Suchergebnisse

Eine der zentralen Fragen der Bioethik ist die nach der universalen Gültigkeit ihrer normativen Aussagen. Diese Frage ist nicht nur theoretisch relevant. Im Bereich der angewandten Ethik führt sie auch zu konkreten praktischen und politischen Problemen zwischen den Kulturen. Kann es gerechtfertigt sein, die eigenen Organe zu verkaufen? Unter welchen Bedingungen ist es erlaubt, an Menschen zu forschen? Dürfen embryonale Stammzellen in der Forschung verwendet oder hergestellt werden? Bisher haben einige Autoren die unterschiedlichen kulturellen, religiösen oder historischen Perspektiven auf bioethische Fragen nachgezeichnet. Aber nur wenige fragen nach der normativen Bedeutung der Differenz. Spiegeln unterschiedliche Positionen verschiedene kulturelle oder verschiedene moralische Normen? Der Sammelband soll die bestehende Lücke schließen. Die Zusammenstellung interdisziplinärer Beiträge zielt zum einen darauf, die Frage nach der universalen Gültigkeit bioethischer Positionen auf einer pragmatischen, deskriptiven, normativen und prozeduralen Ebene differenzierter zu stellen als bisher. Zum anderen soll ein Spektrum an philosophischen Begründungsmöglichkeiten und praktischen Lösungsansätzen daraufhin geprüft werden, ob und inwieweit sie eine kulturübergreifend gültige Bioethik fundieren könnten. Dabei steht auch zur Diskussion, ob ein solches Unterfangen grundsätzlich möglich ist

Dieser Band präsentiert einen Überblick über die Medizinethik. Er stellt konzeptuelle und methodische Zugänge zum Fach dar und bietet Einblicke in zentrale Themenfelder. Kurze Einführungen und Lektürefragen zu ausgewählten Texten erleichtern die systematische Einordnung der verschiedenen theoretischen und praktischen Fragestellungen der Medizinethik. Der Inhalt · Medizinethik – Eine Einführung · Teil I: Grundlegende Perspektiven der Medizinethik · Teil II: Ausgewählte methodische Ansätze · Teil III: Zentrale Konzepte · Teil IV: Berufliches Handeln und ethische Expertise · Teil V: Medizinethik in der Praxis Die Zielgruppen Dozierende und Studierende sowie Forschende in der Angewandten Ethik, Philosophie, Medizin, Pflegewissenschaft, Soziologie und Rechtswissenschaft. Darüber hinaus sind Praktikerinnen und Praktiker in medizinischen Berufen angesprochen. Die Herausgebenden Prof. Dr. Dr. Nikola Biller-Andorno ist ordentliche Professorin für Medizinethik und leitet das Institut für Biomedizinische Ethik und Medizingeschichte der Universität Zürich. Dr. Settimio Monteverde ist Co-Leiter Klinische Ethik am Universitätsspital Zürich / Universität Zürich, Institut für Biomedizinische Ethik und Medizingeschichte, sowie Professor FH an der Berner Fachhochschule, Departement Gesundheit. Prof. Dr. Tanja Krones ist Leitende Ärztin Klinische Ethik am Universitätsspital Zürich/Universität Zürich, Institut für Biomedizinische Ethik und Medizingeschichte und lehrt Klinische Ethik u.a. an der Universität Zürich. Dr. Tobias Eichinger ist Oberassistent und Lehrkoordinator am Institut für Biomedizinische Ethik und Medizingeschichte der Universität Zürich.

AbstractThe current humanitarian use of drones is focused on two applications: disaster mapping and medical supply delivery. In response to the growing interest in drone deployment in the aid sector, we sought to develop a resource to support value sensitivity in humanitarian drone activities. Following a bottom-up approach encompassing a comprehensive literature review, two empirical studies, a review of guidance documents, and consultations with experts, this work illuminates the nature and scope of ethical challenges encountered by humanitarian organizations embarking upon innovation programmes. The Framework for the Ethics Assessment of Humanitarian Drones (FEAHD) identifies five values and five key questions related to ethical considerations along the decision chain of humanitarian drone activities. It fills a gap between high-level, principle-based guidance related to humanitarian innovation, and detailed operation-oriented checklists for projects involving the use of drones. In this way, the FEAHD contributes to support value sensitivity in the humanitarian use of drones.

On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization classified COVID‐19, caused by Sars‐CoV‐2, as a pandemic. Although not much was known about the new virus, the first outbreaks in China and Italy showed that potentially a large number of people worldwide could fall critically ill in a short period of time. A shortage of ventilators and intensive care resources was expected in many countries, leading to concerns about restrictions of medical care and preventable deaths. In order to be prepared for this challenging situation, national triage guidance has been developed or adapted from former influenza pandemic guidelines in an increasing number of countries over the past few months. In this article, we provide a comparative analysis of triage recommendations from selected national and international professional societies, including Australia/New Zealand, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Pakistan, South Africa, Switzerland, the United States, and the International Society of Critical Care Medicine. We describe areas of consensus, including the importance of prognosis, patient will, transparency of the decision‐making process, and psychosocial support for staff, as well as the role of justice and benefit maximization as core principles. We then probe areas of disagreement, such as the role of survival versus outcome, long‐term versus short‐term prognosis, the use of age and comorbidities as triage criteria, priority groups and potential tiebreakers such as 'lottery' or 'first come, first served'. Having explored a number of tensions in current guidance, we conclude with a suggestion for framework conditions that are clear, consistent and implementable. This analysis is intended to advance the ongoing debate regarding the fair allocation of limited resources and may be relevant for future policy‐making. ; ISSN:0269-9702 ; ISSN:1467-8519

On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization classified COVID‐19, caused by Sars‐CoV‐2, as a pandemic. Although not much was known about the new virus, the first outbreaks in China and Italy showed that potentially a large number of people worldwide could fall critically ill in a short period of time. A shortage of ventilators and intensive care resources was expected in many countries, leading to concerns about restrictions of medical care and preventable deaths. In order to be prepared for this challenging situation, national triage guidance has been developed or adapted from former influenza pandemic guidelines in an increasing number of countries over the past few months. In this article, we provide a comparative analysis of triage recommendations from selected national and international professional societies, including Australia/New Zealand, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Pakistan, South Africa, Switzerland, the United States, and the International Society of Critical Care Medicine. We describe areas of consensus, including the importance of prognosis, patient will, transparency of the decision‐making process, and psychosocial support for staff, as well as the role of justice and benefit maximization as core principles. We then probe areas of disagreement, such as the role of survival versus outcome, long‐term versus short‐term prognosis, the use of age and comorbidities as triage criteria, priority groups and potential tiebreakers such as 'lottery' or 'first come, first served'. Having explored a number of tensions in current guidance, we conclude with a suggestion for framework conditions that are clear, consistent and implementable. This analysis is intended to advance the ongoing debate regarding the fair allocation of limited resources and may be relevant for future policy‐making.

"Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) is feared to become a kind of cook-book medicine that has nothing to do with the traditional skills and ethics. This volume shows the contribution EBM makes and might make to medical practice and health policy. It describes as many viewpoints as possible with a focus on the ethical issues that are at stake in this process. It shows how EBM has developed from an internal medical issue to an instrument for health policy. It is the outcome of the European Project ""Ethical Issues of Evidence Based Practice in Medicine and Health Care"" and gives insight into the ethical background of the debate on the role of EBM in various areas of medicine, including clinical practice, medical education, medical research, health policy and medical sociology."

Extended Reality (XR) systems, such as Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR), provide a digital simulation either of a complete environment, or of particular objects within the real world. Today, XR is used in a wide variety of settings, including gaming, design, engineering, and the military. In addition, XR has been introduced into psychology, cognitive sciences and biomedicine for both basic research as well as diagnosing or treating neurological and psychiatric disorders. In the context of XR, the simulated 'reality' can be controlled and people may safely learn to cope with their feelings and behavior. XR also enables to simulate environments that cannot easily be accessed or created otherwise. Therefore, extended Reality systems are thought to be a promising tool in the resocialization of criminal offenders, more specifically for purposes of risk assessment and treatment of forensic patients. Deploying XR in forensic settings raises ethical and legal intricacies which are not raised in case of most other healthcare applications. Whereas a variety of normative issues of XR have been discussed in the context of medicine and consumer usage, the debate on XR in forensic settings is, as yet, straggling. By discussing two general arguments in favor of employing XR in criminal justice, and two arguments calling for caution in this regard, the present paper aims to broaden the current ethical and legal debate on XR applications to their use in the resocialization of criminal offenders, mainly focusing on forensic patients.