Monash Bioethics Review最新文献_第7页

Nancy Segal: Deliberately divided: inside the controversial study of twins and triplets adopted apart 南希·西格尔:故意分开:对被分开收养的双胞胎和三胞胎进行的有争议的研究

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-06-30 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-022-00159-3

A. McDowell

引用次数: 0

The abandonment of Australians in India: an analysis of the right of entry as a security right in the age of COVID-19. 澳大利亚人在印度被抛弃:新冠肺炎时代入境权作为一种担保权的分析。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-02-18 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-022-00151-x

Diego S Silva

{"title":"The abandonment of Australians in India: an analysis of the right of entry as a security right in the age of COVID-19.","authors":"Diego S Silva","doi":"10.1007/s40592-022-00151-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-022-00151-x","url":null,"abstract":"In May 2021, when the Delta variant of SARS-CoV2 was wreaking havoc in India, the Australian Federal Government banned its citizens and residents who were there from coming back to Australia for 14 days on penalty of fines or imprisonment. These measures were justified on the grounds of protecting the broader Australian public from potentially importing the Delta strain, which officials feared would then seed a local outbreak. Those Australians stranded in India, and their families and communities back home, claimed that they were abandoned by Prime Minister Scott Morrison's government. This case-along with other barriers used as part of border control measures in the name of public health-raises the following question: is it ever morally permissible for a state to ban its citizens and residents from entering their own country during a pandemic? I conclude that it's impermissible. I argue that persons have a right of entry that should be understood as a security right. This security right should be non-derogable because it's a foundational good that is necessary for life-planning purposes. Moreover, it is a right that people should be able to rely upon absolutely, even during pandemics. At the very least, should someone believe that there are rare exceptions to the right of entry on public health grounds, governments have a duty-grounded in the principle of reciprocity-to support those who are temporarily denied entry. In the case of Australians stranded in India, I will argue that the Australian Federal Government failed on all accounts.","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8856926/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39812641","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: 2

School in the time of Covid. 新冠疫情时期的学校。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-20 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-022-00161-9

Shamik Dasgupta

引用次数: 0

Public health ethics: critiques of the "new normal". 公共卫生伦理:对"新常态"的批评。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-27 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-022-00163-7

Euzebiusz Jamrozik

引用次数: 4

Fear, freedom and political culture during COVID-19. 2019冠状病毒病期间的恐惧、自由和政治文化。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-06-15 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-022-00157-5

Tim Soutphommasane, Marc Stears

引用次数: 2

Covid heterodoxy in three layers. Covid异质三层。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-27 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-021-00140-6

Peter Godfrey-Smith

引用次数: 5

A cost-benefit analysis of COVID-19 lockdowns in Australia. 澳大利亚COVID-19封锁的成本效益分析

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-01-28 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-021-00148-y

Martin Lally

{"title":"A cost-benefit analysis of COVID-19 lockdowns in Australia.","authors":"Martin Lally","doi":"10.1007/s40592-021-00148-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-021-00148-y","url":null,"abstract":"This paper conducts a cost-benefit analysis of Australia's Covid-19 lockdown strategy relative to pursuit of a mitigation strategy in March 2020. The estimated additional deaths from a mitigation strategy are 11,500 to 40,000, implying a Cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year saved by locking down of at least 11 times the generally employed figure of $100,000 for health interventions in Australia. The lockdowns do not then seem to have been justified by reference to the standard benchmark. Consideration of the information available to the Australian government in March 2020 yields a similar ratio and therefore the same conclusion that lockdown was not warranted. If Australia experiences a new outbreak, and cannot contain it without resort to a nationwide lockdown, the death toll from adopting a mitigation strategy at this point would be even less than had it done so in March 2020, due to the vaccination campaign, lessons learned since March 2020, and because the period over which the virus would then inflict casualties would now be much less than the period from March 2020. This would favour a mitigation policy even more strongly than in March 2020. This approach of assessing the savings in quality adjusted life years and comparing them to a standard benchmark figure ensures that all quality adjusted life years saved by various health interventions are treated equally, which accords with the ethical principle of equity across people.","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8794621/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39743425","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: 7

Medical versus social egg freezing: the importance of future choice for women’s decision-making 医疗与社会冷冻卵子:未来选择对女性决策的重要性

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-03-20 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-022-00153-9

M. De Proost, A. Paton

引用次数: 5

Was lockdown life worth living? 封锁生活值得吗？

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-03-20 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-022-00155-7

H. Lawford-Smith

引用次数: 2

Consent for rapid genomic sequencing for critically ill children: legal and ethical issues. 同意对危重儿童进行快速基因组测序:法律和伦理问题。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Epub Date: 2021-12-31 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-021-00146-0

Christopher Gyngell, Fiona Lynch, Zornitza Stark, Danya Vears

{"title":"Consent for rapid genomic sequencing for critically ill children: legal and ethical issues.","authors":"Christopher Gyngell, Fiona Lynch, Zornitza Stark, Danya Vears","doi":"10.1007/s40592-021-00146-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-021-00146-0","url":null,"abstract":"Although rapid genomic sequencing (RGS) is improving care for critically ill children with rare disease, it also raises important ethical questions that need to be explored as its use becomes more widespread. Two such questions relate to the degree of consent that should be required for RGS to proceed and whether it might ever be appropriate to override parents' decisions not to allow RGS to be performed in their critically ill child. To explore these questions, we first examine the legal frameworks on securing consent for genomic sequencing and how they apply to the specific context of RGS for critically ill children. We then use a tool from clinical ethics, the Zone of Parental Discretion, to explore two case studies and identify under which circumstances it might be appropriate for parental refusal of RGS to be overridden. We argue that RGS may be a context where, in addition to assessing the complexity of the test offered, it is ethically appropriate to consider an effect on patient outcomes when deciding the degree of consent required. We also suggest that there are some contexts where it may be ethically justified to perform RGS, even when it is actively against the wishes of the parents. More work is needed to examine exactly how 'time-sensitive' exceptions to current guidance on consent for genomic sequencing could be formulated and operationalised for RGS for critically ill-children.","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39864439","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: 5