Bioethics最新文献

{"title":"Disability, Subject-Dependence, and the Bad-Difference View.","authors":"Shu Ishida, Mitsuru Sasaki-Honda, Tsutomu Sawai","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70012","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Philosophers have debated on the \"mere-difference\" view of disability, according to which disability as such is neutral in terms of well-being, just like race and gender. It is contrasted with the \"bad-difference\" view, which holds that disability is bad for its possessor even in a non-ableist situation. We first illustrate how neither view can be sensitive to the diversity of disabled people and their disabilities. Subsequently, we propose an alternative outlook-the conditional bad-difference view of disability: a disability is bad for its possessor if and only if it hampers her aspired way of life, even without ableism. In addition to being theoretically moderate and thus more plausible than the existing outlooks, this view also offers a robust ethical case for policies and practices catering to the varying needs and values of disabled people, such as personalized healthcare and the user-led research of assistive technologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144700426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Ecological Genome Project and the Promises of Ecogenomics for Society: Realising a Shared Vision as One Health.","authors":"Benjamin Capps, Ruth Chadwick, Yann Joly, Claire Lajaunie, Iva Hauptmannova, Susannah Mackenzie, John J Mulvihill, Elizabeth Mumford, Sonja A Rasmussen, Kunal Sanghavi, Donrich W Thaldar, James Yeates, Maud C Quinzin, Zohar Lederman","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70020","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper develops a vision for The Ecological Genome Project: an aspirational, global endeavour to connect human genomic sciences with the ethos of ecological sciences. The Project's goal is to strengthen interdisciplinary networks that relate to diverse initiatives using genomic technologies, with respect to shared ethical frameworks and governance structures. To this end, this paper proposes a practical definition of ecogenomics to align various methodologies and values in a single environmental field using principles used to safeguard all forms of life in their habitats. We achieve this by using a One Health approach as a pretext for disparate disciplines to collaborate and also a lens to view the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) inherent in ecological systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144700427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beneficial Bloodsucking.","authors":"Parker Crutchfield, Blake Hereth","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70015","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The bite of the lone star tick spreads alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a condition whose only effect is the creation of a severe but nonfatal red meat allergy. Public health departments warn against lone star ticks and AGS, and scientists are working to develop an inoculation to AGS. Herein, we argue that if eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent the spread of tickborne AGS are also morally impermissible. After explaining the symptoms of AGS and how they are transmitted via ticks, we argue that tickborne AGS is a moral bioenhancer if and when it motivates people to stop eating meat. We then defend what we call the Convergence Argument: If x-ing prevents the world from becoming a significantly worse place, doesn't violate anyone's rights, and promotes virtuous action or character, then x-ing is strongly pro tanto obligatory; promoting tickborne AGS satisfies each of these conditions. Therefore, promoting tickborne AGS is strongly pro tanto obligatory. It is presently feasible to genetically edit the disease-carrying capacity of ticks. If this practice can be applied to ticks carrying AGS, then promoting the proliferation of tickborne AGS is morally obligatory.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144683634","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Ethics of Identifying Individuals Involved in HIV Transmission Events by Phylogenetics in Molecular Surveillance.","authors":"Francisca Faber, Lucie Abeler-Dörner, Stephanie Johnson, Tess Johnson, Euzebiusz Jamrozik","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70011","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Molecular HIV surveillance, involving the collection and analysis of HIV genome sequences, has become an integral part of public health programmes in high-income countries. By employing phylogenetic analysis, molecular HIV surveillance can identify individuals and their positions within networks of HIV transmission. While the primary aim of molecular surveillance is to yield public health benefits, such as linking people to care and reducing transmission, it also poses risks and potential infringements on individual privacy and liberty. This paper examines the ethical implications of using phylogenetics to identify individuals involved in multiple transmission events in high-income countries. Although public health responses tailored to such individuals can significantly reduce further transmission, these individuals often face multiple intersecting vulnerabilities and bear the greatest risks associated with molecular surveillance. We analyze the risks related to privacy, stigma, mistrust, criminalization, and liberty infringements, alongside the benefits of preventing further transmission and increasing healthcare engagement for people living with HIV. We conclude by outlining plausible and ethically acceptable policy options for molecular surveillance practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144683635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Assisting, Replicating, or Autonomously Acting? An Ethical Framework for Integrating AI Tools and Technologies in Healthcare.","authors":"Aasim I Padela, Rwan Hayek, Aliya Tabassum, Fabrice Jotterand, Junaid Qadir","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70019","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies are increasingly being utilized, tested, and integrated into conventional healthcare delivery. Technological opportunities, ranging from machine-learning-based data analysis tools to large language model-based virtual healthcare assistants, offer significant potential to enhance healthcare access and improve outcomes. Researchers have discussed potential benefits, including improved resource allocation, diagnostic accuracy, and patient outcomes from greater AI integration in healthcare, and also have voiced concerns around data privacy, algorithmic bias, and diffused accountability. This paper adds to the literature by proposing an ethical framework that allows for both describing and normatively evaluating AI-mediated healthcare delivery based on its potential impact on human-centered patient care. Drawing upon Pelligrino's notions of the patient-doctor relationship, we propose a framework with two axes, one related to spectrum of patient engagement and the other related to the clinician's role, through which to assess the use of AI in healthcare. Technologies and tools that have minimal to no interaction with patients and primarily assist physicians in making clinical decisions tend to have the least ethical challenges. On the other hand, those that are fully patient-facing and work in parallel with doctors or autonomously in therapeutic or decisional roles are the most controversial, as they risk making healthcare less human-centric. As we advance toward more pervasive integration of AI in healthcare, our framework can facilitate upfront design and downstream implementation-related decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144661043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Vulnerability: On a Welcome Paradigm Shift in the 2024 Declaration of Helsinki.","authors":"Florencia Luna","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13427","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13427","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144644214","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Considering the Developing Entity in an Artificial Womb as a Patient.","authors":"Frédérique Drouin, Alice Cavolo, Vardit Ravitsky, Charles Dupras","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70021","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Artificial womb (AW) prototypes are currently being developed with the aim of improving the medical care of extremely premature infants. Despite the seemingly imminent reality of partial ectogenesis (i.e., gestation partially outside a human womb), there is persisting debate about the moral status of the fetus transferred in an AW-henceforth, the \"developing entity.\" For some, AWs are simply another neonatal intensive cares' technology. Thus, developing entities in AWs should deserve the same protections as newborns in incubators. Others consider that AWs are fundamentally different technologies than incubators. Therefore, they believe that developing entities in AWs are new moral entities. These differences in perception generate disagreement about how developing entities in AWs should be treated and how decisions about them should be made. We argue that developing entities in AWs should be considered patients by transposing Chervenak and McCullough's \"The fetus as a patient\" proposition to the context of partial ectogenesis. As pregnant persons will have to consent to transfer their fetuses in AWs, and this technology will ultimately present itself as a beneficial medical intervention for viable developing entities in AWs, these latter would be patients, even if they are not legally and morally recognized as person. Thus, the moral obligations of beneficence and non-maleficence owed by physicians to their patients would apply to entities in AWs, ethically guiding their treatment and decision-making toward them.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144644213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Classic Pro-Choice Thought Experiments and African Communitarianism.","authors":"Kirk Lougheed","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70016","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>I analyse two classic pro-choice thought experiments in the Anglo-American philosophical literature in Thomson's Violinist Case and Tooley's Kitten Serum Case, in light of two prominent African normative theories. Though each of these cases is designed to generate pro-choice intuitions, I suggest they do not do so nearly as clearly when African normative theories are in view. Furthermore, even where they might yield a pro-choice verdict, they do so for very different reasons. That African ethics, which is often labelled communitarian, differs from what one typically finds in the Anglo-American normative tradition is hardly a new insight. However, that these differences might undermine the universality of pro-choice thought experiments about abortion in Anglo-American bioethics has yet to receive significant attention.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144644203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Freedom as Non-Domination, Rules, and the Pandemic.","authors":"M Victoria Costa","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70017","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper examines the ways in which public health measures taken to contain the spread of COVID-19 impacted the freedom of those affected, understanding freedom as non-domination. It argues that, in the absence of effective vaccines, individuals who carry a virus with the profile of COVID-19 have the capacity to impose high risks of severe illness and death on other people. But formal and informal rules can help control this capacity, supporting the freedom of people in certain respects. With regard to governmental enforcement of public health measures such as lockdowns, it argues that-depending on the form they take-they can be consistent with the enjoyment of freedom as non-domination of the population. Still, for this to be the case, some demanding conditions must be met. First, the government must continue to operate under a number of suitable checks. Second, the relevant policies must protect the basic interests of all members of the population. The paper also responds to criticisms of this account of freedom, stressing the connection between the secure enjoyment of basic liberties and the enforcement of formal and informal rules.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144621159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Healthcare Resource Allocation and Environmental Sustainability","authors":"David G. Kirchhoffer,&nbsp;Bridget Pratt","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70009","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Our healthcare systems are responsible for delivering essential, often life-saving care to patients within the society that they serve. It has long been recognised that healthcare systems, as basic social institutions, have duties of health and social justice.1 Healthcare systems should help ensure people are free of preventable morbidity and mortality2 and able to function normally3 such that they can achieve either a normal lifespan of decent quality4 or an optimal lifespan of high quality.5 As such, healthcare systems must provide &lt;i&gt;equal access&lt;/i&gt; to high-quality healthcare and services for their society's population and ensure &lt;i&gt;protection&lt;/i&gt; against financial hardship due to out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures, especially for the poor and disadvantaged.6 Healthcare systems, however, as they currently operate, are also substantial contributors to environmental damage through, among other things, greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, toxic and nontoxic waste production, consumption of nonrenewable resources and changes to land-use that may damage existing natural environments.7 Some of these effects of healthcare provision are directly or indirectly detrimental to human health and well-being, such as pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and others may irreparably harm the environment, such as threatening the survival of a particular species. Thus, the (ideally but not always in practice) equitable delivery of healthcare generates harm to the environment that has an adverse effect on the health of those that healthcare systems are trying to serve.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;For that reason, healthcare systems across the world are endeavouring to reduce their environmental impacts. At COP26, 50 countries pledged to transition to climate-resilient and low-carbon health systems, with 14 countries setting a target date of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.8 Yet this leaves healthcare as an enterprise with a conundrum: How should it allocate its resources in a way that accounts for the environment? How should it make decisions about allocating its resources to the equitable delivery of healthcare versus to minimising that healthcare's negative environmental impacts? The problem arises because allocating resources to measures to minimise environmental impacts seems to compete with healthcare's core mission of saving lives.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;These resource allocation questions can also be posed at multiple levels of healthcare decision making: for example, from international and national policy makers, through hospital leaders and managers, and finally to individual healthcare practitioners in a clinical setting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In this special issue, we present several contributions that explore those questions. They were each developed and refined through a series of webinars hosted by the Queensland Bioethics Centre at Australian Catholic University, during which the contributors to this issue were able to present and workshop their contributions through robust conversatio","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"39 6","pages":"527-529"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.70009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144573744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}