Aboriginal Health Care and Bioethics: A Reflection on the Teaching of the Seven Grandfathers

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 16, Issue 5, 2016
Authors: Jaro Kotalik & Gerry Martin
“Contemporary bioethics recognizes the importance of the culture in shaping ethical issues, yet in practice, a process for ethical analysis and decision making is rarely adjusted to the culture and ethnicity of involved parties. This is of a particular concern in a health care system that is caring for a growing Aboriginal population. We raise the possibility of constructing a bioethics grounded in traditional Aboriginal knowledge. As an example of an element of traditional knowledge that contains strong ethical guidance, we present the story of the Gifts of the Seven Grandfathers.”
Find abstract here and related commentaries here.

Bioethicists Can and Should Contribute to Addressing Racism

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 16, Issue 4, 2016
Authors: Marion Danis, Yolonda Wilson & Amina White
“The problems of racism and racially motivated violence in predominantly African American communities in the United States are complex, multifactorial, and historically rooted. While these problems are also deeply morally troubling, bioethicists have not contributed substantially to addressing them. Concern for justice has been one of the core commitments of bioethics. For this and other reasons, bioethicists should contribute to addressing these problems.”
Find abstract here and links to related commentaries here.

Bathroom Bills, Bigotry, and Bioethics

Bioethics Forum, The Hastings Center, online 31 Mach 2016
Author: Elizabeth Dietz
“In an eleven-hour emergency session on March 23, the North Carolina General Assembly passed the first statewide “bathroom bill” in the nation. The law, known as HB 2, or the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, requires that a person’s biological sex corresponds with the gendered public restroom they are permitted to use. … For bioethicists, this law raises important questions about the relevance of gender and personal health information to the state. …What are the ethical consequences of the state’s right to determine the gender of its citizens?”
Find article here.

Towards a bioethics of innovation

J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-103048
Authors: Wendy Lipworth, Renata Axler
“In recent years, it has become almost axiomatic that biomedical research and clinical practice should be ‘innovative’—that is, that they should be always evolving and directed towards the production, translation and implementation of new technologies and practices. While this drive towards innovation in biomedicine might be beneficial, it also raises serious moral, legal, economic and sociopolitical questions that require further scrutiny. In this article, we argue that biomedical innovation needs to be accompanied by a dedicated ‘bioethics of innovation’ that attends systematically to the goals, process and outcomes of biomedical innovation as objects of critical inquiry.”
Find abstract here.

Acknowledged Dependence and the Virtues of Perinatal Hospice

J Med Philos published 8 December 2015, 10.1093/jmp/jhv032
Author: Aaron D. Cobb
“Prenatal screening can lead to the detection and diagnosis of significantly life-limiting conditions affecting the unborn child. Recognizing the difficulties facing parents who decide to continue the pregnancy, some have proposed perinatal hospice as a new modality of care. Although the medical literature has begun to devote significant attention to these practices, systematic philosophical reflection on perinatal hospice has been relatively limited.”
Find abstract here.

Ingestible Drug Adherence Monitors: Trending Toward a Surveillance Society?

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 15, Issue 11, 2015
Author: Richard R Sharp
“In this issue of the journal, Lemoine and Ravitsky present a thoughtful analysis of assisted reproductive technologies and their use by women of advanced maternal age. Of note, their goal is to reframe relevant ethical considerations in relation to broader social trends and public-health considerations. … At its core, the analysis presented by Lemoine and Ravitsky raises a powerful question for bioethicists, namely, whether our analytic methods reinforce a myopic view of medical technologies. … In a very different context, a new pharmaceutical technology raises analogous issues regarding how bioethicists should engage larger social trends. This technology, known as ingestible drug adherence monitoring, recently was approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”
Find editorial here.

In Genes We Trust: Germline Engineering, Eugenics, and the Future of the Human Genome

J Med Philos (2015) 40 (6): 669-695. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhv025
Author: Russell Powell
“Liberal proponents of genetic engineering maintain that developing human germline modification technologies is morally desirable because it will result in a net improvement in human health and well-being. Skeptics of germline modification, in contrast, fear evolutionary harms that could flow from intervening in the human germline, and worry that such programs, even if well intentioned, could lead to a recapitulation of the scientifically and morally discredited projects of the old eugenics. … In this article, I argue that germline intervention will be necessary merely to sustain the levels of genetic health that we presently enjoy for future generations—a goal that should appeal to bioliberals and bioconservatives alike.”
Find abstract here.

Who’s in charge? The relationship between medical law, medical ethics, and medical morality?

Med Law Rev (Autumn 2015) 23 (4): 505-530. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwv004
Authors: Charles Foster and José Miola
“Medical law inevitably involves decision-making, but the types of decisions that need to be made vary in nature, from those that are purely technical to others that contain an inherent ethical content. In this paper we identify the different types of decisions that need to be made, and explore whether the law, the medical profession, or the individual doctor is best placed to make them. We also argue that the law has failed in its duty to create a coherent foundation from which such decision-making might properly be regulated…”
Find abstract here.

Experts back genome editing in human embryo research

BMJ 2015;351:h4874
Author: Zosia Kmietowicz
“Researchers should be allowed to edit the human genome in embryos and germ cells but only to better understand developmental biology, not for clinical or reproductive purposes, an international group of scientists, bioethicists, and policy experts has said.1 The Hinxton Group describes itself as “an informal collection of individuals interested in ethical and well-regulated science” and meets to discuss ethical and policy issues of international importance in stem cell and embryo research.”
Find extract here.