Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics最新文献_第7页

The Geneticization of Education and Its Bioethical Implications. 教育的基因化及其生物伦理影响。

IF 2.3 4区医学

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI: 10.1017/S096318012400046X

Lucas J Matthews

引用次数: 0

In Defense of "Physician-Assisted Suicide": Toward (and Back to) a Transparent, Destigmatizing Debate. 为 "医生协助自杀 "辩护：走向（和回归）一场透明的、去污名化的辩论。

IF 2.3 4区医学

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI: 10.1017/S0963180124000434

Brandy M Fox, Harold Braswell

引用次数: 0

"Terminal Anorexia", Treatment Refusal and Decision-Making Capacity. "临终厌食症"、拒绝治疗和决策能力。

IF 1.5 4区医学

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI: 10.1017/S0963180124000367

Anneli Jefferson

引用次数: 0

Invisible Victims and the Case for OTC SSRIs. 隐形受害者和非处方药 SSRIs 案例。

IF 1.5 4区医学

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI: 10.1017/S096318012400032X

Jacob M Appel

引用次数: 0

Interprofessional Ethics Simulations and Debriefing to Develop Collaborative Skills 跨专业伦理模拟和汇报，培养协作技能

IF 1.8 4区医学

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-09-16 DOI: 10.1017/s096318012400029x

Amy Haddad, Kimberley Begley, Ann Ryan Haddad

{"title":"Interprofessional Ethics Simulations and Debriefing to Develop Collaborative Skills","authors":"Amy Haddad, Kimberley Begley, Ann Ryan Haddad","doi":"10.1017/s096318012400029x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s096318012400029x","url":null,"abstract":"The Interprofessional Education Collaborative’s (IPEC’s) core competencies are accreditation standards of most, if not all, healthcare professions (Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel [2016, Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice: 2016 Update. Washington, DC: IPEC]). Limited literature exists on interprofessional (IP) learning outcomes in healthcare ethics; even fewer studies include debrief sessions. Interprofessional education (IPE) case discussion using web-based technology is a promising way to incorporate ethics content. This article summarizes a model for healthcare programs to create, conduct, and assess synchronous IPE ethics discussions and debrief sessions. Specifically, this article highlights debrief sessions that followed a standardized patient (SP) IP interaction with students from pharmacy and advanced practice nursing. Qualitative analysis of debrief comments identified four themes: the benefit of IP collaboration, the importance of patient-centered care, the need to adapt clinical recommendations with ethical challenges, and the importance of trust among team members. The findings indicate web-based, synchronous IP/SP ethics simulations and debrief sessions are an effective, albeit laborious, method for collaboration and reflection.","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142266904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Why Not Phase Out Animal Experimentation? Considering Objections from Freedom of Inquiry and Cross-Border Displacement 为什么不逐步停止动物实验？考虑来自调查自由和跨境流离失所的反对意见

IF 1.8 4区医学

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI: 10.1017/s0963180124000288

Nico D. Müller

引用次数: 0

Xenotransplantation Clinical Trials and Equitable Patient Selection. 异种移植临床试验和公平的患者选择。

IF 2.3 4区医学

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-05 DOI: 10.1017/S096318012300052X

Christopher Bobier, Daniel Rodger

引用次数: 0

Ethics Education in Health Sciences Should Engage Contentious Social Issues: Here Is Why and How. 健康科学伦理教育应涉及有争议的社会问题：原因和方法如下。

IF 2.3 4区医学

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-04 DOI: 10.1017/S0963180123000567

Jon Tilburt, Fred Hafferty, Andrea Leep Hunderfund, Ellen Meltzer, Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir

{"title":"Ethics Education in Health Sciences Should Engage Contentious Social Issues: Here Is Why and How.","authors":"Jon Tilburt, Fred Hafferty, Andrea Leep Hunderfund, Ellen Meltzer, Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir","doi":"10.1017/S0963180123000567","DOIUrl":"10.1017/S0963180123000567","url":null,"abstract":"Teaching ethics is crucial to health sciences education. Doing it well requires a willingness to engage contentious social issues. Those issues introduce conflict and risk, but avoiding them ignores moral diversity and renders the work of ethics education irrelevant. Therefore, when (not if) contentious issues and moral differences arise, they must be acknowledged and can be addressed with humility, collegiality, and openness to support learning. Faculty must risk moments when not everyone will \"feel safe,\" so the candor implied in psychological safety can emerge. The deliberative and social work of ethics education involves generous listening, wading into difference, and wondering together if our beliefs and arguments are as sound as we once thought. By forecasting the need for candid engagement with contentious issues and moral difference, establishing ground rules, and bolstering due process structures for faculty and students, a riskier and more relevant ethics pedagogy can emerge. Doing so will prepare everyone for the moral diversity they can expect in our common life and in practice.","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"435-439"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139089461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Virtues of Interpretable Medical AI. 可解释医疗人工智能的优点。

IF 2.3 4区医学

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-10 DOI: 10.1017/S0963180122000664

Joshua Hatherley, Robert Sparrow, Mark Howard

{"title":"The Virtues of Interpretable Medical AI.","authors":"Joshua Hatherley, Robert Sparrow, Mark Howard","doi":"10.1017/S0963180122000664","DOIUrl":"10.1017/S0963180122000664","url":null,"abstract":"Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have demonstrated impressive performance across a variety of clinical tasks. However, notoriously, sometimes these systems are \"black boxes.\" The initial response in the literature was a demand for \"explainable AI.\" However, recently, several authors have suggested that making AI more explainable or \"interpretable\" is likely to be at the cost of the accuracy of these systems and that prioritizing interpretability in medical AI may constitute a \"lethal prejudice.\" In this paper, we defend the value of interpretability in the context of the use of AI in medicine. Clinicians may prefer interpretable systems over more accurate black boxes, which in turn is sufficient to give designers of AI reason to prefer more interpretable systems in order to ensure that AI is adopted and its benefits realized. Moreover, clinicians may be justified in this preference. Achieving the downstream benefits from AI is critically dependent on how the outputs of these systems are interpreted by physicians and patients. A preference for the use of highly accurate black box AI systems, over less accurate but more interpretable systems, may itself constitute a form of lethal prejudice that may diminish the benefits of AI to-and perhaps even harm-patients.","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"323-332"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10514452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Learning to Live with Strange Error: Beyond Trustworthiness in Artificial Intelligence Ethics. 学会与奇怪的错误共存：超越人工智能伦理中的可信性》。

IF 2.3 4区医学

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-09 DOI: 10.1017/S0963180122000688

Charles Rathkopf, Bert Heinrichs

{"title":"Learning to Live with Strange Error: Beyond Trustworthiness in Artificial Intelligence Ethics.","authors":"Charles Rathkopf, Bert Heinrichs","doi":"10.1017/S0963180122000688","DOIUrl":"10.1017/S0963180122000688","url":null,"abstract":"Position papers on artificial intelligence (AI) ethics are often framed as attempts to work out technical and regulatory strategies for attaining what is commonly called trustworthy AI. In such papers, the technical and regulatory strategies are frequently analyzed in detail, but the concept of trustworthy AI is not. As a result, it remains unclear. This paper lays out a variety of possible interpretations of the concept and concludes that none of them is appropriate. The central problem is that, by framing the ethics of AI in terms of trustworthiness, we reinforce unjustified anthropocentric assumptions that stand in the way of clear analysis. Furthermore, even if we insist on a purely epistemic interpretation of the concept, according to which trustworthiness just means measurable reliability, it turns out that the analysis will, nevertheless, suffer from a subtle form of anthropocentrism. The paper goes on to develop the concept of strange error, which serves both to sharpen the initial diagnosis of the inadequacy of trustworthy AI and to articulate the novel epistemological situation created by the use of AI. The paper concludes with a discussion of how strange error puts pressure on standard practices of assessing moral culpability, particularly in the context of medicine.","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"333-345"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10553771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0