Suchergebnisse

Part 1. Foundations -- Reasoning about ethics -- Ethical theories and perspectives -- Three core concepts in medical ethics : best interests, autonomy and rights -- An introduction to law -- Doctors and patients : relationships and responsiblities -- Part 2. Core topics -- Consent -- Capacity -- Mental health -- Confidentiality -- Resource allocation -- Children and young people -- Disability and disease -- Reproductive medicine -- End of life -- Organ transplantation -- Research -- Part 3. Extensions -- Neuroethics -- Genethics -- Information ethics -- Public health ethics.

The relationship between religion, intolerance and conflict is the subject of intense discussion, particularly in the context of the ongoing threat of terrorism. This book contains papers written by scholars in anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and theology exploring the scientific and conceptual dimensions of religion and human conflict.

The relationship between religion, intolerance and conflict is the subject of intense discussion, particularly in the context of the ongoing threat of terrorism. This book contains papers written by scholars in anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and theology exploring the scientific and conceptual dimensions of religion and human conflict

The UK government has put lateral flow antigen tests (LFATs) at the forefront of its strategy to scale-up testing in the coronavirus pandemic. However, evidence from a pilot trial using an LFAT to identify asymptomatic infections in the community suggested that the test missed over half of the positive cases in the tested population. This raises the question of whether it can be ethical to use an inaccurate test to guide public health measures. We begin by explicating different dimensions of test accuracy (sensitivity, specificity and predictive value), and why they matter morally, before highlighting key data from the Liverpool pilot. We argue that the poor sensitivity of the LFAT in this pilot trial suggests that there are important limitations to what we can expect these tests to achieve. A test with low sensitivity will provide false-negative results, and in doing so generate the risk of false assurance and its attendant moral costs. However, we also suggest that the deployment of an insensitive but specific test could identify many asymptomatic carriers of the virus who are currently being missed under existing arrangements. Having outlined ways in which the costs of false reassurance could potentially be mitigated, we conclude that the use of an insensitive LFAT in mass testing may be ethical if (1) it is used predominantly to identify positive cases, (2) it is a cost-effective method of achieving that goal and (3) if other public health tools can effectively prevent widespread false reassurance.

It is likely that gene editing technologies will become viable in the current century. As scientists uncover the genetic contribution to personality traits and cognitive styles, parents will face hard choices. Some of these choices will involve trade‐offs from the standpoint of the individual's welfare, while others will involve trade‐offs between what is best for each and what is good for all. Although we think we should generally defer to the informed choices of parents about what kinds of children to create, we argue that decisions to manipulate polygenic psychological traits will be much more ethically complicated than choosing Mendelian traits like blood type. We end by defending the principle of regulatory parsimony, which holds that when legislation is necessary to prevent serious harms, we should aim for simple rules that apply to all, rather than micro‐managing parental choices that shape the traits of their children. While we focus on embryo selection and gene editing, our arguments apply to all powerful technologies which influence the development of children.

Many decisions in law and elsewhere depend on predictions of crimes and mental illnesses. Can biology make these predictions more accurate? Do we want our government to use biology in this way? These questions and more are discussed in this volume by prominent scientists, ethicists, and legal scholars

Opponents of biomedical enhancement frequently adopt what Allen Buchanan has called the Personal Goods Assumption. On this assumption, the benefits of biomedical enhancement will accrue primarily to those individuals who undergo enhancements, not to wider society. Buchanan has argued that biomedical enhancements might in fact have substantial social benefits by increasing productivity. We outline another way in which enhancements might benefit wider society: by augmenting civic virtue and thus improving the functioning of our political communities. We thus directly confront critics of biomedical enhancement who argue that it will lead to a loss of social cohesion and a breakdown in political life.

ABSTRACTImaging research regularly yields incidental findings that may have personal medical or reproductive decision‐making significance to study participants. It is widely assumed that researchers have a moral obligation to disclose at least some kinds of incidental findings to research participants. However, it is also a widely held view that researchers do not have a moral obligation to actively look for abnormalities irrelevant to the aims of their study. This paper challenges that assumption.