New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body最新文献

{"title":"The cryonic refugee: appropriate analogy or confusing rhetoric?","authors":"R. Gibson","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2022.2055868","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2022.2055868","url":null,"abstract":"Cryopreservation presents the possibility of circumventing irreversible death through the body’s extreme cooling. Once cooled, this ‘cryon’ is then stored at sub-zero temperatures until medical knowledge enables curative revival. However, the possibility of the post-cryopreserved supporting themselves, both economically and socially, is dubious; they will likely need state assistance. What a future society owes the post-cryopreserved, and why, remains unclear. One potential solution is to consider revivals as comparable to refugees, with the latter fleeing spatially and the former fleeing temporally. But, the appropriateness of the ‘cryonic refugee’ remains unconsidered. This paper uses the 1951 Refugee Convention to clarify refugeehood’s four necessary characteristics before exploring whether these qualities apply to the temporally displaced. It concludes that while similarities exist, the comparison fails due to the limitations placed on the form of persecution that one flees and why repatriation is impossible. Thus, any assistive obligation must come from an alternative source.","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"28 1","pages":"97 - 115"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45635456","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":"An Ethical Guidebook To the Zombie Apocalypse: How to keep your brain without losing your heart","authors":"Julia Cons","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2022.2054164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2022.2054164","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"28 1","pages":"186 - 187"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42297090","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":"Why Inconsistency Arguments Matter.","authors":"Joshua Shaw","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2021.2007643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2021.2007643","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Abortion opponents are sometimes accused of having inconsistent beliefs, actions, and/or priorities. If they were consistent, they would regard spontaneous abortions to be a greater moral tragedy, or they would adopt more frozen in vitro fertilization embryos, or they would support more robust social welfare programmes for children and single parents, or so on and so forth. Nicholas Colgrove, Bruce Blackshaw, and Daniel Rodger have recently argued that such inconsistency arguments 'fail en masse.' They propose three main objections: The Diversity Objection, The Other Beliefs Objection, and The Other Actions Objection. This paper argues that they are incorrect. First, Colgrove et al.'s objections rely on misrepresentations of inconsistency arguments, their structure and the extent to which their proponents have addressed counterarguments to them. Second, none of their objections show that these arguments fail as a whole.</p>","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"28 1","pages":"40-53"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39951464","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":"Physical Restraint in the Critical Care Unit: A Narrative Review.","authors":"David Smithard,&nbsp;Rhea Randhawa","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2021.2019979","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2021.2019979","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Restraint has been used within health care settings for many centuries. Initially physical restraint (PR) was the method of choice, in present times. Within critical care units PR and chemical restraint are used, frequently in tandem. Restraint is not a benign intervention and PR specifically is associated with physical and psychological trauma towards those receiving it. Healthcare staff also suffer psychological consequences. This paper has reviewed the literature (using the terms 'physical restraint'; 'hospital'; 'care home critical care'; 'intensive care' 'attitudes'; 'knowledge' 'use of'; 'healthcare') to investigate the reasons for the use of restraints, its consequences and the attitudes of healthcare professionals' attitudes towards physical restraint currently present in critical care. Restraint use remains common practice in Critical Care Units (for 'patient safety'), initiated outside of institutional protocols, despite evidence questioning its effectiveness and the resulting harm to patients and staff.</p>","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"28 1","pages":"68-82"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39864309","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":"COVID-19 and Compulsory Vaccination: An Acceptable Form of Coercion?","authors":"James E Hurford","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2021.2010441","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2021.2010441","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The paper considers whether the British Government could make receiving a COVID-19 vaccine effectively legally mandatory. After considering the position in English law, it considers the ethical position regarding involuntary vaccination, and concludes that while there is no legal impediment to such a requirement, it is ethically unsound.</p>","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"28 1","pages":"4-26"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39837063","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":"COVID-19 Vaccination Should not be Mandatory for Health and Social Care Workers.","authors":"Daniel Rodger,&nbsp;Bruce P Blackshaw","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2022.2025651","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2022.2025651","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A COVID-19 vaccine mandate is being introduced for health and social care workers in England, and those refusing to comply will either be redeployed or have their employment terminated. We argue that COVID-19 vaccination should not be mandatory for these workers for several reasons. First, it ignores their genuine concerns, and fails to respect their moral integrity and bodily autonomy. Second, it risks causing psychological reactance, potentially worsening vaccine hesitancy. Third, Black and minority ethnic workers are less likely to have been vaccinated and therefore may be disproportionately impacted by the implications of the mandate. Fourth, a mandate could have a significant negative effect on service provision. Fifth, waning immunity and new variants mean that booster doses are increasingly likely to be regularly required, meaning that what constitutes being 'fully vaccinated' will be a constantly shifting target. Finally, vaccine mandates may have an adverse effect on health and social care recruitment. We argue that daily rapid antigen testing is a viable alternative to a vaccine mandate that is non-coercive and fair. This could also be supplemented by monetary incentives to be vaccinated.</p>","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"28 1","pages":"27-39"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39697721","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":"Defending the substance view against its critics.","authors":"Bruce P Blackshaw","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2021.1996953","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2021.1996953","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recently, the substance view of persons has been heavily criticized for the counterintuitive conclusions it seems to imply in scenarios such as embryo rescue cases and embryo loss. These criticisms have obscured the considerable success of the substance view in supporting other intuitions that are widely shared, and that competing accounts such as the psychological view have difficulties accounting for. Here, I examine common intuitions regarding identity, human exceptionalism, the moral equality of children and adults, infanticide, and prenatal injury. I conclude that when we broaden the range of intuitions examined, the substance view emerges as just as plausible an account of our nature as the more widely accepted psychological view.</p>","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"28 1","pages":"54-67"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39734858","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":"Covid-19 and arguments about abortion.","authors":"Trevor Stammers","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2022.2031618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2022.2031618","url":null,"abstract":"Covid-19 and arguments related to abortion – these two topics between them take up the majority of the pages of this issue. That the first of these should do so, is no surprise. Over two years on from news of the first cases of the disease in Wuhan, Covid-19 continues to cause both chaos with the health of populations and economies and controversies among clinicians, bioethicists, politicians and the general public. In the UK, the Health Service Journal has at the time of writing just announced the NHS should ‘prepare for redeploying or dismissing thousands of unvaccinated staff without an exit payment, and to raise the alarm about services which may be rendered unsafe.’ (Collins 2022) All healthcare workers in the NHS have been given until April 1st 2022 to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19. Two articles raise concerns about mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers. Hurford, a lawyer, considers in his paper ‘whether legal compulsion by the state is justified in the case of the current vaccines against COVID-19.’ After giving precise consideration of the meanings of some key terms – coercion, autonomy, and legal consent, he concludes that legal power could easily be created to introduce compulsory vaccination, because ‘Parliamentary sovereignty permits Parliament to legislate on any subject, even in ways contrary to fundamental civil and human rights (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131, per Lord Hoffman).’ However, after a detailed consideration of the ethics of mandatory vaccination, he concludes that ‘Undoubtedly, the Government could make vaccination compulsory. However... a line seems to be crossed when the state mandates that citizens submit to medical procedures against their will.’ Since the pre-print of Hurford’s article was published online, plans in the UK to introduce mandatory vaccination for both health and social care workers have progressed. Rodger, an academic and healthcare worker himself and his co-author offer six reasons against mandatory vaccination – failure to respect moral integrity and bodily autonomy, exacerbation of psychological reactance against vaccination, the disproportionate effect on Black and ethnic minority health and social care workers, a significant adverse effect on service provision from an already overstretched workforce, a shifting target of what constitutes being ‘fully’ vaccinated and finally it may act as a disincentive to future potential recruits. The also suggest that ‘daily rapid antigen testing is a viable alternative to a vaccine mandate that is non-coercive and fair.’ This debate will inform future practice not only in the UK but also as such polices are contemplated across the world. the new bioethics, Vol. 28 No. 1, 2022, 1–3","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"28 1","pages":"1-3"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39805449","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":"Good Ethics and Bad Choices: The Relevance of Behavioral Economics for Medical Ethics","authors":"H. Robinson","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2022.2038413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2022.2038413","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"28 1","pages":"188 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47310211","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":"Decriminalising Abortion in the UK. What Would It Mean?","authors":"I. Bertini","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2022.2038921","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2022.2038921","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"28 1","pages":"292 - 295"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43460716","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}