Monash Bioethics Review最新文献_第8页

Russian orthodox church on bioethical debates: the case of ART. 俄罗斯东正教关于生命伦理的辩论:ART的案例。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-022-00154-8

Roman Tarabrin

引用次数: 1

Risk, benefit, and social value in Covid-19 human challenge studies: pandemic decision making in historical context. 新冠肺炎人类挑战研究中的风险、收益和社会价值：历史背景下的大流行决策

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-06-15 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-022-00156-6

Mabel Rosenheck

{"title":"Risk, benefit, and social value in Covid-19 human challenge studies: pandemic decision making in historical context.","authors":"Mabel Rosenheck","doi":"10.1007/s40592-022-00156-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40592-022-00156-6","url":null,"abstract":"During the Covid-19 pandemic, ethicists and researchers proposed human challenge studies as a way to speed development of a vaccine that could prevent disease and end the global public health crisis. The risks to healthy volunteers of being deliberately infected with a deadly and novel pathogen were not low, but the benefits could have been immense. This essay is a history of the three major efforts to set up a challenge model and run challenge studies in 2020 and 2021. The pharmaceutical company Johnson and Johnson, the National Institutes of Health in the United States, and a private-public partnership of industry, university, and government partners in Britain all undertook preparations. The United Kingdom's consortium began their Human Challenge Programme in March of 2021.Beyond documenting each effort, the essay puts these scientific and ethical debates in dialogue with the social, epidemiological, and institutional conditions of the pandemic as well as the commercial, intellectual, and political systems in which medical research and Covid-19 challenge studies operated. It shows how different institutions understood risk, benefit, and social value depending on their specific contexts. Ultimately the example of Covid-19 challenge studies highlights the constructedness of such assessments and reveals the utility of deconstructing them retrospectively so as to better understand the interplay of medical research and research ethics with larger social systems and historical contexts.","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":"40 1","pages":"188-213"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9200217/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41937447","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

The creation of the Belmont Report and its effect on ethical principles: a historical study. 贝尔蒙特报告》的创作及其对伦理原则的影响：一项历史研究。

IF 1.6

Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-11-10 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-022-00165-5

Hiroyuki Nagai, Eisuke Nakazawa, Akira Akabayashi

{"title":"The creation of the Belmont Report and its effect on ethical principles: a historical study.","authors":"Hiroyuki Nagai, Eisuke Nakazawa, Akira Akabayashi","doi":"10.1007/s40592-022-00165-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40592-022-00165-5","url":null,"abstract":"The Belmont Report continues to be held in high regard, and most bioethical analyses conducted in recent years have presumed that it affects United States federal regulations. However, the assessments of the report's creators are sharply divided. Understanding the historic reputation of this monumental report is thus crucial. We first recount the historical context surrounding the creation of this report. Subsequently, we review the process involved in developing ethical guidelines and describe the report's features. Additionally, we analyze the effect of unfolding events on the subsequent creation of federal regulations, especially on gene therapy clinical trials. Moreover, throughout this paper we evaluate the ethical principles outlined in this report and describe how they overlap with the issue of protecting socially vulnerable groups. Based on the analysis, we conclude that the features of the Belmont Report cannot be considered as having affected the basic sections of the federal regulations for ethical reviews that were made uniform in 1981. Nevertheless, regarding the regulations on gene therapy clinical trials-which were at first expected to be applicable to research involving children-in addition to implementing policies regarding the public review of protocols that passed ethical review, this report's principles are clearly reflected in the key notes that should have been referred to when the report was created.","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":"157-170"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9700634/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40456189","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

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":"40 1","pages":"94-109"},"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":"40 1","pages":"62-93"},"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