Metaphors used to describe new technologies mediate public understanding of the innovations. Analyzing the linguistic, rhetorical, and affective aspects of these metaphors opens the range of issues available for bioethical scrutiny and increases public accountability. This article shows how such a multidisciplinary approach can be useful by looking at a set of texts about one issue, the use of a newly developed technique for genetic modification, CRISPRcas9.

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) play a critical gatekeeping role in clinical trials. This role is meant to ensure that only those trials that meet certain ethical thresholds proceed through their gate. Two of these thresholds are that the potential benefits of trials are reasonable in relation to risks and that trials are capable of producing a requisite amount of social value. While one ought not expect perfect execution by RECs of their gatekeeping role, one should expect routine success in it. (...) This article reviews a range of evidence showing that substantial numbers of ethically tainted trials are receiving REC approvals. Many of the trials are early phase trials that evidence shows have benefits that may not be reasonable compared with their risks and many others are later trials that evidence shows may lack sufficient social value. The evidence pertains to such matters as methodologically inadequate preclinical studies incapable of supporting the inferences that REC members must make about the prospects for potential benefit needed to offset the risks in early phase trials and sponsorship bias that can cause improperly designed, conducted, analysed and reported later phase trials. The analysis of the evidence makes clear that REC practices need to be strengthened if they are to adequately fulfil their gatekeeping role. The article also explores options that RECs could use in order to improve their gatekeeping function. (shrink)

Commentators tout the societal benefits of research to conclude that people have a civic duty to participate in it. A review of several problems in research demonstrate the contrary and reveal why claims we are duty-bound to participate in research deter urgently needed efforts to tackle multiple entrenched deficiencies in it.

:Academic Medical Centers offer patient care and perform research. Increasingly, AMCs advertise to the public in order to garner income that can support these dual missions. In what follows, we raise concerns about the ways that advertising blurs important distinctions between them. Such blurring is detrimental to AMC efforts to fulfill critically important ethical responsibilities pertaining both to science communication and clinical research, because marketing campaigns can employ hype that weakens research integrity and contributes to therapeutic misconception and misestimation, undermining (...) the informed consent process that is essential to the ethical conduct of research. We offer ethical analysis of common advertising practices that justify these concerns. We also suggest the need for a deliberative body convened by the Association of American Medical Colleges and others to develop a set of voluntary guidelines that AMCs can use to avoid in the future, the problems found in many current AMC advertising practices. (shrink)

Like many trained in philosophy, we greatly value the work of those scholars with the courage to espouse contrarian views, particularly when the ideas in dispute lie at the very heart of entrenched...

Few early debates in bioethics invigorated the field to the same extent as the one concerning whether or not young children could be used in nontherapeutic research. Though some of the issues in the debate were never fully settled, a consensus emerged, reflected in the Common Rule—that surrogates could consent to use children in such research, although once the level of risk rises above minimal, additional stipulations are required. Nontherapeutic research on cognitively impaired elderly people raises equally complex ethical issues, (...) but there has been a dearth of debate in the literature about whether such research is ethically permissible. Instead, there have been many published recommendations regarding the circumstances under which such research can occur. (shrink)

There is substantial published evidence showing that countless people enroll each year in ethically deficient clinical trials. Many of the trials are problematic because the quality of the science used to justify their launch may not be sufficiently vetted while many other trials may lack requisite social value. This poses the question: why do people volunteer for them? The answer resides in large part in the fact that informed consent practices have historically masked, rather than disclosed, the information that would (...) alert research candidates to the ethically problematic nature of the trials. The “reasonable person” and “key information” provisions in the revised US Common Rule create the opportunity to correct this historical shortcoming. Two sources are employed to shed light on what the “key information” is that should be disclosed to a “reasonable person”: the original disclosure aims of the Nuremberg Code, as well as an extensive body of meta-research evidence. Those sources jointly support a range of new disclosures in the informed consent process that would unmask the heretofore undisclosed information. The resulting proposed new disclosures pertain to the overall success prospects of clinical trials, the quality of the prior research that both forms the basis of clinical trials and informs assessment of their risks and benefits, the potential social value of clinical trials, and the commercial purposes of clinical trials. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 101-103.

For all humans, sexual orientation and gender identity are essential elements of identity, informing how we plan and live our lives. The historic invisibility of sexual minorities in medicine has meant that these important aspects of their identities as patients have been ignored, with the result that these patients have been denied respect, culturally competent services, and proper treatment. Likely due to historic rejection and mistreatment, there is evidence of reluctance on the part of LGBT patients to disclose their sexual (...) orientation (SO) or gender identity (GI) to their health care providers. There is some perception of risk in sharing SO and GI for many patients who have had bad prior experiences. Despite these risks, we argue that we can improve the quality of care provided this population only by encouraging them to self‐identify and then using that information to improve quality of care.One strategy both to prompt patient self‐identification and to store and use SO and GI data to improve care centers on the use of electronic health records. However, gathering SO and GI data in the EHR requires a workforce that knows both how to obtain and how to use that information. To develop these competencies, educational programs for health professionals must prepare students and educators to elicit and to use sexual orientation and gender identity information to improve care while simultaneously ensuring the safety of patients, trainees, and staff and faculty members as SO and GI become openly discussed and integral parts of ongoing medical discussion and care. As determination of SO and GI demographics becomes more common in health research, we will more fully understand the health risks for all the LGBTIQQ populations. (shrink)

Any humane society needs a just and compassionate way to care for those who are sick, and should be vigilant in identifying and eliminating barriers that frustrate efforts to adequately care for the sick. Some current insurance underwriting practices constitute effective barriers to access to healthcare and serve to diminish the place of freedom and justice in our healthcare system.

Academic medical centers and drug manufacturers have traditionally occupied very distinct positions with regard to public trust. As collaborations among medical researchers and pharmaceutical companies expand, however, worries about the aggressive pursuit of profit that has tarnished the reputation of the pharmaceutical industry may be transferred to medical institutions and clinical investigators, suggesting to some that biomedical research is more about increasing profit than promoting public health. Consequently, when medical institutions forge research collaborations with industry they should be mindful of (...) the potential for these relationships to erode public confidence in the integrity of clinical research.Recent events have heightened concerns about the financing of clinical research. These include the widely publicized deaths of several research volunteers, scandals at the nation's largest funder of biomedical research, and evidence of fabricated research findings in prominent medical journals. These unfortunate events have prompted many to re-examine strategies for managing industry relationships and the financial conflicts of interest they may create. (shrink)

A recent editorial in this journal calls for more philosophical work in the areas of philosophy of medical science and research methodology [1]. The purpose of the present paper is to bring to light and discuss some obstacles and opportunities for development in these areas. In section I, barriers to increased philosophical work in medicine outside ethics are discussed. In sections II and III, additional areas in medicine ripe for philosophical work are identified and discussed: (a) improving the epistemic fitness (...) of much current clinical reasoning, (b) defining the conditions under which greater epistemic fitness can be achieved, and (c) technology assessment. (shrink)

The thesis of the paper is that For Profit Hospitals are morally inappropriate health care delivery institutions. The thesis is established first by elaborating on the beneficent nature of medicine, hospitals, and the physician/patient relationship. The primary obligation of the physician, who draws on the resources of medicine and the hospitals, is to restore personal autonomy that is diminished by illness and suffering within the constraints of the canon of loyalty that frames the physician patient relationship. Hospitals have historically played (...) the role of facilitator enhancing a physician's ability to administer treatment. Next it is argued that For Profit Hospitals may neglect the role of facilitator. This neglect may occur given the institutions' motivations to return a profit to investors by exploiting the patient/physician relationship. This exploitation is clearly shown to be contrary to the canon of loyalty that ought to exist between the patient and physician. (shrink)

The popular view of non-directive genetic counseling limits the counselor's role to providing information to clients and assisting families in making decisions in a morally neutral fashion. This view of non-directive genetic counseling is shown to be incomplete. A fuller understanding of what it means to respect autonomy shows that merely respecting client choices does not exhaust the duty. Moreover, the genetic counselor/client relationship should also be governed by the counselor's commitment to the principle of beneficience. When non-directive counseling is (...) reexamined in light of both these principles, it becomes clear that there are cases in which counselors should attempt to persuade clients to reconsider their decisions. Such attempts are consistent with non-directive counseling because, while respecting the clients' decision-making authority, they insure that clients act with full knowledge of the moral consequences of their decisions. (shrink)

Although bioethics consultation has always drawn the ire of critics, its extension into areas such as paid consultation with private industry has raised new concerns. Critics of consulting relationships with industry question the sincerity of for-profit corporations who seek ethical advice, alleging that a desire for improved public relations is a primary motivation of these corporations. They also question whether compensation for ethical advice creates insuperable conflicts of interest that bias the work produced. The decision of two influential professional societies (...) to establish a joint task force to examine bioethics consultation with industry reflects the seriousness of these and other concerns about this practice. The report of this task force, although controversial, has stimulated broad discussion about the ethical commitments of bioethicists and highlighted the need for clearer professional standards of conduct. (shrink)