August 31st, 2009 at 9:20 am (Bioethics)
I have a dog and lord knows it sure feels like she is loyal and loving but do animals have a moral structure? What is the sentience of animals and is it similar to how human’s minds work? The bioethisist Peter singer has written and talked a great deal about the topic. I see that the BBC now has a piece on the topic http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/moralstatus_1.shtml
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:44 pm (Bioethics, Global Health, research)
Just because your country supports the human rights iniatives dos not mean that you will be healthier. Take a look at this blog about it and the link to the lancet article.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:24 am (Bioethics)
Here is an interesting twist on how to help maintain and grow interest in thinking about bioethics.
JAMA Review of the book.
It is a great statement that this book exists and that it can be used to train people about the issues raised by movies such as Gattica and Million dolar baby. But I must admit a certain amount of sadness that we need extra hooks to reach people. There must been some kernel of interest onthe part of the public that caused the movies to be popular but unfortunately that is not enough.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:33 am (Bioethics)
The definition of brain death is becoming more controversial in the United States and around the world. The primary struggle is deciding when is someone truely dead. Brain death in general means that the brain has stopped functioning in all aspects except the primary function of keeping the body alive. This is where things get really tricky.
The body is alive so is the person alive? Many believers would say that the soul of the person is no longer there and that the remaining body is just a husk that once held the soul (Many christians including the vatican endorsed this view). This was convieniant because then the organs in the remaining body can be used to help the many others waiting for organ transplants.
A quick aside here: in terms of defining brain death and discussing the possibility of organ transplants in the U.S. is completely removed from talking to the actual organ transplant team and “procurers” this is to help prevent the diagnosis of brain death to facilitate organ transplant instead of focusing on the needs of the patient. THis is a standard of practice I applaud.
Now we have two problems how do we now define brain death and as important how do we diagnose brain death? How can we know accurately what the actual condition the patient is in with out waiting for years?
A recent article out of official catholicdom raises questions. However the vatican still endorses the 1968 Harvard report on defining brain death.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:56 am (Bioethics)
A licence to create human-pig embryos to study heart disease has been issued by the fertility watchdog.
This marks the third animal-human hybrid embryo licence to be issued by Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the first since the Commons voted in favour of this controversial research last month.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:07 am (Bioethics, Ethics, Healthcare)
A report from a state panel says hospitals, nursing homes and doctors need to better communicate with a patient about their wishes for end-of-life care.
The recommendation is included in a report issued by the Health Care Quality and Cost Council that urges Massachusetts to curb rising health care costs while also improving care.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:23 am (Bioethics, Healthcare)
Does every human on earth have a right to healthcare? Do you? Is it an innate right? If you have a right to healthcare do I have the responsibility to provide it to you? A moral obligation to do so? whats the difference? why should you care?
Perhaps you should care because this is a major topic that is floating around under the US elections and is a major political/social question facing the entire world. Particularly, now with the rising cost of food, what responsibilities do we have? Is our responsibility only local? global?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:12 pm (Bioethics, Global Health)
Much of the developed world has been able to live free of disease restrictions (quarantine) for decades. However this latest case raises the issue in a frightening case of apparent stupidity. When advised not to fly or travel in public a man decided that his personal desires were more important than the safety of others and traveled anyway. He said that he was advised not to travel not prohibited from traveling. Should we be more aggressive in travel restrictions? or immigration restrictions? particularly when it comes to health issues? There are many many diseases only a plane ride away from here. How should we address them?
May 18th, 2007 at 10:08 pm (Academic Libraries, Bioethics, Blogroll, Ethics, Global Health, Healthcare, Introduction, Knitting, Libraries, Research Ethics, life, research)
Wow, almost a year. Thank you to all of you who have remained devoted followers of this Blog. I am open to suggestions and commets drop me a line if you have a comment or suggestion!
February 13th, 2007 at 9:54 am (Bioethics, Ethics)
A related WebMD article on the study.
An important NEJM article on how physicians personal moral view affects the care and options they offer. It raises an interesting question. Are physicians required to set aside their personal beliefs, even deeply held beliefs, to take care of you? How much about their personal ethical or moral out look should they tell you about. A Doctors visit is already short for time, when is it or is it not appropriate to have that kind of discussion which your care provider? If you go to an institution with a particular viewpoint should you expect the doctor’s there to espouse the same views? My personal opinion at this point in my life is that the care giver should divulge ethical and moral viewpoints if it is relevant to the care provided. Why tell me about your views if you are treating my ear infection with standard antibiotics but if you feel that in addition to antibiotics I need a particular herbal supplement I would want to know more about why. To ask these questions the patient needs to be an informed patient at all times to know what is not being said or asked. Medical Librarians, the internet and other sites are great places to learn more about health issues.
“Results A total of 1144 of 1820 physicians (63%) responded to our survey. On the basis of our results, we estimate that most physicians believe that it is ethically permissible for doctors to explain their moral objections to patients (63%). Most also believe that physicians are obligated to present all options (86%) and to refer the patient to another clinician who does not object to the requested procedure (71%). Physicians who were male, those who were religious, and those who had personal objections to morally controversial clinical practices were less likely to report that doctors must disclose information about or refer patients for medical procedures to which the physician objected on moral grounds (multivariate odds ratios, 0.3 to 0.5).
Conclusions Many physicians do not consider themselves obligated to disclose information about or refer patients for legal but morally controversial medical procedures. Patients who want information about and access to such procedures may need to inquire proactively to determine whether their physicians would accommodate such requests.”
| Help The Environment |
| Your click below gives free donations to 10+ great causes dedicated to helping the environment! |
FeedBurner Feed!