scale in which he can frame the question “Exactly how much is a fair share?” and propound his s own solution. (shrink)

An obligation may take either of two forms, each form being reported in a different way. For example, when we report the obligation of parents to care for their children, if it is the moral obligation we mean, we will say ‘Parents ought to look after their children’ but if we mean the legal obligation, we will say ‘Parents have to look after their children’. The law specifies that people shall do thus and so, not that they ought to do (...) thus and so. (shrink)

It seems to me certain that the perception of foreign bodies of a certain sort, although a necessary, is not the only, part of the basis of our belief in other persons. The greatest disagreement with this view that I know of has been expressed by Professor Aaron in a paper published in Philosophy , XIX, 72. He claims that, since one does not really know “what it means to be a mind in one's own case,” the question whether we (...) can be certain that there are other minds is meaningless except as reducible to the question whether such propositions as “Robinson exists” are propositions which we can be certain about. And he tries to show that no more is involved in the analysis of “Robinson exists” than would be involved in the analysis of propositions of whose truth we can be perceptually certain, such as “That table over there exists” or “The Eiffel Tower exists.” My assurance that Robinson exists is not the assurance that something called Robinson's mind exists. It is the perfectly ordinary perceptual assurance that ‘the person over there’ exists. “You ask me how I am certain that Robinson exists and I answer, ‘Well, look, there he is.’ It would be absurd for anyone to say that he does not exist when I see him here before me and hear him talk and watch him move that chair.”. (shrink)

Though the authors of this commentary have deep felt doubts about the fruitfulness of Björkman and Hansson’s analysis of bodily rights, they do not doubt their capacity to develop both creative and provocative thoughtsIt is always welcoming to be confronted with thoughts that, even though one wholeheartedly disagrees with them, have the effect of stimulating one’s own reflections on matters, which without such confrontations, would have been less distinct, less critical—and we would gladly admit, less polemical. Thus it is thanks (...) to Barbro Björkman and Sven Ove Hansson’s article, “Bodily rights and property rights”, that we have been able to set our present course into these murky waters. The issue they want to address is by no means of a kind that lends itself easily to theoretical speculation. This has, perhaps, as much to do with the inherent intricacy of the issue itself as with the controversy it has managed to arouse. The issue is: is it possible to have ownership over one’s own body—that is, is it appropriate to treat the body and its components as property? What are the implications of conceptualising the body and its parts in terms of property? Should one, as a general rule, be able to sell and buy human biological material? If so, who should be allowed to buy and sell it? Does the sale or donation of one’s own bodily parts imply a transfer of ownership rights to the buyer or receiver, or is it rather that ownership of human bodily parts can only be acquired after the material has been, say, manipulated in a laboratory?Contrary to Björkman and Hansson, who see “the primary normative issue” to be “what combination of rights a person should have to a particular item of biological material”, we believe that their decision to construe …. (shrink)

There are many challenges to be met when writing an introductory treatise on an academic topic. The subject matter must be presented in a simple but not oversimplified manner. Enough theory must be included to ground the discussion of specific issues but not so much as to overwhelm or bore the readers. The text should be long enough to do justice to the subject matter but short enough to be readily accessible, especially for readers such as healthcare professionals, whose primary (...) concerns lie elsewhere.There are additional challenges in a relatively novel interdisciplinary field such as bioethics. The scope and methodology of bioethics are matters of great controversy, as are its relations with related subjects such as professionalism and human rights. The field is so broad that a single author cannot claim expertise on all topics. Rivalries between law and ethics and among medicine, other health professions, and disciplines such as philosophy complicate efforts to produce a broadly acceptable text. Finally, national and cultural differences pose major challenges to anyone trying to write for a truly international readership.The difficulty of meeting all these challenges in producing the WMA Medical Ethics Manual provides ample opportunity for criticism, especially from bioethics experts. The three expert reviewers of the manual in this issue of the journal are remarkably restrained in pointing out its shortcomings.1–3 I am grateful for both their positive evaluations and their constructive criticism. In what follows, I will respond to each of them in turn, focusing in particular on their suggestions as to how the Manual could have been improved.Before addressing these suggestions, I wish to clarify a matter raised by Søren Holm, namely, to what degree the manual …. (shrink)