Journal of Bioethical Inquiry最新文献

{"title":"The Geometry of Language: Understanding LLMs in Bioethics.","authors":"Aníbal M Astobiza","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10480-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10480-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, I explored the application of large language models (LLMs) in analysing linguistic colexification and ambiguity within bioethical scenarios. By employing word embeddings derived from LLMs, I constructed semantic distance matrices that provide insight into the relationships between key terms in bioethical vignettes. These matrices were used to quantify and visualize the degree of linguistic ambiguity and specificity across different versions of each vignette-those with high colexification (ambiguous language) and those with low colexification (specific language). The approach taken involves encoding words according to their semantic adjacency and representing these relationships geometrically through distance matrices. The resulting matrices reflect the nuanced differences in how concepts are related within bioethical contexts, offering a quantitative method for analysing language use. The study demonstrates that LLMs, by facilitating geometric representations of language, can enhance our understanding of complex ethical dilemmas by systematically addressing linguistic ambiguity. Ultimately, this research contributes to the field of bioethics by providing a computational approach to improving clarity in ethical communication, highlighting the potential of LLMs to inform both ethical decision-making and discourse analysis. LLMs, while not capable of performing speech acts in the full philosophical sense-as human beings do-still serve as powerful tools to analyse and understand bioethical language. This distinction-between performing speech acts and analysing their linguistic features-highlights the unique contribution of LLMs as analytical tools rather than ethical agents.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145034542","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Many Ways to Think.","authors":"B Tversky","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10425-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10425-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Thinking, collaborating, and communication happen through interactions of the body, the mind, language, and things in the world. Actions of the body actively express intention, thought, and emotion. Points of the fingers and nods of the head can refer to things in the surrounding world. A string of interrelated gestures can represent an environment, a complex system, an arrangement of ideas, a sequence of actions. Those gestures use marks and actions in space to represent thought more directly than words-as do graphics like sketches, maps, graphs, diagrams, and pictures. Seeing or making gestures or graphics can change thought, both in those who view them and in those who make them. Interactions with gestures and graphics and the surrounding world are often internal, invisible, and unique, not in words, and not easily decomposed. Through those interactions, shared and individual meanings emerge and change in real time. These features of human thought present challenges to current multi-modal AI.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145034384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Is this Judaism? The Question of the Consistency of Israeli Policy and Actions in Gaza with Jewish Thought and Ethics : Part 2: Evidence, Analysis and Conclusions.","authors":"P A Komesaroff, J Z Kenner","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10488-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10488-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There has been much discussion about the tactics used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and government in the conflict in Gaza following October 7, 2023, which have caused, among other things, systematic destruction of hospitals and schools, the deaths of large numbers of civilians, including women and children, mass starvation, and denial of humanitarian aid. The Israeli government and IDF have sought to justify their actions using ethical arguments, many of which relate to their proclaimed role as the representatives of the Jewish state and of Jewish culture and history. Arguing from the extensive corpus of Jewish ethical thought, extending back thousands of years, this article poses a simple question: Are the above actions by the Israeli government and IDF in Gaza consistent with the ethical tradition of Judaism and the obligations that flow from it? To answer this question, key texts are analysed, especially the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud, and multiple arguments are examined, taking into account the complexities of context and diverse interpretive theories. The paper is presented in two parts, the first discussing the question and methodological issues and the second providing the data and conclusions. We conclude that the alleged acts of the Israeli government and IDF in Gaza are clearly and directly contrary to the Judaic tradition of ethics as it has developed over the millennia. The conduct of the war cannot truthfully be presented in any meaningful sense as representing, or indeed, consistent with, Jewish culture or ethics. These findings have potentially far-reaching consequences, including for the claimed status of Israel as a Jewish state, the relationship between criticism of the government of Israel and the scourge of antisemitism, and the identity of Jewish people both within and outside Israel.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145034687","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Commercial Impacts on Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Scoping Review.","authors":"M Wiersma, I Kerridge, S Gallagher, K Hammarberg, R J Norman, L Rombauts, J Savulescu, C Stewart, A Yazdani, W Lipworth","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10456-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10456-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is a growing global industry, projected to reach $37.7 billion by 2027. Predominantly offered in private healthcare settings, concerns have been raised about the potential negative impacts of commercialization on ART services. Despite numerous accounts of these impacts, a comprehensive synthesis and critique of arguments are lacking. This scoping review aims to provide a nuanced understanding of commercial impacts on ART by exploring how commercial forces have been identified, studied, and evaluated, and what strategies have been suggested for their management in health-related journals. PubMed, Web of Science, Cinahl, and Scopus were searched between January and July 2023 for articles addressing commercial impacts on ART. Database searches identified 11,873 articles, with 163 articles included in the final review. Commercial impacts on ART were most frequently mentioned in discussions of \"add-on\" interventions (40/163; 25 per cent of articles). Many articles were critical of commercial impacts on ART; however, several suggested that there may be benefit in the delivery of ART by the private sector. This review offers a number of proposed strategies for the mitigation of potential adverse effects of commerce on ART that may be useful to service providers and policymakers. These include improving patient information, enhancing informed consent processes, and increasing regulatory oversight. The review also alerts us to potential challenges that might arise in the context of regulatory reform and reminds us that enhanced regulation is not universally supported.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145034701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Ethical Basis of Severity as a Priority Setting Criterion in Healthcare-Egalitarian or Prioritarian?","authors":"Niklas Juth, Erik Gustavsson, Lars Sandman","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10472-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10472-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article discusses the most plausible moral basis for using severity as a priority setting criterion in healthcare: prioritarianism or egalitarianism. We argue that prioritarianism is superior, since egalitarianism has several problems that prioritarianism avoids. We have elaborated three such problems. First, egalitarianism arguably needs a non-equality-based reference level in order to determine the magnitude of severity. Second, it has the problem of irrelevant alternatives: the assessment of the severity of one person's illness varies depending on the condition of other persons, even when their health status has not changed. Third, egalitarianism introduces excessive complexity, as it must explain what aspects of inequality matter, and why, in relation to illness severity. By contrast, prioritarianism has some benefits that egalitarianism lacks: it aligns theoretically with the concept of severity as a priority setting criterion in healthcare, and it explains why we always have a pro tanto reason to improve someone's health without having to rely on other theories. In the end, if equality of health matters, it is arguably not because of its connection to severity.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145034430","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Towards a Less Ideal Theory About Well-being-The Case of Post COVID Condition.","authors":"Erik Gustavsson, Ericka Johnson, Richard Levi","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10474-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10474-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Post COVID-19 Condition (PCC) is a complex condition presenting significant challenges for patients. Individuals suffering from severe PCC are often assessed in rehabilitation medicine departments or specialized post-COVID centres, where their condition is evaluated using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The ICF framework primarily focuses on functional impairments, disabilities, and restrictions in participation, with an emphasis on the concept of \"functioning.\" However, a critical question remains: how does this notion of functioning relate to the well-being of these individuals? This paper explores this issue by examining three fictionalized but typical case studies of PCC patients in relation to two distinct theoretical approaches. First, we engage with theories about well-being from the philosophy of well-being emphasizing the individual's perspective. Second, we explore relational approaches in bioethics and their theoretical underpinnings, which emphasize how people are situated, considering context and relations rather than purely individual conditions. The paper highlights the potential tensions between these approaches while arguing that a more comprehensive understanding of well-being can emerge by integrating insights from both traditions. Through the examination of PCC patient cases, we propose that well-being can be better understood when approached from multiple angles, enriching the understanding of patient outcomes in rehabilitation medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145034559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Nuanced Public Support for Rationing Treatments by Withdrawing and Withholding Due to Negative Reimbursement Decisions.","authors":"L Strand, L Sandman, A-C Nedlund, G Tinghög","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10469-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10469-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When treatments are deemed not to be cost-effective and face non-reimbursement, policymakers in publicly funded healthcare systems may decide to ration treatments by withholding it from future patients. However, they must also address a critical question: should they also ration treatments by withdrawing it from patients already having access to the treatment, or is there an ethical difference between withdrawing and withholding treatments? To explore this question, we conducted a behavioural experiment (n=1404), examining public support for withdrawing and withholding treatments in reimbursement decisions across eleven different circumstances. Overall, public support for rationing by withdrawing and withholding was low, with no general perceived difference between withdrawing and withholding treatments. However, when we analysed the different circumstances separately, there were multiple circumstances where withholding was deemed ethically more problematic than withdrawing. Moreover, there was an overall preference for allowing individual assessments compared to ensuring that treatments are equally rationed between different healthcare providers. This result may indicate a preference for procedural fairness compared to outcome fairness. In addition, it was deemed more important to allow for individual assessments and to ensure equal rationing when withdrawing treatments compared to withholding. Overall, these findings reveal nuances in public preferences regarding withdrawing and withholding treatments, challenging the prevailing beliefs that withholding treatments is psychologically easier and ethically less problematic than withdrawing. They also challenge assertions of ethical equivalence between these two rationing approaches. If policymakers want to align their policies with public attitudes, our results suggest adopting a nuanced approach towards withdrawing and withholding treatments, recognizing that public support for ethical equivalence between withdrawing and withholding treatments varies depending on the circumstances.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145030774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Bridging the Governance Gap: A Case for an Indigenous Jurisprudential Framework for Genomic and Biobanking Research in Nigeria.","authors":"O A Gbadegesin, S Akintola","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10463-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10463-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Nigeria's governance of genomic and biobanking research is hindered by inadequate regulatory frameworks that fail to address critical ethical and legal issues, such as data sharing, genomic sovereignty, informed consent, and benefit sharing. These governance gaps compromise participant rights, undermine trust, and hinder the equitable management of genetic resources. This study proposes an Indigenous Jurisprudential Framework (IJF) that integrates customary law and stewardship principles to create a culturally relevant governance model for genomic and biobanking research. Customary law, which emphasizes communal ownership and collective decision-making, provides a culturally grounded foundation for research governance, while stewardship principles advocate for the responsible management and preservation of genetic resources. By merging these approaches, the IJF aims to enhance ethical oversight, ensure equitable benefit sharing, and rebuild trust between researchers and participants. The framework also seeks to mitigate the exploitation of genetic resources, strengthen Nigeria's position in global scientific collaborations, and promote sustainable development by aligning research practices with local values. This research, grounded in a systematic literature review, offers a practical, context-specific solution that bridges traditional values with contemporary ethical standards, addressing the governance challenges in Nigeria's genomic and biobanking research. The IJF not only provides a model for Nigeria but also offers insights for other countries grappling with similar governance issues, particularly in regions with pluralistic legal systems and rich cultural traditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144977195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Balancing Freedom and Responsibility: Ethics in the Age of New Reproductive Technologies : Battisti, D. 2024. Balancing Freedom and Responsibility: Procreative Ethics in the Age of New Reproductive Technologies. Routledge. ISBN 9781032652085.","authors":"M Barış","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10478-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10478-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144977198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Algorithm and the Dying Patient: A Moral Mismatch.","authors":"Giovanni Giordano, Giancarlo Ceccarelli, Eugenia Magnanimi, Francesco Alessandri","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10492-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10492-x","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144977217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}