Journal of Medical Ethics最新文献_第10页

Autonomy versus exclusion in xenotransplantation trials. 异种移植试验中的自主性与排斥性。

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2024-110438

Richard B Gibson

引用次数: 0

Strengthening harm-theoretic pro-life views. 加强伤害理论的支持生命观点。

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2024-110222

Julian I Kanu

引用次数: 0

Wish to die trying to live: unwise or incapacitous? The case of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust versus 'ST'. 死而求生：不明智还是无能力？伯明翰大学医院 NHS 基金会信托与 "ST "的案例。

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2024-110365

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":"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.","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}

引用次数: 0

The Case against compulsory vaccination: the failed arguments from risk imposition, tax evasion, 'social liberty', and the priority of life. 反对强制疫苗接种的理由：从风险强加、逃税、"社会自由 "和生命优先等方面提出的失败论据。

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2024-110236

Uwe Steinhoff

{"title":"The Case against compulsory vaccination: the failed arguments from risk imposition, tax evasion, 'social liberty', and the priority of life.","authors":"Uwe Steinhoff","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110236","url":null,"abstract":"Arguments for mandatory or compulsory vaccination must justify the coercive infringement of bodily integrity via the injection of chemicals that permanently affect a body's inner constitution. Four arguments are considered. The allegedly libertarian argument declares unvaccinated persons a threat; accordingly, vaccination could take the form of justifiable defence of self and others. This argument conflates material and statistical threats. The harsh coercive measures permissible in defence against the former are not permissible in prevention of the latter. The argument from tax evasion claims that people can be permissibly coerced into bearing their fair financial burdens of community life and likens this to sharing burdens in the face of a viral threat. The argument fails to demonstrate that vaccination would be fair, permissible in spite of potential lethal side-effects, and sufficiently similar to taxation despite the categorical difference between temporary deprivation of money and permanent deprivation of one's original inner bodily constitution. The argument from 'social liberty' claims that the loss of freedom due to mandatory vaccination is only apparent, namely outweighed by corresponding gains in freedom. This argument conflates freedom as the absence of coercion with freedom as the presence of options for action. It fails to give the former its due weight and to demonstrate that persons may be coerced into increasing the options of others. The argument from the priority of life elevates the protection of life to an absolute value. This is unwarranted and leads to counterintuitive implications. Without better arguments, mandatory vaccination must be rejected.","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142545945","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}

引用次数: 0

(Un)equal treatment in the 'tobacco-free generation'. (无烟一代 "的（不）平等待遇。

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2024-110209

Johannes Kniess

引用次数: 0

Total lockdown and fairness towards the sufferer: an egalitarian response to Savulescu and Cameron. 全面封锁与公平对待患者：对萨武列斯库和卡梅伦的平等主义回应。

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2024-109886

Jesús Mora

{"title":"Total lockdown and fairness towards the sufferer: an egalitarian response to Savulescu and Cameron.","authors":"Jesús Mora","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-109886","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2024-109886","url":null,"abstract":"Savulescu and Cameron supported selectively locking down the elderly during the COVID-19 pandemic on two grounds: first, that preserving total lockdown would entail levelling down and, second, that levelling down is wrong. Their first assumption has been thoroughly addressed, but more can be said about their wider antiegalitarian point that levelling down is simply wrong. Egalitarians are not defenceless against the levelling-down objection. Even though some consider it the most serious challenge to supporters of equality, egalitarianism possesses sound reasons to assert, not only that something valuable is preserved when we level down, but also that preserving it may be, in certain circumstances, preferable to pursuing other fundamental moral goals. Although troublesome from a well-being maximising standpoint, levelling down ensures that healthcare policy reflects a commitment with the idea that people are equal in moral worth. That commitment is important enough to trump certain improvements in individual well-being. In the case of pandemic lockdowns, not all the interests protected by free movement are as fundamental as to pursue them at the cost of equality. Savulescu and Cameron's framework is so reliant on the view that levelling down is wrong that it fails to account for the valuable loss that having the elderly suffer alone represents.","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"770-771"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140891849","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}

引用次数: 0

Limits of advance directives in decision-making around food and nutrition in patients with dementia. 预先指示在痴呆症患者食物和营养决策中的局限性。

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2023-109652

Wayne Shelton, Cynthia Geppert

引用次数: 0

Proceeding with care. 谨慎行事。

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2024-110207

James J Cordeiro

引用次数: 0

Defending genetic disenhancement in xenotransplantation. 为异种移植中的基因缺陷辩护。