Monash Bioethics Review最新文献

{"title":"Health beyond biology: the extended health hypothesis and technology.","authors":"Maja Baretić, David de Bruijn","doi":"10.1007/s40592-024-00206-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40592-024-00206-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There are ethical dilemmas faced by clinicians when responding to using unregistered medical devices, such as innovative internet technologies for managing type 1 diabetes mellitus. This chronic disease significantly impacts patients' health, requiring intensive daily activities like blood glucose monitoring, insulin injections, and specific dietary recommendations. Recent technological advances, including continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps, have been shown to improve glycemic control. Di-it Yourself Artificial Pancreas Systems are emerging open-source automated delivery methods initiated by the diabetes community, although they are not clinically evaluated and present a liability challenge for healthcare providers. To use them or not? Should parents and healthcare providers use such technology that helps, but is not proven?Having all of that in mind, we argue that the World Health Organization's (WHO) definition of health is outdated, advocating for the \"Extended Health Hypothesis\". This hypothesis claims that health extends beyond traditional biological boundaries to include essential functional structures like diabetes-related technology, making technology a part of a patient's health. This view aligns with the \"Extended Mind Hypothesis,\" suggesting that health should include elements beyond organic material if they are vital to a patient's functions.In the commentary, we highlight that both naturalist and normative conceptions of health support the extended health hypothesis, emphasizing that human health is not confined to organic material. This perspective raises critical questions about whether devices like insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors are integral to a patient's health and whether their malfunction constitutes a form of disease. Devices are considered integral to health, there is no ethical dilemma in using unregistered medical devices for managing type 1 diabetes. Finally, we call for reevaluating the definitions of health and patients, particularly for children with type 1 diabetes using advanced technologies. It asserts that the optimal use of such devices represents a new form of health, creating a health-device symbiosis that should be evaluated with the child's best interests in mind.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":"279-283"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141983493","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}

{"title":"Gender and equity considerations in AMR research: a systematic scoping review.","authors":"Ingrid Lynch, Lorenza Fluks, Lenore Manderson, Nazeema Isaacs, Roshin Essop, Ravikanya Praphasawat, Lyn Middleton, Bhensri Naemiratch","doi":"10.1007/s40592-024-00194-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40592-024-00194-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research on gender and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) beyond women's biological susceptibility is limited. A gender and equity lens in AMR research is necessary to promote gender equality and support the effectiveness, uptake, and sustainability of real-world AMR solutions. We argue that it is an ethical and social justice imperative to include gender and related intersectional issues in AMR research and implementation. An intersectional exploration of the interplay between people's diverse identities and experiences, including their gender, socio-economic status, race, disability, age, and sexuality, may help us understand how these factors reinforce AMR risk and vulnerability and ensure that interventions to reduce the risk of AMR do not impact unevenly. This paper reports on the findings of a systematic scoping review on the interlinkages between AMR, gender and other socio-behavioural characteristics to identify priority knowledge gaps in human and animal health in LMICs. The review focused on peer-reviewed and grey literature published between 2017 and 2022. Three overarching themes were gendered division of caregiving roles and responsibilities, gender power relations in decision-making, and interactions between gender norms and health-seeking behaviours. Research that fails to account for gender and its intersections with other lines of disadvantage, such as race, class and ability, risks being irrelevant and will have little impact on the continued and dangerous spread of AMR. We provide recommendations for integrating an intersectional gender lens in AMR research, policy and practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":"16-40"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11850574/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140871520","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}

{"title":"From super-wicked problems to more-than-human justice: new bioethical frameworks for antimicrobial resistance and climate emergency.","authors":"Tiia Sudenkaarne, Andrea Butcher","doi":"10.1007/s40592-024-00197-z","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40592-024-00197-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, building on our multidisciplinary expertise on philosophy, anthropology, and social study of microbes, we discuss and analyze new approaches to justice that have emerged in thinking with more-than-human contexts: microbes, animals, environments and ecosystems. We situate our analysis in theory of and practical engagements with antimicrobial resistance and climate emergency that both can be considered super-wicked problems. In offering solutions to such problems, we discuss a more-than-human justice orientation, seeking to displace human exceptionalism while still engaging with human social justice issues. We offer anthropological narratives to highlight how more-than-human actors already play an important role in environmental and climate politics. These narratives further justify the need for new ethical frameworks, out of which we, for further development outside the scope of this article, suggest a queer feminist posthumanist one.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":"51-71"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11850483/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141581085","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}

{"title":"The provision of abortion in Australia: service delivery as a bioethical concern.","authors":"Nathan Emmerich","doi":"10.1007/s40592-024-00215-0","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40592-024-00215-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite significant progress in the legalization and decriminalization of abortion in Australia over the past decade or more recent research and government reports have made it clear that problems with the provision of services remain. This essay examines such issues and sets forth the view that such issues can and should be seen as (bio)ethical concerns. Whilst conscientious objection-the right to opt-out of provision on the basis of clear ethical reservations-is a legally and morally permissible stance that healthcare professionals can adopt, this does not mean those working in healthcare can simply elect not to be providers absent a clear ethical rationale. Furthermore, simple non-provision would seem to contravene the basic tenants of medical professionalism as well as the oft raised claims of the healthcare professions to put the needs of patients first. Recognizing that much of the progress that has been made over the past three decades can be attributed to the efforts of dedicated healthcare professionals who have dedicated their careers to meeting the profession's collective responsibilities in this area of women's health and reproductive healthcare, this paper frames the matter as a collective ethical lapse on the part of healthcare professionals, the healthcare professions and those involved in the management of healthcare institutions. Whilst also acknowledging that a range of complex factors have led to the present situation, that a variety of steps need to be taken to ensure the proper delivery of services that are comprehensive, and that there has been an absence of critical commentary and analysis of this topic by bioethicists, I conclude that there is a need to (re)assess the provision of abortion in Australia at all levels of service delivery and for the healthcare professions and healthcare professionals to take lead in doing so. That this ought to be done is clearly implied by the healthcare profession's longstanding commitment to prioritizing the needs of patient over their own interests.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":"200-219"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11585487/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142156259","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}

{"title":"The immorality of bombing abortion clinics as proof that abortion is not murder.","authors":"Gabriel Andrade","doi":"10.1007/s40592-024-00213-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40592-024-00213-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Roe v. Wade decision was overturned in the United States in 2022. This implies that while abortion remains legal in most jurisdictions, it is no longer a constitutional right, thus paving the way for making it illegal. Ever since the Roe v. Wade decision, there have been bombings and other violent attacks against abortion providers and abortion clinics, claiming some fatal victims. The overwhelming majority of anti-abortion activists condemn such violence. At the same time, most anti-abortion activists consider the fetus a person, and ultimately believe that abortion is a form of murder. In this article, I argue that if abortion is murder, then anti-abortion violent activists have moral license to bomb abortion clinics. To do so, I rely on the principles of Just War theory. Ultimately, I rely on a modus tollens argument to prove that abortion is not murder: if abortion is murder, then activists have moral justification in bombing abortion clinics; activists do not have moral justification in bombing abortion clinics; therefore, abortion is not murder. Apart from attempting to prove that abortion is not murder, I also attempt to show the incoherence of the anti-abortion view.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":"220-233"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142297937","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}

{"title":"All you need is [somebody's] love \"third-party reproduction\" and the existential density of biological affinity.","authors":"Diogo Morais Sarmento Madureira","doi":"10.1007/s40592-024-00212-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40592-024-00212-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>What is the true significance of biological kinship? During the last decades, it seemed to be uncontroversial that abandoned and even adopted people feel the negative impact of biological parents' absence throughout life in several ways (Miller et al. 2000; Keyes, Margaret A., Anu Sharma, Irene J Elkins, and William G. Iacono, Matt McGue. 2008. The Mental Health of US Adolescents Adopted in Infancy. Archive Pediatric Adolescense Medicine 162(5): 419-425.). However, in the case of people conceived via \"third-party reproduction\", especially in sperm donation, the disruption of the kinship network derived from natural bonds tends to be presented as something irrelevant. This article disputes that assumption, explores its relationship with a deconstructivist vision that presents kinship as a purely social construct and defends the personal and existential value of a person's biological bonds with her parents. While analysing the anthropological shift inherent to the way some political discourses present the nuclear family and heterologous biotechnology, it proposes renewed philosophical attention on the significance of filiation and human affinity. This article argues for the density of genealogical ties and defends that the consecration of an individual \"right to a child\", namely (but not exclusively) through the normalised access to sperm banks, is incompatible with the rights of the child, since it deprives people from knowing not only who but also how is their father.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":"234-259"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11585496/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142640063","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}

{"title":"A queer feminist posthuman framework for bioethics: on vulnerability, antimicrobial resistance, and justice.","authors":"Tiia Sudenkaarne","doi":"10.1007/s40592-024-00192-4","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40592-024-00192-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this paper, I discuss the bioethical principle of justice and the bioethical key concept of vulnerability, in a queer feminist posthuman framework. I situate these contemplations, philosophical by nature, in the context of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), one the most vicious moral problems of our time. Further, I discuss how gender and sexual variance, vulnerability and justice manifest in AMR. I conclude by considering my queer feminist posthuman framework for vulnerability and justice in relation to the notion of antibiotic vulnerabilities, suggesting a lacuna for further AMR research.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":"72-88"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11850565/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142630119","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}

{"title":"Zero-covid advocacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of views on Twitter/X.","authors":"Kasper P Kepp, Kevin Bardosh, Tijl De Bie, Louise Emilsson, Justin Greaves, Tea Lallukka, Taulant Muka, J Christian Rangel, Niclas Sandström, Michaéla C Schippers, Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, Tracy Vaillancourt","doi":"10.1007/s40592-024-00205-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40592-024-00205-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>During the COVID-19 pandemic, many advocacy groups and individuals criticized governments on social media for doing either too much or too little to mitigate the pandemic. In this article, we review advocacy for COVID-19 elimination or \"zero-covid\" on the social media platform X (Twitter). We present a thematic analysis of tweets by 20 influential co-signatories of the World Health Network letter on ten themes, covering six topics of science and mitigation (zero-covid, epidemiological data on variants, long-term post-acute sequelae (Long COVID), vaccines, schools and children, views on monkeypox/Mpox) and four advocacy methods (personal advice and promoting remedies, use of anecdotes, criticism of other scientists, and of authorities). The advocacy, although timely and informative, often appealed to emotions and values using anecdotes and strong criticism of authorities and other scientists. Many tweets received hundreds or thousands of likes. Risks were emphasized about children's vulnerability, Long COVID, variant severity, and Mpox, and via comparisons with human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV). Far-reaching policies and promotion of remedies were advocated without systematic evidence review, or sometimes, core field expertise. We identified potential conflicts of interest connected to private companies. Our study documents a need for public health debates to be less polarizing and judgmental, and more factual. In order to protect public trust in science during a crisis, we suggest the development of mechanisms to ensure ethical guidelines for engagement in \"science-based\" advocacy, and consideration of cost-benefit analysis of recommendations for public health decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":"169-199"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142120808","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}

{"title":"Distributive justice and value trade-offs in antibiotic use in aged care settings.","authors":"Jane Williams, Sittichoke Chawraingern, Chris Degeling","doi":"10.1007/s40592-024-00191-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40592-024-00191-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Residential aged care facilities (RACF) are sites of high antibiotic use in Australia. Misuse of antimicrobial drugs in RACF contributes to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) burdens that accrue to individuals and the wider public, now and in the future. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) practices in RACF, e.g. requiring conformation of infection, are designed to minimise inappropriate use of antibiotics. We conducted dialogue groups with 46 participants with a parent receiving aged care to better understand families' perspectives on antibiotics and care in RACF. Participants grappled with value trade offs in thinking about their own parents' care, juggling imagined population and future harms with known short term comfort of individuals and prioritising the latter. Distributive justice in AMR relies on collective moral responsibility and action for the benefit of future generations and unknown others. In RACF, AMS requires value trade-offs and compromise on antimicrobial use in an environment that is heavily reliant on antimicrobial drugs to perform caring functions. In the context of aged care, AMS is a technical solution to a deeply relational and socio-structural problem and there is a risk that carers (workers, families) are morally burdened by system failures that are not addressed in AMS solutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":"41-50"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11850501/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141581084","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}

{"title":"How clinical ethics discussions can be a model for accommodating and incorporating plural values in paediatric and adult healthcare settings.","authors":"Clare Delany","doi":"10.1007/s40592-024-00222-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-024-00222-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The following text is the de-identified and edited transcript of an invited presentation by Professor Clare Delany on the topic of 'How clinical ethics discussions can be a model for accommodating and incorporating plural values in paediatric and adult healthcare settings.' Professor Delany's presentation formed part of the Conference on Accommodating Plural Values in Healthcare and Healthcare Policy, which was held in Melbourne, Australia, on Monday, October 30, 2023. This conference was a key output of the Australian Research Council Discovery Project grant DP190101597, 'Religion, pluralism, and healthcare practice: A philosophical assessment'. Professor Delany's presentation was introduced by Doctor Lauren Notini, Research Fellow and Lecturer at Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142733332","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}