{"title":"Strengthening harm-theoretic pro-life views.","authors":"Julian I Kanu","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110222","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2024-110222","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A pro-life view can be called harm-theoretic if it claims abortion is impermissible because of the harm caused to the fetus. These positions are important in the abortion discussion because they allow pro-lifers to argue abortion is impermissible without claiming the fetus is a moral person. A major problem with harm-theoretic abortion views is that they fall victim to the contraception reductio. The contraception reductio was originally posed towards the Future like Ours argument for the impermissibility of abortion, but I show it is a problem for harm-theoretic positions in general. I argue that the currently proposed solutions aimed at solving the contraception reductio are unsatisfactory because they commit you to unnecessary controversial metaphysical positions, such as animalism and denying mereological universalism. Then, I give a new solution to the contraception reductio that avoids those metaphysical commitments. The main conclusion is that harm-theoretic views can avoid the contraception reductio by accepting a biological account of the harm of death.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142622317","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Johnna Wellesley, Dominic Wilkinson, Bryanna Moore
{"title":"Wish to die trying to live: unwise or incapacitous? The case of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust versus 'ST'.","authors":"Johnna Wellesley, Dominic Wilkinson, Bryanna Moore","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110365","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2024-110365","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The recent legal dispute about medical treatment for a 19-year-old patient, Sudiksha Thirumalesh, (known initially by the Court of Protection as 'ST') in A NHS Trust versus ST & Ors (2023) raised several challenging ethical issues. While Sudiksha's case bears similarities to other high-profile cases in England and Wales, there are key differences. Crucially, Sudiksha herself was part of the disagreement. She was alert, communicative and sought to advocate for herself. Furthermore, this case was framed in the courts as pivoting not on considerations of best interests but on a determination of decisional capacity. Sudiksha was deemed to lack capacity because she did not believe her doctors' view of her prognosis.While the legal questions in the case were central to a recent Court of Appeal decision (which overturned the original finding), in this commentary, we focus on the ethical questions therein. We start by describing Sudiksha's court case and the initial judgment. We then offer an ethical analysis of the relationship between false beliefs, values and the 'capacity' to make decisions, arguing for a need for particular care when judging patients to lack capacity based purely on 'false and fixed beliefs'. After briefly noting the legal basis for the appeal finding, we offer ethical implications for future cases. Although it appears that Sudiksha had decision-making capacity, this did not settle the ethical question of whether health professionals were obliged to continue treatment that they believed to have no prospect of success.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142622376","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Taking a moral holiday? Physicians' practical identities at the margins of professional ethics.","authors":"Henk Jasper van Gils-Schmidt, Sabine Salloch","doi":"10.1136/jme-2022-108500","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2022-108500","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Physicians frequently encounter situations in which their professional practice is intermingled with moral affordances stemming from other domains of the physician's lifeworld, such as family and friends, or from general morality pertaining to all humans. This article offers a typology of moral conflicts 'at the margins of professionalism' as well as a new theoretical framework for dealing with them. We start out by arguing that established theories of professional ethics do not offer sufficient guidance in situations where professional ethics overlaps with moral duties of other origins. Therefore, we introduce the moral theory developed by Christine M. Korsgaard, that centres around the concept of practical identity. We show how Korsgaard's account offers a framework for interpreting different types of moral conflicts 'at the margins of professionalism' to provide either orientation for solving the conflict or an explanation for the emotional and moral burden involved in moral dilemmas.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"626-633"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11347259/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9303201","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Michael H Bernstein, Maayan N Rosenfield, Charlotte Blease, Molly Magill, Richard M Terek, Julian Savulescu, Francesca L Beaudoin, Josiah D Rich, Karolina Wartolowska
{"title":"How do US orthopaedic surgeons view placebo-controlled surgical trials? A pilot online survey study.","authors":"Michael H Bernstein, Maayan N Rosenfield, Charlotte Blease, Molly Magill, Richard M Terek, Julian Savulescu, Francesca L Beaudoin, Josiah D Rich, Karolina Wartolowska","doi":"10.1136/jme-2022-108221","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2022-108221","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Randomised placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating novel treatments. However, this design is rarely used in the context of orthopaedic interventions where participants are assigned to a real or placebo surgery. The present study examines attitudes towards RPCTs for orthopaedic surgery among 687 orthopaedic surgeons across the USA. When presented with a vignette describing an RPCT for orthopaedic surgery, 52.3% of participants viewed it as 'completely' or 'mostly' unethical. Participants were also asked to rank-order the value of five different types of evidence supporting the efficacy of a surgery, ranging from RPCT to an anecdotal report. Responses regarding RPCTs were polarised with 26.4% viewing it as the <i>least</i> valuable (even less valuable than an anecdote) and 35.7 .% viewing it as the <i>most</i> valuable. Where equipoise exists, if we want to subject orthopaedic surgeries to the highest standard of evidence (RPCTs) before they are implemented in clinical practice, it will be necessary to educate physicians on the value and ethics of placebo surgery control conditions. Otherwise, invasive procedures may be performed without any benefits beyond possible placebo effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"643-646"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10050223/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9554255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Please wear a mask: a systematic case for mask wearing mandates.","authors":"Roberto Fumagalli","doi":"10.1136/jme-2022-108736","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2022-108736","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper combines considerations from ethics, medicine and public health policy to articulate and defend a systematic case for mask wearing mandates (MWM). The paper argues for two main claims of general interest in favour of MWM. First, MWM provide a more effective, just and fair way to tackle the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic than policy alternatives such as laissez-faire approaches, mask wearing recommendations and physical distancing measures. And second, the proffered objections against MWM may justify some exemptions for specific categories of individuals, but do not cast doubt on the justifiability of these mandates. Hence, unless some novel decisive objections are put forward against MWM, governments should adopt MWM.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"501-510"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11228218/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9105020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Lowering the age limit of access to the identity of the gamete donor by donor offspring: the argument against.","authors":"Guido Pennings","doi":"10.1136/jme-2023-108935","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2023-108935","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Countries that abolished donor anonymity have imposed age limits for access to certain types of information by donor offspring. In the UK and the Netherlands, a debate has started on whether these age limits should be lowered or abolished all together. This article presents some arguments against lowering the age limits as a general rule for all donor children. The focus is on whether one should give a child the right to obtain the identity of the donor at an earlier age than is presently stipulated. The first argument is that there is no evidence that a change in age will increase the total well-being of the donor offspring as a group. The second argument stresses that the rights language used for the donor-conceived child isolates the child from his or her family and this is unlikely to be in the best interest of the child. Finally, lowering the age limit reintroduces the genetic father in the family and expresses the bionormative ideology that contradicts gamete donation as a practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"292-294"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9405977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"On the importance of consistency: a response to Giubilini <i>et al</i>.","authors":"Xavier Symons","doi":"10.1136/jme-2023-109152","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2023-109152","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Giubilini <i>et al</i> offer some helpful reflections on the conscientious provision of medical care and whether and in what circumstances professional associations ought to support the conscientious provision of abortion in circumstances where abortion is banned or heavily restricted. I have several reservations, however, about the argument developed in the article. First, the essay makes questionable use of the case of Savita Halappanavar to justify its central argument about conscientious provision. Second, there is an apparent inconsistency between this article and the authors' statements elsewhere about the conscientious refusal of care. Third, there are risks that attend to professional associations supporting practitioners who break the law, and yet Giubilini <i>et al</i> do not give sufficient attention to this. This response will briefly discuss these three concerns.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"347-348"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9583145","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Scott Hoener, Aaron Wolfgang, David Nissan, Edmund Howe
{"title":"Ethical considerations for psychedelic-assisted therapy in military clinical settings.","authors":"Scott Hoener, Aaron Wolfgang, David Nissan, Edmund Howe","doi":"10.1136/jme-2023-108943","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2023-108943","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Psychedelic treatments, particularly 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted and psilocybin-assisted therapies, have recently seen renewed interest in their clinical potential to treat various mental health conditions. Clinical trials for both MDMA-assisted and psilocybin-assisted therapies have shown to be highly efficacious for post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression. Recent research trials for psychedelic-assisted therapies (PAT) have demonstrated that although they are resource-intensive, their effects are rapid-acting, durable and cost-effective. These results have generated enthusiasm among researchers seeking to investigate psychedelic therapies in active-duty service members of the US military, particularly those with treatment refractory mental health conditions. At the same time, psychedelics remain in early stages of clinical investigation, have not yet achieved regulatory approval for general clinical use and may confer unique psychological and neurobiological effects that could raise novel ethical considerations when treating active-duty service members. Should psychedelics achieve regulatory approval, military relevant considerations may include issues of access to these treatments, appropriate procedures for informed consent, confidentiality standards, and possible unanticipated mental health risks and other psychological sequelae. A service member's deployability, as well as their ability to return to full military duty following PAT, may also be of unique concern. The authors argue that MDMA-assisted therapy currently represents a promising treatment that should be more rapidly investigated as a clinical therapy for service members while still taking a measured approach that accounts for the many military-specific uncertainties that remain.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"258-262"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9546319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The ethics of firing unvaccinated employees.","authors":"Maxwell J Smith","doi":"10.1136/jme-2022-108866","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2022-108866","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Some organisations make vaccination a condition of employment. This means prospective employees must demonstrate they have been vaccinated (eg, against measles) to be hired. But it also means organisations must decide whether <i>existing</i> employees should be expected to meet newly introduced vaccination conditions (eg, against COVID-19). Unlike prospective employees who will not be <i>hired</i> if they do not meet vaccination conditions, existing employees who fail to meet new vaccination conditions risk being <i>fired</i> The latter seems worse than the former. Hence, objections to vaccination mandates commonly centre on the harms that will be visited on existing employees who are unwilling to be vaccinated. However, because this objection does not necessarily entail the claim that vaccination is unnecessary for the effective and safe performance of certain jobs, those making this objection should have less of an objection, or no objection at all (at least on these grounds), to introducing vaccination requirements in some cases for <i>prospective</i> employees. Yet, in this paper, I shall argue that if one has reason to believe vaccination requirements can be justified for prospective employees, one should also believe they are justified for existing employees <i>despite</i> any asymmetry in consequences experienced by the two groups. As a consequence, common objections made against vaccination mandates grounded solely in the harms that may be experienced by existing employees who are unwilling to be vaccinated should be considered unpersuasive.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"268-271"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10958312/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9546321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A human right to pleasure? Sexuality, autonomy and egalitarian strategies.","authors":"Jon Wittrock","doi":"10.1136/jme-2023-109011","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2023-109011","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A growing focus on pleasure in human rights discourse has been used to address patterns of sexual exclusion, often when addressing the problems of people with disabilities (PWD). As convincingly argued by Liberman, however, not all PWD suffer from sexual exclusion, and not all who suffer from sexual exclusion are PWD. Danaher and Liberman have thus argued in various ways for a broader range of measures, addressing sexual exclusion. This article builds on previous research and offers a conceptual framework for addressing sexual pleasure and exclusion in terms of human rights. It argues that human rights aim to safeguard autonomy, which is interpreted as multidimensional. It, thus, divides autonomy into the four dimensions of liberty (freedom from threat and coercion), opportunity (options to choose between), capacity (what an agent is capable of doing) and authenticity (the extent to which choices are genuine). Furthermore, it distinguishes between distinct egalitarian strategies, which offer different problems and possibilities, and may be combined. Thus, there is direct egalitarian distribution, indirect egalitarian distribution, baseline or threshold strategies and general promotion strategies. By way of conclusion, the importance of sexual authenticity as the ultimate aim of sexual rights is emphasised.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"263-267"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10958316/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9579395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}