Monash Bioethics Review最新文献_第10页

Pregnant people, inseminators and tissues of human origin: how ectogenesis challenges the concept of abortion. 怀孕的人，授精者和人类起源的组织:外生如何挑战堕胎的概念。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2020-12-01 Epub Date: 2020-11-11 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-020-00122-0

Evie Kendal

{"title":"Pregnant people, inseminators and tissues of human origin: how ectogenesis challenges the concept of abortion.","authors":"Evie Kendal","doi":"10.1007/s40592-020-00122-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-020-00122-0","url":null,"abstract":"The potential benefits of an alternative to physical gestation are numerous. These include providing reproductive options for prospective parents who are unable to establish or maintain a physiological pregnancy, and saving the lives of some infants born prematurely. Ectogenesis could also promote sexual equality in reproduction, and represents a necessary option for women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy who are morally opposed to abortion. Despite these broad, and in some cases unique benefits, one major ethical concern is the potential impact of this emerging technology on abortion rights. This article will argue that ectogenesis poses a challenge to many common arguments in favour of a pregnant woman's right to choose, but only insomuch as it highlights that their underlying justifications for abortion are based on flawed conceptions of what the foetus and pregnancy actually are. By interrogating the various interests and relationships involved in a pregnancy, this article will demonstrate that the emergence of artificial gestation need not impact existing abortion rights or legislation, nor definitions of independent viability or moral status.","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40592-020-00122-0","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38685506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Infection control for third-party benefit: lessons from criminal justice. 为第三方利益控制感染:来自刑事司法的经验教训。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-019-00103-y

Thomas Douglas

引用次数: 1

Screening for multi-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: what is effective and justifiable? 多重耐药革兰氏阴性菌的筛查:什么是有效和合理的?

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-020-00113-1

Niels Nijsingh, Christian Munthe, Anna Lindblom, Christina Åhrén

{"title":"Screening for multi-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: what is effective and justifiable?","authors":"Niels Nijsingh, Christian Munthe, Anna Lindblom, Christina Åhrén","doi":"10.1007/s40592-020-00113-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-020-00113-1","url":null,"abstract":"Effectiveness is a key criterion in assessing the justification of antibiotic resistance interventions. Depending on an intervention's effectiveness, burdens and costs will be more or less justified, which is especially important for large scale population-level interventions with high running costs and pronounced risks to individuals in terms of wellbeing, integrity and autonomy. In this paper, we assess the case of routine hospital screening for multi-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDRGN) from this perspective. Utilizing a comparison to screening programs for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) we argue that current screening programmes for MDRGN in low endemic settings should be reconsidered, as its effectiveness is in doubt, while general downsides to screening programs remain. To accomplish justifiable antibiotic stewardship, MDRGN screening should not be viewed as a separate measure, but rather as part of a comprehensive approach. The program should be redesigned to focus on those at risk of developing symptomatic infections with MDRGN rather than merely detecting those colonised.","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40592-020-00113-1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37890265","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Human cerebral organoids and consciousness: a double-edged sword. 人脑类器官和意识:一把双刃剑。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-020-00116-y

Andrea Lavazza

{"title":"Human cerebral organoids and consciousness: a double-edged sword.","authors":"Andrea Lavazza","doi":"10.1007/s40592-020-00116-y","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40592-020-00116-y","url":null,"abstract":"Human cerebral organoids (HCOs) are three-dimensional in vitro cell cultures that mimic the developmental process and organization of the developing human brain. In just a few years this technique has produced brain models that are already being used to study diseases of the nervous system and to test treatments and drugs. Currently, HCOs consist of tens of millions of cells and have a size of a few millimeters. The greatest limitation to further development is due to their lack of vascularization. However, recent research has shown that human cerebral organoids can manifest the same electrical activity and connections between brain neurons and EEG patterns as those recorded in preterm babies. All this suggests that, in the future, HCOs may manifest an ability to experience basic sensations such as pain, therefore manifesting sentience, or even rudimentary forms of consciousness. This calls for consideration of whether cerebral organoids should be given a moral status and what limitations should be introduced to regulate research. In this article I focus particularly on the study of the emergence and mechanisms of human consciousness, i.e. one of the most complex scientific problems there are, by means of experiments on HCOs. This type of experiment raises relevant ethical issues and, as I will argue, should probably not be considered morally acceptable.","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40592-020-00116-y","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38449542","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 30

'It's not worse than eating them': the limits of analogy in bioethics. “这并不比吃掉它们更糟糕”:生物伦理学类比的极限。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-020-00115-z

Julian J Koplin

引用次数: 3

Review of Rethinking Health Care Ethics by Stephen Scher and Kasia Kozlowska : Palgrave Macmillan, available open access: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-981-13-0830-7.pdf. Stephen Scher和Kasia Kozlowska对医疗伦理的反思:Palgrave Macmillan，可开放获取:https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-981-13-0830-7.pdf。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-020-00107-z

Samuel Reis-Dennis

引用次数: 20

Resolved and unresolved bioethical authenticity problems. 已解决和未解决的生物伦理真实性问题。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-020-00108-y

Jesper Ahlin Marceta

引用次数: 0

Review of Altered inheritance: CRISPR and the ethics of human genome editing by Françoise Baylis. 《遗传改变综述:CRISPR与人类基因组编辑伦理》作者:franoise Baylis。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-020-00106-0

Bob Z Sun

引用次数: 0

Vulnerability in human research. 人类研究中的脆弱性。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-020-00110-4

Ian J Pieper, Colin J H Thomson

{"title":"Vulnerability in human research.","authors":"Ian J Pieper, Colin J H Thomson","doi":"10.1007/s40592-020-00110-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-020-00110-4","url":null,"abstract":"The conduct of prior ethics review of human research projects helps to protect vulnerable groups or populations from potential negative impacts of research. Contemporary considerations in human research considers the concept of vulnerability in terms of access to research opportunities, impacts on the consenting process, selection bias, and the generalisability of results. Recent work questions the validity of using enumerated lists as a check box approach to protect research participants from exploitation. Through the use of broad categories to treat cohorts of human research participants as homogenous classes and label some participants as vulnerable merely because they are members of a particular class, some ethics reviewers have used the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research to strip individuals of their \"ethical equality\". Labelling people as vulnerable does not help researchers or human research ethics committee members develop an understanding of the complexities of applying the principles of respect and of justice in ethical decision-making. Conversely, defining specific cohorts of research participants as needing nuanced ethical consideration, due to their vulnerable nature, may imply that other population groups need not be considered vulnerable. We contend that this assumption is erroneous. This paper explores the way that human research ethics guidance documents treat vulnerability within the Australian context and draws on contemporary discussion to focus an alternative perspective based on the principles in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research for researchers and human research ethics committee members to consider.","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40592-020-00110-4","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37878896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Minds, brains, and hearts: an empirical study on pluralism concerning death determination. 心智、大脑和心灵：关于死亡决定多元化的实证研究。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-020-00114-0

Ivars Neiders, Vilius Dranseika

{"title":"Minds, brains, and hearts: an empirical study on pluralism concerning death determination.","authors":"Ivars Neiders, Vilius Dranseika","doi":"10.1007/s40592-020-00114-0","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40592-020-00114-0","url":null,"abstract":"Several authors in bioethics literature have expressed the view that a whole brain conception of death is philosophically indefensible. If they are right, what are the alternatives? Some authors have suggested that we should go back to the old cardiopulmonary criterion of death and abandon the so-called Dead Donor Rule. Others argue for a pluralist solution. For example, Robert Veatch has defended a view that competent persons should be free to decide which criterion of death should be used to determine their death. However, there is very little data on people's preferences about death determination criteria. We conducted online vignette-based survey with Latvian participants (N = 1416). The data suggest that the pluralist solution fits best with the way our study participants think about death determination-widely differing preferences concerning death determination criteria were observed. Namely, most participants choose one of the three criteria discussed in the literature: whole brain, higher brain, and cardiopulmonary. Interestingly, our data also indicate that study participants tend to prefer less restrictive criteria for determination of their own deaths than for determination of deaths of their closest relatives. Finally, the preferences observed in our sample are largely in accord with the Dead Donor Rule for organ procurement for transplantation.","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7223492/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37895135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0