Bioethics最新文献

{"title":"An Enquiry on the Ethics of One Medicine.","authors":"Benjamin Capps, Iva Hauptmannova, James Yeates","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70194","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70194","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>One Medicine is not One Health. Although both concepts connect animal and human health, One Health has arguably become a frame for public health. This paper argues that One Medicine uniquely centres on animal and human patients and speaks to the equal interdependence of their health, though it has also (historically) been adopted as a response to the circumstances of living in and with nature. The evolution of One Medicine can be seen as 'jumping together,' or the consilience of ideas and disciplines over time, giving a new sense in theory that unifies previously unconnected phenomena found in nature. Practically, education and oversight can be developed towards its purpose of enhanced clinical and veterinary health care; and just as clinical medicine and public health are related, there is a role for One Medicine to support One Health's focus on the ecological determinants of health. This paper takes the first step towards defining One Medicine's emergent ethical frame, creating space between it and One Health.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149018822","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":"Suitable Bases for Global Bioethics: A Critical Response to Marco Annoni.","authors":"James F Childress, Ramin W Parsa-Parsi, Raanan Gillon, Urban Wiesing","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70179","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bioe.70179","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Marco Annoni argued in Bioethics that neither the specified principlism of Beauchamp's and Childress's Principles of Biomedical Ethics (PBE) nor the 2022 revision of the International Code of Medical Ethics (ICoME) by the World Medical Association can provide a suitable basis for global bioethics. In response, we first show that Annoni's effort to disqualify PBE's specified principlism as a suitable basis for global bioethics fails, primarily because of its faulty assumptions about the nature, dominance, and authority of PBE's specifications of principles, whether for particular decisional contexts or for particular moralities. We then turn to his attempt to discredit the ICoME as a possible basis for global bioethics because of what he views as its \"lack of political legitimacy,\" its \"undefined moral foundation,\" and its \"lack of an explicit procedure to solve internal conflicts between its principles.\" We present a range of arguments to show that these efforts also fail, leaving both the ICoME and PBE's specified principlism as viable contenders for a suitable basis in global bioethics.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149013174","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":"Ethicists and the Gaza War","authors":"David DeGrazia","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70001","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bioe.70001","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Do bioethicists have an obligation to speak out against such atrocities as Hamas' terrorism and Israel's war crimes? I will argue that they do have such an obligation, but not because they are bioethicists or even ethicists. Before driving home this conclusion, I will highlight some crucial facts in applying criteria for ethical engagement in warfare. Although I maintain that Hamas' terrorist attack of October 7 involved crimes against humanity that deserve condemnation, here I will focus on Israel's subsequent conduct, the ethical significance of which has been insufficiently appreciated among those who embrace a highly prevalent double standard_.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"40 8","pages":"780-783"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144555915","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":"Violence Toward Palestinians in Israeli Prisons During the “Iron Swords” War","authors":"Daniel J. N. Weishut,&nbsp;Bettina Steiner-Birmanns","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70034","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bioe.70034","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study examines the violence inflicted upon Palestinians in Israeli prisons during the initial phase of the “Iron Swords” war, which commenced following a Hamas attack on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023. It investigates how wartime circumstances can intensify the use of torture and ill-treatment within prisons, with a particular focus on the impact on detainees who were not implicated in activities connected to the attack. Utilizing the case files of Palestinian security prisoners who lodged complaints of mistreatment with Israeli NGOs, the study uses descriptive analysis to categorize and quantify diverse forms of reported violence that could potentially constitute torture. The study's findings reveal a concerning pattern: all 19 subjects reported experiencing violence from prison staff, with 18 of these cases involving physical violence. Multiple claims referenced more than one instance of violence, and eleven claims additionally reported violence against other detainees. The claims of violence spanned seven different prisons, underscoring the systemic nature of the issue. Reported methods of violence encompassed beatings, forced positioning in painful postures, threats, and humiliation, sometimes with sexual undertones, among other forms of abuse. Seven subjects had visible bruises and wounds, two suffered broken limbs, and one sustained a fractured tooth. These findings suggest a correlation between war, a decline in ethical standards, and the abuse of prisoners. By bringing these issues to light, the study advocates for evaluating prison practices and a commitment to upholding human rights standards, even during violent conflict and war.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"40 8","pages":"819-827"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145066301","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":"Dealing With Conflicts in Medical Decisions: Epistemic Reasonable Disagreement Between Parents and Medical Staff","authors":"Chiara Innorta","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70125","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bioe.70125","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many controversies in medical ethics, particularly those involving conflicts between parents and medical staff over decisions about child patients, are challenging to manage without causing significant polarization and communication issues. This is primarily because the parties involved—parents and physicians—operate at different epistemic levels, engaging with and relying on distinct forms of knowledge. A key issue underlying this epistemic disparity—the imbalance in how each party's knowledge is recognized and valued—is the difficulty of achieving what I term epistemic reasonable disagreement. This concept is crucial for fostering a shared decision-making process in which parents and physicians recognize each other's equal epistemic value, acknowledging that both perspectives are equally credible and understandable. Establishing full credibility for the parental position can be problematic because it is typically grounded in emotions, a quality often undervalued in bioethics. This paper argues, however, that the tendency to dismiss emotions can be mitigated by applying the principle of charity. Achieving reasonable epistemic equality allows for the recognition of parents' epistemic contributions as a form of knowledge. Applying a framework for epistemic reasonable disagreement can prevent testimonial and hermeneutical injustice towards parents and encourage a re-evaluation of how dialogue between parents and physicians should be approached.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"40 8","pages":"878-885"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.70125","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148058399","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}

{"title":"The Changing Application of Vulnerability Across the Different Phases of Clinical Research.","authors":"Kenneth T Moore","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70187","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70187","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The United States Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (FDORA) of 2022 established a legislative mandate requiring sponsors of pharmaceutical research to actively enhance the inclusion of historically underrepresented populations in clinical trials. This policy reflects the growing recognition that diversity in research is not only a scientific and medical necessity, but an ethical imperative rooted in the principle of justice. However, as efforts to increase diversity expand, the inclusion of individuals traditionally viewed as \"vulnerable\" introduces complex ethical considerations that necessitate a reassessment of current research practices. Historically, clinical research has often adopted an overly protective stance toward individuals classified as vulnerable, such as children, pregnant women, older adults, or those with cognitive or socioeconomic disadvantages, leading to their exclusion. This exclusion, while intended to prevent harm, paradoxically perpetuates inequalities restricting access to the potential benefits of research participation and evidence generation to support the broader use of the product. Moreover, this cautious approach is applied inconsistently across the phases of clinical development, suggesting a lack of ethical coherence in how vulnerability is defined, interpreted, and operationalized. A reexamination of the concept and treatment of vulnerability across all phases of clinical research is therefore essential. The consistent and ethically justified inclusion of vulnerable populations would advance the generalizability of scientific findings, promote health equity, and uphold the bioethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and most critically, justice. Ensuring equitable inclusion is not merely a regulatory expectation but a moral obligation that underpins the legitimacy and integrity of clinical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148956762","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":"Gaza and the Responsibilities of Bioethics","authors":"Zohar Lederman,&nbsp;Hazem Zohny","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70183","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Special issues are usually justified by a gap in the literature. This one also responds to the uneven attention within bioethics to the destruction of Palestinian life and healthcare in Gaza. When we began assembling it, we worried that events would overtake academic publication. They have. Rather than provide a current record of a changing conflict, the collection examines how bioethics has responded, how political conditions shape health and healthcare, and the points of convergence, tension and disagreement that emerge across the contributions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The immediate context includes the Hamas-led attack of 7 October 2023, in which people in Israel were murdered and others taken hostage, and Israel's subsequent military campaign in Gaza, which has devastated Palestinian lives, communities and the institutions on which health and civilian lives more generally depend. Highlighting the attacks and hostage-taking does not erase the longer histories of Israeli occupation and blockade examined in these papers; nor can the attacks of 7 October justify collective punishment and the violation of civilian immunity under international law and just war theory. The asymmetries of power, control and harm are central to understanding the bioethical questions before us.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The issue focuses on Palestinian health and human rights: the destruction and restriction of healthcare; the treatment of patients; prisoners and health workers; the politics of humanitarian relief; and the responsibilities of bioethicists and institutions. It does not attempt a comprehensive ethical or historical analysis of Israel and Palestine or an accounting of every harm by every actor. The collection includes six Special Issue Articles and five Letters. It brings together normative and political philosophy, qualitative research, human-rights documentation, health-systems ethics, methodological criticism, environmental ethics, testimony and visual reflection. This range allows the issue to examine the individual experiences of authors in various contexts of professional practice, institutions and wider political conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The discussion that follows is organised around four recurring questions: why Gaza is and should be a concern for bioethics; how testimony and scholarship represent it; how institutions mediate care and harm; and what humanitarian response and reconstruction require.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The opening contributions converge on the need for engagement but differ on why. DeGrazia argues that bioethicists should speak about Gaza, though not because the obligation is distinctively bioethical: it is an obligation we have as human beings [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;]. Barış and colleagues locate the issue within bioethics itself, arguing that selective institutional engagement threatens the field's credibility [&lt;span&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;]. Salaymeh, Shahvisi and Jannesari shift attention from professional obligation to the political structures that shape health, vulnerability and scarcity [&lt;span&gt;3&lt;/span","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"40 8","pages":"777-779"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.70183","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148950578","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}

{"title":"Concerns Regarding Methodology and Interpretation in “Analysis of Scientific Publications on the Gaza-Israeli Conflict”","authors":"Abdullah Ghali,&nbsp;Yahya Shaikh,&nbsp;Ali Elaydi,&nbsp;Bilal Irfan,&nbsp;Tahir Sohaib Qasim,&nbsp;Khaled Saleh","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13425","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bioe.13425","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"40 8","pages":"840-841"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144006772","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 Credibility of Bioethics After the Gaza Genocide","authors":"Maide Barış,&nbsp;Hossein Dabbagh,&nbsp;Mohammad Sharif Razai,&nbsp;Mehmet İnanç Özekmekçi,&nbsp;Arianne Shahvisi","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70052","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bioe.70052","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Between October 2023 and January 2025, the Israeli military's sustained attacks on Gaza resulted in an estimated 186,000 deaths and the systematic destruction of healthcare infrastructure. Despite the professed commitment to human dignity, justice, and the minimization of suffering within bioethics, major institutions and scholars in the field have largely remained silent or selectively engaged with the crisis. This paper argues that the Gaza genocide exposes a deeper crisis within bioethics: its growing detachment from urgent, real-world ethical challenges. Such detachment erodes public trust and raises fundamental questions about the discipline's relevance and credibility. The article interrogates the possible reasons and motivations for the silence and disengagement in the face of genocide in Gaza, and examines the institutional and disciplinary responsibilities that bioethics bears in response to health-destroying state violence. Framing the inaction as a moral failure with far-reaching implications, the article proposes alternative routes of ethical engagement and outlines steps toward a more inclusive and responsive bioethics. It calls for the urgent reorientation of the field toward a justice-driven, politically conscious practice capable of confronting today's most pressing ethical issues.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"40 8","pages":"784-792"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.70052","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145508167","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}

{"title":"The Concept of Harm in Medical Ethics","authors":"Marie-Christine Fritzsche,&nbsp;Charlotte Franziska Unruh","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70124","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bioe.70124","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The concept of harm is central to medical ethics. In particular, it is frequently used in ethical deliberation about clinical cases and harm-benefit analyses. Despite its significance, there has been surprisingly little discussion in practice about conceptual approaches and the nature of harm in medical ethics analyses. We examine how different conceptual accounts of harm shape ethical decision making through examples from clinical ethics consultation and data-intensive medical innovations. By applying three prevailing theoretical-philosophical frameworks—the counterfactual, temporal, and non-comparative accounts of harm—to these cases, we demonstrate that explicitly identifying and discussing stakeholders' varying concepts of harm is crucial for ethical analyses in medicine and healthcare. While harm is only one of many considerations influencing medical ethics decision-making, our analysis reveals that different conceptualisations of harm can lead to substantively different practical outcomes. In this way, how we understand harm can affect recommendation processes, stakeholder communication, and assessments of quality of life and best interests. Without making different types of harm explicit, stakeholders might talk past each other when weighing harm against benefit, as what constitutes harm in one case may not be considered harm in another. We argue that explicit consideration of the nature of harm ensures comprehensive ethical deliberation, and integrates multiple perspectives in healthcare settings. Our findings suggest that the ethical importance of conceptual analysis of harm extends beyond mere theoretical interest, with direct implications for clinical practice and ethical decision making in healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"40 8","pages":"871-877"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.70124","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148310415","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}