<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>Bioethics via MedWorm.com</title>
        <description>MedWorm.com provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest items from the 'Bioethics' source.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=Bioethics&t=Bioethics&s=Search&f=source]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:05:33 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Islam and New Kinship, Reproductive Technologies and the Shariah in Lebanon – By Morgan Clarke</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5656863&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01905.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5656863</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:58:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5656863</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Rotterdam 2012: the next world congress of bioethics</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5656862&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2012.01966.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5656862</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:58:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5656862</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The substance view: a critique</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5656857&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01954.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTAccording to the theory of intrinsic value and moral standing called the ‘substance view,’ what makes it prima facie seriously wrong to kill adult human beings, human infants, and even human fetuses is the possession of the essential property of the basic capacity for rational moral agency – a capacity for rational moral agency in root form and thereby not remotely exercisable. In this critique, I cover three distinct reductio charges directed at the substance view's conclusion that human fetuses have the same intrinsic value and moral standing as adult human beings. After giving consideration to defenders of the substance view's replies to these charges, I then critique each of them, ultimately concluding that none is successful. Of course, in order to understand all of thes...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5656857</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:56:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5656857</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Reexamination of the ethics of placebo use in clinical practice</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5656861&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01943.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTA placebo is a substance or intervention believed to be inactive, but is administered by the healthcare professional as if it was an active medication. Unlike standard treatments, clinical use of placebo usually involves deception and is therefore ethically problematic. Our attitudes toward the clinical use of placebo, which inevitably includes deception or withholding information, have a tremendous effect on our practice regarding truth‐telling and informed consent. A casual attitude towards it weakens the current practice based on shared decision‐making and mutual trust between patients and healthcare professionals. Issues concerning the clinical use of placebo are thus intimately related to patient‐provider relationships, the public's trust in medicine, and medical educati...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5656861</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5656861</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Moral fiction or moral fact? the distinction between doing and allowing in medical ethics</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5656860&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01944.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTOpponents of physician‐assisted suicide (PAS) maintain that physician withdrawal‐of‐life‐sustaining‐treatment cannot be morally equated to voluntary active euthanasia. PAS opponents generally distinguish these two kinds of act by positing a possible moral distinction between killing and allowing‐to‐die, ceteris paribus. While that distinction continues to be widely accepted in the public discourse, it has been more controversial among philosophers. Some ethicist PAS advocates are so certain that the distinction is invalid that they describe PAS opponents who hold to the distinction as in the grip of ‘moral fictions’. The author contends that such a diagnosis is too hasty. The possibility of a moral distinction between active euthanasia and allowing‐to‐die has ...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5656860</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5656860</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Disputing the ethics of research: the challenge from bioethics and patient activism to the interpretation of the declaration of helsinki in clinical trials</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5656859&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01945.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTIn this paper we argue that the consensus around normative standards for the ethics of research in clinical trials, strongly influenced by the Declaration of Helsinki, is perceived from various quarters as too conservative and potentially restrictive of research that is seen as urgent and necessary. We examine this problem from the perspective of various challengers who argue for alternative approaches to what ought or ought not to be permitted. Key themes within this analysis will examine these claims and argue they have implications for the interests of the research subject, research governance and regulation. Using our work with TREAT‐NMD, the neuromuscular clinical trials network, we posit that there is a place for advancing the discourse of moral rights and moral duties in t...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5656859</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5656859</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>‘ethics is for bad guys!’ putting the ‘moral’ into moral enhancement</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5656858&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01946.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5656858</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5656858</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Reporting on end‐of‐life matters – academic meets activists</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5617266&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01959.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5617266</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:57:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5617266</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Queer bioethics: why its time has come</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5501363&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01957.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5501363</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:53:22 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5501363</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The declaration of helsinki and post‐study access to effective drug treatments for subjects participating in clinical trials</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5501357&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01936.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5501357</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:51:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5501357</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Getting past nature as a guide to the human sex ratio</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5501362&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01930.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTSex selection of children by pre‐conception and post‐conception techniques remains morally controversial and even illegal in some jurisdictions. Among other things, some critics fear that sex selection will distort the sex ratio, making opposite‐sex relationships more difficult to secure, while other critics worry that sex selection will tilt some nations toward military aggression. The human sex ratio varies depending on how one estimates it; there is certainly no one‐to‐one correspondence between males and females either at birth or across the human lifespan. Complications about who qualifies as ‘male’ and ‘female’ complicate judgments about the ratio even further. Even a judiciously estimated sex ratio does not have, however, the kind of normative status that r...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5501362</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5501362</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The ethics of sham surgery in parkinson's disease: back to the future?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5501361&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01931.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTDespite intense academic debate in the recent past over the use of ‘sham surgery’ control groups in research, there has been a recent resurgence in their use in the field of neurodegenerative disease. Yet the primacy of ethical arguments in favour of sham surgery controls is not yet established. Preliminary empirical research shows an asymmetry between the views of neurosurgical researchers and patients on the subject, while different ethical guidelines and regulations support conflicting interpretations. Research ethics committees faced with a proposal involving sham surgery should be aware of its ethical complexities. An overview of recent and current placebo‐controlled surgical trials in the field of Parkinson's Disease is provided here, followed by an analysis of the key ...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5501361</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5501361</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Linking interational research to global health equity: the limited contribution of bioethics</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5501360&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01932.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTHealth research has been identified as a vehicle for advancing global justice in health. However, in bioethics, issues of global justice are mainly discussed within an ongoing debate on the conditions under which international clinical research is permissible. As a result, current ethical guidance predominantly links one type of international research (biomedical) to advancing one aspect of health equity (access to new treatments). International guidelines largely fail to connect international research to promoting broader aspects of health equity – namely, healthier social environments and stronger health systems. Bioethical frameworks such as the human development approach do consider how international clinical research is connected to the social determinants of health but, aga...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5501360</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5501360</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What can history do for bioethics?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5501359&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01933.x</link>
            <description>This article details the relationship between history and bioethics. I argue that historians' reluctance to engage with bioethics rests on a misreading of the field as solely reducible to applied ethics, and overlooks previous enthusiasm for historical perspectives. I claim that seeing bioethics as its practitioners see it – as an interdisciplinary meeting ground – should encourage historians to collaborate in greater numbers. I conclude by outlining how bioethics might benefit from new histories of the field, and how historians can lend a fresh perspective to bioethical debates. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5501359</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5501359</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Brain death in islamic ethico‐legal deliberation: challenges for applied islamic bioethics</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5501358&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01935.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTSince the 1980s, Islamic scholars and medical experts have used the tools of Islamic law to formulate ethico‐legal opinions on brain death. These assessments have varied in their determinations and remain controversial. Some juridical councils such as the Organization of Islamic Conferences' Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC‐IFA) equate brain death with cardiopulmonary death, while others such as the Islamic Organization of Medical Sciences (IOMS) analogize brain death to an intermediate state between life and death. Still other councils have repudiated the notion entirely. Similarly, the ethico‐legal assessments are not uniform in their acceptance of brain‐stem or whole‐brain criteria for death, and consequently their conceptualizations of, brain death.Within the medical literat...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5501358</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5501358</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Moral enhancement via direct emotion modulation: a reply to john harris</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5418073&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01919.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTSome argue that humans should enhance their moral capacities by adopting institutions that facilitate morally good motives and behaviour. I have defended a parallel claim: that we could permissibly use biomedical technologies to enhance our moral capacities, for example by attenuating certain counter‐moral emotions. John Harris has recently responded to my argument by raising three concerns about the direct modulation of emotions as a means to moral enhancement. He argues (1) that such means will be relatively ineffective in bringing about moral improvements, (2) that direct modulation of emotions would invariably come at an unacceptable cost to our freedom, and (3) that we might end up modulating emotions in ways that actually lead to moral decline. In this article I outline som...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5418073</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5418073</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Stem cell treatments in china: rethinking the patient role in the global bio‐economy</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5418072&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01929.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThe paper looks in detail at patients that were treated at one of the most discussed companies operating in the field of untried stem cell treatments, Beike Biotech of Shenzhen, China. Our data show that patients who had been treated at Beike Biotech view themselves as proactively pursuing treatment choices that are not available in their home countries. These patients typically come from a broad variety of countries: China, the United Kingdom, the United States, South Africa and Australia. Among the patients we interviewed there seemed to be both an awareness of the general risks involved in such experimental treatments and a readiness to accept those risks weighed against the possible benefits. We interpret this evidence as possibly reflecting the emergence of risk‐taking patie...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5418072</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5418072</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Books received sept 2010–aug 2011</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5311090&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01941.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5311090</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:49:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5311090</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Many thanks to bioethics reviewers</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5311089&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01940.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5311089</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:49:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5311089</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pulcinella secrets</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5311088&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01938.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5311088</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:49:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5311088</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Human and animal research guidelines: aligning ethical constructs with new scientific developments</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5233798&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01923.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTBoth human research and animal research operate within established standards and procedures. Although the human research environment has been criticized for its sometimes inefficient and imperfect process, reported abuses of human subjects in research served as the impetus for the establishment of the Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, and the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and the resulting Belmont Report. No similar, comprehensive and principled effort has addressed the use of animals in research. Although published policies regarding animal research provide relevant regulatory guidance, these policies have not emerged from the process of specifying consistent and reasoned ethical principles. The lack of a fund...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5233798</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:03:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5233798</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The appeal to nature implicit in certain restrictions on public funding for assisted reproductive technology</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5233797&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01925.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTCertain restrictions on public funding for assisted reproductive technology (ART) are articulated and defended by recourse to a distinction between medical infertility and social infertility. We propose that underlying the prioritization of medical infertility is a vision of medicine whose proper role is to restore but not to improve upon nature. We go on to mark moral responses that speak of investments many continue to make in nature as properly an object of reverence and gratitude and therein (sometimes) a source of moral guidance. We draw on the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein in arguing for the plausibility of an appeal to nature in opposition to the charge that it must contain a logical fallacy. We also invite consideration of the moral plausibility of some appeal to nature. Fina...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5233797</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:03:44 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5233797</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The fallacy of neutrality: the interruption of pregnancy of anencephalic fetus in brazil</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5233796&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01921.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThose who favor and those who oppose the interruption of pregnancy with anencephalic fetuses answer the question ‘what is the right to life?’ differently. Those in favor argue that life exists only when it is ‘viable’; that is to say, when cerebral activities occur or may occur. Those who oppose it argue that it is not possible to describe ‘life’ as residing in a particular quality, since life ‘exists from conception’. In fact, in both cases, the noun ‘life’ is being defined by a particular quality, either as ‘viable’ or as ‘existing from the time of conception’. Also, simply saying that ‘there is life’ cannot count as a neutral answer since those who utter such a sentence employ an unspecified criterion to establish if there is life or not. There ar...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5233796</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:03:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5233796</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Preconception care: a parenting protocol. a moral inquiry into the responsibilities of future parents towards their future children</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5233795&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01924.x</link>
            <description>In conclusion, formulating informal requirements for want‐to‐be parents is morally required and therefore also for want‐to‐be parents in need of medical assistance. The protocols developed by fertility doctors in the Netherlands could be seen as the precursor for a general, informal Parenting Protocol that could be developed on the basis of an extended and thoroughly debated risk‐responsibility analysis. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5233795</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:03:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5233795</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ethical reasoning in pandemic preparednes plans – southeast asia and the western pacific</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5233794&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01922.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThe emergence of H1N1 in 2009 shows that it is a mistake to regard the scenario of having to implement pandemic plans as merely hypothetical. This recent experience provides an opportunity to inquire into the current state of pandemic preparedness plans with regard to their ethical adequacy. One aspect that deserves consideration in this context is the disclosure of ethical reasoning. Accordingly, the following is an analysis of examples of pandemic plans and drafts of plans from Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific. It is an analysis of the occurrence of explicit ethical reflection in these documents as well an inquiry into the related question of how ethical reflection can be understood as a constitutive element of ethical pandemic preparedness.In the analysis, different fields...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5233794</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:03:39 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5233794</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The harm principle as a mid‐level principle? three problems from the context of infectious disease control</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5233793&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01926.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTEffective infectious disease control may require states to restrict the liberty of individuals. Since preventing harm to others is almost universally accepted as a legitimate (prima facie) reason for restricting the liberty of individuals, it seems plausible to employ a mid‐level harm principle in infectious disease control. Moral practices like infectious disease control support – or even require – a certain level of theory‐modesty. However, employing a mid‐level harm principle in infectious disease control faces at least three problems. First, it is unclear what we gain by attaining convergence on a specific formulation of the harm principle. Likely candidates for convergence, a harm principle aimed at preventing harmful conduct, supplemented by considerations of effect...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5233793</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:03:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5233793</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Iab presidential address: bioethics in a globalized world – creating space for flourishing human relationships</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5233792&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01927.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTBioethics in a globalized world is meeting a number of challenges – fundamentalism in its different forms, and a focus on economic growth neglecting issues such as equity and sustainability, being prominent among them. How well are we as bioethicists equipped to make meaningful contributions in these times? The paper identifies a number of restraints and proceeds to probe potential resources such as the capability approach, care ethics, cosmopolitanism, and pragmatism. These elements serve to outline a perspective that focuses on the preconditions for flourishing human relationships as a way to address bioethical challenges in a globalized world. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5233792</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:03:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5233792</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bioethics ten years on – what has changed?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5233791&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01937.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5233791</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:03:34 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5233791</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Wellbeing, schizophrenia and experience machines</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5117442&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01894.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTIn the USA and England and Wales, involuntary treatment for mental illness is subject to the constraint that it must be necessary for the health or safety of the patient, if he poses no danger to others. I will argue against this necessary condition of administering treatment and propose that the category of individuals eligible for involuntary treatment should be extended. I begin by focusing on the common disorder of schizophrenia and proceed to demonstrate that it can be a considerable harm to a person's life without causing the person to be a danger to himself. I illuminate this claim by constructing a thought experiment concerning a person who slips on a banana peel and falls into a malfunctioning version of Robert Nozick's experience machine. I propose that the reasons why we...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5117442</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:58:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5117442</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Conscientious objections in pharmacy practice in great britain</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5076549&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01918.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTPharmacists who refuse to provide certain services or treatment for reasons of conscience have been criticized for failing to fulfil their professional obligations. Currently, individual pharmacists in Great Britain can withhold services or treatment for moral or religious reasons, provided they refer the patient to an alternative source. The most high‐profile cases have concerned the refusal to supply emergency hormonal contraception, which will serve as an example in this article.I propose that the pharmacy profession's policy on conscientious objections should be altered slightly. Building on the work of Brock and Wicclair, I argue that conscientious refusals should be acceptable provided that the patient is informed of the service, the patient is redirected to an alternative ...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5076549</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2011 02:43:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5076549</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ontology or phenomenology? how the lvad challenges the euthanasia debate</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5076554&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01900.x</link>
            <description>This article deals with the euthanasia debate in light of new life‐sustaining technologies such as the left ventricular assist device (LVAD). The question arises: does the switching off of a LVAD by a doctor upon the request of a patient amount to active or passive euthanasia, i.e. to ‘killing’ or to ‘letting die’? The answer hinges on whether the device is to be regarded as a proper part of the patient's body or as something external. We usually regard the switching off of an internal device as killing, whereas the deactivation of an external device is seen as ‘letting die’. The case is notoriously difficult to decide for hybrid devices such as LVADs, which are partly inside and partly outside the patient's body. Additionally, on a methodological level, I will argue that the...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5076554</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5076554</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Overstating values: medical facts, diverse values, bioethics and values‐based medicine</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5076553&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01902.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTFulford has argued that (1) the medical concepts illness, disease and dysfunction are inescapably evaluative terms, (2) illness is conceptually prior to disease, and (3) a model conforming to (2) has greater explanatory power and practical utility than the conventional value‐free medical model. This ‘reverse’ model employs Hare's distinction between description and evaluation, and the sliding relationship between descriptive and evaluative meaning. Fulford's derivative ‘Values Based Medicine’ (VBM) readjusts the imbalance between the predominance of facts over values in medicine. VBM allegedly responds to the increased choices made available by, inter alia, the progress of medical science itself. VBM attributes appropriate status to evaluative meaning, where strong consen...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5076553</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5076553</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Refocusing the responsiveness requirement</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5076552&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01903.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTMany guidelines for international research require that studies be responsive to host community health needs or health priorities. Although responsiveness possesses great intuitive and rhetorical appeal, existing conceptions are confusing and difficult to apply. Not only are there few examples of what research the responsiveness requirement permits and what it rejects, but its application can lead to contradictory results. Because of the practical difficulties in applying responsiveness and the danger that misapplying responsiveness could harm the interests of developing countries, we argue that responsiveness should be refocused in three ways: in terms of (1) who enforces it, (2) under what standard, and (3) in what cases. We conclude that responsiveness should be applied by host ...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5076552</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5076552</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Stigmatization and public health ethics</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5076551&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01904.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTEncouraged by the success of smoking denormalization strategies as a tobacco‐control measure, public health institutions are adopting a similar approach to other health behaviors. For example, a recent controversial ad campaign in New York explicitly aimed to denormalize HIV/AIDS amongst gay men. Authors such as Scott Burris have argued that efforts like this are tantamount to stigmatization and that such stigmatization is unethical because it is dehumanizing. Others have offered a limited endorsement of denormalization/stigmatization campaigns as being justified on consequentialist grounds; namely, that the potential public health benefits outweigh any stigmatizing side effects. In this paper, I examine and reject the blanket condemnation of stigmatization efforts in public heal...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5076551</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5076551</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Getting moral enhancement right: the desirability of moral bioenhancement</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5076550&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01907.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTWe respond to a number of objections raised by John Harris in this journal to our argument that we should pursue genetic and other biological means of morally enhancing human beings (moral bioenhancement). We claim that human beings now have at their disposal means of wiping out life on Earth and that traditional methods of moral education are probably insufficient to achieve the moral enhancement required to ensure that this will not happen. Hence, we argue, moral bioenhancement should be sought and applied. We argue that cognitive enhancement and technological progress raise acute problems because it is easier to harm than to benefit. We address objections to this argument. We also respond to objections that moral bioenhancement: (1) interferes with freedom; (2) cannot be made to...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5076550</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5076550</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Clinical Ethics Consultation: Theories and Methods, Implementation, Evaluation – Edited by Jan Schildman, John‐Steward Gordon and Jochen Vollmann</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5068660&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01928.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5068660</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:10:59 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5068660</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Responsibility after the apparent end: ‘following‐up’ in clinical ethics consultation</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5068659&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01910.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTClinical ethics literature typically presents ethics consultations as having clear beginnings and clear ends. Experience in actual clinical ethics practice, however, reflects a different characterization, particularly when the moral experiences of ethics consultants are included in the discussion. In response, this article emphasizes listening and learning about moral experience as core activities associated with clinical ethics consultation. This focus reveals that responsibility in actual clinical ethics practice is generated within the moral scope of an ethics consultant's activities as she or he encounters the unique and specific features that emerge from interactions with a specific patient, or family, or practitioner within a given situation and over time. A long‐form narra...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5068659</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:10:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5068659</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Evidence – competence – discourse: the theoretical framework of the multi‐centre clinical ethics support project metap</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5068658&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01915.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTIn this paper we assume that ‘theory’ is important for Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS). We will argue that the underlying implicit theory should be reflected. Moreover, we suggest that the theoretical components on which any clinical ethics support (CES) relies should be explicitly articulated in order to enhance the quality of CES.A theoretical framework appropriate for CES will be necessarily complex and should include ethical (both descriptive and normative), metaethical and organizational components. The various forms of CES that exist in North‐America and in Europe show their underlying theory more or less explicitly, with most of them referring to some kind of theoretical components including ‘how‐to’ questions (methodology), organizational issues (impleme...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5068658</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:10:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5068658</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Mapping out structural features in clinical care calling for ethical sensitivity: a theoretical approach to promote ethical competence in healthcare personnel and clinical ethical support services (cess)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5068657&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01909.x</link>
            <description>We present an analytical exposition of ethical structural features in judgement‐based clinical care predicated on the assumption of the moral equality of human beings and the assessment of where healthcare contexts pose a challenge to achieving moral equality. The account and the emerging overview is worked out so that it can be easily contextualized with regards to national healthcare systems and specific branches of healthcare, as well as local healthcare institutions. By considering how the account and the overview can be applied to i) improve the ethical competence of healthcare personnel and consultants by broadening their sensitivity to ethical tensions, ii) identify neglected areas for ethical research, and iii) clarify the ethical responsibility of healthcare institutions' leader...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5068657</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:10:54 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5068657</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The role of emotions in moral case deliberation: theory, practice, and methodology</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5068656&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01914.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTIn clinical moral decision making, emotions often play an important role. However, many clinical ethicists are ignorant, suspicious or even critical of the role of emotions in making moral decisions and in reflecting on them. This raises practical and theoretical questions about the understanding and use of emotions in clinical ethics support services. This paper presents an Aristotelian view on emotions and describes its application in the practice of moral case deliberation.According to Aristotle, emotions are an original and integral part of (virtue) ethics. Emotions are an inherent part of our moral reasoning and being, and therefore they should be an inherent part of any moral deliberation. Based on Aristotle's view, we examine five specific aspects of emotions: the descriptio...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5068656</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:10:52 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5068656</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Who are we when we are doing what we are doing? the case for mindful embodiment in ethics case consultation</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5068655&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01913.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThis paper explores the theory and practice of embodied epistemology or mindful embodiment in ethics case consultation. I argue that not only is this epistemology an ethical imperative to safeguard the integrity of this emerging profession, but that it has the potential to improve the quality of ethics consultation (EC). It also has implications for how ethics consultants are trained and how consultation services are organized. My viewpoint is informed by ethnographic research and by my experimental application of mindful embodiment to the development of an ethics consultation service. My argument proceeds in four phases. First I explore the notion of ‘situatedness’ in the bioethics literature, identifying gaps in the field's theories as they apply to EC. I then describe my the...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5068655</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:10:50 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5068655</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Monological versus dialogical consciousness – two epistemological views on the use of theory in clinical ethical practice</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5068654&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01912.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTIn this article, we argue that a critical examination of epistemological and anthropological presuppositions might lead to a more fruitful use of theory in clinical‐ethical practice. We differentiate between two views of conceptualizing ethics, referring to Charles Taylors' two epistemological models: ‘monological’ versus ‘dialogical consciousness’. We show that the conception of ethics in the model of ‘dialogical consciousness’ is radically different from the classical understanding of ethics in the model of ‘monological consciousness’. To reach accountable moral judgments, ethics cannot be conceptualized as an individual enterprise, but has to be seen as a practical endeavor embedded in social interactions within which moral understandings are being negotiated. ...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5068654</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:10:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5068654</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Theory and practice of clinical ethics support services: narrative and hermeneutical perspectives</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5068653&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01911.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTIn this paper we introduce narrative and hermeneutical perspectives to clinical ethics support services (CESS). We propose a threefold consideration of ‘theory’ and show how it is interwoven with ‘practice’ as we go along. First, we look at theory in its foundational role: in our case ‘narrative ethics’ and ‘philosophical hermeneutics’ provide a theoretical base for clinical ethics by focusing on human identities entangled in stories and on moral understanding as a dialogical process. Second, we consider the role of theoretical notions in helping practitioners to understand their situation in clinical ethics practice, by using notions like ‘story’, ‘responsibility’, or ‘vulnerability’ to make explicit and explain their practical experience. Such theoreti...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5068653</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:10:48 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5068653</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The practical importance of theory in clinical ethics support services</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5068652&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01917.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5068652</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:10:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5068652</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Use or refuse reproductive genetic technologies: which would a ‘good parent’ do?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5006752&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01890.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTA number of authors have objected to potential parents' use of reproductive genetic technologies on the grounds that the use of these technologies reflects a morally problematic attitude toward parenting. More specifically, proponents of this view have argued that such a choice is inconsistent with the unconditional acceptance that lies at the heart of praiseworthy parental attitudes. This paper offers a rebuttal of this view by arguing that it is possible for a parent to exhibit unconditional acceptance of the child herself without accepting each of that child's traits. If this is true, the use of reproductive genetic technologies does not inherently undermine appropriate parental attitudes. Further, by working to change some of a child's specific traits, a parent may instead exem...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5006752</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 03 Jul 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5006752</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>No ethical bypass of moral status in stem cell research</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5006751&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01891.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTRecent advances in reprogramming technology do not bypass the ethical challenge of embryo sacrifice. Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPS) research has been and almost certainly will continue to be conducted within the context of embryo sacrifice. If human embryos have moral status as human beings, then participation in iPS research renders one morally complicit in their destruction; if human embryos have moral status as mere precursors of human beings, then advocacy of iPS research policy that is inhibited by embryo sacrifice concerns renders one morally complicit in avoidable harms to persons. Steps may be taken to address these complicity concerns, but in the final analysis there is no alternative to achieving clarity with respect to the moral status of the human embryo. (Source: ...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5006751</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 03 Jul 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5006751</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Is payment a benefit?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5006750&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01892.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTWhat I call ‘the standard view’ claims that IRBs should not regard financial payment as a benefit to subjects for the purpose of risk/benefit assessment. Although the standard view is universally accepted, there is little defense of that view in the canonical documents of research ethics or the scholarly literature. This paper claims that insofar as IRBs should be concerned with the interests and autonomy of research subjects, they should reject the standard view and adopt ‘the incorporation view.’ The incorporation view is more consistent with the underlying soft‐paternalist justification for risk‐benefit assessment and demonstrates respect for the autonomy of prospective subjects. Adoption of the standard view precludes protocols that advance the interests of subjects...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5006750</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 03 Jul 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5006750</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Understanding doctors' ethical challenges as role virtue conflicts</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5006749&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01893.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThis paper argues that doctors' ethical challenges can be usefully conceptualised as role virtue conflicts. The hospital environment requires doctors to be simultaneously good doctors, good team members, good learners and good employees. I articulate a possible set of role virtues for each of these four roles, as a basis for a virtue ethics approach to analysing doctors' ethical challenges. Using one junior doctor's story, I argue that understanding doctors' ethical challenges as role virtue conflicts enables recognition of important moral considerations that are overlooked by other approaches to ethical analysis. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5006749</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 03 Jul 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5006749</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Narratives of ‘terminal sedation’, and the importance of the intention‐foresight distinction in palliative care practice</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5006748&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01895.x</link>
            <description>We present four narratives of ‘terminal’ sedation – cases where sedation was administered in significant doses just before death, and may well have hastened death. Considerable ambiguities of intention were evident in some instances, but the discussion around these clearly exceptional cases illustrates the importance of intention to palliative care specialists in maintaining their professional roles. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5006748</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 03 Jul 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5006748</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Uncertain translation, uncertain benefit and uncertain risk: ethical challenges facing first‐in‐human trials of induced pluripotent stem (ips) cells</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5006747&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01896.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThe discovery of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells in 2006 was heralded as a major breakthrough in stem cell research. Since then, progress in iPS cell technology has paved the way towards clinical application, particularly cell replacement therapy, which has refueled debate on the ethics of stem cell research. However, much of the discourse has focused on questions of moral status and potentiality, overlooking the ethical issues which are introduced by the clinical testing of iPS cell replacement therapy. First‐in‐human trials, in particular, raise a number of ethical concerns including informed consent, subject recruitment and harm minimisation as well as the inherent uncertainty and risks which are involved in testing medical procedures on humans for the first time. These...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5006747</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 03 Jul 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5006747</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The new military medical ethics: legacies of the gulf wars and the war on terror</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5026963&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01920.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTUnited States military medical ethics evolved during its involvement in two recent wars, Gulf War I (1990–1991) and the War on Terror (2001–). Norms of conduct for military clinicians with regard to the treatment of prisoners of war and the administration of non‐therapeutic bioactive agents to soldiers were set aside because of the sense of being in a ‘new kind of war’. Concurrently, the use of radioactive metal in weaponry and the ability to measure the health consequences of trade embargos on vulnerable civilians occasioned new concerns about the health effects of war on soldiers, their offspring, and civilians living on battlefields. Civilian medical societies and medical ethicists fitfully engaged the evolving nature of the medical ethics issues and policy changes dur...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5026963</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5026963</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The ethics of uterus transplantation</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5006745&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01897.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTHuman uterus transplantation (UTx) is currently under investigation as a treatment for uterine infertility. Without a uterus transplant, the options available to women with uterine infertility are adoption or surrogacy; only the latter has the potential for a genetically related child. UTx will offer recipients the chance of having their own pregnancy. This procedure occurs at the intersection of two ethically contentious areas: assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and organ transplantation. In relation to organ transplantation, UTx lies with composite tissue transplants such as face and limb grafts, and shares some of the ethical concerns raised by these non‐life saving procedures. In relation to ART, UTx represents one more avenue by which a woman may seek to meet her repro...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5006745</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5006745</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Making principlism practical: a commentary on gordon, rauprich, and vollmann</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4910525&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01908.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4910525</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2011 23:44:52 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4910525</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How should research in bioethics be assessed?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4910524&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01916.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4910524</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2011 23:44:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4910524</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>‘they say islam has a solution for everything, so why are there no guidelines for this?’ ethical dilemmas associated with the births and deaths of infants with fatal abnormalities from a small sample of pakistani muslim couples in britain</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4910523&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01883.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThis paper presents ethical dilemmas concerning the termination of pregnancy, the management of childbirth, and the withdrawal of life‐support from infants in special care, for a small sample of British Pakistani Muslim parents of babies diagnosed with fatal abnormalities. Case studies illustrating these dilemmas are taken from a qualitative study of 66 families of Pakistani origin referred to a genetics clinic in Southern England. The paper shows how parents negotiated between the authoritative knowledge of their doctors, religious experts, and senior family members in response to the ethical dilemmas they faced. There was little knowledge or open discussion of the view that Islam permits the termination of pregnancy for serious or fatal abnormality within 120 days and there was...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4910523</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2011 23:44:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4910523</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How not to save a life</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4827688&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01906.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4827688</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 20:00:11 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4827688</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Evaluating interventions in health: a reconciliatory approach</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4767528&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01888.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTHealth‐related Quality of Life measures have recently been attacked from two directions, both of which criticize the preference‐based method of evaluating health states they typically incorporate. One attack, based on work by Daniel Kahneman and others, argues that ‘experience’ is a better basis for evaluation. The other, inspired by Amartya Sen, argues that ‘capability’ should be the guiding concept. In addition, opinion differs as to whether health evaluation measures are best derived from consultations with the general public, with patients, or with health professionals. And there is disagreement about whether these opinions should be solicited individually and aggregated, or derived instead from a process of collective deliberation. These distinctions yield a wide v...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4767528</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 30 Apr 2011 11:41:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4767528</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>On good and bad forms of medicalization</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4767531&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01885.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThe ongoing ‘enhancement’ debate pits critics of new self‐shaping technologies against enthusiasts. One important thread of that debate concerns medicalization, the process whereby ‘non‐medical’ problems become framed as ‘medical’ problems.In this paper I consider the charge of medicalization, which critics often level at new forms of technological self‐shaping, and explain how that charge can illuminate – and obfuscate. Then, more briefly, I examine the charge of pharmacological Calvinism, which enthusiasts, in their support of technological self‐shaping, often level at critics. And I suggest how that charge, too, can illuminate and obfuscate.Exploring the broad charge of medicalization and the narrower counter charge of pharmacological Calvinism leads me to ...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4767531</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4767531</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ethical concerns regarding commercialization of deep brain stimulation for obsessive compulsive disorder</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4767530&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01886.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThe United States Food and Drug Administration's recent approval of the commercial use of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) as a treatment for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) will be discussed within the context of the existing USA regulatory framework. The purpose will be to illustrate the current lack of regulation and oversight of the DBS market, which has resulted in the violation of basic ethical norms. The discussion will focus on: 1) the lack of available evidence on procedural safety and efficacy, 2) the numerous conflicts of interest held by research investigators, and 3) the ambiguity of both aforementioned categories due to an inherent lack of transparency in the research. It is argued that in order to address these issues, ethical analyses of DBS for psychiatric disorder...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4767530</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4767530</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The place of god in synthetic biology: how will the catholic church respond?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4767529&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01887.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTSome religious believers may see synthetic biology as usurping God's creative role. The Catholic Church has yet to issue a formal teaching on the field (though it has issued some informal statements in response to Craig Venter's development of a ‘synthetic’ cell). In this paper I examine the likely reaction of the Catholic Magisterium to synthetic biology in its entirety. I begin by examining the Church's teaching role, from its own viewpoint, to set the necessary backround and context for the discussion that follows. I then describe the Church's attitude to science, and particularly to biotechnology. From this I derive a likely Catholic theology of synthetic biology.The Church's teachings on scientific and biotech research show that it is likely to have a generally positive di...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4767529</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4767529</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The need for systematic reviews of reasons</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4758193&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01858.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThere are many ethical decisions in the practice of health research and care, and in the creation of policy and guidelines. We argue that those charged with making such decisions need a new genre of review. The new genre is an application of the systematic review, which was developed over decades to inform medical decision‐makers about what the totality of studies that investigate links between smoking and cancer, for example, implies about whether smoking causes cancer. We argue that there is a need for similarly inclusive and rigorous reviews of reason‐based bioethics, which uses reasoning to address ethical questions. After presenting a brief history of the systematic review, we reject the only existing model for writing a systematic review of reason‐based bioethics, which...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4758193</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 04:21:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4758193</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Responsibilities in elderly care: mr powell's narrative of duty and relations</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4753016&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01898.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTIn Western countries a considerable number of older people move to a residential home when their health declines. Institutionalization often results in increased dependence, inactivity and loss of identity or self‐worth (dignity). This raises the moral question as to how older, institutionalized people can remain autonomous as far as continuing to live in line with their own values is concerned. Following Walker's meta‐ethical framework on the assignment of responsibilities, we suggest that instead of directing all older people towards more autonomy in terms of independence, professional caregivers should listen to the life narrative of older people and attempt to find out how their personal identity, relations and values in life can be continued in the new setting. If mutual n...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4753016</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:51:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4753016</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Human enhancement and sexual dimorphism</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4753017&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01884.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTI argue that the existence of sexual dimorphism poses a profound challenge to those philosophers who wish to deny the moral significance of the idea of ‘normal human capacities’ in debates about the ethics of human enhancement. The biological sex of a child will make a much greater difference to their life prospects than many of the genetic variations that the philosophical and bioethical literature has previously been concerned with. It seems, then, that bioethicists should have something to say about the choice between a male and a female embryo. Either, 1) parents have reason to choose boys over girls; (2) parents have reason to choose girls over boys; or, (3) parents have neither reason to choose girls over boys nor reason to choose boys over girls. Embracing either of the ...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4753017</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4753017</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>End‐of‐Life Care and Pragmatic Decision Making – By D.M. Hester</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4703765&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01862.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4703765</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:06:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4703765</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Enhancements: improvements for whom?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4703764&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01899.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4703764</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:06:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4703764</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Religious and secular death: a parting of the ways</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4635974&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01882.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTMost organized religions have indicated a level of support for organ donation including the diagnosis of death by the brain criterion. Organ donation is seen as a gift of love and fits within a communitarian ethos that most religions embrace. The acceptance of the determination of death by the brain criterion, where it has been explained, is reconciled with religious views of soul and body by using a notion of integration. Because the soul may be seen as that which integrates the human body, in the absence of any other signs of human functioning, loss of integration is considered to be an indication that soul and body have separated. To some extent this view would seem to be informed by an Aristotelian notion of the soul, but it fits well enough with religious notions of the person...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4635974</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4635974</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Identifying harms</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4635973&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01889.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTMoral disagreements often revolve around the issue of harm to others. Identifying harms, however, is a contested enterprise. This paper provides a conceptual toolbox for identifying harms, and so possible wrongdoing, by drawing several distinctions. First, I distinguish between four modes of human vulnerability, forming four ways in which one can be in a harmed state. Second, I argue for the intrinsic disvalue of harm and so distinguish the presence of harm from the fact that it is instrumental to or constitutive of a valued act, practice or way of life. Finally, I distinguish between harm and wrongdoing, arguing that while harm is a normative concept requiring justification, not all harmed states are automatically unjustified. The advantage of this view is that it refocuses the mo...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4635973</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4635973</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Wrongs, preferences, and the selection of children: a critique of rebecca bennett's argument against the principle of procreative beneficence</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4477074&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01870.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTRebecca Bennett, in a recent paper dismissing Julian Savulescu's principle of procreative beneficence, advances both a negative and a positive thesis. The negative thesis holds that the principle's theoretical foundation – the notion of impersonal harm or non‐person‐affecting wrong – is indefensible. Therefore, there can be no obligations of the sort that the principle asserts. The positive thesis, on the other hand, attempts to plug an explanatory gap that arises once the principle has been rejected. That is, it holds that the intuitions of those who adhere to the principle are not genuine moral intuitions, but instead simply give voice to mere (non‐moral) preferences.This paper, while agreeing that Savulescu's principle does not express a genuine moral obligation, takes...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4477074</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4477074</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Can familism be justified?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4477073&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01871.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThis paper argues against the continued practice of Confucian familism, even in its moderate form, in East Asian hospitals. According to moderate familism, a physician acting in concert with the patient's family may withhold diagnostic information from the patient, and may give it to the patient's family members without her prior approval. There are two main approaches to defend moderate familism: one argues that it can uphold patient's autonomy and protect her best interests; the other appeals to cultural relativism by construing the principle of ‘family autonomy’ to be incommensurable with that of individual autonomy. We respond to the first approach by explaining how the familist arguments either depend on some unreasonable assumptions or simply fail to articulate. The criti...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4477073</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4477073</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Genetic enhancement, social justice, and welfare‐oriented patterns of distribution</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4477072&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01872.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThe debate over the host of moral issues that genetic enhancement technology (GET) raises has been significant. One argument that has been advanced to impugn its moral legitimacy is the ‘unfair advantage argument’ (UAA), which states: allowing access to GET to be determined by socio‐economic status would lead to unjust outcomes, namely, create a genetic caste system, and with it the exacerbation and perpetuation of existing socio‐economic inequalities. Fritz Allhoff has recently objected to the argument, the kernel of which is that it conflates the use of the technology with its distribution. GET, he argues, would generate unjust outcomes only if it is distributed according to principles of an unjust pattern of distribution; for if we can determine what constitutes a ‘jus...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4477072</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4477072</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Children as means and ends in large‐scale medical research</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4477071&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01873.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThis paper considers the often‐expressed fear that medical research may use children merely as means, and not respect them as ends in themselves – especially insofar as they are deemed less able to consent than adults. The main focus is on large‐scale genetic, socio‐medical and epidemiological research. The theoretical starting point of the paper is that to be treated as an end in oneself is to be regarded as – and to act as – a participant in cooperative endeavours. This participatory status is certainly connected with individual authority to consent and dissent; and there is no doubt that consent plays an important role when adults participate in many research projects. However, insofar as consent is located within structures of human cooperation, the authority to con...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4477071</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4477071</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Cluster randomization and political philosophy</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4477070&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01874.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTIn this paper, I will argue that, while the ethical issues raised by cluster randomization can be challenging, they are not new. My thesis divides neatly into two parts. In the first, easier part I argue that many of the ethical challenges posed by cluster randomized human subjects research are clearly present in other types of human subjects research, and so are not novel. In the second, more difficult part I discuss the thorniest ethical challenge for cluster randomized research – cases where consent is genuinely impractical to obtain. I argue that once again these cases require no new analytic insight; instead, we should look to political philosophy for guidance. In other words, the most serious ethical problem that arises in cluster randomized research also arises in politica...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4477070</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4477070</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>‘because we see them naked' – nurses’ experiences in caring for hospitalized patients with dementia: considering artificial nutrition or hydration (anh)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4477069&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01875.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThe aim of this study was to explore and describe how Flemish nurses experience their involvement in the care of hospitalized patients with dementia, particularly in relation to artificial nutrition or hydration (ANH). We interviewed 21 hospital nurses who were carefully selected from nine hospitals in different regions of Flanders. ‘Being touched by the vulnerability of the demented patient’ was the central experience of the nurses, having great impact on them professionally as well as personally. This feeling can be described as encompassing the various stages of the care process: the nurses' initial meeting with the vulnerable patient; the intense decision‐making process, during which the nurses experienced several intense emotions influenced by supporting or hindering con...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4477069</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4477069</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Against homeopathy – a utilitarian perspective</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4477068&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01876.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTI examine the positive and negative features of homeopathy from an ethical perspective. I consider: (a) several potentially beneficial features of homeopathy, including non‐invasiveness, cost‐effectiveness, holism, placebo benefits and agent autonomy; and (b) several potentially negative features of homeopathy, including failure to seek effective healthcare, wastage of resources, promulgation of false beliefs and a weakening of commitment to scientific medicine. A utilitarian analysis of the utilities and disutilities leads to the conclusion that homeopathy is ethically unacceptable and ought to be actively rejected by healthcare professionals. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4477068</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4477068</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Oversight, oversight, oversight</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4428513&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2011.01881.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4428513</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 00:12:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4428513</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ethics, ambiguity aversion, and the review of complex translational clinical trials</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4360362&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01856.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTClinical trials of novel agents often present several layers of ethical challenge. Because time and resources for ethical and safety review are limited, how investigators, IRBs, and regulators allocate attention to a trial's various safety dimensions itself represents a critical ethical question. In what follows, I use the example of a Parkinson's disease gene transfer trial to show how risks involving unknown probabilities or outcomes (ambiguity), might sometimes draw attention away from risks that involve known probabilities or outcomes. This potentially undermines the goal of ‘systematic and nonarbitrary analysis of risk’ during ethical review. To counteract the possible effects of such attention biases, I propose that reviewers develop ‘cognitive aids’ like lists and, w...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4360362</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4360362</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Realizing benefit sharing – the case of post‐study obligations</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4360361&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01857.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTIn 2006, the Indonesian government decided to withhold avian flu samples from the World Health Organization. They argued that even though Indonesian samples were crucial to the development of vaccines, the results of vaccine research would be unaffordable for its citizens. Commentaries on the case varied from alleging blackmail to welcoming this strong stance against alleged exploitation. What is clear is that the concern expressed is related to benefit sharing.Benefit sharing requires resource users to return benefits to resource providers in order to achieve justice. One benefit sharing tool within health research is the duty to provide a health care intervention which has been proven to be beneficial (or alternative benefits) to research participants after a study has been concl...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4360361</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4360361</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Expertise, wisdom and moral philosophers: a response to gesang</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4360360&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01860.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTIn a recent issue of Bioethics, Bernard Gesang asks whether a moral philosopher possesses greater moral expertise than a non‐philosopher, and his answer is a qualified yes, based not so much on his infallible access to the truth, but on the quality of his theoretically‐informed moral justifications. I reject Gesang's claim that there is such a thing as moral expertise, although the moral philosopher may well make a valid contribution to the ethics committee as a concerned and educated citizen. I suggest that wisdom is a lot more interesting to examine than moral expertise. Again, however, moral philosophers have no monopoly on wisdom, and the study of philosophy may even impede its cultivation. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4360360</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4360360</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Continuous deep sedation at the end of life and the ‘natural death’ hypothesis</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4360359&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01861.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTSurveys in different countries (e.g. the UK, Belgium and The Netherlands) show a marked recent increase in the incidence of continuous deep sedation at the end of life (CDS). Several hypotheses can be formulated to explain the increasing performance of this practice. In this paper we focus on what we call the ‘natural death’ hypothesis, i.e. the hypothesis that acceptance of CDS has spread rapidly because death after CDS can be perceived as a ‘natural’ death by medical practitioners, patients' relatives and patients.We attempt to show that the label ‘natural’ cannot be unproblematically applied to the nature of this end‐of‐life practice. We argue that the labeling of death following CDS as ‘natural’ death is related to a complex set of mechanisms which facilitat...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4360359</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4360359</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>In whose interest? policy and politics in assisted reproduction</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4280785&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01869.x</link>
            <description>In conclusion, I consider recent initiatives by activist groups to mount an alternative response to the industry's current practices and build a transnational reproductive justice movement. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4280785</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:52:37 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4280785</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Localized past, globalized future: towards an effective bioethical framework using examples from population genetics and medical tourism</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4280784&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01868.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThis paper suggests that many of the pressing dilemmas of bioethics are global and structural in nature. Accordingly, global ethical frameworks are required which recognize the ethically significant factors of all global actors. To this end, ethical frameworks must recognize the rights and interests of both individuals and groups (and the interrelation of these). The paper suggests that the current dominant bioethical framework is inadequate to this task as it is over‐individualist and therefore unable to give significant weight to the ethical demands of groups (and by extension communal and public goods). It will explore this theme by considering the inadequacy of informed consent (the ‘global standard’ of bioethics) to address two pressing global bioethical issues: medical ...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4280784</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:52:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4280784</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Looking backwards, looking forward: hopes for bioethics' next twenty‐five years</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4280783&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01866.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTI reflect on the past, present, and future of the field of bioethics. In so doing, I offer a very situated overview of where bioethics has been, where it now is, where it seems to be going, where I think we could do better, and where I dearly hope the field will be heading. I also propose three ways of re‐orienting our theoretic tools to guide us in a new direction: (1) adopt an ethics of responsibility; (2) explore the responsibilities of various kinds of actors and relationships among them; (3) expand the types of participants engaged in bioethics. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4280783</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:52:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4280783</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Was bioethics founded on historical and conceptual mistakes about medical paternalism?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4280782&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01867.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTBioethics has a founding story in which medical paternalism, the interference with the autonomy of patients for their own clinical benefit, was an accepted ethical norm in the history of Western medical ethics and was widespread in clinical practice until bioethics changed the ethical norms and practice of medicine. In this paper I show that the founding story of bioethics misreads major texts in the history of Western medical ethics. I also show that a major source for empirical claims about the widespread practice of medical paternalism has been misread. I then show that that bioethics based on its founding story deprofessionalizes medical ethics. The result leaves the sick exposed to the predatory power of medical practitioners and healthcare organizations with only their autono...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4280782</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:52:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4280782</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Personal genomes: no bad news?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4280781&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01879.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTIssues in genetics and genomics have been centre stage in Bioethics for much of its history, and have given rise to both negative and positive imagined futures. Ten years after the completion of the Human Genome Project, it is a good time to assess developments. The promise of whole genome sequencing of individuals requires reflection on personalization, genetic determinism, and privacy. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4280781</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:52:34 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4280781</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Publishing bioethics and bioethics
					– reflections on academic publishing by a journal editor</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4280780&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01878.x</link>
            <description>This article by one of the Editors of Bioethics, published in the 25th anniversary issue of the journal, describes some of the revolutionary changes academic publishing has undergone during the last decades. Many humanities journals went from typically small print‐runs, counting by the hundreds, to on‐line availability in thousands of university libraries worldwide. Article up‐take by our subscribers can be measured efficiently. The implications of this and other changes to academic publishing are discussed. Important ethical challenges need to be addressed in areas such as the enforcement of plagiarism‐related policies, the so‐called ‘impact factor’ and its impact on academic integrity, and the question of whether on‐line only publishing can currently guarantee the integri...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4280780</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:52:33 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4280780</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Editorial</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4280779&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01880.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4280779</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:52:33 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4280779</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Human subjects research with prisoners: putting the ethical question in context</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4264490&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01859.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4264490</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:05:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4264490</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Going from principles to rules in research ethics</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4264489&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2009.01744.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTIn research ethics there is a canon regarding what ethical rules ought to be followed by investigators vis‐à‐vis their treatment of subjects and a canon regarding what fundamental ethical principles apply to the endeavor. What I aim to demonstrate here is that several of the rules find no support in the principles. This leaves anyone who would insist that we not abandon those rules in the difficult position of needing to establish that we are nevertheless justified in believing in the validity of the rules. I conclude by arguing that this is not likely to be accomplished.The rules I call into question are the rules requiring:– that studies be designed in a scientifically valid way– that risks to subjects be minimized– that subjects be afforded post‐trial access t...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4264489</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:05:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4264489</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bio‐ and security ethics: only connect</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4264488&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01877.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4264488</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:05:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4264488</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Whakapapa, genealogy and genetics</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4241245&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01850.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThis paper provides part of an analysis of the use of the Maori term whakapapa in a study designed to test the compatibility and commensurability of views of members of the indigenous culture of New Zealand with other views of genetic technologies extant in the country. It is concerned with the narrow sense of whakapapa as denoting biological ancestry, leaving the wider sense of whakapapa as denoting cultural identity for discussion elsewhere. The phenomenon of genetic curiosity is employed to facilitate this comparison. Four levels of curiosity are identified, in the Maori data, which penetrate more or less deeply into the psyche of individuals, affecting their health and wellbeing. These phenomena are compared with non‐Maori experiences and considerable commonalities are discov...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4241245</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4241245</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The ethics of impossible and possible changes to human nature</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4241244&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01851.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTSome commentators speak freely about genetics being poised to change human nature. Contrary to such rhetoric, Norman Daniels believes no such thing is plausible since ‘nature’ describes characteristic traits of human beings as a whole. Genetic interventions that do their work one individual at a time are unlikely to change the traits of human beings as a class. Even so, one can speculate about ways in which human beings as a whole could be genetically altered, and there is nothing about that venture that could not be deliberated in the way other high‐impact questions can be evaluated. There might well come a time when it would be defensible to use genetics to change human beings as a class, in order to protect people in the face of changed environmental circumstances or to en...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4241244</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4241244</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Intensive care triage: priority should be independent of whether patients are already receiving intensive care</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4241243&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01852.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTIntensive care units (ICUs) are not always able to admit all patients who would benefit from intensive care. Pressure on ICU beds is likely to be particularly high during times of epidemics such as might arise in the case of swine influenza. In making choices as to which patients to admit, the key US guidelines state that significant priority should be given to the interests of patients who are already in the ICU over the interests of patients who would benefit from intensive care but who have not been admitted. We examine four reasons that in principle might justify such a prioritization rule and conclude that none is convincing. We argue that the current location of patients should not, in principle, affect their priority for intensive care. We show, however, that under some but ...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4241243</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4241243</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A direct advance on advance directives</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4241242&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01853.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTAdvance directives (ADs), which are also sometimes referred to as ‘living wills’, are statements made by a person that indicate what treatment she should not be given in the event that she is not competent to consent or refuse at the future moment in question. As such, ADs provide a way for patients to make decisions in advance about what treatments they do not want to receive, without doctors having to find proxy decision‐makers or having recourse to the doctrine of necessity. While patients can request particular treatments in an AD, only refusals are binding. This paper will examine whether ADs safeguard the autonomy and best interests of the incompetent patient, and whether legislating for the use of ADs is justified, using the specific context of the legal situation in t...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4241242</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4241242</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Moral enhancement and freedom</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4241241&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01854.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACTThis paper identifies human enhancement as one of the most significant areas of bioethical interest in the last twenty years. It discusses in more detail one area, namely moral enhancement, which is generating significant contemporary interest. The author argues that so far from being susceptible to new forms of high tech manipulation, either genetic, chemical, surgical or neurological, the only reliable methods of moral enhancement, either now or for the foreseeable future, are either those that have been in human and animal use for millennia, namely socialization, education and parental supervision or those high tech methods that are general in their application. By that is meant those forms of cognitive enhancement that operate across a wide range of cognitive abilities and do n...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4241241</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4241241</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Milk banks through the lens of muslim scholars: one text in two contexts</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4196348&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01844.x</link>
            <description>This article is a pioneer study which fathoms out the contemporary discussions of Muslim scholars on this issue. The main focus here is a religious guideline (fatwa) issued in 1983, referred to in this article as ‘one text’, by the Egyptian scholar Yūsuf al‐Qaradāwī who saw no religious problem in establishing or using these banks. After a number of introductory remarks on the ‘Western’ phenomenon of milk banks and the ‘Islamic’ phenomenon of ‘milk kinship’, this article analyses the fatwa of al‐Qaradāwī‘one text’ and investigates the ‘two contexts’ in which this fatwa was discussed, namely, the context of the Muslim world and that of Muslim minorities living in the West. The first context led to rejecting the fatwa and refusing to introduce the milk bankin...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4196348</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4196348</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>An undignified bioethics: there is no method in this madness</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4035869&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01849.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4035869</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 22:10:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4035869</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Books received sept 2009–aug 2010</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4026893&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01865.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4026893</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 08:24:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4026893</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Many thanks to bioethics reviewers</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4026892&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01864.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4026892</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 08:24:03 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4026892</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Calling it a day on proceduralism in bioethics?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4026891&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01863.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4026891</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 08:23:59 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4026891</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Developments in stem cell research and therapeutic cloning: islamic ethical positions, a review</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4035877&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01840.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4035877</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4035877</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The ethics of managing affective and emotional states to improve informed consent: autonomy, comprehension, and voluntariness</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4035876&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01838.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4035876</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4035876</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration for patients in a permanent vegetative state: changing tack</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4035875&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01841.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4035875</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4035875</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>On taylor's justification of medical informed consent</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4035874&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01842.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4035874</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4035874</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Symbiotic empirical ethics: a practical methodology</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4035873&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01843.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4035873</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4035873</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Total brain death: a reply to alan shewmon</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4035872&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01846.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4035872</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4035872</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Exploitations and their complications: the necessity of identifying the multiple forms of exploitation in pharmaceutical trials</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4035871&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01847.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4035871</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4035871</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Orphaned at conception: the uncanny offspring of embryos</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4035870&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01848.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4035870</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4035870</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why the avandia scandal proves big pharma needs stronger ethical standards</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3946095&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01855.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3946095</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:50:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3946095</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Arguments against promoting organ transplants from brain‐dead donors, and views of contemporary japanese on life and death</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3895366&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01839.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3895366</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:11:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3895366</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Letter to the editors: the significance of personal identity to abortion</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3895365&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01845.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3895365</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:11:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3895365</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Commentary: should international adoption be part of humanitarian aid efforts? lessons from haiti</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3888739&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01834.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3888739</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:27:43 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3888739</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Articles: reproductive tourism and the quest for global gender justice</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3888738&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01833.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3888738</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:27:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3888738</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Editorial: international perspectives on the baby trade</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3888737&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01835.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3888737</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:27:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3888737</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The ethics of intercountry adoption: why it matters to healthcare providers and bioethicists</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3864882&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01832.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3864882</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:43:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3864882</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Should international adoption be part of humanitarian aid efforts? lessons from haiti</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842745&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01834.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842745</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:19:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842745</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The limits of intimate citizenship: reproduction of difference in flemish‐ethiopian ‘adoption cultures’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842744&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01830.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842744</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:19:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842744</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Revisiting child‐based objections to commercial surrogacy</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842743&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01829.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842743</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:19:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842743</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Care ethics and the global practice of commercial surrogacy</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842742&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01831.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842742</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:19:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842742</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Reproductive tourism and the quest for global gender justice</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842741&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01833.x</link>
            <description>ABSTRACT (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842741</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:19:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842741</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>International perspectives on the baby trade</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842740&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01835.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842740</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:19:25 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842740</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A zygote could be a human: a defence of conceptionism against fission arguments</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3801932&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01824.x</link>
            <description>In this paper I defend the view that a zygote is a human from the fission objection that is widely thought to be decisive against the view. I do so, drawing upon a recent discussion of this issue by John Burgess, by explaining in detail the metaphysical position the proponent of the view should adopt in order to rebut the objection. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3801932</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3801932</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Which benefits of research participation count as ‘direct’?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842719&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01825.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842719</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842719</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>When concretized emotion‐belief complexes derail decision‐making capacity</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842718&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01817.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842718</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842718</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Trusted consent and research biobanks: towards a ‘new alliance’ between researchers and donors</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842717&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01823.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842717</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842717</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Reflections on ‘autistic integrity’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842716&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01827.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842716</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842716</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What's wrong with ghostwriting?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3573191&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01828.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3573191</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3573191</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>When concretized emotion-belief complexes derail decision-making capacity</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3573197&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01817.x</link>
            <description>There is an important gap in philosophical, clinical and bioethical conceptions of decision-making capacity. These fields recognize that when traumatic life circumstances occur, people not only feel afraid and demoralized, but may develop catastrophic thinking and other beliefs that can lead to poor judgment. Yet there has been no articulation of the ways in which such beliefs may actually derail decision-making capacity. In particular, certain emotionally grounded beliefs are systematically unresponsive to evidence, and this can block the ability to deliberate about alternatives. People who meet medico-legal criteria for decision-making capacity can react to health and personal crises with such capacity-derailing reactions. One aspect of this is that a person who is otherwise cognitively ...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3573197</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3573197</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Literature, history and the humanization of bioethics</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3573196&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01818.x</link>
            <description>This paper considers the disciplines of literature and history and the contributions each makes to the discourse of bioethics. In each case I note the pedagogic ends that can be enacted though the appropriate use of the each of these disciplines in the sphere of medical education, particularly in the medical ethics classroom.1 I then explore the contribution that both these disciplines and their respective methodologies can and do bring to the academic field of bioethics. I conclude with a brief consideration of the relations between literature and history with particular attention to the possibilities for a future bioethics informed by history and literature after the empirical turn. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3573196</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3573196</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Trusted consent and research biobanks: towards a 'new alliance' between researchers and donors</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3573195&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01823.x</link>
            <description>We argue that, in the case of research biobanks, there is a need to replace the currently used informed consent with trusted consent. Accordingly, we introduce a proposal for the structure of the latter. Further, we discuss some of the issues that can be addressed effectively through our proposal. In particular, we illustrate: i) which research should be authorized by donors; ii) how to regulate access to information; iii) the fundamental role played by a Third Party Authority in assuring compliance with the reciprocal expectations and obligations of donors and scientists. Finally, we briefly analyse two issues that might represent important elements of a 'new alliance' between researchers and donors to which the trusted consent could pave the way: i) the correlations between needs and rig...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3573195</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3573195</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Which benefits of research participation count as 'direct'?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3573194&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01825.x</link>
            <description>It is widely held that individuals who are unable to provide informed consent should be enrolled in clinical research only when the risks are low, or the research offers them the prospect of direct benefit. There is now a rich literature on when the risks of clinical research are low enough to enroll individuals who cannot consent. Much less attention has focused on which benefits of research participation count as 'direct', and the few existing accounts disagree over how this crucial concept should be defined. This disagreement raises concern over whether those who cannot consent, including children and adults with severe dementia, are being adequately protected. The present paper attempts to address this concern by considering first what additional protections are needed for these vulner...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3573194</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3573194</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Uninformed consent: mass screening for prostate cancer</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3573193&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01826.x</link>
            <description>While medicine may agree in principle that cancer screening requires informed consent, such consent is not, in fact, common practice. In the case of prostate-cancer screening this means that men in large numbers undergo PSA testing with little understanding of its liabilities [ndash] in particular, that it may or may not decrease mortality, often detects cancer of questionable significance, and may lead to unnecessary surgery. Given that prostate cancer is known to be overtreated and that family history is a risk factor, it follows that a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, even if it is of no clinical significance, automatically promotes his son into the high-risk category; and given that those so categorized are subject to heightened medical surveillance and that the more diligently medi...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3573193</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3573193</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Reflections on 'autistic integrity'</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3573192&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01827.x</link>
            <description>This article has two goals: (1) to apply four familiar definitions or characterizations of integrity to the case of moderate to severe autism, and (2) to examine whether autistic integrity does provide the moral justification Barnbaum seeks. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3573192</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3573192</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More on benchmarks of fairness: response to ballantyne</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3551817&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01822.x</link>
            <description>This paper challenges the fitness of Angela Ballantyne's proposed theory of exploitation by situating her 'fair risk account' in an ongoing dialogue about the adequacy conditions for benchmarks of fairness. It identifies four adequacy conditions: (1) the ability to focus on level rather than type of benefit; (2) the ability to focus on micro-level rather than macro-level fairness; (3) the ability to prevent discrimination based on need; and (4) the ability to prescribe a certain distribution as superior to all others. While the fair risk account satisfies the first condition, this paper argues that it has difficulty satisfying the last three conditions. Ballantyne's proposal includes several new and promising features, but in order for the fair risk account to be useful in identifying and ...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3551817</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3551817</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Hard paternalism, fairness and clinical research: why not?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3551818&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01816.x</link>
            <description>Jansen and Wall suggest a new way of defending hard paternalism in clinical research. They argue that non-therapeutic research exposing people to more than minimal risk should be banned on egalitarian grounds: in preventing poor decision-makers from making bad decisions, we will promote equality of welfare. We argue that their proposal is flawed for four reasons. First, the idea of poor decision-makers is much more problematic than Jansen and Wall allow. Second, pace Jansen and Wall, it may be practicable for regulators to uncover the values that a potential research participant holds when agreeing to enter a research project, so their claim that we must ban such research projects for all if we are to ban them for poor decision-makers looks to be unmotivated. Third, there seem to be cases ...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3551818</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3551818</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Should we allow organ donation euthanasia? alternatives for maximizing the number and quality of organs for transplantation</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3529259&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01811.x</link>
            <description>There are not enough solid organs available to meet the needs of patients with organ failure. Thousands of patients every year die on the waiting lists for transplantation. Yet there is one currently available, underutilized, potential source of organs. Many patients die in intensive care following withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment whose organs could be used to save the lives of others. At present the majority of these organs go to waste. In this paper we consider and evaluate a range of ways to improve the number and quality of organs available from this group of patients. Changes to consent arrangements (for example conscription of organs after death) or changes to organ donation practice could dramatically increase the numbers of organs available, though they would conflict with c...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3529259</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 03 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3529259</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Adolescent and parental perceptions of medical decision‐making in hong kong</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842722&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01803.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842722</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842722</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Two stalemates in the philosophical debate about abortion and why they cannot be resolved using analogical arguments</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3437555&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01815.x</link>
            <description>Philosophical debate about the ethics of abortion has reached stalemate on two key issues. First, the claim that foetuses have moral standing that entitles them to protections for their lives has been neither convincingly established nor refuted. Second, the question of a pregnant woman's obligation to allow the gestating foetus the use of her body has not been resolved. Both issues are deadlocked because philosophers addressing them invariably rely on intuitions and analogies, and such arguments have weaknesses that make them unfit for resolving the abortion issue. Analogical arguments work by building a kind of consensus, and such a consensus is virtually unimaginable because (1) intuitions are revisable, and in the abortion debate there is great motive to revise them, (2) one's position...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3437555</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 04 Apr 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3437555</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>On using people merely as a means in clinical research</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3437554&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01820.x</link>
            <description>It is often argued that clinical research should not violate the Kantian principle that people must not be used merely as a means for the purposes of others. At first sight, the practice of clinical research itself, however, seems to violate precisely this principle: clinical research is often beneficial to future people rather than to participants; even if participants benefit, all things considered, they are exposed to discomforts which are absent both in regular care for their diseases and in other areas of daily life. Therefore, in this paper we will consider whether people are used merely as a means by being enrolled in clinical research. On the basis of recent studies of Kantian scholars we will argue that clinical research is compatible with the Kantian principle if the conditions o...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3437554</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 04 Apr 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3437554</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Risk and mid‐level moral principles</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842720&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01813.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842720</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842720</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Risk and mid-level moral principles</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3403344&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01813.x</link>
            <description>We discuss ethical aspects of risk-taking with special focus on principlism and mid-level moral principles. A new distinction between the strength of an obligation and the degree to which it is valid is proposed. We then use this distinction for arguing that, in cases where mid-level moral principles come into conflict, the moral status of the act under consideration may be indeterminate, in a sense rendered precise in the paper. We apply this thought to issues related to pandemic influenza vaccines. The main conclusion of the paper is that on a principlist approach some acts may be neither right nor wrong (or neither permissible nor impermissible), and we claim that this has important implications for how we ought to make decisions under risk. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3403344</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3403344</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Continuing the definition of death debate: the report of the president's council on bioethics on controversies in the determination of death</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3403345&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01812.x</link>
            <description>The President's Council on Bioethics has recently released a report supportive of the continued use of brain death as a criterion for human death. The Council's conclusions were based on a conception of life that stressed external work as the fundamental marker of organismic life. With respect to human life, it is spontaneous respiration in particular that indicates an ability to interact with the external environment, and so indicates the presence of life. Conversely, irreversible apnoea marks an inability to carry out the necessary work of life, an inability which the Council considers an indicator of death. This conception has been conceived to circumvent criticisms of the previous model of loss of somatic integration, a model the Council admits that, in the presence of evidence of cont...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3403345</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3403345</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Triangular reflective equilibrium: a conscience‐based method for bioethical deliberation</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842725&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2009.01797.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842725</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842725</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>‘to thine own self be true’: on the loss of integrity as a kind of suffering</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842724&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01801.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842724</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842724</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What puts the ‘yuck’ in the yuck factor?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842723&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01802.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842723</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842723</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>On the need for improved protections of incapacitated and non‐benefiting research subjects</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3842721&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01804.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3842721</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3842721</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What puts the 'yuck' in the yuck factor?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3306243&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01802.x</link>
            <description>The advances in biotechnology have given rise to a discussion concerning the strong emotional reaction expressed by the public towards biotechnological innovations. This reaction has been named the 'Yuck-factor' by several theorists of bioethics. Leon Kass, the former chairman of the President's council on bioethics, has appraised this public reaction as 'an emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason's power fully to articulate it'.1 Similar arguments have been forwarded by the Catholic Church, several Protestant denominations and the Pro-Life movement. Several bioethicists have, however, opposed the idea of a disgust-based morality.2 Recent findings in cognitive science support the view that the strong negative emotions people often experience when faced with biotechnological idea...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3306243</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3306243</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Adolescent and parental perceptions of medical decision-making in hong kong</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3306242&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01803.x</link>
            <description>Conclusion:'14-and-above' Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong perceive themselves as capable of autonomous decision-making in medically-related matters, but hesitate to assert their autonomy, probably because of the Confucian values of parental authority and filial piety that are deeply embedded in the local culture. (Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3306242</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3306242</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>On the need for improved protections of incapacitated and non-benefiting research subjects</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3306241&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01804.x</link>
            <description>In this article, it is claimed that the protective provisions for adults with impaired decision-making capacity are misguided, insofar as they do not conclusively state whether research on this group should be permitted only as an exception, and as they arbitrarily allow for some groups to benefit from such research while others will not. Moreover, the presumed or former will of the subject is given insufficient weight, and the minimal risk standard does not make sense in this context. Because of these problems, the present guidelines allow for the possibility of vulnerable people being exploited, something that is hidden behind a guise of solidarity. Instead we need to address the real issues at stake by rewriting the present statutes. It is suggested that new guidelines should be in some...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3306241</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3306241</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pandemic influenza and utilitarianism</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3306240&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01805.x</link>
            <description>(Source: Bioethics)</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3306240</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3306240</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>'to thine own self be true': on the loss of integrity as a kind of suffering</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3266521&amp;cid=s_31005_74_f&amp;fid=31005&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%252Fj.1467-8519.2010.01801.x</link>
            <description>One of the requirements in the Dutch regulation for euthanasia and assisted suicide is that the doctor must be satisfied 'that the patient's suffering is unbearable, and that there is no prospect of improvement.' In the notorious Chabot case, a psychiatrist assisted a 50 year old woman in suicide, although she did not suffer from any somatic disease, nor strictly speaking from any psychiatric condition. In Seduced by Death, Herbert Hendin concluded that apparently the Dutch regulation now allows physicians to assist anyone in suicide simply because he or she is unhappy. In this paper, I reject Hendin's conclusion and in particular his description of Mrs Boomsma as someone who was 'simply unhappy.' After a detailed narration of her lifestory, I turn to the American philosopher Harry Frankfu...</description>
            <author>Bioethics</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3266521</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3266521</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

